Postmodern Chemistry and the Original and True Atomic Theory of Matter
Published: May 2, 2010


As defined by The American Heritage Student’s Dictionary, Chemistry is “the scientific study of the composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter, especially at the level of atoms and molecules.”1 The modern atom, which has been split into subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons), is the basis of modern chemistry, but it’s not really an atom. It’s a misnamed particle!

It’s said that two or more of these atoms form a molecule, which is the smallest part into which a compound can be divided without chemical change. The modern misnamed splittable atom and its subatomic particles are used to explain the chemical composition, structure, properties, and reactions of matter. Consequently, modern chemistry’s explanation of the nature of matter is basically false. It follows a periodic table of the elements based upon the false idea of the nature of the atom. Being an Atomist who knows what a true atom is and recognizing that modern chemistry has been established on a false atomic theory, I deemed it necessary to establish a postmodern chemistry based upon the original and true Atomic theory of matter. The nature of matter cannot be understood without understanding this theory.

Matter is the name given by scientists to the “stuff “of which things are made. The Atomic theory of matter says: “The function of matter is to press everything downward.”2 Matter may be defined as anything that takes up (or occupies) space, has mass, and reacts to gravity. There is nothing in the universe that does not fit this definition of matter, except the void. The void is pure empty space or nothingness. It’s the opposite of matter. Space is the area in which matter exists, moves, and changes. Mass is the amount of matter in an object. Mass is also defined as the resistance of an object to change in its motion. This is called the object’s “inertia”. Gravity is the force of attraction between two masses (or bodies) that draws them together. I maintain that based upon the above definition of matter, we all observe that matter exists in five forms – solids, such as rocks and trees; liquids, such as water and oil; gases, such as air and methane; plasmas, such as ions and electrons; and radiations, such heat and light. All of these forms of matter are particulate. By this, I mean that they are made up of minute separate particles. During the second half of the 400’s BC, the Greek natural philosopher Leucippus (fl.c. 450 BC) theorized that if matter is repeatedly cut up, the end result would be uncuttable particles of matter. His student Democritus (c.460-c.370 BC) coined the word atoma, meaning “uncuttables” to name these particles. Atoma is the plural of atomos, the word from which our English word “atom” is taken. It’s important to understand that if the description of a particle does not fit the above definition of an atom, it cannot be an atom.

Democritus developed the theory of atoms and combined it with the theory of elements. During his time, it was believed that earth, water, air, and fire were the four basic “elements,” or building blocks, of matter. Democritus maintained that these four elements, being material objects, were made up of atoms and void (empty space). He explained that material objects can be divided into parts because of the voids between their atoms. If you continue to divide matter into smaller pieces, you will eventually reach a point where the pieces cannot be further divided, because they contain no empty space. They are absolutely “solid” particles, which we call “atoms” – things that cannot be cut or divided. These absolutely “solid atoms” are the smallest particles of matter that can exist: the ultimate and smallest division of matter. Democritus said that they are not only absolutely solid, but also invisibly small. He explained that atoms may differ in size and shape, but not in substance.

By maintaining that the four elements of his time (earth, water, air, and fire) were made of solid atoms and empty space, Democritus produced the idea of “elemental atoms,” or the ultimate solid building blocks of matter, which cannot be destroyed or divided into smaller parts. Democritus thought there were only four shapes of atom -- earth, water, air, and fire. He explained that the things that make the various elements different from each other is the different sizes, shapes, textures, and positions of their atoms. Since the atoms do not differ in substance, they do not individually possess the
properties that identify the various elements, which are compounds of atoms. Therefore, atoms cannot be described as earth atoms, water atoms, air atoms, and fire atoms.

Being the smallest particles of matter that can exist, atoms are infinitesimal particles, having a mass and weight that exceed zero by less than any specified number. They must amass themselves billions and billions of times into increasingly larger and larger molecules before they can become visible particles. A molecule is a compound of atoms. Because of the invisibility and infinitesimal size of the atoms, they cannot be seen, not even with the most powerful microscope. Knowledge of the atoms comes from the intellect, not the senses. We know that the atoms exist only because we
understand that no material object, being finite in size, can be infinitely divisible, or be divided into smaller and smaller parts forever.

Although the atoms are too small to be seen, their properties can be logically deduced from the visible objects composed of them and the sensations that they cause us to experience. Atomists believe that all of nature can be understood by describing the properties of the atoms and the nature of the void. Atoms possess such fundamental properties as size, shape, solidity, texture, weight, motion, gravity, inertia, position, arrangement, and repellency. In addition to these properties, they possess the fundamental property of power (Greek, dynamis).Their most important property is mass. This is because without mass they would have no existence. Nothing can exist without mass except the void. In relation to atoms, mass is the measure of the number of atoms that make up an object or substance. As I have already said, void is pure empty space or nothingness. It’s the opposite of matter. A void has no qualities whatever, no powers, no potentiality, no tangibility in any way. Democritus asserted that “Nothing exists but atoms and void(Greek, varos); everything else is opinion.”3

