You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.
Is the universe as large as we think?
Posted:
Is the universe as large as we think?Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
I have had theories about the universe for a while now and I decided to share one of my more interesting ones here.
Our solar system. You will often see it portrayed like this:
But if we flip it so we are looking at it from a birds-eye-view, it will look something like this:
Okay. You may be thinking about what my point is with this topic: Well, to me I don't just see our Milky Way; I see an atom, (Counting Pluto) There are 9 planets. Those who understand Chemistry, would know that the element with the atomic number of 9 is Fluorine. Fluorine just so happens to be 24th most abundant element in the known universe. My theory is that our solar system is one Fluorine atom. While other solar systems are other elements such as Nitrogen or Helium, dependent on their planets (Electrons). All of these solar systems could be a compound of elements that come together to create the cells of living things, hundreds of trillions of times larger than what we know the universe to be.
As far as science can tell us, the space in between atoms are literally nothing, which would further support my hypothesis as space outside of Earth's atmosphere is nothingness.
This would also include what it is that happened at the beginning of the universe's creation: A rip in one of these atoms. This would create a nuclear explosion so powerful to knock everything into movement.
If all of this information was correct, it would be safe to assume that the atoms that we know of could be much smaller solar systems that get infinitley smaller and smaller as well as the inverse of them getting bigger and bigger than our solar system.
I would like to apologise to anybody if any of this doesn't make sense, dyslexia is a b*tch. I have much, much more I would like to write that I do not know how to word properly; I will be adding more over the coming days
Thank you.
Our solar system. You will often see it portrayed like this:
But if we flip it so we are looking at it from a birds-eye-view, it will look something like this:
Okay. You may be thinking about what my point is with this topic: Well, to me I don't just see our Milky Way; I see an atom, (Counting Pluto) There are 9 planets. Those who understand Chemistry, would know that the element with the atomic number of 9 is Fluorine. Fluorine just so happens to be 24th most abundant element in the known universe. My theory is that our solar system is one Fluorine atom. While other solar systems are other elements such as Nitrogen or Helium, dependent on their planets (Electrons). All of these solar systems could be a compound of elements that come together to create the cells of living things, hundreds of trillions of times larger than what we know the universe to be.
As far as science can tell us, the space in between atoms are literally nothing, which would further support my hypothesis as space outside of Earth's atmosphere is nothingness.
This would also include what it is that happened at the beginning of the universe's creation: A rip in one of these atoms. This would create a nuclear explosion so powerful to knock everything into movement.
If all of this information was correct, it would be safe to assume that the atoms that we know of could be much smaller solar systems that get infinitley smaller and smaller as well as the inverse of them getting bigger and bigger than our solar system.
I would like to apologise to anybody if any of this doesn't make sense, dyslexia is a b*tch. I have much, much more I would like to write that I do not know how to word properly; I will be adding more over the coming days
Thank you.
#2. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Jul 31, 201310Year Member
Posts: 1,356
Reputation Power: 69
That is a good theory, one of the best I have seen.
However I think that beyond our universe there is another dimension with another universe. And there is a infinite number of them.
Hard to get round eh?
However I think that beyond our universe there is another dimension with another universe. And there is a infinite number of them.
Hard to get round eh?
- 2useful
- 1not useful
#3. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 01, 201310Year Member
Posts: 2,530
Reputation Power: 116
Status: Offline
Joined: May 01, 201310Year Member
Posts: 2,530
Reputation Power: 116
I like the idea but I'm going to have to strongly disagree
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#4. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Apr 06, 201410Year Member
Posts: 162
Reputation Power: 9
You know this is interesting and I think you worded that fine I kinda get it, but I'm not much of a scientist
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#5. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
Kurisu wrote I like the idea but I'm going to have to strongly disagreeLike I say, this is just a theory. Not even I think this is what's real, but I just thought it was a nice idea
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#6. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 01, 201310Year Member
Posts: 2,530
Reputation Power: 116
Status: Offline
Joined: May 01, 201310Year Member
Posts: 2,530
Reputation Power: 116
TunaSalad wroteKurisu wrote I like the idea but I'm going to have to strongly disagreeLike I say, this is just a theory. Not even I think this is what's real, but I just thought it was a nice idea
Ok let me just give you the most obvious reason as for why it can't even be considered.
You're looking at planets as if they're electrons.. Planets are not constant. Secondly, you're talking about how "if you know anything about chemistry"... Well if you knew anything about chemistry you would have heard about something called energy levels. 1st level fits two electrons, second fits 8, then 18, then 32, and so on. If the planets are the electrons then this also doesn't work. We don't see two planets with the same distance orbit.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#7. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 03, 201112Year Member
Posts: 1,009
Reputation Power: 45
The universe is constantly expanding (blueshift and redshift). As for you saying, "as space outside of Earth's atmosphere is nothingness. The Earths atmosphere is around the Earth and only the Earth. Therefore, the remaining 7 planets that are in our solar system, would be considered "nothingness"?
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#8. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
Status: Offline
Joined: May 05, 201112Year Member
Posts: 863
Reputation Power: 39
Kurisu wroteOkay, I respect what you're saying but I'm 16 at the moment and only beginning to go into this kind of thing. The reason I came up with this is due to a Chemistry lesson and thought 'Hmm.. that looks a lot like a solar system'.TunaSalad wroteKurisu wrote I like the idea but I'm going to have to strongly disagreeLike I say, this is just a theory. Not even I think this is what's real, but I just thought it was a nice idea
Ok let me just give you the most obvious reason as for why it can't even be considered.
You're looking at planets as if they're electrons.. Planets are not constant. Secondly, you're talking about how "if you know anything about chemistry"... Well if you knew anything about chemistry you would have heard about something called energy levels. 1st level fits two electrons, second fits 8, then 18, then 32, and so on. If the planets are the electrons then this also doesn't work. We don't see two planets with the same distance orbit.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#9. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: May 26, 201310Year Member
Posts: 88
Reputation Power: 3
Status: Offline
Joined: May 26, 201310Year Member
Posts: 88
Reputation Power: 3
For all we know, we could be the smallest universe in the milky way.
We could be so small that it could be hard to be seen by any other life out there.
Think of the microscopic organisms that live in our world.
Imagine that's what we are to the rest of the galaxy.
This stuff gets me thinking and thats scary lolll
We could be so small that it could be hard to be seen by any other life out there.
Think of the microscopic organisms that live in our world.
Imagine that's what we are to the rest of the galaxy.
This stuff gets me thinking and thats scary lolll
- 0useful
- 0not useful
#10. Posted:
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201211Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
Status: Offline
Joined: Aug 06, 201211Year Member
Posts: 6,360
Reputation Power: 374
While this is a very eloquent theory there are some problems with it.
That doesn't mean that you can't solve these problems with some extra thinking, but I feel obligated to point them out.
First and foremost, scientists only have theories about what atoms actually look like.
There is no definitive model which all scientists look at and say, 'Yes. That is exactly what an Atom looks like.'
Therefore, any comparisons we make between solar systems and atoms are obviously going to be questionable.
What about solar systems which don't fit with any known atomic figure?
What about rogue planets whose stars have died, and are now drifting through space, what would happen to cause the 'nucleus' to 'die' and the 'electrons etc.' to fly apart like this?
What about other structures in space? As far as I am aware there is no biological structure which resembles groups of different atoms all spread around in different clusters which would resemble galaxies.
If the Universe is all part of a larger structure what is the need for Black holes? Quasars? Nebulas?
You are also submitting the possibility of an infinite regress.
That is to say that everything has simply been going and will keep going for eternity in an endless cycle of cause and effect.
One atom leading to a smaller atom, to a smaller one, and so on.
As far as observational science goes, an infinite regress is impossible.
That doesn't mean that you can't solve these problems with some extra thinking, but I feel obligated to point them out.
First and foremost, scientists only have theories about what atoms actually look like.
There is no definitive model which all scientists look at and say, 'Yes. That is exactly what an Atom looks like.'
Therefore, any comparisons we make between solar systems and atoms are obviously going to be questionable.
What about solar systems which don't fit with any known atomic figure?
What about rogue planets whose stars have died, and are now drifting through space, what would happen to cause the 'nucleus' to 'die' and the 'electrons etc.' to fly apart like this?
What about other structures in space? As far as I am aware there is no biological structure which resembles groups of different atoms all spread around in different clusters which would resemble galaxies.
If the Universe is all part of a larger structure what is the need for Black holes? Quasars? Nebulas?
You are also submitting the possibility of an infinite regress.
That is to say that everything has simply been going and will keep going for eternity in an endless cycle of cause and effect.
One atom leading to a smaller atom, to a smaller one, and so on.
As far as observational science goes, an infinite regress is impossible.
- 0useful
- 0not useful
You are viewing our Forum Archives. To view or take place in current topics click here.