Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
What is the connection between the torus and the atom?
View: https://imgur.com/a/VOkavlM
View: https://imgur.com/a/XPAMbJ1
Cat
View: https://imgur.com/a/VOkavlM
View: https://imgur.com/a/XPAMbJ1
Cat
Last edited:
It's just human nature, like seeing shapes in the clouds. I find that when you talk to people about science immediately downplaying something they find interesting is a real good way to kill their interest.
We live in a universe of spiraling star systems and galaxies, and we're made of matter composed of electrons spiraling around clumps of mass. People are inevitably going to sense something 'deep' there even if the forces at work are completely different.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?"
"It's just human nature, like seeing shapes in the clouds."
That about sums it up.
Cat
"It's just human nature, like seeing shapes in the clouds."
That about sums it up.
Cat
rotating magnetic torusWhat is the connection between the torus and the atom?
Cat
sorry, iconic thinking.I haven't the math to describe it.
multiple 'energy' fields (torusses? torii?)
rotating at right angles(?) to each other
interacting with (misnamed) dark matter/energy
resulting in gravity(?)
dependent on number of interactions:
greater mass~higher gravity . . .hmm...
that would open some intriguing possibilities....
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?"
"It's just human nature, like seeing shapes in the clouds."
That about sums it up.
I agree; the solar system and atoms are two very different things.
We’ve seen that the BOHR modelling and initial diagrammatic representations and ways it were taught in high school have been misleading and we can now see the reality of the differences between the two.
Whilst they seem similar but aren’t actually the same constituents or angular momentum features or forces etc, there are still some similarities from a broader perspective:
- a central point (nucleus and sun)
- things in orbit around that central point (electrons, planets)
- forces making it all happen (electromagnetism, gravity)
- central point makes up same mass of the total area (nucleus=99.9% of total mass in atom, sun=99.8% of total mass in solar system)
- there are many of them (a very large number for the number of atoms to exist, and we don’t know how many solar or planetary systems exist, at least 100billion some think)
etc
Whilst there are differences (electrons vs planets, electromagnetism vs gravity, different orbital momentum)we know the actual correct representation of the atom is in fact very different, there are some similarities from a broader perspective
They don’t look exactly the same and have different constituents and forces at play etc, but have some broader similarities
"Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?"
They have noticeable differences and have broader similarities
Thank you
"It's just human nature, like seeing shapes in the clouds."
That about sums it up.
I agree; the solar system and atoms are two very different things.
We’ve seen that the BOHR modelling and initial diagrammatic representations and ways it were taught in high school have been misleading and we can now see the reality of the differences between the two.
Whilst they seem similar but aren’t actually the same constituents or angular momentum features or forces etc, there are still some similarities from a broader perspective:
- a central point (nucleus and sun)
- things in orbit around that central point (electrons, planets)
- forces making it all happen (electromagnetism, gravity)
- central point makes up same mass of the total area (nucleus=99.9% of total mass in atom, sun=99.8% of total mass in solar system)
- there are many of them (a very large number for the number of atoms to exist, and we don’t know how many solar or planetary systems exist, at least 100billion some think)
etc
Whilst there are differences (electrons vs planets, electromagnetism vs gravity, different orbital momentum)we know the actual correct representation of the atom is in fact very different, there are some similarities from a broader perspective
They don’t look exactly the same and have different constituents and forces at play etc, but have some broader similarities
"Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?"
They have noticeable differences and have broader similarities
Thank you
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
But does an analogy with "noticeable differences and broader similarities" actually prove anything?
Cat
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
If you are addressing me, "noticeable differences and broader similarities" means just about sweet nothing. Since there is no real connection whatsoever between planets circling the Sun and electrons in an atom, that is not surprising.
Cat
Cat
OMG, you just blew my mind! I guess the idea hovered around the edge of my mind but never became fully realized. Also, that raises the possibility of the universe being part of an atom and our universe making up untold numbers of other universes in a never-ending loop.
Infinite regression is possible.
If something is possible then?
Why not a galaxy of universes itself just 1 galaxy in that universe etc.
An atom an entire universe.
