It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The universe is an Atom

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2008 @ 08:48 AM
reply to post by Solarskye

I do agree with you in all aspect ,say galarixes revolve around centre of universe -The universe so call it as of today withour limited knowledge may has another universe with centre of gravity with so many galarxies around them -Both centre of gravity of universe again linked or revolve around on same principle of gravity (affinity-love)

k.pugalendhi -india

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 11:46 AM
I personally believe that it goes infinitely in both directions. For us we are in the middle, while scientist are always finding smaller 'materials' i.e. atoms made up of electrons etc. while those are made up of quarks. I think it could go way smaller, we just do not have the technology/ability to see it. Same in the other direction.

just my 2 cents.

posted on Jun, 4 2008 @ 05:01 PM
I don't know if you've ever seen this video or not but here goes.

Presenting the largest model of the universe to date (according to this video).

Really fascinating to say the least.

So, go here for a mindblowing video.
Youtube video.

Edit: Just think, you got to look at this model with depth. What I mean is that the universe is just as deep as it is wide.

[edit on 4/6/08 by Intelearthling]

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 03:22 AM
reply to post by DaNReD

I do not think our universe is the nucleus but rather an electron in an atom. Our universe is a protected mass that is part of an inanimate object that we can only fathom to exist without movement for years to equal 10 to the power of x. for example; if we move a rock it does not fall apart. If we are just sub atomic particles of that electron then how would we see if what we are a part of moves or even changes.

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 05:21 AM
reply to post by yellowbeard

What are the Protons then? And what would be a 'Perfect' universe? Is there a universe that is similar to an element say Iron. And if that, what would make a Universe perfect like a Noble Gas?

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 01:59 PM
i love this post, i am constantly thinking about stuff like this.

My theory on the universe as a whole is a bit like water draining from a bath, in the sence that it all revolves round the plug whole, or in the universes case some sort of super massive black hole or something thats yet to even be concieved by man.

Most things in the universe seem to be revolving round something, earth revolves round the sun, the sun revolves with out solar system round the galaxy, the whole galaxy is revolving round a super massive black hole and so on... but their has to be a central point holding all these "orbits" in place, much like what i saw in the bath when teh water was draining away .. their were big bubbles revolving round teh plug, revolving round the big bobbles were smaller bubbles and so on and so on , much like how i imagine the universe operates, all revolving round a single point...

this is where it gets relevent, if their is a centre point that everything revolves around, a nuecleus so to speak, and our universe has boundries, it becomes even more plausable that we are indeed just an atom, building part of a much bigger system, with our universe atoms collecting somewhere to make cell, that combine to make some sort of other reality, possibly under some giants fingernail. after all, their has to be something bigger past the universe, its not just a random reality floating in a complete void.

i appoligise for any poor science and spelling, i am but a thinker. point out any bad science and ill know for the next time.

and please dont bring any of this god nonsence to the table.

posted on Aug, 30 2008 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I personally believe that it goes infinitely in both directions. For us we are in the middle, while scientist are always finding smaller 'materials' i.e. atoms made up of electrons etc. while those are made up of quarks. I think it could go way smaller, we just do not have the technology/ability to see it. Same in the other direction.

just my 2 cents.

My thoughts exactly.
We are merely existing at one tier in space/time/matter, somewhere between the infinitely small particles and the infinitely large particles.

Look at nanotechnology for instance... there is Plenty of room down there..
Imagine if we were that small and had perception, i.e. sight, hearing, etc..
We would have no concept or way to perceive the laboratory, room, body, or whatever we were existing in... we would see molecules as large bodies moving in space.

This theory is known as Fractal Cosmology.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 12:08 AM
Thinking outward, The number seven is such a common "Universal" number in religions, perhaps it is in fact the code of what we perceive to be the greater cosmos.Seven is also the atomic number of nitrogen.

