When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These Attoms form ionic or
covalent Bonds and form the basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons revolving arround a
Nuclie again a Bond of Electric Field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons & Nutrons are
revolving arround with Nuclear Bond.

Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due to Gravitational
forces.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving arround the Sun in
fixrd Orbits.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions/Billions of stars
revolving arround a Center.

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see Small things I find same
thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround onother. And Morming a
Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

If they are 1 nm Thick we call them Molecules.

If they are 1 Angstom Thick we Call them Atoms.

If they are 1/1000th of Angstom wide we call them nucleus.

Now Larger.

If they are Size of Moon We call them Sattelites.

When they are planets arround the Sun we call them Solar System

When they are lots of stars circling arround a center we call them
Galaxies.

Who knows if Our Solar System is a Water Molecule in the Galaxy???

Just like water in a Glass revolves due to Brownion motion. All these
motion as result of Brownian Motions.

Is this Analogy Correct?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Is it a "religious experience" yet?

Sanny wrote:

When we look through lenses we see Cells.

Hey stooopid - Caulerpa taxifolia is a single-celled organism thaat
weighs several pounds. How small a lens do you need to see it?

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Do you now? How do you "see" a 10 nm object with 500 nm light?

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These Attoms form ionic or
covalent Bonds and form the basis of Molecules.

Ever see a skyscraper? There are no molecules in a steel I-beam.
Ditto a grain of salt or a pane of glass. A molecule of bulvalene in
vacuum has no static bonding structure. Z-trimethylsilyl enol ethers
of 1,3-diketones are also fluxional.

You know nothing outside a high school textbook, if that. Look around
you. How utterly stupid are your confreres and the dysfunctional
bitch at the front of the classroom?

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons revolving arround a
Nuclie again a Bond of Electric Field.

Not to mention Big Electrons. Hey stooopid - if electrons are
electrostically bound to atomic nuclei (note spelling), then why don't
they zoom into the nucleus and neutralize its charge?

Google
"U 91" "hydrogen-like" 154 hits
"U 91" "lamb shift" 114 hits

What keeps uranium(91+) inflated, 92 positive charges against one
negative charge?

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons & Nutrons are
revolving arround with Nuclear Bond.

Ooooh! Teeny nucleonic molecules! Littler and littler fleas! And if
we look closely enough.... galaxies! World without end! GOD!
Tax-free annuities! Crème brûlée!

Now I start looking Big things.

Uncle Al has already been there. Read the above. Wassamatta,
galaxies and gods are not big enough for you?

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due to Gravitational
forces.

Just like an atomic nucleus! Just like electrons and nuclei, there
are No Collisions in outer space, either. Idiot.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving arround the Sun in
fixrd Orbits.

Mercury's perihelion measurably precesses. Is that a "fixrd Orbit"?

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions/Billions of stars
revolving arround a Center.

A Center! Are ya sure the Center is not an Axis? An Axis of Evil!
An Axis of Evil from the Evil Eye Queue! A machine with no visible
connections. 125 cubic miles of klystron relays powered by the the
energy of an exploding star system and capable of projecting unlimited
matter and energy to any location on the planet! Look - gauge after
gauge, row after row, ten raised almost literally to the power of
infinity!

But wait, what of the Mindless Primitive? Monsters from the ID!
Look, Morbius - Krell metal three feet thick glowing red hot. The
Monster is powered by the Machine obeying your evil subconscious.
Soon it will be white hot, then it will melt!

It's been done.

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see Small things I find same
thing happening.
[snip a pile of steaming turds]

Yer stooopid. Your mouth and your asshole are two ends of the same
tube. No difference - not in your case, anyway.

Who knows if Our Solar System is a Water Molecule in the Galaxy???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullvalene

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Dear Sanny:

On Apr 18, 4:50*am, Sanny wrote:
When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These
Attoms form ionic or covalent Bonds and form the
basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons
revolving arround a Nuclie again a Bond of
Electric Field.

No, we don't. They don't "revolve" or "orbit", because they'd produce
a magnetic field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons
& Nutrons are revolving arround with Nuclear
Bond.

No revolving. Same reason.

Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due
to Gravitational forces.

... or simply following a path that agrees with their momentum.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving
arround the Sun in fixrd Orbits.

They are variable, not fixed. Some move inwards a bit, some
outwards. All deflect under effects of its neighbors.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions /
Billions of stars revolving arround a Center.

Ans moving up and down above the ecliptic. And grouping and
ungrouping wavelike to provide the illusion of "apiral arms".

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see
Small things I find same thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround
onother. And Morming a Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

Because they are very different. Macroscopically, what you say makes
sense. Below this, the fundamentals of existence, are far stranger
than we can imagine.

...
Is this Analogy Correct?

No. But is that important?

David A. Smith

On Apr 18, 9:26*pm, dlzc wrote:
Dear Sanny:

On Apr 18, 4:50*am, Sanny wrote:

When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These
Attoms form ionic or covalent Bonds and form the
basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons
revolving arround a Nuclie again a Bond of
Electric Field.

No, we don't. *They don't "revolve" or "orbit", because they'd produce
a magnetic field.

Electron revolve arround Nuclie Have you read "Ruther Ford Experiment"

There are energy Levels for each Orbit Just like Earth/ Jupiter and
other planets revolve arround sun in their fized orbits.

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

On Apr 18, 2:03 pm, Sanny wrote:
On Apr 18, 9:26 pm, dlzc wrote:



Dear Sanny:

On Apr 18, 4:50 am, Sanny wrote:

When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These
Attoms form ionic or covalent Bonds and form the
basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons
revolving arround a Nuclie again a Bond of
Electric Field.

