>> ^AeroMechanical:

As a related note, someone told me that a hydrogen atom is similar in relative scale to the solar system, with the sun being the nucleus and the earth being the electron. I dunno if that's right or not, but it's pretty cool anyways. Maybe Pluto was the electron. Back when it was still a planet.


That interested me.. if you're interested;
Accepted radius of a proton (nucleus of hydrogen) is 0.88*10^-15 m
Radius of sun = 6.96*10^8 m
Divide radius of sun by radius of proton to give how many times bigger the sun is than the proton = 7.91*10^23

Radius of an orbiting electron = 0.0529*10^-9 m
Multiply orbital radius of electron by our scale factor = 4.2*10^13 m.

We're 1.4*10^11 m away from the sun (that's the value of an astronomical unit, it's as good as you can ask for when talking about orbital radius, cos it's not a circle). So it's out by a factor of 300ish. (cos i rounded here and there)

Pluto's orbit is very eccentric (more elliptical than circular), but at its closest, it's about 4.4*10^12 m away from the sun. Out by a factor of 10 there. Or getting close to a factor of 5 at its furthest. Getting close, but still a pretty big difference.

^ all subject to change when (not if) i notice i've dropped a clanger

I remember when i was a kid, we watched a film in school from the 60's that demonstrated the solar system to scale. There was the sun, which was represented by a big circle about 20 feet across or more, and to place the earth (represented by a baseball), they had to get in a car and drive for a while to place it properly.... as best as I can recall, it was probably something like a mile or two away.

I thought that was pretty cool. That video has to be around somewhere...

As a related note, someone told me that a hydrogen atom is similar in relative scale to the solar system, with the sun being the nucleus and the earth being the electron. I dunno if that's right or not, but it's pretty cool anyways. Maybe Pluto was the electron. Back when it was still a planet.

Surprised nobody objected to the word "orbit" in the first question. Yes, for historical reasons physicists talk about electron orbitals, but it's not like the electron's spinning around the nucleus like a planet orbits the sun....

My 200,000 melanin-pigmented dopaminergic neurons in the rostral and caudal nucleus linearis of the ventral tegmental area, caudal to the pons Varolii tissue at the base of the mesencephalon just told me that if I buy one of these they will get me high.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'matrix, carl sagan, dubb, atoms, nucleus, electron' to 'matrix, carl sagan, dubb, atoms, nucleus, electron, mashup' - edited by calvados

^^...an atom maybe orbiting an implied nucleus?? ☪ Long live the Ottoman Empire-
(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(&#
9770;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)
(☪)(☪)(☪)( )(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(a
7
0;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(&#
9770;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)
(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(a
70;)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(&#
9770;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)
(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(a
70;)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(&#
9770;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)
(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(a
70;)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(&#
9770;)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)
(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(☪)(ϑ
0;)(a
70;)(☪)(☪)(☪)

I'll be here all week.

>> ^AmateurD:
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you 'that guy'.>> ^xxovercastxx:
They didn't invent the cell nucleus or the cornflower.
QI: Quite Inaccurate.

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you 'that guy'.>> ^xxovercastxx:
They didn't invent the cell nucleus or the cornflower.
QI: Quite Inaccurate.

They didn't invent the cell nucleus or the cornflower.

QI: Quite Inaccurate.

Wiki on fusion. "In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, nuclear fusion is the process by which multiple like-charged atomic nuclei join together to form a heavier nucleus. It is accompanied by the release or absorption of energy, which allows matter to enter a plasma state."

Plasma is also known to some as the 4th state of matter. It is ever present in fusion, though not limited to. Most discussions about plasma though involve stars by and large.

Ok, so the original design spec was for 574 TeV(× 10^-7) per nucleus. This firing was at 450 GeV(× 10^-10) per particle. So, 1000 orders of magnitude lower than intended, so far. Still holding out for a high level test not going wrong...again


Edit: More information. They plan to scale up the beam to about 3.5 TeV by 2010 but it will have to be shut down after that to get the beam up to its intended 7TeV scale. 7TeV is the intended target and it is still a long way off (7x82(atomic weight of lead)=574 number above). A lot can go wrong in that amount of time, best of luck to them!

The Tevatron will most likely stay the more powerful collider till sometime in mid/later 2010

Energy Density, Wave Function Densities, The Fractal Nature of groups exploring their harmonics.

There is the SpaceTime Continuum, but its only inhabitant is Energy ! It's all Energy !
(tell me, what in this world is not reducible down to its most basic level as being just energy ?)

Energy manifests itself in 4 States:

1. The Radiative State - the EM spectrum of radiations: which move at the Ratio of Space to Time; otherwise known as the Speed of Light, but as Dobson says, "It isn't a speed of anything at all, it's the Ratio of Space to Time." Things are set-up that way from the outset. Light doesn't move at a 'speed' it moves at the Ratio of the Space-field to the Time-field when they overlap each other in forming the SpaceTime Continuum thru which it moves as we observe it.

2. The Special State called Matter - that Energy has the ability to assume. How Energy can assume the special state we call matter isn't understood yet, but it does. Protons and Electrons, and their still mysterious combination, the Neutron. For a neutron will spontaneously devolve into a proton and an electron in about 15 minutes if left unattended and not in an atomic nucleus.

3. The Electrical State - usually a flow of electrons, but sometimes protons. Electricity behaves in different ways than matter does, even tho it is made of the same 'particles'.

