Impossible by definition. An individual particle cannot be solid, liquid or gaseous because those states only describe the relationship between many particles. You fail.
V-Boy fails on an even greater level. If we look at the example of Water being a Liquid at temps above 0 degrees C and below 100 degrees C....as long as Atmospheric Pressure does not become an issue...water or H2O will exist as a Liquid. Now whether something is a Solid or a Liquid or a Gas or Vapor or Plasma or Einstein-Bose Condensate....which are all the different arguable States of Matter which will obtain a STATE CHANGE based upon Temps. and Pressure.....and whether the material is a Molecule such as is water or H2O....or whether it is a number of the same Atoms or Elements such how the Element Nitrogen can exist as Solid , Liquid, Gas...etc.....even if we are talking about the Liquid Form of an Element such as Liquid Nitrogen....and the Nitrogen Atoms which make up this Liquid....and where the difference between those Nitrogen Atoms being a Solid, Liquid or Gas have to do with a State Change dependent upon Temp. and Pressure..... .......the only difference between these Atoms in various STATE CHANGES is their ALIGNMENT AND GEOMETRIC ARRANGEMENT.....of number of groups of Atoms which take on specific Geometric Constructs and thus this determines which State they will exist in. Even if we look at this further....the individual Nitrogen Atoms that at a specific pressure and temp. exist as a Liquid....are no different than these same Atoms State Changed to be a Solid or Gas....as their differences in Temp. and Pressure will change the arrangement, positions, geometric constructs and distance between each Nitrogen Atom....but Each Nitrogen Atom will still consist of a variety of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms which completely make up all Hadrons...ie... Protons and Neutrons as well as the Electrons existing as Orbital Electron Fields surrounding the Atomic Nucleus. Since at the Quantum Level EVERYTHING....be it Protons or Neutrons or Electrons or even Light which is Photons....ARE ALL QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS which cannot be defined as SOLID because they are in fact all Particle/Wave Forms of ENERGY AT SPECIFIC FREQUENCY and Divergent Universal Quantum Vibration States.....the word and term.....SOLID OR LIQUID OR GAS OR ETC....can only be used to describe Grouping Patterns and Distances of Atoms or Elements that are the same. AboveAlpha
First it was a "theory" but, you were shown it does not meet the criteria of a "theory". Then it was a "hypothesis" but, you were shown a claim is not a hypothesis...and now you "assert". You were were/are wrong that atoms are solid...matter of fact, you haven't been correct about any of your "assertions".
Atoms are NOT theoretical as I believe another member replied to you with an actual PICTURE of Atoms as we are capable of having the tech. to actually visually SEE THEM!!!!! AboveAlpha
That image was of allegedly molecular structures. And it was an impression, not actual physical photographic documentation. Your beloved THEORY of atomic science is still unproven. Sucks, doesn't it?
https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...toms&espv=210&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source= This is a link to many pictures of individual atoms. I personally like the one where someone spelled the letters IBM using just individual atoms. V-Boy.....please....just give it up. AboveAlpha
So, now you want to refute Atomic Theory?....so I guess X-ray machines, the Atomic bomb and electricity produced via Nuclear power plants.....don't really work, right?
Its not my fault that "science" keeps piling new THEORIES on top of old THEORIES, and that the entire foundation of Atomic Theory is a house of cards. Its sad that my OP has to unsubstantiate entire careers, but this fact must not be allowed to persist unchecked.
Once again you prove in spades that you do not know what a "theory" is. You are. - - - Updated - - - Can anybody catch those goalposts?
Once again.... you demonstrate near complete ignorance regarding the meanings of "theory," "theoretical" and "empirical." More specifically, you seem to be under the misconception that they are somehow mutually exclusive. They are not. Theories do not become facts. Theories explain facts. Theories... even when "proved"... are still theories. Theories, even when absolutely verified by empirical observation and the collection of facts they explain, are still theories. Atomic theory is absolutely empirical.
You OP can be flushed with the rest of the bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Again, the Hadron Collider didn't find anything?...the Higgs IS a subatomic particle. You're simply wrong. WHICH IS WHY YOU DONT WORK IN THE FIELDS OF SCIENCE.
Some of the comments in this thread just aren't true. Anyway, we make sense of the universe by our brain making interpretations of what our senses feed it, which in turn allows our mind to navigate the universe. We say that a solid is a solid a liquid is a liquid etc etc. only to allow us to understand each other and as tools of discovery. However, language is woefully inadequate to define our universe's most simple processes. reva
Really?...you think you can claim "liquid is a myth" but you don't know the difference between a Law and a Theory?
So a Law and a Theory are different? Ya. I thought so. Simple logic is on my side, here. You're going to have to come with better arguments, instead of your pompous aire of inadequacy.
And yet, it is true. Well, if you are speaking of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation (rather than his Laws of Motion), we actually don't have it any more. It was replaced by Einstein's Theory of General. We can still use his equation, because they remain correct for non-relativistic reference frames... meaning they are not a universal law, but only a special case. Laws are empirical generalizations that have been comprehensively tested and for which we know of no exception. They do not need to be explanatory. We do not need to even begin to understand why a law is true to accept that a law is true. They are simply statements of what is observed empirically to be true. Theories are explanatory frameworks for broad sets of empirically observed and related facts. They explain facts, but they never become facts. And even when "proved" they remain theories.
Yes. But you clearly didn't understand how they were different. Too bad simple logic only tells you what is logical, not what is true. Anybody can assemble a perfectly logical syllogism that follows all the logical rules. But if the premises are false, so are the conclusions... no matter how exquisitely logical they might be. Actually, no. We really don't.