While mass is the most important property of the atoms, their most striking property is their permanence. Next to mass, their most important property is their power. This is because without this property, they would be unable to do anything. They possess power from their sheer existence. Their most important power is gravity, which enables them to draw themselves together to form objects.
About one hundred years after Democritus’s death, the great Greek Atomist Epicurus (341-270 BC) took over the Atomic theory of matter and introduced two new ideas into it. The first was “weight”, which he made a fundamental property of the atoms and the primary cause of their downward motion in the void. He explained that the void separates the atoms and provides them with a place in which to move. He said that the atoms are always in motion, and as they move about in the void they collide with other atoms. Sometimes they interlock and hold together and form objects, and at other times they just rebound from the collisions. They are the things from which nature forms, increases, and sustains all things, and into which nature again resolves them when they disintegrate or decay.

The second new idea that Epicurus introduced into the Atomic theory is the idea of occasional minimal random “swerve” movement of the atoms, which obviates the danger of determinism in nature. Although Epicurus introduced the above two new ideas into the Atomic theory of matter, he was a strong believer in Democritus’s idea of the “solid” elemental atoms. He accepted Democritus’s assertion that the elemental atoms differ in size and shape, but not in substance. He explained that since atoms vary in shape, they have produced the incredible variety of forms displayed by material objects. He also explained that: “Material objects are of two kinds, atoms and compounds of atoms. The atoms themselves cannot be swamped by any force, for they are preserved indefinitely by their absolute solidity.”4 And “Nothing exists that is distinct both from atoms and from the void that can be ranked with them as a third constituent of the universe.”5 This Epicurean explanation about material objects along with Democritus’s assertion that “Nothing exists but atoms and void…” serve as the foundational principles of my idea of “postmodern chemistry.” I urge you to keep this important fact in mind. I will explain more about my idea of postmodern chemistry later.

Epicurus further explained that since matter is made up of absolutely solid atoms, it cannot be destroyed into nothing, but only broken up into its constituent atoms. He emphasized the fact that since it is impossible for atoms to come into existence out of nothing or pass away into nothing, they are eternal and indestructible. He made belief in the eternity of the atoms a fundamental principle of the Atomic theory of matter. Because of this, when Christianity came on the scene in the European world in the first century AD, his Atomic theory of matter was rejected. It conflicted with Christianity’s teaching that God created the world of matter out of nothing (creation ex nihilo).

Although the Atomic theory of matter was rejected, there was an attempt to make Christianity compatible with the teachings of the great Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC), who did not believe in Democritus’s idea of the “solid” indivisible atom. He thought that matter was completely uniform and continuous – that is, matter could be divided into increasingly smaller particles, and each particle could be then be cut into smaller and smaller particles, an infinitium. His concept of matter was basically wrong, as shown by the fact that everything made of matter is finite. Epicurus defended Democritus’s idea of the “solid” indivisible atoms by explaining that nothing finite is infinitely divisible. Aristotle added a fifth element to the four known elements (earth, water, fire, and air), “ether,” perceived to be “pure essence,” substance of which the celestials bodies are composed and that permeates all things. Aristotle failed to realize that ether, being a substance, if it existed, had to be made up of atoms, the very particles whose existence he denied. Because of his extraordinary influence on the thinking of the European world, the “five elements” idea of matter was the prevailing view for over two thousand years.

Consequently, the European world was not aware that Democritus and Epicurus had developed an Atomic theory of matter that shows that all of nature can be understood by describing the properties of the elemental atoms and the nature of the void. It’s my goal in this discussion is to show that postmodern chemistry, based upon the original and true Atomic theory of matter, can easily provide us with an understanding of the nature of the elements that appear make up the entire universe. To do this, I must continue to make sure that you understand what the original and true Atomic theory of matter is. I believe that the best way to do so is to acquaint you with the historical development of knowledge of the theory in the science community.

In 1617, the French mathematician, physicist astronomer, and philosopher Pierre Gassendi (1592-1655), introduced the Atomism of Epicurus to a group of free-thinking intellectuals, that included scientists. He taught the Atomic theory of matter to them, in Latin, as the theory of the minima naturalia, meaning “very small things” or “smallest things”. He explained that the minima naturalia meant “a compound of atoms”. To avoid conflict with Christianity, he modified the Atomic theory’s idea of the eternity of atoms, by teaching that God created the atoms. This left him free to adapt the real Atomic theory of matter, as taught by Democritus and Epicurus, to the science of his time. He taught that all the properties of matter could be explained by the size and shapes of atoms. Due to him, the Atomic theory of matter began to take hold in the minds of scientists.

In 1661, the Irish chemist Robert Boyle (1627-1691) realized that there was a problem with combining the theory of atoms with the theory of elements, as Democritus had done. He discovered that the traditional four elements – earth, water, air, and fire – were certainly not elementary substances. He began to doubt that the theory of atoms was suitable for chemical purposes. He himself could not perceive of a satisfactory method to determine which substances were true elements. However, a method was provided by the French chemist Antoine Lavoisier (1743- 94), who explained that a chemical element or compound is a substance that cannot be further analyzed by known chemical methods.

In 1661, Boyle wrote a book entitled The Sceptical Chymist that described elements as substances that could not be broken down into anything simpler by chemical processes. According to Boyle, “Observable objects are composed of innumerable solid corpuscles separated by empty space which allow the physical divisibility of the objects, their expansion and contraction, and changes of shape. Chemical reaction may be explained by changes of texture involving the inter-penetration of groups of corpuscles and the entrapment or release of individual corpuscles by a group of them”.6 Clearly, Boyle’s corpuscles are the Democritean “solid” atoms.

In 1789, Antoine Lavoisier performed experiments that showed that earth, water, air, and fire were not elements. As the American historians Marvin Perry and Theodore H. Von Laue explain, “He proved that air consists of nitrogen and oxygen, and that fire is not an element, but a chemical reaction. In other experiments he showed that water is composed of hydrogen and oxygen. Using the results of his experiments, Lavoisier drew up the first table of elements. It included oxygen, hydrogen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulphur.”7 During his experiments, he discovered that in a chemical reaction, the total mass of the reacting substances is equal to the total mass of the products formed. This discovery led him to state his law of the conservation of mass: “Mass is neither created nor destroyed in a chemical change.”8 Obviously, this law of mass was compatible with the Atomic theory of matter, which holds that matter is made up of eternal and indestructible atoms. It was generally believed that mass is the number of atoms that make up a substance or an object.

In 1808, the English chemist John Dalton (1766- 1844) used Lavoisier’s experimental findings to formulate an Atomic theory of elements to serve as the basis of modern chemistry. He understood that the conservation of mass in a chemical reaction is the same as the conservation of weight. He summed up the results of Boyle’s and Lavoisier’s experiments in a Law of Definite Composition. He held that in every compound, the elements are combined with each other in a definite ratio by weight. Hydrogen and oxygen, for example, combine in a ratio of 1 to 8 to make water. Iron and sulfur combine in a ratio of 7 to4 to make iron sulfide. These observations have been confirmed by repeated experiment. Similar observations for other compounds have been made and confirmed. Dalton’s theory is made up of several statements which explain observations obtained through experiments. These are the basic statements of Dalton’s Atomic Theory:

  1. All substances are made up of atoms.
  2. Atoms of the same element always weigh the same, and they are also alike in their other characteristics.
  3. Atoms of one element are different in weight from those of other elements.
  4. Atoms of different elements combine to form compounds.
  5. Atoms are indivisible.”9

Clearly, the basic statements of Dalton’s Atomic theory of matter show that he believed that atoms are the elementary particles that make up the elements and form compounds. He held that atoms do not divide to form compounds; they always act as wholes. To help him explain this fact about atoms, he used models of the atoms showing them to be like solid spheres. Dalton’s Atomic theory of the elements was definitely correct in assuming that atoms act as wholes in chemical changes, and that they retain their identity through a chemical reaction. A chemical change is a change of one substance into another substance. A substance is matter of a particular type. Elements, compounds, and mixtures are all substances. When a substance is changed into another substance, the atoms that make up the substance retain all of their properties. Only the form of the substance changes. This is the same for all elements. The only possible changes in nature occur when atoms group themselves together to form a thing or separate from each other. Dalton conceived of compounds of atoms as simple juxtaposition with each atom under Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation and three laws of motion. In other words, He thought of the chemical elements as Newtonian atoms. His atoms, like the Newtonian atoms, were Democritean and Epicurean atoms, solid indivisible participles of matter endowed with the fundamental property of weight (Greek, varos). Dalton calculated the weight of each element’s atom, by comparing it to hydrogen, a flammable, colorless, gaseous chemical element. Hydrogen is the lightest and most abundant element in the universe, constituting roughly 90% of the visible universe’s elements. Its weight in grams is about 1.00797. It’s a molecule, not an individual atom.
Dalton knew of the existence of 36 elements. All elements are molecules made up of different shapes of atoms. Dalton mistakenly thought that a particle of an element was equivalent to one atom. This led him to develop the “one- atom element” theory. For example, he regarded a particle of hydrogen as being one atom and a particle of oxygen as being one atom. Because of this, he believed that water consists of one element of hydrogen and one element of oxygen. He made HO the chemical formula for water. I will reiterate: All elements are molecules, not individual atoms.

In 1811, the Italian chemist Amedeo Avogadro (1776-1856), coined the name “molecule” for “a compound of atoms” He realized that “the law of combining volumes” discovered by the French experimental chemist Joseph Loule Gay-Lussac (1778-1850) provided a way to prove that an atom and a molecule (a combination of two or more atoms) were not the same. The law stated that the “Volumes of gases that combine or that are produced in chemical reactions are always in the ratio of small whole numbers.”8 Thus the number of molecules in a specific volume of gas is independent of the size or mass of the gas molecules. Avogadro thoroughly understood his law of gas and explained why gases behave in the way described by the law, which had not been done. He said that it was because equal volumes of all gases at the same temperature and pressure contain the same number of molecules. This statement became known as Avogadro’s law.

