General Relativity "slightly" Wrong?

[Goldminer]

The structure of the atomic nucleus is given little thought, but definitely influences the way extra nuclear electrons react around the nucleus. Search "Moon model of the nucleus" on the 'net. You will be surprised!

[sjw40364]

IMO an atom would look just like the solar system does, with all electrons orbiting around the plane between the poles. Diagrams of atoms circling in every direction is absurd, nothing visible in nature does that from solar system to galaxy, why would we assume atoms are different? Don't misunderstand me, I have no problems with an electron being a particle but we don't know what it does or how it does it if it does it. It is more likely photons are emitted from the nucleus, just as in our solar system from electrical activity.

All charged particles create light if they are accelerated. That is what light is: the change in field from an accelerated charged particle which propagates outward. Free electrons (without nuclei) also can create light: Synchrotron, free-free emission, Bremstrahlung are some names attached to this kind of radiation but from a physical point of view it is all the same: accelerated charges and the radiation associated with them.

Chemistry is perhaps the field which knows the most about the structure of electrons bound to nuclei. The nature of the orientation and position of the electrons with respect to the nuclei controls chemical bonding and crystal structure. I am no expert in this field but a quick look at s,d,p, and f orbitals shows that the planetary model leaves something to be desired

Cheers-

Yet observationally all spinning or orbiting things do so according to the polar planes (perpendicular to the electric force.) Now in our math and in our imagination we can visualize them orbiting in any direction, but not one single observation has shown that things orbit other than around the plane of the elliptic. Atoms are bound by the Electric force, so why would I believe the laws that bind atoms are any different than the laws that bind solar systems and galaxies? Math-wise Bumblebees can't fly, yet they do a pretty good job of it, so math does not always match reality. One can prove almost anything mathematically, but reality does not always fit easily into our equations. Sometimes we actually have to change the math to fit reality no matter how enamored of the perfection of the math we are. Since all observations and experiments back up the solar model I think I will stick with that till actual evidence to the contrary appears.

[Sparky]

saul,

I mentioned his introduction because he does a good job answering the question "what is a wave". Indeed the word is largely ambiguous and too general to be of specific use.

well, without looking up a definition, a wave is undulating matter in some direction. as for specific use? ---

we call the change in field that moves from the location a "photon". If the acceleration is continuous we don't call it a photon but e.g. a radio wave.

It would more accurately be called either a photon/particle or a wave/of particles, moved by kinetic force. It is a cultish dogma that refers to something in two really different speculative ways and teaches that to it's members, whom assert that as certitude, from my life experience.

It is a mathematical fact that any continuous function can be expressed as a linear combination of waves (Fourier).

I guess i objected to "Mathematical Fact"...
it seems more correct to say, mathematically, any continuous function can be expressed as a linear combination of waves (Fourier). Now, whether that relates to reality, outside of the simulation, has to be observed and measured. If it is, then i guess one could say the probability of it being a fact is extremely high.

Most likely your aversion to the word "wave" is due to some specific meaning you associate with it. Perhaps we can identify precisely your objection?

My aversion is the use in an ambiguous way, with certitude. I guess it has to do with my childhood fantasies being traumatically ripped from me by reality; there is no santa claus or easter bunny, and the tooth fairy only left iou notes!!..

[sjw40364]

My problem with waves is we have observed not one single wave that doesn't well, wave without a medium. If the aether is a wave, then what does it well, wave in? I would have no problem with motion of a particle creating a wave in an underlying medium, problem is this underlying medium has only been deduced, not experimentally proven. If a particle vibrated back and forth as it traveled, would your instruments detect it as a wave, i.e. crests and troughs? The cesium atom oscillates, the electron seems to vibrate back and forth, IMO it is this oscillation or vibration that we interpret as waves when a particle is moving.