Alright, I play by the same honest rules as any true scientist plays by, in that I give credit to those who have priority. John Sefton had the good insight to think that electrons form a plane of ecliptic inside of atoms, although he never proved the electron ecliptic for he formed that opinion by fractal geometry. John talks about electron ecliptic around 2004-5. I independently discovered electron ecliptic in 2013, coming directly out of the Maxwell Equations as axioms over all of physics.
Now I may or may not have found an experimental proof of the Electron Ecliptic from Rutherford Scattering anomalies. Here is one which talks about the Anomalies using neutrons on "ammonium hexachlorometallates" in the Journal of Chemical Physics Volume 126, issue 12, 2007
"Anomalous neutron Compton scattering cross sections in ammonium hexachlorometallates" by Krzystyniak, Dreismann, Lerch, Lalowicz, Szymocha.
I am not familiar to the experiments of Rutherford or Compton scattering anomalies.
But let me paint a picture of what the anomaly should look like. Suppose the Solar System had the Sun as a planet size of Earth yet the same mass, and had all 8 planets as 8 electrons. So now if we fired rockets (neutrons) at the Solar System, the greatest chance of a collision of rockets with the Sun or planets is when the rockets are at a perpendicular to the plane of ecliptic. As the plane is rotated through all 360 degrees, there are 2 instances when the rocket launching is at 90 degrees to the planar ecliptic. And I am guessing when those two instances occur in scattering, the scientists are calling it an anomaly.
Now there is a Descriptive proof of Electron Ecliptic, and it involves Cleavage of Mineralogy. All solids of Chemistry have cleavage, even glass which is often said to be amorphous, but even glass has localized cleavage. Now the only way that "all solids" would have cleavage, is when all electrons of atoms form a planar ecliptic because then, and only then, as chemical bonds are broken would we have the planar ecliptic bond breaking in a straight line cleavage. If not for electron ecliptic, the science of cleavage would be that all solids would have amorphous glasslike splitting of compounds.
Now three other descriptive proofs occur for electron ecliptic in the fact of ductility and malleability and reflectivity of light. Those three are enhanced if electrons form planar ecliptic.
But let me get to the meat of this post, a actual proof that electrons form electron ecliptic. And here, the proof is really simple and Feynman sets us up for the proof in his book "The Character of Physical Law" 1965, pages 46 to 47 where he discusses a minimum principle. Now Feynman is telling us that the force law of gravity by Newton is equivalent to the "local field" or that to the "minimum principle".
So what I simply do is recognize Newton gravity is the Coulomb law in Maxwell Equations with a EM-gravity cell, and the "local field" is the EM field of Maxwell Equations. So what does that provide me with? Well, Feynman already did most of the work by showing those three are equivalent to one another.
That means, electrons, like planets must follow the minimum principle which means they most take a path of orbiting which takes up the very least of distance of separation.
So, if we are handed 8 planets or 8 electrons and asked to form a orbital geometry around a nucleus (Sun) what is the least path orbit for all 8?
It does not take a rocket scientist to quickly realize the only orbital paths with the Least Energy or Least distance of separation is one in which the planets or electrons orbit in a planar ecliptic. If you move a planet or electron out of the planar ecliptic say for instance moving Saturn out, the distance of separation between Saturn and Jupiter or Saturn and Uranus is so great that it violates Minimum Principle.
Now perhaps a more intuitive proof is the Bohr atom of moving an electron from one orbit to the next orbit, for the path of Saturn and Jupiter is a minimal distance if they are in the same planar ecliptic and if they had perfect circular orbits the distance of their paths of separation is a constant minimum distance. But if they were not in an ecliptic plane then only 2 moments in time is the distance of separation at a minimum. So that Bohr quantum mechanics would not be a minimum principle if the electrons were not in a planar ecliptic.
So, when people talk about electron ecliptic, give credit to John Sefton for recognizing the electrons form a planar ecliptic by 2004. But give credit to Archimedes Plutonium for proving that electrons form a planar ecliptic.
-- Approximately 90 percent of AP's posts are missing in the Google newsgroups author search starting May 2012. They call it indexing; I call it censor discrimination. Whatever the case, what is needed now is for science newsgroups like sci.physics, sci.chem, sci.bio, sci.geo.geology, sci.med, sci.paleontology, sci.astro, sci.physics.electromag to?be hosted by a University the same as what Drexel?University hosts sci.math as the Math Forum. Science needs to be in education?not in the hands of corporations chasing after the next dollar bill.?Besides, Drexel's Math Forum can demand no fake names, and only 5 posts per day, of all posters which reduces or eliminates most spam and hate-spew, search-engine-bombing, and front- page-hogging. Drexel has?done a excellent, simple and fair author- archiving of AP sci.math posts since May 2012?as seen?here: