[voerioc]

Some times ago, I wondered if atoms do exist.

Then I found a web page where a guy talked about the early years of the atom theory. He said that near 1860, there was a discussion about the atomic theory. The problem was that there was many ways of writing chemical reactions. So it was a mess. So, in 1860, following the work of Avogadro, Kekule, a young German physicist, gathered the best chemists of the time at Karlsruhe with the goal of making chemists agree on the reaction notations. Stanislao Cannizzaro, a Italian chemist, was an advocate of the atom theory. It is said (now) that he defended brilliantly the atom theory.

But finally, this conference didn't succeed in imposing the atom theory. So, what is interesting is that the atom theory didn't succeed because of a scientific consensus, but because it was imposed later by... politicians. The anti-atomists (or equivalentist) were simply sacked from universities, and atomists replaced them.

So, maybe those politicians were just good guys who loved the truth. But, maybe the reason of that was not so pure. Politic life was already dominated by jews and masons. Not nice guys loving humanity indeed.

So, I think that maybe the atom theory was deliberately chosen by jews and masons because they were conscious that it would allow them to extend the patent system on chemical products. Of course, it was already possible to patent new chemical products. But with the atom theory, they would suddenly be able to patent chemical products which would in fact be the same. Just one atom put differently, and blam!, a new product. We can see this in the pharmaceutical industry. There are tons of drugs which are in fact the same. But as the atomic formula is different, they are considered as different drugs.

And maybe they had already the atomic bomb scam in sight.

We can also think that they simply had to have a standardized way of noting chemical reactions, no matter which one. Without a standardized way of notation, it was probably more difficult to have a complex patent system. And the atom system was chosen because it was considered as potentially more fruitful than the other ones. But if the atom theory had not existed, they could have chosen another system.

[NUKELIES]

That's an excellent question. I think that you've got something in terms of your hypothesis pertaining to patents.

I don't have any problem believing that some sort of quantifiable or otherwise identifiable universal building block exists, but I would reject the theory that it is purely mechanical as they put it forth in a Cartesian context. It think there is always an X factor in organicity. That's where my own interpretation of atoms comes in: I believe that an atom is a solar system - infinity in both directions! Take it or leave it as you will - but I think that the universe -- God if you will -- bends in on itself like an ouroboros, and that would explain why the building blocks could mirror themselves on macrocosmic and microcosmic levels.

I made the following pieces in 1997. The first is entitled "Atom Bomb Solar System," - pertinent to this forum, the second is entitled "An Atom Is A Solar System Infinity In Both Directions!" I also came up with a typeface specifically for the piece.

Atom-Bomb-Solar-System.jpg (133 KiB) Viewed 77 times

An-Atom.jpg (183.05 KiB) Viewed 77 times

[rerevisionist]

(Questioning the nuclear atom? by NUKELIES https://www.big-lies.org/nuke-lies/www.nukelies.com/forum/nuclear-atom-questions.html is an earlier thread. ** I've just noticed the youtube that NUKELIES highlights is found by Googling; and the title "The Nuclear Atom Fraud as sold to us by Hollywood in the 1950's is wrong - it's true nuclear power is not cheap/ free etc etc - but that has nothing to do with whether nuclei exist or not).

I hate to be critical, but I don't think you're being precise enough in your targets. Modern views of the atom include the idea of the nucleus, and its composition; the idea of electrons; the idea of charges; the idea of energy levels with a fixed interval between them; the idea of light as frequency; and other things, including molecules, ions, and groups of atoms held together as molecules by electron-sharing. There are also ideas - relativity, speed of light as maximum, superfluid helium, 'particles' as resembling little specks, for example - which are somewhat different and in my view simply misunderstandings, and wrong.

In Britain, Dalton is regarded as establishing modern atomic theory - like the Greeks, he thought an 'atom' is the smallest thing which behaves in the same way its parent 'substance' does. 'Atom' just means (in Greek) something that can't be cut. At least, I assume that's what Dalton said - I haven't read him in detail. But this gives a problem, because some things can't be subdivided beyond a point- e.g. molecules of oxygen aren't the same as two oxygen atoms, and a molecule of common salt isn't one atom of sodium and one of chlorine. You can't have a single atom of diamond or graphite - the single atom would not have evidence of what it came from. And gases behave in ways which single atoms don't - so the kinetic theory of gases is probably wrong.

