Saturday, May 14, 2011

Unintentional or intended Errors ?

As what we can see between atoms, there are literal elastic-like bonds that connect an atom to another atom. Despite of this fact, many of the 2nd scientific revolutionary physicists are habitually ignoring those literal interatomic bonds (the sticks or electrons between atoms) and blatantly substituted them with the words  interatomic forces or intermolecular forces, of which  “force”  is invisible, leading to a colateral conclusion that those spheres are not literal atoms (as the bonds between them are not literal) but forces. This is because they are keeping in trying to fit the factual atoms & electrons to their notion (that is, electrons are revolving & orbiting). Of course the beta photons, which are the constituents of the electrons, are exerting forces but not as orbiting planet, rather as particles in a spread out elastic bond.

Facts and suggestions to remember
The fact shows that as the pengraletic electron is more stretched out and distant from the atoms it connects, the thinner it is. On contrary, the closer the pengralet (electron bond) to the atoms it holds, the thicker it appears, suggesting that every electron has a constant or an average quantity of beta-photons (betons).
Another fact is that penraletic electron appears as bridge between neighboring atoms and it holds atoms in a fix position (if the element is in a solid form).
We can also see the fact that pengraletic electron can disturb (stretch) the shape of the atoms, suggesting that it coerces atoms from one direction to another (as apparently the electron bonds are not only superficially attached on but deeply pierced in the atoms).

The interesting fact is knowing that the focus of concentration of those electrons are the so-called atoms, suggesting that atom is a layered of  beta photons (ßeta particles are the components of electrons;this is why nucleons are essentially electrons if absolutely made up of beta photons.)
From now on, in lieu of the invisible interatomic  forces, we may describe the surrounding of the atoms with the literal elastic-like spread of electron bonds.
Interatomic and intermolecular forces can be used to deceive students, that is, to keep insist that electrons are orbiting like planets, even though the fact shows that pengraletic electrons are spread out bonds from atom to atom.
(Picture of Gold Atoms)
To back up our claim, the electron (or the body) of a hydrogen atom can hold more than two atoms or can make many bonds to hold many extra atoms to solidify the element. Therefore, hydrogen becomes solid because its body can form many heisenberg passages to be pierced in by neighboring electrons or elastic bridges between hydrogen atoms to almost all directions (e.g., left, right, front, back, above, below; diagonal up, down, slanting left & right) per atom. The key to solidification is the number of direction & the pengralets (electron bonds) projected to those directions per atom. In fact, the state (gas, liquid, solid, etc.) of an element depends on the pengraletic electron bonds that hold the atoms. The more pengralets (electron bonds) from an atom are projected or firmly spread out from or to various directions to pierce into neighboring atoms, the tighter (the more solid) the object they constituted with.

Atoms of solid & Innerworld
Credits:  Photograph of Silicon Atoms (IBMScience Photo Library);
                               picture of iridium atoms from Dr. E. Muller's photograph of iridium crystal; 
                 picture of gold atoms (Science Photo Library)
Drawings of a metal’s atom and innerstructure (Allan Poe Bona Redoña)

Tuesday, May 10, 2011


  • Though wrong, it is a popular notion in the 2nd Scientific Revolution that the inner of the atoms is mostly empty space. The reason for this belief is because they imagine atom as a system of subatomic systems: the electron system revolving about the nucleon system. However, the fact shows no electron system revolving around the nucleon system. In fact, electron pierces in the atom not as separate system but as its  extension  so that the entire volume of the atom between the nucleons and balanous region is mostly full of  beta-photons, suggesting that atomic electron is like a denting tooth.
  • It is a sad thing that the notion persists over the fact. The notion is “the atom is mostly empty space” but the fact is “the atom is full.”
    If adherents of atom-mostly-empty-space still exist in this 3rd Scientific Revolution, challenge them and ask: “Show me that atom is mosly empty space and I will show you the fact that atoms are full".

  • Valence electrons will be projected from one atom to the other. In the case of a magnesium atom, its  valence electrons are usually  two (represented here by a circular broken line) . The displaced valence  triboßethreads are what we call “ionic electrons”.
    The oxygen atom will ’smell’, by electrostatic photons, those valence electrons and attract them to be attached on & surround the atom.
    At a short period of time, the two contorsionist electrons will completely engulf and then dented in the oxygen atom, increasing the size of the host (oxygen) atom and decreasing the diameter of the mother magnesium atom.

