TenQ:

Khai!
You fall my hands seriously.
Complete irredeemable ignorance.

Electrons can be seen?

I guess you received a Nobel prize for inventing techniques for seeing an electron.

What colour is an electron?
Is it transparent or translucent?
Is is spherical or egg shaped?
Does an electron have a smooth or rough surface?
Is the electron hollow or filled?

You should have checked before spewing your ignorance everywhere!

Thicker than brick

Still doesn’t get it

Workch:
Thicker than brick

Still doesn’t get it

Workch:
Religious Illiterate doesn’t even know that electron can be seen and even split into half.

Product of special center

You live in 21century but your brain is stuck in Bronze Age

SMH!!

TenQ:

Really!!!!!?

You then shouldn't have found it difficult answering the simple questions rather than EXPOSING your gross ILLITERACY about scientific knowledge.
What colour is an electron?
Is it transparent or translucent?
Is is spherical or egg shaped?
Does an electron have a smooth or rough surface?
Is the electron hollow or filled?

I am sure you have some pictures somewhere as google is your friend!

This one is living under a rock.
Are we still discussing the visibility of electrons?

TenQ:


SMH!!

See what dogmatism has done to you. Lol

You are stuck in Stone Age

TenQ:


SMH!!

Religion makes you an abject Mumu

TenQ, even the basic information present on google is hard for you to research. You are finished I swear. Religion has destroyed you.

You are a shame to humanity, I will be ashamed of having child like you if I were your father

Total waste of education and resources

PARADIZEPRIEST:
AIR!AIR! YOU CANT SEE AIR WITH YA EYES BUT AIR FUELS YOUR LIFE. THAT IS HOW GOD IS INVISIBLE.
IF YOU DONT BELIEVE THIS REALITY,THEN YOU ARE DENYING YOU OWN EXISTENCE,AND YOU A DECEIVING YOUR LIFE.Q.E.D

you can see air with your eyes sir with the appropriate technique.

Why are Christians so ignorant?

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

I doubt there are any strong scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity. Most of those in current circulation are nowhere near as persuasive as New Atheism imagines. ~Dr John Dickson is an author and historian

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

[quote author=Workch post=106306324]What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

[/quote


Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact.

Robert Jastrow

Nothingserious:



I doubt there are any strong scientific, philosophical or historical arguments against Christianity. Most of those in current circulation are nowhere near as persuasive as New Atheism imagines. ~Dr John Dickson is an author and historian

Evolution is against Christians story.
Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution, what are you waiting for?

Geology says Noah’s ark didn’t happen.
Medicine says Jesus birth cannot happen.

N/B: if you ask me any strawman questions, I will resort to trolling but if you want to discusss like someone with brain, then be my guest.

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

There is a strange ring of feeling and emotion in these reactions [of scientists to evidence that the universe had a sudden beginning]. They come from the heart whereas you would expect the judgments to come from the brain. Why? I think part of the answer is that scientists cannot bear the thought of a natural phenomenon which cannot be explained, even with unlimited time and money. There is a kind of religion in science; it is the religion of a person who believes there is order and harmony in the Universe. Every event can be explained in a rational way as the product of some previous event; every effect must have its cause, there is no First Cause. … This religious faith of the scientist is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized.

Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom

Nothingserious:



For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.

Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

You can have your faith and be a scientist, that’s your business but you cannot invent anything with your faith in science because faith and beliefs don’t wrk in science

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

Far from disproving the existence of God, astronomers may be finding more circumstantial evidence that God exists.

Robert Jastrow

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom

Nothingserious:



Far from disproving the existence of God, astronomers may be finding more circumstantial evidence that God exists.

Robert Jastrow

It hasn’t been proving, it cannot be disproved.

Only something that has been proven can be disproved, god hasn’t been proven

Nothingserious:



Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the Biblical view of the origin of the world. The details differ, but the essential elements in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis are the same: the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy.

Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom

Show me the astronomical evidence that supports the Bible?
Just one

Workch:
What would it take for Christians to believe that Zeus and Flying Spaghetti Monster exist?

-I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.- Stephen Roberts

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated.

Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

~Richard Lewontin

Workch:
Evolution is against Christians story.
Even the Catholic Church now accepts evolution, what are you waiting for?

Geology says Noah’s ark didn’t happen.
Medicine says Jesus birth cannot happen.

N/B: if you ask me any strawman questions, I will resort to trolling but if you want to discusss like someone with brain, then be my guest.

You are finally regaining your senses. I am happy you knew all along that you had no monopoly of madness and ridiculousness.

Christians have no problems with microevolution. Macroevolution is what people like you have no empirical explanations for and want to force it on everyone as science when we know it is mere philosophy as Darwinism.

