Jack L Jack, you really need to think about what is happening here. You do not know or understand atoms. If you did you would not ask an open question to a general audience. It also follows that you are not capable of assessing the reliability of any answers you might receive. My answer was from memory of superficial knowledge only and one of Philip's posts contained comments you should ponder. If you use this information to illustrate a creationist book on geology, then it will in all probability at some time in the future be quoted or cited as irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence of the falsity of mainstream science knowledge. I think you must be able to see that this is true. Given that you can, and having an inside knowledge of how such 'irrefutable and incontrovertible evidence' comes into existence, just what confidence can you then place in the existing creationist reference material? And will you be including caveats concerning the reliability of the data you will be presenting together with the manner in which those data were obtained? It wasn't that I meant to insult you, but I rather thought that you might have gained a somewhat different meaning from my post -- at least as regards the last point. Paul D ----- Original Message ---- From: Jack Lewis <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, 7 February, 2008 10:48:50 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons Thanks for the info Paul it was really appreciated. I realise nobody has ever seen one but I have to observe current convention and illustrate what has been asked for. Incidentally the illustration is one of a total 69 that I'm doing for a new creationist book about geology. Some scientists have lied but most postulate or theorize when they don't know the answer. Is this a technical way to cover-up a lie? I suppose the difference is between knowing the theory is wrong because the alternative is unthinkable and believing the theory to be right in spite of the unthinkable. Jack Paul Deema wrote: 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 Get the name you always wanted with the new y7mail email address. www.yahoo7.com.au/y7mail