Reply
Fri 25 Jan, 2008 09:55 am
atoms look like solar systems straight up. anyone think there is a correlation?
its like the same forces that form solar systems are still apllicable when you look at atoms, the orbits, the huge center mass.
lol but im a mere layman, is there anything more to these similarities? i know correlation doesnt mean causation or whatever but i sitll cant get over, it feels like im looking in a forever-mirror setup.
its like the universe just unfolds into itself if you guys know what im getting at.
are we just an atom on a peice of dust in a whole other universe? HAHAHA
feel free to blast this post iinto smithereens i just want to learn. no ego here about dumb questions i ask trust me.
You have probably been subjected to science lessons under the auspices of one of the school boards which wande mentions in another place. I wouldn't worry about it if I was you.
Re: ok i have to ask something stupid.
OGIONIK wrote:
are we just an atom on a peice of dust in a whole other universe?
That is very near my belief.
The planetary model of the atom ended with Bohr in about 1890. Modern electron theory does use the concept of shells, however the position of the electron within a shell isn't specific (see Heisenberg). Moreover, when you consider suborbitals, only the s electron suborbital shells are spherical. The three p suborbital shells are dumbbell shaped, the five d are even stranger, and the seven f suborbitals are up for anyones hypothesis.
The electron shell theory is a much better explanation to the observation of chemistry than the planetary hypothesis.
Rap
Re: ok i have to ask something stupid.
Chai wrote:OGIONIK wrote:
are we just an atom on a peice of dust in a whole other universe?
That is very near my belief.
That would agree with the weirdness of string theory--re hypothesis as there is no confirmation in experiment or observation. IMHO at the present time string theory is akin to ID---the butter on the biscuit lies in faith.
Rap
raprap wrote:The planetary model of the atom ended with Bohr in about 1890. Modern electron theory does use the concept of shells, however the position of the electron within a shell isn't specific (see Heisenberg). Moreover, when you consider suborbitals, only the s electron suborbital shells are spherical. The three p suborbital shells are dumbbell shaped, the five d are even stranger, and the seven f suborbitals are up for anyones hypothesis.
The electron shell theory is a much better explanation to the observation of chemistry than the planetary hypothesis.
Rap
thank you, your torch of knowledge lights up my path.
Oh! Sorry, how stupid of me.
String theory is weird, but aren't there many things in physics that can't be confirmed due to the size and/or distance?
I've wondered for instance, re a planck unit, how can it be observed or tested?
What kind of effect on something else does one unit have?
Planck constant is easily observed. Quantum theory states that every energy transformation occurs as a whole quanta of energy. Consequently when energy of an electron transformation in the forms of photons is observed, it is in the form of E=n*h*nu where n is an integer, h is Planck's constant and nu is wavelength. If there is more energy at the same wavelength n has changed from one integer to another. After enough data is collected at a constant wavelength, then the correlation of the integral n can be predicted and E produces an accurate prediction of planck's h. The fanilar form E=h*nu is simply making the assumption of a single (1) quanta of energy.
Rap
I've posted this before, but it's been some time now...Chai will probably remember seeing it.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/
Thanks rap. That's as good a laugh I've had since I did my metaphor for wande's ego and by extension that of all the other anti-IDers.
What about energy transformations when an intransigent wife, such as Socrates is supposed to have had, is bashing one on the head with a rolling pin subjectively.
Was "fanilar" a Freudian slip.
I don't recall Xanthippe as being a model for Sisyphus. I do recall her as besting Socrates in a debate with a chamber pot. It was said though that she was loyal until his sentence was completed.
Rap
Re: ok i have to ask something stupid.
Chai wrote:OGIONIK wrote:
are we just an atom on a peice of dust in a whole other universe?
That is very near my belief.
I believe this thought enters the minds of most of us when we are very young sprawled out on the grass looking up at the vast sky.
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on,
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace