The writer(s) continue(s) to refer to <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> incorrectly... in my opinion, that is. For example: you have written: "<span class="sam-tm">SAM</span>'s focus is to explain how the nucleus is organized and how the resulting structure is reflected in the Periodic Table." <span class="sam-tm">Structured Atom Model</span> isn't a person, nor is it a thinking thing, it is a model and cannot have a focus. You fellows are externalizing your own thoughts on modeling the atom. You should say: "Our focus, or my focus"; otherwise it sounds way too cranky. Please, friends: Presentation is nearly everything. Don't be demure and don't anthropomorphize <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span>.

Here it goes again: You've written: "Current theory posits that the electrons orbiting the nucleus determine the nature of an element - this is because current theory has no concept of a structure to the nucleus. <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> will show that it is the shape of the nucleus that determines the orbitals of electrons and the properties of the elements."! See what I mean? You've displaced yourself from your own thoughts and assigned them to the model itself saying "<span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> will show." That type of writing sounds like <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> is something external to your own self (or selves) and it ends up being a little creepy. <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> will not show anything! The theory is not a living thing; it is simply a reflection of your own thoughts on the nature of an atom and the atom's nucleus. I'm not making these criticisms to be difficult or picky I'm simply showing that you're trying to make <span class="sam-tm">SAM</span> something separate from your own thoughts as if it had a life of its own. I sincerely appreciate the fact that you're displaying a disdain for the current mainstream ideas about the nature of the atom because they are indeed puerile and completely inadequate as a foundation for the extrapolation of reality. The way that you write sounds as if you are afraid to take credit and ownership of your own thoughts on these matters and so you have "<span class="sam-tm">SAM</span>" doing things instead of presenting these matters as your own considerations and speculations on the nature of atoms.

A little over 25 years ago, about 1996, I think, I unified electromagnetism and gravity .... I know, I know... what an outrageous claim! But the reality is that the people in mainstream physics are not actually interested in the TRUTH and, in fact, the world itself has not shown itself to be a place or composed of a people that is, in general, friendly towards Truth. Some individuals certainly are but not the world in general. It is possible to anthropomorphize the physical world and is actually insightful and helpful to do so, but you cannot anthropomorphize your thoughts because when you do this, it is almost an example of schizophrenia where you are attempting to separate your thoughts from your own self as if they were something that has life of its own. Please accept my advice as it it given in friendship and in appreciation of the channel 'See the Pattern' where you are open to many ideas that are absolutely hated by the mainstream academia in physics, astronomy, and astrophysics, and geophysics. The Earth certainly has grown in the past and will grow again in the future. Earth expansion and growth is episodic and tied one to one with dipole reversal events. You cannot get a greater correlation than seafloor spreading tied one to one with magnetic dipole reversal events. I have studied Planetary Growth Tectonics (communicated extensively with S. Warren Carey), Cometary Outbursts and nuclear fusion processes (starting with Project Sherwood) and much more for the last 50 years and have made a number of discoveries. The unification of Electromagnetism and Gravity came in about 1996-1997. I have discovered a hitherto unknown property of gravity (I mean besides understanding the nature of gravity by deduction. I have proven that photons are gravitational charge packets. I have proven that neutrons are gravitational sources whereas, protons are, in and of themselves not gravitational sources. Electrons, also are not gravitational sources. By deduction I discovered a new state of matter which I call "Isaacium" but the world calls what is "Isaacium", Heavy Dark Matter. What is "Isaacium"? Vast quantities of neutrons and protons (with no electrons at all) lying along gravitational source structures. Without electrons, "Isaacium" only has nuclear volume which has about a trillion (1 x 10^12) fold less volume than atomic volume (which has electrons). Without electrons, Isaacium can neither emit nor absorb photons so it is very dark. Having only nuclear volume it is extremely compact and dense and therefore heavy. I have proven that gravitational structures are "time-rate gradient" structures and not continuous in nature per the description of a 'field'; and that they produce a "strong charge separation effect". I have proven that the so-called nuclear strong force is an intellectual fiction. I have proven that if you can get elementary charged particles to overlap in the same momentum space then they will behave opposite to the expectations of Coulomb's law. I have proven that nuclear fusion has never worked as mainstream physicists have believed that it works, i.e. collisional processes are the wrong approach to conquering nuclear fusion. If you fellows truly are seeking the Philosopher's Stone (metaphorically) then start with the foundational axioms of physics and use them in the office of major and minor premises to develop categorical syllogisms to deductively discover the nature of the world. Notice I say: "I have proven"? I use deductive logic applied to foundational axioms. Most people accept certain ideas as if they were foundational axioms when, in fact, they've never been shown to be universally true. Specifically, the first law of thermodynamics has never been demonstrated, in any way, to be universally true. When scientists on Project Sherwood were creating a hundred million neutrons a shot in an ex nihilo process, they would never, ever even consider that those neutrons were actually being created on the spot by their experimental set up. How could they ever think that? They couldn't when they all, like you and I, had been inculcated all of their lives against that possibility. Question every damn thing for which there is not any proof. Where is the matter coming from that permits the sudden rapid growth of the Earth. From the same process but on a much larger scale. Herbig-Haro Objects are creating vast amounts of matter in an ex nihilo process right in front of astronomers eyes and they aren't even allowed to think of that as a possibility because of that one wicked inculcation concerning the first law of thermodynamics. The World hates the Truth. Don't forget that. We have to proceed against that hate .... or nothing new will ever be found and lies will dominate the world. See how that works? There is an Archetype structure that is possessed by the neutron and by Ball Lightning and by stars and by Herbig-Haro Objects, and to get the entire picture, you need to understand this Archetype because this Image is manifested from neutrons to HH objects and beyond. Without it .... you'll be in the dark forever. With it, light comes ... for even light manifests this structure and demonstrates this great Archetype.

Sincerely, Charles Cagle
If this interests you, let me know and we'll Zoom or FaceTime, if you like.