It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by MainframeII
Originally posted by earthship35
Could you explain in laymens terms what this is or means please i am completetly in awe of this but am not a science guy..i am jealous of your brain..lol
Basically, I calculated a value called "S". It's a scale constant between quantum and celestial systems. My hypothesis in the theory are that atoms are simply star system in a different space-time density (or velocity frame of reference).
My question is this: Does there have to be space to define object parameters, and why? I ask this because gravity occurs between everything. If I stand next to another male of (almost) identical mass, there is gravity between us, calculable using the universal gravitational constant. Being of (almost) identical size, why do we not repel each other? Similarly, a cubic kilometer of earth in the ground could repel the other cubic kilometer of earth next to it. If we put an imaginary line down the centre of earth, why are the two equally massive halves not repelling?
objects of similar mass and density will repel each other, objects of significantly different mass and density will attract each other
Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.
Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.
Originally posted by Jigore
Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.
Yes I was about to edit my post to include this fact! Thx for pointing it out.
Electron do not orbit nucleus like planet orbit star. This is only a simplification of the theory we teach to the kid so they can imagine it.
Most people keep this image of the atom because they stopped science at high school. In my first chemistry class in college, the teacher told us to forget everything we knew about atoms.
Originally posted by MainframeII
Originally posted by gsf1200
It has already been proven that time SLOWS for the moving observer.
Sorry but that's incorrect. Spacecraft clocks speed up while traveling at high velocities. Time changes due to gravity fields and time changes due to velocity frames of reference are distinct effects. The stronger the gravity field the slower time passes unless the objects velocity increases within that field. But besides time dilation, it was also predicted that mass should increase as velocity increases, but there is absolutely no proof any quantum particle traveling near the speed of light increases in mass.
[edit on 4-9-2009 by MainframeII]
Originally posted by SpaceGoatsFarts
Originally posted by Jigore
Originally posted by Inc_9x
It seems to over-simplify quantum dynamics. Is it me or is it not a known and recognised fact of quantum physics that electrons appear at random throughout a field - they don't orbit the nucleus of an atom like planets do.
Yes I was about to edit my post to include this fact! Thx for pointing it out.
Electron do not orbit nucleus like planet orbit star. This is only a simplification of the theory we teach to the kid so they can imagine it.
Most people keep this image of the atom because they stopped science at high school. In my first chemistry class in college, the teacher told us to forget everything we knew about atoms.
BUMPing this because it seems too few people read the complete thread before posting.
So many people saying "OMG I knew it !!! I had this idea a few days ago also !!!!", but no one replying to what is repeated all over the thread :
Repeat after me : Electrons do no orbit around the nucleus like planets.
Originally posted by googolplex
reply to post by Eurisko2012
I don't know if results would register over that short of time period?
Originally posted by centurion1211
If the planets such as Jupiter are like electrons in an atom, why don't we see them "fly off" to join other stars and have other planets show up to replace them as actually happens with electrons in atoms during chemical reactions?