Back to Home

Blackholes2 Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | Blackholes II | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Sience=Religion/">Sience=Religion on December 22, 1998 06:28:02 UTC

Let me recapulate: 1. In order to see small objects (atoms, neutrons, quarks, gluons etc.) we need parts which are smaller than the object we are viewing. 2. If we want to see if an object is made up of other objects we need to see the object.

Combine 1 and 2: We can never see the smallest object or even conclude it is the smallest object because in order to make this determination we need to "control" even smaller objects. So the results of actions like this can only be: A. It isnīt the smallest object, because we found smaller objects we could use to view the object. B. Itīs inconclusive. We couldnīt find any smaller objects so we cannot see if the object is made up out of smaller objects.

"Proof" that it is indeed the smallest object can never been given.


Follow Ups:

    Login to Post
    Additional Information
    About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
    Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
    Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
    "dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
    are trademarks of John Huggins