Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: "malibu" <vegan16@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 9 Feb 2007 06:43:13 -0800
On Feb 9, 8:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
metaperl wrote:
Hi, I think the title says it all. I'm wondering if atoms and their
grade-school component parts, the proton, neutron, and electron have
all been seen or if they are simply conceptually necessary to explain
other more macroscopic phenomena.
Any references supporting replies is appreciated.
Regards,
Terrence Brannon
Properties of each are measured with high precision. Google is
your friend.
They are bouncing things off other
things and conceptualizing what must
be there by how/if they reflect.
Nobody has 'seen' any of that
stuff- and if it *is* stuff, then of
what is it made, Sam? What is
a quark made from?
John
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: PD
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: The_Man
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: Sam Wormley
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- References:
- are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: metaperl
- Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- From: Sam Wormley
- are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Prev by Date: Re: THE USENET STALKERAZZI
- Next by Date: Re: A few silly questions
- Previous by thread: Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Next by thread: Re: are atoms conceptual placeholders or perceived entities?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|