SPINNING CHARGED RING SUB?ATOMIC PARTICLE MODEL
PRESENTED BY DAVID BERGMAN For RMCF on 4/20/01 & 4/21/01
Review & Commentary by Philip G. Budd

The Bohr Atomic Model with a nucleus containing protons and neutrons that is surrounded by orbiting point particle electrons is being challenged by Creationist Physicists associated with "Common Sense Science, Inc." and a few Naturalist Physicists who are convinced that the Bohr Model is false. The inverse relationship between particle size and rest mass energy requires a small charged particle to generate a force that would become infinitely large if that charge were confined to a point. Therefore, because a point particle electron would have no area, it cannot hold a charge or intercept and absorb any form of incoming energy. However, if area is assigned to a point particle electron, the electron would emit radio waves, loosing energy that would destroy the particle structure. And we know that electron structure is stable. When a good scientist realizes the model he has been using is a bad tool, he is obligated to develop a better modeling tool.

Developing scientific models employs the principle of minimizing the number of required foundational assumptions upon which the model is constructed. "Most progress in science is made by dropping assumptions" (David Bohm). Quantum physics, for example, proposes six assumed intrinsic properties of the electron: charge, energy, spin, magnetic moment, mass, and stability. In contrast, the "Spinning Charged Ring Sub?Atomic Particle Model" (SCR), proposed by Common Sense Science, assumes only two intrinsic properties: charge and energy. Spin, magnetic moment, mass, and structure are derived from charge and energy. Therefore, SCR provides enhanced potential as a more effective modeling tool than quantum physics.

The second measure of model credibility is simplicity because the need for "fudge factors" to correct for math discrepancies implies the model is based upon false foundational assumptions. Quantum physics requires an ever?increasing stream of new particles to balance their equations. In contrast, SCR can balance its equations with four particles: electron, proton, the extremely rare positron, and anti?proton. The neutron is a combined electron and proton within an atom. The structure of each particle is a ring of charge and energy that spins at the speed of light. The moving charge generates an electrostatic field and a magnetostatic field surrounding the ring. Electromagnetic pinch effect (inward) and electrostatic repulsion force (outward) balance to form a stable ring structure. These sub?atomic particles have finite size, carry multiple charges, and exhibit elastic charge distribution. The physical size of electrons places a limit on the number that will "fit" in each atomic shell. Electron charge rotation generates a magnetic dipole that links it into a stable position within its atomic shell. Atoms are electromagnetically constructed as the innermost positively?charged proton shell which is bound to a surrounding negatively bound electron shell which is bound to a surrounding positively?charged proton shell, etc. in alternating sequence for the inner shells. Simplicity clearly favors SCR.

The third measure of model credibility is its ability to predict. Proponents of General Relativity Theory, Special Relativity Theory, and Quantum Physics understand that each of those models are constructed upon the impossible foundational assumption of the point particle electron. However, they continue to employ those models as functional working hypothesis. Continual corrections proposing new particles and forces must be imposed to balance the equations with experimental data. In contrast, SCR correctly provides cause and effect explanations and predictions for atomic structure based upon electrodynamic forces that correctly predicts the Periodic Table of Elements and their characteristics, spectral emission, photoelectric effect, black body radiation, the interaction of light with matter, and 1,500 nuclide spins as measured.

The fourth measure of model credibility is application. What useful inventions can be directly credited to application of the model? Modern technology is developing at an accelerating rate. But is that technology the product of General Relativity Theory (GRT) Special Relativity Theory (SRT) or Quantum Physics (QP)? The answer is a resounding "No." Electromagnetic Theory developed in the nineteenth century is directly responsible for generation of electricity, lighting devices, airplanes, telephones, microwave cooking, automobiles, radio, television, movies, radar, and automated control devices. Can the SCR model provide new technologic application where GRT, SRT, and QP have failed?

Big Bang Cosmology is constructed upon the foundational assumption that the observed red?shift of light from distant galaxies is generated by an expanding universe. If red?shift of distant starlight is predominantly the product of any other mechanism than the Doppler Effect, Big Bang Cosmology will be proved false. William Tifft proposed that red?shift readings from distant galaxies are quantized in discrete multiple intervals. The Royal Observatory in Edinburgh measured red?shifts in 89 spiral galaxies that support the case for quantized red?shifts. Quantized red shifts are curiously reminiscent of energy states of sub?atomic particles. According to Halton Arp, a large magnetic field may redden light from hydrogen in relativistic jets where red?shifts are observed. Where quasars show a high red shift, a strong magnetic field is often detected. Based upon SCR, an electron within an intense magnetic field becomes excited and multiple units of charge are carried by electrons. With each increasing unit of charge carried by a single electron, the radius of the electron ring increases correspondingly. The longer wavelength of light emitted matches the larger radius of that excited electron. Redder light is characterized by that longer wavelength. That longer wavelength of emitted light is the predominant cause of the observed red?shift of starlight from distant galaxies.

A second application of SCR involves Radiometric Decay Dating (RDD) Methods. The principle question concerning RDD is, "Why does RDD yield extrapolated dates of hundreds of millions to billions of years on most dated rocks, including recently solidified rocks?" The Institute for Creation Research provided the initial funding for "A Computational Model for Nuclear Binding and Isotopic Decay Energies" which is a fascinating study conducted by Boudreaux and Baxter. Utilizing the SCR model, radioactive potassium 40 is shown to form 72 percent of the time as spin state 2 which has a calculated half?life of 21 hours. The remaining 28 percent of the time, potassium 40 forms in spin state 4 which has a calculated half?life of 1.3 x 109 years. The combined calculated halflife is calculated at 795 years! By the time most rocks are dated, any short half?life spin state varieties would have long since decayed from radioactive parent isotopes into stable daughter elements. If RDD extrapolated dates are exclusively based on remnant long half?life spin state varieties, that would explain why RDD consistently extrapolates to yield excessively old dates. We still need to determine if other radioactive isotopes also have multiple spin states with variable half?lives. Also, some explanation needs to be proposed to explain why a less stable variety of spin state can be formed in greater quantities than a more stable variety of spin state.

I am told that ICR discontinued RATE funding for the Boudreaux and Baxter project when they learned that the unconventional SCR model was utilized. However, I am convinced that David Bergman and his Common Sense Science associates have proven their point that the SCR model is a better interpretation tool than the conventional Bohr Model of the Atom, GRT, SRT, and QT models. Technical objections to SCR have subsided as reasonable cause and effect explanations have generated converts to the SCR model. Philosophical objections have continued as Naturalists recognize SCR is a serious threat to Atomism and its quasi?scientific attempt to avoid God's authority over our lives. Therefore, I recommend that Creationists and Creationist organizations familiarize themselves with, publish, and develop applications based upon SCR. Application of SCR provides grand potential for Creation scientists to race past Naturalist scientists who continue to bump into brick walls in blind Quantum Physics alleys.

To learn more about the Spinning Charged Ring SubAtomic Particle Model, please contact Common Sense Science, Inc.;

David L. Bergman; P.O. Box 1013; Kennesaw, GA 30144?8013.
E-Mail to David Bergman