(urth) S&S vs. SF in BotNS

[António Pedro Marques]

Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 15:55):
> I'm curious what you think I (and you, if you followed the link) have 
> seen, then. Stockhoff's response, puerile as it is, is at least 
> comprehensible.
My reply is perfectly comprehensible, even if it may not be explanatory.
What you and everyone else have seen who followed the link is a 'video' of 
concentric bluish circles. Through _belief_ in Science and its round shape, 
you accepted the description of it as a photo of an electron. However, it is 
not one. If it really is true, it's a rendering of the difraction caused on 
a stream of photons by the successive electron ionisation events. But that 
is not a photo as is commonly understood, which involves reflection, nor of 
'an electron', nor is it a photo in a sense that would constitue autonomous 
evidence for the reality of electrons, though it may be corroborating of the 
model. Images of electrons, as the term 'image' is understood, are not 
possible, if they were there'd be something seriously wrong with the 
Standard Model. Electrons aren't little rubber balls.

> On 12/23/2011 10:24 AM, António Pedro Marques wrote:
>> Dave Lebling wrote (23-12-2011 14:52):
>>> http://blogearth.wordpress.com/2008/02/27/electron-filmed-for-the-first-time/ 
>>>
>>>
>>> I have seen a photo of an electron. The link above is one of many that will
>>> enable you to see one for yourself.
>>
>> No, you haven't seen a photo of an electron, nor will the link above 
>> allow you to.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20111223/2bb1e7e8/attachment-0003.htm>