The ‘Electron’ and the False Premise of ‘Orbits of Angular Momentum’
Paper written by Russell W. Kettelson 26 Oct 2012
It is now, and (in modern times) has always been, misunderstood (wrongly proclaimed)
that negatively charged electrons ‘orbit’ (with considerable speed) the positively charged
protons (which comprise the nuclei of atoms), and, that they orbit at ‘specific’ outward
distances for specific electron energy levels. To this very day it is also misunderstood that
electrons orbit at considerable velocity with eternal motion, miraculously maintaining minimum
radial distances in spite of the strong ‘attractive’ opposite charges manifest between the
negative electrons and positive protons (that reside at the atom’s nucleus/center).
This ‘above’ evolved thinking of radial orbital distances whereas electrons encircle said
nuclei (in fast orbital motion), thus tracing-out spheres (or shells) of orbit (each of a sustained
minimum distance and velocity), is pure nonsense – is, and has always been, dead wrong. This
‘absolute crap’ is thought to be true to this very day, that electrons have ‘endless’ (minimum)
angular momentum (thus eternal motion) with ‘zero’ resistance (‘zero’ friction) of motion –
thus maintaining their endless resistance-free motion (never decelerating over time thus never
diminishing in centrifugal force) keeping them (said negative electrons) from being gobbled-up
(drawn-in) by the positive charge of the protons which eternally ‘pull’ directly on them. This
endless angular momentum is most especially ‘crap’ when it comes to the ground state
electrons – those electrons closest to the nucleus (the proton/s) of an atom that (again) never
fall ‘into’ said proton/s. I find it amazing that millions of scientists (over the past century) have
not figured out the reality disclosed in this paper – and shame on them for failing to do so.
Scientists continually try to lead us to believe (for instance in the case of the simple
hydrogen atom) that the reason that the lone negatively charged electron (which is strongly
attracted to the lone positively charged proton nucleus) travels/orbits forever, maintaining a
repeating eternal (angular momentum) orbit around said proton - never falling into said
positive proton (the lone particle nucleus of a single hydrogen atom). Again, this is absolute
crap. There is no way that the single negatively charged electron, orbiting the atomic nucleus
(the single positively charged proton), could maintain ‘eternal’ orbital speed/velocity (eternal
angular momentum) as is presently thought. This falsity is further compounded by the fact that
there is nothing (no motive force) that specifically drives said orbital motion (angular
momentum) to begin with. At this time electrons jumping ‘to and from’ different energy levels
(to and from different orbital distances) is without standing - to be discussed later. I say shame
on every scientist to have ever believed this ‘contradictory’ crap – both alive and dead, with no
respect given, no matter how famous the believers of this ‘crap’ might be (or may have been).
1
The only recent change (in the past few decades) to this profound miss-thinking of
perpetual ‘angular momentum’ (thus eternal orbit) has been the ‘somewhat’ correct extended
thinking of non-spherical/non-diametric orbitals, many of which do not (in any way) fully
encircle the atom in their motion - in that, these specific electrons allegedly buzz around in a
particular ‘zone’ formation or ‘quadrant’ location outward from the atom’s nucleus and yet still
miraculously do not fall directly into the opposite charged beckoning protons. Even with this
‘half-correct’ revelation (which I will clarify later), scientists have still failed to put the true
reality of electron orbit together. Had they (had scientists) seen the light (so bright that it gives
a receptive brain sunburn), they not only would have discovered the truth of ‘this paper’ (and
all my other papers) long ago, they would have ‘no doubt’ discovered the true nature of gravity
(the core understanding of everything) – robbing me of 1) the discovery of gravity’s true nature
and of 2) all the other things related to it, outlined in both this paper and in my many other
scientific papers which are available for ‘download’ on my website: gravitydecoded.com.
Before this paper’s end (perhaps as soon as the next few paragraphs), all readers will
finally (and for the 1st time in history) understand the simple reality of why the electron (say of
a hydrogen atom) maintains what is ‘misperceived’ to be an ‘orbit’ whereas the electron
‘allegedly’ continuously encircles the proton nucleus as per some magically applied ‘angular
momentum’. You will find out (from me) that said electron (in fact) ‘hovers’ or ‘floats’ outward
from the proton – where the negative electron is both attracted ‘to’ the positive charge of the
proton, and, simultaneously (the negative electron) is repelled ‘from’ the outward radiating
negatively charged space-time fabric field of the positive proton. You see the basic particles of
the universe, the electron, the proton, and the neutron (particles with the attribute of mass)
‘all’ draw-in (pull-in to their embodiment) what would otherwise be uniformly dispersed spacetime fabric – the result being that ‘all’ particles of mass unavoidably have outward emanating
(outward radiating) space-time fields of space-time fabric (of spherical geometry) that diminish
in fabric density at the inverse2 of outward distance increase ‘from’ each given particle. This is
the essence of the force of Gravity – ‘field to field’, and, ‘particle to field’ self-cohesion.
Having said what I just have, some of you readers (the really smart ones) are already
thrilled to understand the ramifications of what I have just said. For the less astute readers I’ll
be even clearer. The outward radiating ‘negatively charged’ space-time field of inverse2
diminishment (of each particle’s capture) 1) ‘is’ precisely proportional to the mass of each
particle and thus ‘is’ the catalyst of the force of each particle’s mass, and, 2) is thus also what
constitutes each particle’s gravitational field – a field where the self-coherence (self-gravitation)
of the field ‘itself’ (its’ outward inverse2 density diminishment) is far stronger in the area of the
proton nucleus than the pervasive outward diminishing negative charge (both declining in
space-time density and in negative charge at the inverse2 of outward distance increase from
2
the proton). So the closer the negatively charged electron gets to positively charged proton
(both objects of each other’s attraction) the stronger/denser the negative charge of the spacetime fabric field becomes (as it radiates outward from the positive proton). Because of this all
given electrons ‘stall’ (thus hover/float) at a radius of ‘charge’ balance outward from the atomic
nuclei of atoms – THERE IS NO ANGULAR MOMENTUM ‘ORBITING’ going on, though there (no
doubt) is some random (though minor) hovering type of movement. And of course it is further
understood that ‘outer’ electrons of given atomic elements do the same thing except that they
are held even ‘further out’ from atomic nuclei by the other electrons that are ‘closer in’ (closer
to the atomic nucleus) as per their common negative (thus repelling) charges. See Figure 1.
The bottom line is that 1), space-time fabric itself is ‘negative’ in charge 2), space-time
fabric is ‘drawn-into’ particles of mass (thereby giving particles such as electrons, protons, and
neutrons the attribute ‘force’ of mass) and 3), the closer to a proton (or a neutron or an
electron) the denser the negative space-time fabric field (radiating and diminishing in both
density and charge outward from said particle) - thus the closer the negative electron is to the
positive proton, the more it (the negative space-time fabric field of the positive proton)
outwardly repels the negative electron (which is conversely attracted to the positively charged
proton itself). The negatively charged electron also has its’ own outward inverse 2 diminishing
negatively charged space-time fabric field which also contributes to the repulsion of the
negatively charged space-time fabric field of the positively charged proton. Essentially the
negative electron (of our hydrogen atom) is held-out at a distance of conflicting counterbalance with the opposing negative space-time fabric field radiating outward from the positive
proton (diminishing at the inverse2 of outward distance increase) – so the negatively charged
electron floats/hovers outward from the positively charged proton as both ‘pulled to’ the
proton by its’ positive (opposite) charge and as ‘pushed away from’ the proton by the outward
radiating negative (common) charge of the positive proton’s negative space-time fabric field.
So, there is no such thing as continuous (eternal) radial (or diametric) orbit (angular
momentum) of electrons about (around) an atomic nucleus. This means that there is no such
thing as electron orbital zones whereas a quantum magical (eternal) ‘angular momentum’
motion quantum magically keeps electrons from falling into the protons (of the atomic
nucleus). This is especially true in the case of globular orbital zones that are merely outward
from the nucleus of a given atom and do not in any way orbit ‘around’ the nucleus of the atom
– here there can be no ‘angular momentum’ (thus no centrifugal force) at all, because there is
no continuous motion of encirclement. Scientist’s worship of ‘angular momentum’ is pathetic.
There (in fact) ‘is’ such a thing as (what I have dubbed) electron ‘possession’. I have
confidently determined (thus discovered) that electrons are contained (held captive) and thus
are ‘bound’ to the territory proximate atomic nuclei (bound to an atomic plantation of sorts) –
3
Negative Space-time
Electron
Fabric Field of Inverse2
Density Diminishment
Positive
Proton
Charge
Negative
Electron
Charge
Proton
Negative Space-time Fabric Field of Inverse2 Density Diminishment This is a Field that, as Focused to the Proton’s Center, Repels the
Electron of Common Negative Charge.
The Hydrogen
Atom
Figure 1
The + Charged Proton ‘Attracts’ the - Charged Electron, but, the
Outward Radiating - Charged Space-time Fabric Field of the
Proton ‘Repels’ the - Charged Electron thus Netting an Electron
which Floats Outward of the Proton @ an overall Neutral Charge
4
whereas (I say that) negatively charged electrons are held at a proportional distance of
‘attraction’ (to the positive protons), and, ‘repulsion’ (by the negative outward radiating space time fabric field charge spherically exiting the positive proton). It also goes without saying that
multiple electrons of atomic structure (of all elements) also naturally repel each other –
keeping themselves relatively evenly spaced spherically radially (in their proximate float/hover
positions), and, thus electrons are ‘held’ at their respective radial distances of charge balance
(geometrically balanced in separated zone locations). This is the (my) new model of the atom
where electrons are ‘possessed by’ thus ‘bound to’ atomic nuclei - thus electrons float/hover
about (around) atomic nuclei and position themselves ‘naturally’ (as stated earlier). This (my
assertion) replaces the model of electron ‘angular momentum’ - which is a profoundly foolish
concept, and, therefore is an inescapable embarrassment for scientists worldwide.
To this very day scientists ‘everywhere’ believe that what they are seeing with their
‘electron microscopes’, when viewing individual atoms and molecules (by way of the
microscope’s ejected ‘focused’ electrons), is the ‘smeared-out’ orbitals or shells of electrons in
their orbits of eternal ‘angular momentum’. What scientists are (in fact) viewing is the
threshold areas of where the ‘negatively’ charged space-time fabric fields of the nucleus (of the
protons and neutrons) collide ‘in balance of common negative repulsion’ with the ‘negatively’
charged electrons of the proton’s capture (inclusive of the captured electron’s extending
negative fields). The ‘probing’ electron bombardment of the ‘electron microscope’ is (in fact)
reacting to (thus seeing) the threshold areas (at the floating/hovering radii) of the electrons
that are constituents of the subject atom/s (those electrons that are captured by thus
floating/hovering around) the subject atom/s (which are being probed/viewed/seen). There is
no high-speed ‘angular momentum’ eternal orbiting going on. There is only the gathered
‘attraction’ of ‘opposite charge’ atomic particles of mass, and, the countering ‘repulsion’
between the negatively charged electron/s (and its’/their extended negative space-time fabric
field) and the ‘building’ (increasing with proximity) negative charge of the space-time fabric
field of the protons and neutrons (which constitutes the atomic nucleus). Electrons thus float or
hover outward from the nucleus like a ‘fishing bobber’ in water (a balanced distance away from
the lake bottom, or in other words, a balanced distance away from the atomic nucleus).
Now, let’s discuss electron jump – when an incoming photon of energy is absorbed by
(let’s say) a hydrogen atom, whereas the single electron jumps out (from its’ ground state
distance of suspended float/hover) to a greater radial distance of suspended float/hover (to a
higher energy level) from said atom’s proton nucleus (which prior to this paper has been
wrongly referred to as a radius of ‘angular momentum orbit’) - 1) Does this outward jump of
the electron happen because a ‘passer-by’ photon miraculously hits the atom’s lone (tiny, tiny,
tiny) electron and then ‘being absorbed by said electron’ (as a result of this amazing accuracy),
take the ‘whole’ of the atom to a higher energy level? - or, 2) does this outward jump of the
5
electron happen because a ‘passer-by’ photon hits the atom’s lone electron as guided to it by
(as attracted by) the ever increasing ‘density’ sweet spot of the atom’s composite (negatively
charged) space-time fabric fields (of both the proton and the electron) whereas the electron is
the outermost dominant ‘density’ portion of the beckoning composite space-time fabric field,
thus ultimately the photon being absorbed by said electron, taking the ‘whole’ of the atom to a
higher energy level? I assure you that the answer is 2).
As soon as the composite space-time fabric field density of both the electron and the
proton ‘declines’ as redistributed back to a natural equalized original state (as ‘drawn away’ by
the surrounding space-time fabric ‘not’ or ‘no longer’ in an energized state) a photon of energy
(unable to remain ‘absorbed’ by said composite space-time fabric field) is then expelled/ejected
– the hydrogen atoms’ electron returns to its’ original (ground state) radial distance of
float/hover from the proton nucleus. Again, there is no continuous orbit!
