+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: The 'empty atom' fallacy.

  1. Link to Post #1
    Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2018
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 53 times in 6 posts

    Default The 'empty atom' fallacy.

    Please read the Summary Response to the previous thread first:
    https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...08#post1227808

    "The atom is mostly empty space." This statement has been repeated so many times by so many scholars and experts that it is accepted without question by nearly all educated people in the modern world. It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality. Yet physical objects are made of atoms, and are impenetrably solid. The statement is obviously fallacious.

    To understand why requires little more than a thoughtful exercise of high school mathematics. An atom of hydrogen has a radius of 53e-12 metres and a volume of 624e-33 cubic metres. The single electron is bound to the single proton comprising the nucleus with an energy of 13.6eV. Beyond this, recourse is nowadays had to Quantum Mechanics, and conceptual interpretations are thus abandoned in accord with the Copenhagen Interpretation.

    A new interpretive direction appears if we pursue traditional analysis. The energy density within a hydrogen atom is obtained by dividing the electrical binding energy by its volume, giving 3.49e+12 joules per cubic metre; a very large number, but without significance unless compared with a reference.

    Consider a room measuring 6 x 5 x 4 metres that is filled with energy at the same density as in hydrogen. The total energy in the room is then 419e+12 joules. The energy released by the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 was about 15 kilotons or 63e+12 joules, so the energy in the room is that of a moderately-sized atomic explosion. Were this energy quiescent - static and unchanging - it might be of little consequence; but all atoms possess magnetic fields, and these only result from dynamic electric fields. Physical matter cannot withstand such a huge energy flux: any physical object in the room would be torn to shreds.

    The above applies to hydrogen, the simplest element. Lead has eighty-two electrons within it, the inmost with binding energies of 88keV. Those so inclined can calculate the energy density within an atom of lead to arrive at a value so enormous as to be far beyond any physical interpretation. So atoms are only 'empty' in having nothing outside the nucleus corresponding to solid substance. The enormous energy density within them, however, demands consideration.

    The first point of note is that atoms do not have a shell surrounding them to contain the energy as does an egg. Were such a structure present, it would long ago have been revealed due to resonances within it. Instead, we are faced with a most unusual situation for those who have never thought about these things. The space inside an atom - the atomic volume or body - is different from the space surrounding it:

    An atom is a 'bubble' of a different kind of space within the space of the Physical Realm in which we exist.

    But how can one kind of space differ from another? The answer lies in the two fundamental properties of space: permittivity and permeability. Permittivity measures the amount of electric charge that a space can contain, whilst permeability measures the strength of magnetic flux that it can sustain. Their values within atoms differ from those of Physical Realm space, and are unique for each element. Why does this occur, and what does it imply?

    Recall that energy is a relationship, either between mass and motion or between time and space. Almost all of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus, so the electrons could never move fast enough to account for the energy. Therefore the energy concentration within atoms results from a different relationship between time and space within them.

    This alternative time-space relationship cannot presently be interpreted within the Western scientific tradition, but can so be within those more advanced. A beginning can be made with the multiple 'dimensions' postulated by Quantum Mechanics and string theory, anything from ten to twenty-six. These dimensions are said to be 'rolled up' so tightly that - most conveniently - they cannot be detected, except - even more conveniently - by the superior intelligence of Physicists. No explanation or interpretation is offered as to what these 'dimensions' are in reality. They are, in fact, mathematical inventions used to justify speculation: in other words, concepts within human imagination, as are energy, power, and many other parameters that have no physical reality.

    Let us take a broader view. Nature is everywhere fecund; if she creates something such as a fish, she does so most generously. Not just one fish, nor even many of the same kind, but many different species and sub-species evolve over countless millennia, each slowly changing and evolving, gradually mutating into entirely new species. So too with plants, animals, humans, planets and stars. Nature is not monogenetic but polygenetic. The Earth was once thought to be the only planet in the whole universe, and Earth humanity the only race of Men. The discovery of other stars - other Suns - suggested that there may be other Earths, but this was resisted right up to the 1990s when the first exoplanets, those outside the Solar System, were proved to exist. It is now amply evident that Earth-like planets are extremely common throughout the galaxy.