    The transfer of valence electron of a sodium (Na) atom, however, is not complete and its upper layered electric threads when involved in table salt’s formation are stretching out at at least 6 directions (up, down, left, right, front, & rear) toward 6 chlorine atoms. One of those tribonic electrons is much bigger and will engulf 1  chlorine atom. The other 5 are apparently not enough to be the size of an extraferic valence that’s why they weakly connect on the 5 chlorine atoms, but they may pengraletically absorb the enduring foreign ultraviolet quantized photons and reduce the energy of the quanta.

  • From their junction on the atomic nucleus, electric threads or beta photons are supposed to be whroled layer upon layer, forming the sphere of photons or pauli layers well known as the atom. Dented in this sphere, the junction between atoms is called pengralet (or electron bond).
     In the illustration above, the beds of beta photons are the nucleons and are layered according to the order of the pengralets. Equal distribution of pengralets gives nearly perfect spherical shape of the atom. However, an atom can be distorted in shape by certain distribution of the pengralets, as shown below.

  • Based on this quantum electronomical illustration, a distorsion on the atomic shape is due to unequaled numbers of pengralet from one side of the atom. To be near spherical, the pengralets must be evenly distributed.
    This shape cannot be explicitly explained by assuming electron as an orbiting particle in the atom.
    Atomic ionization energy (photons) is a key to undent the electrons from the alpha-photons, i.e., nucleon(s). The unlocked or undented electron projected away from the nucleon is conventionally called electron ion.

between Gold atoms are pengraletic electrons

Molecules of Silicon & Germanium atoms (GXSM)

Silicon atoms (Indi in the Wired)

Sillicon (111) atoms (RHK-400 STM)

The compound is reacting with silicon spontaneously at room temperature, adsorbing bright Brominen  atoms and dark spots of organic residues. The image (1,2-dibromobenzene on the Silicon-111 (7 x 7 surface) was obtained using an RHK-400 scanning tunelling microscopy.

Silicon-111 40 angstroms (RHK)

At room temperature the 1-chlorododecane is adsorbed on the 7 x 7 surface of Silicon-111.

Silicon atoms with pengraletic electron clouds, which junction the atoms

Silicon atoms & Tin atoms (Oscar Custance)
Individual silicon atoms are manipulated by an Atomic Force Microscope to write  letters “ S i”.

Atom is composed of layers of beta-photons or gluonic-beta photons

Heat energy & ionization energy are both photons. Heat is the scattering-causing movement of the acohaeric photons (and opposite to cold, which is the gathering-causing or aligning-causing movement of the arepellic photons).
Every atom is made up of ßeta-photons (electrons) and αlpha-photons (nucleons), theoretically, in a manner that nucleons are layered from the atomic center to balanous (valence) portion of the atom and capacitoric electrons are dented for each of these nucleons.

  • Free electron varies in thickness. The possible thinnest electron is the electric thread that pierces  in the atom and the much larger electron was the lightning shown below:Giant Electron as lightning(Picture source: Wide World)
    As what is deduced from the picture below ,

  • electrons or electric threads can be stretched when projected from a particle accelerator. When an electron is ionically projected into a capable medium, it may branch and move at many directions.
  • Electrons as lightnings
  • Therefore, free-electron is an electric thread or a group of electric threads externally, electrically active and can electrostatically influence when moving in a capable molecule. Not-free-electron has two major parts: (1) atomic-electron, which is layered inductoric beta-photons inside and (2) pengraletic-electron, which is external beta-photons. Between atomic and pengraletic is the capacitoric portion at the back of the atom. In front of the atom is the tribo-photons, which become punching (heat) or extracting (cold).      The typical ionic electron projected (emitted) from a typical cathodic atom has a thickness determinable by a Redoña electron’s radius formula:jumping electron and its formula for radiusview more