Giving religion some credit, What if the great being is in fact the collective energy of all that is our universe, with one mind and goal. Our cosmos is the dream of its seven geometrically singing strings, while this fabric of reality is the beating heart of an infinite cycle. Already Physicist's know the large and small is interconnected by the most simplest of patterns, but is played out in such an incomprehendably elaborate and infinite manner. Our "universe" would be just an atom in a never ending pattern.

Like I said, just thinking out there. Merely what I have read and observed. I'd love to prove the existence of such a great pattern. It would be spectacular and depressing to know we were just a tiny particle of nitrogen floating in some great atmosphere of a higher demension.

posted on Mar, 1 2009 @ 02:10 PM
The Girl in the Golden Atom

Nice thread topic.

The first person to take the atom-as-universe idea and run with it was the science-fiction writer Ray Cummings, whose 1919 novel you can read by clicking its title above.

Now let's deny some ignorance.

Originally posted by Quest
The model of the atom being referenced is called the Bohr model and is VERY outdated... The scientific community has long since moved on to more accurate models.

Originally posted by Choronzon
In real life, the atom is a pure waveform there are in fact no balls or spheres to see under an electron microscope.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
As has been noted the Bohr model for the atom was discarded long ago...

Electron cloud... this intuitive model provides a simplified way of visualizing an electron as a solution of the Schrödinger equation. In the electron cloud analogy, the probability density of an electron, or wavefunction, is described as a small cloud moving around the atomic or molecular nucleus...

The Rutherford-Bohr model has not been discarded. It is very useful in teaching basic chemistry and quantum concepts, which is why it is still taught in schools.

The error common to all three posts above is the assumption that there is something the inside of an atom actually looks like, some final, irreducible description of 'what's really there'. Sorry to be a party pooper, but there isn't.

All we have is a number of complementary models that fit more or less well with what we know about phenomena in the subatomic world. Each works well at one particular level of microcosmic detail but not so well at the others, which is why we use more than one. None of these models is intended to be a full and accurate description of what's going on. In a very real sense, there is no such description. What happens inside an atom isn't something human senses are designed to detect, or human brains designed to understand. The best we can ever achieve is an analogy, and that is all any model of subatomic structure is going to be: an analogy.

Yes, an electron exists as a fuzz of probabilities, or a 'pure waveform', if you prefer. It also, however, exists as a hard little ball that hits the fluorescent coating of your computer screen and strikes sparks, or photons if you prefer, off it.

So, what exactly is a 'waveform' in the quantum context? It is a graph of the probability that the electron in question has a particular position at a given instant. Does that answer the question 'what is an electron?' satisfactorily? Does it tell you what shape an electron has? Does it explain its mass, its charge, its angular momentum or 'spin'? We know an electron has all three properties, but where do they come from? The visualization of an electron as a 'waveform' tells us nothing about that. To try to understand it, we have to dig deeper still, down to the level of quarks and bosons. So is that what an atom looks like, then, a collection of quarks and bosons? But if we don't even have a clue what an electron looks like, how the devil do we visualize a quark?

Anyone with an interest in physics needs to grasp the difference between an analogy and a true representation and how to recognize which is which when they are presented to us. For the subatomic world, we have a great many analogies, but no single representation we can embrace as true. The Rutherford-Bohr model serves its purpose as well as any of the others.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 04:58 PM
reply to post by DaNReD


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 05:31 PM

Originally posted by cutbothways
Hydrogen has one proton, one electron. The building block of the universe. Hydrogen plus Oxygen = water.

Oxygen causes rust, or generates oxidization.
Hydrogen cause water, or generates water.

Earth, with it's moon, is unique in that is has only one, and the only moon
in the universe that we know of that is not named by science.

The Earth and the single moon, make up the hydrogen atom, therefore earth is mostly water and oxygen.

No - The earth is mostly iron. Oxygen is actually compartively rare on earth. The atmosphere is mostly nitrogen.

Humans, are mostly water and oxygen, and therefore made up from the element of earth.

No - water and carbon.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:10 PM
I cant say i agree with your statement:

Tho I can understand how one gets to this "spot".. in theory about scale..

