Curiously, I have had any number of people become vocal in defense of the current model, by contending oddly that this model was never meant to be taken seriously, and that it was merely a meaningless abstraction to be foisted innocently upon millions of people for the sake of giving people some manner of visual appeasement. Well, to all of my colleagues who wish to defend such a model that means nothing, you are free to do so; however, the models and figures in this paper do mean something to us, and we propose that the illustrations offered actually relate to reality. It may be fashionable at present to ignore, insult or condescend geometry when one gets inside the atom, but I cannot help but feel this current fad will be seen as ludicrous to future generations of scientists as many briefly conformist haircuts are today. I, for one, find it rather flabbergasting to think that shape, which is of prime importance at every scale larger than the atom, should suddenly cease to be of any significance whatsoever once we are inside the atom. Furthermore, insofar as the currently accepted model relies on spherical nucleons, protons and neutrons clumping to form a larger sphere, and protons and neutrons mixing chaotically, the model is not only meaningless in light of what is known, but blatantly silly in light of basic geometry. While I respect the writings of those such as Morris Kline that seek to defend those who revel in mathematical abstractions which they gleefully and freely admit are not visualizable or even really comprehensible to their creators, I shall nevertheless remain preferably in the company of those who will trust in the wisdom of shape until such time as it is irrevocably proven to be of no further merit--and as we offer in this paper, we are indeed quite some time away from that dawn. Since the idea of the macrocosm reflecting the microcosm is hammered upon so often by so many, I feel compelled to hammer back even harder the point raised in this paper: spatial constraints apply regardless of scale. Peter Stevens writes in "Patterns of Nature":"Every form, every pattern, every existing thing pays a price for its existence by conforming to the structural dictates of space." In a similar vein, Loeb states even more emphatically on the subject of scale differences: "The question has been raised whether such structural similarities on such different scales are fortuitous, or whether the organizing forces are comparable over such different distances. Such a question ignores the geometrical properties of space: space is not a passive vacuum, but has properties which impose powerful constraints on any structure that inhabits it. These properties of space, unlike the various specific interactive forces between atoms or dome joints, are the same at every scale, and override any specific interactions (emphasis added)."