Where do atoms come from?

How did Atoms and all their sub-atomic particles form in FE thoery, im just curious...

Does FE have a different theory on atoms?

How did Atoms and all their sub-atomic particles form in FE thoery, im just curious...

Ok I could give you the sarcastic answear (involving a birds and bees discussion).

I'm not clear on how they are formed. However I would have to say that the two models would form them in an identicle manor.

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

Just a lot smaller in the FE model :p

Just a lot smaller in the FE model :p

Why is that?

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Just a lot smaller in the FE model :p

Why is that?

Well the FE model as explained to me is smaller.

Stars aren't actually suns for other planets, they are undefined in the FE model explination, however they are unique objects. Meteors and Asteroids and the like are literally "falling stars".

Essentially, in the model explained to me. Earth was the only object in our universe like it. Everything else is unique and seperate from our world (planets are planets, however Earth itself is not defined as a planet).

Quote from: "Red Skull"

Quote from: "Wolfwood"

Just a lot smaller in the FE model :p

Why is that?

Well the FE model as explained to me is smaller.

Stars aren't actually suns for other planets, they are undefined in the FE model explination, however they are unique objects. Meteors and Asteroids and the like are literally "falling stars".

Essentially, in the model explained to me. Earth was the only object in our universe like it. Everything else is unique and seperate from our world (planets are planets, however Earth itself is not defined as a planet).

Hmm okay. Thank you for your answer. =)

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

In RE, the big bang didn't create any flat planets.

In RE, the big bang didn't create any flat planets.

The Big Bang itself didn't create planets in either model.

The flatness of the earth was due to sheering and rotational forces in its young life. The same explanation is applied to the rare flat and elongated asteroids we see in the night sky.

The flatness of the earth was due to sheering and rotational forces in its young life.

And why was it rotating?

Quote

The flatness of the earth was due to sheering and rotational forces in its young life.

And why was it rotating?

Unknown. Ejected from a larger mass of debris, perhaps. No one was around 4.5 billion years ago to say for certain.

Quote from: "phaseshifter"

Quote

The flatness of the earth was due to sheering and rotational forces in its young life.

And why was it rotating?

Unknown. Ejected from a larger mass of debris, perhaps. No one was around 4.5 billion years ago to say for certain.

Being ejected would give it motion and a direction, not rotation.

And you don't need to be around to know, all you need is logical deduction. We weren't around when the sun formed but we know how old it is. By your own logic, how can you tell me it was rotating in the first place?

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

Big Bang model has round celestial bodies form due to gravitational attraction between atoms and molecules. how does gravity apply to atoms in other celestial bodies but not to those that formed Earth?

how does gravity apply to atoms in other celestial bodies but not to those that formed Earth?

FE also has gravitation. It's a side effect of acceleration.

Quote

how does gravity apply to atoms in other celestial bodies but not to those that formed Earth?

FE also has gravitation. It's a side effect of acceleration.

Wrong, its a side effect of mass warping space-time and is warped about its centre of mass. FE theory doesn't even account for gravity in this sense because the curvature of space-time woudl be less on the edges of the FE than in the centre due to their distances from the centre of mass...see General Relativity.

Wrong, its a side effect of mass warping space-time and is warped about its centre of mass. FE theory doesn't even account for gravity in this sense because the curvature of space-time woudl be less on the edges of the FE than in the centre due to their distances from the centre of mass...see General Relativity.

Incorrect. Accelerating objects create uniform gravitation in accordance with the Equivalence Principal.

Einstein postulated this. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein?

Quote

Wrong, its a side effect of mass warping space-time and is warped about its centre of mass. FE theory doesn't even account for gravity in this sense because the curvature of space-time woudl be less on the edges of the FE than in the centre due to their distances from the centre of mass...see General Relativity.

Incorrect. Accelerating objects create uniform gravitation in accordance with the Equivalence Principal.

Einstein postulated this. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein?

I don't think you know what the equivalence principle is. It states that 'remaining at rest in a uniformed gravitation field is the same as experiencing an acceleration"

However these atoms are not at rest in a gravitational field. Tom, you are a moron.

I dont claim to be smarter than Einstein, i just understand what he was saying more than you do.

Quote from: "Tom Bishop"

Quote

Wrong, its a side effect of mass warping space-time and is warped about its centre of mass. FE theory doesn't even account for gravity in this sense because the curvature of space-time woudl be less on the edges of the FE than in the centre due to their distances from the centre of mass...see General Relativity.

