yes

yes

The definition we use in this context

is "a description or analogy used to help visualize something (such as an atom) that cannot be directly observed"

wrong

incorrect

idiot

your stupd

We are not using that definition

Your atoms and your globes are systems of assumption

SOmeone here has autism

yes we are

get with the program

"a description or analogy used to help visualize something (such as an atom) that cannot be directly observed"

what about the definition

that literally mentions

the word atom

to pretend or have or be

FEIGN

It's just a way of visualising and understanding something that we cannot directly observe

No model is needed if it can be easily observed

So you are pushing a system of assumptions or pretences as if they were real

they're not

Well... just because we can observe it doesn't mean that we don't need a model to understand it

you can't scientifically prove them

so you construct a system of assumptions

and build on the system of assumptions

"mathematical description of an entity or state of affairs"
this
is
not
A mathematical model
This is a visual representation
Not a mathematical equation

How is this so hard to understand

You just went in, and cherry picked a definition that isn't even relevant and went out of your way to use it to claim that all models are lies

@Hamburger Guy I'm not defending a n y model

I'm just saying
You can't measure the mass as just atoms

I haven't been bringing up orbits at all

May I see a photograph of your electrons please

Just simply saying
Neutron and protons likely do exist

Are you suggesting that electrons don't exist?

Syntax

do you believe in the earth being round?

@Syntax I can see you're really mad as hell right now, you're angry that you're trapped inside a model, a pyramid of assumptions, assumptions you can't prove.