Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: Phil Cartwright <pcartw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 21:07:35 -0500
zion-lion wrote:
And no there are no neutrons or photons moving "around
the atom". If your model "predicts" that it does not agree
with experiment.
I apologise Randy
I wrote photons instead of PROTONS
could you come back and explain what electrons are doing?
Well, a classical physicist would say they're orbiting the nucleus in a stately procession, but quantum theory says that "they're spread out all over the atom's entire volume dancing the Maldacena, but the whole three-dimensional atom thing is just a holographic projection from some underlying 2D field theory with no force of gravity anyway" is closer to the truth.
--
There's only four things you can be certain of: taxes, change, spam, and death.
.
- References:
- hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: zion-lion
- Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- From: zion-lion
- hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Prev by Date: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Next by Date: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Previous by thread: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Next by thread: Re: hypothesis > accepted theory?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|