Thread: Collapsed Particles

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems and a strange thought occured, I wondered if particles could ever collapse like stars can turn into black holes. I'm not thinking that particles could actually form mirco black holes because they would not have the required Plank mass of 22 micrograms or above required to form a black hole. But what I am wondering is, if they would have any mass that could effect gravity, and indeed is it even physically possible for sub atomic particles to collapse?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

No they don't. You are thinking of the atom of nerly a century ago.

and a strange thought occured, I wondered if particles could ever collapse like stars can turn into black holes.

No

I'm not thinking that particles could actually form mirco black holes because they would not have the required Plank mass of 22 micrograms or above required to form a black hole. But what I am wondering is, if they would have any mass that could effect gravity, and indeed is it even physically possible for sub atomic particles to collapse?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems and a strange thought occured, I wondered if particles could ever collapse like stars can turn into black holes. I'm not thinking that particles could actually form mirco black holes because they would not have the required Plank mass of 22 micrograms or above required to form a black hole. But what I am wondering is, if they would have any mass that could effect gravity, and indeed is it even physically possible for sub atomic particles to collapse?

yes, you are correct. Cells are made of molecules, molecules are made of atoms. Atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. They are arranged exactly as a solar system. When a cell is born or dies, as all will do, it is exactly the same reaction as stars and solar systems, only on a much different scale. Sub-atomic [and super sub-atomic] particles behave in the same manner as mass objects. It is logical, knowing that mass objects consist of atomic particles. It is how life and death work!

What a blob of hooey.

Thanks for the answers guys, though I'm left a little confused, one says yes one says no?

Trust the one that says no, as it its the more accurate answer

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Trust the one that says no, as it its the more accurate answer

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Trust the one that says no, as it its the more accurate answer

Yes, "blob of hooey" may be a more accurate depiction!

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

What a blob of hooey.

Do you refer to your previous statement?
Did the atom change?
Guess what, it all revolves! What comes around, goes around, as I am sure this will soon be seen [scientifically speaking]

One thing though, gravity is the force that affects mass, not vice-versa.

BTW, The pressure in an electrical circuit is defined by current [amperes] not volts. Voltage is the amount of potential energy and not the amount of flow. E=IR [Ohms Law} [you had closed the thread]

The hooey referred to your post.

BTW,

Voltage is the potential energy (or pressure that induces the flow)

Current is the flow past a point.

Jeez, you can't even figure out Ohms Law without messing it up?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

The hooey referred to your post.

BTW,

Voltage is the potential energy (or pressure that induces the flow)

Current is the flow past a point.

Jeez, you can't even figure out Ohms Law without messing it up?

You should stop misleading with inaccuracies. Why don't you try and explain your position, instead of just saying that particles aren't controlled by the same laws of the forces.

BTW, current is the AMOUNT of flow past a point, which is pressure controlled by resistance. Current is the rate of electric charge motion through a conductor. Voltage is the amount of potential force not flow, and voltage is nothing without current, it can't go anywhere without a complete circuit. Voltage is electro-motive force {EMF] which is potential pressure and not Current in motion as the volume and pressure relate in an electrical circuit. Read this: How voltage, current, and resistance relate : OHM's LAW or, I like this page [he thinks it through!] http://www.ebtx.com/mech/ampvolt.htm

That's what I said. That's NOT what you said in your previous post.

This is what you said "BTW, The pressure in an electrical circuit is defined by current [amperes] not volts. Voltage is the amount of potential energy and not the amount of flow. E=IR [Ohms Law}

The pressure is not defined by the current; the pressure is the voltage.

In my last post, I said "Current is the flow past a point."

In you post #11, you said "Current is the rate of electric charge motion through a conductor."

At least when you repeat what I said, you get it right.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's what I said. That's NOT what you said in your previous post.

This is what you said "BTW, The pressure in an electrical circuit is defined by current [amperes] not volts. Voltage is the amount of potential energy and not the amount of flow. E=IR [Ohms Law}

The pressure is not defined by the current; the pressure is the voltage.

In my last post, I said "Current is the flow past a point."

In you post #11, you said "Current is the rate of electric charge motion through a conductor."

At least when you repeat what I said, you get it right.

Voltage is not pressure it is potential pressure.

Do you think that subatomic particles can die in a similar way as a star?

Do you think that subatomic particles can die in a similar way as a star?

No, they don't. Subatomic particles decay into other subatomic particles and photons. Stars either swell up dramatically before collapsing into a dwarf stage, or they explode.

The old Bohr model of electrons orbiting a nucleus has long been disgarded. Atoms do not resemble planetary systems at all.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Do you think that subatomic particles can die in a similar way as a star?

No, they don't. Subatomic particles decay into other subatomic particles and photons. Stars either swell up dramatically before collapsing into a dwarf stage, or they explode.

The old Bohr model of electrons orbiting a nucleus has long been disgarded. Atoms do not resemble planetary systems at all.

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang? Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways [look at binary systems, black holes,...]

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

Thanks Markus, I think in some way I was trying to rationalise an idea that the patterns we see of the really large could also be found when examining the really small, but from what you guys have told me it doesn't really work that way.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

quantum mechanical picture of an atom 1.jpgquantum mechanical picture of an atom 2.jpgquantum mechanical picture of an atom 3.jpgorbitals quantum mechanical picture of an atom.jpgWhich one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"? You might want to inform Google.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

Thanks Markus, I think in some way I was trying to rationalise an idea that the patterns we see of the really large could also be found when examining the really small, but from what you guys have told me it doesn't really work that way.

Look, I don't know where they are getting their [mis] information. But the fact that quantum mechanics emulates mass mechanics is the whole theory behind The LHC!
Why would people spend billions trying to immitate The Big Bang with subatomic particles?!

Another good ref.: http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Petrology...msLookLike.HTM

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

hydrogen atom [nucleus not shown, but is in center].gifDoes this not appear to be a cluster of stars? It is a picture of a hydrogen atom! FearOfPhysics.com: Quantum Mechanics and the Atom

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

That's what I said. That's NOT what you said in your previous post.

This is what you said "BTW, The pressure in an electrical circuit is defined by current [amperes] not volts. Voltage is the amount of potential energy and not the amount of flow. E=IR [Ohms Law}

The pressure is not defined by the current; the pressure is the voltage.

In my last post, I said "Current is the flow past a point."

In you post #11, you said "Current is the rate of electric charge motion through a conductor."

At least when you repeat what I said, you get it right.

Are you also "pyoko"? [sure is a "brownnoser"]
Why don't you explain to CERN how they wasted a few billion on that LHC trying to emulate The Big Bang with subatomic particles. I am sure you can teach them.

The fact is that: the most massive object and the tiniest particle are subject to the exact same forces-Physics 101!

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I was thinking about how in a weird way atoms have a similarity to solar systems

They don't. The quantum mechanical picture of an atom has nothing to do with little "balls" of mass circling around a larger "ball" of mass. Also, particles do not collapse - they are either stable ( never change ), or they decay into other particles. That's all there is to it.

Don't forget a nuclear reaction [when an atom splits]

Moderator Note: Kalopin this is a thread about the possible collapse of atoms. Do not introduce off topic subjects such as Ohm's law. That is an absolute requirement. It would also be nice if you tried learning some basic scientific concepts before polluting threads other than your own. Do not reply to this mod note. If you wish to object, or have further comment, raise the matter with me or an admin by pm.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang? Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways [look at binary systems, black holes,...]

I think you should stick to being profoundly ignorant about geology. Trying to be equally ignorant of physics is probably overstretching yourself.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"? You might want to inform Google.

The second one and the fourth one (i.e. the scientifically accurate ones). These show the electron orbitals which you can think of as clouds of "electron probability" - these are not "balls" circling the nucleus they are distributed electron probability densities.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"? You might want to inform Google.

The second one and the fourth one (i.e. the scientifically accurate ones). These show the electron orbitals which you can think of as clouds of "electron probability" - these are not "balls" circling the nucleus they are distributed electron probability densities.

Uhoh, looks like I've upset the ones that can never prove me wrong! Why don't you go to the page that I posted, look at the pictures of the atoms and describe to me the ones that do not have "balls"! They are even called orbitals! You all must be those "string" theorists!

NO, YOU can think of as "clouds", I still consider it to be an atom. [Is that too "old school"?]
You do understand that "the balls" are a representation of electrons, neutrons, and protons, right?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang? Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways [look at binary systems, black holes,...]

I think you should stick to being profoundly ignorant about geology. Trying to be equally ignorant of physics is probably overstretching yourself.

Well you can't tell a concretion from a cometary impactite!, Let's see if you can understand what a "Ball" looks like!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

hydrogen atom [nucleus not shown, but is in center].gifDoes this not appear to be a cluster of stars? It is a picture of a hydrogen atom! FearOfPhysics.com: Quantum Mechanics and the Atom

Did you not even read that page? Did you just go "oooh, pretty picture"?

Did you miss these points:

• The individual dots are not electrons. They are meant to be used in the context of how dense, or heavy an area of dots appears.
• The more crowded (or heavier packed) the dots are in a particular region, the better chance you have to finding your electron there.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

They are even called orbitals!

They are called "orbitals" for a very specific reason: they are not orbits. If they were, then I guess they would be called "orbits". What do you think?

Electrons are not little balls. And they do not orbit around atoms. You are about 100 years behind the times.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

hydrogen atom [nucleus not shown, but is in center].gifDoes this not appear to be a cluster of stars? It is a picture of a hydrogen atom! FearOfPhysics.com: Quantum Mechanics and the Atom

Did you not even read that page? Did you just go "oooh, pretty picture"?

Did you miss these points:

• The individual dots are not electrons. They are meant to be used in the context of how dense, or heavy an area of dots appears.
• The more crowded (or heavier packed) the dots are in a particular region, the better chance you have to finding your electron there.

So you say "dots" are different than "balls"? O.K. Who said the dots were electrons? I said that that was a picture of a hydrogen atom! What part of that did you not understand?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

They are even called orbitals!

They are called "orbitals" for a very specific reason: they are not orbits. If they were, then I guess they would be called "orbits". What do you think?

Electrons are not little balls. And they do not orbit around atoms. You are about 100 years behind the times.

I don't believe I ever made the statement that electrons orbit atoms, as I have always believed that electrons are an essential part of an atom [you know, inside of it]

Does anyone here understand what a "model" is? I have shown you several! Show me your "new" model!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you say "dots" are different than "balls"? O.K. Who said the dots were electrons? I said that that was a picture of a hydrogen atom! What part of that did you not understand?

I don't know what you think the dots are. They are not "balls". The dots are just a graphical representation of probability: the greater the density of dots, the the greater the probability of the electron being there.

There is only one electron in a hydrogen atom and it is not a ball and it does not orbit. It is distributed in a "cloud" around the atom.

I know your understanding of science doesn't extend beyond "it looks vaguely similar to me so it must be the same".

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Are you also "pyoko"? [sure is a "brownnoser"]

No I'm Meteor Wayne. Fortunately, there's no one else who posts like you.

Why don't you explain to CERN how they wasted a few billion on that LHC trying to emulate The Big Bang with subatomic particles. I am sure you can teach them.

The fact is that: the most massive object and the tiniest particle are subject to the exact same forces-Physics 101!

No kidding, Sherlock. What does that have to do with the original topic. I made one post related to the topic, answering the misconceptions of the poster.

