Nuclear Power Exaggerated

Washington owns the world

Almost, but not quite.

They know all

That is where I beg to differ.

and rule all

Again.  Almost, but not quite.

I was being sarcastic lol.


(they're out to get me I'm sure...*twitch*)

Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.

Matter is composed of elements.  I would think we would at least agree on that.

I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.

Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements? Atoms can be proven and observed.

Grrr.  Okay, this computre has bombd out twice in a row after I have written a reply before saving it.
My apologies, but you will have to wait until tomorrow for a reply as I am not typing it again right now.

Things are not built of atoms as atoms are merely a false theory.

Matter is composed of elements.  I would think we would at least agree on that.

I am not an authority on chemistry either, but I have looked into enough to know who my authorities would be if I ever wanted to dig deeper.

But thats wrong.  Atoms aren't a theory.  There are theories as to what they look like, like the Bohr model.  But none of them doubt they exist.  Like I said we can no see atoms using technology that they didn't even have 25 years ago.  We can see the atom.

But thats wrong.  Atoms aren't a theory.

But that's wrong.  Atoms are only a theory - and a false one at that.  You are close minded and ignorant of scientific history.

But none of them doubt they exist.

Your lie ignores twentieth century chemist Pierre Duhem.

Like I said we can no see atoms using technology that they didn't even have 25 years ago.  We can see the atom.

One of the things I was going to post above yesterday was an anticipation of precisely this lie.  The assertion that men can see an atom is an outright lie.  It is merely an assertion based on a faith in technology.  Nothing more.  Evidence?

Per definition elements are composed of only one kind of atom. Ever looked at the table of elements?

Of course I have seen a modern atomic table of the elements as you are obviously referring to an atomic table of elements and wrongly assuming that modern atomic oriented concoction is the only way elements are viewed because that is what you have been taught.Most scientists in ancient times, the middle ages, and renaissance did not believe in atoms and yet many had deep knowledge of elements and made use of them in chemistry.  Atomism which was the ancient minority view of Leuccipus and Democritus was revived principally through Galileo and many scientists in the 1700's and 1800's did not believe in atoms and hardly defined elements the way that you do.  And at least one major scientist - Pierre Duhem - rejected atoms well into the twentieth century. 

Elements are not composed of atoms and the definition above is wrong.

Lactantius, teacher at the court of Constantine the Great and tutor of the Emperor's son, exposed the ridiculousness of atomism back in the fourth century AD.  Having been introduced into the Hellenic world by Leuccipus and Democritus the poisonous philosophy spread to its greatest extent in the ancient West under the aegis of Epicureanism, which is apparently an appropriate epithet for Galileo.

In his 'Divine Institutes' Lactantius wrote "For where or from whence are these atoms? Why did no one dream of them besides Leucippus only? from whom Democritus, having received instructions, left to Epicurus the inheritance of his folly. And if these are minute bodies, and indeed solid, as they say, they certainly are able to fall under the notice of the eyes. If the nature of all things is the same, how is it that they compose various objects? They meet together, he says, in varied order and position as the letters which, though few in number, by variety of arrangement make up innumerable words. But it is urged the letters have a variety of forms."
http://www.epicurus.net/en/lactantius.html

'The Case Against the Nuclear Atom' by Dewey Larson
http://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/index.htm

The second half of Stanley Jaki's biography of Pierre Duhem is composed of English translations of some of his works.
http://pirate.shu.edu/~jakistan/JakisBooks/PierreDuhem.htm

Pierre Duhem Webpage
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Duhem.html

Ok. So a Frenchman decided he did not believe in the atom. Fair enough since it had not been observed yet.

How can you explain that scientists have managed to predict the properties of atoms near the end of the table of elements? They have made new and synthetic elements in laboratories for decades.


The above is an image of an atomic structure. This has been accomplished through the use of an electron microscope, taken from many angles with prolonged exposure.

The above is an image of an atomic structure.

I say it looks more like your brain on drugs.

Quote from: Matrixfart

The above is an image of an atomic structure.

I say it looks more like your brain on drugs.

Is it really so hard for you to believe that atoms exist? And that atoms are made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons with shells of electrons around them? And that they in turn are made up of quarks of varying kinds? What makes you so sure they do not exist. What do you have which can counter the proof of several decades of observation?

I do not have to counter several decades of observation.  Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.

  You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically.  It is like believing in the rapture.  As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.

I do not have to counter several decades of observation.  Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.

  You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically.  It is like believing in the rapture.  As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.

No. No. What you believe in is what is fantical and cultic in nature. I base my opinions on observed fact. Observed by countless scientists again and again at independent laboratories all across the world. You base your opinion on the belief of one chemist from a time before electron microscopes, and cling to that belief fanatically. I am open to new ideas, but you are not able to show me any proof on the contrary.

I do not have to counter several decades of observation.  Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.

  You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically.  It is like believing in the rapture.  As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.

You just observed atoms.  The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't worry.  You will get used to it November.

I do not have to counter several decades of observation.  Notwithstanding propaganda to the contrary, atoms have simply not been observed.

  You should ask yourself why it is so difficult to dispell this cultic belief which you cling to religiously and fanatically.  It is like believing in the rapture.  As a matter of fact, Edward Irving and John Darby's rapture cult outdates the cult of Lord Rutherford's nuclear atom.

I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.

I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.

Well you guess wrong, guy.  That makes you 0 for 1 so far.

