Existence According To Bone - Mind Blown In 3....2....1....

Mindblown - Check.

Thank you for putting this together OP simply amazing. This is why I LOVE ATS!

Originally posted by Bilk22
I posted this pic to this thread December 21st, 2012 11:11am GMT - Snapshot from Earth and Sun. and feel the discussions are very much related. Maybe someone knows how to connect the dots? Ok it's a pun too.

Well I wasn't going to insert any doom and gloom, but now that you mention it, let's go a little deeper down the rabbit hole shall we?

Let's say that I am correct and our sun is in fact an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom, and it just so happens that its not just any electron, but a VALENCE electron.

In chemistry, a valence electron is an electron that is associated with an atom, and that can participate in the formation of a chemical bond; in a single covalent bond, both atoms in the bond contribute one valence electron in order to form a shared pair. The presence of valence electrons can determine the element's chemical properties and whether it may bond with other elements: For a main group element, a valence electron can only be in the outermost electron shell. In a transition metal, a valence electron can also be in an inner shell.

An atom with a closed shell of valence electrons (corresponding to an electron configuration s2p6) tends to be chemically inert. An atom with one or two valence electrons more than a closed shell is highly reactive, because the extra valence electrons are easily removed to form a positive ion. An atom with one or two valence electrons fewer than a closed shell is also highly reactive, because of a tendency either to gain the missing valence electrons (thereby forming a negative ion), or to share valence electrons (thereby forming a covalent bond).


Like an electron in an inner shell, a valence electron has the ability to absorb or release energy in the form of a photon. This gain or loss of energy can trigger an electron to move (jump) to a more outer shell or even break free from its associated atom's valence shell; this is known as atomic excitation. When an electron loses energy (thereby causing photons to be emitted), then it moves to a more inner shell.

Does that help connect the dots a little?

reply to post by Bone75


HOLY CRAP! I don't get wide-eyed easily at all. But yes you successfully blew my mind. Most interesting thing I have heard in the last week. I have thought of the "we are under a microscope in a petri dish" concept before but never in specific regards to an atom. V-Nice!

ETA: Btw,when you said 'can you guess what this is a picture of? (the atom pic was lower on the screen so I had to scroll down) Before I did, I mumbled mockingly in my head "umm.. Idk... a frickin hurricane..." Ha. Haa..

reply to post by Bone75


Be careful Bone, or you might lose your marbles.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by Bilk22
I posted this pic to this thread December 21st, 2012 11:11am GMT - Snapshot from Earth and Sun. and feel the discussions are very much related. Maybe someone knows how to connect the dots? Ok it's a pun too.

Well I wasn't going to insert any doom and gloom, but now that you mention it, let's go a little deeper down the rabbit hole shall we?

Let's say that I am correct and our sun is in fact an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom, and it just so happens that its not just any electron, but a VALENCE electron.

In chemistry, a valence electron is an electron that is associated with an atom, and that can participate in the formation of a chemical bond; in a single covalent bond, both atoms in the bond contribute one valence electron in order to form a shared pair. The presence of valence electrons can determine the element's chemical properties and whether it may bond with other elements: For a main group element, a valence electron can only be in the outermost electron shell. In a transition metal, a valence electron can also be in an inner shell.

An atom with a closed shell of valence electrons (corresponding to an electron configuration s2p6) tends to be chemically inert. An atom with one or two valence electrons more than a closed shell is highly reactive, because the extra valence electrons are easily removed to form a positive ion. An atom with one or two valence electrons fewer than a closed shell is also highly reactive, because of a tendency either to gain the missing valence electrons (thereby forming a negative ion), or to share valence electrons (thereby forming a covalent bond).


Like an electron in an inner shell, a valence electron has the ability to absorb or release energy in the form of a photon. This gain or loss of energy can trigger an electron to move (jump) to a more outer shell or even break free from its associated atom's valence shell; this is known as atomic excitation. When an electron loses energy (thereby causing photons to be emitted), then it moves to a more inner shell.

Does that help connect the dots a little?

You need to put in in English for me . Or maybe I don't want to hear it? :O

I too have dabbled with this idea most of my life. As soon as I was shown the atom and the star systems I began to draw connections. Whether accurate or not, I really love to pursue this kind of thinking as it keeps the gears fluid. I've put this one aside for now as I'm unclear how good my senses alone are at perception of actual reality. The "Flea on a dogs back" idea doesn't cut it for me, too simplistic as a rational. I loved the 666 bit though In the long run OP, I like to think you're barking up the right tree but something tells me our view is limited in our present form. I somehow feel that if we are eventually to understand all that is, ideas like this will be likened to us rubbing sticks together to make fire and later building the LHC. Not saying I'm right but this idea/theory is probably, in the grand scheme of things at the point where we just opened the jigsaw puzzle and threw the pieces out on the table....And there it is. Thanks for posting brain food

Your theory reminds me of this simpsons intro, always found the idea interesting after seeing this

m.youtube.com...

