Nuclear Onions

Discovering the nuclear construction of atomic structure is the subject of many extremely expensive scientific investigations. But what happens if the scientific model (view of how things are constructed) on which their grants have been issued becomes outdated? What effect could that have on university budgets? Then, if just one university were to have a head start using the most up-to-date model, where would that suddenly place them financially? How we view things can have major consequences, can’t it?

The commonly accepted view of nuclear structure can be called the “crystalline model.” That is, many believe that the nucleus of an atom is composed of protons and neutrons held side by side like atoms in a crystal. However, because positively-charged protons repel each other, scientists are forced to imagine a very complex “Strong Nuclear Force” to override its tendency to blow itself apart.

There are a lot of problems with this scenario. The basic idea that the atom is like the sun with electron planets whizzing around it was discarded 70 some years ago when matter waves were discovered. Even back then it was recognized that the “electron” is not a billiard-ball-like particle, but a light-speed flowing field of energy that fills up a whole shell, or volume around the nucleus. So, why would the nucleus be organized any different from that of the electron shells?

One of the major problems with the old view is that no one has offered any mechanism capable of making things behave as pictured. They simply claim that they do, without explaining how it’s done.

A more rational model is the nuclear onion, based on the fundamental mechanism of interacting resonant fields, which easily explains such activities. Concentric shells, like the layers of an onion, each having a shorter wavelength, make more sense.

If nuclear energy is organized like an onion, then each shell is balanced from one side to the other, so that any attraction or repulsion automatically serves to hold the nucleus more tightly together. Consequently, the resonant field onion requires no “Strong Nuclear Force” to mysteriously hold billiard-ball protons and neutrons next to each other.

What’s more, macro crystals are composed of round atoms held together by bonding shells of flowing energy. Round atoms swivel into place so that they are aligned with the gravitational field. That’s why gravity attracts. But the bonding shells are odd-shaped and cannot swivel into an attractive gravitational orientation. Thus bonding shells are antigravitational as Einstein described them.

If nuclei are crystalline, then that “Strong Nuclear Force” needed to hold the particles together cannot be spherical, but like electron bonding shells, it must be odd-shaped, and thus it too must be antigravitational!

Therefore, the mass represented by the Strong Force must subtract from the total mass of the atom, which would make the whole thing much more energetic than measured so far.

What’s more, if the fact that subatomic particles pop out when you smack nuclei together is the only evidence for the crystalline model, they are really on thin ice. Deterministic resonant fields manufacture particles and eject them in precision sequences, using the step-by-step fundamental mechanism of physics. Logically, protons, neutrons, quarks or whatever, are not lurking inside nuclei waiting to be discovered, but are manufactured at the time of the collision. That’s why some nuclear reactions produce electrons (beta rays) from a nucleus that isn’t supposed to have any electrons in it.

So, the physical evidence points to a nuclear onion structure, rendering moot many of those expensive experiments.

* * *

Learn more about: Resonant Fields the Fundamental Mechanism of Physics at www.coolscience.info. Click on Extraordinary E-books. The CoolScientist is also available for lectures and consultation. Email us at coolscientist@rmrc.org. © 2005 by CoolScience