Incorrect. Accelerating objects create uniform gravitation in accordance with the Equivalence Principal.

Einstein postulated this. Are you saying you're smarter than Einstein?

I don't think you know what the equivalence principle is. It states that 'remaining at rest in a uniformed gravitation field is the same as experiencing an acceleration"

Which is another way of saying "frames of reference undergoing gravitational attraction are equivalent to frames of reference undergoing a constant acceleration."

However these atoms are not at rest in a gravitational field. Tom, you are a moron.

Way to argue; a simple, unbacked statement and an ad hominem.

I don't claim to be smarter than Einstein, i just understand what he was saying more than you do.

You love those arguments via authority, don't you?  Did Einstein tell you that you understand him better than everyone else?  Were you his psychiatrist or something?

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

i thought the big bang had been disproven becaus energy cannot be created nor destroyed

Quote from: "Tom Bishop"

The Big Bang model of the universe is the same in both RE and FE.

i thought the big bang had been disproven becaus energy cannot be created nor destroyed

1)  Yes, energy can be "created" and "destroyed".
2)  No, because the energy that was there wasn't created or destroyed, just transformed.

It states that 'remaining at rest in a uniformed gravitation field is the same as experiencing an acceleration"

Actually, that's completely incorrect. It's the other way around. Acceleration warps space-time in such a way that it creates a uniform gravitational field around the object accelerating

For more information see http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept.

Quote

I don't think you know what the equivalence principle is.

I most certainly do.

Quote

It states that 'remaining at rest in a uniformed gravitation field is the same as experiencing an acceleration"

Actually, that's completely incorrect. Acceleration warps space-time in such a way that it creates uniform gravitation around the object.

For more information see http://xxx.lanl.gov/ftp/physics/papers/0204/0204044.pdf

Quote

However one of the main tenants of general relativity is the Principle of Equivalence: A uniform gravitational field is equivalent to a uniformly accelerating frame of reference. This implies that one can create a uniform gravitational field simply by changing one’s frame of reference from an inertial frame of reference to an accelerating frame, which is a rather difficult idea to accept.

You are confused tom, you are confusing Newton with Eistein. The equivalence principle doesn't claim acceleration warps space time. The things that create curvatures in space time are Mass, Energy and momentum in GR and causes Einstein uses equivalence principle to explain aspects of Newtons law of Gravitation through acceleration. "From this principle (equivalence principle), Einstein deduced that free-fall is actually inertial motion. By contrast, in Newtonian mechanics, gravity is assumed to be a force".

Velocity as we know also causes mass dialation and time and length contraction but this is in reference to special relativity.

Lets stick on the subject at hand here. So if atoms were created in the big bang...where do we get this universal accelerator from as is described to be accelerating the universe uniformly upwards at 9.8m/s/s, how was it created in the big bang and if it was it must have finite energy...

On the first day, God created heaven and earth. That is when atoms were created.

Quote

how does gravity apply to atoms in other celestial bodies but not to those that formed Earth?

FE also has gravitation. It's a side effect of acceleration.

Fe doesn't have gravitation, check your own FAQ.

You are confused tom, you are confusing Newton with Eistein.

You are confusing Einstein with yourself.

The equivalence principle doesn't claim acceleration warps space time.

Yes, that is exactly what it claims. Did you even bother to look at the paper I linked?

The things that create curvatures in space time are Mass, Energy and momentum in GR and causes Einstein uses equivalence principle to explain aspects of Newtons law of Gravitation through acceleration.

Incorrect. According to the Equivalence Principle acceleration creates a gravitational field. Gravity and gravitation through acceleration are literally mathematically indistinguishable. Rather than me quoting the paper, please read it in its entirety.

Fe doesn't have gravitation, check your own FAQ.

FE doesn't have "gravity." But it does have "gravitation." Two different meanings.

Quote from: "jeffreygreenham"

On the first day, God created heaven and earth. That is when atoms were created.

and then from atom... he made eve... right?

Ba-zing!

Quote from: "Pyrochimp"

Quote from: "theonlydann"

Quote from: "jeffreygreenham"

On the first day, God created heaven and earth. That is when atoms were created.

and then from atom... he made eve... right?

Ba-zing!

Took Ya'll long enough dammit. i wanted my PROPS!

Lets Make A Quote Vortex!!!
by the way, nice pun