T H E A T O MCHAPTER 6
(1970 ?)
INDEX
TO OTHER PAGES
An infinitely
small system of angular momentum, and fundamental in all of the elements, forces, and waves,
such is the atom that we believe it to be, or conceive it to be. And for all
that it may really be - it may be well to assume it as such.
Its fundamental footing in the phenomena of nature can hardly be over-stressed and may be illustrated by a cone wherein the entire universe traces down to the atom as its basic component and single footing (Figure 6-1).
Then again the atom itself, also being a system of things, narrows down
further to a still more fundamental part, which I named, "finite
dust".
This single cone then that embraces all of nature displays an order of
things, or a "magnitude" as it may be called.
The lower (atomic) is the first magnitude of nature, or the basic order
of nature. The greater cone
represents the second magnitude of nature, also called "the general order
of nature".
All parts of nature are systems, the finite dust, which, though it is in motion, being part of a system, I do not conceive it as such. Just how far then we must go to find matter as matter, meaning; something solid that takes up space, and not an aggregate of parts operating as a system, such as the atom itself is?
The atomic parts are not matter as matter since these are composed of something in motion forming a system again. This leaves us with the assumption of the minute parts as such - called finite dust.
Macro atomic particles
But shall that finite dust be as dust, like as we comprehend dust? Hardly so, and this may just be regarded as speculation. Simply stated; man is not going to come to know nor comprehend the real nature of it. Yet since man must have something tangible to hold on to we will continue to behold it.
That now of which I am speaking cannot be seen, and when brought within a "rest state," as it never is, we regard it as outside of nature at which point it is no longer bound under the rules and laws of motion that govern all systems of which physical nature is composed.
And since our tools (probes) are governed by the same laws, it may seem as if these parts are annihilated. This however only seems that way, since no part can ever be annihilated.
Moreover, this is not something I can prove, or perhaps I can, but I make mention of, while at the same time I am concealing what is to be concealed.
Systems can conceivably be broken up in which case - by figure of speech - they seem annihilated, nevertheless their fundamental parts have not ceased to exist, nor have they left the realm of physical nature.
And
although I may convey the dust as were it solid particles - we must
first define what
"solid" is. We have never
encountered anything that was solid, or anything of which we could say;
"this is pure - or only matter."
When looking at an atom of the element called gold; we may be apt to conclude that it is matter, but on the contrary seeing how we speculate it to be more open space then anything else. And thus we must reach down deeper only to find the so called electrons.
If then we conclude that part to be truly matter, by which we mean something solid taking up all the space which it inhibits, leaving nothing thereof as a void, then I reply with again the same question as to; "What is solid, or, matter, or space for that matter?"
We now may have defined the term "solid" properly in stating that it must be a material something, which leaves no voids within its area that takes up space. Or it may be that this definition is more suited to the term "matter," for who knows if the dust is indeed solid or compressible, or even that it is in the nature of these terms.
Elements
We might do better to investigate the realm of elements whereby we may get some understanding of what nature is in terms of matter. Basically, an element is a single atom, or any number of single atoms of a single specific value. And compound elements, as any two or more atoms of different values bound together.
More fundamentally, an element is like a word in the realm of speech and letters, with compound elements like unto combination of two or more words to express the entity.
Still more
fundamentally, an element is a coordinate structure of parts in motion
- like
words and letters are coordinate structures of dots on paper.
When a single vertical row of dots is placed on paper, it not only represents an I" but it is an I. When therefore a number of sub-atomic parts are arranged to a single system (single atom) like for example, an atom of Hydrogen (H), this single arrangement of parts in motion is the element so named.
Wherefore; as we do on paper - using letters to convey to ourselves the nature of the thing described, to wit; H + H + O (H20) = the compound element known as water is formulated.
For in the very nature of things, this substance is constructed of a
series of atomic parts making for the atom of Oxygen and two sets of atomic parts each set making for one atom each of Hydrogen.
The difference between a "T" and an "I" or a Helium or Argon atom, is the manner in which the dots (parts) are placed. Wherefore the fundamentals boil down to coordinates.
Elements are coordinates of parts in motion. These coordinates involve not only the number of parts, but the systematic arrangement in which they operate as well.
For just like the letter W has
more dots than the letter L, and is
arranged in a different formation, so atoms likewise form specific elements. It shall thus be in error to think of an element as something
of an all-material nature; we must get into the habit of concluding all of
nature to systems
by coordinates.
You might now conclude that I have reduced nature down to nothing more than mathematical values, to something that has no real material being, that all things are nothing more than specific values like the nature of mathematics. And indeed, it is so, but not by choice.
Think of it how we receive and factually obtain information from nothing more than scribbles on paper, our eyes never touch the paper nor the letters and yet the essence of these coordinates is transposed upon us.
So it is with the physical world in which we live the essence of nature is more a void than anything else. We are not even a tumble full of what in some way may be classified of being substance, and yet in body we are by the values and coordinates of nothing more than minute parts in motion.
