[geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons

I forgot a few comments in my previous long reply to this thread.

philip madsen wrote:
Paul I could be wrong but I thought the electron microscope had proved the general outline of atoms many years back.
Conventional (or light) microscopes, nor electron microscopes, ca
resolve atoms. Various scanning probe microscopes (including the
scanning tunneling microscope) can.
On rereading the post I hope you picked up my mistake, "I thought neutrons were a combined proton and neutron. always in the nucleus, having the major weight of the proton of course. " I should have said combined "proton and electron"
Well caught!
It is, however, a rather imprecise statement on the beta-decay
which proceeds as follows:
     neutron -> proton + electron + anti(electron neutrino)
i.e., a neutron can decay into a proton, an electron and an
anti electron-neutrino. Saying that the neutrino consists of
all these particles is not correct. The decay is mediated by
the fourth fundamental force of nature: "the weak nuclear
force", and a free neutron decays through that process with
a half-life of 15 minuttes. In the early days of nuclear
physics the electrons from radio-active decays were called
beta-particles - hence the name "beta-decay".

      Regner

And my , "Oh they have been seen Paul" was bad text.. My mind was on electron beams and electron space clouds around heated cathodes. I should have written seen with the marks as in "seen" ... We can count them as they hit an anode. Seen as in with the intellect rather than the eyes.. I have never said all science is faked so your sarcasm flies over the top of my head. I have never pretended to understand DNA printing, but the application is evidence of its truth. I apply the same reasoning to "seeing electrons" even without the microscope. "One day I'll take a section of the Bible and rewrite it in the manner you (and others) suggest that science should be reported." Best of luck. The Bible was written by God, and only God can interpret it as he quite clearly says in it, "my ways are not your ways" . I know that *I *could never claim to have the Holy Spirit of God in me to be able to difinitively write it for ordinary human comprehension. I can have many a good guess, but so can everybody and anybody. Pilate saith to him: What is truth? and he in advance answered him,

"Every one that is *of the truth* heareth my voice. " Notice the exclusion clause.. Philip.
    ----- Original Message -----
    *From:* Paul Deema <mailto:paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
    *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    *Sent:* Saturday, February 09, 2008 11:20 PM
    *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons

    Philip M

    Well I once saw a 'photo' of the shadow of an atom but a search
    produced only 348,000 hits (almost none today!) and only the first
    seemed to be relevant
- http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1978-10/1978-10-12-NBC-20.html and it contains no details. I have no other recollection of this
    event. (I didn't check past the first page). But then photos
    aren't proof are they? All those photos from the Moon's surface,
    from the surface of Mars etc -- they're all fakes aren't they? Why
    would you place more credence in a single report of the
    photographing of an atom? And have you actually seen and
    critically examined it?
I agree there are a number of models over which there is debate. Don't tell me you took my last comment at face value Philip. There
    were no smilies or strings of exclamation marks I know but gee ...
    Now this 'theory stated as fact' thing. One day I'll take a
    section of the Bible and rewrite it in the manner you (and others)
    suggest that science should be reported.
Paul D


    ----- Original Message ----
    From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
    Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 11:24:09 PM
    Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons

    
    But why bother? It's all the work of those lying scientists and no
    one has ever seen one, so they probably don't exist anyway.
    Paul D
Oh they have been seen Paul.. Its just the modelling thats
    debateable. And once again thats ok, so long as theory is not
    talked of as fact. You all wriggle around that one..  There is no
    such thing as "almost a fact".. It is or it isn/t
I thought neutrons were a combined proton and neutron. always in
    the nucleus, having the major weight of the proton of course. Some
    atoms have neutrons, not necessarily isotopes..  from memory. But
    now of course we hear of quarks, and a neutron becomes something
else, on the unending path of changing hypothesis.. Not necessarily liars Paul, but dreamers raised on Startrek. They
    won't believe in God, but anything else is fine...
Phil

        ----- Original Message -----
        *From:* Paul Deema <mailto:paul_deema@xxxxxxxxxxx>
        *To:* geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        <mailto:geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
        *Sent:* Friday, February 08, 2008 3:28 AM
        *Subject:* [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons

        Jack L
        The number of electrons equals the number of protons (unless
        it's ionised).
        The number of neutrons depends upon whether it's an isotope
        (and which isotope).
        The number of electron orbits depends upon which element
        you're talking about (and from memory, something to do with
        energy levels such as in hydrogen where there is only one
        electron but in one of two orbits). The number of electrons in
        each orbit depends upon which element you're talking about and
        on the maximum number which can fit in that orbit.
        You could do worse than go to
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom and do a quick self-help
        exercise. (If that's not enough detail, the article has 119
        references plus many embedded links).
        But why bother? It's all the work of those lying scientists
        and no one has ever seen one, so they probably don't exist anyway.
        Paul D


        ----- Original Message ----
        From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
        To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
        Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 2:34:52 PM
        Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons

        I also forgot to ask if there is any relationship between the
        number of protons, the number neutrons and the number of
        electrons?


        Jack Lewis wrote:
        Dear All,
        I'm doing an illustration of an atom and I would like to know
        if the electrons all orbit the nucleus at the same distance
        or do they have different orbits?

        Jack


        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email
        address
        <http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail/?p1=ni&p2=general&p3=tagline&p4=other>.


        No virus found in this incoming message.
        Checked by AVG Free Edition.
        Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.20/1262 - Release
        Date: 6/02/2008 9:13 AM



    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address
    <http://au.yahoo.com/y7mail/?p1=ni&p2=general&p3=tagline&p4=other>.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No virus found in this incoming message.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.0/1268 - Release Date:
    9/02/2008 11:54 AM


Other related posts: