Active 2 weeks ago
Hi. This is a place where we could voice our agreements, disagreements, and further thoughts, questions,... View more
Hi. This is a place where we could voice our agreements, disagreements, and further thoughts, questions, and ideas regarding Relativity.
Are you sure you want to leave ?
Electrons travel in stable orbits around nucleus; denying Bohr’s theory
Electrons travel in stable orbits around nucleus; denying Bohr’s theoryPosted by Jan Olof on July 21, 2022 at 10:53 pm
Bohr’s claim that electrons can not travel in stable circular orbits around a nucleus, is being regarded as basic physics theory that is widely accepted as scientific truth.
The claim is based on the commonplace Maxwellian electromagnetics.
 N. Bohr, Collected Works, 2, Amsterdam; North-Holland ; New York: American Elsevier, 1981, p. 241
 N. Bohr., Om atomernas byggnad, Albert Bonnier, 1924 (Nobel Lecture 1922), p. 13
 ibid p. 18
 N. Bohr, Collected Works, 1, Amsterdam : North-Holland ; New York : American Elsevier, 1981, p. XXVIII
Reference numbers are from the paper ‘Application of Coulomb’s Law on Electric Currents Explains Several Electromagnetic Phenomena’, by this author, Journal of Basic and Applied Physics, Vol. 5, Iss.1, PP. 40-46.
The journal has ceased to exist, and the article must be ordered from this author.
However, long before this author began to question these physics, Compton frankly claimed that electrons orbit in stable, circular orbits around the nucleus.
[32} A. H. Compton, X-Rays and Electrons, An Outline of Recent X-Ray Theory, Macmillan and Co, LTD, London 1927, p. 29
And this author has done a deep analysis of how this may occur, using Coulomb’s Law .The author has also successfully applied Special Relativity Theory on Coulomb’s Law in other applications.
Hence, this author offers a coherent theory with a broad application spectre.
Please see earlier contributions on this website.
MemberJuly 22, 2022 at 12:50 pm
Bohr was wrong<div>
Radiation is continuous
The attracting force in radial direction acting on the electron does not travel from the kernel. Instead this force emerges inside the electron as an effect of the ether. We have made important mistakes by using energy conservation without regarding ether energy.
In hydrogen radiation we observe only the differences between the primary frequencies, since the primary frequencies are hidden by destructive superposition. This is possible since all electrons radiate – and are sensitive to radiation – on the same frequency. This is a well known wave property. The idea that radiation can be switched on/off is absurd. We have not understood the wave model. Electrons with switches does not exist.
From _________ John-Erik
MemberJuly 24, 2022 at 6:59 pm
Bohr said that the electron can switch off the radiation when it is in a stable orbit.
I state that there is no switch on the electron. So, radiation is continuous. However, a very well known wave property is destructive superposition. All electrons in a specific state radiate at the same frequency and are also sensitive to that frequency. This communication allows for cooperation and reducing of radiation. Therefore, hydrogen radiation only contains secondary interference frequencies. The primary frequencies are hidden by superposition. We do not understand the wave model. We are filled up with particle ideas.
BOHR WAS WRONG ABOUT WAVES
This is an important question and I am very disappointed to find that no member has been willing to cooperate on this question. David has pointed out the need for more cooperation. However, he has not answered on this thread. Are members too afraid to cooperate? Or do they not have an opinion?
With best regards from _______________ John-Erik
MemberJuly 25, 2022 at 10:38 am
You may not want my opinion on this, but I agree that your assertion on destructive superposition is probably correct. I also agree that we do not understand the wave model. In my view, our entire universe is built on two wave types, contraction waves, and expansion waves. That’s it. Particles are contraction waves. Space is an expansion wave. Equal and opposite wave forms. There’s really no such thing as “particles” per se. We’re just a bunch of waves. Contraction waves accelerate inward, and expansion waves decelerate outward. Contraction waves gain energy and lose mass on their journey inward to , expansion waves lose energy and gain mass on their journey outward to . The universe is nothing but waves reflecting back and forth, like bouncing a ball up and down, only the total universe operates at 100% efficiency. Contraction waves can move about in the outward direction, but it alters their inward velocity. “Mass-less” particles, like light, roll along the bleeding edge of existence between expansion and contraction, endlessly flipping between expansion (+) and contraction (-).
Anyway, that’s as far as I go on the topic.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 12:27 pm
I most certainly want your opinion on this subject.
