Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dleviwing Hi hbd;
The spiral model is the result of 2 dimensional thinking; The universe and everything in it are 3 dimensional and thus its relation to the spiral model is limited to such. (worthless). |
I was referring to the actual shape of the wave propagation across space. The spiral or coil model is obviously a 2D one and I agree on the 3D universe too. Take for example the DNA model. It follows the spiral shape in 3D does it?
The key is to understand why and when the absorption of external energy will produce the necessary wavy entanglement to be achieved inside the atom in the production of electrons once outside in the vacuum.
I am one that share the conclusion that what we see moving as a flow of charges in electrical and electronic circuits are not integral parts of the atomic structure... That's a given!
I can't accept the idea that even today in school they teach students in the belief that a proton is +1 positive charge and the electron -1 negative charge and that is the reason for current to flow in conductors.
First>>> Protons are no where near battery poles in the "making" of the so-called POTENTIAL (emf) (?)
SECOND>>> The necessary
potential to promote the flow of electromagnetic energy is happening between two UNBONDED atoms [ex-component of a previous molecule]. The accumulation of those IONS in their corresponding side of the battery will produce the SOURCE for those waves to move, meet and as a result simultaneously create the POSIBILITY for those charges to be COLLAPSED into a circuit component, a measurement or its transformation into WORK.
It is precisely about this aspect of electrical charges what I want to dedicate this post.
When we talk about molecules we are referring to bondings between atoms and their specific atomic configuration that made that coupling possible. Chemistry replaced alchemy when those unexplicable compounds found in nature became less than a puzzle and more like a science. The "discovery" [production I'd rather say] of those corpuscles by J.J. Thompson (his "electrons") enabled those new generations of chemists to visualize a practical MODEL upon which they could based their observations.
Today we know that things were not as SIMPLE as they thought back then...
However most of the scientific community still consider electrons as the unit for
charge inside atoms and the "exhange currency" between them in the making of molecules... I CAN'T DISAGREE MORE...(!)
I am convinced that BONDS between atoms is nothing more than a MAGNETIC-ENTANGLEMENT between the opposite strength of their fields (orbits).
The entanglement occurs because it is in the angle and corresponding magnitude of the field-strength where everything began.
It's not a coincidence the specific angle molecules adopt after a "chemical" bond. It's not a coincidence either the angle two magnets will adopt after they get suficiently close together.. Following me so far?
If it's true that we can not take appart the
naturally-entangled poles of the magnet the situation with a molecule is entirely different.
We can make a bond to brake with an EXTERNAL application of ENERGY.
The same>external energy< we will get back when we power our alectrical or electronic appliances. The energy used could vary as we all know (heat, kinetic, light etc.) >>>The right amount required to separate the attraction between the orbits involved in the bond.
I'll come back with more of this in my next encounter.
HUMANBYDEFAULT