Conceptual

If we look at a simple case, the hydrogen atom, the electron orbital states are a function of EM force fields between the electron and the proton. When the electron drops an energy level the systems EM force potential drops and energy is given off. The opposite should also occur with input energy increasing the EM potential of the entire system. These jumps of potential are quantitized. Heat is a horse of a different color. Within any orbital state, the electron is restricted to a given orbital, but one can heat the atom and still not get it to jump into the next orbital state. These subquanta of heat energy are probally connected to the kinetic energy changes of the electron and maybe the protons. One would expect the wave function reflects the higher kinetic energy of the electron causing it to appear more often closer to the next orbital.

The analysis presented is also appropriate to distance. Distance is also referenced in the imagination, yet is given the status of substance. Distance is fluid and we compare distance in relationship to standized distance. But even this would make no sense without light entering the eyes. Light is both wavelength and frequency or distance and time. If distance has substance and time only imagination, energy (d and t) would not always multiply to the speed of light. It should be different for each of us. Even matter is part of the imagination and is based on touch as well as on sight. Current theory is trying to explain explain matter in terms of more basic things. But the equivilency of matter and energy suggests mass, distance and time interconnected in very quantitized ways.

I would to raise a little controversay. Data has appeared that shows the existance of galaxies, which formed and were making starts less than a billions years into the evolution of the universe. Our sun is posulated to have taken maybe a long as that to reach something close to its modern state. But in this case, whole galaxies, stars and all, form in less than 1Billions years from t=0, during extreme conditions of temp and velocity. The question I have is, are any of the current cosmology models able to accommodate this data? The theories that can not accommodate this data, do they need to go back to the old drawing board or are they grandfathered in?

If one looks at the protons in a nucleus if the motion began as random, the charge repulsion would want the protons to exist on the surface of the nucleus so they can maximize separation. But any motion will set up magnetic fields which will also need to lower potential. This might impy bands of opposite direction or spin protons so they can add magnetically. This magnetic attraction would cause electrostatic repulsion. If we add the neutrons to the mix, these can act as electrostatic shields that also get in the way of the motion needed for magnetic additions. The electrons sort of have the same problem. Charge repulsion would like to repel into a Bohr atom, while magnetic addition would like to attract. To this are added the EM forces stemming from the nucleus. The orbitals that result is the optimum balance between all the forces. The nucleus sees reflected EM forces coming from these very standandized electron orbital configurations thereby influencing its own EM optimization. If electron orbitals were more random or all spherical then random would make sense for the nucleus but very definitive electron orbital shapes implies the whole system trying to minimize EM potential. This suggests proton type orbtial configurations.

If we look at hydrogen gas reacting with oxygen gas to form water, this highly exothermic reaction begins with two hydrogen atoms and two oxygen atoms. Both are neutral with respect to their nuclear proton and electrons. This highly exothermic reaction results in the hydrogen ending up with less than a full equivilent of one electron to make it charge neutral. The oxygen atom ends up with too many electrons to make it charge neutral, i.e., anion. This is benificial to the oxygen because it completes an octet of electrons within its 2S, 2P orbitals. If we start with a hot gas of ionized hydrogen atoms, these hydrogen atoms will retain one electron within higher orbitals even at these high temperature. In water at room temperature, the hydrogen is induced in a state of having less than one full electron to share or within a state where the electrons are pseudo-ionized in orbitals higher than 1S, i.e, covalent bond. This is very loosely analogous to the hot ionized hydrogen with a potential in the order of 10kcal/mole. Hot ionized hydrogen could release potential at room temperature. But the hydrogen of water is already at room temperature and needs to share electron density to lower its potential. The oxygen of water, which released energy to get to its stable octet will now need to gain energy or enter an excited state before it can share electron density with hydrogen. This endothermic reaction is supplied energy by the hydrogen lowering potential to form a hydrogen bond. If a stable hydrogen bond is not optimized, the hydrogen can not release enough energy to fully endothermic ionize the stable octet electrons of oxygen. This results in residual potential existing in the hydrogen and less potential being endothermic induced in the oxygen. The electrons of hydrogen are still partially in the 2S orbital and would like to drop even further. Within large biomaterials hydrogen bonds are not always optimized. This positions residual hydrogen boniding potential throughout the biomaterial. Being one covalent molecule, the biomolecule will try to move some of its electron density around to help minimize this potential. If this does not completely work, then the biomaterial will define electrophilic potential. Biomaterials, such as enzymes, which all have a surface active site, will all create excited states of reactants. These exicited states allow enzymes to temporarily share electron density.

Although the ionization energy of hydrogen is high in a physics type environment, in a chemical environment hydrogen ionization happens all the time at much lower energies even at room temperature. The pH of liquid water creates H+ which ionizes the proton from the electrons. Within the mantle, there are plenty of close orbitals for hydrogen associated electrons to share, allowing the hydrogen to still see electrons, but not the ones it was born with when it entered the mantle as molecular water. One essentially has a proton still sharing electrons, while ionizing from billions of different electrons as it diffuses to the core. It will dffuse to the core because of a concentration gradient. Hydrogen protons do not separate out of water or float to the top of a glass of water because the chemical association of the hydrogen to the fluid matrix is much stronger than the effects of gravity. Once they reach the core they should continue to diffuse into the space occupied by an iron core. This electron orbital sharing will loosen the iron matrix, allowing oxygen to enter. Maybe corrision is not the correct terms but oxidation is still occurring. The bottom line is that because the oceans levels are not dropping, due to the concentration gradient between the surface water (hydrogen) and the mantle, which will be constantly renewed due to core hydrogne diffusion, implies that there can not be an iron core in the center of the earth. The iron core is based on tradition and dogma.

The way the brain works is that memory has emotional valance. The creation of memory is assisted by an organ within the center of the brain that is connected to the limbic system. For example, thinking of food can make one hungry or being hungry can induce images of food. Recalling memory from the past can induce emotional valance , which can reinforce the memory, thereby creating a thought-emotion loop. In other words, thoughts can change the limbic chem environment of the neutrons so that certain neurons fire preferentially. Pschiatry uses drugs to alter the emotional aspect of the loop, thereby breaking the association. While psychology starts at the memory end of the loop hoping to the break the emotional assocation by changing the valance of the memory. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. Drugs will change the emotional valence and this can break the loop but may create a different valence if the thought processing is still reinforced. For example, something that causes depression, and rightfully so, may now seem OK because it is valanced in a happy place. This could distort a proper cause and effect relationship. Pschology by reinforcing and extending the memory side of the loop can bring up memory association that has already decoupled and restore the emotional valence at the conscious level. This can open the can of worms that requires years to overcome. The compromise may be a blend of the two. The drugs may have a good short term effect of breaking the loop. Periodically one should give up the drugs and try to look at the same memory but be more objective. This implies adding memories with opposite valence. For example, one may be hurt by someone causing pain. But the pain only occurs because of all the good times that were lost. Looking at both together creates two cancelling emotional valences love and hate at the same time.This blend of chems is less black and white, or a little grayer or softer and can alter the emotional association of the bigger picture.

Resonance and standing waves is the answer. A bass wave needs so many feet to set up. At 40HZ and sound moving at 1100ft/sec that is 27 ft. If you have a 27 ft room you can set up a standing wave at 40HZ. You can adjust the wavelength and frequency to your size room. You also need to position the speaker square with the wall so the wave isn't scattered. The problem (the good point) with most new speaker systems is that they use internal chambering to develop the wave internally so one can get longer wavelengths in a smaller room. They also position the speaker at a tilt to provent forming standing wave. You'll have to experiment.

That wouldn't explain why the milky way or our solar system is moving. Space is sort of steady state around these parts or expanding very slow.

Maybe plasma is the wrong word. When the water enters the mantle the chemical bonds will be broken and the proton ionized. What one has is not a gas but ionized protond and ionized oxygen. There should be, at the very least, a concentration gradient for protons to want to flow inward. Oxygen is assumed, by most geochemists, to be throughout the mantle. Everywhere our diffusing protons finds oxygen, although not attached, I called water. At the iron core interface the protons and ionized oxygen will meet with metallic iron. It appears that corrosion should take place unless this is a super iron that does not obey the laws of chemistry.

I would like to introduce the a new theory called ionization sharing. When one thinks of ionization, energy is inputted into an atom to ionize an electron. The lower the orbtials, the higher the ionization energies to kick out the electrons. Within dense chemical plasma, such as would be expected within the earth, ionization energies should drop. The reason this is is because within fluid chemical plasmas the orbitals are overlapping. This means that if an electron is ionized it does not go into isolation, like a vapor plasma, but is absorbed into another orbital. I call this ionization sharing. If an atom is ionized the original electron is no longer in the orbital. In the case of ionization sharing the atoms may still have electron density in their orbitals but the electrons are playing musical chairs between the atomic orbtials. Technically the atom is both ionized and full of electrons at the same time for a net lower of ionization energy. High pressure allows ionization sharing with less temperature. The ionization sharing of the six outer electrons of oxygen readily accounts for the very distinct mantle layers and the mantle and core transition regions within the earth. The upper mantle has one electron ionization sharing, leaving oxygen with the very stable 3-electron arrangement within its outer 2p orbitals (one electron in each 2p orbital). This stability is broken in the distinct transition region between the upper and the lower mantle. By the end of the lower mantle all the 2p electrons of oxygen are now being ionization shared. This leaves the oxygen with monopoply control of only its two very stable 2s and two extremely stable 1s electrons. The ionization sharing within the D” layer between the lower mantle and fluid core region breaks the stability of the 2s electrons of oxygen and these become ionization shared. This leaves the oxygen monopoly control of only its two extremely stable 1s electrons.

