want to feel that we might not be alone, just zoom into the sharpest ever view of Andromeda

[Lion-INI-spear222]

That was the point, Many of these particles especially electrons don't have an agree upon size or scale length. I don't think its to literal to suggest that the model gives a false representation of an atom. For example usually these models always show the electron movement as if their is a pattern or it only goes in a set number of directions. In reality its movement is more complex then all the "models" they would have us non-scientist believe.

The way I see it the animal cell models give us a good picture of what it really looks like and how it may function.
while the popular layman atom models only tells you that these particles are really small, protons and neutrons are clustered together and the electrons orbits it like a satellite

Not to be a troll but I bet if you ask a high school graduate what color is a proton they will say red, blue for electron and white/clear for neutron.. Models to many especially scientific models represent reality.

Their are educated people who actually believe that dinosaurs were the color that artist portray them as.

Not to say I don't believe in evolution but we all remember this FALSE diagram from our early textbooks

This image is still in some schools textbooks to this day.

 

[tmonster]

That was the point, Many of these particles especially electrons don't have an agree upon size or scale length. I don't think its to literal to suggest that the model gives a false representation of an atom.

Electrons are agreed to be point like ephemeral structures
any accredited college chem 101 course will teach the spdf valence probabilistic model not the simplified planetary one, which simply aims to teach core vs valence relationships and establish the proton as the determinant of the atom

For example usually these models always show the electron movement as if their is a pattern or it only goes in a set number of directions. In reality its movement is more complex then all the "models" they would have us non-scientist believe.

and where did you learn about the more complex versions?

 

[Lion-INI-spear222]

I know about the more detailed models that why I said layman models. A regular High school graduate would have know idea about the advance diagrams or models. Especially if they took no interest in science courses. Even as a soon to be computer scientist major I have yet to formally learn about this stuff. My point was an average person would gravitate to the "simplified" models since its been the same model they grown up with all the way up into college.

I ain't challenging the science...



Just stating an honest observation.

 

[shonuff]

Not to say I don't believe in evolution but we all remember this FALSE diagram from our early textbooks

This image is still in some schools textbooks to this day.

wait whats false aboutit

its the major stages of embryonic development of vertebrates; what exactly is false about it ?

 

[Lion-INI-spear222]

wait whats false aboutit

its the major stages of embryonic development of vertebrates; what exactly is false about it ?

The embryos (top picture) model is false when compared to the actual embryo images(bottom pic)

Basically the model makes it seem that all organism(animals in this case) embryos look the same.


I've seen this image in some recent textbooks which is weird to be honest. I knew this image was wrong from the fact that my father raises birds (pigeons, doves, cockatoo's, lovebirds , etc). we would have to discard cracked eggs and they would basically me undeveloped chicks in their. Looked nothing like the top model. Even the different birds show different looking undeveloped chicks.

 

[Leasy]

The embryos (top picture) model is false when compared to the actual embryo images(bottom pic)

Basically the model makes it seem that all organism(animals in this case) embryos look the same.


I've seen this image in some recent textbooks which is weird to be honest. I knew this image was wrong from the fact that my father raises birds (pigeons, doves, cockatoo's, lovebirds , etc). we would have to discard cracked eggs and they would basically me undeveloped chicks in their. Looked nothing like the top model. Even the different birds show different looking undeveloped chicks.

Where does this come into the equation of humanoids. If we go by evolution, does that mean the first humanoid more than likely a woman didn't not have this type of development as she had to be asexual???????? I don't care what everyone agreed upon, human beings had some type of interference during creation or development.

 

[Lion-INI-spear222]

Where does this come into the equation of humanoids. If we go by evolution, does that mean the first humanoid more than likely a woman didn't not have this type of development as she had to be asexual???????? I don't care what everyone agreed upon, human beings had some type of interference during creation or development.

The post was just to show that a image later treated as a model form 1892 was a Lie and basically humans or any other animals embryo look nothing like each other. I'm not really advocating for or against evolution just pointing out the reality when it comes to a false yet popular model.

 

[Brown_Pride]

because it gives you a false impression of what it looks like. You've seen pictures of nebula and galaxies with all colors and effects, but that's not how they look. the sun would look just as spectacular, but it doesn because that's not what it looks like. don get all worked up about a picture that doesn really exist is all im saying.

False impression or not one only needs look UP and see there are a shyt ton of stars out there meaning there are a shyt ton of galaxies and planets and the potential for life on each of those planets. I also am not all worked up about a picture, I got "worked up" about space the first time I went camping and looked up. The picture only serves as another reminder that the infinite galaxy above is awesome

 

[Chez Lopez]

False impression or not one only needs look UP and see there are a shyt ton of stars out there meaning there are a shyt ton of galaxies and planets and the potential for life on each of those planets. I also am not all worked up about a picture, I got "worked up" about space the first time I went camping and looked up. The picture only serves as another reminder that the infinite galaxy above is awesome

lol don get me wrong i am in awe of the beauty, sophistication and majesty of the universe, but of course i hold it in reverence as the creation, revering the Creator much more. If anything can be certain, the galactic cosmic structure is no act of coincidence, and that moreso is beautiful. Cheers!

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

Lol its weird how defensive and upset churchies get when stuff like this is brought up.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Lol its weird how defensive and upset churchies get when stuff like this is brought up.

no its not.

Its expected.

 

[GoddamnyamanProf]

no its not.

Its expected.

Its expected but its still weird being that its all supposed to be his creation . Its like they can deal with "the Earth and the Heavens", nine eight nine planets and a solar system, but when you go further than that they get uncomfortable and start attacking science

 

[Michael9100]

Cool... new hi res background for my desktop...

 

[Sensitive Blake Griffin]

yall do realize that they don actually look like that. right? the astronomers take several pictures with several different lenses and filters, filtering out each individual spectrum of ultraviolet invisible light, then expose it and super impose all the pictures ontop of eachother.

lol.

here is a picture of andromeda in optical wavelengths

lol. it looks so different


lol.

 

[Adam3000]

It is incredibly self-absorbed to claim composite images don't present a "real" look anyway. Those images are more "real" than anything our limited brains could process from our shytty under-evolved human eyes