Werk:Aufdeckung missender Geheimnisse über Magnetismus/Atomorbitalgeometrie

Atomic orbitals geometry as logically explained by magneto-dielectric inter-atomic volume

• Atomorbitalgeometrie, wie logisch durch das magneto-dielektrische interatomare Volumen erklärt

Maxwell’s discovery of a factor of proportionality between dielectricity and magnetism led to his theory of conjugate pair of inductions, dielectric and magnetic, in union, propagating at the velocity of light through the “Luminiferous Aether”. Hence, electro- magnetic waves in free space, unbounded by gross physical matter, mass free energy. This propagation is within the dielectric, or aetheric, medium itself. It is free of so-called “charge carriers” (electrons), a mass-less form of electricity. This concept had a very powerful impact upon the scientific and philosophical thoughts of Maxwell’s era. So here begins the notion of “wireless”, the transmission of electricity without wires or other guiding structures. Leading up to the work of Heinrich Hertz, 1857 to 1894, the wireless transmission of electricity had found experimental verification by Joseph Henry, and Elihu Thompson. It even was patented by M. Loomis. These examples however were not electro-magnetic, they were electro-static (dielectric). Heinrich Hertz provided the first complete laboratory demonstration of the transmission of electricity through “free space”, (across the room). This was instantly considered proof of the Maxwell theory of electro-magnetism, and electro-magnetic waves. When Nikola Tesla engaged in the experiments of Hertz, he found these waves not to be completely electromagnetic. The early death of Hertz prevented any further progress. However “the world view” kept hold of its belief that “Hertzian” waves are only transverse E. M. waves, the two distinctions now synonymous. – Eric P. Dollard

Since we know electrons are not particles, but a misunderstanding of magneto-dielectric fields in motion, we can examine atomic orbital geometry with perfect lucid clarity. Chemists use the balloon model of the atom everyday to explain covalent bonding in the formation of molecules, which is exactly correct! However what is not understood is that these dumbbell and disk configurations aremagnetic (dumbbell formations) and dielectric (disk areas of inertial planes) dominances (moving counter to each other) as driven by the gravitational (strong nuclear force comprising stable dielectric wave bundles of inertia), protons (magnetically charged) and neutrons (dielectrically dominant).

Using what we have proven about magnetism moving spatially away from dielectricity in hyperbolas (inverse sphere), and dielectricity being a centripetal radial counterspatial inertial plane, all atomic orbitals can be understood with demonstrable lucid understanding even to a young person.

Below: On the left we have different planes of the magnetic and dielectric, middle magnetic dominances from proton movement production of magnetism, and right typical explanations of chemical ionic bonding from attractively charged particles which meet at electro-geometric point of low pressure.

Below: On the left we have complex magnetic meeting points with corresponding dielectric repulsion saddles, middle we have left-side archaic incorrect model of the atom and right-side the correct way atoms are treated daily by chemistry to show the basis of covalent bonding, however these orbitals are not electron ‘clouds’ or other nonsense, but protonic magnetic dominances interwoven between dielectric inertial planes which creates a conjugate pair of forces which is the correct atomic model, explains charge, discharge, and bonding in molecules. On the far right we have a pair of proton-sourced magnetic spatial dominances between which exists but is not illustrated, dielectric planes.

Below: On the left, more magnetic configurations, at bottom right of same you can see the dielectric inertial plane, same as a found in a conventional “magnet”. On the right illustration you can see some of the complex magneto-dielectric geometries atoms can take depending on charge, temperature, nucleal orientations etc.

Below: On the left and right you can see that molecules come together at lowest pressure and charge points, either dielectrically or magnetically and in complex, always both. Understanding this divinely simplex fact explains atomic architecture, covalent bonding as used by chemists every day, and utterly debunks the notion of a swarming nest of “0 rest- mass” so-called “electrons” which cannot in any way, explain the atomic and molecular bonding of atoms. The very premise that the atom (as espoused by GR and QM) is “99.999999999% empty space, nothing” is an outright insane absurdity. If one wishes to call dielectricity and magnetism not-a-thing (‘nothing’) so be it, however there is “air” in the atomic ‘balloon’, and that air is a conjugate pair of dielectric and magnetic fields generated by the nucleal dynamos generating and changing them at every millisecond and faster.

