|
|
In sci.physics.relativity, Sorcerer
<Headmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Sat, 30 Dec 2006 15:28:03 GMT
<7Avlh.191791$bz5.43332@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>
> "Sue..." <suzysewnshow@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:1167486944.076621.265240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> |
> | Sorcerer wrote:
> |
> |
> |
> |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Der_alte_Hexenmeister
> |
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Der_alte_Hexenmeister&oldid=59354775
> |
>
> No I didn't write that, Dennis, you did, you fuckin' liar.
> I stand by what I said in wackypedia, though.
>
> I've never seen an electron, have you?
>
No one can. The best one can do is see light from an
electron jumping states in an excited gas (neon or argon
signs), and light from an electron hitting another electron
out of place with the second electron eventually settling
back into place and emitting a piece of light (various
phosphors in a vacuum-tube display device such as older
model computer monitors and TVs).
One can also measure potential difference and current flow.
In such devices as batteries, there may actually be *three* currents:
[1] The outside electrons in the wire.
[2] The migration of one reactant in the electrolyte to or from
the anode.
[3] The migration of another reactant in the electrolyte to or from
the cathode.
Of course there are various devices/experiments such
as Compton scattering, Millikan's oil drop experiment,
gas discharge lamps, and just about every generator in
existence that show something that looks an awful lot
like a hypothesized particle of negative charge
1.602 * 10^-19 coulomb, and mass 9.109 * 10^-31 kg.
But does that fit your definition of "see"? My guess is that
it does not. Of course no one can see oxygen gas either.
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Linux. Because it's there and it works.
Windows. It's there, but does it work?
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|