0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Kryptid on 07/06/2018 00:44:44To sum up your argument, you are essentially saying, "matter is infinitely-divisible, but you can't actually divide it infinitely". This is a self-contradictory statement. If you can't divide something, then it is indivisible.it is infinitely indivisible because IF you try to divide it you won't end up with zero nor an atom but continuous particle BUT that to satisfy you need to reach to infinitely but nothing CAN reach infinity, it appears that infinite divisibility will end up with infinite amount of mass but only if you reach that infinity , you can start dividing and continue but you cant end up with something because infinity in fact is unreachableQuote from: Kryptid on 07/06/2018 00:44:44Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:37:22what exists is that matter is infinitely contained as massI can't make sense of this statement.I mean matter exists just like a number line the mass contains inside it infinitely small pieces of matter similar to that number line contains infinitely small numbers
To sum up your argument, you are essentially saying, "matter is infinitely-divisible, but you can't actually divide it infinitely". This is a self-contradictory statement. If you can't divide something, then it is indivisible.
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:37:22what exists is that matter is infinitely contained as massI can't make sense of this statement.
what exists is that matter is infinitely contained as mass
There is some logic that can be applied to the process of approaching a limit in the direction of smallness. At that limit, if you get any smaller, you get complete energy density equalization, meaning that there is nothing but "pure energy", whatever that is (probably no such thing unless you call it nothingness). You just cannot get to that "nothingness" state because you need waves to carry energy across space, and waves are something.If there was not some natural minimum limit on the amount of energy that a wave front can carry, when you exceed that limit and get to zero energy, time wouldn't be passing, temperature would be absolute zero, particles and objects would cease to exist, effectively the universe would be stalled in a permanent "freeze frame of non-existence". Do you really consider that possible?
infinite dividing does not end up with pure energy because it is an "odd" transformation from a particle being mass to being energy, the idea of ending up with zero mass or zero energy is impossible whether for energy or mass , because the thing you are dividing must result in another THING which is in fact half the previous thing -different or same does not matter -
it is infinitely indivisible because
IF you try to divide it you won't end up with zero nor an atom but continuous particle BUT that to satisfy you need to reach to infinitely but nothing CAN reach infinity, it appears that infinite divisibility will end up with infinite amount of mass but only if you reach that infinity , you can start dividing and continue but you cant end up with something because infinity in fact is unreachableI mean matter exists just like a number line the mass contains inside it infinitely small pieces of matter similar to that number line contains infinitely small numbers
That is true, but still, don't you think that there must be some limit to how far you can divide a wave and still have a wave carrying sufficient energy to maintain the presence of the particle.
Divisibility isn't a quantity that can be infinite. It's an either-or situation. Either something can be divided or it can't.
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 08:51:10IF you try to divide it you won't end up with zero nor an atom but continuous particle BUT that to satisfy you need to reach to infinitely but nothing CAN reach infinity, it appears that infinite divisibility will end up with infinite amount of mass but only if you reach that infinity , you can start dividing and continue but you cant end up with something because infinity in fact is unreachableI mean matter exists just like a number line the mass contains inside it infinitely small pieces of matter similar to that number line contains infinitely small numbersThese notions are falsified by the confirmed existence of atoms.We know for a fact that matter isn't infinite: we can see individual atoms and molecules. Here are some examples: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqLlgIaz1L0 //www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G7sq5GVhos //www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGWSX6pStd0
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/06/2018 22:04:55Can you read?I ask that because, you seem not to understand plain English.I point out that "We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them."I still do not understand , we have pictures for Jesus
Can you read?I ask that because, you seem not to understand plain English.I point out that "We have pictures of atoms, we can count them. We can weigh them."
it can be divided but there is not a limit "atom"
why there should be a theoretical model if atoms can be seen ?
why not a photographed model ?
why I can't see a Wikipedia subject about this photos of atoms?
it should be a big event to see atoms' images , and it should be there in every physics book.
why there is not a photographed model ?
because atoms can't be seen by light "Atoms are so much smaller than the wavelength of visible light"
so it is all theories on theories and tailed with a contradiction.