Good that we agree on my wave-based explanation on hydrogen radiation. This means that today’s explanation based on electrons – that sometimes radiate and sometimes do not – is wrong. We have refuted QM.
However, I cannot agree to your statement that particles are just wave packets. We do not need quanta in light and in energy. However, I regard them as needed for describing the ether with neutrino-like particles. These etherons also cause gravity – are gravitons too.
With best regards from ______________ John-Erik
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 1:08 pm
My issue with particles is the power supply John. Science views particles with a built in battery that holds it together and binds it to other particles, while also generating an endless quantity of electrons, light, and radiation. Somehow this powerful tiny little battery lasts billions of years, which feels more like magic than reality to me. I can see why they got funding for the LHC. If science were able to synthesize that tiny little battery in a lab, our energy needs are solved.
Imagine a contraction wave in an infinite universe. The inverted wave front is what’s holding matter together, NOT an eternal battery made from a magical endless supply of “energy”. Ignore the constant of C for a moment, and imagine that wave is in an accelerating state traveling straight inward along a scalar dimension. It loses mass, spewing out radiation, electrons, and photons, etc. etc, while gaining energy. The mass loss is what is binding particles together, and creating all the forces of nature. Nuclear weak, nuclear strong, magnetism, etc. The Higgs is caused by the inverted wave front and a constant increase in kinetic energy through motion. Things appear to slow down the more inward we look, but, it could also be our perspective changes. We’re looking more and more directly at a straight line pointing directly inward to . As I’ve suggest, the more at rest an object, the more inward it moves.
We view the universe from the center of mass out, so everything appears constant relative to everything else, because everything is doing the exact same thing. Our rulers are shrinking with mass loss, but energy gains in the process balancing out our relative perspective.
Anyway John, that’s what makes the most sense to me logically. It’s just a very weird and bizarre concept to wrap your head around. We’re shrinking over time.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 1:49 pm
As far as aether goes, this explains it. I agree there is aether, but as I also suggest aether exists at a much higher (kinetic) energy than we can perceive. The universe is a bottomless hole leading to  in one direction, and leading to  in the opposite direction, which cannot be reached in either direction. Contraction waves move inward, and expansion waves move outward. The universe is built on kinetic energy. It is 100% mechanical energy in nature. It’s a machine.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 2:44 pm
Our outward motion, like blasting a rocket into space, driving a car, or walking down the street, takes away from our inward motion. We can only move in two directions, inward or outward. All motion occurs along a 1-dimensional scalar. Our motion outward is a gain in mass energy, and our “at rest” state is a gain in kinetic energy. The science I’m talking about doesn’t exist, yet.
There is always a radical difference between the things we know and the unknown.
My view is radically different from what we think we know. We don’t know much fundamentally was the obvious conclusion I came to years ago. Once you understand it, it’s pretty simple.
The most famous formula on the planet is a glaring example of our collective ignorance scientifically. And I do not mean that in the derogatory sense. I mean that literally.
Do we know what energy is? No
Do we know what mass is? No
Do we know what motion is? No
Energy is kinetically derived through motion. Mass is expansive energy, which is a loss in kinetic energy. A loss of potential in one form of energy, is gain of potential in the opposite form of energy.
[+e] = [-e]
Motion cannot be created or destroyed.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 5:24 pm
Science is done in a nearly perfect vacuum at sea level in a nearly perfect environmentally controlled room under nearly precise power. All they’ve ever proven is that we can reproduce nearly identical results in a perfectly controlled environment where we know all the variables we can possibly think of impacting whatever it is we’re trying to observe. Great for building stuff, but not so great in defining our reality.
Reality is, no two meters in the real world are exactly alike from one moment to the next, from one environment to the next, from one temperature to the next, from one velocity to the next, or from one planet to the next, etc., etc.
Reality is dynamic, not static. That’s a fact.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 5:40 pm
Making a static environment to perform experiments does not change the dynamic nature of the universe one bit. What it does reveal is the exacting nature of our relative static reality within a completely dynamic infinite universe.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 6:33 pm
A wave front is a moving surface. How can that be inverted?
There is no real vacuum, since the ether is everywhere. The ether contains a large amount of energy. The feeling in your ass is caused by a very small difference between 2 anti-parallel forces. The ether contains many small and fast particles moving in all directions.
I do not know anything about Higgs.
With best regards from _________________ John-Erik
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 7:09 pm
Wave front wasn’t the right choice of terms.
What’s your definition of energy? I don’t know what a “large amount” of energy means. As near as I can imagine, everything is made from aether. But I see energy as entirely kinetic in nature. The higher the velocity the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass, the lower the kinetic energy. [-e]=[+e]. Energy is motion. The entire observable universe is in motion, hence the entire observable universe is energy in one form or another.
Not sure about your comment in vacuum. I don’t understand. Space seems pretty vacuous, and if all matter is contracting inward, that seems like a pretty good argument for vacuum.
I don’t know anything about Higgs either, but it is said to give mass to particles according to mainstream. The “god” particle. It’s supposedly the magic battery.
“Since the Higgs boson has the role to generate the mass of other particles
and the fact that dark matter can primarily be detected through its
mass, the Higgs boson can be a unique portal to finding signs of dark
It’s the energizer bunny on steroids.
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 9:12 pm
Let me clarify this:
“The higher the velocity the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass, the lower the kinetic energy.”
Was implied to mean
“The higher the velocity of individual pieces of matter the higher the kinetic energy. The higher the mass of individual pieces of matter, the lower the kinetic energy.”
In the case of a black hole, we’re dealing with a lot of condensed pieces of matter. There is a lot of inward kinetic energy cumulatively.
I suspect gravity may be caused by a contraction wave. When matter becomes bound together, the contraction wave multiplies in strength.
I don’t know. Things are less certain the further down the rabbit hole I go. It’s easy to imagine that might be the case, but math becomes bit more important to sort out the logic on that level.
MemberJuly 25, 2022 at 1:56 pm
@JoP and all
I don’t know when Bohr said “the electron can switch off the radiation when it is in a stable orbit” but also when it is in an unstable orbit, it emitt only the energy for going in a stable orbit, are you agree with me?
The mean force on electrons is inversely proportional to square of distance and it’s never change sign and it drop inexorably into nucleus.
I don’t think electrons can switch its radiation, but in analogy with Bohm pilot wave, I think aether can warp (modulate) force field around nucleus.
This modulation can create different zone of stability, with possibility of stable path without loosing energy, or low stable areas that, with little disturbance, brings electron toward more stable zone.
If aether behaviur is like fluid this is equivalent to a radial stationary wave on the surface of vortex (inversely proportional to square of distance).
I said this because I’m a controllist engineer and I study a lot in stability systems.
Are you agree with me at least 61.8034% ?
(why this %? It’s the Golden ratio value and statistically is a significative value)
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 12:49 pm
You seems uncertain regarding electron’s behaviour. But QM is based on the assumption that electrons are assumed to radiate only when they are jumping between two energy states and I regard this idea to be absurd as I said to Andy above.
The fact that we cannot see a continuous motion between the states does not mean that this motion cannot exist. Discreteness in our model does not mean reality of quantum jumping. We have forced a mathematical concept to be real in physics. I have explained to Andy how electrons can radiate continuously by means of a well known wave property. We do not need switches on electrons – and not quantum jumping.
With best regards from ______________________ John-Erik
MemberJuly 26, 2022 at 9:52 pm
Hallo @JoP ,👍
I try to explain better my idea:
electrons and aether interact, and electron and nucleus interact only through aether,
electrons and aether can exchange energy with continuity, and also nucleus and aether can exchange energy with continuity.
electrons exchange energy only with aether, so when they loose energy, aether acquire exatly that energy and vice versa.
Aether is the medium to exchange energy between Nucleus and electrons.
This is a dynamic system formed by 3 elements: Nucleus — aether — electrons
The quanta of energy is due at the interaction between electron and nucleus, not to aether (photons).
Why is it quantized?
There are some condition for wich a charge do not radiate, look at this link:
The presence of the system Nucleus — aether — electrons warp aether field and create stability area in wich electron rotate but create only evanescent wave in the aether, thus, not radiate and not drop toward nucleus that rotate but not radiate too.
Aether allows electron and nucleus to rotate in opposition of phase only for certain value of frequency, when this not happens electrons slow down or accelerate until find the right frequency.
I think there are no radiation also when charge move at same velocity of aether.
MemberJuly 27, 2022 at 12:00 pm
The individual electron radiates. We can only see the sum from many and that sum is almost zero due destructive interference.
MemberJuly 24, 2022 at 7:04 pm
The electrons are better on communication that CNPS members
MemberJuly 25, 2022 at 1:07 pm
Electrons are better in communication then CNPS members because are more and more then CNPS members 😄.