Thread: All of existence ?

Hello everyone, Warthog213 here. (not a scientist)
(Warning this is an idea) and by no means proven to be a fact.... Because just like any observer of the things around us I do know for sure which is fact and which is false "I haven't traveled the stars"
This is just one of the possibilities in which our universe has come to exist and an explanation how and why we see what we see....

My idea about our universe is simple, all particles such as atoms and parts which make up an atom are all made of even smaller parts which we know as electrons, protons, neutrons and the nucleus. And what I am saying is that these particles are made of even smaller parts (building blocks with names unknown) These parts of these atoms are not hollow and can not be made of just nothing and because we can not see them doesn't mean that they do not exist.... They would be millions of times smaller than an atom, meaning there would be an entire universe inside each atom and its atomic structure....
Atoms make up everything here on earth and throughout the universe.... I think its silly to discredit the fact that it is possibly the way nature has designed our whole universe. I think this continues on and on in both directions, that building blocks keep getting smaller and even smaller and that our entire universe as we see it is just a smaller part of a larger object that we are just tiny particals in and that would go on into infinity, in both directions getting larger and smaller as well. "meaning that our universe exist somewhere inside of a larger atom.... My idea for thinking this is that time would relative to that smaller or larger space meaning that we are a small speck of time in that larger object just as an atoms time in our space is just a speck of time here in our space. If you draw a line "to represent time" and place points on it to represent an atoms existence then the time for those universes inside that atom will exist within that atoms frame of existence and time never changes or waivers.... As I see it this idea is far more possible due to the idea that it also fits into the natural order of things which would be time relativity as well as natural properties of recycling everything.... If you consider also that the particals speed up as they get smaller this idea also fits this model....

If you look at the diagrams of atoms you'll first notice the different types of atom designs and then compare those to diagrams of solar systems, galaxies you'll notice that they do have some similarities which are uncanny.... Some atoms have just 4 electrons orbiting the nucleus and some atoms have many more and I have read where articles have said that some solar systems have as few as 4 orbiting planets and some have more.... And what we see on a stary night would be the energies these produce.... But I beleive that in every atom exist an entire universe.... Thus making the universe far more vast than we could ever imagine.....

Now what we need to do as a maximum effort is to deeply explore the workings of the atom. "I say this basically because atoms exist everywhere" you might travel in the universe and a better understanding of the energies within the atoms and their parts, reactions to one another as well as how they change here on earth will help us better understand what we see out there.... I know many scientist are working this very subject this very minute but we need a much deeper understanding of the energies that atoms produce, what their reactions are "as a unit" "when clumped together" Inertia has kept the planets floating around our sun for 4 billion years.... There are forces at work which need "require" further exploration and the clue is in "atoms"

I do hope this article presents a better understanding on my thinking on this subject that I hold this in very high regards as to our existence....

Originally Posted by warthog213

My idea about our universe is simple, all particles such as atoms and parts which make up an atom are all made of even smaller parts which we know as electrons, protons, neutrons and the nucleus. And what I am saying is that these particles are made of even smaller parts (building blocks with names unknown)

Well, in the case of protons and neutrons, we know from observation that they are made of other particles (quarks).

In the case of other particles, despite a lot of research, there is no evidence of anything smaller. One example of this is "preon theory" (Preon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). You can choose to believe that this is true despite the lack of evidence, but that is not the way science works.

Another attempt to "rationalise" all the different particles as having a common cause is string theory.

If you look at the diagrams of atoms you'll first notice the different types of atom designs and then compare those to diagrams of solar systems, galaxies you'll notice that they do have similarities which are uncanny.... Solar systems would be the atom itself ...

Our modern understanding of what atoms "look like" beras no relation at all to the solar system. (This is a very old idea but doesn't really have any basis in fact despite its apparent intuitive appeal.)

Quantum physics imposes a natural limit on how small things can get ( the Planck scale ). Below that limit many of our normal notions about space and time simply no longer apply.

warthog, your idea of atoms made up of smaller things and solar systems and galaxies being the equivalent at the next scale up, and so on in both directions, is a commonplace thought among adolescents and 1930s science fiction writers. It is imaginative to a degree, but has no significant evidence to support it in any way. So, it is an amusing thought, but offers nothing of spiritual, scientific, social or literary value. I advise you to consign it to the scrapbook of personal history.

