Defending a belief rather than defending the pursuit of truth

I know I am going to sound silly to you and others, but do you realize that there is no such thing as an ATOM.
The existence of an ATOM is purely a very useful abstraction called a theory. They are no more real than the theoretic s that supports them.
Sure we have managed to do something to matter, that something appears to be understood and guided by our theorizing. However that does not mean that the object of our theorizing is actually what we theories it to be.
An Atom is an artificial mental abstraction and merely a very clever theoretical belief.

By realizing this you transcend in the incorrect premise of the ego. [regarding atoms and science generally] and learn to pursue the truth rather than cling to a belief.


edit: this is why university faculties of science are nearly always subordinate and a part of the Department/Chair of Philosophy.

The really smart thinkers of the world know this with out question which is why they are smart I guess.
as Einstein said "it is only a theory" and a theory is all it is.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nope. We have actual images of atoms, using an atomic force microscope.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A is the model. C is the actual image.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

ha ha.. Geoffp would you care to elucidate? Come on in the sewage is nice and warm!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

support the claim ?
what the hell is an image force microscope?
Developed by who?
Peer reviewed by who?
and then substantiate all the science that went into it to create the image.
I have a PS3 video game that show s images like that, maybe they are somehow related...

why post something like that, that isn't supported with links any way...

 

Here are some more pretty pictures for you QQ:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

A link for your perusal:
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/news-releases/2013/05/30/atom-by-atom/

 

Here is another classic deceptive claim [single photon in transit]
Laser pulse shooting through a bottle and visualized at a trillion frames per sec
[video=youtube;-fSqFWcb4rE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fSqFWcb4rE[/video]

 

Oooo... A classic. I like classics.
I take it you don't believe in it unless you can see it, smell it or taste with unaugmented senses right? Do you believe in carbon monoxide by any chance?

 

@AlexG
what you are showing is an amazing achievement, no doubt about it. It validates certain aspects of atomic theory. I am happy for the theoreticians honestly. It is nice to know that theory in some way mimics reality even if is some what limited.
here is the typical electron diagram for the typical Carbon Atom:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

c/o http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon
How do your images confirm that the structure displayed is indeed Carbon with out identifying the electron patterns?

Also notes the date of the report as of May 2013...I shall wait to see what happens in the next 12 months or so.

 

It is not a question of belief, it is a question of how strong that belief is and how pervasive it is to your pursuit for a better belief.

 

then suddenly the context changes to the definitive:

c/o https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_boson


"a monumental tentative"

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, not meaning to intrude on your conversation with Alex, but...

You do know that electrons don't orbit atomic nuclei the way planets orbit the sun, right QQ? just curious...

 

I got an idea that is what you believe in theory , yes..

 

It's a bit like what Richard Feynman said about energy:

and I suppose you know better than Richard Feynman?
If you can't define what energy is how the hell can you define/describe an electron or a carbon atom? eh?

 

Because Carbon was what was placed in the imaging scope.

Do you realize the image you've posted is a simplistic representation and is not in any way how a carbon atom looks?

Here's a picture of carbon 6:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On edit: youreyes questions the validity of the above image. Since I don't have provenance for it, I'll happily replace it with this image of carbon:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I take it you don't "believe in [that] theory"? Do you think electrons do orbit in that manner?

 

But these are images of matter, not energy.

 

QQ disagrees with mainstream physics as a matter of principle. Otherwise he'd have no position to argue from.

 

Oh come on Alex, matter, energy, whatever. Why argue over trivial distinctions?

 

I know that. It's been a while since I posted here regularly, the pond has obviously been restocked with prime cranks. But I remember good old QQ...

 

No that is not a "picture of carbon 6" that is an overlay of electron traces on a Hubble taken picture of a nebula.