Introducing the Key Ring Molecules

[Dannel Roberts]

Introducing the Key Ring Molecules

For a model of a molecule to work it must provide at least these 7 functions.

1. It must be the mechanism by which gravity works.
2. It must hold the atom and the molecule together.
3. It must be able to provide or change into all the energy particles that come out when the atom/molecule is split.
4. It must have a logical unit that determines it’s mass.
5. It must be able to connect or not connect to other elements.
6. It must provide the mechanism for hot and cold. (In another section).
7. It must provide the mechanism of adhesion between molecules. (In another section).

Under the section “Introducing the Key Ring Atom” is a model of a Hydrogen key ring atom. You should read that section before continuing. This atomic model has a hole that gravity can go to and through. This is based on the theory that gravity is a particle and it pushes. This satisfies function 1 in my theory. The atom is held together by a single particle called a “Proton Ring”. The proton ring holds a large number of circling electron rings the same way your “Key Ring” holds your keys. This satisfies part of function 2 in my theory. If an atom is broken, the proton ring release all the electron rings and they change their “state” to light, infrared light, radio waves and all the other energies that come out in an atomic explosion. This satisfies function 3 in my theory.

Functions 2, 4 and 5 are what this section primarily deals with. The key ring atom is the replacement of all protons and neutrons or to put it another way a proton ring replaces either a proton or a neutron. It’s a 1 to 1 replacement. The proton ring brings all the electron rings with it. The proton ring is the logical unit that determines a molecules mass. This satisfies function 4 in my theory. I think science has done a great job in identifying the logical units that cause atoms to have mass. I just disagree with what the logical unit is.

Function 2 is the molecule must hold itself together. So we now you have to combine key ring atoms. How do you add more keys to your key ring, if it is full? Just add more key rings. How do you do that? Hook the key ring inside of the other key ring. In the simplest of terms it is a chain. That is what we will do with the proton rings. Circle proton rings inside of other proton rings. We now have a chain. This is something that we use in everyday life, from a chain around you neck holding jewelry to a leash that holds your dog. This satisfies the rest of function 2 in my theory.

Function 5 is what we will deal with here. How the key ring atoms are chained together in each molecule will effect how they connect to other molecules. The connection is known as chemical bonding. In chemistry each element has a valence that has been assigned to it. There are positive valences and negative valences and zero valences. The positive valences like to hook to the negative valences. Some elements have a positive/negative valence or in other words they will hook to elements that have either a positive or a negative valence. Elements with a zero valence don’t hook to any other element. A lot of work has gone into the determination of the valences and the chemical bonding. I agree with valences and the basics of chemical bonding. What I don’t agree with is the “How the valence shells work”.

I had chemistry when I was 17 in 1977. It was taught that elements have valence shells. These shells were different layers of electrons that circled around the proton neutron core. The valence shells determined the positive negative zero valence. The electrons in the valence shells could be shared with other elements. A shared electron produced the chemical bond. This is what held the elements together. I didn’t get it. I didn’t understand it. It didn’t make sense to me. I could not find any geometrical equivalent in our physical universe. To this day valence shells still don’t make sense to me. My goal now is to replace valence shells with something far simpler and that can be constructed in geometrical manner.

To be able to do this I came up with a molecular numbering system. For short I named this system the “Molenum”. Each element has a molenum. Each element can have a center, which is symbolized with a C. The number following a C symbol is the number of proton rings in the center of the atom. Hydrogen has a molenum of C1. The illustration is at this web site. Hydrogen has a valence of +1. It will hook one other element that has a negative valence. Where will hydrogen be hooked to another element? It will hook through the center of the proton ring. A shared electron ring will be what holds compounds or elements together. I will discuss and show the shared electron rings in another section. For now I will be showing where the connection point is.

The next element on the periodic table is Helium. Helium has an atomic weight of 4. It was believed to have 2 protons and 2 neutrons. I have built it with 4 proton rings. All 4 proton rings are connected at the center. The molenum of helium is C4. An illustration is at this web site. Helium has a valence of 0. It will not bond with any other elements. Why won’t it bond with anything else? I believe it is due to the overlapping of electron rings. Another element can’t get close enough to hook up.

The next element is Carbon. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12. I have made it with 12 proton rings. This is where valence comes into play. Carbon has a +-4 valence. It will combine with 4 other elements. To get it to bond I have added another symbol to the Molecular Numbering system. I have added an “L”. It stands for leg. The purpose of the leg is to provide a connection point and it has to be far enough from the center to get away from the overlapping electron rings. The molenum of Carbon is C4-4L2. C4 is for a center of 4 proton rings. The center is the same as the helium molecule. The 4L2 stands for 4 legs with 2 proton rings in each leg. An illustration is at this web site.. Each leg is far enough from the center so the overlapping electron rings don’t keep it from connecting to another element. There are 4 legs so there are 4 connection points. You can look at this element to tell how it will act chemically. All elements that have a positive valence will have legs that are 2 proton rings in length.