Fundamentals
How shall we stabilize a number of objects spun around a central core? And how shall a nucleus be held to a bond? Some conceive logic to dictate - for one to be of a charge different to the other so that by that notion they might attract to one another. There is however not a small error here.
We ought - before we state that they must have opposite charges - first define what a charge" is, so we might know what it is that is performing the attraction. Or for that matter, give one good reason as to why opposites should attract to one another.
When therefore we truly
investigate what the nature of a charge is, we will come to say that it are
"alike" that attract, while unlike repel.
By illustration figure 6-2, the
power and direction of the movement of two northern poles facing each other are
unlike one another (in opposite direction) wherefore they repel
from one
another. The inclination to repel
or attract here is not in the "charge" as much as in the
"direction" of the charge.
The nature of the charges between a north and a south facing each other then is "identical, or alike" one another wherefore they attract to one another.
We must therefore not allow ourselves to be deceived in a deception to our eyes as if south and north were two of a different kind, since north and south are "always" two sides of a single entity.
All this talk is rather elementary, since instead of pronouncing "to attract," it should be "to join." And for repulsion it should be "to disjoin," since these terms describe the reality of it.
As then positive and negative are of a single being, these always unite,
just as the woman to the man, the single entity in dual format.
Neutrals - neutral
And why should there be "neutral" parts among positive parts all in order to keep a nucleus together? Think and reason, resort to fundamentals, and ask yourself what purpose Switzerland served in keeping Germany from attacking others around its borders? If you are going to say, it helped Germany finance its war, you have a point.
But something that is neutral, it is not going to intervene one way or the other. Take the two magnets in figure 6-2 placing a neutral piece of wood between them will not prevent the two from repelling one another.
This sort of reasoning, to
insert neutrals between positive entities is highly illogical, and not within
reason nor knowledge.
Mono's - no
And why monopole? Our sun for example, is hardly a monopole, nor are its planets, and yet it forms a perfect system, all because; each individual part is positive as well as negative. Each part is a whole entity having both sides of the coin, and the atom as such is no exception to this rule.
Will one say a man has
only a front side with no rear? For
if he is, he will have all dimensions, three in one, and one in three. For a law, let us state that: There is no monopole in nature, no such charge exists, all such is in
violation of natural law.
Judge for yourselves, when or where has anyone ever found a monopole? No one ever has, even though man claims electrons and protons as monopole. And seeing he does so, why then is he so concerned to find that "elusive" monopole? Why thus must electrons be something they cannot be, something that has not been found to exist?
And
protons alike, why must they be in gross violation of natural law all in order
to define how planets may stay around their sun?
Yes indeed, why do we not realize what is natural and within reason, that
which is so evidently displayed before our eyes?
All planets are full systems, meaning, they display both polarities, because, only as full systems can they participate in an effective system, able to generate gravitational inclinations to keep their planetary motion.
Every part (system) in nature is always both positive and negative, and anything that may be said to be charged, is so because of its singularity.
Do I now mean monopole? No!
For wherever there is a single, there is an ingoing and an outgoing, a
one side and another, or a positive and negative side.
Let me put it still another way: Can you draw a line without even one of its three dimensions? No, you cannot. To draw a line without all of its dimensions is absolutely impossible, for no matter how thin, there is width, and however shallow, there is depth, and though the line be as short as a point, still there is length.
And
so it is with any part and with motion or systems of parts in motion.
A charge is a motion, and any motion must come from somewhere to go to
elsewhere.
(Figure 6-3). If motion was forever outgoing in the proton, it would forever be depleted, and if there were only an ingoing in the electron, it would soon be larger than our earth. Attempt to construct a single sided coin or something with only a top.
Does not the top exist because it is simultaneous with bottom? Or how can one have a right without a left? Likewise positive and negative are inseparable.
In the fundamentals of nature it is good to look at one's self remembering his own nature, since he is like the other. A man and his woman are one single being one single circle laid in two halves crossing and uniting, which is the very principle of nature in its figure eight.
Fundamentally, the number one in its single being when divided will continue to adhere to its division in the same nature from which it was taken.
Hendrick is a man from which Susan was taken, or, an electron within a proton the right of each being one. But divided or separated, the right of one will go hand in hand with the left of the other.
For unless Susan with her left grasps the right of Hendrick they cannot walk together, since right to right departs, while left to right goes forward hand in hand.
Think on it, consider it, and consider that: Except the number one be divided, there is no multiplication, just as the chicken came before the egg, or man before he was a child.
Magnetic entity
Reference figure 6-4; We have consistently drawn the format of a magnetic potential by two separate circles touching upon a center. Such a format cannot be correct since the magnetic format is a single entity, a single circle.
This single circle
in the nature of nature is turned over by one half turn in which case it comes
to a design of a figure eight.
With some steel filings around a magnet this pattern can be observed. Move a second magnet alongside the first and it will be noted that the filings at the top left are readjusted as those at the bottom on the right are.
The line is thus extended as a cross within the substance. And still another experiment can be done for which one will need a high speed camera.
If the second magnet is placed where it shows "charge object B"
in the illustration figure 6-4, and
quickly drawn to the left, the circular lines will momentarily be to some extend
elongated.
