It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Atoms and The Unknown

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Your remarks and horrible grammar has given me the "lulz"

Wonderful! then they have more value than anything you have done so far




posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 06:23 AM
link   
Let me help you with this a bit...

Start from here, and follow, and everything regarding chemistry and atoms will be much clearer to you...






posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
My question to you guys is do you believe that some parts of an atom that are there that we can still be missing or not seeing? Also, are there certain staining techniques that have been undiscovered?

For the sake of argument, let's say you could stain an atom. Wouldn't the stain itself be made of its own atoms? At best you'd end up with a different chemical compound that may or may not be a different color. At worst you'd have an amalgam of your atoms and the "stain" atoms/molecules. In either case you'd have no more insight into your atom than you had before you started.

I mean no offense, but you write as if English is not your first language. If that is the case, your apparent confusion is understandable.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucidparadox

Space which is something as opposed to no space which would be nothing.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: John333
oh but look deeper. frequency manifests when certain conditions are provided. mainly by the work of energy causing vibration.


Frequency is nothing more than the number of times something repetitive happens per unit of time. Period, the end. That's it. It doesn't "manifest". It's not a thing by itself. A dripping faucet has a frequency. Because it's drops/minute. That's all there is.




so no u cant toss a handful of it anywhere. its not measureable like how much frequency is there to go around and will we ever run out of frequency. but it is an observable manifestation in this universe. making it a required element of constructing a harmonic universe such as this one.


Harmonic doesn't mean what you think, either.



answer me this. which came first, the atom, or the frequency? did frequency create the atom, or did the atom create frequency. and then.. where in this universe can we find something that has no frequency.


Again...frequency of what? Without that, the word is meaningless. You're treating it as a tangible. It isn't.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Lucidparadox

I think this questioned arises the term antimatter or darkmatter? Are the two the same?


No.



Do we need atoms to create or form dark matter?


No.



What kind of light would required? Why can't we see these things with a darkfield microscope? Maybe we are having trouble adjusting the resolution to be able to see this anti/darkmatter. Food for thought. I love your positive vibes though.


Dark matter, being what it is, by definition doesn't interact with photons. So no sort of light will do.

Darkfield microscopes aren't used for viewing dark objects. It's a lighting technique.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Bedlam

You can give a neutron a positive or negative charge though once in the formation of a molecule. Although this changes the atom to absolute positive or to absolute negative.



Neutrons don't carry charge, ever, although they do have an electric dipole moment. A very small one.

That's because neutrons are secretly degenerate hydrogen atoms called hydrinos.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Bedlam

but I can send it to your ears. It's still a wavelength and has form.



Nope!

Back to definitions. Frequency is meaningless until you imbue it with the reality that is the answer to the question "Frequency of what?". Without that, you have nothing.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   
a reply to: SuperFrog

I'm pretty sure I'm beyond a high school class. It seems like none of you are further in thinking than I am. I appreciate the help but I resent the feeling of having to disagree with you.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

for example frequency of Color, frequency of Sound?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Bedlam
for example frequency of Color, frequency of Sound?


Now we are getting somewhere. Frrequency of something is exactly what we should be thinking about.

Sound is (air) particles vibrating back and forth. There you can have the frequency of the vibration of the air particles.

Colour is a perceived property of light. Some colours do indeed have a single frequency of electromagnetic waves. Not all, though; there is no "brown" line of the spectrum, or "purple"; those are mixtures of several simultaneous different waves of light. The perception will even give the same, say "green" perception for a suitable mixture of lights as for a specific single frequency of light. But again we are talking about a rate of repetition of the waving phenomenon.

Then you can have a hydrogen molecule participating in the sound vibration of a gaseous medium, or you can have a photon of light whoosh by that hydrogen molecule, being a vibratory excitation of the electromagnetic field. And those two vibrations have precious little to do with each other.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ExternalForces

Yes, what is your question?



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:05 PM
link   
Hmmmm some quite nice comments being made here... OP, as you bring up credentials quite often, it seems like you are presenting a "But i am at university thus I don't have to accept what anyone says" kind of front...

1) The institute you are at, gives you no authority over reality or science
2) Experience, is often worth more than a degree, depending upon how much experience and the type
3) You appear to talk about microbiology and chemistry, and are making statements about physics... the two subjects are totally different. THUS your 'disagreeing' with peoples answers is showing immaturity in your own scientific mind and method.

