Who Knows for sure?

[YT2095]

Ok, this is NOT meant to be taken seriously at all, so I stuck it in here

 

from the Micro to the macro, nature seems to replicate certain patterns, whether it`s the fractal patern in a snowflake or the leaves of some plants (a Fern).

our own solar system is remarkably like the pattern shown in an Atom.

(here`s the crazy part )

 

could it be possible that if we had a powerfull enough microscope and took a lokk at one of these electrons that we`de see Cities and people and cars and stuff?

 

it also raises the question when in the bible it says quite clearly that man was created in God`s own image!

now that can be taken many ways. here`s one way (the caps are important here)

 

created IN his own image? note the IN bit.

could it be that We`re sitting on an electron orbiting the nulcleus (our Sun) as an Atom in Gods body?

that would certainly make us IN his image!

 

anyway, enough madness for one day

[iglak]

wow... quite mad

except for the fact that atoms look almost nothing like our solar system, i might have a .001% chance of believing that. lol

[newbie]

iglak said in post #2 :

wow... quite mad

except for the fact that atoms look almost nothing like our solar system, i might have a .001% chance of believing that. lol

 

How so? I think the solar system does resemble an atom.

[iglak]

umm...

it's very hard for me to explain (i'm very bad at teaching)

 

but basically, electrons do not orbit in 2d, and they do not orbit in circles.

 

this is more toward reality

this is a rotating graph of where two electrons are likely to be in one of the higher energy levels (the center point is the nucleus)

 

and heres another one (lower energy level)

 

this is based on the quantum model of an atom

[Muffin]

Hey, that's a really cool spin on things! The ppl who take the Bible literaly would do well to listen to this, lol.

[newbie]

iglak said in post #4 :

umm...

it's very hard for me to explain (i'm very bad at teaching)

 

but basically, electrons do not orbit in 2d, and they do not orbit in circles.

 

this is more toward reality

this is a rotating graph of where two electrons are likely to be in one of the higher energy levels (the center point is the nucleus)

 

and heres another one (lower energy level)

 

this is based on the quantum model of an atom

 

Interesting; opinionated and unproven come to mind though. Yes I am familiar with the quantum model of an atom, It explains much of what we know about chemistry and physics but certainly does not give us a definite answer or picture of an atom.

[iglak]

newbie said in post #6 :

Interesting; opinionated and unproven come to mind though. Yes I am familiar with the quantum model of an atom, It explains much of what we know about chemistry and physics but certainly does not give us a definite answer or picture of an atom.

opinionated, maybe, but i doubt it (well, it's opinionated if i say it because i don't know how they figured it out). unproven, no theory is proven, and we can't actually detect an electron's path, so it's entirely possible that this is wrong.

however, we do know, because of heisenberg's uncertainty principle, that electrons do not orbit on a fixed path. and we also know that electrons fill electron levels, sublevels, orbitals, and spins in a certain pattern.

[newbie]

I think your analyzing this a little too much; YT just said that an atom looks like our solar system. You are familiar with Arts? In Art it doesn't have to be pretty, it just tries to convey an idea, emotion, or visually interesting form. I took YT's post exactly as that. The nucleus of the atom can represent a planet, the electrons represent the satellites. The electrons in an atom don't have to orbit on a fixed path they only have to move to resemble a planet with its satellites rotating around it.

[Pinch Paxton]

I think that light would be a messy fractal. Eyes have size limitations. Look at an Elephant, or a Blue Whale, and the eyes have reached a maximum size..(Much smaller than the size of their bodies) So light would heve to be part of this fractal. Light would have to be reduced in size. Now to me, this seems to create problems with the weave. What do I mean by weave? Imagine light as a cloth weave, and you have a thick weave (Our light) interwoven with a thin weave (This imaginary fractal situation) The weave becomes so dense that there would be areas where the thin light couldn't cross the thick light. This would be areas of darkness. So we would travel forwards a certain distance, and then become blind. Does all that make sense?

 

Pincho.

[Sayonara]

Giant squid have immense eyes - the size of large dinner plates. Not sure where that fits in, but someone might find it useful

[Pinch Paxton]

Yeah they do, which is a bit confusing being as I have watched a program explaining the limitation of eyes. Maybe it is just a part of the eye that has a size limit. Maybe the retina or something.

 

Pincho.

[iglak]

but the thing is, electrons don't orbit the nucleus like any concievable astral bodies.

planets and satelites do orbit on a fixed path, be it a circle, oval, or an oval that slowly rotates around the center. unless acted upon by an outside force, satelites do orbit on a fixed path.

electrons are constantly being bombarded with waves and particles more than twice their size, so their paths are unpredictabe. also, the static attraction the nucleus has on the electrons is much stronger than gravity in relation to a solar system.

since this is the basis of the non-serious science post, it is wrong.

 

P.S. science conveys an idea by analyzing facts, and the non-serious post's facts were wrong. i have absolutely no objection to you painting a picture of an atom with solar system characteristics though.

 

P.P.S. one discovery channel show i watched said that squids can see about 1 trillion points (pixels i guess), while humans can only see something like 1 billion. i am sure i got the numbers wrong, but it's something along those lines