Romun Nose

The images below depict two perfectly cubic 1 cc volumes of any metal, both contain 2.7 x 10¹⁹ atoms and each of their six faces are composed of 1 x 7⁸ atoms, i.e. 700,000,000 individual atoms.

As is observed in practice when these faces are brought into close contact these cubes will immediately and permanently bond into a single 2 cc entity.

It is stated in scientific publications that ultimately metals are composed of atoms which are kinetically “rotating and vibrating” in place.

And, following Rutherford’s assertion in 1919 that an atom was almost entirely composed of a vacuum, physicists needed to come up with explanations for how such a structure of atoms, in constant “kinetic” motion, interacted to create the observed strong cohesion of metals, and this is an example:-

“Metallic bonding is a type of chemical bonding that rises from the electrostatic attractive force between conduction electrons (in the form of an electron cloud of delocalized electrons) and positively charged metal ions. It may be described as the sharing of free electrons among a structure of positively charged ions (cations). Metallic bonding accounts for many physical properties of metals, such as strength, ductility, thermal and electrical resistivity and conductivity, opacity, and luster.”

“The metal is held together by the strong forces of attraction between the delocalised electrons and the positive ions.”

And so it was then, necessarily, assumed by physicists that these “strong forces of attraction” could act through the relatively vast, Rutherfordian, sub-atomic vacuum between the minuscule nucleus and surrounding electrons and then on through both the inter-atomic vacuum and the sub-atomic vacua of adjacent atoms, as depicted in the diagram below where the nucleus is, in these hypothetical circumstances, far to small to depict and, the now observed very strong force of cohesion, is indicated by the red arrows.

Download this post as a PDF

It is observed that an increase in energy applied to a volume of gaseous matter results in an increase in volume combined with a co-incidental reduction in its mass density.

It is stated, as in the NASA images below, that if a 1M³ volume of a gas of a mass density of 0.52 Kg/M³ is enclosed in a flexible container at STP, and energy is applied to the gas to double its volume to 2M³, the mass density of these enclosed gases is reduced to precisely 0.26 Kg/M³.

In kinetic theory terms the contained atoms increase in kinetic velocities and move to greater separations, and the theory states that the individual masses and volumes of the atoms remain at the same values and that the reduction in overall density is a result of the expansion of a mass-less, interstitial vacuum, which by definition has no qualities that can exert any influence on these contained atoms.

And if we apply this concept to the observed evaporation of liquids from their surfaces such as water and mercury which occur at any temperature down to and below 0°C (as is observed in arctic regions), the initial evaporation is not that of individual atoms, which would be invisible, but of gaseous globules composed of many millions of atoms that are of sufficient volumes to diffract light (in the case of mercury U/V light) and so are visible as they, in both cases, rise rapidly upwards and disperse into the atmosphere.

When water is heated in a container globules of gas are formed at the bottom surface where the heat is applied and these are observed to detach from this surface and rise and progressively expand in volume and, as depicted in the diagram below, then to break free through the surface meniscus, at which point the gas is clearly visible in the atmosphere.

However in some natural circumstances where water evaporates naturally, such as the evaporation of a small drop mentioned, this evaporation may not be visible as the globules of gas formed may not be of sufficient volumes to diffract light.

In 1648 Blaise Pascal carried out a Barometer type experiment, where he filled the glass tube partly with mercury up to 35 mm from the open end and inverted the tube into a bowl of mercury, with the air duly rising above the liquid.

https://www3.nd.edu/~powers/ame.20231/webster1965.pdf

He observed that bubbles were then formed at the mercury surface and rose out of the liquid and disappeared into the air above it, as depicted in the diagram below.

And today the rapid evaporation of mercury is shown in this video:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpZF88fqrl8

As these gaseous mercury globules eventually disappear from view, this means that they dissipate into smaller clusters and eventually into single atoms that do not diffract light.

But the specific gravity (SG) of mercury in its gas state is stated to be 6.9, and so this gas, whether as globules or as individual atoms, should not rise at all through the atmosphere with a SG of 1.18, let alone rise at the observed rapid rate.