I agree with that. The goal I am looking to achieve is connected to seeing if the hydrogen bonding hydrogen are the business end of water molecules. The charge dipole says no, but the higher electronegativity of oxygen says yes. The oxygen is stabilized being an anion or it would not have taken electron density from hydrogen in the first place. The hydrogen should bare a potential stemming from oxygen's stability. If the dipole cancels, then it needs to be magnetic or something. My longer term project is connected to cellular modeling using hydrogen bonding. Everything in the model appears consistent but nobody seems to be able to get past the hydrogen bonding dipole. If hydrogen bonding hydrogen is the holder of a potential that means that a hydrogen bond that is not optimally formed retains a slight electrophilic potential that was originally created by O or N. The oxygen and nitrogen don't need the positive charge but are already stable with the added electron density or else they would not have taken it from hydrogen in the first place. If we add this slight electrophilic potential up within highly hydrogen bonded materials like biomaterials, these will define an accumulative electrophiic potential. This allows me to position materials in an electrophilic gradient between the cell membrane and the DNA. If the H-bond is only a dipole this analysis is an illusion. Biologist and biochemists can only see a dipole. I'm I missing something with my logic?

If one heats water under high pressure it will eventually change into its critical state. In the critical state, water can no longer define a liquid, but will become a dense fluid that occupies the same volume as liquid water. The critical state of water changes the chemical properties of water. One change is that all minerials will increase their solubility in critical water. If one adds small ions and/or acids the solubility of minerials will increase even further. If we look at the earth, water exists everywhere. Theoretically, critical water should be able to dissolve its way through the crust into the mantle of the earth. This should be driven by hydraulic pressure above and the mantle heat below flowing into the crust. Once in the mantle, the high temp of the mantle should then begin breaking the covalent bonds of water and cause critical water to change phase into chemical plasma water, composed of ionized oxygen and ionized hydrogen. Here is the question. Since the center of the earth contains an iron core shouldn't the water and ions diffuse to the iron and cause corrosion? Let me rephrase the question, should plasma hydrogen from the upper mantle be able to diffusion through the mantle oxygen (psuedo-plasma water) and reach the core to cause corrosion?

If we look at the atoms the orbtial arrangment of electrons is not simple a spherical. This implies that the nucleur protons are not just in some average random state. The distinct orbital variety suggests the nuclear protons forming their own distinct orbtial variety. This would allow magnetic addtion within the nucleus leading to fancier electron orbitals. Based on this theory, if one was to add many addtional electrons to an atom its should have an impact on the orbtial configuration of protons within the nucleus. Enough addtional orbital electrons should kick the protons into higher nuclear orbital states and maybe cause fission. Theoretically, one way one might create atomic states like -5 or -6 is with protons. Essentially, one creates a three layered atom. The protons in the center, the electrons in orbitals, and hydrogen protons/electrons in pseudo-orbitals above this.

This might apply more toward the oldest objects of the universe. The observational state that we see is close to the beginning of the universe where both extreme gravity and extreme motion would be occurring.

The answer to the orginal question of why electrons stay in assign orbitals is connected to ionization energy. The amount of energy needed to kick a lower orbital electron into higher orbitals is too high. With the orbitals filled there is not potential for higher electrons to fall into lower orbitals and create the energy needed to change places. What is interesting is that once a stable atom is formed the orbitals will remain over a range of temperatures. Since the higher temp should be pumping energy into the system, the electron probably responds with a shift in the orbtial wave function. The Heinssenberg uncertanity principle still applies but at the higher temp there is less uncertainy that it will be closer to next orbtial.

The melting of ice is actually gaining time potential as heat from the environment. While the biochemistry of the body is burning time potential through metabolism. The idea of time in the mind is due to neutron firing which is also burining time potential.

