Do you believe in Atoms? what about the inside "theories"

by awledd
43 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
I am taking Pharmacy course and in recent Organic Chemistry lecture, I was kind of c'mon what are you talking about? The teacher speaks about the spinning of electrons clockwise and anticlockwise also the angle of the chemical bonds structures and also the voltage on those electrons. Now if you know tell me but I may call this piece of crrr
How can anyone know those things I mentioned above?? I dare not ask the teacher for fear of intimidating him - may be he has the answers I don't know. Or is all this a mumbo jumbo theory??
  • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
    You're kidding right?

    If you are doing a pharmacy course, surely you have some basic knowledge of physics & chemistry before you started?
    Signature
    ClickBank Vendor?
    - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
    - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
    - Killer Graphics for Your Site
    SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7708367].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Daniel Evans
    Originally Posted by awledd View Post

    I dare not ask the teacher for fear of intimidating him
    I don't think you've considered other possible outcomes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709190].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Do I believe it? I don't know HOW they came up with the theories, etc... It is rumored that they found out the aspects of some elements DECADES before they were discovered.

    HOW did they come up with the theory? I have no idea.
    Is it right? WHO KNOWS?
    Do I believe it? Well, so far it has done what such things are supposed to, so I guess I will wait until it is disproven by another theory that fits better.

    One thing about it, it makes sense, explains reactions, explains bonds, explains insulators and conductors, explains radioactivity, and has a pattern that is somewhat reliable. That is a pretty good record!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709285].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Or is all this a mumbo jumbo theory??
      It's called "science".

      Hard to believe you are old enough to be in career focused courses and not know these basic scientific facts.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
      ***
      In 2023: Just be a good person. Love who you can, help where you can, give what you can.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709727].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author JamesColin
    Banned
    I believe those things more than the religious fairy tales, even if I don't know how both came into being.
    If you don't know I suggest you do your own research on the history of science, help yourself with wikipedia.
    If you start to learn by yourself instead of asking other people, it will soon become a passion for learning that stuff and then you'll be far ahead in your studies, which is always good compared to other students, but also for yourself since then learning your lessons won't be a chore.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709753].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
    Banned
    Originally Posted by awledd View Post

    How can anyone know those things I mentioned above??
    By electron microscopy and molecular nanotechnology.

    And by an overwhelming panoply of consistent and convincing circumstantial evidence, some of it listed by Steve, above.

    Many (most?) of the fundamental advances in science over the last 30-40 years have concerned things too small to be seen without imaging techniques of various kinds. If this is a problem to you (and I accept that it is, to some people) it may be that studying science at a university is your second-best course. Maybe you could switch instead to History/Philosophy of Science, which will probably cover the answers to your questions above over the first day or two of the course?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709844].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

      By electron microscopy and molecular nanotechnology.

      And by an overwhelming panoply of consistent and convincing circumstantial evidence, some of it listed by Steve, above.

      Many (most?) of the fundamental advances in science over the last 30-40 years have concerned things too small to be seen without imaging techniques of various kinds. If this is a problem to you (and I accept that it is, to some people) it may be that studying science at a university is your second-best course. Maybe you could switch instead to History/Philosophy of Science, which will probably cover the answers to your questions above over the first day or two of the course?
      You KNOW it was NOT done by ANYTHING electronic, because the theory predates electronics, and even electricity! Apparently a lot of this was done in 1829!!!!!!

      I would LOVE to dispute all of the theory of atoms, etc... but there IS just too much supporting it. I was once interested in chemistry, and was certainly interested in electronics, and but make FAR more sense when seen through the prism of basic atomic theory. Even the atom bomb makes sense with it. You almost have to wonder why people didn't think of it much sooner.

