New atom

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • JustJono
    FFR Player
    • Nov 2003
    • 283

    #1

    New atom

    That's right. I came up with this during class. While I do not know too much about metaphysics, relativity, or special relativity, you must admit that this is still quite creative. I will be basing this message off of the picture I poorly created in Photoshop.

    I have come up with a new kind of atom. Instead of spinning electrons, it has spinning protons and neutrons. This protons and neutrons spin around a nucleus (pink) which is essentially made of particles and gases. It does not have a solid outside or shell, but due to it's incredible mass, it creates the gravity to keep these protons and neutrons spinning at a very fast speed.

    The protons (red) and neutrons (blue) are divided into little ovals (or circles, if you'd like to imagine it that way.) These little ovals are spinning at an incredible speed, creating a circle shape. But you will notice there is no way to cause this spinning action, as there is absolutely nothing in the middle of the rings. That is one of the downsides of this theory.

    The protons' and neutrons' little oval shapes can vary in size, but it has a certain balance within them, to maintain stability in the spinning.

    There is a finite amount of matter/gases/particles in this atom that I am theorizing. But the area in which there is the most amount of matter/gases/particles is the nucleus. On occasion, the little oval shapes in the protons and neutrons will lose their certain balance, and will temporarily need more matter or particles within them, to maintain the mass. They might also need LESS matter or particles to maintain the mass and balance. The protons and neutrons get these particles from the nucleus. The particles are shot from the nucleus to the oval shape which needs patching, or the other way around (depending on how it's trying to balance itself.) When shot to the proton/neutron from the nucleus, the particles are shot very instantly, and could resemble lightning or electricity currents (see the electricity currents in the image below.) That is an unstable system though. If the neucleus loses particles, that will alter the balance of the protons and neutrons spinning around the neucleus. A very large instability at that. When such an instability occurs, the atom will implode and explode again, re-creating the atom. At the incredible mass of everything, this imploding and exploding occurs quite fast. And quite frequently too.

    The protons and neutrons are spinning at the speed of light or faster. The nucleus sends "patch ups" at the speed of light or faster. The atom implodes and explodes at the speed of light or faster. This atom implodes and explodes maybe about once a nanosecond.

    Now that you have caught on to that, here's the big twist (and some of you may have caught on already.) This atom that I'm talking about is: how our universe works.

    The red protons represent matter. The blue neutrons represent anti-matter.

    The little oval shapes are universes. (Thus, the end of our universe is the beginning of an alternate universe.)

    The "patch ups" and electric currents represent the reason why our universe exceeds it's finite amount of matter/energy every once in awhile.

    The imploding and exploding represent The Big Bang and The Big Crunch. (It's not our universe that makes the Big Bang and Big Crunch, it's our whole universal system, AKA "the new atom").

    Now you're probably thinking "You're stupid. That means we're getting crushed every nanosecond."

    Well, I have two possibilities for this one. Either A) since time is relative, we are experiencing the process as taking a long time, or...

    B) Everything that happened while the atom was still "open" and uncollapsed stayed there as light that it emitted before it imploded. So basically, we're looking into the past. We're living the past. (And REMEMBER, I'm explaining the phenomena of the universe, not the phenomena of intelligent consciousness.)

    I hope I won't get flamed for making this theory against religion, because that isn't the case. I made this theory so it can please both atheists and believers in God.

    To please atheists, I just say, "This is how the universe works and the universe wasn't created by God."

    To please believers, I say, "Remember how I described the system as an atom? What if God was a being that is made out of these atoms. That creates the possibility that there are more universes than countable. This also brings logic to belief that we are the flesh and blood of God."

    Wheee long post! Take THAT, Specforces!!!!
    Attached Files
    Jonathan Cruz

    http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp
  • jazzmosis
    FFR Player
    • Sep 2003
    • 521

    #2
    It's impossible to have spinning protons and neutrons, I'm sorry. Especially neutrons. They'd never spin since they aren't charged.

    Originally posted by JurseyRider734
    <3 Jazzoo.

    Comment

    • User6773

      #3
      Correct. And on top of that, you clearly don't understand that protons and neutrons are many thousands of times larger than electrons.

      "Particles and gases" at the center? Gases are ~made up~ of atoms, my friend.

      Comment

      • GuidoHunter
        is against custom titles
        • Oct 2003
        • 7371

        #4
        REEEEEE!!! [loud buzzer noise] Your model of the atom obviously gets a big thumbs-down due to its MANY flaws (I won't even go into them here, but if you so desire, I will), but it seems you were concentrating more on your model being a representation of the universe.

        However, even that isn't very logical.

        Regarding the "ovals" being universes, are you assuming there is a finite number of universes (which makes no sense, since the universe is all-inclusive by definition), or do you ascribe to the many-worlds interperetation of quantum theory? Since the latter would make the most sense, I'll assume that. In the many-worlds interpretation, there exists a universe for every possible outcome of every single quantum choice, and since MANY quantum choices are going on all the time, that would lead to an infinite number of universes, something which the "pink center" couldn't support with all the matter in the ( ) "universe".

        Also, why are universes of matter and antimatter complementary, yet mutually excllusive? Antimatter exists in our universe and annhililates things constantly, if only on a small scale, but can (and is) created on a larger scale around the universe and on earth.

