vlamir

At radioactive decay of heavy atoms the daughter nucleuses, alpha-particles, beta-particles, neutrino and gamma-radiation are arise. The gamma-radiation carries away a part of mass ( the law of conservation of energy-mass). The gamma-radiation is short-wave electromagnetic waves. The photons also are electromagnetic waves. Should I go on?

MrL_JaKiri, I shall be very grateful to you, if you will point even one experimental fact, which disproves my math: "The Value of gravitational constant is determined by percentage of hydrogen and helium in the universe". I like to speak by the language of facts and formulas.

MrL_JaKiri, I have made only one premise: "Atoms consist of vibrant rings of energy. Energy has speed of light in rings". From this premise I started my experiments in the field of mechanical resonances in 1998. Next I make mathematical simulation with the help of the formulas of classical physics and I check the premise with the help of spectrums of emission-absorption of atoms and with the help of data about a crystalline structure of elements of Mendeleyev's Table. I do not exclude, that my technique is not enough modern, but up till now my premise yields more precise outcomes and is more obvious.

YT2095, I myself don't understand in what the matter. The file is load with the help of other programs, for example Internet Explorer and Physics Forums. But Science Forums does not want "to talk" with sinor.ru. I am not pleased with poor quality of operation of sinor.ru, but I do not have choice. In ours small town there are no other companies. On Monday I shall ring there and I shall do "washing of brains", as I have still other claims to them. So far, I see one way out (zip-file 182Kb). But you need Acrobat Reader. dipole of speed.zip

Excuse me, please! http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/dipole of speed.pdf

Sayonarai, My doc-document occupies 78Kb, zip - 26Kb, but pdf - 127Kb. You can read complete paper in my homepage: http://www.sinor.ru/~polytron/dipole of speed.pdf

MrL_Jakiri, Why you have not read "gravitation.doc"?

Here I offer mathematical model of gravitation on the basis of the following experimental facts: 1) The part of the universe, observed by us, almost completely consists of hydrogen and helium (H~80%, He~20%, to the share of remaining elements of Mendeleyev's Table fall approximately 1% of mass of the universe). 2) Dielectric (and magnetic) constant of dense bodies (solids, liquids and cold gases) differs from the dielectric constant of vacuum. 3) The relict radiation of the universe (Cosmic Background Radiation) corresponds to energy jump between two main quantum numbers n=117 and n=118 in the Balmer-Rydberg's formula for the spectrum of hydrogen. 4) Photons are spread rectilinearly and have no the rest mass. 5) Atoms have a rest mass and can magnify and diminish it at the expense of absorption and emission of photons. Formulas and drawing see in attached file: gravitation_e.doc gravitation_e.zip

I hope, that the offered method is more visual and clear, than official paradigm, and will help inquisitive minds at solving of mysteries of the nature.

Endless attempts to find logical link between weak forces of a long-range interaction and strong forces of a short-range interaction, to explain a nature of gravitational and electromagnetic fields, to understand what is the space, vacuum, time, infinity and zero reduce us to various improbable suppositions and ideas. On the other hand, there is a doubt in a immaculacy of the officially adopted theories, which cannot give a comprehensive explanation for all these actual problems. I participate in forums long enough, therefore for me the judgement was formed, that the great theorists XIX and XX of centuries had made for us the path, which inevitably reduces everyone entering on it to fathomless pit of fallacies. I invite once again to walk along this path and to look under legs very closely to find a place, where the path has turned to the pit. See attached file: dipole of speed.pdf dipole of speed.pdf

Who “well explained phenomenon”? Maybe you have in view the theory of electron defects by Dirac with three postulates for a physical vacuum?

Quite so. Photons and electrons have the same parents. But electrons can be converted into photons – annihilate. Therefore, there should be an inverse process and any device, which converts photons into electrons.

“In development of science we observed the continuous process of accumulation of relative particular truths and their perfecting, specification. At the successive stage not numbers of accumulated before facts, but their out-dated explanation are rejected usually. Cases, when the aged number of facts was put under doubt and was rejected, as it has taken place, for example, with alchemy, - are rather rare. … … to adopt the kind habit by scientists - do not reject, but interpret numbers accumulated before relative truths in a new fashion - for a long time it is time”. There are words from book by Äàíèèë Àíäðååâ. GREG, I don’t assert, that electrons don’t exist at all. I speak, that inside atoms there are generators of photons and electrons, but not electrons. Electrons are particles of energy, which we can watch in space between atoms and molecules, when they have no immediate contact among themselves. My polyhedrons are geometrical models of such generators. For the description of operation of these models I have precise mathematical method and outcomes of experiments. Now I begin of simulation of elementary compounds of nitrogen and hydrogen, and again for me the problem of data retrieval arises. By the way, I have come in the forum Organic Chemistry behind the help, but never received it. If you don’t like my pseudo-science, then let's finish this talk. form of elementary organic molecules.pdf

How an ionized atom of hydrogen radiates EM-energy, if it has no electron?