Originally posted by BrokenAngelWings33

Originally posted by Bone75

Then there is this picture for you...

If you were to scale up an atom to the size of a hurricane, you would have to scale up the size of the electrons as well.

I survived Hurricane Katrina and one thing I don't recall is....

Getting smacked upside the head with a baseball sized electron while I was out in the yard parasailing with my garbage bags and roller blades.

reply to post by Bone75


I've often thought this to be a possibility on many occasions but bizarrely more so recently whilst pondering theories on Alternate Dimensions, which by using yr Theory, Dovetails nicely with the ideas bouncing round my head! I Wonder if this would be both possible in terms of Physics/Mathematics & String theory? mmmmm?

Very thought provoking thread friend, Many as yourself have been on to this for while. I thought you would enjoy this video that I came across, It's along the same lines of your OP S&F

reply to post by Bone75


You don't think the picture resembled the galaxy? You don't think hurricanes consist of the same energy? Well you are mistaken. There are just as many cells in a hurricane as any life force.

I liked this comparison.
Fractals are trippy

reply to post by Bone75


Okay admittedly I was thinking more along the lines of our solar system being the atom, with the sun being the nucleus. If it were the whole galaxy..... that would make the super massive black hole at the center the nucleus.... and that just hurts my poor human brain too much to try to consider. But I do agree that the spiral pattern is everywhere in nature. I.E. the golden ratio. It's fun to think about. Someone get Michio Kaku on this ASAP. If anyone can make sense of it..... he can.

Originally posted by BrokenAngelWings33
reply to post by Bone75

 

You don't think the picture resembled the galaxy? You don't think hurricanes consist of the same energy? Well you are mistaken. There are just as many cells in a hurricane as any life force.

Sure it looks like a galaxy, but you're missing the point when it comes to the scale of the electrons. The bigger the atom, the bigger the electrons... you have to keep that in perspective.

reply to post by Bone75


Well my mind was not blown away by this theory of yours. It is not anything miraculous. The entire Universe is one Giant cell. That is common sense to me.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Bone75

 

If this is the case, life must be a virus.

edit on 16-12-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

I would love to hear your reasoning behind this?

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by tehdouglas

 

That's not exactly the way it works. It's not a matter of zooming in.

With a hologram you can break the recording medium into smaller pieces, each piece contains all of the same information as the whole.

I dont know about that.... does that mean any part of a hologram is 2d?.. because a hologram of say... princess laya from R2D2... there is a complex image being projected, and there is different information at each point of the projected hologram... so would the "same information as the whole" refer to the medium of the mechanical device which is doing the projecting and decoding is the same as the whole, or in that case the creator of the whole?

The idea behind hologram is that the reality would not be 3-D?

Originally posted by MilesTeg
reply to post by Bone75

 

If it were the whole galaxy..... that would make the super massive black hole at the center the nucleus....

That would make more sense to me... Because it is thought that at the center of a black hole is a "singularity"... which basically means they dont know what is in the center.. but I think they think it is dense...
I also think black holes absorb energy/matter... so perhaps this uber dense, singularity of energy/matter can be related to the atoms nucleus... which is proportionately said to be very "small" in terms of the atoms size.. but i think it contains a lot of the atoms mass... Im not sure the ratio to how much mass is in a black hole compared to its galaxy...

reply to post by Bone75


Here is a star for you sir. I'm glad someone posted this theory and like someone stated above, it relieves me that I'm not the only one with a similar opinion. I once sea in a book, several years ago, not sure if I can remember the name of the book, that our universe is somewhat like the spectre of numbers. The only number that actually exists is zero, and that represents your standing point. On your left you have a vast infinity of microscopic worlds and on your right the infinity of macroscopic worlds. From where you're standing we can refer as the middle. When we think of it it really makes sense. For eg. we're not actually aware of the bacterial world nor are we aware of the magnanimous planetary space. So I guess our whole universe could be just a tiny bit of a much larger organism or another even another universe.

Living in fractal art. nice.

infinately large, infinately small, same pattern repeating over and over, complexity and perfect order..chaotic only from a small perspective.

I accept this hypothesis as likely. Life is still a beautiful thing, the earth is still a special place, and my home is still the most comfortable area in the universe...total fact according to my perspectives.

and in a fractal universe, perspective is key