Anyway, the definition of an atom is:
A HYPOTHETICAL PARTICLE OF MATTER SO MINUTE AS TO ADMIT OF NO DIVISION.

This is the old definition of atom.  If you try to insert a new definition then you would have changed what we are talking about in an attempt to make your theory somehow feasible, and we would not be talking about the same thing.

The photographs above obviously display something composed of smaller things (is it even something small for all you know or are you going by faith?).  There is light shning on only one side of the blue domes indicating that they are big enough to be divisible as they have at least two halves.  THE OBJECTS IN YOUR POSTED PHOTOGRAPHS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT INDIVISIBLY SMALL AND FAIL TO QUALIFY AS ATOMS BY DEFINITION.  (That being said, for all we know the objects displayed are half-used morning pill packets.)  I find you very gullible to believe that a so-called electron microscope or any kind of microscope can discern an indivisibly small object.  It could not do this even if such objects existed. 

You believe you see atoms in such photographs because you prejudicely interpret the photographs that way.

You just observed atoms.  The truth hurts doesn't it? Don't worry.  You will get used to it November.

You just stated a lie.  It hurts to be called out when you have lied doesn't it?  Your interpretation of the pictures is like being given a photograph of a Full Moon and saying a flashlight is depicted.

By the way, my name is not November.  If you had been around this forum long enough you would at least not be in the dark about that.

I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.

You aren't Navy by any chance are you?

Quote from: Geordi la Forge

I guess you never heard of an electron microscope.

Well you guess wrong, guy.  That makes you 0 for 1 so far.

Anyway, the definition of an atom is:
A HYPOTHETICAL PARTICLE OF MATTER SO MINUTE AS TO ADMIT OF NO DIVISION.

Ok, now read next line.

This is the old definition of atom.  If you try to insert a new definition then you would have changed what we are talking about in an attempt to make your theory somehow feasible, and we would not be talking about the same thing.

So you talk about the old definition, and then say the new one doesn't work?  The atom has been proven.  Go do any reaction.  It really is the smallest partial you can have and still have an element. 

The photographs above obviously display something composed of smaller things (is it even something small for all you know or are you going by faith?).  There is light shning on only one side of the blue domes indicating that they are big enough to be divisible as they have at least two halves.  THE OBJECTS IN YOUR POSTED PHOTOGRAPHS ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT INDIVISIBLY SMALL AND FAIL TO QUALIFY AS ATOMS BY DEFINITION.  (That being said, for all we know the objects displayed are half-used morning pill packets.)  I find you very gullible to believe that a so-called electron microscope or any kind of microscope can discern an indivisibly small object.  It could not do this even if such objects existed. 

So a shadow means its to big?  Thats weird. Since photons are so big and all.  Look up how those STM work.  They are used every day.  There are more pictures then that.  In fact on the cover of my physics book it has a picture like it.   

You believe you see atoms in such photographs because you prejudicely interpret the photographs that way.

No because all of science interps it that way.  Saying the atom doesn't exist is going against all modern chemistry and physics.  You are going to need more proof then your opinion.  Maybe you should read up on new technology and ditch those books from the 1800's.     

You just stated a lie.  It hurts to be called out when you have lied doesn't it?  Your interpretation of the pictures is like being given a photograph of a Full Moon and saying a flashlight is depicted.

There is no lie involved.  You are just a little behind times.  Kinda like this whole site.

atom:
(physics and chemistry) the smallest component of an element having the chemical properties of the element.

An atom is not the smallest object there is. The smallest we know of today is a quark, but even that may change.

This guy is by far the world's dumbest troll.

He believes we never went to the moon (dumb).

He believes that atomic bomb does not exist (dumb).

He also believes that ATOMS themselves do not exist (equally as dumb).

So tell me...where did we go with that rocket? Did it just fly up and sit there in space and come back down? Did the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima just...not explode?

Also, what are we made of? Are we made of rice pudding, or butterscotch flavored taffy? Please, explain.

I believe he said that they were just regular bombs that were extremely powerful, that any bomb creates a mushroom cloud.

Also, what are we made of? Are we made of rice pudding, or butterscotch flavored taffy? Please, explain.

All matter is made of Chocolate Pudding. The Pudding God told me so.

Mmmmm...Pudding

Mmmmm...Pudding

Eating Chocolate Pudding pleases the Pudding God.

Don't eat Vanilla Pudding though. It is a one way ticket to hell.

The Pudding God is wise and fair.

The Pudding God is wise and fair.

Of course he is. I would expect nothing less from the only true god.

As to the atoms being the smallest particle there is, allow me to clarify:  *ahem*

The Standard Model of physics explains that the fundamental particles of matter are the electron, the up quark and the down quark.  Triplets of quarks bind together to form protons and neutrons.  The standard model also describes forces: 1-electromagnetism, 2-the weak force (which is involved in the formation of the chemical elements) and 3-the strong force (which holds together protons and neutrons). These forces are mediated by force particles; photons for electromagnetism, bosons for the weak force, and gluons for the strong force.  For gravity, gravitons are postulated. 

Quote from: Kasroa on March 27, 2007, 10:09:21 AM

Mmmmm...Pudding

Eating Chocolate Pudding pleases the Pudding God.

Don't eat Vanilla Pudding though. It is a one way ticket to hell.

I always knew my friend was a sinner.

japs and their lies
shit they had it comin anyhow

Oh my god your an idiot. You just wasted your time discussing Atomic Bombs not nuclear. They are to diffirent things idiot.

This is entertaining to me. A lot.