Divining Sizes of elementary Forms and Atoms

If one were to, Buckminster Fuller style, build a spherical model of small triangles which had an equal and opposite number of triangles to represent the almost equal and opposite speeds of them coming together to form a sphere, and there were large indentations on the surface of this sphere which had spiky edges protruding from it so that it, if the form was spinning, would have force enough to spin a proportion neutron or electron light off it equal to the amount of force of the elementary forms of the sphere; and then if one were to take these spheres and place them two radii apart from each other so that the surface of the form was as close to spherical as possible, then the number of atoms it would take to make the smallest drop of water or carbon bubble could be had.

Water is fairly uniform as a substance, but not hard because the electron light of it is not static. The electrons are continuously passing over the atomic orbits, heating it up and exapning the molecules of the on-the-top of each other molecular layers and causing the rise and fall when pushed apart from each other. This gives it the "fluidity" water is known for, not the density of the on-the-top-of each-other layers of rows of atoms, which I have written about previously but was not quite right about.

Water atoms can be many different sizes of spheres so any sphere of water may or may not be the smallest, the temperature at which the water molecules become a sphere may not be very important because this would either add or take away electron light from both air surrounding the drop of water, and so there would be an equilibrium of temperature of the air and water.

Water forms spheres on air because molecules of air have close to an equal and opposite amount of trajectory on their electron orbits than water. Water is more dense than air and therefore more shiny.

Air has slightly less of an atom than water molecules on the same amount of space between the two atoms of its molecules. Therefore between two atoms of air, there are three, or two and half, water atoms, and between the three water atoms there is allot of electron light though the light is continuously passing over and away from the atomic orbitals. So even though water has a clear color, the electron light cannot be said static; and it can be said continuously to oxidize electron light off the air, because water is fundamentally metallic, though the atoms are spaced close enough together as neutral when electron light is on the orbitals.

Therefore, the best way to get closest to the size of most elementary forms, and therefore atoms, is to build the models of the spheres of elementary forms, then sphere' s of atoms spaced close to two radii, and then find the smallest spherical drop of water and say that the number of atoms
it takes to make a sphere fit onto that drop, and the then the number of elementary particles it takes to make those spheres, can each be given a size which is divided by the size of the drop.

Sort of like arguing how many angels fit on the head of a pin combined with an argument to be had by the Bureau of Weights and Measures..

The Closest to Form toward diving the sizes an Elementary Forms is the Carbon Bubble

Because little drops of water form when they break apart from clouds when cooled, we hardly see the smallest drops of water, and therefore the smallest spheres, because they're up high on air, and when they fall they gain inertia and therefore more or less electrons from the air, so the spheres take a shape which is not as spherical or the same sized sphere when first formed.

However, when water molecules gain inertia from being swooshed around on carbon atoms, small bubbles of carbon form and the smallest of those bubbles of carbon can be the marker which we set as the smallest spheres, and therefore, the smallest conglomerations of atoms as spheres, if they're
spaced two radii apart from each other, or something like that.

Here's the sort of two-dimensional model which I would make for a carbon bubble on water

o--o

o--o--o

o--o

The graphics aren't good, but there is a bit of squareness which markes the top and sides of the carbon bubble. Since Molecular layers can be a bit square there is an inconsitency as to how a spherical shape would eventuate from the layers. However, the way around the complete square shap of these layers is to suppose that atoms are latched to the sides of square molecules, but are not themselves latched to four other molecules. A model of this being this.

O--O O

O O—O

Perhaps the atoms on the sides may bend downwards and perhaps that gives a spherical shape. Or the molecular layers are just squares with the points of them being pointed at different angles so that a spherical shape eventuates.




The Difference between Green Crystals and Green Things

Now, it occurs to me, and I hope sooner than when I go to a store and get what I need for models - or carve them from soap etc, that my model on colours was somewhat incomplete because when molecules, and amalgamations of them, form, and are not clear and uniform, the atoms eclipse the refractory ability of electron light from certain angles that are 3d rather than just ontop of each other and slanted directly underneath the molecular layers.

That atoms can be sort of slanted underneath no electrons, but underand between the atoms and electrons of the moleculr layers, is what I was getting at.

Here's a model of that

The bottom view of four atoms together (not that they always come in fours.

My guess is that they come by two to a kind of element)

O e O

e e

O e O

Now the possibilities of where the
underneath-or-over-each-other-

­atoms/molecules could be.