All the rest have been correcting your misinformation about science. I seem to spend a lot of time doing that. I never said anything about CERN, it is you who as usual is misstating that what they are doing is trying to collpase particles. They are trying to break them apart to find out what's inside, and create ones we haven't yet seen because they are hidden inside others.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

I don't believe I ever made the statement that electrons orbit atoms,

Post #3: "Atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. They are arranged exactly as a solar system. " A major characteristic of a planetary system is orbiting planets. You imply that electrons orbit the nucleus. If you do not think this why state that the atomic components are arranged exactly like a solar system?

Post #18: "Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"? Again a very clear implication that you think electrons orbit the nucleus.

Post #26 "Why don't you go to the page that I posted, look at the pictures of the atoms and describe to me the ones that do not have "balls"! They are even called orbitals! " An even clearer implication that you believe electrons orbit nuclei. In these three posts the implication is so strong that no explicit statement is necessary to confirm your stated belief.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you say "dots" are different than "balls"? O.K. Who said the dots were electrons? I said that that was a picture of a hydrogen atom! What part of that did you not understand?

I don't know what you think the dots are. They are not "balls". The dots are just a graphical representation of probability: the greater the density of dots, the the greater the probability of the electron being there.

There is only one electron in a hydrogen atom and it is not a ball and it does not orbit. It is distributed in a "cloud" around the atom.

I know your understanding of science doesn't extend beyond "it looks vaguely similar to me so it must be the same".

One of us is still "not getting it". It has been my belief that the "balls" just as the "dots" are just a graphical representation!

I have to ask, how could an electron be found in a specific place as to be "found there" and also be a cloud "distibuted in a "cloud" around the atom"?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Kalopin

I don't believe I ever made the statement that electrons orbit atoms,

Post #3: "Atoms are made of protons, electrons, and neutrons. They are arranged exactly as a solar system. " A major characteristic of a planetary system is orbiting planets. You imply that electrons orbit the nucleus. If you do not think this why state that the atomic components are arranged exactly like a solar system?

Post #18: "Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"? Again a very clear implication that you think electrons orbit the nucleus.

Post #26 "Why don't you go to the page that I posted, look at the pictures of the atoms and describe to me the ones that do not have "balls"! They are even called orbitals! " An even clearer implication that you believe electrons orbit nuclei. In these three posts the implication is so strong that no explicit statement is necessary to confirm your stated belief.

Do you get the fact that the statement made was that "electrons orbit atoms"! Electrons are a part of an atom and do not orbit around an atom! They are IN the atom, not AROUND the atom. The electrons and neutrons surround the protons in the nucleus of an atom! Te electrons DO NOT surround or orbit the entire atom!!!

Sigh....time to teach yourself some more science, errr some science. Look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

how could an electron be found in a specific place as to be "found there" and also be a cloud "distibuted in a "cloud" around the atom"?

It is your ignorance of the answer to this question, despite it having been presented in this thread, that causes some of us to doubt your competence to comment on matters of science. We''ll try again: the cloud represents the probability of the electron being in any particular place at any particualr time. Where the cloud is dense there is ahigh probablitiy the electron will be there. Where the electron actually is (we'll leave collapse of the waveform till later) is where the electron actually is.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Do you get the fact that the statement made was that "electrons orbit atoms"! Electrons are a part of an atom and do not orbit around an atom! They are IN the atom, not AROUND the atom. The electrons and neutrons surround the protons in the nucleus of an atom! Te electrons DO NOT surround or orbit the entire atom!!!

Oh good grief. You are arguing about an irrelevant detail. Obviously electrons are part of (within) the atom.

The important point I was trying to make is that they do not orbit (within) the atom. They do not orbit the nucleus. They do not orbit. And they are not little balls.

Are we agreed about that?

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Sigh....time to teach yourself some more science, errr some science. Look up the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle.

Way ahead of ya" The quantum mechanical view of the atom

Do you understand that all it states is that it's easier to map a larger objects momentum and position. With subatomic particles this should be done seperately or it, most likely, will be inaccurate! Although, it should help you to understand the absurdities in mapping perfect trajectories [orbital elements] of comets and asteroids!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Do you get the fact that the statement made was that "electrons orbit atoms"! Electrons are a part of an atom and do not orbit around an atom! They are IN the atom, not AROUND the atom. The electrons and neutrons surround the protons in the nucleus of an atom! Te electrons DO NOT surround or orbit the entire atom!!!

Oh good grief. You are arguing about an irrelevant detail. Obviously electrons are part of (within) the atom.

The important point I was trying to make is that they do not orbit (within) the atom. They do not orbit the nucleus. They do not orbit. And they are not little balls.

Are we agreed about that?

What do you believe that the electrons do when surrounding the nucleus? The "dots" and the "balls" are both to represent parts of an atom. I can agree that there are primitive interpretations and that it is still being refined. Or do you believe scientists have figured it all out?

Originally Posted by Kalopin

One of us is still "not getting it". It has been my belief that the "balls" just as the "dots" are just a graphical representation!

OK. So they have nothing to do with stars then.

I have to ask, how could an electron be found in a specific place as to be "found there" and also be a cloud "distibuted in a "cloud" around the atom"?

The "cloud" represents the probability of finding an electron. If you wanted to "catch" an electron you would be most likely to find it where the cloud is densest. But it might be somewhere else entirely. That was all very well explained on one of the web sites you linked to so I assumed you understood it all. Or were you just looking at the pretty pictures?

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Kalopin

how could an electron be found in a specific place as to be "found there" and also be a cloud "distibuted in a "cloud" around the atom"?

It is your ignorance of the answer to this question, despite it having been presented in this thread, that causes some of us to doubt your competence to comment on matters of science. We''ll try again: the cloud represents the probability of the electron being in any particular place at any particualr time. Where the cloud is dense there is ahigh probablitiy the electron will be there. Where the electron actually is (we'll leave collapse of the waveform till later) is where the electron actually is.

