Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: New to science

  1. #1 New to science 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3
    Hello, my name is Gregory. I've come to this forum , hopefully to get answers. Lately I've been experiencing sudden burst of theories, in my head, about atoms and how they work. I don't know much about science, I didn't graduate, I dropped out of highschool my first week of my freshman year, got my G.E.D. instead. ( although I was 15 when I dropped out, I had to wait until I was 16 to attend job corps, where I got my G.E.D.) I worked in labor jobs my whole life, never attended any collages.

    So I tell all of this because I've done my own online research on atoms, and it seams there is limited information on the subject, yet somehow, I feel I can fill in the blanks with these theories, it makes too much sense to me. But I know I'm wrong. However, I have this nagging urge to ask, just to get at least some confirmation on this. I recently went to a mental health provider to explain some of this to them, I thought I was crazy,. After a lengthy evaluation, they determined that I do not have any mental health problems that they could see. So, I feel stuck in this, and my mind is driving me crazy with this.

    I need some time to put these theories to words, as I say, I'm no scientist, so it will take a few days, but I would really like some feedback on that when I present it.

    In the meantime, I'm open for any thoughts or suggestions, please understand, I do need help.

    Thank you reading this.
    Sincerely
    Gregory


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregory View Post
    So I tell all of this because I've done my own online research on atoms, and it seams there is limited information on the subject,
    Welcome to the forum
    There is a huge amount of information about atoms so I am not sure why you think there isn't. Instead of trying write a theory of your own, you could just ask about some aspects of atoms that you have a question.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregory View Post
    Hello, my name is Gregory. I've come to this forum , hopefully to get answers. Lately I've been experiencing sudden burst of theories, in my head, about atoms and how they work. I don't know much about science, I didn't graduate, I dropped out of highschool my first week of my freshman year, got my G.E.D. instead. ( although I was 15 when I dropped out, I had to wait until I was 16 to attend job corps, where I got my G.E.D.) I worked in labor jobs my whole life, never attended any collages.

    So I tell all of this because I've done my own online research on atoms, and it seams there is limited information on the subject, yet somehow, I feel I can fill in the blanks with these theories, it makes too much sense to me. But I know I'm wrong. However, I have this nagging urge to ask, just to get at least some confirmation on this. I recently went to a mental health provider to explain some of this to them, I thought I was crazy,. After a lengthy evaluation, they determined that I do not have any mental health problems that they could see. So, I feel stuck in this, and my mind is driving me crazy with this.

    I need some time to put these theories to words, as I say, I'm no scientist, so it will take a few days, but I would really like some feedback on that when I present it.

    In the meantime, I'm open for any thoughts or suggestions, please understand, I do need help.

    Thank you reading this.
    Sincerely
    Gregory

    I have been giving much thought to the reply I received, and I believe I have a suitable question. My question is about conscience perspective vs. logic perspective. I may be misusing these terms, but I have no other way, that I know of, to describe them. The difference, I believe, is that logic perspective is what we use to commonly collect data, like using mathematics or reading data from a machine, even our own senses to an extent. Conscience perspective, is when you gather knowledge or data from a self aware point of view within an environment.

    So I guess my question would be, would it be possible if certain data can only be collected from a conscience perspective, and could this concept explain why many scientists see differing results from viewing a machine's data, as apposed to perceiving the events or situation, directly?

    Again, I am open for any/all replies, I'm simply looking for answers, especially if you have anything that would help better explain this concept.

    Thank you for reading this.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,223
    Can you give an example where scientists are getting differing results?

    I think you are trying to describe a "common sense" perspective, which is fraught with my problems.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    80
    [QUOTE=Gregory;624535]
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregory View Post
    So I guess my question would be, would it be possible if certain data can only be collected from a conscience perspective, and could this concept explain why many scientists see differing results from viewing a machine's data, as opposed to perceiving the events or situation, directly?
    I guess the biggest problem here is that we cannot see or perceive individual atoms, protons, neutrons, electrons or any fundamental particles. We would be severely limited with only personal perception.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    36
    So hey, let's hear some of your theories. Are any of them founded in "for sure" facts? A lot of stuff is still unknown about atoms. If the missing stuff could be filled in it would be nice. There is still a lot of unknown an missing stuff in all of science. Lots of gaps. Lots to do. Facts are hard to come by and physics is not unified yet.

