For those who,like myself, haven't seen this concept before....


https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=85 ... 7&fref=nf#
AWESOME!!--thanks for sharing Jaffa.  
Thanks for Sharing... I would like to know if this is an accepted  Theory compared to our old
Model that is still being taught. 
There is nothing wrong with the classic model, just the same way that there is nothing wrong with Newtonian physics as opposed to Einsteinian Physics. Earlier version is the special case of the much broader aspect, as referred to in Modern Maths to Set and Subset.

In this situation the rotation and all calculations are combined with a linear or logarithmic motion added to that. Now it would become a more complex issue if the whole thing is accelerating, decelerating or is in a steady speed situation.

To me the more interesting aspect of all this is the philosophical aspect of it and the religious connotation . Atom and its nuclei are very similar to the planets and funny enough also similar to the foundation of music. It appears that the our Creator likes the Helix pattern. I for one am perfectly OK with that

Mutley

Image
jaffa33 wrote: For those who...haven't seen this concept before


The vortex depiction in that video is highly inaccurate. All the planets orbit the sun within the ecliptic plane. And a plane has, by definition, only two dimensions...not the three depicted in that very deceptive video.

It's true that the sun moves through space. It's not motionless. Just as our entire galaxy is moving toward a super-massive galactic cluster in the Virgo constellation. In space, everything moves. But the planets are neatly lined up in their orbits around the sun, on the ecliptic plane. In other words, the planets all move through our galaxy at the same speed as our sun. That quite poor video depicts them trailing our sun. It's just not so.

And the ecliptic plane they all move on (except for one, an oddball, but no longer classed as a planet) is required by Newton's laws of motion, which say that unless there is a force acting upon them, to prevent them from orbitting within that plane, they will maintain their neat, stable orbital relationship with the sun. Of course, there is no such force acting upon them.

Similarly, our moon does not lag behind or trail the Earth, in its orbit, despite the Earth moves around the sun. Likewise Saturn's rings and moons don't lag behind or trail it. They all move together in perfect synchrony. The sun's tremendous gravity locks them all in place...within a plane...with our sun at the center. That's not what is shown in that video!

A massive object (like a black hole or neutron star) that passed near or through our solar system could easily throw all the planets out of alignment. But as it stands, the planets all orbit like marbles circling an orange, on a flat surface, like a table top. Now imagine the table moving up. That is how our solar system moves through space. The entire solar system moves in neat choreography together, as one, very stable unit.

Because it all came from a spinning disk of matter, early in the birth of the solar system. There was another star before ours, here...which blew up. It went supernova. They can know that because there are so many heavy elements (like gold, lead and uranium) on Earth; they were all created in that stupendous explosion, long ago. Our sun (a very stable star, sure to have a long life) was formed from the resulting junk; still mostly hydrogen.

The only planet that doesn't orbit the sun within the ecliptic plane is Pluto, which has been rudely demoted from planet status, to planetoid. It orbits the sun at 17 degrees from the ecliptic plane. They don't know why; but a possible explanation is that it was captured at some point by our sun, rather than being an original member of our solar system. Think of our solar system as flat, like circles drawn on a piece of paper; because that's how it is. The only update to Newton that's ever been required...Einstein provided it - massive objects warp space-time - and even Einstein would chuckle at that video - or groan - were he still alive.

It would be nice if people who make 'science' videos like that first learned some science. Otherwise...it's "the Three Stooges explain the solar system". Moe's lesson: it's actually much weirder than you thought, people. It's actually like a corkscrew! (To heck with Newton.) :-)
I think Roddy loves me ..smooch smooch 
hehe
otherwise why would he be following  me and writing such lovely ditties on all my posts :lol:  
Of course he does Jaff.  You are so easy to love..:)
Well Jaffa, he has to make a comic into a serious explanation. Like if we didn't know what our solar system is doing? This day and age, with all the techy stuff, people do make it or do it in a different manner to get viewers more interesting except those who have and or think they have an "Einstein" way of thinking. As my kids will say... come on mum, stop taking life to serious, bend a little and enjoy all the fun.

Maybe you could be right, Roddy is following you around hoping to catch a glimp of Jaffa somewhere and perhaps he is thinking he got the right bait out there for you? :wink:
Great to watch jaffa  :D  how many men do you need  :lol:  I know who I would prefer      :wink:
Broadcaster wrote: Atom and its nuclei are very similar to the planets


No; they're very, very different. Quantum and Newtonian physics bear precious little similarity, and the solar system as a "basic model" of the atom is actually a very poor analogy.