There absolutely can never possibly be any resemblance at all.....
Just because the view from where you are is one way doesn't mean that the outside view is indentically the same....

Originally Posted by warthog213

There absolutely can never possibly be any resemblance at all.....
Just because the view from where you are is one way doesn't mean that the outside view is indentically the same....

These pictures are based on the old Bohr model of the atom, which has long since been superseded. Electrons are not little balls circling the nucleus on well defined orbits, like planets do.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Just because the view from where you are is one way doesn't mean that the outside view is indentically the same....

As I said, our modern understanding of what atoms "look like" bears no relation at all to the solar system.
orbitals.jpg

Also, electrons can move from one energy level to another by absorbing or emitting photons. When did you last see a planet do that and spit out a giant ball of light.

clip_image002_009.jpg

• 1 electric field (wave) 1 magnetic field (wave)
• Each field (wave) is perpendicular to the other and both are perpendicular to the direction of movement (see below image)

emsAnatomy_mainContent_electric-field_magnetic-field.pngIn the 1860's and 1870's, a Scottish scientist named James Clerk Maxwell developed a scientific theory to explain electromagnetic waves. He noticed that electrical fields and magnetic fields can couple together to form electromagnetic waves. He summarized this relationship between electricity and magnetism into what are now referred to as "Maxwell's Equations."

emsAnatomy_mainContent_EMwave.pngA
All light has both particle-like and wave-like properties. How an instrument is
designed to sense the light influences which of these properties are observed.


Wave lengths of an atom vs the wave lengths received from space in graph form....

Would you care to explain the relevance of this diversion into the nature of electromagnetic radiation?

The Nature of Electromagnetic Radiation Unlike convection or conduction, heat transfer by electromagnetic radiation requires no intervening medium to transmit it. Electromagnetic radiation travels through space in the form of waves. It's hard to imagine radiation moving as waves through empty space without a medium to transfer the wave form. The waves created when you drop a rock into a pool require molecules of water to propagate them, but not so for radiation. Energy as electromagnetic waves The quantity of energy carried in a wave is associated with the height or amplitude of the wave. Everything else being equal, the amount of energy carried in a wave is directly proportional to the amplitude of the wave. The type or "quality" of radiation depends on the wavelength, the distance between successive crests. The greater the distance between wave crests, the longer the wavelength. Figure 4.2 Wave properties Any body that has a temperature is emitting electromagnetic radiation. There are an infinite number of wavelengths that make up the electromagnetic spectrum though we group them into a number of bands (Figure 4.3). The shortest wavelengths fall into the gamma rays, the electromagnetic radiation we can see with our eyes and processed by our brains falls into the visible band, and radio waves are comprised of the longest wavelengths. Figure 4.3 The Solar radiation spectrum The maximum wavelength at which a body emits radiation depends on its temperature. Wein's (pronounced "weens") Law states that the peak wavelength of radiation emission is inversely related to the temperature of the emitting body. That is, the hotter the body, the shorter the wavelength of peak emission. Figure 4.4 shows the wavelengths over which the Sun and Earth emit most of their radiation. The Sun being a much hotter body emits most of its radiation in the shortwave end and the Earth in the longwave end of the spectrum. The division between shortwave and longwave radiation occurs at about 3 micrometers. Figure 4.4 Comparison of solar and earth radiation spectra Radiation as particles It's hard to imagine radiation moving as waves through empty space without a medium to transfer the wave form. For instance, the waves created when you drop a rock into a pool of water require molecules of H2O to propagate them. Though we describe electromagnetic radiation as invisible waves of energy, at the smallest scale it behaves as a particle, like when light is emitted by a single atom or molecule. When energy is given off there is a change in the orbital pattern of the electrons that surround the nucleus of an atom. As the orbit changes, a bundle of energy called a "photon" is released. However, particles of light differ from particles of matter: they have no mass, occupy no space, and travel at the speed of light, 2.9998 X 108m s-1. The amount of energy carried by a photon varies inversely with wavelength, the shorter the wavelength, the more energetic the photon. __________________________________________________ __________________________________________ And you still don't find it fascinating that these same signals which come from atoms come from deep space.... We know that thing change and are different just as you and I are.... But we have things in common such as we both eat, both rest, both breath.... The same is true all across the universe in relation to earth.... Thats like the gravity thing in another thread:::: I said that the rings of Saturn was a perfect example ( A visual example) of gravity with particals flying around and the whole nine yards.... The astrioids that make up its rings are held in check from its north and south poles thus proving his theory that push pull gravity exist.... The reason for which it exist is the fact that atoms have both negative and positive particals in even portions for simple fact that they made of matter.... And everyone keeps running on and on about the Big Bang Theory and so fourth and I do hope that everyone uses what we know explosions and applies this to a model in which to give us an idea in where to search for this evidence that this occured.... Things like this are common sense to most us though somtimes I wonder about some of us here in humanity.... Natures design is perfect in all its form.... It also works hand in hand with any concept of time and there are to many possible cominations which occur in nature that it is all too easy to get lost in its glory.... Before man existed there was nature and when man is gone there will still be nature.... Common sense will tell you that time never began because it always has been and always will be which means it must loop and return with in itself and all things just exist until they evolve as time passes.... So I will not get lost in the complexities of natures accidents and combinations.... Instead I will concentrate on its simpler workings and just be facinated by its dance.... If I could choose anything in the universe in which to be I would still choose man.... Man has the freedom to move about, the freedom to think and the freedom dream "now I don't know about you but that is all anyone could ask for"

Originally Posted by warthog213

And you still don't find it fascinating that these same signals which come from atoms come from deep space.... We know that thing change and are different just as you and I are.... But we have things in common such as we both eat, both rest, both breath.... The same is true all across the universe in relation to earth.... Thats like the gravity thing in another thread:::: I said that the rings of Saturn was a perfect example ( A visual example) of gravity with particals flying around and the whole nine yards.... The astrioids that make up its rings are held in check from its north and south poles thus proving his theory that push pull gravity exist.... The reason for which it exist is the fact that atoms have both negative and positive particals in even portions for simple fact that they made of matter....

You're truly amazing. You talk about things you know nothing about, inventing what you think are facts all by your fancy, then spew them out as if something is wrong with everyone else for not seeing it your way.
This is compounded by your sig line:
"Sorry i'm no scientist so don't expect me to use those terms which scientist use
to explain things.... I am only an observer of things...."

No, your daffy words about 'positive and negative particles' in atoms in 'even portions' simply because they are 'made of matter' does not prove 'push-pull gravity.' They are not in "even portions." "Made of matter" is irrelevant and none of it in any way demonstrates (Much less 'proves) your assertions- it's totally unrelated.
It doesn't even qualify as word salad.
Word salad at least has some kind of dressing. It usually at least looks good...

Originally Posted by warthog213

And everyone keeps running on and on about the Big Bang Theory and so fourth and I do hope that everyone uses what we know explosions and applies this to a model

"What we know Explosions?"
WHAT?!

Originally Posted by warthog213

in which to give us an idea in where to search for this evidence that this occured....

Clearly, you are utterly clueless about the COBE and WMAP data and observations which support the Lambda CDM model. You probably never heard of any of it. You probably think BBT is "Just a theory."

Originally Posted by warthog213

Things like this are common sense to most us

Scary. Common sense. Right.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Natures design is perfect in all its form....

You're adept at saying nonsense.

Originally Posted by warthog213

It also works hand in hand with any concept of time and there are to many possible cominations which occur in nature that it is all too easy to get lost in its glory.... Before man existed there was nature and when man is gone there will still be nature.... Common sense will tell you that time never began because it always has been and always will be which means it must loop and return with in itself and all things just exist until they evolve as time passes.... So I will not get lost in the complexities of natures accidents and combinations.... Instead I will concentrate on its simpler workings and just be facinated by its dance....

The only Dance going on here is you dancing around reality.

If you think I'm harsh- it's built up over a period of time reading the utter garbage in your many posts.

Originally Posted by warthog213

[COLOR=#333333][CENTER]

[TABLE] [TR] [TD="width: 682"]The Nature of Electromagnetic Radiation

[LEFT]Unlike convection or conduction, heat transfer by electromagnetic radiation requires no intervening medium to transmit it. Electromagnetic radiation travels through space in the form of waves. It's hard to imagine radiation moving as waves through empty space without a medium to transfer the wave form. ...

Many things that are "hard to imagine" are nonetheless true. Why should the universe conform to your imagination? Shouldn't you ought to consider that your imagination is simply too limited to appreciate the way the universe works? Or are you so freakin' brilliant that, without having studied the subject even superficially (as is painfully evident), you are able to discern truths that elude all others? Your appeal to "common sense" is ridiculous. Look at how little the human race accomplished with just common sense as a guide. Aristotle was full of...common sense. Following his "obvious" truths held back human civilization for well over a millennium. The scientific method has proven to be the best way yet devised to discover how the universe works. Much of what has been discovered is distinctly beyond "common sense." Don't impose your own cognitive limitations on the universe. Go with the evidence. And for Pete's sake, study the subject. Your posts are aggressively ignorant.

Natures design is perfect in all its form.... It also works hand in hand with any concept of time and there are to many possible cominations which occur in nature that it is all too easy to get lost in its glory.

Riiiight. Perfect design. Perhaps you've never met a woman - or at least a menstruating woman or a pregnant woman or a menopausal woman.

Perfect? Phoooey. The human female reproductive system works despite its design - not because of it. (Just check maternal mortality rates before modern medicine found ways to help.)

First, please make an effort to communicate clearly. For example, I assume most of the text in that post is copied from somewhere. But (a) It isn't clear what is copied and what is your own words (I assume the bits that make sense are copied and the nonsense is yours, but that may be unfair); and (b) you should credit whatever source you are copying from.

Originally Posted by warthog213

And you still don't find it fascinating that these same signals which come from atoms come from deep space....

Who says we don't find this fascinating? But you do realise that the light we see coming from space also comes from atoms?

Apart from a tiny amount of background "noise" which comes from the big bang.

The astrioids that make up its rings are held in check from its north and south poles thus proving his theory that push pull gravity exist....

Nonsense. All this proves is that you don't have a clue.

I do hope that everyone uses what we know explosions

I have no idea what this paragraph is about. It is totally incoherent. But the big bang was not an explosion.

Common sense will tell you ...

It will tell you all sorts of things that turn out to be wrong. That is why we have made so much more progress in medicine, technology, etc. since we adopted science instead of "common sense".

Originally Posted by warthog213

Natures design is perfect in all its form

Given that nature is essentially trial and error, I find that statement a bit odd.

Nature is chaos. Nature doesn't care what nomenclature we create to define it or rules we set aside to encompass it. Nature just is. Simply because we found ways to define portions of it that make sense to us doesn't mean nature has a clue what it's doing.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Hello everyone, Warthog213 here. (not a scientist)
(Warning this is an idea) and by no means proven to be a fact....

My idea about our universe is simple, all particles such as atoms and parts which make up an atom are all made of even smaller parts which we know as electrons, protons, neutrons and the nucleus. And what I am saying is that these particles are made of even smaller parts (building blocks with names unknown) These parts of these atoms are not hollow and can not be made of just nothing and because we can not see them doesn't mean that they do not exist.... Atoms make up everything here on earth and I think its silly to discredit the fact that it is possibly the way our whole universe is made as nature has designed it. I think this continues on and on in both directions, that building blocks keep getting smaller and even smaller and that our entire universe as we see it is just a smaller part of a larger object that we are just tiny particals with-in a larger something and that goes on into infinity, in both directions as well. My idea is that time would relative to that smaller or larger space meaning that we are a small speck of time in that larger object just as an atoms time in our space is just a speck of time here in our space. As I see it this idea lends proof to the idea because it also fits into the natural order of things which would be time relativity as well as natural properties of recycling everything.... If you look at the diagrams of atoms you'll first notice the different types of atom designs and then compare those to diagrams of solar systems, galaxies you'll notice that they do have similarities which are uncanny.... Solar systems would be the atom itself and the galaxy would be the compound in which its contained and space would be the area between these "as we see it" The universe would then become the object that these compounds make up.... And what we see on a stary night is the energies these produce....

I do hope this article presents a better understanding on my thinking on this subject that I hold this in very high regards as to our existence....

Read nassim Haramein theory it has similarities.I believe it is accurate.

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

Originally Posted by warthog213

Natures design is perfect in all its form

Given that nature is essentially trial and error, I find that statement a bit odd.

Nature is chaos. Nature doesn't care what nomenclature we create to define it or rules we set aside to encompass it. Nature just is. Simply because we found ways to define portions of it that make sense to us doesn't mean nature has a clue what it's doing.

What I meant was nature creates the motion and the opportunities, things collide and thus we get different forms created by nature through atomic and cellular changes over time.... And nature has been working as long as time has ever been there.... And that man thinks he controls nature because he can do that to a point here on earth.... Man is too fascinated by all the things which nature creates that he doesn't see that it all can be broken down into its simplest elements and processes then described in general form....

I'm not sure I understand your point. Sorry.

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Read nassim Haramein theory it has similarities.

You mean "He's a crank too"?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Read nassim Haramein theory it has similarities.

You mean "He's a crank too"?

Perfect. I was wondering how to respond to that.

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Originally Posted by warthog213

Hello everyone, Warthog213 here. (not a scientist)
(Warning this is an idea) and by no means proven to be a fact....

My idea about our universe is simple, all particles such as atoms and parts which make up an atom are all made of even smaller parts which we know as electrons, protons, neutrons and the nucleus. And what I am saying is that these particles are made of even smaller parts (building blocks with names unknown) These parts of these atoms are not hollow and can not be made of just nothing and because we can not see them doesn't mean that they do not exist.... Atoms make up everything here on earth and I think its silly to discredit the fact that it is possibly the way our whole universe is made as nature has designed it. I think this continues on and on in both directions, that building blocks keep getting smaller and even smaller and that our entire universe as we see it is just a smaller part of a larger object that we are just tiny particals with-in a larger something and that goes on into infinity, in both directions as well. My idea is that time would relative to that smaller or larger space meaning that we are a small speck of time in that larger object just as an atoms time in our space is just a speck of time here in our space. As I see it this idea lends proof to the idea because it also fits into the natural order of things which would be time relativity as well as natural properties of recycling everything.... If you look at the diagrams of atoms you'll first notice the different types of atom designs and then compare those to diagrams of solar systems, galaxies you'll notice that they do have similarities which are uncanny.... Solar systems would be the atom itself and the galaxy would be the compound in which its contained and space would be the area between these "as we see it" The universe would then become the object that these compounds make up.... And what we see on a stary night is the energies these produce....

I do hope this article presents a better understanding on my thinking on this subject that I hold this in very high regards as to our existence....

Read nassim Haramein theory it has similarities.I believe it is accurate.

6:40 into his quote and I completely understand what he is saying..... Excuse me while I watch some more....

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by lightspeed

Read nassim Haramein theory it has similarities.

You mean "He's a crank too"?

How dare him have an opinion outside of mathematics and the scientific realm..... "HUH"

Originally Posted by warthog213

How dare him have an opinion outside of mathematics and the scientific realm..... "HUH"

Wrong.
It's more of a case of "How can he have the chutzpah to spout his unmitigated crap in public?"
He's a self-promoting fraud and a liar.

How dare him have an opinion outside of mathematics and the scientific realm

Anyone can have their opinions about colours they like/dislike or flavours they prefer and no-one can gainsay them, but if they say something about maths or science they'd better be prepared to back their statements up ...... with maths and/or science.

Originally Posted by warthog213

How dare him have an opinion outside of mathematics and the scientific realm..... "HUH"

So you agree that all he has is opinions outside of science and mathematics.

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by warthog213

How dare him have an opinion outside of mathematics and the scientific realm..... "HUH"

So you agree that all he has is opinions outside of science and mathematics.

He does claim he has done the math....
I just realized that you have made 14 post a day about much of nothing exept opinion....

Universal Blue Print.jpg
This blue print is exactly how I see our universe explaining how it changes and goes through cycles of change
on an atomic level over and over again.... Now if this form of thinking "makes me a crank" then i'll gladly be
a crank because this make a lot sense.... And I hardly think that there's any coincidence that the entire existence
of virtually everything hinges on the atomic structure....

I beleive in 1590 that Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen didn't know what they discovered, but i'm pretty sure
that their minds run rampant with ideas for its uses.... But I think when they first looked through the microscope
they discovered the truth about the universe.... That larger things are made of smaller things........

<font size="6"><img style="margin: 1px;" id="vbattach_1730" class="previewthumb" alt="" src="attachment.php?attachmentid=1730&amp;stc=1" attachmentid="1730"></font><br>This blue print is exactly how I see our universe explaining how it changes and goes through cycles of change<br> on an atomic level over and over again.... Now if this form of thinking "makes me a crank"&nbsp; then i'll gladly be <br>a crank because this make a lot sense....&nbsp; And I hardly think that there's any coincidence that the entire existence<br>of virtually everything hinges on the atomic structure....<br><br>I beleive in 1590 that Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen didn't know what they discovered, but i'm pretty sure <br>that their minds run rampant with ideas for its uses.... But I think when they first looked through the microscope<br>they discovered the truth&nbsp;about the universe....&nbsp; That larger things are made of smaller things........


Universal Blue Print.jpg

Lambda CDM model. You probably never heard of any of it. You probably think BBT is "Just a theory."

neverfly you keep mentioning this lambda cdm model it is a load of poop. there is no direct evidence for the big bang, that is just one interpretation. every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models. name a piece of evidence and I would be able to go online and find an alternative explanation. this paper here for example counters everything the big bang claims http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.0953.pdf

Originally Posted by nsbm ranger

neverfly you keep mentioning this lambda cdm model it is a load of poop. there is no direct evidence for the big bang, that is just one interpretation. every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models. name a piece of evidence and I would be able to go online and find an alternative explanation. this paper here for example counters everything the big bang claims http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.0953.pdf

This is a good post. You've provided a reliable peer reviewed source, expressed your views concisely and backed it up. Try to continue doing this, instead of starting countless threads over and over and saying very little within them.

Quickly; yes, some of the evidence is interpreted to align with observation, but no 'alternative' theory matches all the data and observation as the Lambda CDM model does.

Originally Posted by warthog213

This blue print is exactly how I see our universe explaining how it changes and goes through cycles of change
on an atomic level over and over again.... Now if this form of thinking "makes me a crank" then i'll gladly be
a crank because this make a lot sense....

There are scientific theories (well, hypotheses really) which consider the big bang as just one of a cycle of endless expansion and collapse. But ...

1. These are scientific theories; i.e. they rely on data and mathematics not "it makes sense to me"

2. If such a collapse and re-bang occurred it would not be at the atomic level, we are confident enough in our theories to know that at the early stages of the universe (even if cyclic) there were no atoms, not even the sub-atomic particles that make up atoms.

3. Current observational evidence tends to suggest the universe isn't like this

Note that, "it makes sense" is the worst possible thing to base a theory on.

Originally Posted by nsbm ranger

every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models.

Even if that is true, shouldn't we prefer the theory that can explain all the evidence rather than an ad-hoc mish-mash of different (and possibly contradictory) theories?

every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models. name a piece of evidence and I would be able to go online and find an alternative explanation.

Can you provide a model which fits all the observations, while still being in accordance with basic physical principles ?

Originally Posted by nsbm ranger

Lambda CDM model. You probably never heard of any of it. You probably think BBT is "Just a theory."

neverfly you keep mentioning this lambda cdm model it is a load of poop. there is no direct evidence for the big bang, that is just one interpretation. every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models. name a piece of evidence and I would be able to go online and find an alternative explanation. this paper here for example counters everything the big bang claims http://arxiv.org/pdf/1009.0953.pdf

The Lambda theory doesn't hold any water to either idea, you and I know this nsbm ranger....
I'll say just once more on this thread.... The true make up of universe must at least in part be present here on earth....

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by warthog213

This blue print is exactly how I see our universe explaining how it changes and goes through cycles of change
on an atomic level over and over again.... Now if this form of thinking "makes me a crank" then i'll gladly be
a crank because this make a lot sense....

There are scientific theories (well, hypotheses really) which consider the big bang as just one of a cycle of endless expansion and collapse. But ...

1. These are scientific theories; i.e. they rely on data and mathematics not "it makes sense to me"

2. If such a collapse and re-bang occurred it would not be at the atomic level, we are confident enough in our theories to know that at the early stages of the universe (even if cyclic) there were no atoms, not even the sub-atomic particles that make up atoms.

3. Current observational evidence tends to suggest the universe isn't like this

Note that, "it makes sense" is the worst possible thing to base a theory on.

The power of brains is to twist things so that you can understand them, what I am saying is the atoms change within the entire stretch of the universes existence recycling over trillions of years into a whole new universe reforming the matter itself.... This period of time may be every two weeks or it may be every 13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.... This will happen here on earth one day as it will also happen to the sun, mars, venus, jupiter, the milky way and so fourth and so on until the universe has all changed from what it is now.... And this will happen down to last existing atom here in the universe....
Now the black holes, white dwarfs, dark matter and so on are types of reactions which we can see and detect and the back ground radiation are all due to atomic changes in our universe due to the makeup and changes in the atoms in those systems "an amazing amount of comfort is used in stating this too" Because in 200 years you know that 75% of our thoughts now about such things will have our great, great, great, great grandchildren laughing their asses off while we rot in our graves "seriously" Just as we are amazed by some of the info our forefathers thought to be true "like the earth being flat or man being the center of the universe".... You and I also know that the data gathered today will be very useful in the future and that our "thoughts" about such things will be mostly invalid.... Now in the next 20 years as we venture into space man will learn more for sure.... If you take the 118 elements of the earth "some of which are man made" there are 118 to the 118th power possibilities of combinations avalible on earth alone that we know of.... We have no way of knowing how many more elements the universe contains let alone their reactions to other elements.... No matter "no pun intended" where you go in the universe everything comes down to the atom....

Sorry man, i'm not busting your chops.... I'm just letting you know i'm not as much of moron/crank as you think....

Originally Posted by warthog213

what I am saying is the atoms change within the entire stretch of the universes existence recycling over trillions of years into a whole new universe reforming the matter itself.... This period of time may be every two weeks or it may be every [B]13.772 ± 0.059 billion years.... This will happen here on earth one day as it will also happen to the sun, mars, venus, jupiter, the milky way and so fourth and so on until the universe has all changed from what it is now.... And this will happen down to last existing atom here in the universe....

You say that with great certainty. But how do you know that this will occur? YOU DON'T.
Where is the evidence? THERE ISN'T ANY.

It is just a nice fairy story that you made up, but it ain't science. (And it obviously doesn't happen every two weeks or we might notice. Sheesh.)

Because in 200 years you know that 75% of our thoughts now about such things will have our great, great, great, great grandchildren laughing their asses off while we rot in our graves "seriously"

Bollocks. 400 years ago some guy called Newton came up with some ideas that we still use and are pretty damned impressed by. So "history of science" is another subject we can put you down as being totally ignorant about.

Just as we are amazed by some of the info our forefathers thought to be true "like the earth being flat

When was that again? Oh yes, I remember: NEVER.

If you take the 118 elements of the earth "some of which are man made" there are 118 to the 118th power possibilities of combinations avalible on earth alone that we know of....

So we can also add chemistry to the list of subjects you don't have a fricking clue about.

We have no way of knowing how many more elements the universe contains let alone their reactions to other elements....

Actually, we do. Well, over 100 years ago a guy called Mendeleyev worked it out. If only you weren't so totally ignorant.

I'm just letting you know i'm not as much of moron/crank as you think....

As all you have done is demonstrate even greater depths of ignorance, I'm afraid that failed.

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

every single piece of "evidence" claimed for the big bang can be explained by alternative models. name a piece of evidence and I would be able to go online and find an alternative explanation.

Can you provide a model which fits all the observations, while still being in accordance with basic physical principles ?

big bang contradicts many basic physical principles, hint look up first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy.

Originally Posted by nsbm ranger

big bang contradicts many basic physical principles, hint look up first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy.

No. There's no First Law violation.

Please stop posting until you've actually learned something about the theory you dislike so much. You just sound progressively more idiotic with each unschooled assertion.

The Lambda theory doesn't hold any water to either idea, you and I know this nsbm ranger....

Correction : you believe this...
Do you see the difference ?

Originally Posted by nsbm ranger

big bang contradicts many basic physical principles, hint look up first law of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy.

Don't you think that a few scientists might have noticed if that were true?

Originally Posted by Strange

Originally Posted by warthog213

My idea about our universe is simple, all particles such as atoms and parts which make up an atom are all made of even smaller parts which we know as electrons, protons, neutrons and the nucleus. And what I am saying is that these particles are made of even smaller parts (building blocks with names unknown)

Well, in the case of protons and neutrons, we know from observation that they are made of other particles (quarks).

In the case of other particles, despite a lot of research, there is no evidence of anything smaller. One example of this is "preon theory" (Preon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). You can choose to believe that this is true despite the lack of evidence, but that is not the way science works.

Another attempt to "rationalise" all the different particles as having a common cause is string theory.

If you look at the diagrams of atoms you'll first notice the different types of atom designs and then compare those to diagrams of solar systems, galaxies you'll notice that they do have similarities which are uncanny.... Solar systems would be the atom itself ...