    Modern Western Science still insists that there is only a single space-time continuum; but why should this be so? Polygenesis should surely apply to space-time continua just as to all else in creation. We can make use of this concept to propose that the one we inhabit is not singular and unique, but just one, albeit vast and impressive, of many. If one exists, then others most certainly do. We therefore postulate that our ordinary physical surroundings constitute one space-time continuum that is permeated by at least one other. That is, they are coterminous: they occupy the same 'space', yet maintain their autonomy. For convenience, let us name them Realms, using capitalization to differentiate from the general case, and for simplicity consider just one other continuum, the Alternate Realm. This Alternate Realm cannot be detected by direct physical means because our physical senses only respond to stimuli within the Physical Realm, and even our electronic instruments are similarly limited.

    Realms are 'causally closed': all events within the Physical Realm, for example, arise from causes within it, and the same is true of the Alternate Realm. In short, they are isolated, and do not normally interact. However, if atoms are conceived as 'bubbles of Alternate Realm space' within Physical Realm space, then events within the Alternate Realm can influence processes within atoms. Specifically, electron orbital transitions that are presently regarded as stochastic - completely random and without known cause - may occur as a result of events within the Alternate Realm. Conversely, physical events that modify electron states within atoms may transmit influences into the Alternate Realm. These mutual interactions will be most effective if they occur within structures that have correlated Physical Realm and Alternate Realm components. The most likely candidates are organic and biological structures that demonstrate what we call 'life' and 'consciousness'.

    Should this conception be correct, atoms are not just the building blocks of matter, but provide an interface between coterminous Realms. If the question, "Can living creatures be constructed from dead matter" be answered in the negative, then it is obvious that everything is possessed of life in some degree. Furthermore, atoms must have both biological aspects, and modes of response to influences that are presently invisible and unknown, suggesting a whole new field of investigation and experimentation for those to whom such possibilities have appeal.

    For more see: http://vitency.com/npt/Ch07.html

  2. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to ColinT For This Post:

    Astute (28th November 2018), Baby Steps (5th June 2018), betoobig (5th June 2018), Bill Ryan (5th June 2018), Bubu (5th June 2018), ceetee9 (5th June 2018), dynamo (5th June 2018), Feritciva (5th June 2018), Foxie Loxie (5th June 2018), justntime2learn (5th June 2018), Mark (Star Mariner) (5th June 2018), Nasu (5th June 2018), Noelle (5th June 2018), Sunny-side-up (5th June 2018), toppy (5th June 2018), wnlight (6th June 2018)

  3. Link to Post #2
    Philippines Avalon Member
    Join Date
    29th May 2013
    Age
    58
    Posts
    3,059
    Thanks
    4,661
    Thanked 13,270 times in 2,725 posts

    Default Re: The 'empty atom' fallacy.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke
    "Smoke is a collection of airborne solid and liquid particulates and gases[1] emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis, together with the quantity of air that is entrained or otherwise mixed into the mass. It is commonly an unwanted by-product of fires (including stoves, candles, oil lamps, and fireplaces), but may also be used for pest control (fumigation), communication (smoke signals), defensive and offensive capabilities in the military (smoke screen), cooking, or smoking (tobacco, cannabis, etc.). Used in rituals where incense, sage, or resin is burned to produce a smell for spiritual purposes. Smoke is sometimes used as a flavoring agent, and preservative for various foodstuffs. Smoke is also a component of internal combustion engine exhaust gas, particularly diesel exhaust.

    Smoke inhalation is the primary cause of death in victims of indoor fires. The smoke kills by a combination of thermal damage, poisoning and pulmonary irritation caused by carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide and other combustion products.

    Smoke is an aerosol (or mist) of solid particles and liquid droplets that are close to the ideal range of sizes for Mie scattering of visible light.[2] This effect has been likened to three-dimensional textured privacy glass[citation needed] — a smoke cloud does not obstruct an image, but thoroughly scrambles it."