The next element is Nitrogen. Nitrogen has an atomic weight of 14. I have made it with 14 proton rings. This is where negative valence comes into play. Nitrogen has a -3 valence. It will combine with 3 other elements. The molenum of Nitrogen is C5-3L3. C5 is for a center of 5 proton rings. The 3L3 stands for 3 legs with 3 proton rings in each leg. An illustration of nitrogen is at this web site. Each leg is now 3 long. The end of each leg is farther from the center. This makes it act different chemically. I made all the molecules with positive valence to have 2 proton rings in a leg and I made all molecules with negative valence to have legs of 3 proton rings or more. As a general rule 3 proton ring legs like to connect to 2 proton ring legs and 2 proton ring legs don’t like to hook to other 2 proton ring legs. There are lots of exceptions to this general rule.

Something of great interest to me came out in the April 2005 issue of Scientific American. They had an article on “CT Scan for Molecules”. Researchers at the Canada’s National Research Council produced a three dimensional scan of the “Outermost Electron orbital” around a nitrogen atom. Pictures and the article were on page 26 and 27. There are 2 “lobes” in the scan. If you turn the nitrogen illustration we have on its side, it would fit very nicely inside the scan. Two of the nitrogen legs of will account for the lobes. I can’t produce a link to the article. It is a copyrighted work of Scientific American.

The next element is Oxygen. Oxygen has an atomic weight of 15.9. I have made it with 16 proton rings. Oxygen has a -2 valence. Oxygen can connect with 2 other elements. It can connect two elements together like a log chain or it can also hook twice to the same element. I view Oxygen to be just like a long chain. I gave it a molenum of L16. It is one log chain of proton rings. It does not have a center number. This will let oxygen bend or turn and connect to 2 other elements connection points. An illustration is at this web site.

In the book we have a total of 20 of the first elements from the periodic chart with illustrations and molenums. It is a little more in depth than covered here.

These molecules fulfill most of the first 5 functions of an atomic model. The next section will be the Introducing the Key Ring Compounds. This will be the last piece of function 5. We will connect some of the molecules together. The center of the atoms gets pretty cloudy with all the overlapping electron rings. Seeing a clear picture of the center of an atom will be a major feat. I see the gravity particle as a very thin particle. It has to go through all the overlapping electron rings to get to the center of the key ring atom it is going to.

[C1ay]

I think you should explore these outlets for your work as well.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Dannel Roberts

I can’t produce a link to the article. It is a copyrighted work of Scientific American.

The link is not copyrighted.

CT Scan for Molecules
Producing 3-d images of electron orbitals
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2883414B7F0000

[Dannel Roberts]

Originally Posted by C1ay

I think you should explore these outlets for your work as well.

Science Fiction? Traveling to the moon was science fiction 50 years ago.

[Boerseun]

Dude...

Trying to imagine a molecule as a keyring is a natural way to 'understand' chemical interactions. It's just wrong.

If you see two 'keyrings' joining to form a 'chain', at least one of the rings will have to open up. I won't be surprised if next you tell me that the 'keyrings' are actually coiled, that the coils just slide into each other like a normal keyring, and that every element has a set 'coil number', hereafter referred to as coinum.

Classical chemistry is hard to picture in your head, but nobody said you should be required to do so in order to understand the workings of it. Simplifying the issue so that you can *see* it in your mind does not guarantee the theory being valid.

Don't flog a dead horse whilst barking up the wrong tree.

[Dannel Roberts]

Originally Posted by Tormod

The link is not copyrighted.

CT Scan for Molecules
Producing 3-d images of electron orbitals
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...2883414B7F0000

Tormod

Thanks for the link. The main part of the article that I was interested in was the picture of the nitrogen itself. They have taken the picture out of the article at the link. You have to subscribe to get it. I subscribed and downloaded the picture. It is copyrighted. I won't post that.

This may be one of the best pictures ever of an individual molecule. The picture in the article is 100 percent consistant with the key ring nitrogen illustration that I have in my book. The only difference is the illustration in the book is a top down view and the CT Scan is a side view. The CT Scan only catches 2 of my "Theoretical" legs. To describe the CT Scan, the center was a dark blue. There were two lobes outside of the center. These 2 lobes or 2 legs or outermost orbitals, (depending on which theory you use) are in red and yellow. My son who is in the 5th grade saw the article and the picture. He said he thought it looked a lot like what we had in our book.

My book was published in Dec. of 2004. The nitrogen illustration was completed over a year before that. We did not reverse engineer from this picture. My theory was developed with no knowledge of the CT Scan technology. It is the best evidence I have to date that I may be onto something with my key ring ideas. I wish I could show the picture of the CT Scan but I can't.

[Dannel Roberts]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

If you see two 'keyrings' joining to form a 'chain', at least one of the rings will have to open up. I won't be surprised if next you tell me that the 'keyrings' are actually coiled, that the coils just slide into each other like a normal keyring, and that every element has a set 'coil number', hereafter referred to as coinum.

This is actually a very good way of stating this. The tadtrons do coil. I have always considered it an overlap in the ring. I am trying to present my ideas so that people can see and visualize them. I like the idea of a coil number. I prefer to call it a Coilnum. This number comes into play in a big way when I show how key ring molecules produce hot and cold. I view the proton ring as a triple overlap or coiled into 3 circles. This triple wrap would be considered to be a coilnum of 3. If the head of the tadron touched the tip of the tail it would be a coilnum of 1. It would be a complete circle with no overlap.

All proton rings and electron rings are open ended coils. They connect and then they hold tight until some external force causes them to break or change to another State.
I believe they all rotate. I don't know the RPM. They are just like your keyring.

Each element is determined by the number of proton rings and their configuration. The coilnum of the electron rings will determine the temperature of that molecule. I should have a post for the hot and cold of the keyring atom by the end of July.

Thank you for the "coilnum" idea. If this goes anywhere you will get credit for it. (Don't expect any money).

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Dannel Roberts

This is actually a very good way of stating this. The tadtrons do coil. I have always considered it an overlap in the ring. I am trying to present my ideas so that people can see and visualize them. I like the idea of a coil number. I prefer to call it a Coilnum. This number comes into play in a big way when I show how key ring molecules produce hot and cold. I view the proton ring as a triple overlap or coiled into 3 circles. This triple wrap would be considered to be a coilnum of 3. If the head of the tadron touched the tip of the tail it would be a coilnum of 1. It would be a complete circle with no overlap.

All proton rings and electron rings are open ended coils. They connect and then they hold tight until some external force causes them to break or change to another State.
I believe they all rotate. I don't know the RPM. They are just like your keyring.

Each element is determined by the number of proton rings and their configuration. The coilnum of the electron rings will determine the temperature of that molecule. I should have a post for the hot and cold of the keyring atom by the end of July.

Thank you for the "coilnum" idea. If this goes anywhere you will get credit for it. (Don't expect any money).

Jeez, dude - thanks for the recognition, but...

I was actually trying to be sarcastic. Seems like it failed.

If, at this late stage of your work, you are still open to ludicrous suggestions like a "coil number" for a fundamental material feature like thermal energy as stated above, I can't but wonder at the quality of the rest of your theory.

What's wrong with kinetic energy being responsible for temperature? Isn't it much, much simpler?

There's a lot of scope for expanding your theory along these lines - for instance you could say that the open-ended coils are also responsible for chemical interactions, i.e. different elements "hook" their coils into each other. Then, of course, you get elements like gold and helium which have by accident hooked themselves, and became inert. There's something to be said for it, I suppose, but, to vandalize an old saying about a vacuum:

"Nature abhorrs a coil-shaped atom"

There's a lot left unsaid about electrical properties, thermal conductivity (does one coiled particle cause the one next to it to increase its coils? If so, how? And thermal conductivity is a broad indicator of electrical conductivity, so electrons must also have something to do with the amount of coils on any given particle. Then - if you have chemical compounds where you postulate the "keyrings" to "hook" into each other, making a chain, how's the amount of coils between two different elements synchronized when the compound is heated up? Are we talking coils in extra dimensions here? Creating extra dimensions for features such as these might just be redundant, and a good indicator that you're on the wrong track.

I have asked you in your previous thread about gravity "pushing", where the gravity "particles" come from to be able to hit each and every particle square-on. I'm still waiting for an answer on that one as well.

I agree with you that people thought Einstein was a loon initially as well, but this is absolutely no guarantee that every single far-fetched theory is correct.

[UncleAl]

This atomic model has a hole that gravity can go to and through.

You are empirically incompetent.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Dannel Roberts

Science Fiction? Traveling to the moon was science fiction 50 years ago.

50 years from now key ring atoms and molecules will still be science fiction. You might as well jump on that band wagon and make some money off of it.