You shoul've been a stand-up comic!

So you say that the electron is moving and rather fast, as it could be in any place at any time, right? What are its movements? What is in the middle of the movement? Now, explain to me, how the electron does not move around the nucleus!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

What do you believe that the electrons do when surrounding the nucleus?

Back in post #18 you posted a number of little pictures of the atom. (Unfortunately, without sources, so I can't reproduce them here.)

No. 1 and no. 3 show an out of date representation of electrons as "balls" orbiting round the nucleus. This is a "primitive interpretation" and not the current view.

Pictures no. 2 and no. 4 show the "orbitals"; i.e. regions where the electrons are most likely to be (they may also be outside the orbitals--on the other side of the galaxy, even--but the probability is very, very low). These are represented as shaded shapes. These shapes can be calculated using quantum mechanics. These probability functions are not orbits, they are just the volumes where the electron has the highest probability of existing. It is perhaps best to think of the electron being anywhere/everywhere within that region (with varying probability).

Or do you believe scientists have figured it all out?

No. But they understand it a lot better than I do. And, I suspect, a lot better than you do.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

One of us is still "not getting it". It has been my belief that the "balls" just as the "dots" are just a graphical representation!

OK. So they have nothing to do with stars then.

I have to ask, how could an electron be found in a specific place as to be "found there" and also be a cloud "distibuted in a "cloud" around the atom"?

The "cloud" represents the probability of finding an electron. If you wanted to "catch" an electron you would be most likely to find it where the cloud is densest. But it might be somewhere else entirely. That was all very well explained on one of the web sites you linked to so I assumed you understood it all. Or were you just looking at the pretty pictures?

Have you never seen the model of the solar system? There is a star in the middle, which would represent the nucleus, there are planets which would represent electrons and neutrons. How is this complicated?

Yes, the cloud represents the same design as an orbital line of electrons going around the nucleus, just as the old model!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

What do you believe that the electrons do when surrounding the nucleus?

Back in post #18 you posted a number of little pictures of the atom. (Unfortunately, without sources, so I can't reproduce them here.)

No. 1 and no. 3 show an out of date representation of electrons as "balls" orbiting round the nucleus. This is a "primitive interpretation" and not the current view.

Pictures no. 2 and no. 4 show the "orbitals"; i.e. regions where the electrons are most likely to be (they may also be outside the orbitals--on the other side of the galaxy, even--but the probability is very, very low). These are represented as shaded shapes. These shapes can be calculated using quantum mechanics. These probability functions are not orbits, they are just the volumes where the electron has the highest probability of existing. It is perhaps best to think of the electron being anywhere/everywhere within that region (with varying probability).

Or do you believe scientists have figured it all out?

No. But they understand it a lot better than I do. And, I suspect, a lot better than you do.

Now I can agree with this.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Have you never seen the model of the solar system? There is a star in the middle, which would represent the nucleus, there are planets which would represent electrons and neutrons. How is this complicated?

It isn't complicated. It is just wrong. Electrons are not like planets orbiting the nucleus. And the nucleus is not like a star. And neutrons are in the nucleus not around it.

Yes, the cloud represents the same design as an orbital line of electrons going around the nucleus, just as the old model!

No it doesn't. Look at the p orbitals, for example (the last three in the image below). These have nodes on either side of the nucleus with no connection between them. There is no way an electron could orbit in such a way as to be on one side and then the other without appearing in the space in between.


And if you look at the f orbitals, they have two nodes and a "doughnut" shape in the middle. How could that possibly represent an orbit?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Have you never seen the model of the solar system? There is a star in the middle, which would represent the nucleus, there are planets which would represent electrons and neutrons. How is this complicated?

It isn't complicated. It is just wrong. Electrons are not like planets orbiting the nucleus. And the nucleus is not like a star. And neutrons are in the nucleus not around it.

Yes, the cloud represents the same design as an orbital line of electrons going around the nucleus, just as the old model!

No it doesn't. Look at the p orbitals, for example (the last three in the image below). These have nodes on either side of the nucleus with no connection between them. There is no way an electron could orbit in such a way as to be on one side and then the other without appearing in the space in between.


And if you look at the f orbitals, they have two nodes and a "doughnut" shape in the middle. How could that possibly represent an orbit?

What, stop calling them "orbitals" then! And, YES, a "doughnut" shape sure does resemble an orbit! what shape do you see?

Originally Posted by Kalopin

You shoul've been a stand-up comic!

My friend and I tried, but the world wasn't ready for a double act with two straight men.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you say that the electron is moving and rather fast, as it could be in any place at any time, right?

I did not say that. I said that the electron is more likely to be one place than another. I said nothing about movement. You are trying to apply the rules you are familiar with in the macro-world to the world of the atom. It won't work. The electron exists as a probability wave whose pattern depends upon the energy level it occupies. Collapse the wavefront and the electron will be found at some particular point.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Kalopin

You shoul've been a stand-up comic!

My friend and I tried, but the world wasn't ready for a double act with two straight men.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you say that the electron is moving and rather fast, as it could be in any place at any time, right?

I did not say that. I said that the electron is more likely to be one place than another. I said nothing about movement. You are trying to apply the rules you are familiar with in the macro-world to the world of the atom. It won't work. The electron exists as a probability wave whose pattern depends upon the energy level it occupies. Collapse the wavefront and the electron will be found at some particular point.

"The electron exists as a probability wave whose pattern..."?! So, is it moving? does it have a pattern, but is still? It can be found at a particular point, but is a cloud surrounding everywhere? You are, for once, right, I don't get it, not that?

I just hate to see good, intelligent people falling victim to the non-scientists, out for fame and fortune! With all the recent distortions, it appears as if several have gotten into real science!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang?

They don't.

Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways

Particles don't die. They only decay, under certain circumstances, into other particles.

Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"?

All of them, except the old Bohr Model illustration, which is ( at best ) a 1st order approximation to the real thing.

But the fact that quantum mechanics emulates mass mechanics is the whole theory behind The LHC!

QM does not emulate mass mechanics. The two are quite distinct models, and deliver different results. LHC is based on QM, not classical mechanics.

Don't forget a nuclear reaction [when an atom splits]

Atoms and particles are not the same thing.

What do you believe that the electrons do when surrounding the nucleus?

They do not "do" anything, except being within certain volumes of space at a certain time with a certain probability. This is not classical mechanics.

Moderator Warning: Kalopin, there are several members here who are only to happy to help you understand this, or any other topic. In return you have to display a genuine willingess to learn. That means dropping the sarcastic comments and not bad-mouthing current accepted theory because you are unable to understand it. Repeats of these offences will earn you another suspension.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang?

They don't.

Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways

Particles don't die. They only decay, under certain circumstances, into other particles.

Which one does not appear to have "balls"circling a larger "ball"?

All of them, except the old Bohr Model illustration, which is ( at best ) a 1st order approximation to the real thing.

But the fact that quantum mechanics emulates mass mechanics is the whole theory behind The LHC!

QM does not emulate mass mechanics. The two are quite distinct models, and deliver different results. LHC is based on QM, not classical mechanics.

Don't forget a nuclear reaction [when an atom splits]

Atoms and particles are not the same thing.

What do you believe that the electrons do when surrounding the nucleus?

They do not "do" anything, except being within certain volumes of space at a certain time with a certain probability. This is not classical mechanics.

You generalize! All atoms do not behave the same! Electrons are doing alot when surrounding a nucleus. It is the reason that an atom exists!

"Simalar" does not mean "the same"!

Why don't you google "LHC to simulate The Big bang" and see what you get! http://www.newsy.com/videos/large-ha...lates-big-bang and apparently, according to CERN, they did it! SOOO???!!!

[QUOTE=Kalopin;329091What, stop calling them "orbitals" then![/QUOTE]

They are called "orbitals" because they are not orbits (but replaced the old idea of orbiting electrons, which was disproved nearly 100 years ago).

And, YES, a "doughnut" shape sure does resemble an orbit! what shape do you see?

You have ignored most of the orbital. Do these look like orbits:

[QUOTE=Strange;329110]

Originally Posted by Kalopin;329091What, stop calling them "orbitals" then![/QUOTE

They are called "orbitals" because they are not orbits (but replaced the old idea of orbiting electrons, which was disproved nearly 100 years ago).

And, YES, a "doughnut" shape sure does resemble an orbit! what shape do you see?

You have ignored most of the orbital. Do these look like orbits:

Well, they are sitting still in the picture, do you have a video?
Again, these are different models, really nothing new, the same models from thirty years ago. The orbiting electron was disproven how many years ago?

Will all do me a favor and read this?: http://www.feandft.com/32 The Struct...eory Fraud.htm

Your thoughts?

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Well, they are sitting still in the picture, do you have a video?

Yeah, right. Sheesh.

The orbiting electron was disproven how many years ago?

About 90 years ago.

Will all do me a favor and read this?: ...
Your thoughts?

Meaningless drivel.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Well, they are sitting still in the picture, do you have a video?

Yeah, right. Sheesh.

The orbiting electron was disproven how many years ago?

About 90 years ago.

Will all do me a favor and read this?: ...
Your thoughts?

Meaningless drivel.

I can see what he is saying, and think it to be, for the most part, correct. It certainly gives good explaination. It does show that many feel this way, or at least me and him. Has anyone else come up with another theory since "The String Theory" [that would seem viable]?

More "I think it must be true"

You haven't a clue about real science.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

More "I think it must be true"

You haven't a clue about real science.

Everyone, scientist or not, must start with this, a hypothesis, then theory, then a fact. "String Theory" is just that, unproven! Until it is proven there will be other options, as there should, because, I believe, it is wrong.

I am sure that it is fine to teach theories, but not to be graded on or to pass and fail on learning what has yet to be proven. It has been going on in schools since the start, steadily teaching theories as they would be fact, expecting the youth to learn all of it, and it turns out to be not even true. Probably should stop teaching the standard methods of measurement, as well![can you say "obsolete"]

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by AlexG

Do you think that subatomic particles can die in a similar way as a star?

No, they don't. Subatomic particles decay into other subatomic particles and photons. Stars either swell up dramatically before collapsing into a dwarf stage, or they explode.

The old Bohr model of electrons orbiting a nucleus has long been disgarded. Atoms do not resemble planetary systems at all.

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang? Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways [look at binary systems, black holes,...]

What they are trying to do at CERN is to reach higher energy levels which would ( almost, come near to, get somewhere within many orders of magnitude) 'approach' the energy levels during the first 3 seconds of the BB.

Subatomic particles only 'die' one way, they decay into other particles. Or else, as in the case of protons and electrons, quarks, they stay around forever and never 'die'.


Black holes are the result of an exploding supernova of a star with sufficient mass to collapse. In binary system, where the partner is a BH or neutron star, the partner pulls matter from the star until there is insufficient gravity to offset the nuclear reaction, and then the star explodes.

In stead of speculating, do some reading. Reading is fun, and more productive than watching TV.

See..., this is what happens when you reply before reading the rest of the thread. You don't realize that this is a crackpot throwdown, and you expect a real answer would make a difference with a crank's empty, out of date, speculations.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Everyone, scientist or not, must start with this, a hypothesis, then theory, then a fact.

In science, "theory" is as good as it gets. Some theories are so well tested that they can be considered to be "fact" but there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science.

Originally Posted by AlexG

See..., this is what happens when you reply before reading the rest of the thread. You don't realize that this is a crackpot throwdown, and you expect a real answer would make a difference with a crank's empty, out of date, speculations.

WTF is that actually supposed to mean? "crackpot throwdown"? "crank's empty, out of date, speculations"?

Which charm school do you go to? you should get refund and also find a school where you can learn some manners.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

WTF is that actually supposed to mean? "crackpot throwdown"? "crank's empty, out of date, speculations"?

Which charm school do you go to? you should get refund and also find a school where you can learn some manners.

I don't know if it matters, but he wasn't describing you - you asked a question, accepted the responses in good grace and, no doubt, adjusted your "mental model" of how atoms work.

Mr K, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in a century-old view of the atom and refuses to accept that this needs to change.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

WTF is that actually supposed to mean? "crackpot throwdown"? "crank's empty, out of date, speculations"?

Which charm school do you go to? you should get refund and also find a school where you can learn some manners.

I don't know if it matters, but he wasn't describing you - you asked a question, accepted the responses in good grace and, no doubt, adjusted your "mental model" of how atoms work.



Mr K, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in a century-old view of the atom and refuses to accept that this needs to change.

Point well taken, apologies if I went overboard.

Originally Posted by AlexG

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by AlexG

Do you think that subatomic particles can die in a similar way as a star?

No, they don't. Subatomic particles decay into other subatomic particles and photons. Stars either swell up dramatically before collapsing into a dwarf stage, or they explode.

The old Bohr model of electrons orbiting a nucleus has long been disgarded. Atoms do not resemble planetary systems at all.

Why would CERN think that colliding subatomic particles could reflect The Big Bang? Subatomic particles and stars die in several different ways [look at binary systems, black holes,...]

What they are trying to do at CERN is to reach higher energy levels which would ( almost, come near to, get somewhere within many orders of magnitude) 'approach' the energy levels during the first 3 seconds of the BB.

Subatomic particles only 'die' one way, they decay into other particles. Or else, as in the case of protons and electrons, quarks, they stay around forever and never 'die'.


Black holes are the result of an exploding supernova of a star with sufficient mass to collapse. In binary system, where the partner is a BH or neutron star, the partner pulls matter from the star until there is insufficient gravity to offset the nuclear reaction, and then the star explodes.

In stead of speculating, do some reading. Reading is fun, and more productive than watching TV.

NO, much of what you are reading and trying to understand as fact is actually "speculation" ! It is NOT proven!

Do not be "suckered" in!


AND, You just admitted what I have been saying [about CERN]! They used the LHC to imitate The Big bang!
Now, Why would they believe that colliding subatomic particles would simulate stars exploding???!!!

BECAUSE IT IS SIMILAR!!!

Originally Posted by AlexG

See..., this is what happens when you reply before reading the rest of the thread. You don't realize that this is a crackpot throwdown, and you expect a real answer would make a difference with a crank's empty, out of date, speculations.

Yes! and the crackpots are the "string" theorists [and anyone who defends it!]! It would never work! Why don't you all doo some REAL study!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Everyone, scientist or not, must start with this, a hypothesis, then theory, then a fact.

In science, "theory" is as good as it gets. Some theories are so well tested that they can be considered to be "fact" but there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science.

BULL! And don't try to convince me of something as a truth when it has not been proven!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

WTF is that actually supposed to mean? "crackpot throwdown"? "crank's empty, out of date, speculations"?

Which charm school do you go to? you should get refund and also find a school where you can learn some manners.

I don't know if it matters, but he wasn't describing you - you asked a question, accepted the responses in good grace and, no doubt, adjusted your "mental model" of how atoms work.

Mr K, on the other hand, seems to be stuck in a century-old view of the atom and refuses to accept that this needs to change.

NO, "Mr. K" is trying to make you understand that you are stuck in some pseudo-scientists big money game! Why don't you do some REAL study and find out the truth? Your "String" theorists are full of "IT". It can NOT work!!!!

Only tryin' to help you guys from looking stupid in te future!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

AND, You just admitted what I have been saying [about CERN]! They used the LHC to immitate The Big bang!

Maybe you need to read it again more carefully. That is not what he said.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

and the crackpots are the "string" theorists [and anyone who defends it!]!

The only person here who has mentioned string theory is you. I don't know why. It doesn't seem to have any connection with the subject of the thread.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

BULL! And don't try to convince me of something as a truth when it has not been proven!!!!!!!!!

Nothing is ever proven to be true in science. You can only prove things to be false.

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Everyone, scientist or not, must start with this, a hypothesis, then theory, then a fact.

In science, "theory" is as good as it gets. Some theories are so well tested that they can be considered to be "fact" but there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science.

BULL! And don't try to convince me of something as a truth when it has not been proven!!!!!!!!!

AND, Now I am just starting to feel sorry for you! I know that no one taught you or convinced you that "there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science"!!!Now I need to explain what science is??

Science is the study of everything, its main goal is to find the facts!, come up with a hypothesis, get accepted as a theory and find the truth-the facts!!!
Honestly, where do you people get this stuff? Do you not believe that science has proven many things to be factual? Is there not dirt on the ground or is that still a theory? Is the world not round, or is that still theory??

Please consider thinking BEFORE writing...

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

BULL! And don't try to convince me of something as a truth when it has not been proven!!!!!!!!!

Nothing is ever proven to be true in science. You can only prove things to be false.

You are getting this all backwards!!! And stop saying "nothing", stop generalizing, some things can be proven false, some things can be proven true, and some things can NOT be proven false or true!!

I'll bet I can prove many things to be true, many things to be false and can come up with many things that can never be proven true or false. THINK! [do you need examples?]

Originally Posted by Kalopin

AND, Now I am just starting to feel sorry for you! I know that no one taught you or convinced you that "there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science"!!!