    60
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Time Lord Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    5,223
    facts are hard to come by<citation needed>
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Posts
    3
    well, I guess I could say what I think, but remember, its just theory.

    so recently I started to do my own study in atomic science in general. I started to notice that particles, when under specific conditions, change somehow. most science, that I have found, describe this as being a new particle. I only notice that by trying to remember what all of the particles there are and what they do. So then I started to question: what if all of these particles, are the same particles, just "behaving to a new relationships", ultimately being "perceived" as a different particle. Naturally I tried to make sense of it on my own.

    Photons: What if photons are simply electrons that are somehow entangled and because of this, they become luminescent, since they are no longer attracted to their counter part (protons), they are ejected from whatever atom they were in, at "light speeds".(?) And they will remain in this state until they are somehow separated again (going back to being "normal" electrons. Maybe they become this way by the atoms sudden change of frequency, which realigns the electrons, forcing them to collide and entangle.

    Gravity: I have thought about this for awhile, what is gravity. So far, from what info I can get ahold of, all we know is that gravity is caused by "mass", caused by the collection of matter. I believe its more than that. All atoms attract and connect to each other, when they do, they make an "exchange", which is determined by each of the atoms state of being. The exchange will end in either the atoms sticking to each other or going their separate ways. But, if they do attract, they would be "unified". Each atom has a particular frequency at which it vibrates, if many atoms at different frequencies unify, they can become unstable and fall apart, or they all start to vibrate at one frequency, (for some reason I called it mass harmonization). Mass harmonization is what causes gravity.

    Black holes: high temperatures cause protons to isolate, they can become neutrons if they collide with electrons. since its theorized that neutrons cause gravity in the atom, the newly created neutrons would collect. which, the neutrons would normally decay, unless the gravity is so immense that the neutrons cant decay, but instead attract all other particles in an attempt to correct an imbalance. which then creates a perpetual "vacuum". since the neutrons are tightly packed together, they prohibit the forming of "normal" atoms. instead, protons and electrons will continue to collide, creating more neutrons adding to the fray of collecting neutrons, perpetuating this cycle.

    I also believe that there are "living, conscious" beings that interact with the atom on different levels than we can, because they have different perspective and observations than we. this is all just smoke out of my ass, but its how I see it. I don't know how much of this is even close to reality, but I'm prepared for a good lesson, and roast.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,197
    Quote Originally Posted by Gregory View Post
    well, I guess I could say what I think, but remember, its just theory.

    so recently I started to do my own study in atomic science in general. I started to notice that particles, when under specific conditions, change somehow. most science, that I have found, describe this as being a new particle. I only notice that by trying to remember what all of the particles there are and what they do. So then I started to question: what if all of these particles, are the same particles, just "behaving to a new relationships", ultimately being "perceived" as a different particle. Naturally I tried to make sense of it on my own.
    Sorry, but basically everything you've posted here is just word salad. It like you've taken a bunch of terms and just threw them together without any regard as to what the concepts behind them actually are.

    For example :
    "Photons: What if photons are simply electrons that are somehow entangled and because of this, they become luminescent, since they are no longer attracted to their counter part (protons), they are ejected from whatever atom they were in, at "light speeds".(?) And they will remain in this state until they are somehow separated again (going back to being "normal" electrons. Maybe they become this way by the atoms sudden change of frequency, which realigns the electrons, forcing them to collide and entangle.

    Entanglement in quantum mechanics involve particles that due to some previous close association upon separation still maitain a dependent property. For example, with entangled electrons, one would have a spin of 1/2 while the other has a spin of -1/2 because at one time they both were in the same H2 molecule. Being entangled does does imbue the electrons with any special properties, including being luminescent, which means emitting light without heat. Since you are trying to say that light are electrons, and not that the electrons are emitting light, the use of this term makes no sense.

    There is also no mechanism for or evidence that electrons would merge as you suggest. And if they did, it would most certainly not result in a photon. Electrons have a non-zero rest mass, two merged electrons would have twice the rest mass of a single electron. Photons have zero rest mass, which is why can travel at c ( and only travel at c). Merged electrons would travel at any speed less than c.

    The electrons surrounding the nucleus of an atom are what are responsible for the majority of properties that atom has, its color, how it reacts chemically, etc. If the ejection of electrons from atoms was what produced light, then those atoms would be constantly changing, which is not something we see.

    The upshot is that you simply do not have a strong enough grasp of what we already know about these subjects to being forming theories about them.
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: August 25th, 2017, 08:11 AM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 31st, 2011, 02:42 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: June 8th, 2011, 02:57 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 16th, 2010, 05:18 PM
  5. This Week in Science - Online Weekly Science Radio Show
    By Marshall Clark in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: July 14th, 2005, 03:07 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •