Silent_Rebel
Member
You know the spectrum with visible light, ultra-violet light, gamma rays, and and all of the other rays and waves and light. Well, what is it a spectrum of? What are these things made of?
-
OK, it's on.
I have a question.
- Thread starter Silent_Rebel
- Start date
Jesin
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 2,036
Vatroslav
the Void
More accurate- electromagnetic waves spectrum. Those are PRODUCTS of electromagnetic radiation. They all behave like particles and waves at the same time (Quantum nature). And of course, radio-wave quants have smaller energy then photons (light quants) or gamma ray quants... energy of a quant depends on frequency of an electromagnetic source...
What is interesting is that even material particles are quantum in nature- both particles and waves...
The nature is more absurd then it looks like... (or we observe it from a completely wrong point of view)
Yes, it is all about the point of view. The reason we don't understand it all completely is actually the wrong paradigm. We must change the paradigm, just like how once we had to change the view from geocentrical to heliocentrical system... it is completely the same.
What is interesting is that even material particles are quantum in nature- both particles and waves...
The nature is more absurd then it looks like... (or we observe it from a completely wrong point of view)
Yes, it is all about the point of view. The reason we don't understand it all completely is actually the wrong paradigm. We must change the paradigm, just like how once we had to change the view from geocentrical to heliocentrical system... it is completely the same.
Silent_Rebel
Member
I have another question. What is gravity, or why is there gravity?
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
Electromagnetic radiation is caused by the absorption and emission of photons by electrons (except gamma rays which can come from the nucleus) as they become excited and then fall back into their ground state. The type of electromagnetic radiation that is emitted is dependent on which electron is excited, which can be calculated with the Rydberg formula:
With
R being "estimated" to infinity since the mass of the atoms nucleus is so much higher than an electron. In energy it's:
But generally used in Joules with R = -2.18*10^-18 J (not sure why it's negative, but that's how it shows up in the formula; I assume to get a positive number when calculating the difference between the two principle quantum numbers) and n1 and n2 being the principle quantum number (energy shell) of the electron at either it's initial or final state. When calculated in Joules, it can be converted into wavelength by λ=C/v and can then find the 'color' of the EM radiation using it's wavelength:
With
R being "estimated" to infinity since the mass of the atoms nucleus is so much higher than an electron. In energy it's:
But generally used in Joules with R = -2.18*10^-18 J (not sure why it's negative, but that's how it shows up in the formula; I assume to get a positive number when calculating the difference between the two principle quantum numbers) and n1 and n2 being the principle quantum number (energy shell) of the electron at either it's initial or final state. When calculated in Joules, it can be converted into wavelength by λ=C/v and can then find the 'color' of the EM radiation using it's wavelength:
UppyDownyMouth
Giant Squid
One thing i often think about is the development of the eye....
The very concept of eye evolution is fascinating to me.
It's arguably the most developed sense we have... What is it reacting to? What is the process?
Electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths is basically defining our entire reality... The range of colours we can see and cannot see...
How would we think/ dream if we couldn't see...?
The very concept of eye evolution is fascinating to me.
It's arguably the most developed sense we have... What is it reacting to? What is the process?
Electromagnetic radiation of various wavelengths is basically defining our entire reality... The range of colours we can see and cannot see...
How would we think/ dream if we couldn't see...?
Hawkeye
Banned
UppyDownyMouth
Giant Squid
ask a person who was born blind
thats a bit harsh.... like waving to a guy with no arms
Hawkeye
Banned
Asking someone what they dream of?
How is that harsh?
I wish people would stop treating people with such disabilities so differently...
UppyDownyMouth
Giant Squid
I meant asking a blind guy about the evolution / working of the eye...
Just a little joke about misinterpretation... wasted i guess...
as for the dream thing... i imagine the dreams are simply the same without images... so the feelings of sound and touch are more focused.
I was thinking about the impact on a society that couldn't see rather than a single individual living in a world that can. Our reality is defined mainly by light and sound, however plenty more is going on we just dont have the senses for it.