Atomic orbitals: Lets look at the nonsense from GR and QM in black, and correct it in the blue

It was found that the orbiting electrons around a nucleus could not be fully described as particles, but needed to be explained by the wave-particle duality. In this sense, the electrons have the following properties:

(What this really means is that enormous evidence against the electron-bead model of the atom forced another quantum “Alice in Wonderland” answer from the cult of quantum to explain atomic geometry, this time as “wave particle duality” absurdity.)

Wave-like properties:

1. The electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the sense of a planet orbiting the sun, but instead exist as standing waves. The lowestpossible energy an electron can take is therefore analogous to the fundamental frequency of a wave on a string. Higher energy states are then similar to harmonics of the fundamental frequency.

(What this really means is that the so-called ‘electron’ is a magneto-dielectric field whose wave/undulatory mechanics are dependent upon the nucleal makeup)

2. The electrons are never in a single point location, although the probability of interacting with the electron at a single point can be found from the wave function of the electron.

(What this really means is there is no such thing as an electron outright, it has no point, no locus, therefore cannot be a particle, and yet the magnetic and dielectric interactions can be explained by wave functions.)

Particle-like properties:

1. There is always an integer number of electrons orbiting the nucleus.

(This is purely conjecture and speculation)

2. Electrons jump between orbitals in a particle-like fashion. For example, if a single photon strikes the electrons, only a single electron changes states in response to the photon.

(This is purely conjecture and speculation, what this means is if another dielectric outside charge strikes the atom its charge state geometry changes in response to the change in charge, creating an imbalance in the inter-atomic magneto-dielectric volume)

3. The electrons retain particle like-properties such as: each wave state has the same electrical charge as the electron particle. Each wave state has a single discrete spin (spin up or spin down).

(This is nonsense, even under the heading of particles, they cannot escape the fact that the so-called electron has no particle-nature, no reality as such)

Thus, despite the obvious analogy to planets revolving around the Sun, electrons cannot be described simply as solid particles. (Here there is agreement, electrons do not exist, and they’re an abstraction of the functions of discharging boundary ‘points’ incorrectly deemed “discharge particles”)

In addition, atomic orbitals do not closely resemble a planet's elliptical path in ordinary atoms. A more accurate analogy might be that of a large and often oddly shaped "atmosphere" (the electron)

(Here there is agreement again! The discharging field, which they are calling an ‘atmosphere’ is merely a function of spatial charge transferences) distributed around a relatively tiny planet (the atomic nucleus). Atomic orbitals exactly describe the shape of this "atmosphere" only when a single electron is present in an atom.

(Meaning there is no hope of this particle nonsense being explained for most atoms which contain, as they postulate “enormous numbers of electrons”, such as lead, plutonium, etc. Once again they use the term “atmosphere” to describe a field, magnetic and dielectric. This “cloud” model of the atom is not fundamentally different than the solar model of the atom. Purely absurd and illogical)

When more electrons are added to a single atom, the additional electrons tend to more evenly fill in a volume of space around the nucleus so that the resulting collection (sometimes termed the atom’s “electron cloud”) tends toward a generally spherical zone of probability describing where the atom’s electrons will be found.

(This is purely conjecture and speculation of the highest order)

Fundamentally, an atomic orbital is a one-electron wave function, even though most electrons do not exist in one-electron atoms, and so the one-electron view is an approximation

(Meaning the only nonsense that can be diagramed is the hydrogen atom, not the 99% of the rest of the elements.)

The vibrations of an electron, is an idealized circular drum head—essentially an elastic membrane of uniform thickness attached to a rigid circular frame.

(Meaning dielectric inertial plane torque, of the dielectric field in the interatomic. Now they explain charge-discharge or a supposed particle with that of a drum head. There are no discreet particles in the universe, all is mediated by fields, charges, discharges, and centripetal-centrifugal movements in the spatial magnetic, and counterspatial dielectric cosmos).