So your question - Do atoms exist? - isn't very precise. Someone might say - almost everything exists in the form of molecules, not atoms, which may be what you're saying; and this is true, but isn't what modern theories claim. I think you should be more precise - just as in your 'Contagion' website you need to separate out the different types of illness-causing events and things.

I don't think personally Jews had much to do with this. In my opinion, their whole cast of mind is primitive acquisitive tribalism, and people like that aren't generally interested in fundamental truth or disinterested inquiry, maybe over decades or generations.

[dinosaur_denier]

Ernst Mach denied the existence of atoms.

I am reading now The Case Against the Nuclear Atom by Dewey B. Larson.
He interpretes Rutherford's experiment in the different way, pointing that so-called nucleus is in reality the atom itself and electrons supposedly orbiting it are just theoretical constructs. In other words electrons are created in the process of emission and are not constituents of matter. Dewey also criticizes Bohr for splitting the universe into different parts ruled by different sets of laws. The concept of the universal laws applicable anywhere seems more plausible to him.

[voerioc]

Sorry for the double topic. Didn't see or remember the first one. Feel free to joint them if you want.

For the fact that I am not precise enough, I think my level of precision is sufficient for this topic. It's a general question. I question the official theory. So, of course, it's quite vast.

And, don't hesitate to criticize me. I have no problem with that.

About jews, maybe they aren't interested in fundamental truth. But they are interested in money and control. And my theory is that promoting the atom theory could be financially very interesting for them.

What makes me think the atom theory maybe a pure intellectual construction is that for chemistry it doesn't seems to have predictive capabilities.It seems that the theorization comes always after, but isn't able to predict how a combination of chemical products will react. The chemists learn what the reaction will produce. Then, they theorize the reaction. But it is never the inverse. This is a huge problem for the credibility of the atom theory. A theory needs to be able to predict how things will be. Otherwise, people can say it's only an ad hoc theory.

Someone I know who is a chemist often told me that chemistry is in fact just like cooking. And when you study a little bit the topic, it seems that in fact, you just need to know how to do the experiment step by step (just like cooking). The theorization comes after. So, it seems that both are in fact separated.

And when chemists need to discover new compounds or new reactions, they don't theorize it and then experiment it. They just do a lot of experiment in the real world. And it's just after they have discovered something that they theorize it. In fact, the theorization seems to be something which is just there to allow chemists to say they master the theoretical aspect. But you don't need it at all to discover things and to do be able to do the experiment again. In the real world, it seems completely useless.

Of course, they often know how some kinds of chemical products will react when put together. But this knowledge comes from all the knowledge they have accumulated by doing tons of experiments. Not because of the theory.

[rerevisionist]

[1] The Case Against the Nuclear Atom by Dewey Larson (1960s) is readable online - https://www.reciprocalsystem.com/cana/cana01.htm is section 1, with links to the following sections. I've seen it before and was unimpressed. I have to say he makes a few good points, but the presentation is terrible. It's not even clear what he's claiming - possibly he supports the 'plum pudding' model of the atom, i.e. all the bits in one place, surrounded by some sort of space-filling force. However there are no references (e.g. to solids under very high pressures). And he doesn't seem to have his own interpretations of spectral lines, for example, or ionisation, or atomic weights and numbers, or valencies, or crystals. Anyway @ dinosaur denier - good luck!

[2] @ Voerioc:

... for chemistry it doesn't seems to have predictive capabilities.It seems that the theorization comes always after, but isn't able to predict how a combination of chemical products will react. ...

I think this is completely wrong. the products of reactions, and the heat taken in or given out, are exactly predictable. In organic chemistry there are techniques for (e.g.) adding alkyls or adding esters or whatever - standard methods for tinkering with carbon compounds. My best guess is that chemistry is the most advanced science, in fact.

I think you've made a mistake based on the fact that biologists can't predict results of chemicals, and therefore have no choice but to rely on empiricism. For example all the organophosphates had to be tested before their effects were known - this is how deadly nerve gases were found, by chance. Same with drugs. BUT the chemistry is fine - the problem is the biologists can't predict the results, and the reason is they have gone up blind alleys caused by reliance on defective techniques like electron microscopy. (Harold Hillman investigated all this).