Dormouse
Mean can be funny
The visual cortex of the brain becomes active in the blind when they develop their sense of touch, apparently. So technically it has more to do with spatial positioning than sight itself... At least that's one theory.
I think how their dreams are would depend on whether they were born blind or not. Somebody who became blind could surely remember what sight was, whereas perhaps somebody born blind would dream in touch and smell and balance. Remember, dreams aren't only visual phenomena. They can affect all of our senses.
I think how their dreams are would depend on whether they were born blind or not. Somebody who became blind could surely remember what sight was, whereas perhaps somebody born blind would dream in touch and smell and balance. Remember, dreams aren't only visual phenomena. They can affect all of our senses.
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
Good question. Here's my answer in as much detail as I can muster: I don't know.
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
If you have some fabric stretched taught and roll a ball over it, it'll move straight. Now, if you put a heavy weight in the center and roll the ball across near the heavy weight, the indentation caused by the weight will cause the ball to change direction.
In the frictionless vacuum of space, the ball can get 'caught' in this indentation so that it's outward angular momentum and the inward pull of gravity keep it in orbit around the object.
From what I understand, the field equations for gravity:
Are geometrical equations - but it's beyond my mathematical comprehension.
The theory of quantum mechanics emerges because we live in a universe where things are quantized. For instance, the smallest amount of energy that can be 'used' is 6.626*10^-34 J*s. Why is this the smallest amount of energy? Why can't we reduce this by half? It's like saying you can either half a pint of beer or none at all.
Nobody really knows why the universe is quantized rather than a continuum. But, the result of this is that everything is quantized, even electromagnetic fields. When you hold two magnets together, there are "packets" or photons going between them causing them to attract, because that magnetic field between them is quantized. The strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus of an atom together is done through "packets" called gluons.
The point is, everything in our universe is done through discrete quanta and not continuums. Everything has a "smallest limit". So, the quantum theory of gravity says that gravity must also be 'communicated' through quantized, discrete, "smallest limit packets" of the gravitational force - the graviton. The two biggest problems are that 1) a graviton has never been observed experimentally (they are hoping to observe one when the large hadron collider comes online) and 2) gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than the other known fundamental forces of nature, and nobody really knows why (although M-theory says that the gravitons are 'unstuck' to our P-brane, so that they interact weakly with our dimensions of reality).
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
If you have some fabric stretched taught and roll a ball over it, it'll move straight. Now, if you put a heavy weight in the center and roll the ball across near the heavy weight, the indentation caused by the weight will cause the ball to change direction.
In the frictionless vacuum of space, the ball can get 'caught' in this indentation so that it's outward angular momentum and the inward pull of gravity keep it in orbit around the object.
From what I understand, the field equations for gravity:
Are geometrical equations - but it's beyond my mathematical comprehension.
The theory of quantum mechanics emerges because we live in a universe where things are quantized. For instance, the smallest amount of energy that can be 'used' is 6.626*10^-34 J*s. Why is this the smallest amount of energy? Why can't we reduce this by half? It's like saying you can either half a pint of beer or none at all.
Nobody really knows why the universe is quantized rather than a continuum. But, the result of this is that everything is quantized, even electromagnetic fields. When you hold two magnets together, there are "packets" or photons going between them causing them to attract, because that magnetic field between them is quantized. The strong nuclear force that holds the nucleus of an atom together is done through "packets" called gluons.
The point is, everything in our universe is done through discrete quanta and not continuums. Everything has a "smallest limit". So, the quantum theory of gravity says that gravity must also be 'communicated' through quantized, discrete, "smallest limit packets" of the gravitational force - the graviton. The two biggest problems are that 1) a graviton has never been observed experimentally (they are hoping to observe one when the large hadron collider comes online) and 2) gravity is orders of magnitude weaker than the other known fundamental forces of nature, and nobody really knows why (although M-theory says that the gravitons are 'unstuck' to our P-brane, so that they interact weakly with our dimensions of reality).
