Hello, I have constructed a theory. And before you question why I called it the Rumpelstiltskin theory read this:

The Rumpelstiltskin theory is called the Rumpelstiltskin theory because he ripped himself in half. My theory states atoms like to do the opposite. If you can think of a better name tell me. Anyways lets get to the theory:

The Rumpelstiltskin theory states that atoms are, in a sense, a "Living" organism and o things to stay "Alive".  If you don't believe me compare these things. Electromagnetism/Metabolism. Photon emitting/Reproduction. Vibrations from heat/homeostasis. If you still don't believe me, there are way more examples you can find everywhere. Now I am not inherently saying it is "Living" but I am saying (Not in a literal sense) to treat an atom like that. This theory can help better understand things such as Half-Life or Genetics (maybe) If you want to prove my theory wrong, tell me.

7 minutes ago, grayson said:

Hello, I have constructed a theory. And before you question why I called it the Rumpelstiltskin theory read this:

The Rumpelstiltskin theory is called the Rumpelstiltskin theory because he ripped himself in half. My theory states atoms like to do the opposite. If you can think of a better name tell me. Anyways lets get to the theory:

The Rumpelstiltskin theory states that atoms are, in a sense, a "Living" organism and o things to stay "Alive".  If you don't believe me compare these things. Electromagnetism/Metabolism. Photon emitting/Reproduction. Vibrations from heat/homeostasis. If you still don't believe me, there are way more examples you can find everywhere. Now I am not inherently saying it is "Living" but I am saying (Not in a literal sense) to treat an atom like that. This theory can help better understand things such as Half-Life or Genetics (maybe) If you want to prove my theory wrong, tell me.

I suppose you realise that "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank, down the ages. 🙄

It's not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to show your theory has advantages over the current model. But I'm losing interest in you rapidly now. 

18 minutes ago, grayson said:

If you want to prove my theory wrong, tell me.

See Not even wrong - Wikipedia.

4 minutes ago, exchemist said:

I suppose you realise that "Prove me wrong" has been the cry of the crank, down the ages. 🙄

It's not up to us to prove you wrong. It's up to you to show your theory has advantages over the current model. But I'm losing interest in you rapidly now. 

No, I don't want anyone to prove me wrong. But I am ready for criticism. And The "Rumpelstiltskin theory" Isn't trying to disprove anything else. I am just telling my idea of what a natural law of the universe could be. And the reason I said that is because I am just putting my opinion out there and than I suddenly get into an argument with a random person who has a degree in who knows what. I am just learning as a hobby, and I don't want to argue with anyone.

Guys, focus on the actual theory instead of one part of the crapping topic where I say, "PrOvE mY tHeOrY wRoNg!" I don't care about that! If this is how things keep going, I might just find another forum! and this forum was hard to find! and my theory is just experimental, not pseudoscience! so let me say in a calm and constructive way. react to the actual post. I need feedback

9 minutes ago, grayson said:

I need feedback

Feedback to what? Can you formulate your statement? And don't call it "theory"!

Just now, Genady said:

Feedback to what? Can you formulate your statement? And don't call it "theory"!

I am just saying that instead of reacting to the point where i say "prove me wrong" React to the actual post. I want to improve my "Who knows what you call it" so I need "Feedback" Sometimes context can be important

37 minutes ago, grayson said:

atoms are, in a sense, a "Living" organism and o things to stay "Alive".

This ^^^ is what you want feedback to?

(BTW, what is "and o" that I've put in bold?)

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

This ^^^ is what you want feedback to?

(BTW, what is "and o" that I've put in bold?)

Honestly, I have no idea what o means it must've been a weird typo. I just mean that everything tries to stay in one state or form for as long as possible.

I want to be clear, which statement you're looking for feedback to. Is it this statement:

1 minute ago, grayson said:

everything tries to stay in one state or form for as long as possible

?

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I want to be clear, which statement you're looking for feedback to. Is it this statement:

?

Well sort. I just mean a way to think about physics and atoms is that everything (Whether it seems living or not) Has a system similar to anything living. It tries to stay living. I will give you more examples of this living. Whatever the thing that happens at the end of an atom's half-life/death. Mostly because it was unable to be stable and died. The reason we don't see a hybrid of every element on the periodic table is because the atoms don't need to do that to survive It would have no purpose plus it does not have eight electrons. Maybe if their was a mathematical concept to back this up It could be explained better

!

Moderator Note

You need to have a sufficiently-developed idea that you can make specific predictions. A mathematical model, or evidence. 

 

12 minutes ago, grayson said:

I will give you more examples of this living.

More examples will not add support for your idea. For example, I might have an idea that "everything is round" and bring many examples of round things. The idea still would be wrong.

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

You need to have a sufficiently-developed idea that you can make specific predictions. A mathematical model, or evidence. 

