Atomic model's

[QuantumNet]

Please, take a look on my atomic-model based on that
a universe in wich every point can be counted as an origo, must be a net.

My atomic model (http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8610)

You can also read the rest of my theory on my theory page (http://www.quantumnet-string.tk)

This explains the math around the atom, right?

Through this pictures, we obtain that neither the classical or the modern atomic model is correct. Do you agree?
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/classical_atomic_orbit.gif

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by QuantumNet
Through this pictures, we obtain that neither the classical or the modern atomic model is correct. Do you agree?
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/classical_atomic_orbit.gif The modern model of the atom works quite well.

[FZ+]

Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom...

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The modern model of the atom works quite well.

if boblock was right,
aa
bb
would lead to
a bb a
since b attracts b and a repells a were b is sink and a is source.
Let's say this is a primitive sort of helium atom.
If two b are on a certain distance from eachother, it is discovered that they move from eachother:
<-- b b -->
This is due of advanced net physic, and it's not my case to crack.

[QuantumNet]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom...

No, but... the only difference is the presumed orbit. Mathematically there are no greater differences.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by FZ+
Er... Bohr isn't exactly the modern model of the atom... I didn't mean to imply it was. Just take my statement as-is.