Insulator atoms are illustrated above

   silicon & germanium atoms - P. Zahl, T. Wagner, R. Moller & A. Klust, “Open source scanning probe microscopy control software package Gxsm,” J. Vac. Sci. Technol. B 28 (2010). P. Zahl, M. Bierkandt, S. schroder, & A. klust, Rev. Sci. Insti. 74 (2003) 1222.
  silicon molecules  -   Indi in the Wired
 silicon-111 (7 x 7) surface  - images from RHK-400 STMUHV STM (manufacturer: RHK) /
    Silicon atoms replacing Tin atoms  -  Oscar Custance ( , National Institute for Materials Science, JapanAmerican Physical Society:  Silicon Atoms Replacing Tin Atoms From 2009 APS March Meeting Paper
     picture of Silicon & tin atoms  Osaka University research team
Silicon atoms  -  IBMScience Photo Library
 animated lightning   -  from
drawings  -  Allan Poe Bona Redoña

Click here...

Monday, May 2, 2011

Scientific Atoms

The discovery of atom and its composers is not a single event but gradual of branching discoveries.
Aristotle (384-322 BC) himself didn’t believe in the possibility of a vacuum for the  reason that an object would move faster, according to his notion, as the surrounding medium possesses lesser impediments or  grew less dense, and erroneously believed that an object would move with infinite speed in a vacuum. (Be noted that slowliness & fastness of a moving object have nothing to do with the vacuum, and vice versa.) Since he did not believe on the possibility of infinite speed, he never rendered the notion of a vacuum.
In 1650, Otto von Guericke invented the first air pump and enabled, however, to prove the possibility of a vacuum by letting a bell ringing in it without producing a sound. In fact the problem was already answered as early as 1643 when Galileo Galilei asked Evangelista Torricelli to settle the matter regarding the ability to pump water upward. Torricelli used liquid mercury to test his belief.
His notion was that the pumping was only a mechanical effect. By the experiments he had done, he rediscovered the air as having weight and, in effect, proving the advance biblical physics, translated in the then English language more than 3 decades earlier.
To  make  the weight for the winds;  and he weigheth  the water by measure. “
Job 28:25 (KJV)
Heinrich Geissler, in 1855, applied what had Torricelli discovered and enabled to evacuate the tubes more thoroughly, and Julius Plucker called them Geissler tubes.
Using Geissler tubes, PlÜcker, in 1858, made some discoveries about the electric current’s behavior when he forced the electricity to irradiate from one wire to another opposite terminal through a vacuum tube. He noted that there were changes of direction of the luminescing radiation when disturbed by an electromagnet.
  Seventeen years later, Sir William Crookes became interested and himself made improved vacuum tubes by which he could carefully investigate the radiation.
(Image:  D-Kuru/Wikimedia Common; Licence CC-BY-SA-3.0-AT)

