Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: The creation of elements by electron-cloud condensation.

  1. #1 The creation of elements by electron-cloud condensation. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    An element is the condensation of an electron cloud?

    So how would we prove this is so?

    The theory is every atom consists only of electrons bunched. The more bunched and at a lower energy level, the greater the mass and the nearer that ring to the atomic center.

    With Ionization energies we tried to strip an atom of electrons and found it gets more difficult the deeper the level reached. Hence we could not go all the way and find the whole atom is made of electrons.

    Atom smashing, meanwhile, made a mess of the atom like a car after a crash, hence little sensible order was found.

    The alternative is to start with an electron cloud and remove energy from the environment rather than add energy as with Ionization.

    The first atoms will be of a mass near that of the electron. I can make a rough calculation of what the first element after the electron should be. The first should be three times heavier. 3.003. This means the next is about five times heavier, and the next roughly seven.

    In theory charge drops off as electrons bunch. The charge of the first element is about a third less and so on.

    (When a rod is stretched close to the elastic limit, the charge of one electron per atom generates the pulling force = k qq /r-squared.

    In a vacuum TV tube. The air is made denser. Now the ray is a heavier ray. How much heavier?)

    By my calculations there are 78540 elements, you may get 80,000 and someone else 70,000 and that should not matter (tolerant society). Now I am sure you will say I really am crazy. But the truth is this is the way it really is and everyone having exactly the same ideas -- same elements number for example --- is not reality. Having the exact same ideas-reality is more like A Special Case of reality. For example it was reported in one book (forgot the name) that experimenters after Millikan were anxious to get exactly the same result as Millikan. However if they got different results, and those results were demonstated to be part of a nest (maximum power transfer curve electrical engineering) of whatever number of discrete packets, then their results are just as valid.
    All Im saying is that all of us all exactly agreeing on results is not necessary. Let's just say that if it were allowed some persons would have a metal like gold that is different from your metal gold -- like we have different types of steels now. That is not going to happen in maybe the next forty or fifty or more years but for now we could keep the possibility in mind.

    A simple parallel addition of DC sources is in effect the creation of heavier electron particles, (because the electron or more correctly particle-density in the CSA of the wire means the possibility the electrons become more and heavier, or the greater density is akin to having a heavier particle just as denser gas is like a heavier element, that is, mass is the number of particles divided by the volume occupied?) and since they move at a deeper level in the atoms of the wire, they make the wire hotter. If they are extremely heavy -- hence moving very slowly -- they may stop causing the heating effect, they would be under the MPT (maximum power transfer) point. Thats the hypothesis.
    Yes we ionize the atom and only find electrons, but there is no way of analyzing them in the state of being inside the atom. There is no way of getting inside the atom and seeing if they weigh the same as when outside.

    Last edited by Joshua Stone; November 22nd, 2011 at 10:13 PM.
    I am seeking supporters for a qualitative basis of science, not quantative. Quality: precision,shape, color, pitch. Quantity: power,size,brightness,volume. A quality can be found as a ratio of quantities. Mass is a quality.
    Reply With Quote  


  3. #2  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    New Jersey, USA
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    An element is the condensation of an electron cloud?
    No it is not, so the rest of the post is meaningless....

    Reply With Quote  

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Quote Originally Posted by Joshua Stone View Post
    An element is the condensation of an electron cloud?

    So how would we prove this is so?
    You don't. All atoms would have a massive negative charge if this were true.

    The first atoms will be of a mass near that of the electron.
    Which it isn't. The first atom is hydrogen which has a mass thousands of times greater than an electron. So wrong again.

    In theory charge drops off as electrons bunch.
    Which it doesn't.

    0 out of 3 so far. Not doing too well, as theories go.
    Reply With Quote  

Similar Threads

  1. Do elements attract like elements?
    By Wildstar in forum Physics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: February 14th, 2011, 06:45 AM
  2. condensation in stemear...
    By jasonboy91 in forum Physics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: September 27th, 2009, 05:27 AM
  3. In Deep Discussion: Double Aldol Condensation
    By Momer in forum Chemistry
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 26th, 2009, 12:37 PM
  4. Electron cloud fields
    By Cold Fusion in forum Physics
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: February 14th, 2008, 09:26 AM
  5. Poisonous condensation on plastic?
    By DaBOB in forum Health & Medicine
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 1st, 2006, 08:12 PM
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts