An Analysis of

Metacinnabar

by Miles Mathis

Metacinnabar made the news this summer via the discovery at the Leibniz Institute, Dresden, of the “new quantum state” configuration of this substance. Of course the quantum state isn't new, since Metacinnabar always had it. What is new is that we know of it. Our knowledge is new. But of course new knowledge is always partial, and the proposed theory behind this new quantum state turns out to be wrong. As I will show, the special insulating and conducting properties of Metacinnabar are not caused by electron configurations, they are caused by nuclear configurations.

Since the currently accepted explanation of molecular bonding is electron bonding, we should not be surprised to see the qualities of Metacinnabar explained in that way. However, I think you will quickly see that my diagram of Metacinnabar allows us to understand the reasons for the observed properties much more clearly and logically. In a series of recent papers, I have shown that molecular bonding is caused not by electron bonding of any kind, but by nuclear bonding—channeling the charge field through the elements and molecules. This paper will be more proof of that.

I have already provided my readers with a diagram of Mercury, so we will start there.

3D Mercury nuclei

Mercury can bond to itself or any other element only via those six outer “plugs.” The four in the middle are what I have called the carousel level, since that level will spin like a carousel in free atoms. The two top and bottom I have called the axial level, since that is the main line of charge channeling in most nuclei. Each outer hole of Mercury is 4/6 filled. You can tell this because we have a red disk fitting into a blue/green disk. This works well with Sulfur, because Sulfur may have blue disks as these outer prongs, which completes Mercury, making it 6/6 in those outer holes.

As I pointed out at the end of my first paper on Mercury, my diagram clearly explains the structure of both Cinnabar and Metacinnabar. In Cinnabar, each Mercury creates six bonds to Sulfur, and two of these bonds are shorter than the other four. As you see, the carousel level creates the four, and the axial level creates the two. The axial level bonds are shorter because they are stronger. As I said, the axial level is the main line of charge through the nucleus, so it naturally creates stronger and shorter bonds.

Metacinnabar is explained in the same way, since it bonds only at the carousel level. To see how this is achieved, we must look at the variant structures of the Sulfur nucleus.

3D Sulfur nuclei

The second form will create Cinnabar, the first will create Metacinnabar. Now these aren't to be understood as different isotopes. It does not appear to require a specific isotope of Sulfur to create Metacinnabar. Isotopes, strictly defined, are variants of elements in isolation. What we are looking at is variant structures that elements can take in combination with other elements. In other words, the presence of a larger element can cause a smaller element to re-arrange its outer protons. This rearranging is in response to the stronger charge field of the larger element. We will look at this more closely below.

But first I want to show how the nuclear structure of Metacinnabar explains its special electrical properties, as discovered this summer in Dresden.

3D Metacinnabar

[I haven't drawn the forward and back Sulfides, so as not to complicate the diagram.] What was discovered is that the interior of the molecule acts as an insulator, while the exterior acts as a conductor. My diagram immediately explains this, without any talk of electrons. If we plug four Sulfurs into the carousel level of Mercury, we leave the axial level unplugged. This basically short-circuits the channeling of charge through the axial level of Mercury. All the charge channeling is then done through the four filled plugs, and all charge moves through the Sulfides and through the carousel levels of Mercury. Since the carousel level of Mercury is an outer level compared to the axial level, what we have is a breaking of charge through the axial level and an augmentation of charge through the carousel level. So of course we will have the appearance of a splitting of charge motion from inside to out, with all charge being channeling “on the surface” of the molecule. The axial level is now insulated, simply because we have a charge break. Those axial plugs aren't plugged into anything. In other words, the red disks top and bottom are unplugged. Charge no longer moves axially, since it is being encouraged more strongly to move radially.

OK, but I still have to explain how Sulfur can come in two variants. Current theory doesn't require anything like this, I will be told, because electron bonding can explain any bond. We don't need to shift protons around. But that is a dodge, because electron bonding “solves” this only by ignoring it. It doesn't come up in current theory because it is buried. No one ever asks why or how the same elements can bond in two different ways, or why bonds are longer or shorter in different cases. If these questions are answered at all, they are only answered by post hoc math, not by any kind of clear mechanics or structural diagrams.

I will then be told that we have no evidence of the nucleus varying in bonding. But that is not true, either. We actually have a lot of evidence that atoms in bond vary to create different structures from the same elements. HgS is just one example. Yes, all these examples are “explained” with varying electron orbital structures, but those explanations are both ad hoc and very poor. We have no direct evidence that it is the electrons that are varying, rather than the protons. It was simply asserted decades ago, and no one has done any work to disprove it. And beyond this lack of direct evidence, the theory makes no sense on a close analysis, as I have already shown in previous papers. The theory of electron bonding is contradictory at the fundamental level, and simply cannot be true. It falsifies itself.

Still, a re-arrangement of protons seems violent and drastic. It seems it would take more energy than is available in a molecule, since these nuclear structures are originally created under great pressure in stars. Shouldn't they be too strong to overcome in a simple molecular bond? To answer that, I start by reminding you that the current theory allows for the rearrangment of electrons, to create variant structures of the same molecule. Both the standard model and I have given molecular bonding to the charge field. That is, the strength of the bonds is explained by charge. Well, according to the current model, the electron has the same charge as the proton, simply in reverse. The charge is the same size, that is. So it logically shouldn't be any easier to rearrange electrons in a charge structure than to rearrange protons. If the atom is pressed in a star, then that includes the electrons. We should expect both electrons and protons to be equally firm and stable.

I will be told that protons are also bound by the strong force, but we have never had any evidence of that. For instance, we have no evidence that stars contain some strong force that they can insert into atom like glue. Where does the strong force come from? How can protons that normally repel begin attracting when they come very near? The current theory is a theory of the math of the strong force, not of the turning on of the strong force. In other words, the current theory provides a math that represents the size of the force that is thought to be needed, but it doesn't provide any math or theory on how the force is turned on. How does it conserve energy, for a start? One moment you have no force, and the next moment you have a gigantic force. How and why?

In the current theory, gluons just magically appear when they are needed. Protons get very near, and the strongest of the four fundamental forces suddenly appears out of thin air. Not only does it come out of nowhere, breaking the conservation laws in fantastic fashion, it also conveniently borders itself, so as not to interfere with electrons on the large end and quarks on the small end. In other words, its change in strength or gradient is fantastically steep, to keep it from pulling on electrons just outside the nucleus. But the gradient isn't so steep on the small end, or the proposed quarks could never split into mesons. I have shown in previous papers how this math is fudged in spectacular ways, to match the needed gradient, but no force—that wasn't manufactured—could work that way.

I have shown that the strong force is not only a bunch of hocus-pocus, it is also unnecessary, since charge is channeled out of the nucleus. This means that the protons are no more or less bound by charge than the electrons are. They and the neutrons are bound in the same amount, and this amount is determined by the specific charge structure of the element in question. So if current theory can propose variant electron configurations, I can just as easily propose variant proton configurations. In short, we know that something is varying, since HgS and many other combinations are dimorphous. And we now know that electron orbitals cannot logically explain molecular bonds. Therefore it must be the protons.

Some theories have proposed that it is the larger element in combination that is changing, by moving outer electrons in the cloud. Marginal theorists like David Hudson have proposed this as the mechanism of “monoatomic” gold, for instance, and he even uses the shell models to explain it, in a surprisingly catholic manner. But mainstream physicists and chemists do the same thing any time they explain dimorphous combinations. If elements can combine in variable structures, the constituent atoms must vary. However, it must be the smaller elements in the combination that are varying, and it must be their outer protons that are varying, not their outer electrons. It must be the smaller element (like Sulfur here) that is varying, because we require the charge field of the larger element as the cause of the variation. As a matter of logic, the larger element cannot cause changes upon itself. As a matter of strength, the ambient charge field cannot cause protons to move, since if it could we would see nothing like the stability we see in elemental structure. So it must be the larger element acting upon the smaller one, in close quarters. The charge field of the larger element trumps the charge field of the smaller one, and the smaller one re-arranges itself to the larger. To achieve this, we must bring the small atom very near the large one, because only then can the charge field be strong enough to move an outer proton. I have already completed the equations that show that the charge field is normally 19 times stronger than the matter field (see my papers on dark matter, MOND, etc.), and as we get nearer the nucleus, this strength goes up by the power of 4. As such, it is easily able to re-locate outer protons.

We find more confirmation of my theory and diagrams if we compare the hardness of Cinnabar to that of Metacinnabar. It is known that Metacinnabar is harder than Cinnabar, with a Mohs hardness of 3 compared to 2 for Cinnabar. Cinnabar is quite soft, and this is explained by the incomplete bond of Sulfur and Mercury. If you study my diagrams, you see that the variant of Sulfur that bonds with Mercury in Cinnabar has only one proton all the way round. This fills the outer hole of Mercury 5/6. No prongs are out in the wind in this plug-in, as with liquid Mercury. But that unfilled hole does make the bond in Cinnabar a bit weak.

In Metacinnabar, the plugs are full, 6/6, and so the relative softness of Metacinnabar has to be explained in other ways. Metacinnabar creates better bonds than Cinnabar, so it is harder than Cinnabar. But is is softer than many other compounds because of those hanging prongs in the axial level. The same thing that causes Metacinnabar to be an internal insulator causes it to be relatively soft.

As I hope you are beginning to see, my diagrams allow us to now simultaneously explain the full range of elemental and molecular characteristics, from hardness to conductivity to electronegativity to valence, without ever once resorting to nonmechanical or heuristic answers. A study of the diagrams proves that the quantum level is not illogical, irrational, or otherwise spooky. Contrary to what Bohr told us, the quantum level is not beyond a straight visualization. We just had the wrong visualizations up to now. The electron orbitals were not the solution to the problem, they were the cause of the problem. They don't exist, so of course they must appear to be irrational.