It seems that we are living on the surface of a huge atomic nucleus called Earth. Similarly stars and galactic nuclei are like even much greater atomic nuclei that are orbited by smaller space bodies like electrons. You may see this link. http://www.world-mysteries.com/toi_esavov.htm
On a very basic level, yes. However, electrons do not follow perscribed physical orbits, despite orbits being pictured that way in High school text books. Read up on electron clouds, electron orbital paths outside of the basic S orbital, and note that electrons don't (as far as we know) have little sub-atomic moons orbiting them. while there are similarities, there are also many differences. This is much more coherent than in the past, but you still haven't explains what an "inward 3-D spiral swirl" is. Considering that the theory seems to largely depend on that structure, you need to define it, using terms not found in the name of the thing. Do you mean that matter on the outside of the sphere rotates in a circular path while it falls in toward the center of the star, at the same time that interior matter spirals up from the center to the surface, in a never-ending movement of matter. A method similar to the air patterns in a cyclone or tornado?
Since when did the planets and bodies begin tunneling? Since when did they begin repelling each other? Since when did they acquire charge? Since when were they attracted to the "nuclei" because of electromagnetic force? I thought the fundamental force that draws electrons and protons together were very different from the one that draws the earth and the moon together, the former being electromagnetic force and the latter being gravitational force? Besides that, interesting thought. :bugeye:
You guys are over-analyzing. Peter merely got high for the first time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Peace.
My avatar is a pic of a tattoo I have on my hand; it's a representation of a Bohr model of a carbon atom. While it is not scientifically accurate, I appreciate it as an artistic representation. We use the same basic idea to represent both some of the smallest things we know and some of the largest. For me, it is a subtle reminder that I am made of the very same things of which the stars and planets are made.
Its too bad GR and QM don't complement one another, eh? That would make things quite simple. If we could see that our planet is just an electron in an enormous atom....Unfortunately, the world is much more strange than that. Still, is there really infinite largeness and smallness? If so, is it circular? Does it repeat like a fractal? String theory would suggest there is a limit to these things...
Yes, but string theory can't predict basic physical constants ... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
really/ I was under the impression that string theory basicly was an extention off of Quantum Theory - I thought that Quantum mechanics fit into the String universe such that Quantum mechanic predictions qualified as String theory predictions as well.
"Still, is there really infinite largeness and smallness? If so, is it circular? Does it repeat like a fractal? String theory would suggest there is a limit to these things..." String theory as far as I know does not offer a singularity free and hence complete picture of the universe, while the theory of interaction does. The tricky point of this theory is to make the all-building source of interaction finite through recurrent 3D-spiral contractions and expansions and thus to model the fabric nature. It may be said that one all-building matter moves 3D-spirally inward-outward thus creating the oscillating soures of reality, which when described at the scales of observation generate the GR and QM.