 Crookes showed that the radiation from the cathode (negative terminal) traveled in straight line and could cast a sharp shadow if tiny objects were placed in its path, and it could move a small wheel.  Because it was bending when a magnet was drown near to it, he held the belief that the radiation was charged particles. It 1876, Eugen Goldstein called them “cathode rays”.  Those rays were from the electric current being fired by the cathode (negative) terminal in the vacuum tube to another terminal (anode). Like light ray, cathode ray is composed too of photons; the difference is that the electric & magnetic properties of the cathode ray are very externally active. George Johnstone Stoney, in 1891, suggested that the minimum quantity of charge of electricity be called an ” electron”. But the particulate nature of the cathode rays was not yet conclusive since no one could show the disturbance or effect of an electric field on the rays. Using a very highly-evacuated tube, in 1897, Sir Joseph John Thomson had enabled to demonstrate the deflection of the cathode rays by the electric field.
(J J Thomson working with his cathode ray tube)
  Sir J.J. Thomson discovered too that the cathode particles had a mass much lighter that of the hydrogen atoms, concluding the particulate nature of the cathode (ßeta) rays. He had suggested that matter (material) was consisted of the cathode ray particles. He imagine the atom as a sphere of positive electricity being embedded with the same amount of negatively charged particles; he came up to this notion partly after James Clerk Maxwell had rendered that the electromagnetic field was produced by the oscillation of electric charges, initiating the partly erroneous pictorialization of system of spherical charged subatomic particles.
  Hendrik Antoon Lorentz used “electron” as a name for the negatively-charged particle (and not as for the minimum quantity of charge) and theorized that the oscillations of those particles in the atom produce visible light.
 In 1886 besides of cathode rays, Eugen Goldstein had noted that another rays moving opposite to electron streams were going through the perforation of the cathode terminal. Jean Baptiste Perrin proved that those other rays were positively charged and J.J. Thomson called them  “positive rays.”   It was discovered that alpha ray was much four times heavier than a positive ray and Ernest Rutherford called the positive ray particle the proton , years after he had discovered the atomic nucleus.
   Rutherford, after firing the alpha rays at a sheet of gold foil only about two thousand atoms thick in 1908, thought that the atoms were mostly empty space because most of the alpha particles could pass through the gold foil and he had noticed too that some few of the alpha particles were bent at right angles or even at obtuse, suggesting that certain portion of the atom was strongly positive to repel, and opaque to, those positive rays. Because no scientific photographs of gold atoms during those days, he misleadingly concluded that there was a large empty space between the atomic nucleus and the spherical electron, where in fact (as shown by a factual evidence) there are big holes between the gold molecules in the metal.  He theorized that a tiny positively charged massive nucleus was located at the atom’s center, distant to it was a cloud of negatively charged light electrons and thought that since alpha particles were not affected by electrons it seemed that large of the atom was an empty space. This was one of the beginnings of many mistakes, understandably because no factual photograph of gold atoms during those years (1906-1909).
    Additional error came when Niels Henrik David Bohr (1885-1962) proposed that electrons were orbiting around the nucleus, like planets revolving about the sun. Electrons were perpetually orbiting on the nucleus and according to him they emit radiation when getting closer to the nucleus. Therefore, electron absorbs radiation when getting farther from the nucleus. He had had this to explain the so-called absorption and emission of spectral lines. Borh never considered the existence of  the much conspicuous bigger spectral LAYERS between the spectral LINES. Both spectral LAYERS &  LINES  are coming from a continuous spectrum.
   To easily understand it, let us use mirror as an analogy to atomic portion that emits a continuous spectrum. The mirror reflects a light beam at a single direction. If very tiny bumps (protuberances) are made on the mirror at one particular angle in alternation, the light beam will now be reflected at two different directions: the very tiny reflections (as spectral LINES) are angled to the bigger reflections (which represent the spectral LAYERS). Nevertheless, spectral LAYERS  &  LINES  exist at different angles. Facing the direction of spectral LAYERS we can see tiny deviation lines (which traditionally called absorption spectral lines).

Spectral LAYERS & Lines (by Allan Poe B. Redoña)

  Although spectral LAYERS are much conspicuous, Bohr had never interpreted it as signs of jumps of electrons. Neither he knew that atom is filled with electron’s particles (i.e., ßeta photons) or protuberant overlaps can cause deviation of some rays angled from the rest of the emission, and that the tiny protuberances are caused by magnetic disturbance and constriction of the ßeta photons inside of the atom.
   In 1925, his student Wolfgang Pauli (1900-1958) had exaggerated the error by proposing that electron did not only orbit but also rotate and that only two electrons (negatron and positron) could be permitted to spin at opposite directions in a particular energy level. However, since negatron & positron are breaking down into gamma rays when mutually collided, they avoid calling them negatron & positron, rather they say  one spinning clockwise   and   ‘one spinning counterclockwise’. With this assumption they thought that electrons revolve & rotate in the sub-shells and/or shells. Amazingly, those shells, which could weaken entruding X-rays, were made up of nothingness (or emptiness).
   Like Bohr, Werner Karl Heisenberg (1901-1976) was contemplating to the spectral lines and worked on them but not with the Johann Jakob Balmer’s formula, rather in 1927 he had devised his matrix mechanics. Probably being tired of finding not the electron’s location (position), mass & velocity at the same time, he abandoned any attempt of pictorialization of the atom and carelessly declared that it was not possible to determine simultaneously the accurate location and momentum of the electron in the atom, suggesting indirectly that his  inability is the inability of mathematics and nature, so that, cause & effect do not exist, and nothingness could create energy (or particles).
  To back up his Uncertainty Principle, he unknowingly used a reciprocated De Broglie’s equation, modifying the factors, making them errors instead of accurate ones  (-otherwise it would become a Certainty Law) .