The science writer Surendra Verma gives us an excellent explanation of what Avogadro suggested by the law: “He suggested that the particles (now known as molecules) of which nitrogen gas is composed consist of two atoms; thus the molecule of hydrogen is N2. Similarly, the molecule of hydrogen is H2. When one volume (one molecule) of nitrogen combines with three volumes (three molecules) of hydrogen, two volumes (two molecules) of ammonia, NH3, are produced. However, the idea of a molecule consisting of two or more atoms bound together was not understood by the chemists of that time.”10

Avogadro’s coining of the word “molecule” to mean “a compound of atoms” contributed greatly to the understanding of the Atomic theory of matter. The word “molecule” gave a compound of atoms an identity of its own. Being an Atomist, I assert that nothing exists but individual atoms and molecules, except void spaces.

Avogadro corrected Dalton’s “one-atom element” theory. His proof that an atom and a molecule are not the same cleared up the confusion between atomic and molecular weights, which was a very important thing to do. In addition to this, he established the Atomic theory of matter as the theory of everything, showing that everything consists of molecules made up of atoms. This too was a very important thing to do.

Again, being an Atomist, I maintain that nothing exits but individual atoms and molecules, except void spaces. The void is the empty space that separates the atoms and the molecules and in which they move. A molecule can be made up of more than a billion atoms or as few as two atoms. The atoms and the molecules are in perpetual rapid motion. The atoms remain immutable, while the molecules undergo change.

In case you may be thinking that an individual atom is the smallest particle that retains all of the properties of an element in a chemical reaction, I must explain that you are mistaken. Atoms are the “same” fundamental “substances” from which all the different elements are made. Certain molecules are the smallest particles into which elements can be divided and still retain all of the properties of the element. The smallest molecules of a chemical element that can take part in a chemical reaction and retain all of the properties of the element are thoms. These are the molecules that are erroneously called “atoms” in modern science. Each thom contains still smaller molecules called protons, neutrons, and electrons. (Recall that a molecule is a compound of atoms, the smallest particles of matter can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter.) You will learn why I call the atoms of modern science “thoms” later.

In 1858, the Italian chemist Stanislao Cannizzaro (1826-1910) explained the necessity of distinguishing between atoms and molecules. He wrote a pamphlet that demonstrated that Avogadro’s ideas could be used to deduce atomic weights and to figure out the formulas of compounds. The pamphlet contained a list of atomic weights along with an immense amount of data he had collected about the properties of elements.

In 1869, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev (1834-1907) developed a periodic table of the 63 known elements of his time. Unfortunately, like Dalton, he made the mistake of organizing the elements on the basis of the erroneous “one-atom element” theory. He calculated the weight of a particle of each element by comparing it to a particle of hydrogen, which he held to be equivalent to one atom, despite the fact that Avogadro had proved that the “one-atom element” theory was incorrect and replaced it with the correct “one-molecule element” theory. He wrote the names of each element on cards. The cards contained the “supposed” atomic mass and specific gravity as well as other known chemical data for that element. He explained that the properties of elements are periodic functions of their atomic weights, existing under the influence of gravity. This explanation of the properties of elements is now called “Mendeleev’s periodic law.” The word periodic means “Happening or repeating as regular intervals.”11

An element is a pure substance– it doesn’t contain anything else. However, it can be broken down into its constituent atoms, which do not differ in substance from the constituent atoms of other elements. Being an Atomist who realizes that the “one–molecule element” theory is correct, my own idea about how to construct a periodic table of elements is to use the shape of molecules as the basic property of elements. You can then arrange the elements in horizontal rows in order of complexity of shape. I understand that all elements are made up of molecules and that the shape of their molecules differs and is the primary property that determines their different properties. For me, the periodic law is this: The properties of elements are periodic functions of the shape of their constituent molecules. Every element is a particular arrangement of molecules with different shapes made up of solid atoms that can neither be created nor destroyed by any force.

If you wish to know the atomic weight of the elements, you may simply weigh the same size pile of substance that represents each element and divide the weight of each by the weight of an atom. This will give you the estimated minimal atomic weight of each element. I will reiterate: Being the smallest particles of matter that can exist, atoms are infinitesimal particles, having a mass and weight that exceeds zero by less than any specified number. This means that you may estimate the average weight of an atom to be as close to zero as you choose.

Since atoms are the smallest particles of matter that can exist, this raises the question: “Why does modern physics teach that matter can no longer be thought to be made up of indivisible atoms?” The answer to this question will astonish you. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, physicists and chemists performed experiments that were falsely interpreted as the splitting of the atom. They failed to draw a distinction between atoms and molecules. They considered the findings of their experiments to be about the individual atom, when in fact they were only about molecules. Their immediate successors, who were usually their students or former students, accepted the reports they gave about the results of their experiments. Consequently, both the physics and chemistry communities ended up abandoning belief in the true absolutely “solid” and “indivisible” atom to embrace belief in a bogus splittable atom. Belief in this bogus atom has become virtually orthodoxy for the current theoretical physics and chemistry communities.

When we examine the experiments performed by the theoretical physicists of the 1900’s, we can easily see that their experiments lack suitability for claiming that they showed that the atom was split, and hence atoms can no longer be considered the smallest particles that can exist and the ultimate building-blocks of matter. They made the same error that Dalton did with his idea of the “one-atom element” theory. I will reiterate: All elements are made up molecules.

In 1897, the English physicist Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940) claimed that he discovered that atoms are “cuttable,” and that he made this discovery while studying the rays that travel between charged metal plates in a vacuum tube. As Verma explains, “In 1886 the German physicist Eugen Goldman (1850-1931) discovered that a cathode ray tube emits streams of positively charged particles as well as the usual cathode rays. These particles which were molecules, were named protons. In the following year Thomson showed that cathode rays could be deflected by a magnetic or an electric field. He claimed that he discovered particles that were smaller than atoms, which was impossible because the particles were molecules.

I will reiterate: a molecule is a compound of atoms, consisting of two or more atoms. He concluded that cathode rays were streams of negative charged particles (later named electrons) that came from the atoms of the metal of the negatively charged electrode, or cathode.”12 By knowing the strength of the electromagnetic field through which the electrons passed, the speed of the electrons, and the amount of their deflection, he was able to calculate the mass of a single electron. He said that its mass was about 1000 times lighter than a hydrogen atom, which is the smallest and lightest of all atoms. An atom’s weight was given as 1.000794 grams. As I have already explained, there’s no such thing as a hydrogen atom. Every element, as proved by Avogadro, is made up of molecules. Thomson was wrong to think that electrons are smaller particles than an individual atom. Nothing can be smaller than an atom but another smaller atom. One electron is 1000 times smaller than one hydrogen molecule, not an atom.

I estimate that the average atom has a mass about 1x10-30, which is 1000 times smaller than the smallest known molecule, the U quark, which has a mass about 1x10-27grams. At present, physicists regard quarks as being the smallest elementary particles and the constituents of the subatomic particles called “protons.” Thomson wrongly visualized the atom as a solid mass of positively charged material embedded with negative charges (electrons), scattered through it like pieces of plum in pudding. His model of the atoms became known as the “plum pudding model.” It was the first model for the internal structure of the molecule, not the atom. To reiterate: An atom is an absolutely solid particle and, thus, has no internal structure. Obviously, Thomson’s model of the atom is wrong and should not be regarded as a model of the atom. In my previous writings, I call his model the “thom,” which is the first part of his surname. I use the word “thom” as the name of the smallest molecule that can be divided without chemical change. Thomson failed to make a distinction between a molecule and an individual, or single, atom. Just as Avagadro wanted to prove that an atom and a molecule were not the same. I want to prove that a thom and a compound of thoms are not the same and to give the compound of thoms an identity of its own.

The year before Thomson invented his model of the atom, the French physicist Henri Becquerel (1852-1908) accidentally discovered radioactivity while investigating phosphorescence in uranium. He postulated that uranium atoms were absorbing energy from light and then gradually releasing the energy in the form of the mysterious rays. A large number of physicists met and accepted the postulate and made understanding of the structure of an atom one of the goals of physics. They never realized that only molecules have internal structure, not its constituent individual “solid” atoms.

Up until Becquerel discovered radioactivity and postulated light as its origin, all the processes of nature were thought to be based on chemical reactions, which were rearrangements of combinations of atoms. Becquerel made the same mistake that was made by Thomson. He failed to think about the fact that atoms are absolutely solid particles without an internal structure. Hence, he wrongly thought they could absorb and emit light. Being made up of two or more atoms, the rays were molecules, so was the uranium. Energy is merely the activity of atoms or molecules.

One English physicist and chemist who pursued an understanding of the structure of an atom was Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937). He was a former student of Thomson’s. In 1919, he postulated the nuclear structure of the atom and conducted his famous experiment called “the gold foil” to test for its correctness. He bombarded a gold foil sheet with high-velocity alpha particles, which carry a positive electrical charge from a radioactive element. The gold foil sheet was about 1000 atoms thick. He observed that almost all of the particles passed right through the foil, while others were deflected or bounced back toward the source, about one in every 20,000, after hitting tiny concentrated spots. He called the concentrated spots the nuclei of the atom. Intriguingly, he regarded the whole gold foil sheet as a single atom. Instead, it was a large body of trillions and trillions of molecules.

Rutherford’s gold foil sheet experiment discredited Thomson’s plum pudding model of the atom. Instead, Rutherford’s experiment showed that the atom is mostly empty space with an extremely dense, positive charged nucleus. He developed the planetary model of the atom which put all the protons in the nucleus and the electrons orbited around the nucleus like planets around the sun. Rutherford is the father of nuclear physics. Neither Thomson’s nor Rutherford’s model of the atom was a correct model of the solid atoms. They could only be correct models of molecules, if they were correct at all.

In 1913, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr (1885-1962) visualized the atom as a tiny solar system with electrons moving in different orbits, or energy levels, around the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. I have already explained that energy is composed of molecules. He said that when electrons, which I argue are molecules, move from one energy level to another, they give out or absorb “packets” of radiation in the form of light. These packets are called photons, or quanta. The word “quanta”comes from the Latin word quantum, meaning “how much.” The plural of quantum is quanta. Light is composed of molecules, not photons.

Bohr’s solar system model was the first quantum for the internal structure of the atom. Bohr failed to realize that an atom is the smallest “quantum” of matter that can exist and that two combined atoms are the smallest “quanta” of matter that can exist, called a “molecule”. All matter is a quanta of two or more atoms that form a molecule. Planck’s quanta theory teaches that energy flows in quanta of photons, instead of molecules. He was wrong!

The current model of the atom is called the “electron cloud model.” It’s based on Bohr’s solar system model, except that electrons orbit the nucleus in random paths. The regions where they are most likely to be found are called the “electron cloud.” The problem with this model of the atom is the same as the others; it falsely depicts the atom as having an internal structure and a nucleus. It’s also used to explain the “energy theory”, which is a false theory about what moves and changes matter.

It has been easy to show that Thomson’s, Rutherford’s, Bohr’s, and the electron cloud model of the atom were all wrong. Bohr’s assertion that Dalton’s concept of the solid atom had to be modified because Thomson’s and Rutherford’s experiments showed that atoms were not solid particles, His own idealized solar system model of the atom should never have replaced Dalton’s solid sphere model of the atom.

After the acceptance of Bohr’s model of the atom, a very negative change happened. The eternal and indestructible “solid” atoms ceased to be the basis of chemistry, and the elements in the periodic table are no longer arranged by their real atomic weight. In the current periodic table, the elements are arranged by atomic number of Bohr’s atom. The atomic number of an element is the number of protons in the nucleus of one of its Bohr atoms. Bohr’s atom is the basis of modern chemistry. This means that in modern chemistry, the thing that makes each of the elements different is their number of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The number of neutrons which contributes to the atomic weight of the Bohr atom is ignored, even though the neutrons have the same weight as the protons. Now, the periodic law is: The properties of elements are periodic functions of their atomic numbers. Since the atomic number of an element is given as only the number of its protons, the arrangement of the elements in the current periodic table is based on a very inaccurate calculation of the atomic numbers of the elements. This makes the table tool predict behavior of matter at the level of the real atom.

In current physics, it’s taught that images of atoms can be captured with a scanning tunneling microscopic (STM), a powerful instrument that scans the surface of a sample of material with a beam of electrons, causing a narrow channel of tunneling electrons to flow between the sample and the beam, and producing three-dimensional images of atomic topography and structure. I argue that the images are images of molecules, not individual atoms. An individual atom is surrounded by the void that separates it from other atoms and in which it moves. Interestingly, none of the images reveal by the STM show themselves to be particles with a structure described by the models used in current physics to depict them.

In particle physics, the branch of physics that studies elementary subatomic constituents of matter and radiation and the interactive relationship between them, particle accelerator machines are used to give very high speeds to atomic particles to smash into atomic nuclei to discover new subatomic particles. These machines are also called “atom smashers.” It would be more correct to call them “molecule smashers.” No one has ever seen a single atom to smash one; only molecules consisting of billions of atoms can be seen. Currently, particle physicists are using the Large Hadron Collider, popularly known as “the Big Bang Machine”, located in Geneva, Switzerland, to smash particles into atomic nuclei at high speed to create new particles. Their aim is to recreate the aftermath of the Big Bang. Recall that the Big Bang theory is a theory that the universe was created about 13 to 20 billion years ago by a tremendous explosion virtually out of nothing called the “Big Bang”. According to the English nuclear physicist James Gillies, who reported on an atom smashing experiment conducted by the CERN (the European Organization for Nuclear Research) in March of 2010, “We’re within a billionth of a second of the Big Bang.” The experiment involved smashing particles into atomic nuclei at the near speed of light. I argue that the idea of the Big Bang is a myth. As the American theoretical physicist and astronomer David Lindley explains, “A myth is an explanation that everyone agrees on because it is convenient to agree on it.”13 No Big Bang ever happened! Nature has always formed celestial objects throughout space from her eternal and indestructible constituent atoms. Being an Atomist, I assert: If a tiny particle of matter is smashed with the greatest force possible, it will only break up into tinier parts that cannot be smashed into smaller parts. These parts that Atomists call “atoms”, tiny things, cannot be divided into parts by any force. They are the smallest particles of matter that can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter. Since it is impossible for them to come into existence out of nothing or pass away into nothing, they are eternal and indestructible. They show that the universe has always existed and always will exist. Therefore, as I argue, no Big Bang ever happened.

Again, I must reiterate: Atoms are the smallest particles of matter that can exist, the ultimate and smallest division of matter. Being the smallest particles of matter that can exist, atoms are absolutely solid particles. They have no internal structure and thus no nucleus. Therefore, protons are not subatomic particles. If they exist, they are sub-molecular particles. Recall that a molecule is a compound of atoms and that the smallest molecule consists of two atoms. Every molecule is larger than an atom and is dependent upon atoms for its existence. All elements consist of molecules made up of atoms. The properties of elements are determined by their constituent atoms. This means that the properties of elements are the periodic functions of their constituent atoms. Since the current periodic table is not an arrangement of elements by the weight of their constituent atoms, it cannot be used to predict behavior of matter at the atomic level.