In kinetic theory terms, as the contained atoms (as depicted in the NASA images above) increase in kinetic velocities and move to greater separations and the theory states that the individual masses and volumes of the atoms remain at precisely the same values and, as the increased volume of interstitial vacuum has no mass, the collective mass of the constituent atoms is unchanged.

The atomic radii of nitrogen and oxygen atoms are stated to be 65 and 60 pm (picometres) respectively and that of mercury is 150 pm, their respective masses are 8, 9 and 200 amu, while their relative volumes, in cubic picometres, are as depicted in the diagram below.

In these hypothetical circumstances the elevation of either a ‘kinetic’ globule of mercury gas as in the first diagram below, or that of a single mercury atom of 200 amu in the second diagram, upwards through an atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen molecules of less than 18 amu, is inexplicable and logically speaking impossible.

It is observed that in the change of state of water to a gas, 1 cc of liquid expands to 1700 cc (1.7 litres) of water vapour of a mass density of 0.0048 g/L, and if a 1 cc drop is placed on a surface it will evaporate completely within an hour or two at STP.

Experiments also show that if a 1cc drop of mercury was left to evaporate it is estimated that it would take 10 years to do so, and this drop would generate a volume of 17.1 litres of mercury gas.

The images below represent the observed, relative expansion ratios of a 1cc volume of both water and mercury from the liquid states to the gaseous at 1-1700 cc and 1-17100 cc respectively.

From this experimental evidence it can only be concluded that, for the observed rapid elevation of mercury, the individual mass/densities of single gaseous mercury atoms cannot be greater than the mass/densities of the individual atoms/molecules of which the atmospheric gases are composed.

The first image below is of the change of state, in terms of current kinetic theory, of a liquid atom to the gas state, which by means of a relatively huge input of “latent” heat ultimately generates a sudden and huge increase in kinetic velocities.

In this context the yellow represents an expansion of the extra-atomic vacuum around an atom that remains at its original volume.

(This introduces the issue of gravity, as the masses of these atoms remain the same and only the mass-less vacuum expands, why then do such ‘gas’ atoms have a lesser ‘gravitational’ attraction to the Earth’s surface?)

The second image above depicts the physical expansion of the atom due to the absorption of heat energy, where the highly dense atom in the liquid state has progressively expanded and (this perhaps is counter-intuitive to some) the overall mass density has decreased.

The image below represents this exponential increase in mass density of a gaseous atom from the outer extents to the core.

In the electron-microscopy image of platinum atoms below, the outer limits of the component atoms are in direct contact with all adjacent platinum atoms of similar mass densities producing a hexagonal form, while the surfaces in contact with atmospheric gases are hemi-spherical.

If we apply this structure to that of mercury in its liquid state and to its expansion to the gas, these below are the relative, volumetric dimensions, and so if the mass density of the atom in the liquid state increases exponentially to a core of immense density, when the observed, relatively enormous quantity of mass/energy is imparted/absorbed to generate the transition to the gas state the density of this absorbed mass/energy also is dependent on altitude from the core.

There are therefore progressive changes in density in both directions, which results in a fractional increase in mass and an overall decrease in the mass density of the atoms.

There is just one way that an individual mercury atom can arrive at such a large reduction in mass/density in order to be able to rise rapidly upwards in the atmosphere, and this is due to the progressive absorption of a large quantity of energy which results in a, similarly progressive, and exponential expansion of its matter field, as depicted below.

And as the outer limits of such physically expanded atoms have significantly reduced densities this facilitates the observed, co-incident increases in fluidity with changes of state.

While such a continuous, universal structure of wholly material atoms obviously provides a medium for transmission, for example of that of the Earth’s magnetic field, the problem for the science of physics in general is that such a structure of atoms which expand and contract in volumes, brings into question the hypothetical, currently accepted, ultimate structures of all gases, in all circumstances and of all compositions and densities.

But I suggest that it is psychologically impossible for the thousands of theoretical physicists world wide to review their long held and absolute belief in the ‘existence’ of all-pervasive vacua and/or aethers that patently fail to explain the cohesive structure of the universe as a whole.

