[humanbydefault]

quote:

"...the sole result of bonds formed between atom's harmonics [integral part of a "Standing Wave" resonance initiated in the very core of each 'bonding atom' and NOT AS THE RESULT OF NEGATIVELY CHARGED 'PARTICLES' WITH THE NAME OF "ELECTRONS"]..."

Anyone reading these words would probably exclaim: "How could this...humanbydefault guy... dares to confront the results of countless observations about the existence of actual "electrons" at specific points in space inside chemical bonds?

I'll answer that, but allow me to tell you a little historical controversial story about this same subject.
Did you know that at the begining of theoretical chemistry there was an important chemist who "joke" and ironically stated that the idea of "electrons" practically 'sitting there' between two atomic orbital as (and I'll literally quote it) "DRY GOODS" boxes inside a bond was catalogued as ridiculous. I think that it was an understatement from his part, personally.

My theory considers "those observed electrons" in those specific places the evidence of something else: THE ACTUAL ENERGY-CAPACITY OF THOSE "PUMPS" I MENTIONED DURING THE MUTUAL HARMONIC INTERACTION.

Molecules formed in 3D space will contain a number of "bonding envelopes" for each bonding harmonics along the cycle and if we suply the exact quantity of energy to those 'envelopes' they will brake the chemical bond between other atoms (as observed in electrolisis) but that does not mean that there were physical 'particles' there before we disturbed the symmetry.

"We created the same particles we claim them to "hang around" the exact moment we disturbed the "system" [original symmetry]."

HBD

[bottomlander]

Yes, a nice reviewer can single out the main point and intention of that reviewed article.

Not every message/article worths a review. "Bonding Harmonics" worths for it.

Best Regards. Bottomlander

[humanbydefault]

Originally Posted by bottomlander Yes, a nice reviewer can single out the main point and intention of that reviewed article. Not every message/article worths a review. "Bonding Harmonics" worths for it. Best Regards. Bottomlander

I really appreciate your words B.L. May I ask you which page liked you best?
Does it make sense to you any specific part of the theory?
Feel free to disagree or to agree with any subject you may find worthy of discussing in this thread with me and the others, since this is what this forum is all about: a free and smart frame of people trying to expose their views about the subjects that matter in our existence.

Good luck and nice meeting you here.

HBD

[humanbydefault]

I can see that some of my arguments may sound a little bit "out-of-this-world" at some points in ways that even I can't understand much of what I sometimes see in my "late night meditations" half-awake half-asleep from time to time.

Lat night I had another one of those weird thoughts and I decided to share them with you as soon as I could.
To begin with what I "saw" on that moment, I must refer to the last chapter of my theory concerning the nature of the magnetic field.
As you may have been aware (those who read that far into the page) I envisioned the magnetic field and its structure in 4 frames of time, where the "Y" axis represented the maximum value for the standing wave and therefore the maximum value for both magnetic poles [North and South] 'materialized' both in different time-frames and never at the same instant in time.

The "X" axis was the reference for the plane where the flow of electric charges moved across lattices of solids. As I said, at the end of the entire "CYCLE" (4 frames of existence) if there were an odd number of harmonics in both sides of the atomic orbital, then the potential energy applied in the solid was ready for 'modulation' as it was transformed into what we know as "one electron-charge."

As those thought began to 'pile up' in my mind, I realised that those harmonics closer to the "X" axis had to 'contain' more electrical features than those closer to the "Y" axis, where the magnetic field is about to "flash" into existence every 2 frames... then I came up with an amazing conclusion that I believe finally brings a sense of "CLOSURE" to the 'loop' I was expecting to:

The 90 degrees 'lag' between magnetism and electricity had to be observed by us in that way due to something else than just a time-differential between the relativistic position of the harmonics making for the orbit of atoms.

In other words, the "transition" between the phenomenon that originates magnetism into electricity (flow of charges) had to obey a much larger set of conditions that must be present at all times in this region of the universe or solar system where we exist.

