[geocentrism] Re: Atoms & Electrons
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2008 08:10:02 +1000
Paul I could be wrong but I thought the electron microscope had proved the
general outline of atoms many years back.
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"
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
To: 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
To: 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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
