The 'empty atom' fallacy.

a reply to: ColinT

Your argument is strange claiming energy proves an atom is solid. There is energy in empty space as well! The space in atoms is filled by an electron field around the nucleus. THIS FIELD CONTAINS ENERGY if it didnt we would have a real problem is electrons wouldn't dispel each other. And without that we couldn't pick things up and it would really be bad as we would pass through things like a ghost.

And if your goi g yo make strange claims at least learn what experiments have been done to confirm what atoms are.

You might find this interesting you can actually see atoms.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

Or , there is the increasingly popular String Theory.
The Theory of Everything

originally posted by: Gothmog
Or , there is the increasingly popular String Theory.
The Theory of Everything

Nah, string theory has been superseded by the resurgence of E8 theory.

Keep up, man !!



arxiv.org...

The quarks, electrons, protons and neutrons could easily be just nodal resonance of some kind of fundamental Langmuir waves.

The extra dimensions would not exist without energy occupying the space so I would be slow to build a system of space time dimensions without energy and perhaps time or resonant quantization.

There is no universal time resonance which explains the entanglement phenomena.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Considering things from our limited slither of reality, and assuming it is the way everything works, is a flaw.

A canvas no more knows the reality of the painting upon it, than does the paint know about the entirety of the canvas. It is something entwined, yet separate. But without one, the other doesn't exist.

a reply to: SummerRain

Which explains all the palimpsest theories in physics.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: SummerRain

Which explains all the palimpsest theories in physics.

And?

What do you dispute in that?

a reply to: ColinT

wats coterminous mean?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ColinT

Your argument is strange claiming energy proves an atom is solid. There is energy in empty space as well! The space in atoms is filled by an electron field around the nucleus. THIS FIELD CONTAINS ENERGY if it didnt we would have a real problem is electrons wouldn't dispel each other. And without that we couldn't pick things up and it would really be bad as we would pass through things like a ghost.

And if your goi g yo make strange claims at least learn what experiments have been done to confirm what atoms are.

Yes Colin should learn what experiments tell us.

He should also stop lying about what all modern physics textbooks say when he hasn't read them.

And even if you set those two aside for a moment, isn't he contradicting his previous thread titled "There is no such 'thing' as energy." First he says there's no such thing as energy and now energy is why atoms can't be mostly empty? The fallacies in his posts are too numerous to mention but this should be obvious to even the most casual observer. The icing on the cake is when he throws away the work of thousands of scientists over hundreds of years without even understanding it, and then he calls other people arrogant. It's like trying to think outside the box, without even knowing where the box is.

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: SummerRain

Which explains all the palimpsest theories in physics.

originally posted by: SummerRain
And?

What do you dispute in that?

I dispute that characterization. It's more like Newton wrote chapter 1 which says here's how things work in ordinary conditions.

Then Einstein wrote chapter 2 saying Newton was right, that's how work in ordinary conditions. Chapter 2 gets into not so ordinary conditions like objects approaching the speed of light, but the same math still simplifies to what Newton presented in Chapter 1 for ordinary objects.

Some people try to characterize the Einstein's theory as a palimpsest replacement of Newton's theories, but it's really not. In fact Newton's theories are so broadly applicable they are still used today by many scientists and engineers who are dealing with non-relativistic applications.

So if chapter 1 says 2mph + 2mph = 4 mph, isn't that good enough for any practical purposes? Do you really need to go to chapter 2 to calculate instead that 2mph + 2mph is some amount below 4 mph which is so insignificant you probably can't measure the difference? No, but you need Chapter 2 to work on GPS or the LHC.


Common Physics Misconceptions

This is why many people still use chapter 1 every day, the math is simpler and it still works in most ordinary applications. It hasn't been erased. Fewer people use chapter 2, when they need it.

a reply to: ColinT

That makes a lot of sense. So what if our reality is a superposition of multiple alternative realities. All of these realities are standing waves. Their superposition results in areas of constructive and destructive interference, resulting in regions of high and low energy densities that dictate where electrons may and/or may not exist around a nucleus? Thus creating quantized pockets within "space-time" (space-time is not my preferred terminology).

lord it is easy to prove atoms have a lot of empty space .
just cool them and they contract or put them under alot of pressure they get squashed together .

a tea spoon of matter from a neutron start will weight billions of tons as the atoms have been forced so close together most of the space is going .
N ow what about the true next step having matter of any type with no space what so ever make a diamond look like foam when comparing the hardness .

As for the center of the atom of corse that is the place with the least amount of empty space .
A atom is like a solar system with a sun at the center and planets in orbit around it .

Wile this paper is nice to read it changes nothing in our understanding of it just gives a more detailed look at a atoms makeup .

Solid is no ware near solid as the atoms are moving .

originally posted by: SummerRain

originally posted by: Gothmog
Or , there is the increasingly popular String Theory.
The Theory of Everything

Nah, string theory has been superseded by the resurgence of E8 theory.

Keep up, man !!

arxiv.org...

I tend to go with earlier Theories until I find some basis to move on.

The fundamental forces are what make them "solid".

An atom is a 'bubble' of a different kind of space within the space of the Physical Realm in which we exist.

Well modern space has all kinds of properties attached to it. I never understood how space could be anything more than just space. Also most space has not the properties to be a 'bubble' why ? There is no upper or lower bound in heisenberg. What's the wavelength of a llama ? Well it's a valid question in physics.

Seems to me that the mathematics in physics work just enough to explain the physical universe (with a lot of parameters and constants to tweak it) . But at a more fundamental level it seems to me that the math used is just one of many possible theories. It might not be The Theory , just a good one a workable one ...

a reply to: frenchfries

But at a more fundamental level it seems to me that the math used is just one of many possible theories.

There is a simple explanation.
When we do physics experiments in the macro world like measuring gravitational acceleration in grade school, we are using a universal time standard. The rolling ball and everything else observable in the classroom seem to be measureable by the stop watch used to measure the experiment. There is nothing wrong with the Trig or the math LOL.

When we try to observe events within an atom our stop watch becomes a frozen useless tool that oscillates at about 32.768 kHz (there is some uncertainty).

You can buy a rubidium slap chop oscillator that slap chops at 10MHZ on Ebay which is just a little more accurate.

NIST keeps the most accurate time standards secret so we don't really know much about fundamental frequencies.

Maybe we could have the NSA shrink Vince till he was smaller than the old Plank length and send him on a secret classified mission?

originally posted by: SummerRain

A canvas no more knows the reality of the painting upon it, than does the paint know about the entirety of the canvas. It is something entwined, yet separate. But without one, the other doesn't exist.

Can that which is 'seeing' be separate from what is 'seen'?
Maybe, just maybe...........the image that is appearing presently, is aware of itself!!

a reply to: Cauliflower

Maybe we could have the NSA shrink Vince till he was smaller than the old Plank length and send him on a secret classified mission?

It he was an 'alien' he could replace the electrons by muons Atoms get much smaller because muons have more mass and therefore are closer to nucleus but still no plank scale. btw don't buy muonic fluid on ebay