Kinetic Theory and Respiration

The kinetic atomic theory of gases has no sensible explanation for the gas exchange processes involved in human, and other mammalian, respiration.

This exchange is the absorption of oxygen into, and the emission of carbon dioxide from, the blood.

The effective parts of human lungs are hundreds of millions of minuscule air sacs, alveoli, and these balloon like sacs are composed of a structural membrane infused with blood vessels, the internal surfaces of these membranes that are in contact with atmospheric gases are covered with a liquid surfactant.

In six adult human lungs, the mean alveolar number was 480 million (range: 274–790 million; coefficient of variation: 37%). Alveolar number was closely related to total lung volume, with larger lungs having considerably more alveoli. The mean size of a single alveolus was rather constant with 4.2 × 10⁶μm³ (range: 3.3–4.8 × 10⁶μm³; coefficient of variation: 10%), irrespective of the lung size. One cubic millimeter lung parenchyma would then contain around 170 alveoli.

https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200308-1107OC

In the process of mammalian respiration the muscular expansion of the rib cage results in a reduction in pressure in the lungs, a consequent inhalation of atmospheric gases and the expansion of alveolar sacs and accordingly the introduction of nitrogen and oxygen into these sacs.

The proportions of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are, if we exclude the tiny proportions of other gases, around 80% and 20% respectively.

For humans the period between the commencement of inhalation to the completion of exhalation is, dependent upon the rate of physical exertion, normally between 1 second up to 4 seconds.

Of the 20% proportion of oxygen available in the atmosphere, it is observed that only 25 to 30% of this is actually absorbed by the lungs in each cycle, or in other words around 6% of the total of gases inhaled.

Even at a high level of exertion, with a inhalation to exhalation rate of around one second, oxygen is absorbed into the blood within the alveoli.

In essence the process of respiration is that the oxygen inhaled passes through the surfactant and the alveolar membranes and is absorbed into the blood vessels, while carbon dioxide gas is coincidentally expelled by them and passes in the opposite direction into the gas contained within the sac.

And so the gas exhaled is composed of around 80% nitrogen, 19-24% oxygen and the balance is carbon dioxide.

But it is an observed fact that the diffusion of gases is a slow process, and if we apply this to the atmospheric gases in the alveoli and, for the sake of argument, say there are many millions of atoms/molecules in one sac, this would suggest that the molecules of oxygen that are some distance away from the internal surface would not come into contact with it.

In the limited time allowed of one second, it is quite clear that statistically speaking it would be impossible for 25-30% of the oxygen atoms to collide with the surface.

However this is not the only problem for the kinetic atomic theory of gases in these circumstances.

The theory states that the di-atomic molecules of nitrogen and oxygen in the atmosphere are enclosed in a vacuum, or non-material ’empty space’ of a volume 1000 times that of the total volume of all the component atoms.

These molecules are in free ‘kinetic’ motion in this ‘space’ at average velocities of between 400 and 500 metres per second.

The AMU (atomic mass units) of nitrogen and oxygen di-atomic molecules are quite close, at about 14 and 16 respectively.

In such circumstances we can state that these molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, having similar atomic masses, are colliding with the atoms at the surface of the surfactant, and are traveling at similar (and often the same) high velocities.

And the theory suggests that such collisions are to be assumed as instantaneous.

The diagram below represents this ‘kinetic’ situation with the appropriate proportions of each element.

For the observed proportion of the available oxygen to enter the blood, and bearing in mind that absorption of nitrogen into the blood is dangerous and normally does not occur, it would require that each and every instantaneous ‘kinetic’ collision of an oxygen atom/molecule would result in absorption, while each and every instantaneous collision of a nitrogen atom/molecule would result in an immediate repulsion at the surface of the surfactant fluid.

That the internal surfaces of the alveoli have the capability of sensing the difference instantaneously between the atoms/molecules of oxygen and nitrogen in collisions and absorbing one while repulsing the other, is inconceivable.

There is clearly no answer to this question in terms of a kinetic atomic theory of gases and, if looked at objectively, this effectively falsifies the theory.