      Sometimes, it is amazing what some figured out SO long ago.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710843].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Henry White
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        ...
        Sometimes, it is amazing what some figured out SO long ago.
        And even more mind boggling when you understand that it took others hundreds if not thousands of years to advance beyond what the ancients' knew! Imagine what it would have been like if the ancients had taken it just one tiny, little step further.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7716680].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Henry White View Post

          And even more mind boggling when you understand that it took others hundreds if not thousands of years to advance beyond what the ancients' knew! Imagine what it would have been like if the ancients had taken it just one tiny, little step further.
          Well, a lot of earlier inventions/discoveries didn't exactly fire the imagination. Look at computers and related electronics. The IC didn't come out until like the 1960s. It was SIMPLE! The first CPU was in 1970, and the microcomputer industry really started to take off in 1975. Multi Layer motherboards really didn't become popular until like 1980. But seriously, most advances today wouldn't even be attempted if not for the IC.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7716778].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    The OP's question is not as absurd as it might appear at first glance. People tend to take for granted that the current terminology and theories about reality are true beyond question. Yet even modern science (for close to a century now, actually) is coming to realize that "reality" isn't necessarily a cut-and-dry proposition.

    Consider this quote I found on a science forum from Bertrand Russell:

    "An atom is now merely a convenient way of grouping certain occurences; it is convenient, up to a point, to think of the atom as a nucleus with attendant electrons, but the electrons at one time cannot be identified with those at another, and in any case no modern physicist thinks of them as 'real.'"

    If you read the replies that this quote sparked, you will find that many people argue that electrons are indeed real. Yet the point is that it's far from conclusive and it depends a great deal on semantics. The further science advances, the closer it gets to religion and philosophy.

    Are electrons real? - Modern and Theoretical Physics - Science Forums
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7709974].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      Bertrand Russell was not a chemist nor physicist. He was a philosopher.

      I am taking Pharmacy course and in recent Organic Chemistry lecture, I was kind of c'mon what are you talking about? The teacher speaks about the spinning of electrons clockwise and anticlockwise also the angle of the chemical bonds structures and also the voltage on those electrons. Now if you know tell me but I may call this piece of crrr
      How can anyone know those things I mentioned above??
      Labeling basic chemistry as "crrr" doesn't bode well for a future in pharmacy. Organic chemistry involves chemical bonds - electrons do spin and have voltage. Might be a good idea to learn from the teacher rather than rejecting knowledge.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
      ***
      In 2023: Just be a good person. Love who you can, help where you can, give what you can.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710265].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author LarryC
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        Bertrand Russell was not a chemist nor physicist. He was a philosopher.



        Labeling basic chemistry as "crrr" doesn't bode well for a future in pharmacy. Organic chemistry involves chemical bonds - electrons do spin and have voltage. Might be a good idea to learn from the teacher rather than rejecting knowledge.
        I know that Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, but that doesn't mean he didn't have valid insights regarding science.

        True, if you're going to go into a certain field you have to absorb certain knowledge and play by the rules. On the other hand, it's also nice to have people who can think for themselves and think outside the box. Otherwise knowledge would never evolve.
        Signature
        Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710401].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

          I know that Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, but that doesn't mean he didn't have valid insights regarding science.
          It depends what you mean by "insights". He was respected by (some) mathematicians; not so much by scientists. By his own admission, he lacked the formal education necessary for "scientific insight".

          Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

          True, if you're going to go into a certain field you have to absorb certain knowledge and play by the rules.
          In this context, I don't think "playing by the rules" is too important. The difficulty in attributing any real credibility to him as a "scientist" stems partly from his self-admitted lack of formal education in the sciences (many of which were, in any case, in their infancy in his cognitive heyday).
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710626].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author LarryC
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            It depends what you mean by "insights". He was respected by (some) mathematicians; not so much by scientists. By his own admission, he lacked the formal education necessary for "scientific insight". >>

            Philosophers have always had insights into "other" fields such as science, mathematics, linguistics, etc. It's only in relatively recent times that everything has become so compartmentalized. In any event, no one is claiming that Russell was an expert in science. His quote, however, still has merit as it reflected some scientific findings of his day.

            << In this context, I don't think "playing by the rules" is too important. The difficulty in attributing any real credibility to him as a "scientist" stems partly from his self-admitted lack of formal education in the sciences (many of which were, in any case, in their infancy in his cognitive heyday).
            I wasn't talking about Russell here, but to the original poster. If he wants to go into a field such as pharmacy, he has to play by the rules. If he wants to question fundamental theories, he has to pursue a different profession.

            Btw, quantum physics was already in full swing in Bertrand Russell's day. One problem is that many people today act as though these discoveries were never made and still hold onto the rationalist, mechanistic theories of the 17th and 18th Centuries.

            Many quantum physics theories were developed in the 1920s.

            Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Signature
            Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710934].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DJL
        Well, I believe in atom bombs, so therefore I believe in atoms!
        The notion of electron spin, for example, is not meant to be understood the same way we understand the spinning of a top. It is a shorthand way of describing one of the observable properties of electrons.
        As to the ultimate "knowability" of reality, what does it matter? What matters is that we can achieve demonstrable results from the application of knowledge gained via scientific study.
        Signature

        None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.
        --Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Elective Affinities (1809)

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710408].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author myob
    Originally Posted by awledd View Post

    Or is all this a mumbo jumbo theory??
    Sub-atomic physics and quantum mechanics are not easily understood, and are based on complex and often conflicting theoretical abstractions to explain observable phenomena.

    "I used to go away for weeks in a state of confusion."
    - Albert Einstein
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710509].message }}
  • If you can't see it - it ain't true :p
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      If you can't see it - it ain't true :p

      If it's not on Facebook it hasn't happened yet.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7713757].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Henry White
      Originally Posted by MoneyMagnetMagnate View Post

      If you can't see it - it ain't true :p
      'Yeah! It's that damned Roswell thing again!'

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7716648].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Nicola Lane
    awledd,

    Well as you are clearly far in advance of the rest of us - please explain your alternate theories.

    Thank you
    Signature

    I like to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Jeez the answers I'm seeing here are just surprising to me. Really. Frankly, I find it scary that you could be in pharmacology and chemistry and not know the first thing about science.

    Two words: electron microscope. Yes "I believe" in atoms. We can SEE them now with those devices.
    Can we actually manipulate them? Good grief - You have never heard of the Hadron Collider? We can manipulate atoms so well that we can completely wipe the planet out if we want to? How's that for mumbo jumbo?

    Look - if you are going to be in scientific fields, you have to know what to question and what to take as real and proven. Atoms were PROVEN - they are not hypothetical.
    If you want to question something - go for the Higgs Boson (a.k.a. - God Particle).

    Jeez dude - you are living in a time that the entire contents of the bible can be printed on a nano chip as small as a human body cell.

    Before you start questioning science - you need to learn where we are with it. Your professor is NOT going to be intimidated by questions that come across as obvious ignorance. If you want to intimidate your professor - learn what you can about what has actually been seen, proven, done - and ask questions about the things that haven't been accomplished yet. You can't intimidate a person who knows more about a subject than you know there IS to know about it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7710964].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Jeez the answers I'm seeing here are just surprising to me. Really. Frankly, I find it scary that you could be in pharmacology and chemistry and not know the first thing about science.
      It explains a LOT though!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7711604].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
    The irony here is that in some countries pharmacists are known as CHEMISTS.
    Signature
    Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
    So that blind people can hate them as well.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7711487].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author awledd
    Thanks guys. I agree with most of you but I also believe in atoms but it just boggles my mind to think how in the whole world they measured the volts of electrons or whatever - And I tend to not believe this until I can see the proof. What amazes me is most of the students have no question in their minds they seem to just suck it up all?

    May be this is how I see it. Science explains things in some patterns so we can achieve whatever we want. For the things we can prove I do not have disputes but for those invisible and extremely minute particles like details of Atoms and the chemicals of cells now that i have to make a research how they come up with such knowledge.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7712304].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      On the other hand, it's also nice to have people who can think for themselves and think outside the box.
      That's what chemists and physicist do - but first they get the education so they understand the box they are thinking outside of.

      Do yourself a favor and look up answers and scientific papers related to your questions - trying to argue basic chemistry with a professor will make you look clueless, not smart.
      Signature
      Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog.
      ***
      In 2023: Just be a good person. Love who you can, help where you can, give what you can.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7712452].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by awledd View Post

      Thanks guys. I agree with most of you but I also believe in atoms but it just boggles my mind to think how in the whole world they measured the volts of electrons or whatever - And I tend to not believe this until I can see the proof. What amazes me is most of the students have no question in their minds they seem to just suck it up all?

      May be this is how I see it. Science explains things in some patterns so we can achieve whatever we want. For the things we can prove I do not have disputes but for those invisible and extremely minute particles like details of Atoms and the chemicals of cells now that i have to make a research how they come up with such knowledge.
      Well, there is a common thing that you can't use an illumination source to see the illuminating element. I mean light can't show you what light looks like, or electrons electrons. So in theory an electron microscope couldn't show you the insides of an atom, and I have seen electron photographs and none showed the electrons. Electron microscope - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This description describes things like what I have seen, but NOT a picture of the inside of an atom.