 

 

Great timing! Just made a formula right now! A(t)=A(o)*c t

A(t) or a of t is the atoms state at the current time.

A(o) is its original state.

c is the change in its environment

the whole equation is with respect to time which means it repeats itself over and over in an infinitesimal rate. (Infinite times in a second)

Each time the equation repeats itself, the A(t) changes to the last A(o). The first time it repeats A(o) and A(t) are the same

That should mean that A(t)=A(o) t (With respect to time)

 

 

14 minutes ago, grayson said:

c is the change in its environment

What are the units of c?

3 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

What are the units of c?

That is a great question! The units are H (Heat), N (Number of atoms), E (Number of electrons),L (Half life) and Delta (Atomic number) The more factors you add the more complex it gets but it wont work without respect to time.

22 minutes ago, grayson said:

 

Great timing! Just made a formula right now! A(t)=A(o)*c t

A(t) or a of t is the atoms state at the current time.

A(o) is its original state.

c is the change in its environment

the whole equation is with respect to time which means it repeats itself over and over in an infinitesimal rate. (Infinite times in a second)

Each time the equation repeats itself, the A(t) changes to the last A(o). The first time it repeats A(o) and A(t) are the same

That should mean that A(t)=A(o) t (With respect to time)

 

 

Now tell us how this can be tested, or evidence to support it.

How does one quantify c?

What is the state of an atom? 

3 minutes ago, grayson said:

That is a great question! The units are H (Heat), N (Number of atoms), E (Number of electrons),L (Half life) and Delta (Atomic number) The more factors you add the more complex it gets but it wont work without respect to time.

None of those are units

Just now, swansont said:

Now tell us how this can be tested, or evidence to support it.

How does one quantify c?

What is the state of an atom? 

The state of the atom and c are the same C is just A but instead of being an absolute value it is with respect to time.

So that means Beta=A(o)*c

c= H*N*E*L*Delta*...etc/Omega (Number of units used in C) with respect to t (Time)

A=c (Without respect to time)

Beta= C but treat it as a different variable so we can clear confusion

Beta=A(o) t

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, swansont said:

Now tell us how this can be tested, or evidence to support it.

How does one quantify c?

What is the state of an atom? 

None of those are units

For the units for C you either do the metric system or scientific system (Such as kelvin)

5 hours ago, grayson said:

The state of the atom and c are the same C is just A but instead of being an absolute value it is with respect to time.

So that means Beta=A(o)*c

c= H*N*E*L*Delta*...etc/Omega (Number of units used in C) with respect to t (Time)

A=c (Without respect to time)

Beta= C but treat it as a different variable so we can clear confusion

Beta=A(o) t

 

 

 

For the units for C you either do the metric system or scientific system (Such as kelvin)

Hmm. For some reason, neurological reference frames come to mind.

Guys, This equation can't be limited to a certain number. But It can be "Proven". Anyone who doesn't understand this theory, The atomic adaptation theory or "Rumpelstiltskin" theory says that atom do anything they can to stay "alive" and they adapt to their environment or where they are. Some proofs are the second law of thermodynamics (The atom doesn't want to get to hot and turn into a plasma). Or beta decay (Atoms would rather not be isotopes)

8 minutes ago, grayson said:

Or beta decay (Atoms would rather not be isotopes)

But beta decay happens. Certain isotopes “want” to become other isotopes. For beta decay, it’s because there are too many neutrons, or too few, compared to the number of protons.

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

But beta decay happens. Certain isotopes “want” to become other isotopes. For beta decay, it’s because there are too many neutrons, or too few, compared to the number of protons.

Yes, That is what an isotope is.

5 minutes ago, grayson said:

Yes, That is what an isotope is.

And no matter how many neutrons you have, it’s an isotope. So “Atoms would rather not be isotopes” is a non-sequitur

Just now, swansont said:

And no matter how many neutrons you have, it’s an isotope. So “Atoms would rather not be isotopes” is a non-sequitur

After google searching Define isotope:

each of two or more forms of the same element that contain equal numbers of protons but different numbers of neutrons in their nuclei, and hence differ in relative atomic mass but not in chemical properties; in particular, a radioactive form of an element:

I guess you could call everything an isotope, just as you could call everything an atom.

21 minutes ago, grayson said:

theory says that atom do anything they can to stay "alive"

I have a better theory: atoms do whatever they want to do, and not all atoms want the same thing. Some atoms do anything they can to stay the same - they are stable isotopes. Some other atoms do anything they can to change - they are unstable isotopes.

I think my theory explains everything.

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

I have a better theory: atoms do whatever they want to do, and not all atoms want the same thing. Some atoms do anything they can to stay the same - they are stable isotopes. Some other atoms do anything they can to change - they are unstable isotopes.

I think my theory explains everything.

The more pertinent question is does the model predict anything? Theories do more than explain behavior. They must have some kind of predictive power. They have to be falsifiable.