It's not Improperable but Properable. We could even be really tiny, maybe microscopic in a much larger world.
This video will blow your mind about the Universe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ptdbNUtpx4
2007-10-01 18:28:29 · 10 answers · asked by James the Just 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
I'm really tired of people harassing questioners about their spelling. They come to this site to ask a question and hopefully get a serious answer, not to get harassed by so-called experts who can't look passed something as shallow as grammar mistakes. Can we just stick to helping others understand the material better?
In response to the question, no. And I say no only because of how we define an 'atom'. By definition and atom is very tiny, relative to us, and that is the key aspect. The universe could very well be a smaller piece to an even larger structure (sounds like something from the twilight zone!). But if that is the case, we wouldn't label it an 'atom' because of how we defined it. Of course, ridiculously large creatures, relative to us, could call such a structure 'atomic' in size if they are truly that large.
I hope this helps!
2007-10-01 19:07:44 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're missing one important difference between an atom and our Universe
the little bits that go round in atoms (Electrons) exist in a kind of fuzzy cloud called electron shells, and each one has it's own energy level .. in our Universe the greatest majority of matter is planar and can and does move through, across and within other spheres and there influences, so factually they differ in their 'intermixing' abilities
However it is an interesting theory
2007-10-01 19:23:13 · answer #2 · answered by The old man 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
im not sure what you are getting at but size is relative. when you say one tiny atom I assume you mean the size of one. Well it may well seem that small to someone in a universe where our universe is the equivalent of an atom.
Think about a small bug, it seems impossible to understand its perception of how "big" we are let alone the universe is.
There is one founding piece of information on size that is important that we still have not qualified, that is what is the SMALLEST amount of matter.
Again though I am not sure if you are actually asking anything.
2007-10-01 18:45:07 · answer #3 · answered by delprofundo 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I disagree with Patrick. Granted minor issues of spelling are inconsequential, but making an utter hash out of the English language because you are too lazy to construct and proof read a sentence, is annoying and rude. Spelling can be easily corrected with the "check spelling" feature. Do you think an answer written in such gibberish would be appreciated?
2007-10-02 05:25:09 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
"scientists contemplate whether a black hollow is a gateway to a distinctive international" No, they do no longer ... properly technological awareness FICTION authors, HOLLYWOOD (and a few strategies ineffective 'newshounds' who prefer to jot down memories for the comics (aka newspapers) would think of so, yet 'scientists' do no longer FYI - some 'off the wall' theories pronounced by ability of a few unfastened thinking 'out of the container' scientists must be 'interpreted' as suggesting the existence of 'commerce universes' and such universes would particularly have 'white holes' wherein case you ought to indicate the means emitted from those postulated white holes in those postulated determination universes would come from black holes in different postulated universes .. ... yet for valuable no longer ours, because of the fact, wager what ... the concern falling into black holes in our universe remains right here (all of us know, we are in a position to degree its gravity)
2016-10-05 23:00:47 · answer #5 · answered by pantano 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Didn't you just LOVE that intro to "The Simpsons" when they pan out off the Earth, out of the Solar System, the Milky Way, farther and farther until all the Universe is just an atom in a molecule in one of Homer's hairs?
That's deep.
2007-10-01 19:14:52 · answer #6 · answered by Faesson 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
You'd come off a -lot- better if you'd learn to actually use the English language instead of just hacking at it.
Doug
2007-10-01 18:42:32 · answer #7 · answered by doug_donaghue 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This matter is raised twice a day, and is more suited to the philosophy section.
2007-10-01 18:49:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Please do the world a favor and don't attempt to get your science information from youtube.com.
2007-10-01 20:51:55 · answer #9 · answered by Troasa 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What if C-A-T really spelled dog?
2007-10-01 23:23:57 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