      As I said, the current theories seem to explain EVERYTHING observed on the atomic level. The observed molecular bonds, and the strengths of those bonds, are also explained by the atomic characteristics.

      Can we PREDICT EXACTLY what percentage will combine or the energy needed or generated? NOPE! Can we predict EXACTLY where lightning will go or how much power is needed or heat will be given off? NOPE! But you can maybe come relatively close, etc.... With lightning, of course, the potential targets and original sources will make that more difficult.

      Still, if you are going to dispute things in a material way, you would be saying that electronics, chemistry, nuclear sciences, etc... don't exist.

      And don't think I haven't thought about this. I certainly did. I never bothered to ask anyone because the way I see it, the levels are like 1,2,3,4,5,6 MOST people understand things down to 6. Fewer understand to 5. Even fewer understand to 4. I understand down to like 3. I ask people about 1 or 2, and they will start talking down to me trying to explain 4 or 3, or even 6!!! Meanwhile, inside, I am just shaking my head and laughing at the "attempt"! Anyway, I got tired of hearing the same stuff over and over again.

      You want an example? Where did we come from? GOD explains maybe to 2. Evolution explains to maybe 4! The big bang might MAYBE be #2. I want to know #1!!!!!!! Let's say they discuss the big bang! OK, WHERE did the material come from? WHAT triggered the movement or explosion? If it is God, where did God come from?

      Please guys, no religious content. It is just the first thing I thought of. *****NOBODY***** EVER, in ALL the things I have heard or read has ever attempted to answer #1, and most claim that a higher level is the first.

      Of course, I guess the answer will always bring more questions.

      Anyway, for electronics, I even wrote a thesis on semiconductors and how impurities are selectively layered to create different conduction characteristics to create ICs. Atomic theory was used in two ways. It determines how things will react, and then is used to create the necessary bonds.

      This is almost like why is 2+2=4? Even if you had trouble with the math, you could take two packs of 2 and count the items. Why ask WHY it's right? The final answer is that, for now, it WORKS!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7712542].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by awledd View Post

      Thanks guys. I agree with most of you but I also believe in atoms but it just boggles my mind to think how in the whole world they measured the volts of electrons or whatever - And I tend to not believe this until I can see the proof. What amazes me is most of the students have no question in their minds they seem to just suck it up all?

      May be this is how I see it. Science explains things in some patterns so we can achieve whatever we want. For the things we can prove I do not have disputes but for those invisible and extremely minute particles like details of Atoms and the chemicals of cells now that i have to make a research how they come up with such knowledge.
      I'm sure that will be info that you will find out in your classes. Learn everything they teach you and search further for more answers when you question what you learn. Learn everything you can about the subject -- then if you still have questions, you'll have the knowledge to find the answers and disprove mistaken theories. Um.............that's what education is all about -- even if when you hang around this place you'll get the idea most people see it just as a means to get more money. Sad.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7713418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SteveSRS
    atoms are not a believe.. just the question on its own shows ignorance (no offense)..
    However you are def not alone.

    I recently read about some research that stated that 60% of American 'don't believe in evolution theory'.. which is pretty must equally ridiculous as saying 'do you believe in atoms'.

    FYI atoms can actually be seen by very powerful microscopes called scanning tunneling microscope (STM). Have a look at:
    How can you see an atom? - Curiosity
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7713378].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by SteveSRS View Post

      atoms are not a believe.. just the question on its own shows ignorance (no offense)..
      However you are def not alone.

      I recently read about some research that stated that 60% of American 'don't believe in evolution theory'.. which is pretty must equally ridiculous as saying 'do you believe in atoms'.

      FYI atoms can actually be seen by very powerful microscopes called scanning tunneling microscope (STM). Have a look at:
      How can you see an atom? - Curiosity
      The site says:

      In 1981, the scanning tunneling microscope (STM) was invented. An STM is made up of instruments that collect information about specific atoms, and then relay that information to a computer, which controls the system and creates a rendering of the atomic pattern.
      If I am to believe this, and the wikipedia article, along with pictures, then you have AGAIN not gone deep enough. Apparently, it shows a picture of an ATOM, not a picture of the INSIDE of an atom. so again, it doesn't say you can see it at that level.