This phenomena now is done on a continual basis by our moon, for which reason there are always two simultaneous tides on opposite ends of the earth.
For as the second magnet pulls on the first loop, and the loop being a figure eight, if the handles of a pair of scissors are closed, so also will the cutting edges be closed. One single circle, one single motion, one single system will provide this unique phenomena of nature.
In a circle there is only angular motion, and no beginning nor end, but the same drawn to a figure eight establishes a in-going as well as an outgoing, or, polarity as positive and negative.
It establishes a linear movement in addition to the angular movement, for now there is a movement of one direction, a linear movement south to north. The term "charge" then applies here as movement.
And to register a charge is to register a difference in movement such as where the power of the magnet pushes a dent into a passing movement (C), to produce a waveform, or just any variation in movement. For this is what our probes detect as a charge, namely, a change in movement.
Polarization
Reference figure 6-5; The experiment that led to the presumed discovery of alpha, beta, and gamma particles, is another example of how we can stray for lack of inside knowledge.
A spec of radioactive material placed in a lead shield will show an array of particles to flare out. (At least man for his limited knowledge assumes them to be particles) And taken by three main directions as they are passed through the poles of a magnet, these parts were then considered to be monopoles, some positive, others negative, and the un-deflected one's as neutrals.
The
experiment now showed no error, but the interpretation did.
When we pass full-fledged magnets in the same way through the poles of a
magnet the same result will be obtained.
By illustration figure 6-6, electrons H and B may pass straight on through as if they were neutral, or if moved closer to one pole of the other they may be deflected accordingly.
The direction of travel of any sub-atomic particle does not depend on whether they are protons or electrons, but on the relative orientation of the part to the field through which it passes.
Electrons
E and F may go either of the
directions as shown or even pass for neutrals, all depending on their
orientation.
Coordinate
motion
Motion is motion everywhere, and motion one, is motion the same. Yet with this we speak of types of motion after directions, or patterns of movement. Orbital motion is one such pattern the function of which is far more profound than anyone of us has yet realized.
The entire magnetic wave spectrum subsists on account of this profound pattern of motion. And if this is not enough we can add "structuring." which in turn spells "substance" to its forms.
In this structuring then there are two factors. The first is motion as force in their ability to "align", and "disalign," analogous to magnetic and electric forces.
This comes by conductance, and not as man conceives inter-spacing, wherefore I should pronounce the wakes of the movements as interspacing, and not any physical interspacing, the wake of the one conducting upon the other. And with it comes velocity.
It will be another time when I shall come back at that "velocity", for now however let us look at orbital velocity, and timing in the
coordinate of "cycling". I
spoke of nature in terms of coordinates defining it "matter in motion by
coordination".
Coordinates then is a design (pattern) value as well as a mathematical value which such factors as speed, direction, and changes in speed and direction by which coordinate this atom or molecule, or greater part of nature, behaves.
The order in which two hydrogen atoms, and one oxygen atom are combined,
changes the appearance of the two gases into a liquid form known as water.
The nature of this order then is what we might call "a value of coordination". For once again the nature of this order is parts in motion by coordination.
It is their movement relative to another by which, first they are what they are in their individual state, and secondly, what they become when they inter-relate, these things then come about by speed and direction of motion.
Since thus all these things are coordinates we may come to question what
the values thereof might be. Why,
for example, can we not place mathematical values to these things to see what
its identity may be numbered at?
By figures 6-8, and
6-9,
let us first assume the atom of oxygen.
Electrons 1 through 8 have speed
and direction, and doing so for each we would establishes a value after its
speed, and its radius as an angular moment. Then there is mass, and a change in
direction which we shall term cycling.
If these values therefore are determined and we establish some value for the nucleus by which these may thus proceed in harmony, we may at last come forth with a numerical value by which this coordinate may be expressed.
Such values must of course correspond to all other values by which forces
may be drawn, and structures may be formed in the perfection as we know them.
This is not a task for the light-hearted, but O what a marvelous
comprehension we would obtain in the nature of nature.
And to show some of the difficulty, let us assume we have determined a
coordinate value for Sodium. That
value then should reflect in what velocities and direction of movement this
substance will absorb the wavelength of light by which it is identified, and
what change in that value will generate that wavelength.
Most substances are stable, which means, their coordinate values are fixed from which they may range somewhat one way or the other to allow a none-conforming ratio to exist for a period of time.
Neither hydrogen, nor oxygen are atoms which would allow any
none-conformity in them, but some greater atoms do. Unstable elements thus are values that are not in harmony
until they rearrange themselves to correct their imbalance, which is as a
natural law within them.
I then noted "cycling" as one such factor, and to give an example: by illustration figure 6-10, let there be a nucleus with an electron (e) whose constant orbit at radius (r), and let this electron cycle with an angular regularity of (x). Then adding a second at a separation for another value by which they are not only relative to one another but also to the whole.
Thus with any value not conforming to the whole, in the whole
arrangement, either a set of electrons at the right moment may be kicked out,
and/or a part of the nucleus as well.