Our modern understanding of what atoms "look like" beras no relation at all to the solar system. (This is a very old idea but doesn't really have any basis in fact despite its apparent intuitive appeal.)

And you don't find it odd at all that nature has designed things in this way.... That particals keep getting smaller.... We are talking really small parts there all within an atom.... I'll bet thats not the smallest yet, and that they keep getting even smaller.... I'll say this again:::: The atom is the key to the entire universe.... It produces an energy which builds upon one another in massive forms "when clumped together.... Which puts them into motion.... thus creating change....

Originally Posted by warthog213

We are talking really small parts there all within an atom....

So why do you think atoms are key, and not the smaller particles?

I'll bet thats not the smallest yet, and that they keep getting even smaller....

Maybe. But there is no evidence for that. So maybe not.

The atom is the key to the entire universe.... It produces an energy which builds upon one another in massive forms "when clumped together

What energy does the atom produce?

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Originally Posted by warthog213

There absolutely can never possibly be any resemblance at all.....
Just because the view from where you are is one way doesn't mean that the outside view is indentically the same....

These pictures are based on the old Bohr model of the atom, which has long since been superseded. Electrons are not little balls circling the nucleus on well defined orbits, like planets do.

What i'm saying is that it is truely funny that nature has designed both with some similarities.... Now I have no clue as to how this idea would play out.... We see more space between galaxies, so maybe the galaxy would be one step in the scale.... Possibly a galaxy being the whole atom or perhaps the whole visable universe being the atom.... Which i'm leaning towards the universe being the contents of an atom which may explain why we can detect nothing beyond that.... Just a visual concept though....

Originally Posted by warthog213

What i'm saying is that it is truely funny that nature has designed both with some similarities.

And what everyone else is saying is that they don't really have any similarities (except, apparently, in your imagination).

Originally Posted by warthog213

What i'm saying is that it is truely funny that nature has designed both with some similarities.

The only "similarity" is that they both exist.

Possibly a galaxy being the whole atom or perhaps the whole visable universe being the atom.

What arrant nonsense.
So far as we can tell no planet is a duplicate of any other, whereas any two electrons (for example) are completely indistinguishable from one another. That's one place your contention falls down.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Possibly a galaxy being the whole atom or perhaps the whole visable universe being the atom....

I'm with Daffy on this one. You're comparing things that aren't comparable. We're quite a long ways past the idea of the atom 'looking' like a solar system. Comparing the two requires working with a debunked atomic model.

I think it's time for this thread to gently slide into the trash.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by warthog213

What i'm saying is that it is truely funny that nature has designed both with some similarities.

The only "similarity" is that they both exist.

Possibly a galaxy being the whole atom or perhaps the whole visable universe being the atom.

What arrant nonsense.
So far as we can tell no planet is a duplicate of any other, whereas any two electrons (for example) are completely indistinguishable from one another. That's one place your contention falls down.

Ok so an atom doesn't have a center core with particals orbiting it right.... And thats not at all similar to anything in the universe....

My pinky is pretty similar to a worm. I mean, they're both phallic-like.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Ok so an atom doesn't have a center core with particals orbiting it right.... And thats not at all similar to anything in the universe....

Correct. Phew.

Originally Posted by beefpatty

My pinky is pretty similar to a worm. I mean, they're both phallic-like.

That's certainly honest, though perhaps more information than I was looking for.

Originally Posted by warthog213

Ok so an atom doesn't have a center core with particals orbiting it right.... And thats not at all similar to anything in the universe....

You lost me at the word "orbit". Electrons exist in clouds around the nucleus. They are not on paths like planets orbiting a star.

Well, Venus is cloudy ...

So is England!
OMG England is an atom!

Originally Posted by Flick Montana

You lost me at the word "orbit". Electrons exist in clouds around the nucleus. They are not on paths like planets orbiting a star.

And those 'clouds' are probability functions, not tangible entities. The solar system is as close an analogy to an atom as is a corned beef sandwich. (On rye.)

Originally Posted by Markus Hanke

Quantum physics imposes a natural limit on how small things can get ( the Planck scale ). Below that limit many of our normal notions about space and time simply no longer apply.

That is not entirely true. Space-time doesn't change. However they are no longer observable. And hence indeed you don't need to look there.

That is not entirely true. Space-time doesn't change.

Quantum foam...?