There is no science yet that has anything to say about miracles and supernatural events including the immaculate birth of Jesus Christ. Medicine didn’t say anything. Rather you said something because you think medicine can explain all reality you know. It cannot. It doesn’t have the tools to investigate miracles including the immaculate birth. Medicine can only say “ we do not know based on the facts available to us”.

Stop saying what medicine has not said.

Nothingserious:


You are finally regaining your senses. I am happy you knew all along that you had no monopoly of madness and ridiculousness.

Christians have no problems with microevolution. Macroevolution is what people like you have no empirical explanations for and want to force it on everyone as science when we know it is mere philosophy as Darwinism.

There is no science yet that has anything to say about miracles and supernatural events including the immaculate birth of Jesus Christ. Medicine didn’t say anything. Rather you said something because you think medicine can explain all reality you know. It cannot. It doesn’t have the tools to investigate miracles including the immaculate birth. Medicine can only say “ we do not know based on the facts available to us”.

Stop saying what medicine has not said.

Explain microevolution to me?

Nothingserious, please kindly explain microevolution to me.

What most people are expecting from God is to perform some supernatural experiments!

But according to His word (Bible) it never worked out positive results in the case of unbelievers like Pharaoh!

Moses threw his rod and it turned into a big snake only for false gods to support their agents in doing exactly the same thing so the purpose was lost and Pharaoh remained adamant until he lost his first son!

So JEHOVAH the true God has vowed never to use supernatural signs as evidence of His mightiness {Matthew 12:39; 16:4} only a careful observation of the force permeating the gathering of worshipers making imperfect humans exhibit the PERFECT qualities of God as a group {Galatians 5:22-23} will serve as evidence of the presence of the true God in their midst! Matthew 7:16-18

Workch:
See what dogmatism has done to you. Lol

You are stuck in Stone Age

Thank you for the hard lecture. I just read the 2018 paper ( an interesting and informative read)

1. About SEEING:
An optical microscope cannot resolve (visual) features smaller than about 200 nanometers (due to the Rayliegh criterion), and for comparison, a carbon atom has a diameter of 0.34 nanometers (van der Waals' value). None of these values are actually closer to the 'size' of an electron, and hence, one cannot 'see' an electron (or for that matter, any subatomic particle).

However, techniques such as Scanning Probe Microscopies can resolve atomic scale features (0.1 Angstroms is the finest), but they produce surface topographies by giving a map of different features (such as electronic charge distribution for a scanning tunnelling microscope) than actual visual data, that we refer to as 'seeing' macroscopically.

So, one cannot 'see' subatomic particles (in the literal sense of the word) such as electrons, protons, etc.
2. About Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciples:
We can never see the subatomic particles directly, but can only infer from observation of such indirect effects like tracks.
If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.
3. Use of Advanced Algorithms and Computational Techniques:
It is a demonstration of the power of advanced algorithms and computation in breaking and surpassing physical limitations of microscopes.

In simple terms, the use of attosecond pulses works by taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, it’s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light.

A kind of stroboscope enables ‘freezing’ the periodic movement of the electrons. You then take several pictures pictures when the electrons is at the same position and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion.

Hence, yes I agree with you that the electron can be seen however not in the conventional sense of seeing.

I should have used a different question.
As per Electrons:
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. However, it predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into [i]three quasiparticles: a `holon' carrying the electron's charge, a `spinon' carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism) and an `orbiton' carrying its orbital location.
Hence the classification of electron as a fundamental particle is thus blurred.[/i]

Thank you for helping to stretch out my information base.

A fool is one whose cup of knowledge is already full!

TenQ:

Thank you for the hard lecture. I just read the 2018 paper ( an interesting and informative read)

1. About SEEING:
An optical microscope cannot resolve (visual) features smaller than about 200 nanometers (due to the Rayliegh criterion), and for comparison, a carbon atom has a diameter of 0.34 nanometers (van der Waals' value). None of these values are actually closer to the 'size' of an electron, and hence, one cannot 'see' an electron (or for that matter, any subatomic particle).

However, techniques such as Scanning Probe Microscopies can resolve atomic scale features (0.1 Angstroms is the finest), but they produce surface topographies by giving a map of different features (such as electronic charge distribution for a scanning tunnelling microscope) than actual visual data, that we refer to as 'seeing' macroscopically.

So, one cannot 'see' subatomic particles (in the literal sense of the word) such as electrons, protons, etc.
2. About Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciples:
We can never see the subatomic particles directly, but can only infer from observation of such indirect effects like tracks.
If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.
3. Use of Advanced Algorithms and Computational Techniques:
It is a demonstration of the power of advanced algorithms and computation in breaking and surpassing physical limitations of microscopes.

