Atoms as little galaxies, galaxies as large atoms

This idea is already quite common.

And true. Good job though.

Okay, you guys, you’re talking my atomic model-
the Galaxy Model for the Atom.

In it, the atom is a disc which spins and precesses both,
at a ratio of 1:2, which means the electron material
must complete two full precessions before it has finished
one rotation. This is a representation of that pathway:

users.accesscomm.ca/john/standingwave.GIF

Properly placed, 36 of these pathways is all you need to
make Benzene, as I show below (just finished this in
the last month). 24 electrons share 24 pathways and the
last 6 electrons each has 2 pathways for itself.

users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

It is instructive to look at each stage of these constructions.
Here they are:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/Benzenepreview.GIF
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneA.GIF
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneC.GIF
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneD.GIF
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneE.GIF

If atoms are instantaneously discs, then
there is a lot of latitude for shaping the
characteristics of matter.
I’m thinking crystallized plastics and materials that
are transparent to various radiations, especially
gravitational.

Lots of fun.

john
galaxy model for the atom
users.accesscomm.ca/john

OK.
There is no such thing as smallest.
The Universe is a fractal, based on atom/galaxy.
When you get down to an atom’s innards, it isn’t
big Tonka-Toy quarks that are all identical, it’s
the center of a galaxy, surrounded by arms of
millions of stars, planets, asteroids, etc, that make
up each electron. There is no diminution of detail
and complexity as one examines ever more
closely. Rather our examining tool- photons- becomes
too large and unwieldy to resolve that
detail and complexity.
So we deny it.
Planck’s limit.

But there is no limit.
Just smaller photons. A whole smaller
electromagnetic spectrum.
And smaller divisions of matter by a factor
of galaxy over atom. And intelligent life
whose lifetimes are atom over galaxy as long.

Much too short a time to communicate with us.

Or influence us.

Right?

john
galaxy model for the atom
“to every one of your atoms, you are the
God of a Trillion (or more?) Galaxies”

Sorry to kill the thread!! :slight_smile:

No, I,ve been obsessive about this idea since 1980.

There are many very interesting ramifications, the
coolest having to do with controlling crystallization!

The best one to look at to understand it is:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/BenzeneB.GIF
where only one electron pair is traded on each side of the ring.

john

Oh, well, I’ll keep going.

What we’re dealing with here
is a fractal- where the form that
is the galaxy is repeated at the level of
the atoms that make up the galaxy.
And then there is going to be the
atoms making up the atoms.

And it goes further. How much further?
Infinitely? Or seven times or somesuch?
Doesn’t matter.

What DOES matter, is that the mini-matter
making up the electron is also radiating- just like our suns.
There is also a whole mini-emr associated with electrons,
with this concept, including mini-neutrinos, which would
be given off by fusion in the mini-suns. So that means,
in addition to all these neutrinos we got going through
us from fusion in suns, we also got a huge flux of these
mini-neutrinos going through us all the time, from
mini-fusion in all the electrons. All the electrons everywhere.
Lots and lots of energy. That energy is absorbed by protons
in equal amount as it is given off by electrons, because the
protons are always using it to recycle burnt-out electron bits.

So it would in this scenario be the flux of mini-radiation from
wherever there are electrons in the universe being absorbed by
the local protons, which must always replace what their
electrons are constantly radiating away, that would produce inertia
and gravitation for our matter.

Fun?

john

The interesting thing immediately when
considering the wave of one rotation/two precessions
is that eight of them make this very cool pattern:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/galaxypattern.GIF

Since two members can share one wave, this means
a maximum of 16 members. What if we compare the
Periodic Table to the completing of 16-member shells?

Then it gets even more interesting:
users.accesscomm.ca/john/periodicpattern.GIF

john

How do you know this?

Okay- I don’t ‘know’ it.
But it is the most attractive choice, since it
contains fewer and less onerous quandaries.