Me already spoke, that my model is similar to quantum model of Bohr. I think, that it is more similar to Theory of Brillouin Zones. "The unessential" difference consists that in my model there are no electrons. I consider, that the developers of Zone theory had made big error, when they had followed quantum model of Bohr. They were forced to invent the inverse lattice by Bravais and, in that way, finally have tangled very good idea. Last week I have devoted collecting of miserable and separate experimental data about physical-chemical properties of hydrocarbon compounds. I even have looked through the encyclopedia of 1952 Edition. As a result, I managed slightly to advance in simulation. form of methane molecule.pdf

According to the official theory, the electrons move inside atoms on curvilinear trajectories. Therefore, they are subject to acceleration. The accelerated electric charge should radiate (to lose) EM-energy and, eventually, to fall on nucleus. Why it does not happen to electrons? My hypothesis is, that in atoms there are no nucleuses and there are no electrons, but there are ring formations of linear energy. These rings vibrate with discrete frequencies, therefore I have named theirs as polytrons, i.e. multi-frequency emitters. By the way, the polytron is not imagination. You can itself make a ring from any material (steel, copper, lead, plastic, rubber) and to look, how it vibrates. Several rings, which connected in symmetrical spots, exchange energy and polarization of fluctuations. Such “compounds” have a broader frequency spectrum. With the help of the formulas of classical mechanics I have found the new formulas for calculation of energies and frequencies of mechanical oscillations in rings. Then I have applied these formulas to calculation of spectrums and energy levels of atoms. The accordance with experiment is very good. As to an electron, it also is a ring of energy, which comes off polytron at the frequency quantum parameter m=2. In vacuum this ring behaves, as the lightest polytron. In the spectrum of hydrogen the Layman’s series is a spectrum of a mobile electron.

What is complicated? Math or heaping of postulates? By the way, my geometric modeling much more complex, but then you may observe and logically check a process. This helped me to find more simple formulas for the calculation of parameters of atoms. form of carbon atom.pdf

What are induction and self-induction? If these physical phenomena to use for explanation of processes, which happen in microscopes, will appear, that such appearances, as refraction and reflection of waves, does not exist. In reality there are only two phenomena - absorption and birth of new wave. The same adapt also to electrical charged particles. Therefore, for obtaining the map of some part of a subject it is not in the least necessary to irradiate this part with a ray of a light or particles. It is enough to bring EM energy in the other place, and to fix outgoing directions of separate photons from the researched part. The problem of obtaining of a high-resolution rests on sensitivity of sensors and methods of decoding of outcomes.

Dear GREG, I respect your adherence to official paradigm about a structure of atoms. But each of us has the right to own opinion. My position differs from official. I consider, that the theory by M. Planck is valid, but three postulates by N. Bohr are mistaken. I have own hypothesis about a structure of atoms and, accordingly, some new formulas for calculation of spectrums of energy states. In my model there are no postulates about discrete states of electrons and about a dualism of wave and particle. These physical phenomena have a quite logical explanation. But one postulate in my model all the same is present. I consider, it as a major disadvantage of the hypothesis. Right now I would like to test my hypothesis by data from area of organic chemistry. Just precise experimental data about elementary organic molecules are necessary for this purpose to me. As to postulates, I would like to give such example. Johan Kepler, at development of his famous equations, was guided by one postulate - that the God-Sun is surrounded by celestial orbs and on each orb lives on one angel. Each angel pushes and rolls the own planet on orb. For us it is naivety. Nevertheless, the equations by Kepler mirror true. N. Bohr had utilized, as the initial, planetary model of atom and at once three postulates! Now try to count, how many other postulates were added in the quantum theory to match it with a reality. In number of these postulates, by the way, the postulates for electronic orbitals enter also. What composite mathematics is applied for calculation of energy levels of electrons in atoms, all of us know. At the same time, around of us (on the Earth, instead of cosmic space) at macroscopic level there is a set of well observable processes, which can be good model for processes happening between atoms and inside atoms. It is resonance processes. I study these processes five years. I carry out experiments; I make mathematical calculations and computer simulation for atoms of different elements. Certainly, this too small term for the achievement of convincing results in such complex science. But my investigations give much food for thought. Most of all of time takes away information retrieval, which is necessary for check of calculations and build-up of models. Spectral characteristics I take in sites “ NIST Atomic Spectra Database ” and “ Kelly Atomic Line Database ”. Maybe you will advise me a similar site for chemists? Thanks.

See attach file. diam_5.pdf

Me interesting the geometrical form and sizes of atoms. For example, density of diamond 3513 kg /cub. m, density of graphite 2260 kg / cub. m. Atomic weight of carbon 12.011u, where u=1.66053873x10 ^-27kg. Therefore, one atom of carbon occupies space: In diamond 12.011u/3513x10^30=5.667 cub. angstrom In graphite 12.011u/2260x10^30=8.825 cub. angstrom At calculation with the help of parameters of crystal lattices these sizes differ slightly: in diamond 5.673 cub. angstrom, in graphite 9.023 cub. angstrom. By means of electronic orbitals it is impossible to explain huge strength of diamond and perfect frictional properties of graphite. Besides there is a problem - what function of remaining points of space in atom, which are not occupied in electronic orbitals? I would like to make own calculations of these sizes for carbon and hydrogen in simple organic compounds. I am physicist, but not the organic chemist. I try to find precise informations concerning simple organic compounds in the Internet, but nothing has found while. quote by NavajoEverclear yeah duh, that is what he said. But there isn't really a reason for him to say so. Actually I don't care whatever. Say atoms are poyhedrons, you are free to your faith. I have weighty arguments to speak that atoms have form of polyhedrons. See attach file.

I consider, geometry of crystals gives for us strong case to suppose, that atoms have polyhedron’s form (in contrast to current hypothesis, that atoms are composed of ball-nucleons and of shapeless clouds of electronic probability). At present I research for geometry of hydrogen and carbon atoms. Exact data about atomic structure of elementary organic molecules must help me in the task solution, but I have no appropriate scientific literature. I hope for help of forum! See attach file. Vlamir table 1.pdf