The fundamental forces at work, and their effects, are also completely different. For planets, it’s Gravity sucking objects *into* orbit, based on the masses of each object; for sub-atomic particles, it’s Electromagnetism holding electrons at one of a number of set distances from the nucleus, based on the energy content and charges of each object in question – and in particular the energy content of the specific electron.
So it’d be a bit closer to say that, hypothetically speaking, an electron is more like a tiny asteroid in space which would be pushed *away* based on how close it was to far larger planets or stars. No predictions about what sort of life it would be host to, except that I doubt it would be host to life at all, due to drastically different laws of physics preventing what we know to be “life” from forming there in the first place.
Charged particles can have the same relative position(or momentum) relationships that astronomical bodies. The difference is that for electrons and nuclei most of the relationships are unstable.
Also that nucleus diagram in the right is way off. It doesn’t really matter, but that nucleus in the center shouldn’t be visible. If you blew an atom up to the size of the planet, you would only see a tiny basketball.
not really. Languages change all the time- the list of exceptions for some language rules beggars belief- while physical laws don’t tend to change THAT much.
On the other hand, it’s yet to be proven that
a) laws of physics didn’t change since the big bang
b) laws of physics are not local, that is – are uniform in the universe
Yay for not really knowin’ anythin’ at all!
Either way is correct but who means more than one.
Wrong. Stephan ended his sentence with a preposition. Never end your sentence with a preposition.
To quote Winston Churchill:
“This is the sort of thing up with which I shall not put!”
The fundamental forces at work, and their effects, are also completely different. For planets, it’s Gravity sucking objects *into* orbit, based on the masses of each object; for sub-atomic particles, it’s Electromagnetism holding electrons at one of a number of set distances from the nucleus, based on the energy content and charges of each object in question – and in particular the energy content of the specific electron.
So it’d be a bit closer to say that, hypothetically speaking, an electron is more like a tiny asteroid in space which would be pushed *away* based on how close it was to far larger planets or stars. No predictions about what sort of life it would be host to, except that I doubt it would be host to life at all, due to drastically different laws of physics preventing what we know to be “life” from forming there in the first place.
Charged particles can have the same relative position(or momentum) relationships that astronomical bodies. The difference is that for electrons and nuclei most of the relationships are unstable.
Also that nucleus diagram in the right is way off. It doesn’t really matter, but that nucleus in the center shouldn’t be visible. If you blew an atom up to the size of the planet, you would only see a tiny basketball.
Yay for grammer! Who is with me?
Yay for spelling. It’s ‘grammar’. Grammer is an actor.
The only good Nazi is a grammar Nazi.
The rules of language change over time. The laws of physics do not.
On the other hand, we know what the rules of language actually are, while the laws of physics we know are just ever-more-refined approximations.
not really. Languages change all the time- the list of exceptions for some language rules beggars belief- while physical laws don’t tend to change THAT much.
On the other hand, it’s yet to be proven that
a) laws of physics didn’t change since the big bang
b) laws of physics are not local, that is – are uniform in the universe
Yay for not really knowin’ anythin’ at all!