Planets obey Newton's laws; gravitational attraction. Very simple. Inverse square law. Mass times mass divided by distance, squared. But atom obey only the quite weird (but wonderful) laws of quantum mechanics. Particles are essentially waves; best desribed as. They're not solid things, like planets. They aren't little lumps of matter; though they all have well-defined energies and spins.

Electrons do not orbit the nucleus in the same fashion as planets orbit the sun, at all. They do orbit, owing to electrical attractive - nucleus is positive, electrons are negative - but more like 'as a cloud'. And saying *where* one is, is impossible. At best, you can say only where it probably is.

Unlike planets, electrons jump, from orbit to orbit, apparently instantly. And unlike our solar system, a high energy orbital is complex; it looks like a donut with two lobes coming from opposite side of the hole, or 'can't it' part, for a highly energized (hot) atom. Atoms behave nothing like how planets behave.

A planet can move to *any* other position, at least temporarily. Same as we put a satellite at any altitude. But in atoms, no orbit "in between" a lower and higher energy state is possible. For an electron, an "in between" state - between a lower and higher quantum or energy state - is actually forbidden. It can be here...or there...but not somewhere in between.

The quantum realm is all unitary, or 1/2, but not other fractions of. It's difficult to grasp because it's so unlike the macroscopic world we're familiar with. But very beautiful. Both intellectually, and even with ones eyes. All it takes is a gas, heated to a high temperature, and a prism, to break up the light from it, to see the beautiful, beautiful narrow lines of ultra-pure colors, in a spectrograph.

Why such pure colors in such narrow lines? That's the energy states. The electrons release photons (light) at a specific frequency or energy, when they drop from a higher to a lower energy state, or orbital. Multiple lines in a spectrogram, because unlike a planet - which can have any number of satellites - there can be a maximum of only so many electrons per orbital. So the bands of different very pure colors are photons released from different orbitals, as the electrons adjust to their new energy state.

If it wasn't quantum, the light given off by a heated gas would be smeared out, as a broad spectrum of colors; continuous. But it's quantum, meaning it can be this value, or that; nothing else. You can actually see it, so easily.

So needless to say...physicists soon knew: that's it. Electrons jumps, in atoms, from one state to another. And thus was born...quantum mechanics. It started with intuition - from things like seeing how aa hot gas appeared, when they look at it through a prism - then they developed math to explained the lines of pretty colors. (Math that matched what they could see, exactly.)

Add photons (energy), an electron jumps (instantly) to a higher state. The known orbitals are a sphere, a bigger sphere, a donut, and finally, in a big, or really excited atom - ooh, it's found a girlfriend! - a donut with two lobes. (I won't get any more explicit than that.)

The electron is somewhere in that 'cloud', of probability. But they define its position as only within a 'probability cloud'. The shape of the orbital is the highest probability. Outside it: low probability. Basically...never there. Why such a bizarre shape as a donut with two lobes? They dunno. It's just how an atom is.

We can know, for a thousand years from now, quite accurately, where our moon will be, relative to the earth, on a specific date, at a specific time. We can predict lunar eclipses (or solar eclipses) well into the future. None of that's possible with atoms, because they have their own unique, very strange laws.

Like...if an atom spits out two electrons or photons at the same time, in being ionized (or cooled), their spins are always opposite. It seems that if those two electrons or photons were transported to opposite sides of our universe...and the spin of one electron was flipped...the other would flip, instantly. That's called entanglement; they know it's real. Since the 1930's: tested again and again in modern lab experiments, and proven to be real. But no physicist on earth can yet explain why it happens.

How is the information communicated between those two particles...at apparently infinitely greater than the speed of light? No one knows!

Basically, 'quantum' means a very precise way of seeing atoms...but so much of it is still beyond anyone's rational comprehension. And even the brightest and most able physicists admit it. Feynman was one of the most brilliant theoretical physicists of modern times, but even he took the position that anyone who professes to undertand quantum mechanics is kidding you.

Still, they do know very well what the laws governing atoms are. Why they are as they are...that's a whole other ballgame.

Masses and distance...planets...easy to understand. Quantum...whoa! Stories by Charlie Dodgson. The wabbit and the hole that Alice went down...to get her mind bent. Quantum mechanics is way weirder than the Mad Hatter tea party. It's a like a Mad Hatter tea party where the tea isn't tea. It's all made from hallucinogens. You got your LSD tea...your peyote tea...your nice herbal mari-ja-wanna tea...etc. Imbine some...then hit a book on quantum mechanics...and it will absorb itself into your head! Not for sure, but better chance, with such some nifty such refreshments. :-)

Then there's the really weird that happens when a collection of atoms are cooled to close to absolute zero. A bunch of atoms become...just like one big spooky single atom.

