It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Gravity, Hydrogen Bond & Free Energy - ATS changes the game!

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
This theory suddenly gelled In my mind as a direct result of stories I read on ATS. To date, physicists cannot agree on the nature or mechanism of gravitational force or the hydrogen bond.

When I saw the "picture" of the nitrogen molecule in a thread posted earlier today, it looked like a 2D representation of a torus! That image combined with images provided by paranormal researchers in 1919 in a book called "Occult Chemistry" (thanks to ATS), it all came together.

Instead of the traditional depiction of elecrons orbiting the nucleus like planets on a 2-Dimensional record player, or even a carosel, Imagine instead the orbit of electrons following a path on the surface of a torus including the central spindle.

Please bear with me. Imagine a torus shaped like a grapefruit with a thin spindle in the middle. Now imagine electrons spiraling up the outside from the bottom tracing the circumference. As the electron transitions from the wide circumference at the top, and go into the thin tube, they speed up, like water flushing down a drain.

This causes a vacume-like effect at the top or "negative" pole. When the electrons emerge from the bottom and make the transition to the outside, they send out a wave of energy. Picture a rock hitting a pond. Only instead of 2D waves rippling away from the center, picture a spiral wave form coming out of the bottom.

The spiral works like an Archimedes screw also forming an attractive force. The bottom is then the "positive" pole. When the two poles line up, the screw-like wave form is drawn into the vacume and separate molecules are drawn together.

This would also explain that gravity increases by the inverse square of the distance. As separate masses get closer, the poles of more and more molecules begin to line up thus increasing the attraction.

I initially used this theory to explain the hydrogen bond and magnetism. But after seeing the picture of nitrogen, I imagine it could work with a variety of atoms so long as the electrons follow torroidal paths like the nitrogen electrons appear to do in the earlier thread. (pardon the lack of links. I'm posting with my telephone)

Finally, if somebody could create a torroidal pick-up, a current could be induced as waves flow through. Does this make sense? I would be truly indebted if Phage would consider this theory. I hope I was able to communicate my vision of a ball with a vacume at one end and an Archimedes Screw at the other.

I truly believe humanity is on the cusp of a transformative event as important as the industrial revolution. This coming period will be dominated by greater empathy towards one another and much greater belief in the validity of intuition.

Wouldn't it be cool if ATS got credit for finally figuring out gravity? Fick'n A!




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
On cue:

www.sciencedaily.com...

Thread

System of Truth



“In the hour of our Twilight we will be together soon, if we will be anything at all.” -Trent Reznor



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
In quantum mechanics electrons don't orbit the nuclei like planets, instead they have a probability distribution called orbitals which have very strange shapes sometimes.





posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
This is a VERY interesting idea... I need to doodle now. Thanks for making me avoid work!!! If anyone else puts this together in picture form please share with the group, my artistic skills suck.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Ever heard of the electron cloud model? It's generally accepted as more accurate than the bohr model that you are trying to expand on. Plus your model of a defined geometric path doesn't really account for electron energy levels or covalent bonding or conductivity or electron density. I think you are also stretching to assume that such a simple example "explains magnetism." You don't touch on electromagnetism or induction.

Edit: by "the hydrogen bond" are you talking about hydrogen bonding or something else entirely made up?
edit on 3/22/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Gravity isn't well understood in mainstream science, but as far as I understand and remember (it's been a while!), I believe that the force of gravity is a separate effect than the forces which keep and attract atoms together (was that the electrical force? I don't remember that clearly). Gravity seems to be an effect of space-time being warped around a mass.

While you might be on to something... that "something" probably doesn't have much to do with gravity.




posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MeesterB
Ever heard of the electron cloud model? It's generally accepted as more accurate than the bohr model that you are trying to expand on. Plus your model of a defined geometric path doesn't really account for electron energy levels or covalent bonding or conductivity or electron density. I think you are also stretching to assume that such a simple example "explains magnetism." You don't touch on electromagnetism or induction.

Edit: by "the hydrogen bond" are you talking about hydrogen bonding or something else entirely made up?
edit on 3/22/2012 by MeesterB because: (no reason given)


Yes I've heard of the electron cloud model. I was a chemistry major in college. The cloud describes the path of the orbit. In spite of that, what am am saying is through all the years of memorizing the numbers of electrons in the different "shells" I imagined the shells to be the tracks on a record album.

At the same time, my primary consideration was to solve the problem of the hydrogen bond. Covalent and ionic bonding mechanisms were clear and rational. The explanations for the hydrogen bond always struck me like the professor was just pulling it out of his ass.

It was obvious nobody could explain that very fundamental force so they made something up to prop up their egos and make sure everybody understood THEY were informed and in charge. I've always had a little bit of an antiauthoritarian streak especially when I feel like I am being played for a sap.

Frankly I have the same feeling about Gluons. Somebody definitely pulled that out their ass and didn't even have the imagination to come up with a better name.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gruffly
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Gravity isn't well understood in mainstream science, but as far as I understand and remember (it's been a while!), I believe that the force of gravity is a separate effect than the forces which keep and attract atoms together (was that the electrical force? I don't remember that clearly). Gravity seems to be an effect of space-time being warped around a mass.

While you might be on to something... that "something" probably doesn't have much to do with gravity.





That's just it my brother! As I tried to make sense of the hydrogen bond, it occurred to me that the same mechanism would explain gravity.

I'm not smart enough to visualize anything much more complex than the path of a simple H2 molecule but there are enough hydrogen atoms in every planet to ascribe the force of gravity to hydrogen alone IF in fact the force I described extends out infinitely until it runs into the shell of another atom.

Think of a coat hanger twisted into spiral like a plumber's snake. Now imagine the cloud of energy surrounding other atoms to be fuzzy hair balls stuck in the drain. As the coil turns, it grabs a hold of the hair ball. The object with the greater mass will draw in the object of lesser mass.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


At the same time, my primary consideration was to solve the problem of the hydrogen bond. Covalent and ionic bonding mechanisms were clear and rational. The explanations for the hydrogen bond always struck me like the professor was just pulling it out of his ass.

What exactly about the explanation struck you as being off somehow? I always found the explanation of the attraction between partial positive and partial negative atoms, made so due to their proximity to an electronegative atom or their own electronegativity respectively, to be a wholly rational one.



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by iterationzero
 


Perhaps the explanation struck you as completely rational but if you read scientific journals such as Nature you will find quotes from editor Phillip Ball, such as this "The really embarassing fact is that nobody really understands the nature of water, the substance that covers 2/3 the planet..."

He was specifically speaking about the nature of the so-called hydrogen bond between water molecules which is 1/10 as strong as a covalent bond.

A brief explanation of the traditional understanding of the bond can be found below.
Bonding Properties of Water

I'm not trying to be flippant. I was hoping to get responses from people who have spent time wondering about this. I wasn't thinking of teaching a physics of chemical bonding thread.

Believe it or not. Physicists do not have a real understanding of how gravity works or the precise mechanism of the hydrogen bond. Plenty of molecules with strong covalent bonds like those between the two hydrogens and one oxygen do not display the strange attraction between water molecules.
edit on 22-3-2012 by zarp3333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
For Christ's Sake! WTH happened to all the scientists interested in purely theoretical debate???

What's happened here? Have we devolved into an impossibly shallow group of Facebook trolls looking to score quick points with pointless jabs?

Can nobody see the beauty of an elegant solution to a complex problem?



posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


In their defense... It is pretty easy to forget right?







posted on Mar, 22 2012 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Honestly I can't discuss the theoretical details as I don't have enough knowledge of the nitty gritty to be sufficiently able.

I do have a question though, in this theory, what causes black holes to have gravity?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 02:50 AM
link   


Imagine a torus shaped like a grapefruit with a thin spindle in the middle.


This part does create confusion in your description, I read it as 'Imagine a torus shaped like a sphere...'. I can appreciate the study and understanding you have developed, but with stuff like this a picture can be worth more than a thousand words in transferring meaning.

Are you proposing that it is the path the electron takes in orbit that is contributing towards gravity?

I do consider density as an important factor to unlocking gravity. With how water changes its density relative to temperature, is this change fully accounted with a change in water volume?



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:29 AM
link   
Ok you had the epiphany now get to work and prove your theory instead of hoping someone else will do it for you... Intuitively it sounds to me like you are on the right track. Whats the simplest working model for proof of concept you can make to get started... As you go to work more will come to you that is the way the universe works. You have to show it your serious and then doors will begin to open...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Instead of the traditional depiction of elecrons orbiting the nucleus like planets on a 2-Dimensional record player, or even a carosel, Imagine instead the orbit of electrons following a path on the surface of a torus including the central spindle.

Please bear with me. Imagine a torus shaped like a grapefruit with a thin spindle in the middle. Now imagine electrons spiraling up the outside from the bottom tracing the circumference. As the electron transitions from the wide circumference at the top, and go into the thin tube, they speed up, like water flushing down a drain.

Are you proposing some kind of elliptical spindle torus orbit(positive nucleus at center)? Sounds like some weird version of the Bohr-Sommerfeld model. How do you calculate the energy levels? How do you deal with the issues of orbital models, like energy levels of multi-electron atoms (line spectra)?


This causes a vacume-like effect at the top or "negative" pole. When the electrons emerge from the bottom and make the transition to the outside, they send out a wave of energy. Picture a rock hitting a pond. Only instead of 2D waves rippling away from the center, picture a spiral wave form coming out of the bottom.

What do you mean with vacuum-like? What is a wave of energy? Do you mean some kind of photo emission? How do you achieve stable orbits? What about energy conservation?


The spiral works like an Archimedes screw also forming an attractive force. The bottom is then the "positive" pole. When the two poles line up, the screw-like wave form is drawn into the vacume and separate molecules are drawn together.

What does that mean?


This would also explain that gravity increases by the inverse square of the distance. As separate masses get closer, the poles of more and more molecules begin to line up thus increasing the attraction.

How/Why does it explain gravity and its dependence on distance?


I initially used this theory to explain the hydrogen bond and magnetism. But after seeing the picture of nitrogen, I imagine it could work with a variety of atoms so long as the electrons follow torroidal paths like the nitrogen electrons appear to do in the earlier thread. (pardon the lack of links. I'm posting with my telephone

How does it explain the hydrogen bond. What prediction does your model make? Do you have some numbers to validate our model?


Finally, if somebody could create a torroidal pick-up, a current could be induced as waves flow through. Does this make sense?

Sorry but to me it sound like www.youtube.com...



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
reply to post by zarp3333
 


In their defense... It is pretty easy to forget right?




Thank you for posting the picture above. It helps illustrate the point. Let me back up a bit to establish a basic agreement.
1. As of March 24, 2012 there is by no means any universal agreement on the source and nature of gravitational force. Not Einstein, Bohr, Hawking, etc has nailed it.
2. There are widely accepted theories on the nature of the hydrogen bond but no consensus by any measure.

When I speak of the hydrogen bond, I use water as an example. There is a strong covalent bond between the two hydrogen atoms and the single oxygen atom where the three atoms share outer electrons. Anybody seeing the traditional Mickey Mouse depiction of the molecule?

There is a 2nd bond, hydrogen bond, between the molecules that is 1/10 the strength of the covalent bond that describes waters unusual properties such as its high boiling point, surface tension and friction coefficient.

The traditional view is the electrons lean towards the oxygen atom making it more negative and exposing the hydrogen nuclei making them more positive. This the polar nature causing the molecules to "stick" to each other like magnets.

Problem is the force is not displayed by other molecules and simply not that easy to describe.

What I am suggesting, using the above image as a model, is rather than the electrons spending more time near the oxygen molecule, they travel around the hydrogen proton following an orbit shaped like the torus. As the go up the wide sides, traveling at a constant speed, then go over the top into the spindle, they speed up like water going down a drain.

Just like water going down the drain in the tub, there is a force exerted that literally draws into the spindle. Thus forming the negative side of a hydrogen bond.

As they spin around the spindle of the torus, and exit the bottom, like a rock hitting a pond, they send out spiral waves of some, as of yet unnamed, weak force in the shape of a spiral and like a plumbers snake, draw other atoms to the "positive" pole.



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Because, like many people, under enormous pressure at home to try and earn more money, my better half thinks ATS is a monumental waste of time. I'm starting to believe her.

Things change. I should deal with it. Maybe my recollection of this site back 5 or 6 years ago is wrong. But when there were only a few thousand regulars, many were science geeks like me. Anybody saying they had a theory of gravity would have got some critical feedback on the concept.

Time will tell if I am right. In the mean time FYA and forgive the DILLIGAF expression



posted on Mar, 23 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by zarp3333
 


Contributions are constantly being made... Case in point:

Thread

Thread

Thread

Also be sure to check out some of the older threads I've found on here...

edit on 23-3-2012 by Americanist because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join