Forgive me, but did you even watch any of the videos that I posted? You certainly don't act as if you have. You wouldn't keep denying that photographs of atoms exist if you had.
I wanted Wikipedia images like this :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#/media/File:Atomic_resolution_Au100.JPGin the same section:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#Identification
These are in fact protrusions on the surface of a gold bar , gold protrusions according to my theory are ultimately tiny balls of gold itself
Atomic number of gold is 79 it easy to see it consists of only 79 protons so why cant I see protons , neutrons and even electrons ?
they are just dots without particle composition nor electrons they are just golden protrusions in a microscopic level and the gaps are just holes.
how you say the theoretical model and the photos are identical ?
Protons and neutrons are far smaller than even atoms. Although we haven't directly photographed them
Quote from: Yahya on 08/06/2018 22:23:38I wanted Wikipedia images like this :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#/media/File:Atomic_resolution_Au100.JPGin the same section:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atom#IdentificationThen go propose an edit on Wikipedia.
OK , then there aren't photos contains protons and neutrons, are there? then first : the theoretical model and the photos are not identical because the theoretical model contains protons and neutrons but the photos do not.
again why the theoretical model is not replaced with the photographed one?
this is not a photo of atom they are mere protrusions
if you present to me a photo of an animal that looks like an elephant but without a trunk and ivories then it is not an elephant,
in fact an atom is a mere collection of protons and neutrons " the heavier nucleus" and electrons.
it is a writing mistake , I meant I want an image from Wikipedia like this:.......
If you take a photograph of Jupiter with a camera on Earth, all you see is a bright spot in the sky. You can't see its great red spot or its bands of clouds. Does that mean that your photograph has falsified the existence of the great red spot and the bands of clouds?
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:37:22again why the theoretical model is not replaced with the photographed one?Because existing photographs only show part of what is there.We know from other experiments what else is in there
Quote from: Yahya on 07/06/2018 00:37:22this is not a photo of atom they are mere protrusionsIt's awfully convenient how you completely ignored the part where I mentioned how the gold foil experiment falsifies your claim that these are "protrusions" made of solid gold.
I did not say this , the photos does not falsify the existence of protons neither it validte them, forget about experiments for now I'm talking about the photographs, does the photos -not experiments- is an evidence of the existence of protons?
then we do not have evident photos for protons and neutrons, what are these parts if I can't see in the gold surface image protons, neutrons nor electrons ? my arguments was if there was a true COMPLETE photo of an atom there wouldn't be need for a theoretical model instead it would be replaced with the true visual one , why we imagine atoms we have actually seen them. and that would be in every physics book and I was right, there is not a true image for an atom that we could clearly say: this the atom we are talking about.
I'm talking about the pictures the picture LOOKS LIKE they are absolute gold ,
I know what experiments say about it
but I want to know what I can see , you said atoms can bee seen
then why are you talking about experiments now ? photos are photos and experiments are experiments , it is the same as saying I have a photo of something but there are hidden parts and the PHOTOS VERIFY those hidden parts ACCORDING to the experiment , things are verified by the photo are verified by the photo, things that are verified by the experiment are verified by the experiment.
, right ?
More importantly, again, we know that they are not solid gold because of the gold foil experiment. When are you going to address this fact?
let's forget for now my denying for the existence of atoms
you agreed that string theory can't prove the existence of particles that quarks consist of, right ? what do quarks consists of ?
according to Wikipedia , there is an issue in particle physics quarks and electrons cant be of zero volume nor of finite radius,
and that an atom shouldn't consist of particles that fill space due to the issue of infinite divisibility
I quote from Wikipedia "What makes an atom nevertheless take up space is not any spatially extended "stuff" that "occupies space", and that might be cut into smaller and smaller pieces"
according to Wikipedia the existence of radius for both a quark and an electron will result in the possibility of infinite divisibility , right ?
but they have radii
and the string theory can't solve this issue
then there are whether smaller particles than quarks according to the string theory
-but it fails-
or quarks are capable to be cut smaller and smaller -infinite divisibility - according to Wikipedia
so what do quarks consist of ?
I think for now there is not other solution than quarks can be cut into smaller pieces .