O e A O

Ae a eA

O A e O

Now that the atoms (A) that are by the e (e is for electron) are generally what I was thinking of for my manual on colors: that atoms that were directly below the electron orbitals of the on-top-of-each-other layers of molecules will eclipse the positive electron orbital at some point and create a different refraction which makes a new color, instead of the clarity and shininess of a crystal or water is what I was trying to convey.
This also depends upon how far the atoms are separated.

However, the atom (a) between the four on-the-top-of-each-other atoms seems
to me like it would also make a color, though it's not really eclipsing a positive electron orbital, however its electon could be eclipsing an electron orbital.

The colors that this new atom would create would be a less shiny form of the same color as the atoms eclipsing the positive electron orbitals: a black color would be that which eclipses the most positive space between the electrons followed by a shiny dark blue, green all the way to light blue and the clarity of the utmost positivity of gases.

This sort of reasoning doesn't present that much of a change from my previous view but it does point to a flaw for my three-dimensional ability to recognize forms.

If atoms eclipse electron orbitals of positively charged substances, theory would say that when they do so more light would be refr acted than otherwise, but that would only point to the density of refraction and perhaps not colors themselves.

But, if there was refraction between layers of molecules which hardly had to do from atoms eclipsing electron orbitals, but parts of atoms and parts of electron orbitals both eclipsing electron orbitals, then perhaps a different color, though less shiny would ensue more readily than if atoms eclipsed just the electron orbitals of positively charged molecules. Atoms eclipsing the electron orbital of positive molecules, would either therefore only strengthen the refractive index of the electron orbitals and make things more shiny, and make a color, which is a very shiny crystal.

Green Crystals

Green, or other colored crystals, could be the product of the sort of arrangement of atoms whereby the atoms of the on-top-of-each-other layers- (not charged) -amalgamation of molecules eclipse each other's positive electron orbitals (at a specific positivity, because that's what makes the
color), and only eclipse under or over the positive electron orbitals. Shiny transparent colors are the product of this sort of arrangement.

Other Colors not colored Crystals

Other colors besides Green and other colored Crystals could be the product of the atoms eclipsing the on-the-top-of-each-other layers of molecules where there are no electron orbitals between four atoms together, yet the molecules of the attached atoms still have a certain positive charge which gives them a certain color when above other atoms are seperated accordingly.


Spaceship form of atoms and Colors

What may puzzle some about the difference of colors and colored crystals and the angles of the eclipsed electron orbitals by atoms of the layers of molecules which are underneath rows of side-by-side electrically charged atoms, is possibly the shape of the atoms themselves.

You see, atoms are not spherical balls but look more like little footballs so the electron orbitals of the top molecular layers are eclipsed below by other atoms on a crystal are more directly below the electron orbitals than they are for darker colors. The electron orbitals are eclipsed by the "neutron" and electron orbital part of an atom below it instead of just the atomic nucleus alone.

Here's a diagram of four side-by-side atoms and their electron orbitals on a
crystal.

O e O

e e

O e O

Here's the diagram of the colored crystal with "a" for atoms underneath of the top row which, along with a certain positive, or negative charge, as well as an angle of slant underneath the row causes a crystal color. Of course negative charged atoms don't really have that much electron light,
unless it is that which passes over them quite quickly like on water.

O ea O

ea ea

O ea O

Now here, below, is a diagram o f a darker color, with the atomic nucleus of the bottom row of atoms slanted below the on-the-top-of-each-other-layer of atoms. It's not just the atomic nucleus which causes the color now by eclipsing the electron orbits above it, it's the atomic nucleus and the
electron/neutron of it. The atomic nucleus is shifted farther onto the space between the atoms where there aren't any electrons or atoms, but just so part of it still eclipses the electron orbital, yet more light is refracted because more of the atoms is eclipsing space that can be penetrated by
light. So a darker color ensues, yet still virtually the same color as the crystal, if darker colors are considered the "same" colors

O e O

aee aee

Oe e Oe

aee aee

on the above diagram O stands for atoms of one row of connected atoms, and the "a" stands for atoms which are slanted below the first layer of atoms, and e stands for the electron light or bitals of both.



Color film, why water doesn't have a color

I think colored film is crystals mixed with another kind of greyish molecule, or blackish molecule. When the light hits it, the molecules onto the crystals expand under them creating different colors.

LCD's are probably made of molecules which are like those of colored film but on a larger scale and mixed, of course, with other sorts of crystals, or the same, but just on a larger scale.

A colored television is probably just a layer of a molecule on the back of a crystal like molecules, and made into pixels because that was the best way of measuring the space to amplify the light of a certain sized lens.

the electrical amplification of light to camera lens to an LCD screen, in contrast to color television, is measured more precisely, and more by molecular size.

The way people know the molecular size of a thing is by measuring the smallest bubble, then building a model which would include the amount of particles on an electron orbitals of the molecule, and then extrapolating from that how much electric charge by which to amplify the light which is picked up a camera lens, which is, of course, made of a certain molecular structure which can be extrapolated upon based upon the same model.

I have always wanted to know how this stuff works and finally I do. Not that much in depth, but a good star nonetheless.

Wait, I'll post my other pamphlet on colors below

The Colors and Refraction of Different layers of Molecules does not differ much from layer to layer, but is of small and very Gradual Difference unless
the Molecules are formed by Man.

Molecules, whether they are two atoms together or four, are not much electrically different from the layers of molecules they are onto, yet not electrically adhered to, and only differ by electric charge and refraction gradually, and depending upon the temperature of geological formation.

Because geological movements cause the differences between the molecular structure of certain materials, they do so and yet always leave a small buffer of electric charge between row which gradually tapers off to a different layer of molecularly charged atoms, because geological formation
is rarely done without a sharp temperature increase or decline.

Rarely is anything formed which is not done so by temperature, and so temperature is passed along to the different electron orbitals of different on-the-top-of-each other layers of atoms rather uniformly, but adding more energy at the beginning of it's dispersion rather than the end.

The inertia and force of the human hand and tools is much colder than geological formation. So there can be no sharp contrast between the molecular layers of things which form by other things than the force applied by humans, or I suppose, animals.

If there is a sharp difference between the electric charges of different layers of molecules then those layers were formed by man. Examples of the above principle and answers to some obvious questions follow:

Water and air are next to each other, but so is water vapor between the two. Land and air are next to each other but air is technically colorless next to the ground, and more dense near the earth than above it and between the air and earth are plants plus sunlight and gravity. The very top levels of the
ground are also clearish and burnt by the sun. Sand is the natural state of earth plus sky and no water and is clear like air plus p ositively charged. So water mixes with earth and so technically the darkness of the top layer of earth without water is fairly clear, unless tilled.

The higher up from the earth the more spread apart the molecules are, the closer to the earth, the less spread apart they are, or are mixed by molecules of the same consistency.

Heat and cold are distributed so evenly to layers of molecules that there really are no sharp molecular contrasts to scenery, but a perceived difference which is less complicated further below the earth than ontop.

The top layers of plant leaves are rather clear like air but more sense, and don't make different colors unless cooled by water from roots below, which is drawn to the fibres of the plant by the electrical stimulus of the sun's heat.

The formula for shape formation is that, that which has close to an equal and opposite amount of force and trajectory will form a sphere, depending upon the ratios of s = o/n / n/o of elementary particles adjusted for the trajectories of atomic nuclei, and so because of the different ratios of force and trajectory of an equal and opposite amount of elementary forms, the ratios for formation cannot really be broken, even when force is added by the human hand.

However, when force is added by the human hand and tools a sharp decline or increase of the electrical charges of rows of atoms ontop-of each other, but not electrically adhered to each other, ensues. Rows of atoms not electrically adhered to each other yet on-the-top-of-each-other but yet are
not electrically charged allows for a gradual shift and variation of color.

So, when things which touch air, they differ from the molecular structure of it gradually, as well as its temperature, sunlight, and gravity etc.

However, a man made thing would be something like black paint thrown on air. I know this example probably carries some esoteric Aristotelian weight, but I mean it strictly by the dictionary. Black paint cannot be thrown on air and expected not to have been done by the human hand.

If the earth were to create black paint, over time, it would have been acclimated to the elements it was onto and its top molecular layers would not go from air to black, to air. There would have been a buffer of temperature between the air and blackness, like obsidian rock.

Obsidian comes from the bottom of the earth and it cools, and over time develops a clear coating, like other rocks - or a clearness close to that which it touches - and eventually becomes a regular rock. Diamonds and metals mined from the ground are refined because their outer layers match
the layer to which they are on and then need lapidation.

The extremity of the movements of the earth certainly cause the differences between layers of molecules, and their charges, and when the earth moves it moves uniformly, based upon the gravitational forces of the stars and
planets onto it. However just because these movements cause what appear differences between the molecular structure of certain materials, it does so by a way which always leaves a small buffer of electric charge between each
thing which has gradually tapered off to a different layer of molecularly charged atoms.

Rarely is anything formed geologically, not by temperature except the upper parts of mountains, as explained above

Why are rocks mixed with dirt? Rocks were there first