ADD prevents the ego from concentrating on the task at hand. The unconscious mind seems to have its own agenda for the imagination and for the body. Maybe the ego could benefit by figuring out what is being said by the unconscious mind. This would focus the concentration of the ego in same direction initiated by the unconscious. Maybe something needs to be expressed within, i.e,, creative process. We often are taught to beleive that only good comes from the exterior world. Learning comes from the exterior world but thinking and creating come from within. Sometime thinking and creating puts one in conflict with the exterior world. Albert Einstein might have been considered ADD with respect to the "real world." He learned to focused himself on his inner drive to become a great father of physics.

The fancy shapes of atomic orbitals, rather than them all being spherical appears to be an artifact of nuclear protons in motion and the magnetic fields that they create. One could probably reverse engineer the dynamic motion and configurations of the atomic protons from the shapes of the electron orbitials. Magnetic materials, like iron, have outer electrons moving with the same angular momentum thereby creating a magnetic field in one direction. The protons of iron, which define the orbital shapes, may not be fully additive to these induced magnetic electron states even though charge is balanced. This would creates a magnetic dipole at the atomic level. This nuclear-atomic dipole would explain why magnetic iron atoms can be induced to maintain an amplied magentic potential alignment at the atomic level even when confined to the solid state of iron. This proton orbital theory suggest some cool sci-fi stuff. Picture if we could create atoms with ionization states, say -5. If left long enough it could cause the protons to change nuclear orbitial states into higher proton orbital states. The result is fission.

Thanks RyanJ. I am still a little confused. When a water molecule forms, the higher electronegativity of oxygen allows oxygen to hold extra electron density to form an anion. This anion is stable due to magnetic addition of the electrons within the oxygen orbitals. The hydrogen, on the other hand, is induced to have a potential. This should cause the water molecule to have its overall potential localized on the hydrogen side. The charge dipole adds to zero but the EM force is both electro-static and magnetic. In a physics forum I posted a topic called exothermic dipoles. I used the example of metallic iron and oxygen gas reacting to form iron oxide. What we begin with are two charge neutral materials becoming three dipoles while giving off energy. The iron cation will now have more protons than electrons, the oxygen anion will now has more electrons than protons and two neutral materials will now become an ionic dipole. Using electrostatic alone would appear to violate the laws of physics, but if one takes into consideration the EM force being both electrostatic and magnetic the math adds up. In the case of water the exothermic magnetic addition within oxygen allows it to become an anion (atomic dipole). The hydrogen will lose magnetic addition (magnetic subtraction) to also become an atomic dipole. The dipoles within water may balance but the induced magnetic subtraction within the hydrogen should define a slight potential compared to the stable magnetic addition of the oxygen. Within liquid water the hydrogen should be on the hunt. It just so happens that only oxygen is available to share electron density. Although the charges may cancel, the magnetic gain of the hydrogen will cause the oxygen of water to lose magnetic addition. The oxygen will attempt to reform magnetic stability and pass the burden of potential back to its own hydrogen, etc. The pH in water at neutral conditions implies a covalent bond becoming an ionic bond. This change of bonding state should be endothermic. If one constantly extracted the pH dipole water out of the water, the pH effect would continue to reform. This self perpetuating endothermic change of bonding state needs to be pushed forward from zero by a self perpetuating exothermic potential. The potential comes from the orbital magnetic stability of the oxygen passing the potential off to its hydrogen (hydrated -OH and hydrated H+).

I brought up this observation because it indicates preprogramming within the kitten brain. The instincts are part of the brain hardware. Nobody has to teach us how to sleep or how to be hungry. The behavior of the kitten suggests something even more organized that is sort of a template of cat behavior. Periodically, the software is loaded and the kitten instinctly goes along with the program.

Is hydrogen bonding in water the result of the hydrogen bonding to the bonded electrons of oxygen or is it a mutual things due to electrostatic attraction between oxygen and hydrogen. In other words, a one-way potential or a two-way potential.

If there any reason why the earth's magnetic field lines up with the north and south pole? Nasa data indicates that seismic waves travel faster N-S than E-W showing that the center of the earth is structurally organized with respect to the poles. Did or does the high thermal gradient with the poles induce the magnetic field direction?

Correct me if am wrong, but expansion uniformly in all directions implies it once started from something closer together. Is there any reason why 13billions year old objects are not found nearby?

Sometimes chemistry can create anomalies for physics. I thought this would be an interesting example. The answer to the mystery has to do with the EM force. It is both magnetic and electro-static. The electrostatic potentials have increased to form the three dipoles, because the magnetic force or force addition of the electrons has lowered potential even more, making the whole process exothermic.