[humanbydefault]

quote:
"... that’s why the harmonics are formed at points that represent integral levels of degrees of bonding."

YES! That's it!

Since atoms -participant in a given molecule- bond in specific angles with respect to the assumed central axis (center of the molecule) the "stability of the compound" will depend on the deegre reflected during the match. Once the match is optimum and symmetry is closer to its highest levels, a lower level of energy is required to mantain the chemical bonding between them.

The perfect example and one that I hope one day will be confirmed by theoretical evidences is the case of chemical resonance in atoms of Carbon. Carbon atoms are capable of bonding in 2 (two) specific harmonics. If they bond in the lowest energy and closer to the "X" axis (closer to the 'electric plane' of the anti-bonding zone) then the bond will be observed as "single bond." as in the common case with graphite.

If the higher-energy harmonic (closer to the 'magnetic plane' of the anti-bonding zone) is the one participating in the match with other atom's orbital harmonics, then the bond will be observed as "double bond." -as in the case of diamonds. According to my views on this matter, I believe that diamonds are formed with bonds in the highest harmonics therefore the strongest chemical bonding in the universe.

Today chemistry focuses on chemical bonding in a highly simplistic and partial ways. What I mean by that is that when they speak about a molecule (whatever that would be) it's often "divorced" one side of the molecule from the other side as if bonds were unilateral phenomenon. I don't see it that way.

Molecules join together in a 3 dimensional structure because that's the way they achieve the closest symmetry possible. the minimum change is either side of the molecule -due to an action on one of its atomic bonds- will produce a literal "Faster-tah light" response that will be feel at some point of the chain, no matter how long the molecule could be. The reason I spoke about "FTL" response is not a violation of everything we know, and I'll explain in a moment my point.

I've said in various chapter of my theory that it is only at the conclusion of the 4 (four) frames of existence [one-wavelength-of-light-time] that symmetry is "forced to be ready" to make up for what we know as physical reality... Not before that 'incredibly short fraction of time' (!)

That's why any changes -no matter the point of the molecule targeted- will reflect a change along the chain that eventually brings stability in a form of harmonic-symmetry.

Do you agree with me on this, Dave?

HBD