Consider if there is a smallest- a Higgs.
What shape can it have, since it
cannot be made of smaller parts?
It has to be dimensionless, since if you
say a dimension, I can consider a smaller
measurement. But it has to be unique, since it
is “the Higgs”. So how can something that can’t
be measured or given a shape be unique?

On the other hand, if everything, when
looked at from a certain perspective (atom/galaxy),
is made from smaller patterns of itself, then
continuing with that to infinity
seems to me to only have that one sticking point-
infinity.
And calculus deals with infinities all the time.

john

Just checking. Fractals seem to imply infinity in both directions. But the so-called Planck length is the smallest meaningful increment of distance, about 10 to the minus 33 centimeters. Wikipedia says the physical significance of the Planck length is a topic of research and since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitudes smaller than any currently possible measurement, there is no hope of directly probing this length scale in the foreseeable future. Research on the Planck length is therefore mostly theoretical. Calculus may deal with theoretical infinities, that doesn’t mean there are corresponding physical entities, right? So it’s a kewl idea, but who knows, right?

The Planck length is just another event horizon of a particular kind. Conjecture about what happens beyond event horizons is speculative, but to say that nothing happens beyond event horizons seems out of character with respect to scientific research - i.e. it reminds me of the stories about old sailors afraid to sail west of Gibraltor - “the end of the world”.

Another way to look at this is to consider how our concepts ultimately never “match up” with reality. For instance, if you keep travelling half the distance towards a particular location, you can never arrive. Yet we do arrive. There is something deficient, when you stretch concepts as far as they can be stretched, about their usefulness. Our concepts may only make any sense at particular scales. The Planck length is a surprisingly exacting expression of this very notion.

Seems we all agree that whether there is an absolute smallest particle or an infinity of ever smaller particles is a matter of speculation at this point. That’s all I’m saying.

I agree. But I’m taking it a bit further - the very idea of “particles” may correspond to our own limitations rather than to some hypothetical mind-independent reality. Is there even such a thing as a “particle”?

Right…could be just a wave. :greetings-wavegreen:

Or an angel.

:angelic-whiteflying:

A three-dimensional wave.
A three-dimensional wave that somehow feeds off a
bigger three-dimensional wave and is composed of
a gazillion little three-dimensional waves.

What is fun with the atom/galaxy thing, is now
you get to fill in bits of the
puzzle on two boards based on trying to match
what you see.
Like, you can say, “The reason the galaxy has a
double-layered spherical halo with different star
flow in each layer is because each time the
disc precesses through, it is rotating the opposite
direction.” And they would say, “There is no
evidence the galaxy disc precesses.” And you would
know that it has to, if it is to have a spherical
atom-like presence. Plus what about that slight
opposite warping visible in the disc-edges of most
spiral galaxies?
So now you’re looking for stuff in each based on
what you know of the other, and
you gain both ways.

john

Anyway science demands that a theory be testable. When stuff gets really small, it acts like particles under some conditions and like a wave under others. there are limits to our ability to measure position and velocity of really small stuff simultaneously. If you multiply the uncertainty about the position of really small stuff by the uncertainty of its momentum, the result can never be smaller that a certain fixed quantity. Any smaller and it seems either position or momentum falls out. We can’t have a little galaxy the planets of which are nowhere can we? You may say that these apparent limitations are merely conceptual, but unless someone comes up with a conceptual model that works theoretically and is testable aren’t we just whistling in the wind? :-"

I don’t know. What made people sail west of Gibraltar? William Herschel was convinced there were men living on the moon. Some dreams are realized, some aren’t. Some theories are useful, some aren’t. But when the idea of usefulness is used as an argument against dreaming… well, that’s the beginning of the end for science. You just end up with Lysenkoism.

Sounds like you’re taking Rasava’s poetics pretty literally! :slight_smile:

If you figure out a way to sail into the infinitely small or the infinitely large in this life time I salute you. :handgestures-salute:

I can’t walk through walls, either. But that doesn’t mean walls aren’t permeable!

It means they aren’t permeable by you. [ Anon attempting to walk through a wall => ](*,)]