Science has identified over one hundred elements, such as hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, gold, iron, etc., from which the entire universe appears to be made. Each element is a molecule, not a single atom. The behavior of a molecule can only be understood and predicted by describing the properties of its constituent atoms. Weight is only one of these properties.

Again, being an Atomist, I maintain that no model of the atom can be correct that’s not based upon the “original” and “true” Atomic theory of matter, which explains that nothing exists but atoms and molecules, except the void, and that nothing can exist that’s not made up of solid atoms, except the void. According to the modern theory of energy, energy is a force that has no volume or mass of its own and is not composed of atoms. I will reiterate: Energy is merely the activity of atoms or molecules.

Based upon the original and true Atomic theory of matter, we know that, as I have already explained, matter exists in five forms -- solids, such as rocks and trees; liquids, such as water and oil; gases, such as air and hydrogen; plasmas, such as ions and electrons; and radiations, such as heat and light. All of these forms of matter can be changed from one form to another, but they cannot be annihilated. However, they can be broken up into constituent atoms. The mutual gravitational force of attract that exists between atoms causes molecules to constantly undergo atomic changes. Their atoms are constantly re-arranging themselves.

Chemists sometimes classify matter as elements, compounds, and mixtures. For example, mercuric and sulfide are elements. When you stir together some mercuric and sulfide, you have a mixture. A compound of thoms forms when mercuric and sulfide are heated together.

As I have explained in other writings, the gravitational interaction of the atoms ultimately causes all the different phenomena in nature. As Isaac Newton’s law of universal gravitation explains, every atom in the universe attracts every other atom with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the atoms and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. All of nature can be understood by describing the properties of the atoms and molecules. Newton’s law of universal gravitational and three laws of motion tell exactly how each atom and molecule move in their interaction with others. His first law of motion states that a body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will continue in motion in a straight line at constant speed unless acted on by an outside force. His second law states that any change in an object’s motion is proportional to and in the direction of the force that acts on the object. His third law states that to every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The chemical characteristics of an element are determined by the size, shape, texture, weight, and motion of its constituent atoms.

I will reiterate that Dalton calculated the weight of each element’s atom, by comparing it to the weight of hydrogen. Hydrogen is the lightest element in the universe and the most abundant, constituting roughly 75% of the elements. It weighs about 1.00794 grams. With the abandonment of Dalton’s solid atom and embracement of Einstein’s postulate that atoms can be split to release energy, theoretical physics has become largely a source of myths. Einstein’s energy myth is used to explain how the universe works. It tells us that the universe is made up of matter that can be changed into the energy created by the Big Bang explosion. This energy, which has no volume or mass of its own, is defined as the ability to do work. It’s the name given to such forms of radiation as heat, light, radio waves, and X-rays. All of these forms of radiation take up space, have mass, and react to gravity. This shows that they are forms of matter, consisting of molecules made up of atoms. Recall that heat is the constant motion of atoms and molecules in objects. The motion of atoms and molecules in solids is very slow, because they are tightly packed together. In liquids, it’s smooth, with them being farther apart than in solids. In gases, it’s very fast, because they are loosely packed. In plasmas, it’s fast, constant, and random. In radiation, sometimes it’s streamy and sometimes it’s wavelike.

In 1798, the Anglo - American physicist, inventor, and scientist in the field of heat Benjamin Thompson (1753-1814) used the word “energy” to refer to “heat” in his book An Experimental Enquiry Concerning the Source of the Heat which is Excited by Friction. Heat is the constant motion of atoms and molecules in objects. In 1843, the English physicist James Joule (1818-1889) who studied the nature of heat, discovered the mechanical equivalency of heat. This led to the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed-but it can be changed from one form to another. All energy is composed of molecules, including “light.” I maintain that nothing exists but atoms and molecules, except the void.

In 1905, the German-born American theoretical physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) postulated in his theory of relativity that matter can be changed into energy and vice versus. He expressed this postulate with his famous equation E=mc2 (where E is energy, m is relativistic mass, and c is the speed of light in a vacuum, which is 299, 792 kilometers a second). Einstein’s claim that light is composed of tiny particles that have no mass, that he called photons, is simply not true. I argue that photons are merely idealized particles. Nothing can exist without mass, except the void. Light is composed of molecules, not photons. Being made up of molecules, light is matter. Recall, matter is anything that takes up (or occupies) space, has mass, and reacts to gravity. Light certainly fits this definition of matter. This fact alone shows that Einstein’s postulate about the inter-convertible relationship between matter and energy cannot possibly be true. It even violates the law of conservation of atoms, which states that atoms can neither be created nor destroyed. It was generally understood that Lavoisier had discovered the law of conservation of matter, which states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed; in any chemical reaction, the mass of the products is always equal to the mass of the reactants. It also violates the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is very important to understand that heat is the motion of molecules, and that it thus takes up space, has atomic mass, and reacts to gravity. Atoms are the carriers of gravity. The gravitational effect of atoms travels much faster than light. Einstein was wrong to believe that light is the fastest thing in the universe. Postmodern chemistry acknowledges that the molecules that make up light travel as fast as the light, and that the individual atoms that come together to form molecules travel faster than molecules.