      And questioning is NOT supposed to be a bad thing. HECK, where would we be if nobody questioned in the past decade, let alone the past CENTURY?

      He is asking a question that I don't believe I have ever seen answered. and when I was in early grades, they said atoms had THREE parts! LATER, they said they had FOUR! NOW, they say they have even MORE! If they COULD look into an atom, maybe they could be more certain.

      I questioned this once, and that is why I said basically "HERE IS WHY I BELIEVE". Just think about the galaxy, and how the planets work. Civilizations came up with orbits and all without ever having used a telescope. And even if you have a telescope, your perspective is tainted.

      I likely would have come up with the idea they have now, since it makes more sense than the opposite way, but I can understand why a person might think that everything revolves around us. They are on an apparently STABLE planet seeing OTHER things move. The idea that we are moving so fast, along with everything else would then have seemed like ridiculous heresy! What if nobody questioned?

      But hey, there are LOTS of people not understanding how even a CAPACITOR works, let alone a diode, transistor, or ic. There are also people that don't understand computers or locks or race conditions(COMPUTER TERM with RACE being like RELAY race), etc....

      NOW, as for chemistry? It WOULD be nice if "scientists" kept in mind that sometimes elements or molecules KEEP their traditional nature. There were probably be FAR FEWER problems.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7714460].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
        Steve,

        The model of the atom comes from scientific experiment.

        The question is where do you want to start?

        By the early 1900s they knew that atoms contained +ve and -ve parts (or do we need to cover the discovery of that?)

        The obvious solution is to mix them up - the so-called plum pudding model.

        Then experiments, principally the Geiger-Marsden gold foil experiment, suggested that was untenable which led to the Rutherford model (a small +ve nucleus, and -ve electrons outside it)

        Later this was refined to the Bohr model, then Schrodinger, etc.

        Scientists aren't making this stuff up, each successive model explained all the previous observations, explained recent/unexplained observations, and made predictions, which subsequently proved to be true when tested by experiment.

        There are a lot of books about this & the history of science, and there's even been a number of TV series about it
        Signature
        ClickBank Vendor?
        - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
        - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
        - Killer Graphics for Your Site
        SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7714595].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by SunilTanna View Post

          Steve,

          The model of the atom comes from scientific experiment.

          The question is where do you want to start?

          By the early 1900s they knew that atoms contained +ve and -ve parts (or do we need to cover the discovery of that?)

          The obvious solution is to mix them up - the so-called plum pudding model.

          Then experiments, principally the Geiger-Marsden gold foil experiment, suggested that was untenable which led to the Rutherford model (a small +ve nucleus, and -ve electrons outside it)

          Later this was refined to the Bohr model, then Schrodinger, etc.

          Scientists aren't making this stuff up, each successive model explained all the previous observations, explained recent/unexplained observations, and made predictions, which subsequently proved to be true when tested by experiment.

          There are a lot of books about this & the history of science, and there's even been a number of TV series about it
          Well, I basically said "each successive model explained all the previous observations", and never claimed they made it up. I'm NOT the original poster. But thanks for illustrating my point about why I don't ask. As for the positive and negative aspects, NO! I learned that a LONG time ago, even wrote a paper on an aspect of it, and have dealt with it in a couple interests and researched another.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7714685].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author LarryC
          Originally Posted by SunilTanna View Post

          Steve,

          The model of the atom comes from scientific experiment.

          The question is where do you want to start?

          By the early 1900s they knew that atoms contained +ve and -ve parts (or do we need to cover the discovery of that?)

          The obvious solution is to mix them up - the so-called plum pudding model.

          Then experiments, principally the Geiger-Marsden gold foil experiment, suggested that was untenable which led to the Rutherford model (a small +ve nucleus, and -ve electrons outside it)

          Later this was refined to the Bohr model, then Schrodinger, etc.

          Scientists aren't making this stuff up, each successive model explained all the previous observations, explained recent/unexplained observations, and made predictions, which subsequently proved to be true when tested by experiment.

          There are a lot of books about this & the history of science, and there's even been a number of TV series about it
          The important word here is "model." First of all, a model is only a tool to help us understand something. It's not the thing itself.