1. This very nicely illustrates a mass lying on a tautly stretched fabric -- how the mass bends the fabric..
Like when I go outside and lie on my hammock.
2. I also am willing to buy off on experiments dealing with discrete "quanta" of some measurable "pint-sized" amount. Beats me other particles get to "attract" rather than push away. "Gluons"? Gimme a break. What -- do they reach out and hold on with what? Pincers? Then we are supposed to have "gravitrons" which are weaker yet? Yeah. Likely story.
3. Maybe these particles are exchanging something so one side "owes" the other side a debt. who knows? Yeah. Boson's. They'll do the trick. But how? These particles have charges and spins. I wonder how much our taxes are charged to sell us a spin like this?
Fortunately the large hadron collider promises to provide some insight. We sure need it. There are intuitives on this board who are very upset. I can vouch for that.
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
It's very presence in the fabric of spacetime causes it to distort (also, remember that the fabric of spacetime would actually be four dimensions rather than the two dimensional analogue in the taut fabric metaphor).
The problem is, what exactly is the "fabric" of spacetime? Is it a stuff that can be bent, or is it merely the relation between two objects (the purely relative formulation that Ernst Mach of sound speed fame believed in), or is it even a 'container' that all the stuff in the universe resides within?
I have my own hypotheses on this, but I won't derail this thread with that.
I believe the polarization of the particle determines whether it attracts or repels. Someone may correct me on this, but the way something is "held onto" by the particle, like a gluon, is due to it's conservation of 4-momentum. When one particle emits a photon (or gluon) the momentum of the photon causes the particle to change direction in spacetime:
It's the same principle as the Newtonian law that an action causes an equal and opposite reaction; the photon hitting the electron is similar to a ball hitting another one and causing it to move - only in spacetime, everything is always moving (even if it's only through time) hence the conservation of 4-momentum. Attraction would occur because a different polarization on the gauge boson has sort of a "negative" effect on it's 4-momentum, causing it to come closer as opposed to move away. This could be seen in the equation:
Where a positive solution shows a repulsion and a negative solution an attraction.
Vatroslav
the Void
And who does? There was this world class scientists who did some lectures in my school, an experimental physicist, and he started it by something like this:
"You know what? A true and honest scientist will firstly tell you this: we do not know a god damn thing!" And I think he is right, he is right indeed...
So, nothing to be upset about not-knowing... I think that there is a great danger for science to become entangled in dogmas, even like the catholic church in the medieval, basically the same... widely accepted hypothesis for which we are trying to find the clues. So we're going to need a new renaissance, new thought which will have to raise the science to a whole new level. I think that quantum physics is taking first steps towards that... but it'll take some time for all that to develop, probably it is all going to be all right...till then we have to think and discover and learn...
But not to passively wait and accept all the hypothesis the science has to offer- we MUST QUESTION THEM it is scientific way to question them, not trying to find the clues to make it look all right, no matter how logical it appears to be... there is much what is apparently absurd in quantum mechanics... but if it is absurd, and it happens- then absurd is the way we look at it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness_(novel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blindness_(film)
Hmm I sometimes wonder how our planet would look like to some sentient species that could see radio waves... perhaps like a psychedelic, pulsating blob of color...
BTW, great posts, AI.
Silent_Rebel
Member
Sooooooooo, I am in 8th grade. I have looked up all of the things that you people have been talking about and I loosly understand it. That might be because we do not really have a for sure answer, but is there any way that you could simplify what you are saying so I will be able to firmly grasp it in my mind? Or is it like that in everyones heads? (I hate having to say this
)
Edit: I said that I am in 8th grade to show you that I do not have any experience with this at all. In case you were wondering.
)Edit: I said that I am in 8th grade to show you that I do not have any experience with this at all. In case you were wondering.
walfin
Democrazy
To summarise:Silent_Rebel said:
Light is both a particle and a wave.
The particle is known as the photon.
The wave is known as EM waves.
Some things can only be explained by the wave nature, and some things can only be explained by the particle nature. Many things like refraction/reflection can be explained by both.
Gravity is curved spacetime. Look at AI's diagram and you can try to imagine that the "bent" fabric is not really bent but is space+time curved (you will have great difficulty visualising this and I suggest you do not try because my brain has gone into near-infinite loop before thanks to this). The curvature is caused by mass. For practical purposes you can treat it as an attraction between two objects that is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. I believe that in tests for your level 1 object usually has a much larger mass than the other, so the effect of the smaller object is negligible. Usually mechanics calculations are assumed to take place on earth so you can approximate it as a "downward" force that causes acceleration of 9.8 ms^-2 on every object.
The gravity particle is known as a graviton, and the wave is a gravitational wave. These have been indirectly shown to exist.
Just FYI, these are two of the basic forces in the universe. The other two are the Strong force and Weak force, which have to do with atomic/nuclear processes.
That's as simplified as I can make it while being as accurate as I can.
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
Maybe you can see this clearly but I sure as hell can't. There is no theoretical ground for ATTRACTION that I can see. We don't have to go all the way to quantum mechanics and the weak and strong nuclear forces or gravity to know this. Just pick up any magnet. Cut it in half. When you reverse the halves they push away. That is because they are throwing things at each other. Now reverse the halves again. The damn pieces sticks together! No way. They should just fall apart. All this is some magical parlor trick under the guise of experimental lab science. We are being hoodwinked.
I can see particles as tossing out parts of themselves either as pieces or as waves. That would give a good push. That explains repulsion. But no way they can pull on another piece of matter without pincers. So called electrical charges plus and minus are tricks. What are charges? They don't say. It's all a magic trick and we are fooled.
I can see particles as tossing out parts of themselves either as pieces or as waves. That would give a good push. That explains repulsion. But no way they can pull on another piece of matter without pincers. So called electrical charges plus and minus are tricks. What are charges? They don't say. It's all a magic trick and we are fooled.
Silent_Rebel
Member
I have yet another question. What does it mean when people say that all life is carbon based? Is all life that we know of carbon based?
Agent Intellect
Absurd Anti-hero.
Amino acids, which make up the proteins in our cells, have an alpha carbon and have carbons in the side chain:
The reason being that carbon has 4 unpaired electrons which can bond with up to 4 other elements (hydrogen obviously being a main one in organic biology, as it makes a hydrophobic fatty acid which is used in the phospholipid bilayers of our our cells).
Anthile
Steel marks flesh
- Local time
- Tomorrow 12:23 AM
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2009
- Messages
- 3,987
Although life doesn't have to be based on carbon. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
Hi Silent_Rebel. Without looking it up I think it means carbon is such a flexible atom it appears or is the main holding atom for all life. It can make the connections. Apparently it has no competitor.
Here is a question for you: are you a silent rebel? You don't want to go along with the establishment?
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
From Wiki, "Earth-based life, amino acids are almost universally of the L form and sugars are of the D form."
Not sure what that means, but if it refers analogously to left versus right or clockwise versus counter-clockwise, I wonder if that says all life has its start from the same source? It says, "almost" but what are the exceptions? That there are exceptions means what? Most evidence points to there being life on this planet. It's so nice to have that secure feeling it is carbon based.
Architectonic
Active Member
Silent_Rebel
Member
@BigApplePi
Well, I guess I just think differently, but I can not really know how everyone else is thinking, so I would not really know. I dislike heirarchy and I do not voice my opinion. I think that makes me a silent rebel. It is not really the best name for me, but I do not really think that any name really "suits" me very well.
Are you really a big apple pi?
Well, I guess I just think differently, but I can not really know how everyone else is thinking, so I would not really know. I dislike heirarchy and I do not voice my opinion. I think that makes me a silent rebel. It is not really the best name for me, but I do not really think that any name really "suits" me very well.