What are my credentials? Well I have a PhD in Physics from a University in the UK, The overarching subject was experimental particle physics, but more specifically it was in neutrino oscillation. I worked for the T2K experiment which was under construction at the time... Find the first T2K paper and my name is on the cover somewhere... in fact here is one paper, I'm on it arxiv.org...

After my PhD I moved to Direct Dark Matter searches, using Liquid Argon.

Right let me just try and fire off a few answers to your statements

1) Negative energy has never been observed, that is negative with respect to the ground state, sure we have chemical reactions that appear to be negative, but that is a relative negative, not an absolute.

In terms of particle decay as Dragonridr said, it is mostly true, Protons appear stable, electrons appear stable, neutrinos appear stable and photons at low energy... are stable. Free neutrons are unstable, they last about 5 mins before they decay.

2) Lucidparadox referred to the concept of what is empty space, which as far as antimatter and dark matter are concerned appear to be unrelated. Dark Energy... maybe... but what the question was... what is empty space, what is space? This is a very fundamental question which is still unanswered, and is absolutely Unrelated to chemistry or micro-biology...

Anti-matter and dark matter are not the same, if they are, we would have solved that riddle years ago... you might think physicists are dumb but, no we are not that dumb

Atoms creating dark matter?.... hmmmm again it depends on what you mean, if dark matter turns out to be a new type of particle then perhaps we can make it, using atoms as you say... but it wont be a chemical process, it will be using a high powered particle accelerator, which is pretty far removed from a chemical process. This being said, no, no dark matter has ever been created at the LHC or any other accelerator.

The term dark matter is used because as far as we can work out, non-baryonic dark matter doesn't interact with photons, it is electrically neutral and only interacts via the weak force and gravity... done... no kinds of light will illuminate it. Again, its not something a microscope can look for.

3) You 100% cannot give a neutron a positive or negative charge in the formation of a molecule. A molecule forms due to the sharing or electrons, a neutron is electrically neutral, a free neutron will not 'chemically' react with anything, free neutrons will happily pass through meters of solid rock, you cannot simply 'give' them charge. Your science in this seems quite confused or lets say... incorrectly applied.

4) You are misunderstanding the fundamental concept of wavelength as Bedlam very very nicely setup as kind of a test of the water (at least thats how i saw it) sound and light are very different things, but we use the same terminology. Sound is compressive movement of the molecules in a gas, liquid or solid interacting with our ears, it is not really a 'form' more of a property I cannot take say, a wavelength and store it.

Light on the other hand is a different beast all together and Im not going to expand on it unless you really want to.

You cannot for example get a speaker system and ramp up the frequency and produce light.... the two things are VERY different.

5) Shadoefax's post is very important in terms of answering your original question with a question that should tell you the answer, what is a staining agent? Well it is atoms, so you are trying to put atoms in other atoms to show a property... then wait... what you are talking about is chemistry... if your original question is, is there any chemistry that we don't know about yet...

The answer is yes, lots

But using incorrect terminology and struggling to put your questions across is not helping... English is not your first language, which is fine, but it will help lots if you not dismiss everyone because they are trying to help you... it sounds to me like words are just being mixed up.
edit on 21-9-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-9-2015 by ErosA433 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 03:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: John333
oh but look deeper. frequency manifests when certain conditions are provided. mainly by the work of energy causing vibration.


Frequency is nothing more than the number of times something repetitive happens per unit of time. Period, the end. That's it. It doesn't "manifest". It's not a thing by itself. A dripping faucet has a frequency. Because it's drops/minute. That's all there is.




so no u cant toss a handful of it anywhere. its not measureable like how much frequency is there to go around and will we ever run out of frequency. but it is an observable manifestation in this universe. making it a required element of constructing a harmonic universe such as this one.


Harmonic doesn't mean what you think, either.



answer me this. which came first, the atom, or the frequency? did frequency create the atom, or did the atom create frequency. and then.. where in this universe can we find something that has no frequency.


Again...frequency of what? Without that, the word is meaningless. You're treating it as a tangible. It isn't.


did you forget. we re talking about the frequency of everything from empty space come right back to the slowest oscillating manifestation in this universe. when dealing with the frequency of empty space, we are literally dealing with the frequency of that which we call by all definition: 'Nothing'. so there it is. what's the frequency of nothing? ill bet you a gajillion dollars that it has a fequency with oscillations that travel faster than the speed of light. and thus appears as empty space.

im still on topic. always am. so u see the paradox? we're not necessarily dealing with the frequency of 'a thing" per se. so this sets the foundation for frequency existing in this universe as low as the dark energy layer. and every manifestation in this universe obtains its own frequency because the universe itself allows frequency to exist. the universe could have NOT allowed frequency to exist and form completely randomly with random everything with no naturally occurring repetition of any kind.

frequency has to be a thing. because it has a label. thus it exists. though not tangible. it is detectable and thus labelled as something categorized as confirmed within our sphere. everything else we havent detected thus far and even that in empty space, right now, we would point to and say "nothing" is there. but is that true?

we can take it step by step.

frequency occurs because energy exists and energy is the ability to do work.
now we have energy which cannot be created nor destroyed (existed since the beginning of time) doing work(oscillations/vibrations) that generates a frequency. lets mull over that word "generates" for a while. it's english. sometimes things can be read two or more ways. use your imagination.

edit on 21-9-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

I was just giving examples to the mentioning of the certain type of frequencies @bedlams reply.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   
Atoms are like pieces of ice in water. There is no void/emptiness. Even so-called "empty space (with no heat, sound, matter, light) still have a subtle energy. Scientists were able to cause Light from a "void". Darkness is just an extremely dim Light (low energy), it can always be raised/brightened to Light

Information about Virtual Particles and The Casimir Effect may interest you.

Also, this is an interesting video (the video screenshot is blank on purpose, click on it and it will play and work fine):


edit on 21-9-2015 by arpgme because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: ExternalForces

They are not "types of frequencies", any more than " speed of light" and "speed I am travelling" are "types of speed". You fundamentally misunderstand what frequency means. Bedlam has explained this to you clearly and in depth already.



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: SuperFrog

I'm pretty sure I'm beyond a high school class. It seems like none of you are further in thinking than I am. I appreciate the help but I resent the feeling of having to disagree with you.



First of all, material covered there is not high school level and secondly, on every post you show general misunderstanding of basics of chemistry and physics.

I doubt that you are really up to challenge and willing to learn anything, but anyway, here is some good sources... all it require is just bit of will and time to get it going...

www.edx.org...

www.edx.org...

www.edx.org...

www.edx.org...

Please don't tell me that MIT class is bellow your understanding...



posted on Sep, 21 2015 @ 11:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: dragonridr

How are there no chemical compounds in an atom? You don't consider protons, neutrons, and electrons chemical compounds of life? Need I forget to mention, Ions.
No, "chemical compounds" has a specific meaning, and that's not it.


originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: SuperFrog

I'm pretty sure I'm beyond a high school class. It seems like none of you are further in thinking than I am. I appreciate the help but I resent the feeling of having to disagree with you.
It's hard to tell what you're thinking because you're using non-standard terminology. About 80% of the people relying to this thread seem to understand the terminology better than you do, yet you reject their help. Compounds are not components of atoms as you use the term, they consist of two or more different types of atoms joined together. They differ from molecules only in that you can have a molecule composed of the same types of atoms, and it will not be considered a compound, so H2 is a molecule but not a compound, H2O is both a molecule and a chemical compound:

education.jlab.org...

A molecule is formed when two or more atoms join together chemically. A compound is a molecule that contains at least two different elements. All compounds are molecules but not all molecules are compounds.

Molecular hydrogen (H2), molecular oxygen (O2) and molecular nitrogen (N2) are not compounds because each is composed of a single element. Water (H2O), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) are compounds because each is made from more than one element. The smallest bit of each of these substances would be referred to as a molecule. For example, a single molecule of molecular hydrogen is made from two atoms of hydrogen while a single molecule of water is made from two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen.


That's how the term "compound" is generally used, which doesn't refer to protons, neutrons, or electrons, as you suggest.

edit on 2015922 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Sep, 22 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: ExternalForces
a reply to: Bedlam

for example frequency of Color, frequency of Sound?



Or frequency of EM - color and frequency are both the same term by another name.

By saying what frequency you're talking about, you reveal what phenomenon the frequency relates to.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join