          Secondly, scientific models are always changing based on new information.
          The geocentric model, that places the earth at the center of the universe, once made perfect sense. Now we all "know" that it's the other way around -the earth revolves around the sun. Yet this may not be exactly true either, as the video below suggests.

          I expect people will say that Nassim Haramein is a fraud, but this is always the case when new theories are put forth. I'm not claiming he's right, but I'm open to the possibility. The idea that we know things is highly overrated.

          Signature
          Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718626].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

            The important word here is "model." First of all, a model is only a tool to help us understand something. It's not the thing itself.

            Secondly, scientific models are always changing based on new information.
            The geocentric model, that places the earth at the center of the universe, once made perfect sense. Now we all "know" that it's the other way around -the earth revolves around the sun. Yet this may not be exactly true either, as the video below suggests.

            I expect people will say that Nassim Haramein is a fraud, but this is always the case when new theories are put forth. I'm not claiming he's right, but I'm open to the possibility. The idea that we know things is highly overrated.

            Earth is not revolving around the Sun! by Nassim Haramein - YouTube
            He is saying what I said could be the case in #39

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718681].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author awledd
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        The site says:



        If I am to believe this, and the wikipedia article, along with pictures, then you have AGAIN not gone deep enough. Apparently, it shows a picture of an ATOM, not a picture of the INSIDE of an atom. so again, it doesn't say you can see it at that level.

        And questioning is NOT supposed to be a bad thing. HECK, where would we be if nobody questioned in the past decade, let alone the past CENTURY?

        He is asking a question that I don't believe I have ever seen answered. and when I was in early grades, they said atoms had THREE parts! LATER, they said they had FOUR! NOW, they say they have even MORE! If they COULD look into an atom, maybe they could be more certain.

        I questioned this once, and that is why I said basically "HERE IS WHY I BELIEVE". Just think about the galaxy, and how the planets work. Civilizations came up with orbits and all without ever having used a telescope. And even if you have a telescope, your perspective is tainted.

        I likely would have come up with the idea they have now, since it makes more sense than the opposite way, but I can understand why a person might think that everything revolves around us. They are on an apparently STABLE planet seeing OTHER things move. The idea that we are moving so fast, along with everything else would then have seemed like ridiculous heresy! What if nobody questioned?

        But hey, there are LOTS of people not understanding how even a CAPACITOR works, let alone a diode, transistor, or ic. There are also people that don't understand computers or locks or race conditions(COMPUTER TERM with RACE being like RELAY race), etc....

        NOW, as for chemistry? It WOULD be nice if "scientists" kept in mind that sometimes elements or molecules KEEP their traditional nature. There were probably be FAR FEWER problems.

        Steve
        Thanks man. I surely took chemistry classes in highschool and College and am not stranger to the theories. I also know about electron microscopes and I saw photograph of an atom long time ago. However anyone with a mind may have questions somehow because what we learn are not things we can see and touch and proove.

        The other point you mentioned is just amazing - the very thing I was thinking for some years (maybe 5yrs) - the revolving of things around us and not the other way round. I was curious one day and posted about this in another forum and from the responses I learned that there are groups that believe that earth is stationary and the others are revolving around it.

        Obviously I am not the first to think it because the topic is all over the net with older articles. the internet is really amazing. just come up with a strange idea and search in Google. You will get dozens of info on it.

        I was also thinking about antigravity force that will levitate objects on the space without any extra energy. Then there is too much info on this too. But I wish i can someway invent this thing because I believe it solves many problems in planet earth.

        Sorry I went a little off topic.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7717302].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alexa Smith
          Banned
          Originally Posted by awledd View Post

          there are groups that believe that earth is stationary and the others are revolving around it.
          There are indeed.

          And at one time, when they could get away with it, they even used to burn people at the stake for asserting otherwise.

          (Perhaps that's just the type of people they really are, underneath all their social veneer of ignorance, prejudice and idiocy?)

          Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7717797].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Alexa Smith View Post

            There are indeed. At one time, they used to burn people at the stake for asserting otherwise. (Perhaps that's just the type of people they really are, underneath all their social veneer of ignorance, prejudice and idiocy?)

            Giordano Bruno - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Well, people once figured that a certain person's interpretation of things in religion was the way it MUST be. So if the pope said it was that way, another would be heresy. A subset of those people would prosecute such heresy at all costs. I think that was the whole deal at the time. There likely were many that didn't believe in the popular belief, etc... It is a shame. BTW the SAME thing happens today, but on a smaller scale, and often taking technology into account. In thinking about several similar things that happen TODAY, I couldn't help but associate this all with a fairy tale. The emperor's new clothes.... The Emperor's New Clothes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ICSM.

            As I said in another thread, the thoughts are free. But even THAT implied that the EXPRESSION of thoughts often isn't.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7717991].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
    As a sideline, I do some tutoring of students (mostly math & science) so have to say I'm a bit shocked by thisn thread.

    I've encountered plenty of students who don't know things, or can't remember things (nowadays schools are so against rote learning that many students are great problem solvers but unable to remember even very basic facts) - but never yet met one with the OP's view, especially not in somebody who presumably has already done basic science (pharmacology isn't the first course you do in science!).

    My suggestion to the OP, if he's serious, is to go get basic science books - chemistry and physics - and study the sections on atomic theory and the structure of the atoms, molecules, ions, etc., because if he really doesn't know this stuff, he will be out of his depth very quickly in organic chemistry.

    Lots of basic science books will also explain how these things were discovered in the first place.
    Signature
    ClickBank Vendor?
    - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
    - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
    - Killer Graphics for Your Site
    SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7713524].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author travlinguy
    The sun is an atom. The planets are protons and electrons. I think the moon is a neutron, not sure. Check out subatomic universe theory...
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718400].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by travlinguy View Post

      The sun is an atom. The planets are protons and electrons. I think the moon is a neutron, not sure. Check out subatomic universe theory...
      Yeah, a force that is essentially a cousin of the force in atoms is thought to hold the universe together, and the same basic force keeps them from imploding. so the universe is a good macrocosm of the atom.

      In this example though, the sun basically acts as the MAIN nucleus. In some cases one object is SO close to another that the force Pulling it to another object is stronger than that pulling it to the sun, and it becomes a moon. The planet with the moon(s) is almost like ANOTHER nucleus within the atom, even though it ITSELF is spinning around the other nucleus.

      That said, it makes one wonder. Is the SUN orbiting ANOTHER object? If it were, it would be VERY far out and might not really be noticeable in our history.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718558].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    The fact that the sun is moving through space is not even controversial. Yet the conventional model that we usually learn as kids is that the sun is a stationary object around which everything else revolves. Nothing in the universe is standing still.

    How fast is the sun moving through space?: Information from Answers.com
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718700].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

      The fact that the sun is moving through space is not even controversial. Yet the conventional model that we usually learn as kids is that the sun is a stationary object around which everything else revolves. Nothing in the universe is standing still.

      How fast is the sun moving through space?: Information from Answers.com
      YEP! And he is NOT contradicting the current understanding AT ALL! He obviously got sick of people not listening, like I have, and rather than saying....

      (you're right)(audience sleeps) BUT......

      He says....

      YOU'RE ***NOT*** quite right, it ALSO does THIS...

      So he is merely looking at the macrocosm being EXPANDED! YEAH, the sun APPEARS to be the center of our galaxy, BUT it is corrupted by your perspective and we actually are on the periphery of this with the center being ELSEWHERE! So WHY haven't we seen it? Well, the galaxy as we know it is over 2,798,000,000 miles. SO, if he is right, that star is OVER about 9 BILLION miles away, and likely FAR farther away! It would have to be a red giant, or a white dwarf, from what I understand, and a red giant would EASILY dwarf the sun, so if it were such a red giant, there is no telling HOW far away it would be. 9 billion miles would be way too close. And that is about 560 light days apparently. The distance from here to the sun is about 8 light minutes.

      So we MIGHT have seen the other planet/sun, but may not have put two and two together, because the closest ones are so interesting, etc... If he is right about OUR orbit being perpendicular to the sun's, then we may see the other planet only like every 5 years or so, and it would be even HARDER to make sense of. andif we couldn't track it, we might think IT was orbiting US!

      I am NOT saying this is the case, only that it COULD be.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7718783].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    The world, the universe, and you are all composed of fuzzy wuzzy buzzies. That's fact vs every other opinion which is entirely bogus.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7719408].message }}

Trending Topics