Are you really a big apple pi?
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
It's perfectly alright to be a rebel as long as it's not self-defeating. I asked cuz I wondered what you were thinking, lol.
All that the "BigApple" means is New York City" where I'm from. I added the pi but people think Applepi has some meaning. I can't think of any.
BigApplePi
Banned
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 8,984
AI. Good rendition of amino acids. I'd never seen them. It is my understanding that proteins are folded up in all kinds of ways and that makes them difficult to understand. Anyone who doesn't believe this, look at this: http://fold.it/portal/info/scienceAmino acids, which make up the proteins in our cells, have an alpha carbon and have carbons in the side chain:
Note: I just wanted to post the link but haven't tried the puzzles.
Silent_Rebel
Member
Okay, back to magnetism. Does anyone anywhere have some solid tested evidence about what makes these things repel and attract. It seems like we would know a little about them because we use them so much. It does not make any sense. I am starting to agree with BigApplePi. Wherever I see magnetism and gravity mentioned the book or tv program or teacher always say that these are the "base forces" or something like that. (just wanted to throw that last one in there for discussion)
fullerene
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,156
Magnets are caused by the spit of the electrons around the atoms which make up the material. A changing electric field creates a magnetic field, so really, every atom is a magnet on its own. In most materials, the electrons surrounding each atom are "pointed" in all different directions (if you're using the "electron orbits the nucleus in a circle" model, you can think of it as if the open faces of all the circles are pointing in various directions, and some electrons are orbiting clockwise, others counter-clockwise, etc. Of course they're not really orbiting in circles, but the 'real' case has similar cancellations. Over many atoms, the magnetic fields created by the moving charges cancel each other out, and the material is normal.
In the case of a magnet, all of those electrons are aligned. Instead of canceling out, the electrons move in such a way that the magnetic fields they cause add together, rather than cancelling each other out. The result is that you get some measurable magnetic field in a normal-sized object, which we call a magnet.
This is also the reason why f you have a magnet and you cut it in half, you don't get a "half-magnet". The "middle" of the magnet just becomes a North pole on one side, and a South on the other.
While this makes it seem like electricity is the "base force" behind magnetism, though, that's untrue as well. Liek a changing electric field creates a magnetic one, a changing magnetic field also creates an electric one. You can actually show how electric and magnetic forces, while they appear different, produce the same effects depending on your refernce frame... but that math gets a little rough. Electric and magnetic forces are really the same, though.
In the case of a magnet, all of those electrons are aligned. Instead of canceling out, the electrons move in such a way that the magnetic fields they cause add together, rather than cancelling each other out. The result is that you get some measurable magnetic field in a normal-sized object, which we call a magnet.
This is also the reason why f you have a magnet and you cut it in half, you don't get a "half-magnet". The "middle" of the magnet just becomes a North pole on one side, and a South on the other.
While this makes it seem like electricity is the "base force" behind magnetism, though, that's untrue as well. Liek a changing electric field creates a magnetic one, a changing magnetic field also creates an electric one. You can actually show how electric and magnetic forces, while they appear different, produce the same effects depending on your refernce frame... but that math gets a little rough. Electric and magnetic forces are really the same, though.
Silent_Rebel
Member
Wait... it is a magnet because of the way the electrons are moving? How did these electrons all get moving the same way or combine all of their magnetic energy into "one" force? Why do magnets only attract metals and only certain kinds of metals? If they are magnets because of the way the electrons are moving then couldn't we turn everything else into a magnet. Are the electrons moving in some kind of pattern?
How much of what we get taught in school about atoms is false (having to do with the "mechanics" and scale of the atom)? I know that if the nucleus is a speck of dust here than the electrons are like molecules ten miles away flying around it at the speed of light in completely random form. That is just something off the top of my head do not hold me accountable for what is wrong with it.