One problem. static. very known law that has been proven to be wrong

we dont live in a static universe., "its expanding".. Im my thoughts the universe is very much like a living thing.

yin yang simple really "why have life" if life can no be created from matter that is what? a subpart of what?

; ) "life" the universe is living and growing. nature tells us this.

wink wink


wood / life

both parts of the same thing. shapes are the art of creation much like mathmatics and every other logical based thing we understand... look to much and you will get lost
step back and understand what it is You and I are.

gets alot simpler

:thumbs up:

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 07:32 PM
This link below is to a wonderful little "powers of 10" demonstration that just might make it easier to visualize what it is you're proposing. You'll surely enjoy this little device.

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 08:37 PM

just to help you understand it..

mathmatics symmerty logic shapes geomerty

all the same thing.. Creation methord.

one has to understand the principle of not to question but to look at what it is we are infact in

the only way to get the anomloy we call life is to have life in the first place.

ergo sum the universe and what "other" is alive and kicking and after many many levels of scale it will infact self replicate itself,, Not in the same way or a reflection that from what has created us but!... we are alive for a very logical reason

the universe or "thing" in what we are in is alive also,, hence why you think the universe is an ATOM...

an atom is a relfection of a bigger thing "soloar system" but as was stated befor is not correct "we are not little balls" we are both waves and little balls "ie plantes suns ect" .. but to be a wave and a "ball" would require what?

the very fiber or frabic from what we are all connnect with,, "creation metheord"

The one thing humans do not understand is this

why we have symmerty why we have logic and why we can "assume" the logical side of our own relaity..

This is creation methord.. the very tool that makes out entire reality WORK

the more we look the further away we get from the answer because we ask questions..

In short.. you are here because the universe requires you to be here or you wouldnt..

simple as that.. once you understand you are infact just a shape just a 010101 just a factracl just a something.. then you can work out why and that why is that in order for IT to work YOU need to be here to question it to keep it going

self replication ; ) or in another words. we are here to keep it going

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 10:55 PM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Dude... you need to get that spell checker fixed

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by Albertarocks

oh ok... ?

and that means what?


not coz u infact added to the topic, but yet you wish to point out the fact i cant spell.. even when i have a better grasp of the subject topic at hand right? i would deem that "your post" as offtopic unless the topic you are infact debating is my spelling??

Logic right?... its funny how you can understand what it is i did say yet the conclustion was not to further the debate but to point out one thing "my spellings"

did that give you some edge? did it make u feel good or better pointing out my grammer and spelling is crap? or is that you do not wish to deabt the topic at hand??

How about we go toe to toe in mathmatics, im sure i would make YOU look like a clown as you tried to make me look one.. with your assumptions?

Im not here to argue about my spelling but if you want to how about you make another thread about how retarded i am and then ill make one about mathmatics and how retarded you are then we can have a slanging match on ats..

pointless correct? oh wait sorry thats just my bad grammer and spelling talking...

amazing how i can read just fine but i have a hard time spelling "look it up" you may find some people have a hard time spelling who have a better IQ than people who CAN..

we ait all the same... Deny ignorance.. well i guess you failed that part ..

[edit on 26-3-2009 by symmetricAvenger]

posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:35 PM
Here is yet another interesting presentation by George Smoot about design of our universe.

I highly recommend it to everyone...

Here is the link:

TED: George Smoot: Design of the Universe


posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by 5thElement

Great vid 5th

Pitty some would rather point out my spelling grammer than to atleast READ what it is i was trying to say..

did u check out the ted talk i posted above?

posted on Mar, 27 2009 @ 12:49 AM
reply to post by symmetricAvenger

Yes, I just did, thanks for sharing the link, I seen his stuff before (in written form), Garrett Lisi got very popular as a "surfer dude with theory of everything" few years back...

Quite fascinating way to see the universe, everything seems to be (according to him) manifestation of this infamous E8 geometrical structure

We'll see what happens when they fire up LHC again

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in