In simple terms, the use of attosecond pulses works by taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, it’s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light.

A kind of stroboscope enables ‘freezing’ the periodic movement of the electrons. You then take several pictures pictures when the electrons is at the same position and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion.

Hence, yes I agree with you that the electron can be seen however not in the conventional sense of seeing.

I should have used a different question.
As per Electrons:
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. However, it predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into [i]three quasiparticles: a `holon' carrying the electron's charge, a `spinon' carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism) and an `orbiton' carrying its orbital location.
Hence the classification of electron as a fundamental particle is thus blurred.[/i]

Thank you for helping to stretch out my information base.

A fool is one whose cup of knowledge is already full!

Its usually a disaster when a fundamentalist tries to talk about science.

You live under a rock

See how you are talking 1900 discoveries. Religion really makes people dumb

TenQ:

Thank you for the hard lecture. I just read the 2018 paper ( an interesting and informative read)

1. About SEEING:
An optical microscope cannot resolve (visual) features smaller than about 200 nanometers (due to the Rayliegh criterion), and for comparison, a carbon atom has a diameter of 0.34 nanometers (van der Waals' value). None of these values are actually closer to the 'size' of an electron, and hence, one cannot 'see' an electron (or for that matter, any subatomic particle).

However, techniques such as Scanning Probe Microscopies can resolve atomic scale features (0.1 Angstroms is the finest), but they produce surface topographies by giving a map of different features (such as electronic charge distribution for a scanning tunnelling microscope) than actual visual data, that we refer to as 'seeing' macroscopically.

So, one cannot 'see' subatomic particles (in the literal sense of the word) such as electrons, protons, etc.
2. About Heisenberg Uncertainty Priciples:
We can never see the subatomic particles directly, but can only infer from observation of such indirect effects like tracks.
If there are many of them and they are emitting some radiation, and also if we shine some radiation on then and receive back the response this will also constitute a kind of seeing.
3. Use of Advanced Algorithms and Computational Techniques:
It is a demonstration of the power of advanced algorithms and computation in breaking and surpassing physical limitations of microscopes.

In simple terms, the use of attosecond pulses works by taking several pictures of exactly the same moment in the process, it’s possible to create stronger, but still sharp, images. A precondition is for the process to be repeated in an identical manner, which is the case regarding the movement of an electron in a ray of light.

A kind of stroboscope enables ‘freezing’ the periodic movement of the electrons. You then take several pictures pictures when the electrons is at the same position and the picture will turn out clear, despite the rapid motion.

Hence, yes I agree with you that the electron can be seen however not in the conventional sense of seeing.

I should have used a different question.
As per Electrons:
Isolated electrons cannot be split into smaller components, earning them the designation of a fundamental particle. However, it predicted that electrons in a one-dimensional chain of atoms could be split into [i]three quasiparticles: a `holon' carrying the electron's charge, a `spinon' carrying its spin (an intrinsic quantum property related to magnetism) and an `orbiton' carrying its orbital location.
Hence the classification of electron as a fundamental particle is thus blurred.[/i]

Thank you for helping to stretch out my information base.

A fool is one whose cup of knowledge is already full!

No wonder religion doesn’t improve, your are stuck in the past. When we have started talking about electron fractionalization that splits electrons, you are quoting Heisenberg, a world war 2 scientist. You think science is dormant like your brain and won’t grow?

Mumu, I will embarrass your destiny if you try to debate me in science.

Workch:
Show me the astronomical evidence that supports the Bible?
Just one

The cosmological and teleological arguments for God do.

Workch:
No wonder religion doesn’t improve, your are stuck in the past. When we have started talking about electron fractionalization that splits electrons, you are quoting Heisenberg, a world war 2 scientist. You think science is dormant like your brain and won’t grow?

Mumu, I will embarrass your destiny if you try to debate me in science.

I can see how violent your godlessness has made you!

Good night!

TenQ:

I can see how violent your godlessness has made you!

Good night!

Run along Illiterate.

Mr. we can’t see electrons. Still living in the past.

Nothingserious:


The cosmological and teleological arguments for God do.

what evidence na?

Workch:
what evidence na?

We shouldn’t be discussing here if you don’t understand those arguments.
Maybe this was a mistake after all.

Nothingserious:


We shouldn’t be discussing here if you don’t understand those arguments.
Maybe this was a mistake after all.

Theres no evidence right? You just want to argue

Nothingserious:


We shouldn’t be discussing here if you don’t understand those arguments.
Maybe this was a mistake after all.

you are yet to take me through microevolution