Talk:Atomic model

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• History of atomic theory
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:History of atomic theory

History of Science

This redirect is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the redirect attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles

Physics: History

	Physics portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
	This redirect is supported by History Taskforce.

Chemistry

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles

What we see[edit]

I would like to say that I believe that we are not looking at the Universe as it is. We only look at what we see. The atomic model is what we use to understand the bare bones of the universe. One proton, and one electron,and one neutron. What about the lines of force? Energy is what comprises the universe, yet we have not created a model that depicts this. Why? Our atomic model shows the pin points, but not what fills the spaces in between. We see the universe as “missing” all this matter, yet here we are not even listing what is there. Why? Because seeing is believing? Let's take what we know and do a photo negative. We will start off with the very first element. One Proton, one Electron. We have two particles that make up one element. Separate, but equal. Why have we not drawn the picture? Two particles on the opposite side of each other, with empty space in between. Is that how it really is? No, of course not. Opposites attract, and yet the two have not collided on there own. One orbits the other. Or is that the case? Do the photo-negative. Like two magnets seperated only so far as to show a line of force by way of “iron filing shavings”, we can show a complete “Object” where the proton and electron are just polar opposites of an object made of energy. Is that a concept too hard for us to understand? Energy is what REALLY matters? Create a model on the bare essentials. One proton, Electron, and neutron. Designate a primary color for each. For a CG model, the solid would represent the particle, and the transparency setting radiating from these particles would represent the energy, or “lines of force” for this new model. I believe that this model could be used as a tool and would create a whole new perspective for us to “see”. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talotta2003 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]