How much of what we get taught in school about atoms is false (having to do with the "mechanics" and scale of the atom)? I know that if the nucleus is a speck of dust here than the electrons are like molecules ten miles away flying around it at the speed of light in completely random form. That is just something off the top of my head do not hold me accountable for what is wrong with it.
Razare
Well-Known Member
Only on a true INTX forum would all these questions be answered to such a degree of accuracy.
Silent_Rebel
Member
ANOTHER QUESTION!!! and I think this one should be able to be answered quickly.
When astronauts are in space (at the space station or some other reason) why don't they feel the earth's gravity? I know they orbit, but they really aren't that far from earth. Do they have to have a large mass (moon) to be pulled to earth from that distance?
When astronauts are in space (at the space station or some other reason) why don't they feel the earth's gravity? I know they orbit, but they really aren't that far from earth. Do they have to have a large mass (moon) to be pulled to earth from that distance?
Vrecknidj
Prolific Member
The farther apart two things are, the weaker is the pull of gravity between them. Astronauts are a lot farther away than you are.
Dave
Dave
Vrecknidj
Prolific Member
One of the reasons that mass bends space is that space isn't nothing.
Oh, and as far as "seeing" this stuff in your head -- forget about it. Once physics gets us to invariants, we end up in that goofy area where mathematicians tell physicists that physics is "just applied math," and the explanations are often non-visualize-able (Einstein's word, actually). I can give some examples of non-visualize-able invariants (such as that the ratio of differences of temperatures survives the transformation from any measuring system to any other), but those details get boring for some.
Dave
Oh, and as far as "seeing" this stuff in your head -- forget about it. Once physics gets us to invariants, we end up in that goofy area where mathematicians tell physicists that physics is "just applied math," and the explanations are often non-visualize-able (Einstein's word, actually). I can give some examples of non-visualize-able invariants (such as that the ratio of differences of temperatures survives the transformation from any measuring system to any other), but those details get boring for some.
Dave
SpaceYeti
Prolific Member
That's actually the fault of the orbit itself. They're traveling horizontally at the same rate the Earth's gravity is pulling them down. They're not weightless, they're perpetually free-falling.
Why are you asking these questions, anyhow? Isn't Google faster? Or are you just quizzing us?
Razare
Well-Known Member
The picture in his profile hurts my eyes.
I think that would win the contest for the most subtly disturbing avatar, no matter where you look it changes, and you look somewhere else and changes again.... O.O I can't take it.
Also, I think you INTP's are giving better answers than you'd find on Google. Though, Wikipedia is pretty good too. Maybe he's having you do his homework.
I think that would win the contest for the most subtly disturbing avatar, no matter where you look it changes, and you look somewhere else and changes again.... O.O I can't take it.
Also, I think you INTP's are giving better answers than you'd find on Google. Though, Wikipedia is pretty good too. Maybe he's having you do his homework.
Silent_Rebel
Member
I am asking the questions for razare's reason. You give more accurate answers that are more easily understood than those on wikipedia or other such sites (especially for my earlier questions).
fullerene
Prolific Member
- Local time
- Today 6:23 PM
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2008
- Messages
- 2,156
*nods*... what vredk said doesn't have much to do with it. Astronauts are far away, so the pull of gravity is less, but like you said, they're still closer than the moon. All objects fall at the same rate (sans wind resistance, which of course doesn't exist much out in space), so you can rule out the possibility that the mass of the astronaut/moon has anything to do with how much falling they do.
Yeti was right, though. Astronauts are in orbit, which essentially means that they're moving sideways fast enough that, though they're always falling, they never hit the ground. When in free-fall, you feel (and act physically, when you push off of things and such) weightless.
I wouldn't rely on google either, to be honest. There are a lot of nonsensical answers to things out there, and unless you kinda know what's going on, it'd be very tough to tell them apart. Even textbooks have silly explanations sometimes. Best to ask people you know and trust more, imo. Plus I like it because it's extremely hard to tell if you understand something until you try to explain it to someone and hear their objections.
