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