HBD

[humanbydefault]

I think I found a way to illustrated the process with a simple analogy:
Imagine that you have a pendulum in your hands. You make it move from left to right and it continues the swing from on side to the opposite one in the same time-period, just as a regular clock. If you assume that every time the pendulum "covers" both sides and returns to the middle position you have one "cycle" (as I called it) you could say that you have 4 sub-divisions in its momentum. Initially, it swings to the left (first), then it falls [by gravity] to the middle again (second), then to the right side (third) and finally returns to the middle position or initial (fourth). Those 4 (four) stages of the oscillating "resonance" of our hypothetical pendulum were actually completed at "c" (the speed of light). There was no violation of what Einstein proposed back in 1905...right?
The 'cycle' corresponds exactly with the time-lapse any photon of light takes to repeat its own propagation throughtout space. What I proposed in my theory is no far from that idea. The 'phased resonance' between those 4 points correspond to every single atom's orbital momentum. In other words, each 'frame of existence' is 'formed' when the orbit of a given atom bonds with the orbit of another atom in a chemical bonding (the fabric of matter).
As one of the harmonics present inside the atom's orbital momentum (a quantum mechanical expression of the assumed electron's rotation around the nucleus...) matches with another harmonic (physically speaking, tuned into the same pattern of vibration), a chemical bond is formed and atoms link together in a molecule.
When that 'bond'occurs in all 4 frames (3 dimensions) you have a physical process that elapses in many places around the atom in just one cycle.
To make things easier to visualize, instad of a left-right swinging of the pendulum, make it to rotate just as the arms of a clock. Let's imagine that in the hypothetical clock of ours, at 2 o'clock the forst bond was formed with a closer "clock" then at 4 o'clock the next bond takes place, and later on the same process repeats at 8 o'clock and at 10 o'clock. When the cycle is resumed at "c" as usual, our "clock" was capable of bonding with four other "clocks" swinging close to it also under the same period of time (corresponding to one wavelength of a photon of light).
What are we witnessing here? The origin of the fabric of matter as we know it in 3 dimensions occuring [relativistically speaking, of course] faster than light. Of course we know that never the speed of light was surpassed by any atom involved, what we saw was a physical process that was able to initiate and resume itself even before we could measure it, given the fact that the fastest we could "see" things depends on the time-period limited by an entire wavelength of light.
My point is that for that process (I've just described above) to occur and being able to preserve a perfect symmetry on both sides of the molecule in 3 dimensional space the structure of the orbit must be assumed to be compossed by harmonics of a resonant process and not by 'individual electrons' with particle identity and hypothetical electrical charge capabilities.
A single 'electron' allegedly spinning around the nucleus of one atom is incapable (under any circumstances) to preserve a 3 dimensional molecular symmetry bonding at the same time in 4 places of the molecule with different angles and different bonding strengths... If an 'electron' was capable of performing such a task, then we are in the presence of magic not science.

HUMANBYDEFAULT

[humanbydefault]

What is the base for molecular stability? It's not the lowest state of overall energy in the "system" but the closest symmetrical configuration of the entire compound.

Have you ever seen in chemistrybooks how the authors use all sort of greek letters to represent polarity where it is not entirely corresponding to that of 'one electron'?

The simple answer is to be found in the relationship between the axis each atom owns with respect to the next. It's a fact that molecules are formed by agreagation of independent atoms (atoms that could be separated by any chemical mean). Those atoms ussually bond in different angles inside their orbitals.

But why the angle?

In my theory, I described that chemical bonds are always TIME-DEPENDENT and exist in sequences of 4 (four) different frames (one wavelength of light).
However, as atoms start forming bonds among each other those angles start increasing in different directions and sub-angles giving place to those fractional 'polarities' regularly seen in chemical compounds.

I'll return to this posting later on.

HBD