This discussion has brought me to a point that I feel that I need to explain why it is important to study postmodern chemistry. I maintain that it’s important because, unlike modern chemistry, it’s based upon the only true theory of matter, the original and true Atomic theory of matter. This is the only theory that can explain the nature of the ultimate building blocks of matter. As it explains, all matter is made up of eternal and indestructible “solid” atoms and empty space. These atoms are the ultimate building blocks of matter. The gravitational interaction of these atoms moving in empty space ultimately causes the existence of the five different states of matter -- solids, liquids, gases, plasmas, and radiations -- and the changes they undergo. The motion of atoms is eternal and indestructible, and they have the “power” (Greek, dynamis) to do, act, or bring about a particular result or certain effect. The Atomic theory of matter explains that every event has an atomic cause and effect. None of these facts can be explained by the two non-Atomic theories serving as the bases of modern chemistry: Einstein’s theory of relativity and Planck’s quanta theory.

As you study postmodern chemistry based upon the original and true Atomic theory of matter, you will see that it provides important understanding of matter and how it works at the level of its eternal and indestructible constituent atoms. It explains that these atoms are the fundamental elements from which nature forms, increases, and sustains all material things, and into which nature again resolves them when they disintegrate or decay. It explains how atoms come together under the influence of gravity to form molecules, nature’s chemical building blocks of both inorganic (non-living) and organic (living) matter. This is something that modern chemistry cannot do, because of its misconception of the nature of atoms and molecules and its disregard of the influence of gravity on their movement.
By studying postmodern chemistry based upon the original and true Atomic theory of matter, you will see that it provides an understanding of the atomic nature of matter that’s needed to improve chemical research and chemical engineering. It shows chemists how to make use of knowledge of the building blocks of the various chemicals elements, molecules made up of atoms, to improve the development of medicine and health care, conserve natural resources, protect the environment, provide for our everyday needs for nutritious food, clean water, clean air, clothing, and shelter, and changing chemical raw materials into useful products.

The study of postmodern chemistry is vital to students of other sciences and to engineers and technologists, because they all deal with material objects and need to be acquainted with the chemical knowledge of their atomic make up, properties and behavior, which modern chemistry does not and cannot do. While studying postmodern chemistry, I urge you to keep the new definitions of the following types of matter in mind: atoms, molecules, thoms, elements, compounds, and mixtures.

  1. “Atoms” are the smallest particles of matter that can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter. In other words, they are the ultimate building blocks of all matter. They may differ in size, shape, texture, and weight but not in substance.
  2. “Molecules” are compounds of atoms. Nothing exists but atoms and compounds of atoms, except empty space. All matter is made up of molecules.
  3. “Thoms” are the smallest molecules that produce substances with specific properties. For example, two thoms of the element hydrogen and one of the element oxygen join together and produce the substance called “water”. In chemical reactions, thoms retain all of the properties of the substances that they produce. (In modern science, thoms are erroneously called “atoms”.)
  4. “Elements” are pure substances made up of only one kind of thom that cannot be broken down into its constituent atoms by chemical means.
  5. “Compounds” are substances formed by the chemical combination of two or more thoms or elements.
  6. “Mixtures” are two or more substances that, when put together, keep their individual properties, and are not chemically combined.

With these new definitions of the types of matter held in mind, the study of postmodern chemistry, along with the study of postmodern physics, will provide students with a profound understanding of the composition, structure, properties, and behavior of matter. Chemists and physicists today must think of matter and elements in terms of consisting of “thom” molecules made up of “solid” atoms. By during so, they can explain all sorts of properties of matter and the elements at their deepest level of existence and behavior.


References

  1. The American Heritage Student’s Dictionary (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977), p. 166.
  2. Lucretius, On the Nature of Things, Book One, Verse 360, Translated with Introduction and Notes by Martin Ferguson Smith (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1969), p. 12.
  3. Quoted in Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 1X.44-5.
  4. Lucretius: On The Nature of The Universe, Translated By R. E. Latham, Revised With An Introduction And Notes By John Godwin (London: Penquin Books, 1951), p. 22.
  5. Ibid.
  6. http://www.doctors.org/Biographies/BoyleBio.htm
  7. Marvin Perry, Daniel F. Davis, etc., Unfinished Journey: A World History (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1980), p. 456.
  8. Ibid.
  9. Surendra Verma, The Little Book of Scientific Principles, Theories, & Things (New York: Sterling Publishing Co., 2005), p. 124.
  10. Ibid.
  11. The American Heritage Student’s Dictionary, 1977, p. 657.
  12. Verma, The Little Book of Scientific Principles, Theories, & Things, 2005, p. 124.
  13. David Lindley, The End of Physics: The Myth of a Unified Theory (Basic Books: 1993), p. 255