        Regarding possibility "B", what is emitting the light, and where is it going? The idea of there being empty space inbetween universes is preposterous.

        Oh, and your appeal to theists might not have the desired effect =). Suggesting that God is made up of atoms that exist of our own world, and is thereby included in the world which He created? Something about that might not sit right...

        HOWEVER illogical this model may or may not be, you do deserve credit for beign creative and coming up with this; your thoroughness is commendable. This was fun for me, too, because I get to talk about something I love =).

        **Oh, and Jazz, nucleons very much CAN spin. They have a quantum spin number just like electrons, and although that doesn't always have anything to do with the physical act of spinning, they still do.

        --Guido


        Originally posted by Grandiagod
        Originally posted by Grandiagod
        She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
        Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

        Comment

        • JustJono
          FFR Player
          • Nov 2003
          • 283

          #5
          Like I said before, I don't know much about metaphysics. I'm not even in high school. Thanks for the clarification, everyone!
          Jonathan Cruz

          http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp

          Comment

          • User6773

            #6
            No offense or anything, but you haven't even taken high school chem or physics and you think you can define a new type of atom somehow?

            Comment

            • JustJono
              FFR Player
              • Nov 2003
              • 283

              #7
              I'm so sorry, Chardish, I'll never do it again.
              Jonathan Cruz

              http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp

              Comment

              • GuidoHunter
                is against custom titles
                • Oct 2003
                • 7371

                #8
                Your efforts impress me, young one...

                May I suggest some readings on the subject?

                Stephen Hawking - The Illustrated A Brief History of Time
                The guy's a GREAT writer, and even if the subject matter is complex (I very much don't understand it all), you'll come away with a decent idea of what's up in this day and age regarding cosmology.

                John Gribbin - In Search of Schrödinger's Cat
                I suggest having somewhat of a background (all I had was a coupla Hawking's books, which are all pretty much the same, and that was enough), but this is written as a sort of layman's guide to quantum physics, and I think it's great.

                --Guido


                Originally posted by Grandiagod
                Originally posted by Grandiagod
                She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
                Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

                Comment

                • GuidoHunter
                  is against custom titles
                  • Oct 2003
                  • 7371

                  #9
                  Haha, nobody's being hard on you, Jono; we were just a bit surprised.

                  --Guido


                  Originally posted by Grandiagod
                  Originally posted by Grandiagod
                  She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
                  Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

                  Comment

                  • JustJono
                    FFR Player
                    • Nov 2003
                    • 283

                    #10
                    Stephen Hawking created the multiple universe theory, right? About how the outcome of photons passing through translucent objects is every outcome possible at the same time? If that's what the book is about, then I think I'd understand some of it.

                    In addition to those books, should I look into reading The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy? I see Anticrombie is a big fan of it, but would it be of any use for me (information-wise)?

                    Thanks again!
                    Jonathan Cruz

                    http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp

                    Comment

                    • Omeganitros
                      auauauau
                      • Jun 2003
                      • 8897

                      #11
                      Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy is the wise man's bible(with me, of course, being the wise man). It should be a mission in your life to read that book, lest thine eyes be plucked out.

                      But Im not sure it if was Hawking who made the Multiverse Theory. Read Michael Crichton's book, Timeline. Explains it very well.

                      Oh, and nice job on the atom thing. Very creative, when I was in middle school I used to come up with some crazy stuff (how the Force is able to be controlled by Jedi. Screw the midichlorian crap) using only false logic and a science book.

                      Comment

                      • BluE_MeaniE
                        FFR Player
                        • Jan 2003
                        • 796

                        #12
                        Originally posted by JustJono
                        In addition to those books, should I look into reading The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy? I see Anticrombie is a big fan of it, but would it be of any use for me (information-wise)?
                        Thanks again!
                        Yes. Yes, you definitely should.
                        But you should also read the Red Dwarf books by Grant Naylor. Because they're better. Infinity Welcomes Careful Drivers (the first one) and Better Than Life (the second one). Better, I tells ya!
                        Originally posted by Henri Poincaré
                        The scientist does not study nature because it is useful to do so. He studies it because he takes pleasure in it, and he takes pleasure in it because it is beautiful.

                        Comment

                        • JustJono
                          FFR Player
                          • Nov 2003
                          • 283

                          #13
                          Oh boy. Lot's of books!

                          Blue Meanie, I'm guessing that the books you mention also have the same "witty humour" that The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy does?
                          Jonathan Cruz

                          http://www.mp3unsigned.com/Jono.asp

                          Comment

                          • GuidoHunter
                            is against custom titles
                            • Oct 2003
                            • 7371

                            #14
                            Hawking very much did not come up with that theory, but aside from that, I think you're quite capable of understanding his writings.

                            Oh, and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is more of a humor book, so it won't help you information-wise, but I hear it's a great read, anyway. Good for understanding references (such as '42').

                            --Guido


                            Originally posted by Grandiagod
                            Originally posted by Grandiagod
                            She has an asshole, in other pics you can see a diaper taped to her dead twin's back.
                            Sentences I thought I never would have to type.

                            Comment

                            • Omeganitros
                              auauauau
                              • Jun 2003
                              • 8897

                              #15
                              Its one of those books that makes you feel "enlightened" upon finishing it. You put the book down, you stare foward, and you go ".....wwoowww...." except youre not on drugs.

                              Comment

                              Working...