yep. i understand current scientific limitation and accept it. we can think about it all we want but we still need the tech to help prove or disprove our thoughts. i try as much as i can to understand current ideas but at the end of the day chances are its wrong in a lot of ways. i find being able to comprehend the theories more valuable than the theories themselves as far as progressing science as a whole.

i understand why its almost or maybe impossible to observe the basic building blocks of the universe yes, but scientists have ALOT of data. what they need is a Story that is full consistant with ALL data that doesnt have to be modified everytime they find something new, and at the same time predicts things that are still undiscovered. thats how you know when you found the correct theory.

i stole this pic from the anime forums but i think it fits here better

The Bohr model of the atom has been rejected for a long time. There are also a few dissident scientists who are against relatvitiy, e.g. Cynthia Kolb Whitney.



There is electromagnetic charge in physics. There's also color charge. And there isn't only clockwise and counter-clockwise spin, there is also 1/2 spin, 1 spin, 2 spin, etc...

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 21 2010 05:03pm

oh, well then since Quantum was originally based off of it, then i guess that means its debunked also. ty for proving my point
relativity's mathematics is correct but for the wrong reasons.

1) it says space is warped.
the word space is definded as= that which has no shape.
therefore space cannot be warped, it is either a method of putting it in laymans terms or, something else is warped but not space.
Space by definition is what the universe expanded into, it cannot be warped by the presense of the universe becuase it is not a part of it.

2) that time is a dimension.
Time cannot be a dimension becuase it lacks orthogonality (perpendicular) from the other dimensions, and it cannot be measured in the same units, and you only require 3 coordinates to define a point in space, not 4
if your going to say that time is a dimension, then you have to redefine the word or invent a new word describing it.

And as for the correctness of relativity, i think that its mostly correct, but the red shift method that scientists use to measure the rotation of galaxies and to calculate the age of the universe is flawed because there is a experiementally varifiable induced electric di-pole redshift which isnt taken into account when these calculations are done, and the larger the scale, the greater the error.
which means the universe is much much older than 13.7 billion years which also explains why astronomers have found stars that seem to be older than the universe

If the entirety of an atom is contained within the nucleus then how do they interact with each other? There's a hell of a lot of empty space between atoms if electrons don't exist then how are these things connected. What binds molecules together? Nothing you said means the atom is just the nucleus. You just ignored the fact that atoms interact with each other at a distance without giving an sort of explanation. The electron fills this hole that's why its part of the theory.

I'm not so sure where you're getting the second part from. Please enlighten me why this is a fundamental part of the atomic model. The electron was discovered by experiments dealing with electrical currents not radiation.
Not sure how you can say alpha particles are not part of the atom either. It may not be an elementary particle like the photon or electron but any atom larger than lithium contains the equivalent of a helium nuclei.

Pretty sure there's a lot of good reasons why the electron is assumed to be part of the atom. It explains a lot of things like molecules and conductivity, etc.

Oh and one more thing.... "the only reason that they came to the conclusion of protons and neutrons is by crashing atoms together and seeing what "particles" (and i use that word looslely) are produced by the collisions. the truth is that they DONT know what an atom is actually made out. Only what is produced After the fact, and you cannot logically infer beyond that point"

If you smash a glass against a wall you can figure out what the glass looked like before hand. It would be a hell of a jigsaw puzzle but given enough time and effort you could put it back into the shape it was before. You most certainly can infer what comes out of something after its been torn apart. It's not easy but it can be done. I think we need to throw geology out the window if you can't infer things out of destruction and transformation.

1) Space itself is a thing.
Space is not defined as that which has no shape, it is the three-dimensional extent in which everything is contained. Einstein added time to this to make space-time.

2)Time can be a dimension, mathematically. There's no doubt about it.

I don't know enough about cosmology/astronomy to talk to you about it. I hardly know anything of physics to talk to you about it. I'm still a layman although I'm going to school to become a quantum physicist.

ok, then by that logic, you cannot explain what the universe expanded into, and is still expanding into. you have to conceed the idea that there is Space ( that which has no shape) or else the universe could not even exist in the first place
You cannot have a black dot without a white background

Time can only be a dimension mathematically, thats for sure, you can draw a number line and label it Time and place it perpendicular to a number line labeled Height, and then graph something
but in the real world time cannot be a dimension by the strict definition of what a dimension is, and just becuase u can abstract something in math doesn't mean it can be used in physics
the bottom line is that time cannot be placed Perpendicular to the other 3 dimensions and therefore fails to be a dimension according to the physics definition

where to begin with this mess of a response. lets see here
Firstly. the electrons scientists claim to exist in orbitals and that chemists use DAILY, are not actual physical particals, all atoms in the universe are connected by a DNA like "rope" if you will, which is in a straight line between each atom that causes a tension known as gravity, and an electron is the event of the rope twisting as atoms expand and contract, of the 2 strands of the rope one is electric, and one is magnetic which explains the perpendicular wave patterns and also the illusion of a zero dimension particle that can have spin and be in more than one place at once, pretty much explaining why they don't seem to follow any other physical principles as predicted by quantom

To make this clear. particles that are created after collisions cannot assumed to be in the same form after the collision, as when they existed inside the atom, in fact the very opposite, therefore it is currently imposible to infer what makes up the inner mechanics of an atom

Calm down, nerd.

Firstly, learn to spell 'experimental'. If you spelt it wrong once I would understand because people make typos, but you have spelt it wrong several times (infact, everytime).
Secondly, electrons follow a very specific property. Have you heard of electron shells? Well perhaps you can read up more about them because it is more than just a theory to assume that electrons exist. They do so much more than a simple gamma particle or beta particle.
And lastly, if you really want to know why two different particles with different properties share the same name, then please tell me which particles they are. I remember the whole periodic table in my head and I can tell you properties of every single element, so you can either ask me or learn chemistry to figure out the answer to your problem.