error  L   x    error  mv   ≥  correct  h

According to the Uncertainty Formula, error L (location of an electron)  times error  mv (mass  x velocity)  is greater than or equal to correct  h  (Planck’s constant). The use of errors avoid the certained accurate application. Heisenberg and the rest of the 2nd scientific revolutionary adherents of the Principle were not certained if it was correct or erroneous. It became a safest hiding alibi to uphold the Principle of Uncertainty.
  With certainty of using  right factors, we can have

correct  L   x   correct  mv      =     correct  h

correct λ   =   correct  h   /   correct  mv

or the De Broglie’s equation.
   Prince Louis De Broglie (1892-1987) combined the formulae of Einstein (which relates the particle’s mass & energy) and of Planck (which relates the quotient of  v/λ  of a beam of particles to the magnitude of their energy).  The  v  and   λ  are the velocity and layerlength (traditionally wavelength), respectively of a beam or radiation.
  A big mistake  was that De Broglie had intended the  λ   to  mean a wavelength of a single particle, where in fact it must be a layerlength of a beam of particles. He himself misapplied the equation, for a single particle is numerically different from a beam (radiation) of particles. Because of this misapplication they believed on a mystical wave which according to them is formed by a single object. This brought them to a notion that the nature’s matter wave (water wave, vibrating string wave, sound’s gaseous wave, adatom’s wave, or electron wave) is mystically formed by a single particle (as if water wave or vibrating string wave is constituted of a single particle- which is wrong). Since nature’s matter waves do not fit to their assertion, they uphold the mystical matter wave, which is composed of a single particle and too tiny to be paid with attention).
   Electron beam-which is composed of many electrons- exhibits the apparent wave they are wanted to detect.
   However, they understand the electron beam as a single particle and not as a beam of electrons.
  Bohr had an orbiting electron and Pauli had a spinning electron. But Schrödinger said it did not orbit, and yet all of the above proposals were considered true so that they had a particle-but-wave   &   orbiting-bu-not-orbiting electron. The notion about a particle-but-wave electron was to liken it to the belief on a particle-but-wave light  ray.
   The dilemma of battle between particle and wave was originated by Robert Hooke (1635-1703), who tried to contradict Isaac Newton’s particulate theory for light.
  Carelessly, Hooke thought that a wave was not composed of many tiny particles (literally right, if referring to the earthquake wave or shape, and wrong if referring to the water wave or sound’s gaseous wave).
     So, if the sound’s gaseous wave was not composed of many particles, then the so-called light wave being an energy was also composed of a single entity.
    Sound and light are energies, and Christian Huygens (1629-1695) believed that light was like a sound wave. However, Newton (1642-1727) theorized  that light is composed of particles.
   The carelessness to contradict Newton was probably a notorious mistake that led to physicists, even until now, to believe that water wave, string wave, sound’s gaseous wave, electron wave or electromagnetic wave is not consisted of many tinier particles but of a single entity.
   Knowing the fact the said wave is composed of many minute particles, then we can say that it is a preposterous to make contradict the two different things not fit to contradict.
   Now with the advent of scanning tunneling microscope, the metallic string which does the string wave is factually made up of tinier particles, known atoms. Ernest Rutherford is also proven wrong about the emptiness of the atom. According to a mystical belief, atom is 99.999 999 999 999 %  empty space  or  0.000 000 000 001 % thin so that it is see-through.
   A pengraletic electron which junctions, between, atoms can be 10 %   or   1 %   thin compare to a   100 % thick atom. To be  100 %  thick, the atom must be composed of many  1 %  thin electron clouds (ßeta photons).
  And the fact shows that gold atoms are   NOT   LARGELY   EMPTY   SPACE    but filled with numerous electron’s   ßeta photons.
   The dark gaps between atoms   &   pengraletic electron clouds are probably   99.999 999 999 999 % empty space, so that by comparison a gold atom is  100 %  thicker.

Factual Gold Atoms (Science Photo Library)
   The belief of some scientists, professors, teachers, and writers which we can read too in some textbooks until now that atoms are an argumentative concept  ‘ NEARLY  universally  ACCEPTED   AS  established   FACT  ’    is  wrong, because atoms are    ‘NOT   NEARLY’   but   FACTUAL .
   In 1981 at ZÜrich  research laboratory, the International Business Machine (IBM) had invented a scanning tunneling microscope that has  100 million times magnifying ability.
    The photograph below was taken by such microscope, showing  45 million times magnified atoms of silicon.

Scientific Silicon Atoms (IBM, Science Photo Library)
By that powerful scanning tunneling microscope, pengraletic electron clouds between atoms are also viewed. Prior to that year, atoms were many decades already been seen by Dr. Erwin Wilhelm Mueller’s field-ion microscope, one of the samples is the photograph of iridium atoms  1 million times magnified taken by him in 1951.

   It was in 1936 when Erwin W. Mueller had conceptualized that by emiting electrons in a high vacuum tube from a very fine needle-tip to a phosphorescent screen the surface atoms of the needle-tip could be figured out.
  In February 1977, however, Kenneth F. Weaver of National Geographics, page 281, had commented for those iridium atoms: “In color-enhanced image of an iridium crystal above, each dot represents a single atom. The lattice arrangement of these radiant strings of lights reflects the order and symmetry of crystalline atomic structure,”  which probably gave an inspiration to the authors of String Theories to imagine atoms as strings.
   According to this then new notion, a one-dimensional string with a length  0.000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 01 millimeter or
1 x 10⁻31  mm and which vibrates as it was moving through space was manifesting as a subatomic particle according to its mode of vibration, so that different patterns or various ways of vibration would appear to us as different particles, suggesting that all matter & forces are strings in various vibrational modes. In 1983, it was believed that a superstring is a particle existing in ten dimensions. Like other wave notion, it was also full of verbose mysticism and could not explicitly explain the perpendicularity of electric  & magnetic fields).
   If atom is fact, then there must be    Facts    About  Atoms.   However, until now Atomic Theory is popular among the textbooks and it is too difficult to uphold   Facts about atoms for one serious thing-  upholding facts will dethrone the well accepted notions about atoms & waves.
   It is Allan Poe Bona Redoña of the Philippines who pushes to uphold Facts about Atoms  and derives   theories basing on those facts.
   Whether we like it or not, the pengraletic electron cloud between atoms is composed of much tinier particles (which we called ßeta photons) and, in fact, the term   ‘cloud’  in   ‘electron cloud’    is a suggestive  of   ‘being composed of many much tiny particles ‘     and those particles are  NOT  probably seen  but  ACTUALLY  seen simultaneously in the places where we can see them on the photographs by scanning tunneling microscope.
   They are not probability  but actuality   by that instrument.
    The most disgusting thing is the   FACT  that atom is   NOT   a   Planetary-like System   Model   but   a  spherical  of electron’s particles.

Some     FACTS      ABOUT       ATOMS
1) Atom is not largely empty space but filled with  minute particles (i.e. ßeta photons) of  electrons.

2) Atoms are not systems with Planetary-like Model but variously shaped compositions of tiny particles (ßeta photons) of electrons.

Atoms of tin (blue), lead (green) & silicon (red)

Nickel Atoms (Vivek Lyer Netherlands)

Nobium atoms & silicon atoms

Tin atoms & Silicon atoms (letters

3) Atoms of molecules are junctioned with pengraletic electrons, which are stretched from   &  to  the atoms as elastic-like bonds.

Pengralets junction Gold Atoms
4)The  atom’s shape is affected by the arrangement of electrons.
5) The atom’s size is affected by the concentration of particles (ßeta photons) of electrons.
6) A pure element is composed of identical atoms.
7) Variously shaped identical atoms form an element.
8) The nearer the atoms to each other, the bigger they are.

closer the Gold atoms are bigger
9)  Pengraletic electrons between the atoms are thicker if those atoms are closer to each other.
10) There is an attraction between the atom and the pengraletic electron cloud.
11) The farther the gold atoms to one another, the smaller or slender they are.
(Iridium atoms)
12) If atoms are more distant to each other, the pengraletic electrons between them are thinner.
13) There is a repulsion between atoms.
14) Pengraletic electrons can stretch or distort an atom.

15) Bigger atom of a solid metallic element is having shorter pengralets (electron bonds) on its sides, suggesting that the concentration of ßeta photons in the capacitoric has increased repulsion, causing bulking of the inductoric ßeta photons. (Be noted that electron is atomic-electron internally  and  pengraletic-electron externally. Inductoric is the layer of  ßeta photons in the atom. Capacitoric is the junction between atomic ßeta photons & pengraletic electron.)

16) Solid metallic element is solid because its atoms cannot easily move due to pengraletic bonds, which hold those atoms.
17) The thicker the pengraletic ßeta photons, the bigger the atom they hold, suggesting that the atom is composed of ßeta photons (electrons).
   (Be noted that electron rays can be decomposed into gamma rays by mutually colliding their opposite charges, proving that electrons are absolutely made up of gamma photons. The electrically active photons of electrons are the ßeta photons.)
18) Atom’s side with longer pengralet (external ßeta photons) is smaller, suggesting that the concentration (or more allocation) of ßeta photons in the pengralet reduces internal repulsion to the capacitoric ßeta photons.

(Gold Atoms)
19) External pengraletic electron clouds which junction (have connected)  atoms are  FACT.

20) The atom’s shape can be distorted as its pengralets (electrons) can be shorter or longer, suggesting that they are stretchable.
21) There are no revolving (orbiting)  tiny electrons, but the fact shows pierced in or outstretched big pengraletic electrons.
22) Metallic bonds between solid metal’s atoms are not invisible forces but literal bonds, which we called pengraletic electron clouds (or pengralets).

23) Atoms of solid metals are simultaneously bound by metallic bonds (pengralets) at the same time (which is contrary to the popular belief that a spinning electron is orbiting to all the eight nearest neigboring metal’s atoms one at each time).
24) Tensional extraction (pull) can be located as a shrank (reduced in size) side of the atom.

25) Pressure (push) can be seen as a bumpy (swell) portion of an atom’s side (specifically the thicker capacitoric portion of pengraletic electron). By capacitoric portion, an atom can store pengraletic pressure.
- Atom    by Allan Poe Bona Redoña

Read also    QuasMosPectrum
Credits:  spectral LAYERS & LINES    drawing - Allan Poe Bona Redoña
              photrograph of Gold atoms - Science Photo Library/ Physics Today The World Book Encyclopedia of Science, page 15. Verlagsgruppe Bertelsmann International GmbH, Munich 1984 published by World Book, Inc., Chicago, revised edition 1987
               photograph of Silicon atoms - International Business Machine/ Science Photo Library/The Guinness Book of Records 1990, page 75. Guinness Publishing Ltd 1989
               photograph of Iridium atoms - Dr. Erwin W. Mueller 1951/ National Geographic Magazine, page 28, volume 151, number 2 February 1977. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC., USA,
               photograph of atoms of tin, lead & silicon  -  Oscar Custance, Osaka University
               photograph of Silicon & tin atoms               - Osaka University research team

Comments :
Interesting and thought-provoking.
Hi, have read part of the blog and feel I should point something out. Photos from an electron microscope are not like normal photos; they are to a akin to a charge density map. like looking at a geographical map where different colours represent different altitudes, they show differing amounts of electrical charge. Therefore the fact the atoms appear to be solid 'lumps' doesn't contradict, for example, Rutherford's stipulation that an atom is mostly empty space, it simply shows that on average there is a high charge density.

You can't actually take a picture of an atom as classical lenses cannot cope the very short wavelengths of light that that would be require.

These lumps in the photos are not the fact I suspect you think they are.


                              ATOM'S    DENSITY
    Density of what ?  Density of a single electron revolving about a single proton?  Or density of electron's particles (beta photons) and of  proton's particles (alpha photons) composing the atom ?  (-for a lightest atom).   What we can see on the photograph of  atom is not a planetary-like atom  but  an atom of cloud of electron. The cloud is composed of many tinier electrons'  particles. They fill the volume of the atom in.
      Where is water in a sea?  or  where is the electron in the atom?  Electron is not just merely  "in"  the atom, rather, it is composing  the denting portion of the atom,  or beta content of the proton or of the neutron (compressed hydrogen) of the atom.. It is true even to the heavier atoms, like shown in the photograph. Electron is like a rubber band, stretchable. it is like a string, recoil-able  It is adhesive (negatively and/or positively). It is like a magnetic bar, attracting and/or repelling. When ejected outside the atom, it is like a light beam. It is a tiniest form or size of lightning.
      On the photograph, electrons are visible as junctions or connectors between atoms and as the sphere atoms.