Uhh I'm sure about this, but is there technology to see wind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there technology to see air? What about radio waves and satellite signals? Or sound waves?

 

Uhh I'm sure about this, but is there technology to see wind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there technology to see air? What about radio waves and satellite signals? Or sound waves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you ever post anything else than to try to sound smart? Seriously, you try too hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@unknownmaster, if you count the weather satellites meteorologists use to track wind direction/levels/etc. through the clouds.

 

 

Uhh I'm sure about this, but is there technology to see wind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there technology to see air? What about radio waves and satellite signals? Or sound waves?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do you ever post anything else than to try to sound smart? Seriously, you try too hard.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

@unknownmaster, if you count the weather satellites meteorologists use to track wind direction/levels/etc. through the clouds.

 

 

 

That was pointless, hypocritical and wrong. I'm still in secondary school and I know full well what he, and the rest of the topic is about. Does that make me a genius?

 

 

 

There's a difference between trying to act smart, and being smart you know....or do you?

Actually I was asking the question in all seriousness. I want to know if said devices exist.

Well, an oscilloscope can show sound, and in a sense, a radio shows radio waves...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm sure there are devices for displaying them however. Doesn't seem to hard.

That was pointless, hypocritical and wrong. I'm still in secondary school and I know full well what he, and the rest of the topic is about. Does that make me a genius?

 

 

 

There's a difference between trying to act smart, and being smart you know....or do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you talking to me? :?

Well, we can't physically show you an atom (to my knowledge), so you're just going to have to trust that the entire human race, and the universe for that matter, isn't playing a supernatural joke on you. I know, it's hard to believe that you can actually trust knowledge that the entire human race agrees on.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hey, maybe this is the matrix, and you're just being fooled to think atoms, or as someone so eliquently said, your spleen is real. Heck, maybe the computer you're looking at isn't real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not going to do us any good debating a topic like that. You're just going to have to trust science and an agreed upon fact by any human who isn't mentally [developmentally delayed]ed.

Hey, maybe this is the matrix, and you're just being fooled to think atoms, or as someone so eliquently said, your spleen is real. Heck, maybe the computer you're looking at isn't real.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In Hinduism they have dharma, which is what exists, but how it exists is up to each person. I see the flower as beautiful, but a dog sees it as as gray blob. Regardless it's still a flower though. Sort of interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've always wondered if everything is really magenta, cyan, and yellow and our eyes mix the colors with the help of light.

 

That was pointless, hypocritical and wrong. I'm still in secondary school and I know full well what he, and the rest of the topic is about. Does that make me a genius?

 

 

 

There's a difference between trying to act smart, and being smart you know....or do you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Are you talking to me? :?

 

 

 

Yes. Yes I was.

 

 

 

Yes. Yes I was.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ugh, your post doesn't even make sense. Unknown was asking a question and he comes along asking for more complicated questions. That's why I said 'you're trying too hard.' I don't give a flying bleep if you know what the bleeping secret of the bleeping universe is and you're only a month old, it doesn't make him less of an arse. Not to mention I'm not basing my opinion on that one post alone, hence "post anything else."

In any detail would be subjective but there are electron microscope pictures out there (there's one in my uni text book for example) which clearly distinguishes two elements [in an ionic compound, I think] as bumps of different colours. What I'm getting as is that we will likely never see atoms in real life in perfect detail as light itself is emitted from excited electrons absorbing and emitting varies quanta of energy. What we see as human beings is the collection of a rediculous number of photons and I'd wager seeing say, a collection of 20 photons, is impossible to the human eye.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, sorry i'd forgotten exactly what they called the things but I do remember a chemistry video a few years ago which showed individual atoms in not much detail. Couldn't remember it's name though.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electrons are not IN an antom, they revolve aroud its core made out of protons and neutrons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Electrons aren't in the atomic nucleus but they are a constitute of an atom.

Actually I was asking the question in all seriousness. I want to know if said devices exist.

 

 

 

Oh come on. For once in your forum life, spare me the crap.

Prove they don't exist?

Let me see if I can draw an analogy for the topic starter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Say you have a dog, Rover, and you know he loves to eat your cookies from the table. One day, you go out to the shops and when you return, you see Rover there, fat stomach and crumbs all around him and the cookie jar. Now you know Rover loves cookies because he's done this many times before but you have never managed to see him do it with your own eyes. Prove he didn't eat the cookies. Not even in a court of law, buddy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What you are doing is asking me to prove to you that atoms don't exist when there are just about as many smoking guns as in this scenario I posted. It's self evident and if you still actually want evidence because you think it's an amazingly brilliant world wide conspiracy for no gain whatsoever, then I'll grab some info together for you.

Anyone else think the topic creator has an essay on this due, or something, and is milking us for ideas?

Then following your logic, I reckon air doesn't exist either. Can't see it, can't smell it, can't taste it.

Atoms are just smaller versions of cells.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Things have to be made up of something, even if it's almost energy.

This is a legitimate question and it's not as simple as everyone in the thread is making out. There isn't a way to evaluate the truth of a theory, either a set of observations are consistent with a theory or they are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it matter if the theory of atoms or electrons isn't real? Theories are tools to make predictions; its first priority is to explain what you observe and to do it accurately. If you get results, does the theory behind the results really matter?

The easiest way is to observe their effects on things.

 

 

 

Pm me if your interested, was my major in college

This is a legitimate question and it's not as simple as everyone in the thread is making out. There isn't a way to evaluate the truth of a theory, either a set of observations are consistent with a theory or they are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it matter if the theory of atoms or electrons isn't real? Theories are tools to make predictions; its first priority is to explain what you observe and to do it accurately. If you get results, does the theory behind the results really matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It dosen't really matter if atomic theory is wrong, but the obvious fact that it helps explain a tremendous amount of things about physics, chemistry and biology would suggest that it is on par with nature i.e. it would suggest that atoms are real. With this information, you could accept the overwhelming suggestive evidence for atoms and subatomic partcles being real or you could just keep demanding more.

This is a legitimate question and it's not as simple as everyone in the thread is making out. There isn't a way to evaluate the truth of a theory, either a set of observations are consistent with a theory or they are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it matter if the theory of atoms or electrons isn't real? Theories are tools to make predictions; its first priority is to explain what you observe and to do it accurately. If you get results, does the theory behind the results really matter?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh come on, there are more ways to prove things then just by seeing. In fact our visual system is very, VERY limited for using it to discover nature's secrets.

 

 

 

If you don't know what you are talking about, don't post.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fact: electrons/atoms and such things EXIST. And if you ask me, "prove it" then I invite you to use Google or read some science books.

 

 

 

Don't question anything if you don't have any arguments.

 

 

 

It dosen't really matter if atomic theory is wrong, but the obvious fact that it helps explain a tremendous amount of things about physics, chemistry and biology would suggest that it is on par with nature i.e. it would suggest that atoms are real. With this information, you could accept the overwhelming suggestive evidence for atoms and subatomic partcles being real or you could just keep demanding more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see why the atomic theory is wrong. In experiments, it has proven itself. How would we be able to synthesize millions of different compounds without knowledge of atoms, their electrons, orbitals, valence electrons, electron delocalisation, Sigma bonds, Pi bonds, hydrid shifts, polarity, etc. ?

 

 

 

It dosen't really matter if atomic theory is wrong, but the obvious fact that it helps explain a tremendous amount of things about physics, chemistry and biology would suggest that it is on par with nature i.e. it would suggest that atoms are real. With this information, you could accept the overwhelming suggestive evidence for atoms and subatomic partcles being real or you could just keep demanding more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phlogiston and ether explained oxidisation and EM-wave propagation; since they explained their related phenomena successfully you would suggest that phlogiston and ether were real. So what makes these ideas any different then ones from today, they were well informed theories which were ultimately shown to be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to read more on the subject http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ provides a decent discussion on the issue with some of the more common objections to your viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

It dosen't really matter if atomic theory is wrong, but the obvious fact that it helps explain a tremendous amount of things about physics, chemistry and biology would suggest that it is on par with nature i.e. it would suggest that atoms are real. With this information, you could accept the overwhelming suggestive evidence for atoms and subatomic partcles being real or you could just keep demanding more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phlogiston and ether explained oxidisation and EM-wave propagation; since they explained their related phenomena successfully you would suggest that phlogiston and ether were real. So what makes these ideas any different then ones from today, they were well informed theories which were ultimately shown to be wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to read more on the subject http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ provides a decent discussion on the issue with some of the more common objections to your viewpoint.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the source and I'll probably have a look later on. In response to your point, the theoris of today, indeed any theory of today, may be proven wrong by the simple fact that theories are designed to be falliable. Does that make them any less valid? Well, I'd argue they are presently the most valid exlinations we have, that's precisely why they haven't been disproven yet. Whether or not they will be proven wrong is irrelavent to thier value and purpose today.

What makes everyone think that atoms and electrons and such are real? I can't see them, I can't smell them, hear them, anything of the sort. I am relying completly on the word of my chemistry teacher. For all I know, this could be an elaborate hoax...like the moon landing (jk).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

but still, I wonder if any of you can prove to me that they really exist without just like quoting some famous scientist that says they do.

 

 

 

you absolute [developmentally delayed] you do know the atoms are physics, not chemistry. Also, as other people have mentioned; use an electron microscope.