«

»

Introduction of the Key Ring Atom

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinby feather

I’ve had the privileged of being introduced to a new spin on the structure of an atom. Now pretty much everyone who remembers their physics 101 knows that the atom is described as a combination of Proton(s) and Neutron(s) as a core and one or more electron rotating around the core at near the speed of light. Now the only way scientists have come to believe this theory is through evidence gathered with Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (STM). A short explanation of how STMs work: A very fine tip electrode is placed near a molecule and very sensitive sensors measure what is believed to be electrons passing by the electrode tip. A computer then tracks those measurements over time and plots a model of what we think the atom composition is. We currently have no way to visibly view an atom. The structure of an atom is computed with algorithms and a computer program. While this is a very simple description of STM, the fact still remains the same. Our model of an atom is computer generated and has ever been observed in reality. I believe STMs are very useful and accurate in determining the structure of molecules, there is still room for error in the basic model of an atom we currently use. This fact has spurred many scientists to attempt to come up with other theories of the structure of our basic building block; the atom. Might I add that the inconsistencies of our current  atomic structure have led to a completely separate area of physics called Quantum mechanics. Just to give you an idea of how many observed violations of our currently accepted physics model you can read about them here: List of unsolved problems in physics.

 

Key Ring Atom

Electron Microscope view of an atom.

 

Key Ring concept imbed on electron microscope view.

Key Ring concept imbed on electron microscope view.

 

Now that you know where my doubt in our current model comes from, let me introduce the Key Ring Atom.
For starters lets compare the current model of the hydrogen atom and how the hydrogen atom would look using the Key Ring Theory. The hydrogen atom using the standard model has a single proton at it’s core with a single electron rotating around the proton near the speed of light. The standard model describes the bulk of the energy of an atom being at the proton and the electron shares a very low portion of the atom’s energy. The electron in the standard model spins so fast that it takes the appearance of an electron cloud or an electron shield around the proton. In the Key ring hydrogen atom, visualize a single proton ring at the core and an electron ring linked through the proton ring. Now the only difference between the 2 theories would be that the center of the standard atom is the proton whereas the key ring atom core is empty due to the the proton ring. The electron cloud on both would appear the same due to the speed of rotation. Keep in mind that our current method of mapping an atom does not allow us to see the center of an atom. For all we know it is a blank. I heard of the Key Ring Atom Theory through an associate of Bob Rohner who happens to be the theorist behind it. Dannel Roberts has been searching and compiling information supporting his theory of the Key Ring Atom for over 40 years. He was unsatisfied with the current explanation of the atomic structure and chose to devote most of his life searching for a different explanation that would also fit our current molecular model. I have to admit the theory is quite complex and would take a long time to explain in full here. To read the full theory and it’s explanations or even watch video presentations on the theory, you can visit www.particlemechanics.com.

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

 

One thing to note when describing the standard model of an atom is the duck tape phenomenon we call the Strong Force. It’s not uncommon to see in physics calculations an error factor. When calculating something very large you tend to not be able to account for all variables so you add in a correction factor. Through experience with EM physics and loss calculations, I’ve always questioned my peers about variables in the equations labeled error factor or cleverly disguised as system noise. I always got the same answer. That was “push the i believe button” There are some things we can’t account for. In the standard atom model, there is a mysterious unknown force called the Strong Force. This is used as the reason an electron stays in orbit around a proton. It’s also used as the reason for why atoms can adhere to other atoms. This doesn’t set right with me. Due to the geometry of the Dannel Roberts key ring atom theory, adhesion is possible with no fudge factor, Electron orbit is explained with no fudge factor, and 10 other physical traits of the atom are all accounted for with no “Fudge” or duck tape. Molecules of matter are all linked together in chains physically and there is no question as to why.

Here is a demonstration video by Dannel Roberts on the structure of water using the Key Ring Atom Theory:

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube

Dannel Roberts has obviously put a lifetime of effort into building the Key Ring Atom theory and in my point of view it makes total sense. While we cannot physically see an atom’s true structure, why would we continue believing a theory full of flaws, inconsistencies, and duck tape? I admit that the Key Ring Atom may not be the answer, but the current atomic theory is in error. I recommend visiting ParticlePhysics.com and approaching this new theory with an open mind. Ask yourself: Does the current theory of atomic structure have a solid foundation? Is it possible that the Key Ring Atom holds the key to the answers. Please offer your opinions in the forum below.

Thanks

Ken

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta
  • Dangus

    Hi. We met in the Yildiz demo chatroom on justin.tv and you directed me to your site here.

    There are all kinds of problems.

    > Now pretty much everyone who remembers their physics 101 knows that the atom is described as a combination of Proton(s) and Neutron(s) as a core and one or more electron rotating around the core at near the speed of light.

    This “Bohr model” is wrong. Electrons do not orbit the atom; they exist in quantum mechanical bound states.

    > Now the only way scientists have come to believe this theory is through evidence gathered with Scanning Tunneling Microscopes (STM).

    No. Numerical solutions of the Schrodinger equation predict not only the shape of the orbitals, but their angular momentum, atomic transitions, etc. So there are a myriad of ways from optics to chemistry to verify the model.

    > Our model of an atom is computer generated and has ever been observed in reality.

    This is a bit pedantic. That’s like saying that x-rays have never been observed in reality.

    > Now that you know where my doubt in our current model comes from, let me introduce the Key Ring Atom.

    I have no idea why you doubt the current QM model of an atom. Can you point out where it fails? Can you point out experiments using atoms that QM cannot account for?

    > The hydrogen atom using the standard model has a single proton at it’s core with a single electron rotating around the proton near the speed of light.

    Electrons do not orbit the nucleus of an atom.

    > The standard model describes the bulk of the energy of an atom being at the proton and the electron shares a very low portion of the atom’s energy.

    You mean mass?

    > The electron in the standard model spins so fast that it takes the appearance of an electron cloud or an electron shield around the proton.

    The electron cloud is a direct consequence of the wave nature of electrons as accounted for in QM. It has nothing to do with electrons “spinning so fast”.

    > Keep in mind that our current method of mapping an atom does not allow us to see the center of an atom. For all we know it is a blank.

    Nope nope, and nope. Look up “scattering theory” in the context of nuclear physics. This (among many other things) rules out the ring theory, because if the center of an atom was empty this would dramatically change its scattering cross section and would not agree with experiment.

    > It’s not uncommon to see in physics calculations an error factor.

    The strong force is NOT a correction factor. Not to be rude, but when you use sentences like this it really screams that you have no idea what you are talking about (Where have you ever seen it used as an error factor? Can you cite one example?)

    > Through experience with EM physics and loss calculations

    I’m going to go out on a limb here and state that you have no experience with EM.

    > In the standard atom model, there is a mysterious unknown force called the Strong Force.

    Again, not mysterious.

    > This is used as the reason an electron stays in orbit around a proton.

    You’re crushing me. The strong force is what holds protons and electrons together. The distane

    > It’s also used as the reason for why atoms can adhere to other atoms.

    You’re crushing me! Atoms adhere to other atoms for several reasons, all related to electromagnetism.

    There are about a hundred other mistakes, but I think that’s enough to give you an idea why nobody takes this kind of stuff seriously.

  • http://loveplugins.com/tag/shopping-cart/ headphones

    To tell the truth this was an excellent detailed write-up nevertheless as with most wonderful authors there are some points that may be worked well about. Nevertheless never the significantly less it absolutely was intriguing.

  • http://Chris Christopher Wolfer