Endless energy needs for the tiny regression seems unlikely but energy needs for the big bigger etc break no E laws.
Keep stretching the mind, VPE. Just remember though, find confirmations in seemingly differing things as you go. What you think to be a possibility that cannot possibly be tested or otherwise confirmed in itself, will be represented locally, relatively speaking, in seemingly -- just seemingly -- unrelated areas. That or something that is always taken for granted, thought too local and too common to scale up (though it will be quite proper to be very leery of doing this last (rivals "History always repeats in large aspect, though never -- well almost never -- in fine detail(s))).
Any kind of structure is usually formed from some kind of starting point and takes the materials available and combines them according to a set of rules such as when an ice crystal forms. It doesn't all form at once it takes time and to become infinite in size it would need an infinite amount of time, but before that, it would have hit and interacted with something else.
If space is infinite and full of an infinite number of other big bangs, then any kind of grouping or clustering will come to an end either because of a lack of more materials to combine with or collision with neighbouring material trying to do the same. In other words, I don't think you can have a one-off infinite structure (for example the infinite regression you are proposing), at some point things must average out, so over an infinite amount of space everything will on average be just that - average.
Sorry but I think it's as boring as that, so instead of trying to find another big bang just appreciate the one wev'e got, because all the others are probably similar if the laws of physics are universal.
If time even exists and a universe can start from nothing then they are both boundless and timeless.
Infinite structures will form.
Who is to say when that first happened, could be an infinite time ago or this is the first happening.
Dark flow IMO is trying to tell us we are not a one off universe event.
If we can have dark flow between neighbors and they all formed at the same time then all would have dark flow and grander structure forming or formed.
Going infinite small i think is going to run into conservation of energy problems.
Infinite energy for every size seems like it would destroy conservation..
Last edited:
Always fun to think out of the box
Going to bigger structures if we are not it alone is probably going to be reality depending on when everything started.
Could have started forever ago or this is round 1.
If time is only a property of Q foam then time doesn't really exist and the start point doesn't exist.
Dark flow is really an interesting read.
It leads you down the path of neighbor universes and what speeding up expansion might be.
It also allows galaxies to merge in expansion a problem that haunts classic expansion.
Going smaller forever is going to lead to infinite energy for every level of size so i think small will only be so small then nada between.
Then again smaller is a great place to hide dark matter energy.
Only their pictures in books look similar. If you could see an atom, you would just see a 3D blur where the electrons are orbiting. Also, they are not orbiting due to gravity but due to atomic forces. Planets do not tend to flow as electrons can. Solar Systems are usually organized on one plain, while atoms have electrons orbiting on every plain.
IMAO, the similarity is superficial at best.
IMAO, the similarity is superficial at best.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
If you like "ancient esoteric wisdom", you might quote "as above, so below".
No religious connotation whatsoever implied or intended.
"Following its use by prominent modern occultists such as Helena P. Blavatsky (1831–1891, co-founder of the Theosophical Society) and the anonymous author of the Kybalion (often taken to be William W. Atkinson, 1862–1932, a pioneer of the New Thought movement), the paraphrase started to take on a life of its own, becoming an often cited motto in New Age circles." Wiki As above, so below - Wikipedia
In particular as above, so below was used to justify astrology, as a method of relating the history/experience of a person or thing to the relative positions of the "planets" (including the Sun and Moon) whereby events/influences in life are open to prediction of characteristics - even extended over time. This is far beyond "star sign" attribution.
Whilst this might be reconsidered in the light of the 4-dimensional BLOCK Universe (hopefully forbidden by anything you can think of, as in "Aunt Clara forbid") as reopening astrology, this practice (astrology) is surely falsified by discovery of dozens or millions of "planets" or dwarf planets beyond Neptune, even discounting the inverse square law (effect reducing with square of distance) - meaning that it runs out of attributable characteristics per 'heavenly body'. One might consider further falsification in the practice of "a year for a day" - meaning that a day in the relative positions of the planets, is regarded as predicting the events of the corresponding year. Planetary positions one day after birth are used to predict events/influences one year after birth.
Cat
No religious connotation whatsoever implied or intended.
"Following its use by prominent modern occultists such as Helena P. Blavatsky (1831–1891, co-founder of the Theosophical Society) and the anonymous author of the Kybalion (often taken to be William W. Atkinson, 1862–1932, a pioneer of the New Thought movement), the paraphrase started to take on a life of its own, becoming an often cited motto in New Age circles." Wiki As above, so below - Wikipedia
In particular as above, so below was used to justify astrology, as a method of relating the history/experience of a person or thing to the relative positions of the "planets" (including the Sun and Moon) whereby events/influences in life are open to prediction of characteristics - even extended over time. This is far beyond "star sign" attribution.
Whilst this might be reconsidered in the light of the 4-dimensional BLOCK Universe (hopefully forbidden by anything you can think of, as in "Aunt Clara forbid") as reopening astrology, this practice (astrology) is surely falsified by discovery of dozens or millions of "planets" or dwarf planets beyond Neptune, even discounting the inverse square law (effect reducing with square of distance) - meaning that it runs out of attributable characteristics per 'heavenly body'. One might consider further falsification in the practice of "a year for a day" - meaning that a day in the relative positions of the planets, is regarded as predicting the events of the corresponding year. Planetary positions one day after birth are used to predict events/influences one year after birth.
Cat
Last edited:
I believe he is referring to their interactive properties and not their individual atomic makeup. Right, the Solar System and atoms are two different things, but the function and processes within the space between those similar objects is identical, or that's what I've been led to believe. Some guy's theory.This ought to explain what's going on in an atom:
Why do electrons not fall into the nucleus?
The picture of electrons "orbiting" the nucleus like planets around the sun remains an enduring one, not only in popular images of the atom but also in the minds of many of us who know …chem.libretexts.org
The solar system and the atom are two different things.
I've only managed to breeze through most of these posts,
but one thing I either haven't heard or missed was any
chatter about dark matter. Did I miss something?
Thanks.
but one thing I either haven't heard or missed was any
chatter about dark matter. Did I miss something?
Thanks.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
There was a very superficial similarity, according to the old 'atom' model. Once this changed to quantum diffuse electron 'orbits', any similarity broke down. Not to mention planets jumping orbits.
So what was a vague similarity meant to mean anyway? As above, so below?
Cat
So what was a vague similarity meant to mean anyway? As above, so below?
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Seriously, planets to not exist as hazy clouds jumping in and out of orbits. The Sun does not consist of a few protons and neutrons. The nucleus of an atom does not radiate millions of tons per second. The "old idea", pretty though it might have been in the 19th century, does not belong in the 21st century.
Cat
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Any comparison between the solar system and an atom is a very crude, confusing comparison dating back decades. I think it is best forgotten.
In the very first place, the electrons are not widely disparate, like planets. Even at the simplest level, there are not two types of electron corresponding to terrestrial planets or giant (gaseous/icy) planets.
Furthermore, very fortunately for us, the planets do not jump in and out of orbits taking/giving energy. Imagine Earth jumping out to the orbit of Saturn.
What is more, electrons are not now thought of as discrete 'blobs' in fixed orbits. Since quantum mechanics, they are thought of more as diffuse probabilities.
Decades ago, there was some similarity in the then thinking, but that is now history.
Cat
In the very first place, the electrons are not widely disparate, like planets. Even at the simplest level, there are not two types of electron corresponding to terrestrial planets or giant (gaseous/icy) planets.
Furthermore, very fortunately for us, the planets do not jump in and out of orbits taking/giving energy. Imagine Earth jumping out to the orbit of Saturn.
What is more, electrons are not now thought of as discrete 'blobs' in fixed orbits. Since quantum mechanics, they are thought of more as diffuse probabilities.
Decades ago, there was some similarity in the then thinking, but that is now history.
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Is it only me, or does the solar system and the atoms seem similar?
Are we in general agreement?
Cat
Are we in general agreement?
Cat
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason
- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
This Week In Space podcast: Episode 141 —Holiday Special 2024- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Every upcoming 'Star Wars' movie officially announced
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram