Really weird crackpot science

[Kuggenham Weirdo]

The electron does not move let alone spin. It is held in something like a Lagrange point. There are 2.N2 such points.

When you do Chemistry and play around with molecules you use balls with holes drilled in them at precise angles and struts, what I am saying is that in fact reflects reality, the ball is the nucleous and the combining stut the electron in its fixed location dictated by nucleous 1 and in chemical combination also occupying the fixed location of nucleous 2. In fact there is little difference between,so called Ionic and Covalant bonds ( in fact both effects are usually present ) except that ionic bonds can be easily seperated by water. This explains why you have definite structure in all materials a simple balance of forces since although the electon is much lighter than the nucleous it can excert a reciprical force equal to one proton, it is light so that it can 'twist' into position and as much as each nucleous fixes it into postion - it in turn bonds them together. That's why you require a disassociation energy. You have no radiation from the electron because it does not cut the lines of force of the nucleous, however when excited it can move laterally cutting the lines and radiating. Since the holding forces are those which increase with distance simple harmonic motion of a fixed frequency will result. Obviously with enough applied enegy the electron can move to a new defined position.

Thre appears to be 2 seperate states for an electron apart from group 1 and 7, there seems to be a duplication of the above bonding. Where multiple bonding occurs there is usually a spacing of atoms around the multiple valancy atom. Where as in Carbon there are multiple bonds between atoms presumably stretching attachment points the result is usually unstable.

This statinary conditionof the electron ( apart from Kinetic collisions whre both the electon AND its corresponding nucleos rotate ) implies a diople and explains Hydrogen bonding and weak ( in group 8 ) Van de Waal's forces.

I shall contine this weird theory if I can get an audiance of similar 'rebels against conventional theories'.

 

 

[uncool]

Please make a specific, testable, falsifiable prediction from your not-yet-hypothesis. It becomes a hypothesis when you have such a prediction; it becomes a theory when that prediction is shown to be correct.

=Uncool-

[swansont]

The electron does not move let alone spin. It is held in something like a Lagrange point. There are 2.N2 such points.

How does this jibe with quantum mechanical orbitals and all of QM that has panned out, e.g. the hyperfine structure of an S orbital, like what you find in alkali atoms? Hard to reconcile the HF splitting if the electron doesn't have any chance of being near the nucleus. QM of course doesn't say that the electron spins, just that it has intrinsic angular momentum.

 

I shall contine this weird theory if I can get an audiance of similar 'rebels against conventional theories'.

If your "rebellion" is demonstrably wrong, it's not going to garner much of an audience. It would behoove you to be familiar with more of what has already been observed.

[mississippichem]

Concerning your comments on bonding:

 

All covalent bonds (except homonuclear bonds) have some degree of ionic character. However most ionic interactions have almost no covalent character. Evaluate an overlap integral for a sodium 3s orbital and a chlorine 3p orbital. You'll find that the bonding linear combination of those orbitals isn't occupied to any degree that matters. The sodium 3s ionization energy is also far to low to allow said molecular orbital to have an appreciable lifetime. The redox couple is very favored.