Atoms and The Unknown

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: dragonridr

No thanks. I understand what you are saying, but I still disagree. I'm pretty sure I'm happy with the A I have in Microbiology and not going to let your opinion change that. Thanks for your opinion though.

Then in the future may want to learn before you compare staining to atoms. No amount of staining will ever see an atoms interior. We have to blast an electron beam at an atom and read the changes.

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: dragonridr

Does it then convert into negative energy or stay neutral? Does it depend on the atom itself? or the forces around it? I think both.

Can be both but all matter will eventually decay and become neutrinos and photons. Granted the time scale where talking about is huge. But eventually all that will be left in the universe is photons and neutrinos and let me add electrons and protons they are stable as well. This goes into matter itself is a wave I could go into this but this isn't the thread for it.

a reply to: dragonridr

So after all that you finally answer my question. thanks. but I still disagree.

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: chr0naut

Sorry, I'm still improving on my writing skills but I was referring to both.

Just know that atoms are required to make up cells is the only reason I was referring to them.

Is finding new chemical compounds within an atom still extremely difficult or has the technology advanced beyond some of the standard knowledge to an average person?

As I said, the LHC is one tool for looking at things smaller than the atom. Protons, neutrons and electrons are sub atomic. They are smaller than atoms. If we go still smaller, quarks and leptons are smaller divisions of matter. bosons (like the Higgs particle) carry forces but aren't considered to be 'matter'.

If you have two atoms or more stuck together, then that is a molecule. Chemicals are made of molecules and chemistry is the study of how, and why, these atoms stick together and of the properties that these stuck together atoms have.

Although we have a wast knowledge of how chemicals work, we are still learning new things all the time. To give you some idea of how complete our knowledge is, we now usually figure out the properties we want to get from chemicals and then we assemble the chemicals afterwards, rather than by trial and error, like in the old days.

The biology of cells is up a whole order of magnitude from chemicals. The parts of cells are made up of many chemicals.

The study of chemistry is not a secret or really beyond what any average person is capable of understanding, or making discoveries in.

From the very smartest of us humans, to the most challenged mentally, the differences in the range of our abilities is very small. We can all achieve wonders.

This is a great post..

It brings me back to 8th grade science class. We made a model of an atom using students (as protons and neutrons and electrons) and rope (as the levels).

What stood out to me... was that the majority of the atom was empty space. There's space between the nucleus and the electrons..

I then asked my teacher...

If everything is made of atoms... then what is in the space between?

What is nothing? Because everything is something. . Including that nothing.. it can't be air.. or anything comprised of atoms.. what is it?

What is nothing?

The teachers were stumped and thought it was a great question.

Maybe one day we can see small enough, to find out what nothing is.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: dragonridr

you mean a chemical point particle. I don't care what you say, it is a chemical. It has the ability to change it's surroundings, therefore it is a chemical.

Ok you need to sit down with your professor your heading down the wrong path. Tell him to show you Compendium of Chemical Terminology also called the Gold Book. As a technical term, chemical substance refers to any form of matter—solid, liquid, or gas—that has constant chemical composition of its component atoms. Notice the last line chemicals are composed of atoms the two are not the same. You are composed of atoms everything around you is composed of atoms. Now we can break down matter into its chemical parts and then we can break that down to its atomic parys parts.

You can use the same techniques for a chemical on an atom there just to small.

i think u can be a bit more flexible in endorsing his metaphoric prose on the topic. on the basic level.. it is a chemical reaction. all of it is chemical reaction.. metaphorically speaking. just we dont consider the elements which make up an atom to be individual chemicals. but in terms of the process of a forming/manifesting atom. we are dealing with chemical reactions. just the chemical components in this case are things, like protons, neutrons, frequencies and gravitation etc.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
This is a great post..

It brings me back to 8th grade science class. We made a model of an atom using students (as protons and neutrons and electrons) and rope (as the levels).

What stood out to me... was that the majority of the atom was empty space. There's space between the nucleus and the electrons..

I then asked my teacher...

If everything is made of atoms... then what is in the space between?

What is nothing? Because everything is something. . Including that nothing.. it can't be air.. or anything comprised of atoms.. what is it?

What is nothing?

The teachers were stumped and thought it was a great question.

Maybe one day we can see small enough, to find out what nothing is.

awesome isnt it? we're all made up of 99% empty space. even the chair, the wall.. is 99% empty space. what creates borders and stops us from moving through walls is a simple thing called frequency. this creates vibration and the vibration creates resistance. beyond that each atom is programmed mathematically to interact with various atoms and force in specific ways.

is empty space something? it sure is. but for everyone and everything "inside" this universe. it is nothing. reason being, our basic human senses arent able to detect such high frequencies. the only thing that can observe and match these frequencies to make invisible things apparent is spirit. because it too functions at the quantum level and thus can synchronize with the subsystem of the universe to reveal all that is hidden from human eyes and technology.

eventually im sure we'll give it a name for scientific purposes. to define nothing as something undetectable and not truly "nothing". just empty space, like the sea, cannot be captured and transported. in fact, it doesnt need to be transported at all since we have a huge resource of empty space anywhere we go to utilize for whatever purpose. reason being because everything stands on the surface of nothing and rides on it like train tracks. like chalk on a blackboard. we are the chalk, and the blackboard is just everywhere else. even under the chalk we just impressed over a portion of the blackboard to write or draw something.

u can check out this post i made on the topic a long time ago
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: John333

There's no metaphoric interpretation at all. Chemistry is the science of interaction at the electron shell level. Period.

Neutrons cannot have chemical properties because they have no charge. Frequencies aren't tangibles, they're an attribute of something else, so unless you can say "frequency of what". the term is meaningless. And at any rate, the attribute of how often something occurs per unit of time also cannot interact with a charge. Nor can gravity. None of these things is a chemical.

The only thing on the list that is close is a proton, because it's technically a hydrogen ion.

a reply to: John333

Frequency is none of these things.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

There's no metaphoric interpretation at all. Chemistry is the science of interaction at the electron shell level. Period.

Neutrons cannot have chemical properties because they have no charge. Frequencies aren't tangibles, they're an attribute of something else, so unless you can say "frequency of what". the term is meaningless. And at any rate, the attribute of how often something occurs per unit of time also cannot interact with a charge. Nor can gravity. None of these things is a chemical.

The only thing on the list that is close is a proton, because it's technically a hydrogen ion.

no they cant, but a metaphor can be used. its not scientific. its not the jargon ur used to. but for purposes of the behaviour of the elements, interacting, unifying based on preprogrammed protocols we have no control over. it is alot like a chemical reaction. and in my view.. alot enough to be used metaphorically as your way of relating to whats going on under the hood. its always going to be about balancing equations and synchronicities. as above so below. as is the macro, so is the micro.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

Frequency is none of these things.

what you dont think frequency plays a part in the formation and holding together of an atom?

a reply to: John333

Actually, no.

Frequency isn't a thing by itself. I can't toss a handful of it in your eye.

a reply to: John333

In science, words have fairly concrete definitions. And you just don't have chemical reactions with pretty much any bare nucleon except protons. Not much getting around that.

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: dragonridr

How are there no chemical compounds in an atom? You don't consider protons, neutrons, and electrons chemical compounds of life? Need I forget to mention, Ions.

loosely: chemistry is the art and science of combining whole atoms into chains of atoms and other structures via valence shell electrons exchange or electrical attraction. Chemistry does not take place in the nucleus. that would be nuclear activity. the only part protons and neutrons have in chemistry is in determining what element the atom is.

an atom is the smallest unit of an element that has the properties of that element. dividing an atom further changes the single atom into atoms of two different elements lighter than the first.

very few people are this clueless. some of this is lower than elementary school science. the likelihood of anyone not knowing some of these basic things is NIL. we are most probably being played for lulz.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: John333

Actually, no.

Frequency isn't a thing by itself. I can't toss a handful of it in your eye.

oh but look deeper. frequency manifests when certain conditions are provided. mainly by the work of energy causing vibration.

so no u cant toss a handful of it anywhere. its not measureable like how much frequency is there to go around and will we ever run out of frequency. but it is an observable manifestation in this universe. making it a required element of constructing a harmonic universe such as this one. so it's a thing, not to us, but certainly to the designer. its all just words and names for differentiation. once u can get past that the metaphors arent a big deal anymore.

it is just like a water molecule manifesting when certain atoms are present in the required quantities.

answer me this. which came first, the atom, or the frequency? did frequency create the atom, or did the atom create frequency. and then.. where in this universe can we find something that has no frequency.

a reply to: Lucidparadox

I think this questioned arises the term antimatter or darkmatter? Are the two the same? Do we need atoms to create or form dark matter? What kind of light would required? Why can't we see these things with a darkfield microscope? Maybe we are having trouble adjusting the resolution to be able to see this anti/darkmatter. Food for thought. I love your positive vibes though.

a reply to: Bedlam

You can give a neutron a positive or negative charge though once in the formation of a molecule. Although this changes the atom to absolute positive or to absolute negative.

a reply to: Bedlam

but I can send it to your ears. It's still a wavelength and has form.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Your remarks and horrible grammar has given me the "lulz"