No, we don't. They don't "revolve" or "orbit", because they'd produce
a magnetic field.

Electron revolve arround Nuclie Have you read "Ruther Ford Experiment"

The Rutherford experiment found that the nucleus is
in the center of the atom.

It said nothing about "revolving" or "orbiting".

If I put a rock in the middle of a pudding, does
that cause the pudding to revolve?

There are energy Levels for each Orbit Just like Earth/ Jupiter and
other planets revolve arround sun in their fized orbits.

There are energy levels, but they are not orbits.

- Randy

Sanny wrote:
When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These Attoms form ionic or
covalent Bonds and form the basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons revolving arround a
Nuclie again a Bond of Electric Field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons & Nutrons are
revolving arround with Nuclear Bond.

Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due to Gravitational
forces.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving arround the Sun in
fixrd Orbits.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions/Billions of stars
revolving arround a Center.

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see Small things I find same
thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround onother. And Morming a
Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

If they are 1 nm Thick we call them Molecules.

If they are 1 Angstom Thick we Call them Atoms.

If they are 1/1000th of Angstom wide we call them nucleus.

Now Larger.

If they are Size of Moon We call them Sattelites.

When they are planets arround the Sun we call them Solar System

When they are lots of stars circling arround a center we call them
Galaxies.

Who knows if Our Solar System is a Water Molecule in the Galaxy???

Just like water in a Glass revolves due to Brownion motion. All these
motion as result of Brownian Motions.

Is this Analogy Correct?

Bye
Sanny

Extreme Discussions at: http://www.getclub.com/Discussion.php

Crikey, what a lot of crappy, irrelevant responses you got.

On Apr 18, 7:50*am, Sanny wrote:
When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These Attoms form ionic or
covalent Bonds and form the basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons revolving arround a
Nuclie again a Bond of Electric Field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons & Nutrons are
revolving arround with Nuclear Bond.

Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due to Gravitational
forces.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving arround the Sun in
fixrd Orbits.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions/Billions of stars
revolving arround a Center.

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see Small things I find same
thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround onother. And Morming a
Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

If they are 1 nm Thick we call them Molecules.

If they are 1 Angstom Thick we Call them Atoms.

If they are 1/1000th of Angstom wide we call them nucleus.

Now Larger.

If they are Size of Moon We call them Sattelites.

When they are planets arround the Sun we call them Solar System

When they are lots of stars circling arround a center we call them
Galaxies.

Who knows if Our Solar System is a Water Molecule in the Galaxy???

Just like water in a Glass revolves due to Brownion motion. All these
motion as result of Brownian Motions.

Is this Analogy Correct?


Let me guess. You've been trying to reinact the pot smoking scene
from Animal House again.

In article
,
Sanny wrote:

snip

Electron revolve arround Nuclie Have you read "Ruther Ford Experiment"

There are energy Levels for each Orbit Just like Earth/ Jupiter and
other planets revolve arround sun in their fized orbits.

You're probably thinking of the Bohr model of the atom, first proposed
about a century ago, which does superficially resemble a tiny planetary
system. Although this model represents an important stage in the
development of quantum theory, it was superseded decades ago (ca. 1930)
by wave mechanics, which depicts bound electrons as occupying
"orbitals", three-dimensional 'probability clouds' surrounding the
nucleus.

Unlike planetary orbits -- as described by Kepler's laws, for example --
the various energy levels available to an electron have different shapes
& symmetries, according to the solutions of Schrödinger's equation for a
given set of quantum numbers. Since the position of a bound electron is
indeterminate, it's not really meaningful to speak of it as following a
path of any kind, let alone something as simple as a conic section. And
of course planetary orbits aren't quantized: for all intents and
purposes they can be perturbed infinitesimally without any discontinuity
or discrete change of state.

See http://www.orbitals.com/orb/ for some illustrations of the
surfaces of maximum probability associated with each atomic orbital.

--
Odysseus

On Apr 18, 10:26 am, dlzc wrote:
Dear Sanny:

On Apr 18, 4:50 am, Sanny wrote:

When we look through lenses we see Cells.

And we further expand we see the Molecules.

Molecules are just a combination of Atoms. These
Attoms form ionic or covalent Bonds and form the
basis of Molecules.

Nowe we futher go down we see Small Electrons
revolving arround a Nuclie again a Bond of
Electric Field.

No, we don't. They don't "revolve" or "orbit", because they'd produce
a magnetic field.

We further go down we see Nucleus where Protons
& Nutrons are revolving arround with Nuclear
Bond.

No revolving. Same reason.

Now I start looking Big things.

I see moon and earth. Moon & Earth revolve due
to Gravitational forces.

... or simply following a path that agrees with their momentum.

Just expand a Bit, I see Out Planets revolving
arround the Sun in fixrd Orbits.

They are variable, not fixed. Some move inwards a bit, some
outwards. All deflect under effects of its neighbors.

I expand More I see our Galexy with Millions /
Billions of stars revolving arround a Center.

Ans moving up and down above the ecliptic. And grouping and
ungrouping wavelike to provide the illusion of "apiral arms".

So Either we Expand and see Big Things Or see
Small things I find same thing happening.

There are a few particals revolving arround
onother. And Morming a Closed Circle.

We Just name them differenly.

Because they are very different. Macroscopically, what you say makes
sense. Below this, the fundamentals of existence, are far stranger
than we can imagine.

...

Is this Analogy Correct?

No. But is that important?

David A. Smith

You say the spiral arms of galaxies are illusions?

Oh, yeah, if they aren't, then our
theory of gravity is invalidated- must be illusions.
Must be a whole new class of matter, too, Dark Matter- or else
we're wrong.

And we're never wrong.

John