Strictly speaking, yes they are both theories. They could, in principle, be shown to be wrong. (1)

OK. Let's take an example. The hypothesis is that all swans are white. After many years of observation, this is elevated to the level of a theory; we have never seen a black swan. However, the only way of "proving this to be true" would be to find every single swan on Earth and check the colour. You could travel the Earth for decades finding swans and finding they are all white (2). But how do you ever know that have looked at all swans? What about that one swan in the distant corner of a lake up a mountain in outer Mongolia that ypou couldn't get to? What about swans that died in the past? Maybe one of those was black? You can never prove this theory to be true.

(1) They won't be of course, which is why we, informally, consider them to be facts.

(2) Of course, you won't find them all to be white because, much to everyone's amazement at the time, there are black swans. Hence the phrase, a "black swan event" - something completely unexpected.

Now I need to explain what science is??

Hilarious.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

and the crackpots are the "string" theorists [and anyone who defends it!]!

The only person here who has mentioned string theory is you. I don't know why. It doesn't seem to have any connection with the subject of the thread.

Did I assume that you believed all the new theories? The new design of the atom is to accomadate for "The String Theory"!

Maybe you could grasp the concept if you would just read the little Wikipedia page? String theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . It makes the attempt at saying the electrons and quarks are NOT "0" [zero] deminsional but rather "1" [one] demensional objects as "oscillating lines" [NOT], IT DOESN'T WORK!

Then tell me wat "you" believe!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

AND, Now I am just starting to feel sorry for you! I know that no one taught you or convinced you that "there is no such thing as a "proven fact" in science"!!!

Strictly speaking, yes they are both theories. They could, in principle, be shown to be wrong. (1)

OK. Let's take an example. The hypothesis is that all swans are white. After many years of observation, this is elevated to the level of a theory; we have never seen a black swan. However, the only way of "proving this to be true" would be to find every single swan on Earth and check the colour. You could travel the Earth for decades finding swans and finding they are all white (2). But how do you ever know that have looked at all swans? What about that one swan in the distant corner of a lake up a mountain in outer Mongolia that ypou couldn't get to? What about swans that died in the past? Maybe one of those was black? You can never prove this theory to be true.

(1) They won't be of course, which is why we, informally, consider them to be facts.

(2) Of course, you won't find them all to be white because, much to everyone's amazement at the time, there are black swans. Hence the phrase, a "black swan event" - something completely unexpected.

Now I need to explain what science is??

Hilarious.

So you now say that it was "proven" that there are in fact black swans? Can you say "contradictary much"???

Hilarious [you should stop doing this to yourself]

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

AND, You just admitted what I have been saying [about CERN]! They used the LHC to immitate The Big bang!

Maybe you need to read it again more carefully. That is not what he said.

Why don't you do the study before commenting?

NO, that is "exactly" what was said!

O.K. go and study, and don't let me come back later and find you people still don't get the fact that you are being taken for a ride, or you will each receive a new "brainslap"

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Did I assume that you believed all the new theories? The new design of the atom is to accomadate for "The String Theory"!

No it wasn't. The quantum model of the atom (the one with probability distributions described by orbitals rather than "planets") is 90 years old. String theory is what, 40 years old?

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you now say that it was "proven" that there are in fact black swans?

You are not very good at detail, I suspect. The observation of a black swan falsified the original hypothesis (that was that "all swans are white" if you remember).

Originally Posted by Kalopin

NO, that is "exactly" what was said!

He said: "What they are trying to do at CERN is to reach higher energy levels which would ( almost, come near to, get somewhere within many orders of magnitude) 'approach' the energy levels during the first 3 seconds of the BB. "

Getting energy levels closer to those in the early universe (a significant time after the big bang started) is not "imitating the big bang" (despite what the popular press say).

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Did I assume that you believed all the new theories? The new design of the atom is to accomadate for "The String Theory"!

No it wasn't. The quantum model of the atom (the one with probability distributions described by orbitals rather than "planets") is 90 years old. String theory is what, 40 years old?

If you had any good teachers, they would have taught you both "THEORIES' and told you that they had not beeen proven. Then you could decide which would better work! the String Theory has many more LESS of possibilities!

Dang, did you even read the "wiki" page?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

NO, that is "exactly" what was said!

He said: "What they are trying to do at CERN is to reach higher energy levels which would ( almost, come near to, get somewhere within many orders of magnitude) 'approach' the energy levels during the first 3 seconds of the BB. "

Getting energy levels closer to those in the early universe (a significant time after the big bang started) is not "imitating the big bang" (despite what the popular press say).

The definition of imitate is to follow as a model, to get almost, come near to, get somewhere within the same [vacinity], approach the level of! give me your definition!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you now say that it was "proven" that there are in fact black swans?

You are not very good at detail, I suspect. The observation of a black swan falsified the original hypothesis (that was that "all swans are white" if you remember).

Really? What did it prove? Nothing? Was "nothing" proven? I suspect you are not very good with understanding!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

If you had any good teachers, they would have taught you both "THEORIES' and told you that they had not beeen proven. Then you could decide which would better work! the String Theory has many more LESS of possibilities!

That would have been impressive as string theory hadn't been invented when I was at school!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you now say that it was "proven" that there are in fact black swans?

You are not very good at detail, I suspect. The observation of a black swan falsified the original hypothesis (that was that "all swans are white" if you remember).

Really? What did it prove? Nothing? Was "nothing" proven? I suspect you are not very good with understanding!

Grief. This is hard. Work. The observation of a black swan proves the original hypothesis was wrong. That is all science does.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

If you had any good teachers, they would have taught you both "THEORIES' and told you that they had not beeen proven. Then you could decide which would better work! the String Theory has many more LESS of possibilities!

That would have been impressive as string theory hadn't been invented when I was at school!

No, the new and old design of an atom! String theory uses the new design in distorted fashion.