4. The Field State - the Electric Field and the Magnetic Field. Magnetic fields can permeate solid matter as if it wasn't there !, suggesting to my mind that it is perhaps partially in another 'dimension' simultaneously with this one. (not the best way to say it, but it's a start)

And another thing ! "Consciousness has an adjacency with the physical world, not an overlap."
I'm not fully able to explain or yet understand the implications of this statement, I need to ask Paul Dirac about it.

this was just A.W.E.S.O.M.E,thanks for contributing to this thread my friend.
and remind me never to engage you in an argument.
till next time..
namaste

In reply to this comment by dannym3141:
>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

>> ^mentality:

Sure we don't know exactly how the bain is intended to work, but we can still know that smashing in your skull with an icepick will damage your brain. Similarly, we know that certain drugs like meth will damage your brain.

Of course, stopping something from functioning is obviously a worse state than having something functioning, but this example is obviously flawed - and in two ways.

Way the first:
If you beat a brain with an icepick until it stops functioning, that is obviously a worse state of affairs than when you began - but we are referring to percieved 'damage' rather than a cessation of function, so either this isn't your point, or it's an invalid point

Way the second:
There are of course cases of head trauma leading to an IMPROVEMENT of brain function - such as a return of senses (hearing, sight). Also operations on the brain resulting in a businessman becoming an accomplished painter virtually overnight. Just because all icepick-head collisions we've ever seen have never resulted in a brain enhancement doesn't mean that it can't occur, as we can see in these examples that the possibility is there. It just takes the RIGHT KIND of icepick blow.

Science gives us accurate models of how things work. Maybe reality is a lie that God crafted to fool our senses, but that kind of metaphysical argument is the realm useless and neverending bullshit.

No, i think you misunderstood my point. My point is nothing to do with God. It's a scientific idea and i know scientists that agree with me. In fact, i don't think there's a scientist that would disagree because .. well, because it's true. I will have to drastically simplify the idea in order to explain it well here.

If we see a sequence of numbers 3 5 7 - and we think they are a series of odd numbers increasing. We can see that there may be numbers beyond 7, but at the moment we are incapable of identifying it. Time passes, technology improves, then we get the next number in the sequence and it's an 11 and we realise that it's a sequence of prime numbers. Although our system accurately described what we could observe to begin with, the system failed when we discovered something new.

That's all there is to it. As a practitioner of science, you MUST perform experiments with an open mind. To do otherwise is to taint your observations with your own bias and is poor science. Tomorrow, we may find that all our theories are not necessarily the most accurate theories. Continued below...

Pssst: science never claimed that the earth was the center. We know better now because our claims are based on actual fact and observation. Science: 1, Philosophy: 0.

To carry on from above, this has proven true in the past. Theories that were raised showed us accurate results. Then we found a case where they DID NOT accurately predict the results, and we had to throw the theory away and adopt a new one. If you would like to nitpick examples then i will give you a better one - that of the classical view of atomic structure vs. the modern view.

We used to think that the nucleus of an atom was solid, and now we think that it is made up of protons and neutrons. But wait, those again are made up of quarks. Wait, are the quarks made up of strings!?

It is not the goal of science to look into the nature of being. That is the job for religion and philosophy. Stop dismissing science because it cannot answer the unanswerable.

Firstly, i have never dismissed science for not being able to answer the unanswerable. I think you have an idea in your head that i somehow approached this from a religious standpoint and that is your downfall in your 'debunk'.

Secondly, semantics aside, i think science has a duty to look into the nature of being whenever possible. Check out the anthropic principle - i think that's a little bit to do with the nature of being. You could argue it, and i'll accept that, but i still think it does. If it's possible for science to shed any light on the nature of being, then it will, people won't go "THAT'S NOT OUR REALM BOYS LEAVE IT ALONE!" Philosophy is philosophy, and science is science. If the two can help each other out, of course they will, and of course we don't know that the answers won't be helpful to each other

But, of course, that was never my point, i simply reply to it as you raise it

--- Please don't ask me to cite examples, you can find them for yourself ---

I don't know whether this is true or not - i am not sufficiently educated to tell - but cold fusion is not free energy and is seen as a pretty big holy grail for scientists in terms of energy problems.

A rudimentary physics understanding teaches you about fusion and fission. Fission is where the nucleus of an atom splits into different stuff releasing energy as it does so.

Basically a fusion reaction releases a lot more energy than a fission reaction, that's the general idea and the general aim. We use fission now to produce lots of energy at little pollution costs (depending on what you class as little, of course). The aim is to replace this with the better principle of cold fusion which would create more energy and for even less polution. As the guy said above me - you can get it from sea water, and i don't know what the end product is but iirc from my physics a-level, it's nothing particular bad (unlike the radioactive waste from fission we get now).

Fusion is what takes place in the sun, where the opposite happens - 2 nuclei combine to form something else. So yes, the sun can do fusion and look how much energy it releases. That's not free energy. The problem for humans is that we only know of fusion that can take place at extremely high pressures/temperatures as of that in the sun, and therefore is useless to us because the energy required for us to forcibly increase the temperature/pressure so high is greater than the energy you would get out of the reaction (and we might not be able to do it).. So our holy grail is something called "cold fusion" which is the same thing but not at huge temperatures/pressures that we can't achieve realistically or economically.

Fusion is NOT make believe or "free energy". This is way beyond turning a wheel to produce something greater than you put in. There are HUUUUUUUUGE amounts of energy stored inside atoms. Check out the wikipedia pages, but they're kinda hard reading.

As for whether or not this is possible or real, no idea. But scientists are definitely working on cold fusion.