    Of course wikimouthpice failed to mention that smoke is fuel. And it takes just a little common sense (if properly educated) to run IC engine on smoke. Unburned fuel if it comes from (unwanted by-product of) fires (including stoves, candles, oil lamps, and fireplaces) and of course cars

    "It is advanced as proof of the puzzling nature of atomic structure, and of the uselessness of common sense as a guide to truth and reality."

    You hit the jackpot. But I can see that more and more people are becoming more aware of the importance of senses as guide to truth rather than books and scientific research
    Last edited by Bubu; 5th June 2018 at 10:50.

  4. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Bubu For This Post:

    betoobig (5th June 2018), ceetee9 (5th June 2018), dynamo (5th June 2018), Foxie Loxie (5th June 2018), justntime2learn (5th June 2018), Noelle (5th June 2018)

  5. Link to Post #3
    Morocco Unsubscribed
    Join Date
    23rd January 2011
    Location
    Ignoring Your Outrage
    Language
    Discordian
    Posts
    4,888
    Thanks
    29,096
    Thanked 40,082 times in 4,764 posts

  6. Link to Post #4
    Spain Avalon Member betoobig's Avatar
    Join Date
    13th May 2014
    Location
    Burgos, Spain
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,903
    Thanks
    25,637
    Thanked 11,006 times in 1,797 posts

    Default Re: The 'empty atom' fallacy.

    Well, if nothing is nothing, nothing does not exist.
    Much love
    honoring White Feather: SHIFT HAPPENED

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to betoobig For This Post:

    Foxie Loxie (5th June 2018)

  8. Link to Post #5
    Administrator Mark (Star Mariner)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    15th November 2011
    Language
    English
    Posts
    4,432
    Thanks
    29,430
    Thanked 35,776 times in 4,344 posts

    Default Re: The 'empty atom' fallacy.

    Thanks, interesting read, which warranted further reading.

    I came across this passage in one of the chapters, which in my opinion is onto something. It conCERNs the mainstream blah of the current physics paradigm, big banks and businesses – and particle colliders. Basically, everything adds up to...shock horror...one giant scam.

    Deserves a read:

    "Particle Physicists, you see, are onto a Very Good Thing. It began in the late 1920s with the construction of the first linear accelerators and cyclotrons, accelerated rapidly during the Hitler War for the production of enriched uranium, and continued thereafter due to the strategic importance of atomic weapons. A Bigger Machine is guaranteed to produce exciting new particles, and these inevitably prove to consist of still smaller particles. Eventually the Bigger Machine runs out of steam and cannot split them, so a Still Bigger Machine is needed, along with another round of funding and, of course, a new round of salary increases to make sure of retaining the best minds. Sure enough, the Still Bigger Machine creates a host of even more exciting particles; and, would you believe it, these are also composite, hiding whole families of still smaller particles which the Still Bigger Machine cannot quite resolve. The only solution is...yep, you guessed it.

    This work is, of course, absolutely crucial to the well-being of Mankind, and must press on no matter how great the difficulties or the costs involved. Particle Physicists are the sole experts in their own field; no-one else is competent to hold opinions in it, and the papers they publish can only be understood by experts like themselves; but there's no question of their accuracy and infallibility. A lot like investment banking, really."


    http://vitency.com/npt/Ch08.html
    "When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace."
    ~ Jimi Hendrix

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Mark (Star Mariner) For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th June 2018), Foxie Loxie (5th June 2018)

  10. Link to Post #6
    UK Avalon Founder Bill Ryan's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th February 2010
    Location
    Ecuador
    Posts
    34,410
    Thanks
    211,308
    Thanked 459,522 times in 32,931 posts

    Default Re: The 'empty atom' fallacy.

    Yes. What Colin's doing is copying sections from his free online book, and posting them to both ATS and here.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bill Ryan For This Post:

    Baby Steps (5th June 2018), ceetee9 (5th June 2018), Foxie Loxie (5th June 2018), wnlight (6th June 2018)

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts