What is the truth behind the atomic model?

[QuantumNet]

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

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8610

You can also read the rest of my theory on 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 each other, it is discovered that they move from each other:
<-- 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.