Not trying to steal your thunder, Broadcaster. Just describing it as I learned it. It's not at all like how planets behave. The term 'orbit' is what misleads many people into thinking...it must be similar to how planets go around the sun. But actually it isn't. And in fact, that's what's led to conundrum in physics; they haven't yet succeeded in linking the two very different realms. Gravity remains beyond their understanding. The other three known forces - strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic - can all be derived from one large complex equation, known as the "master equation". But gravity - ironically the weakest of the four known forces in nature - no. It still defies our comprehension. There's been no particle for it - or graviton - discovered, in other words.

Here's (by far) *the* weirdest thing I've ever learned, from physics. Matter-energy - everything know, as "the universe" - is considered to be positive energy (mass can all be converted into energy, it's a different form of the same thing); and gravity is considered to be negative energy. Add the two together...the universe...which came from nothing...is still nothing. +1 -1 = 0. Ya! It's still nothing!!!! It's never stopped being nothing, actually. Did you folks silly figure different? :-)

It's all stuff straight out of The Twilight Zone. Thank you. I'm Rod Serling and you've just gotten some twilight physics up your...hmmm. :-)
jaffa33 wrote: on all my posts


Girl...I just bought myself a magnifying glass...in fact one that has LEDs on it, since print on packages and things keeps shrinking. And no, not my imagination. Some companies have fonts down to only 1/4 millimeter high, and that's just phase one of their print miniaturization plans, I figure. Suggest...you do similar. Then spy here and there with it, on your screen. All is an egregious exaggeration, love.

Wouldn't we make quite the team, huh. I will look for you in my dreams. :-)
Cheaper than buying new glasses as you age :wink: That is what I need to read up on all of your explanations.
Here's (by far) *the* weirdest thing I've ever learned, from physics. Matter-energy - everything know, as "the universe" - is considered to be positive energy (mass can all be converted into energy, it's a different form of the same thing); and gravity is considered to be negative energy. Add the two together...the universe...which came from nothing...is still nothing. +1 -1 = 0. Ya! It's still nothing!!!! It's never stopped being nothing, actually. Did you folks silly figure different? :-)

It's all stuff straight out of The Twilight Zone. Thank you. I'm Rod Serling and you've just gotten some twilight physics up your...hmmm. :-) (up your mind?) :wink: :P :lol:

Very simple, take the scale like a thermometer, +1 -1, is zero, +2 - 2 is still zero
stardaisy wrote: Cheaper than buying new glasses as you age


How come they don't start making magnifying glasses glasses? Big ones, that sit on your face. But not always over your eyes. As soon as you start to squint...a smart auto-magnifying thing detects the wrinkles on your face - what the hell does that say? - and flips down...presto, easy to read. The little twerps who are shrinking print...for who, or whom? Tiny people, who have eyes the size of the periods at the ends of sentences? Science is maybe planning to shrink everyone, to say an inch tall, or so...so we use way less resources, and the onslaught of tiny tiny tiny print is to psychologically prepare us all, for that day, when some of us - who get a bit too much of the shrinking ray - are able to ride a submarine through a blood stream? Whoa..look out for that big white blood cell! It doesn't look too friendly! I don't get it!!!!

I often see a container that has plenty of room on it...and that space is not used. Instead, some doofus label designer goes with a lot of blank space, that has no print on it - three quarters of the bottle or box - and then a label that has tiny tiny tiny...the fewer atoms used to form those letters, the better. Maybe looking to get an award...for a label that's hard to read, even with a magnifying glass? Maybe people who do that just chuckle all the way home? Maybe they're all sadists...I dunno.

But with an aging population...and eyesight not what it once was (though I think in my case, my eyes are still pretty good) (though there is a group trying to wreck them...average age maybe around 30, plus stupid)...it so begs for some younger folks to get friendly punches to the head. Hey, yo...I so enjoyed your shrunken label that was actually impossible to read, without a magnifying glass...punch! :-)
I thought of the same thing, and those bi focal.. why can't they come with flips so that you are not looking through them while laying down watching T.V., you have to slide the glasses down or turn it upside down so that those focals are not in the way.... yup why don't they... maybe we should complain about this and that and someone will invent something?