The only real questions here are, A) Are the photons absorbed directly by the electrons
thus intensifying the energy/density of the composite space-time fabric fields thus pushing the
electron further out from the nucleus per the repelling common negative charges of the
composite space-time fabric field itself and the electron? or B) Are the photons absorbed by the
composite fields themselves (in the area encompassing and inward of the electron), thus
intensifying the energy/density of the composite space-time fabric fields thus pushing the
electron further out from the nucleus per the repelling common negative charges of the
composite space-time fabric field itself and the electron?
Now let’s visit a very old issue, the issue of ‘the ether’. I’m talking ‘the ether’ in which it
was once thought that the planets were immersed ‘in’ and thus moved ‘through’. Who says
that there (in fact) is no such thing as ‘the ether’ of science’s past contemplation? I’m saying
that the ‘ether’ does (in fact) exist. I’m saying (and confidently so) that the ether ‘is’ spacetime fabric itself, the ether ‘is’ non-particulate matter (though of profoundly lower density than
particulate matter), the ether ‘is’ what all particulate matter is made of, the ether ‘is’ all that
‘Dark Matter’ that the morons of science are chasing their tails looking for, the ether ‘is’ a selfcohesive fabric/medium and thus is self-gravitational (both ‘field to field’ and ‘field to particle’),
thus the ether ‘is’ the manifest force carrier of gravity (which as drawn to particulate matter
forms outward radiating space-time fabric fields which diminish in density/strength at the
inverse2 of outward distance increase and are fields which overlap/meld/fuse together to form
space-time muscles of self-cohesion (otherwise known as the contractive force of gravity), the
ether ‘is’ the driver of ‘galactic webbing’ and ‘galactic clustering’, the ether ‘is’ of negative
charge, and finally, the ether ‘is’ the spatial tension (manifest energy) of infinity (the endless
spatial volume) which contains, surrounds, births, and dissolves all universes. I could go on, but
by now all readers must get my point.
6
One more important point, and this point is about ‘particle/wave duality’ – this duality
thing (with respect to an electron among other particles) is also a major load of ‘crap’ and it
(‘particle/wave duality’) is just as much a long term (centuries-old) embarrassment as is the
‘bull-shit’ eternal angular momentum ‘electron’ orbit. I have written a separate paper on this
subject (particle/wave duality) and, again, all readers can download it from my website:
gravitydecoded.com – so I’m not going to rehash it here. The main issue is that an electron, is
an electron, never a wave (as wrongly thought to be a wave now for about a century), and, a
photon, is a photon, never a wave (as wrongly thought to be a wave now for over two
centuries). I find it amazingly flabbergasting that millions of scientists (over the past couple of
centuries) have not figured out what yours truly (me) could not escape figuring out. And do not
wonder or worry because I ‘do’ explain in spectacular fashion what a ‘wave’ (in fact) actually is
– you will be amazed if you are ‘not’ a professional scientist, but profoundly embarrassed if you
‘are’ a paycheck receiving scientist (and rightly so).
Well we are where we are, and that would be where scientists (as they have been
doing for about eight years now) refuse (out of pure resentment per their self-imposed
embarrassment) to recognize the reality – just hating to give someone (me), ‘not of their
fraternity’, credit for the discoveries I’ve made. They would rather go in the wrong direction
violating the whole purpose of science (thus violating the whole purpose of their existence)
rather than be upstaged by a 64 year old high school grad, though one of superior intellect.
Scientists truly are in a fantasyland of quantum ‘MAGIC’ that, sooner or later, they will
have to abandon. I’m sure that they will wait (stall) until I’m dead – as they are incapable of
being schooled by a non-degreed self-taught scientist (a mere high school grad). Their hostility
toward me (in communications) has been shameful over the past eight years. They just can’t
live with the fact that these many ‘very’ major course correction discoveries were ‘made’ by me
(a self-taught person of no ‘formal’ scientific education) and not ‘made’ by one of them – and
as it turns out ‘they’ (the professionals), the most embarrassing of all possible groups, are the
ones that need course correction.
Now all readers know why I have evolved to have such contempt for scientists in the
fields of study that all my papers address, correcting all the areas of which they are so very
confused (and are on the wrong track). The tragedy is that throughout my life (before
communicating with them over these past eight years and receiving such unjustified insults,
disrespect, and hostility from them), I used to revere scientists. They (100% of ‘them’ that have
given me ‘return’ communicated) have shown themselves to be of the lowest character, so now
I am treating them in kind – the difference is that ‘they’ have it coming.
7