It wasn't invented! It was suggested! -hypothesis-theory-fact=science

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

So you now say that it was "proven" that there are in fact black swans?

You are not very good at detail, I suspect. The observation of a black swan falsified the original hypothesis (that was that "all swans are white" if you remember).

Really? What did it prove? Nothing? Was "nothing" proven? I suspect you are not very good with understanding!

Grief. This is hard. Work. The observation of a black swan proves the original hypothesis was wrong. That is all science does.

And in proving the theory wrong, it proved that there are in fact black swans, so it proved something! [only in this case, you are trying to find "rainbow" swans!]

Look, I do not have a problem with the new design of the atom. You can use balls, dots, clouds,... whatever, it is still similar, if not the same as a solar system! Case in point: Have you never heard of The Oort Cloud? Many, if not most solar systems have a surrounding cloud, so what is so different about the new atom?

And, if you can't find a reason for protons to stay together, don't make up new demensions with some unknown force to try and make a bad idea viable. [p-branes!]

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

If you had any good teachers, they would have taught you both "THEORIES' and told you that they had not beeen proven. Then you could decide which would better work! the String Theory has many more LESS of possibilities!

That would have been impressive as string theory hadn't been invented when I was at school!

No, the new and old design of an atom! String theory uses the new design in distorted fashion.

It wasn't invented! It was suggested! -hypothesis-theory-fact=science

I couldn't possibly say. I know nothing about string theory (apart from the fact it may not qualify as a "theory" as it is not currently testable - i.e. it can't be disproved).

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Look, I do not have a problem with the new design of the atom. You can use balls, dots, clouds,... whatever, it is still similar, if not the same as a solar system! Case in point: Have you never heard of The Oort Cloud? Many, if not most solar systems have a surrounding cloud, so what is so different about the new atom?

The Oort cloud is a cloud of individual objects. The electron orbital is a probability function.

And, if you can't find a reason for protons to stay together, don't make up new demensions with some unknown force to try and make a bad idea viable.

I have no idea what that means. We know why protons and neutrons stay together without extra dimensions or unknown forces.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

If you had any good teachers, they would have taught you both "THEORIES' and told you that they had not beeen proven. Then you could decide which would better work! the String Theory has many more LESS of possibilities!

That would have been impressive as string theory hadn't been invented when I was at school!

No, the new and old design of an atom! String theory uses the new design in distorted fashion.

It wasn't invented! It was suggested! -hypothesis-theory-fact=science

I couldn't possibly say. I know nothing about string theory (apart from the fact it may not qualify as a "theory" as it is not currently testable - i.e. it can't be disproved).

You can't disprove that I am not a Seraphim! Current scientists are using the new design to explain their "string theory"!

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Look, I do not have a problem with the new design of the atom. You can use balls, dots, clouds,... whatever, it is still similar, if not the same as a solar system! Case in point: Have you never heard of The Oort Cloud? Many, if not most solar systems have a surrounding cloud, so what is so different about the new atom?

The Oort cloud is a cloud of individual objects. The electron orbital is a probability function.

And, if you can't find a reason for protons to stay together, don't make up new demensions with some unknown force to try and make a bad idea viable.

I have no idea what that means. We know why protons and neutrons stay together without extra dimensions or unknown forces.

So, do you think that finding a particular meteoroid in the Oort cloud may be similar to finding an electron in an atom cloud? Is that right, "atom cloud"?
[do meteoroids have p-branes ?]

We've now seen a complete lack of knowledge of atomic structure, string theory, the scientific method, astrophysics, astronomy... a crushing condemnation of whatever educational system Kalopin slid through.

Originally Posted by AlexG

We've now seen a complete lack of knowledge of atomic structure, string theory, the scientific method, astrophysics, astronomy... a crushing condemnation of whatever educational system Kalopin slid through.

What have we seen from you, Mr. Unknown. You have given nothing productive! why don't YOU tell me how an atom and a solar system behave differently! I have already shown you many examples of similarities! you have shown NO differences! you could at least say they are different sizes!!!!!!

In fact, I believe the entire rebuttals position is "NO IT AIN'T"! And wasn't that the original statement, from the other side of the arguement, for atoms not being in any way similar to solar systems??!!!

Who are the ones, on this thread, that do not understand that I have already PROVEN! many similarities between atoms and solar systems. I have, with no doubt, given a very convincing arguement. Now it is your turn! Please show me the differences in an atom and a solar system, other than the size, of course!

Jees, do I have to rebuttal myself? I can do better. How about atoms form molecules that form cells that can replicate? Can solar systems form galaxies and form universes that can replicate? Mmmm!

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

and the crackpots are the "string" theorists [and anyone who defends it!]!

The only person here who has mentioned string theory is you. I don't know why. It doesn't seem to have any connection with the subject of the thread.

Did I assume that you believed all the new theories? The new design of the atom is to accomadate for "The String Theory"!

That is total BS. The atom (since the 1930's or 1940's) discarded the planetary Bohr Model. String theory was only proposed in the last decade or three.

Originally Posted by MeteorWayne

Originally Posted by Kalopin

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by Kalopin

and the crackpots are the "string" theorists [and anyone who defends it!]!

The only person here who has mentioned string theory is you. I don't know why. It doesn't seem to have any connection with the subject of the thread.

Did I assume that you believed all the new theories? The new design of the atom is to accomadate for "The String Theory"!

That is total BS. The atom (since the 1930's or 1940's) discarded the planetary Bohr Model. String theory was only proposed in the last decade or three.

Yea, the atom accomadates the theory but it wasn't purposely designed to, it was already there, so: DON'T MAKE ME SAY IT!

What about the differences in an atom and a solar system, got one? [other than the ones I mentioned}

That has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, so I am locking this discussion.

Sorry Chrisgorlitz