Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Some thoughts on molecular bonding and the aether


trevor borocz johnson
 Share

Recommended Posts

As far as molecular bonds and the aether are concerned, I don't believe in the negative positive attraction of the proton and electron. The gravity of the two protons in a molecule would pull them together if there wasn't a repulsive force, that of the theoretical electron. When temperature or density on the aether changes, any molecule will vary between solid liquid and gas. The Aether density holds molecules together in liquids and solids or allows them to pass an inherent resistance line where they are gas. The electron bond of molecules maybe gravity of the heavier molecules pulling against the lighter one's with electric charge being a free moving heat on the aether repelling them. The energy's free moving nature to spread to colder region's of the aether as it is free from it source pushes in on the density of the aether created by a nuclues gravity feield and creates a sort of atmosphere of heat in the nucleus's gravity field. When two of those atmospheres combine in a molecule they push apart because unlike nucleus heat that causes gravity EMR heat will look to fill another region of space that is colder and repels the heat density of the other electrons region. Most pure elements are gray, a white electron over a black nucleus, but combining molecules creates color because you effect the wavelength of light in bonding electrons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't believe you know what you're talking about.  The electromagnetic force is 10^36 times stronger than gravity.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

I don't believe you know what you're talking about.  The electromagnetic force is 10^36 times stronger than gravity.

What I'm trying to say is how nucleus heat that causes gravity and attracts two objects is different then EMR heat which expands out like an explosion through colder aether. Once Energy enters the gravity field, it begins to slow down until it reaches a point where the gravity field is equal in density and temperature then it stops and forms an electron. But when two electrons touch they repel because they are still made of free moving energy that seeks out colder regions and the aether of either electron would be unattractive to the other. 

When you take the atmospheric/aether pressure off of a substance, or raise the pressure of the substance with heat, You give strength to the heat of the electron and electron's repulsion overpowers the attraction in molecular bonds and when they come apart in combustion the atom's of the molecule's expand into a hot gas that is the heat of a fire, not the flames.

And I've heard your long number before, I'm gambling that its more quackery in physics which there is a lot of.

Sorry Ry, not my cat speaking through the spaceheater this time! or it could be....hmmm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The atomic number of oxygen is eight, assuming that nuclei are round, 8 of them would create a perfect cube, this would make oxygen more stable in it's energy shells around the atom, and lack a common trait of atom's to be unstable in these regions and good conductors. Also iron is 26, one shy of a perfect 27 and is the densest strongest atom. Oxygen is important in many ways and needed to burn something. still unexpalined.

Edited by trevor borocz johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's weird because oxygen is needed to make a fire but then its needed as water to put out the fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Magnetically hard materials are used to create permanent magnets made from alloys generally consisting of varying amounts of iron, aluminium, nickel, cobalt an

Featured snippet from the web

Notice how magnetism is a property to cubic numbers of 3 and 4 give or take a couple nuclei. A perfect cubic structure might line up the atoms so they act together and create a fan like magnetic effect.
Magnetically hard materials are used to create permanent magnets made from alloys generally consisting of varying amounts of iron, aluminium, nickel, cobalt and rare earth elements samarium, dysprosium and neodymium.
 
 
image.jpeg.eb117d70b2e72e469f0a2a2ac3f57f73.jpeg
 
 

d rare earth elements samarium, dysprosium and neodymium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If oxygen, which is a gas, has a strong magnetic field on its own, as strong as steel, but doesn't line up as easily because its a gas, that could explain why its so energy absorbing and exchanges energy readily during oxidation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction Oxygen is paramagnetic probably because its small and its electron shell is weaker. 

Cubic numbers 8,27,and 64 and their neighboring numbers give or take a couple on the periodic chart not only share magnetic properties, but are close together in there individual groups for: density, boiling and melting point, electronegativity, and electric conductivity.

The amount of stress from the electron energy squeezing on the nucleus would be greater for perfect cubic numbers because the nucleus would be resistant to deforming and letting out the electron energy, the nucleus of non cubic shapes might have a tendency when stressed to adjust shape and let out electron energy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/19/2022 at 1:43 AM, trevor borocz johnson said:

As far as molecular bonds and the aether are concerned, I don't believe in the negative positive attraction of the proton and electron. The gravity of the two protons in a molecule would pull them together if there wasn't a repulsive force, that of the theoretical electron. When temperature or density on the aether changes, any molecule will vary between solid liquid and gas. The Aether density holds molecules together in liquids and solids or allows them to pass an inherent resistance line where they are gas. The electron bond of molecules maybe gravity of the heavier molecules pulling against the lighter one's with electric charge being a free moving heat on the aether repelling them. The energy's free moving nature to spread to colder region's of the aether as it is free from it source pushes in on the density of the aether created by a nuclues gravity feield and creates a sort of atmosphere of heat in the nucleus's gravity field. When two of those atmospheres combine in a molecule they push apart because unlike nucleus heat that causes gravity EMR heat will look to fill another region of space that is colder and repels the heat density of the other electrons region. Most pure elements are gray, a white electron over a black nucleus, but combining molecules creates color because you effect the wavelength of light in bonding electrons.

General Relativity doesn`t work down at the microscopic level.

If you don`t believe me, drop an object on the ground and notice how it doesn`t destroy the planet. GR equations say when two objects are an infinitely small distance apart the gravitational attraction between both is infinite. It`s obviously not, and not vastly massive between two atoms a few nanometres apart either. It`s a very weak force down at the microscopic level as evidenced by the fact you can pick up your dropped object afterwards.

Heat energy does not turn into gravity, or when you turn your fire on this winter it would suck you in. Gravity is caused by the flow of time with the flow of time being influenced at a point in space by how much mass is there.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

It`s a very weak force down at the microscopic level as evidenced by the fact you can pick up your dropped object afterwards.

So what's the force attracting two atoms of a molecule? What force holds the nuclei in a nucleus together?

1 hour ago, Cookie Monster said:

Heat energy does not turn into gravity, or when you turn your fire on this winter it would suck you in. Gravity is caused by the flow of time with the flow of time being influenced at a point in space by how much mass is there.

Yeah I clearly specified between heat energy and nucleus heat, thoroughly explained the difference, would you like me to do it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cubic structure to the nucleus is important. It would allow for a denser/higher energy electron because the electron energy would squeeze on the nucleus without it deforming as would happen with numbers far away from cube numbers on the periodic chart. Those elements would try to form close to a sphere but would be unstable at holding onto additional electron energy because the nucleus shape is probably adjustable, why they don't line up well and aren't magnetic. 

Oxidation occurs with rust, fruit rotting, fire burning, and the conversion of fat into energy in the body. Oxygen when in a molecule has the smallest resistance of all the elements, but one, at absorbing the electron energy from the molecule pair, as such it steals electron energy from the other atom in the molecule causing rust with iron and rotting in fruit. Oxygen has weak energy in its electron shell because of its size. It's also a gas at normal temperatures. So for these reasons it appears oxygen can take on a lot of energy in molecular bonding without 'bouncing' it back from deforming the nucleus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 

Carbon is black in appearance. If carbon has weak energy in its electron shell perhaps it is resistant for some reason to obtaining the temperatures needed in its shell for repulsion and is the same reason its black in color. It could be that the nucleus heat that makes the gravity field is stronger and denser nearer the nucleus, which at 6, would cover the all six spatial directions evenly. 

Edited by trevor borocz johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, trevor borocz johnson said:

Carbon is black in appearance. If carbon has weak energy in its electron shell perhaps it is resistant for some reason to obtaining the temperatures needed in its shell for repulsion and is the same reason its black in color. It could be that the nucleus heat that makes the gravity field is stronger and denser nearer the nucleus, which at 6, would cover the all six spatial directions evenly. 

Carbon isn't always black in appearance. See diamonds for example.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do know that we have photographed particles I hope trevor?  It was done a very long time ago.  There were plenty of very diligent aether theorists working on their ideas until that point.  The evidence is in now. The closest thing to the aether in modern physics you are going to find is the idea of Quantum Foam imo, and Quantum Foam is also definitely not the Aether.  Aether theory is in the bin of history for a reason; it didn't predict anything with sufficient precision when compared to other theories, and served as an excuse rather than an answer for many chemical calculations not adding up.  Had we adhered to aether theory we wouldn't have modern electronics in all their astounding micro-precision, for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2022 at 6:46 PM, trevor borocz johnson said:

So what's the force attracting two atoms of a molecule? What force holds the nuclei in a nucleus together?

Yeah I clearly specified between heat energy and nucleus heat, thoroughly explained the difference, would you like me to do it again?

The strong nuclear force holds quarks together (the stuff inside atoms) and the EM force holds atoms together in molecules.

We dont know what gravity is, where it comes from, or why it exists. Again GR doesnt explain how it works in all situations with its proposed curvature of spacetime. And QM hasn`t detected a gravity particle but proposes there are gravitons.

Aether detection experiments dont around the same time that GR was proposed didnt detect an aether. Hence why we have GR at the moment. Special Relativity (SR) says gravity isn`t the curvature of spacetime but is a force. But Einstein wasn`t able to complete it as he died. As SR is it only works for stationary objects.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Cookie Monster said:

The strong nuclear force holds quarks together (the stuff inside atoms) and the EM force holds atoms together in molecules.

We dont know what gravity is, where it comes from, or why it exists. Again GR doesnt explain how it works in all situations with its proposed curvature of spacetime. And QM hasn`t detected a gravity particle but proposes there are gravitons.

Aether detection experiments dont around the same time that GR was proposed didnt detect an aether. Hence why we have GR at the moment. Special Relativity (SR) says gravity isn`t the curvature of spacetime but is a force. But Einstein wasn`t able to complete it as he died. As SR is it only works for stationary objects.

How does that stuff play into everything having a temperature and the single background being heat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/13/2023 at 11:37 PM, Alchopwn said:

You do know that we have photographed particles I hope trevor?  It was done a very long time ago.  There were plenty of very diligent aether theorists working on their ideas until that point.  The evidence is in now. The closest thing to the aether in modern physics you are going to find is the idea of Quantum Foam imo, and Quantum Foam is also definitely not the Aether.  Aether theory is in the bin of history for a reason; it didn't predict anything with sufficient precision when compared to other theories, and served as an excuse rather than an answer for many chemical calculations not adding up.  Had we adhered to aether theory we wouldn't have modern electronics in all their astounding micro-precision, for example.

Stresses me out. So if light is a particle that travels along pfft 'nothing', and the earth is moving through space, why would the michelson morley expectations of finding the aether wind be any different? If I shot a photon beam in the direction the earth is moving wouldn't the experiment show the same results as if light was a wave moving along the aether? So in other words the same experiment that disproves the aether also disproves the photon.

Edited by trevor borocz johnson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.