Sorry: I missed your post before, as well. Sadly, I don't know those answers. If I had to guess, magnets attract all conductors (materials whose electrons are only loosely bound to their atoms, so they have some fluid-like ability to move throughout the material, from atom to atom), and that things like plastics and wood and such are much less so, but I'm not sure about that. I would also guess that things like wood and plastic are somewhat attracted to magnets, but not strongly enough to actually lift the entire object (and therefore be seen by people in daily life). That's mostly guesswork, though.
As for how much of what you learn about an atom is lies: nearly all of it. electrons don't orbit in circles--or even spheres. There are several variously shaped domains that an electron is kind of confined to, and a sphere is only the simplest one. The picture at the top of http://www.chemcomp.com/journal/molorbs.htm shows how they "really" look (it shows a bunch of small pictures, so just look at one of htem for now). What you're looking at, though, is not a path that the elctron follows (which is why they're actually colored shapes/volumes, rather than lines), because electrons don't follow paths. Instead, if you go looking for the electron, you're only going to find it within one of those areas, and it's more likely to be found in parts of those volumes than it is in others.
The reason there are several different pictures is that not all electrons are found in the same locations. Depending on the "state" of the atom (which can be changed by doing things like heating it, pumping electricity through it, etc), the electron's location may fit different ones of those pictures. Likewise, if an atom has multiple electrons, some will be found within that sphere, others in that ring-like-thing, etc. The electrons basically form a sort of "cloud" around the nucleus of the atom, so that rings/paths model is almost entirely false. What is true is that the majority of the atom is, in fact, empty space, and the electron cloud is huge compared to the nucleus. The ring model was just the first semi-reasonable theory that anyone came up with... but nobody actually believes it anymore.
Yeti was right, though. Astronauts are in orbit, which essentially means that they're moving sideways fast enough that, though they're always falling, they never hit the ground. When in free-fall, you feel (and act physically, when you push off of things and such) weightless.
I wouldn't rely on google either, to be honest. There are a lot of nonsensical answers to things out there, and unless you kinda know what's going on, it'd be very tough to tell them apart. Even textbooks have silly explanations sometimes. Best to ask people you know and trust more, imo. Plus I like it because it's extremely hard to tell if you understand something until you try to explain it to someone and hear their objections.
Sorry: I missed your post before, as well. Sadly, I don't know those answers. If I had to guess, magnets attract all conductors (materials whose electrons are only loosely bound to their atoms, so they have some fluid-like ability to move throughout the material, from atom to atom), and that things like plastics and wood and such are much less so, but I'm not sure about that. I would also guess that things like wood and plastic are somewhat attracted to magnets, but not strongly enough to actually lift the entire object (and therefore be seen by people in daily life). That's mostly guesswork, though.
As for how much of what you learn about an atom is lies: nearly all of it. electrons don't orbit in circles--or even spheres. There are several variously shaped domains that an electron is kind of confined to, and a sphere is only the simplest one. The picture at the top of http://www.chemcomp.com/journal/molorbs.htm shows how they "really" look (it shows a bunch of small pictures, so just look at one of htem for now). What you're looking at, though, is not a path that the elctron follows (which is why they're actually colored shapes/volumes, rather than lines), because electrons don't follow paths. Instead, if you go looking for the electron, you're only going to find it within one of those areas, and it's more likely to be found in parts of those volumes than it is in others.
The reason there are several different pictures is that not all electrons are found in the same locations. Depending on the "state" of the atom (which can be changed by doing things like heating it, pumping electricity through it, etc), the electron's location may fit different ones of those pictures. Likewise, if an atom has multiple electrons, some will be found within that sphere, others in that ring-like-thing, etc. The electrons basically form a sort of "cloud" around the nucleus of the atom, so that rings/paths model is almost entirely false. What is true is that the majority of the atom is, in fact, empty space, and the electron cloud is huge compared to the nucleus. The ring model was just the first semi-reasonable theory that anyone came up with... but nobody actually believes it anymore.