This VoiceThread includes a brief description of what the Crazy 8 students have been doing in science so far (At this point, we are three weeks in). I really enjoyed hearing each and every one of the comments that were made and prepared in groups last week. Only one comment per slide was chosen for viewing on this blog. You are invited to turn the volume up on the computer, press play, and listen to what the Crazies have to say.
Science Vodcasts
Where Our Visitors Come From
Monday, September 7, 2009
Introduction to Earth Science
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The World's QR Code
54 comments:
no, if it is made up of smaller things i cant be the smallest thing.
No because protons, neutrons, and electrons are smaller so atoms aren't.
yes because we cant see anything else smaller if there is anything little.
not quite but atoms and particles are so small it would still count, i guess
comment- yes.because its still an atom, and it still has protons neutrons and electrons. also it is the smallest particle. if it got any smaller then it would still be accurate.
I'm not sure if this is right: but once you divide an element, you have protons, neutrons, and electrons, and I don't think that you could tell what the original element was by looking at their neutrons, protons, of electrons.
Yes, because the smaller particles are still part of the atom.
yes a proton without a netron or a electron is not an element
I think this is still accurate because then it wouldn't be an element anymore.
Yes.....because a neutron, proton , and an electron isn't a specific element. So the atom is still the smallest particle that can still be that element.
No, it is not still accurate because if you break up and atom it will not still be that element, you would get a different element. Because the type of element all depends on how many electrons, neutrons, and protons there are, if you even take one away it will change the element.
i belive that this definition is still mostly accurate thought since the atom is made of even smaller particles or parts it could change depending on the protons nuetrons and electrons of the atom
Yes I think so. Because the smaller parts of an atom ae still just the same kind of particles that make up the element, right? So the element parts just get smaller, and smaller and smaller!
Yes I think that the definition is still accurate because the smaller particles can still be divided into smaller particles and the element that it makes will still be the same.
I think it is both true and false...obviously, we know that it is divisible, into protons, neutrons, and electrons, and even quarks. So in that sense, the definition is wrong!! However, it is still true, because to my knowledge, all electrons are the same, and so are protons and neutrons, so once you have an electron, then you no longer know if it is still this one element!!! :)
No the defintion is now incorrect. The atom can't be the smallest particle if it can be broken it even smaller paricles.
Okay. I think yes because even though its smaller, its not really an electron of that specific atom. TA DA!!
HOLA ME LLAMO KIRA COMO ESTAS?
Me gusta un televisor en mi cuarto.
yes. cause if you divide it,it will still be the same number of protons,neutrons, and electrons.
Well, no. If we cant divide elements into individual corks, the atom is still the smallest.
I think yes because, if you add or subtract electrons, protons, etc... you make a different element. :)
hello fellow science nerds;; Yes, i think it is still true; because if you can make smaller particles its still the same element so pretty much yah.. kbye!
-- Jenny:&Hearts.
:)
Yes because all of the things that make up the atom are parts of it. A part of an atom can not be considered a whole atom. all of the things that make up the atom have to be combined together to be the atom.
I think an atom is still the smallest particle to make something because you couldn't make anything out of just electrons.Mr hoegh is not a nerd jenny he is awesome!
yes, because if you divide the atom up it will no longer be a definate element. If you were to take one proton or electron away from the atom it would no longer be that element.
Yes i think it is still accurate because scientist have published that defintion because it is true but the scientist have just added to their defintion...
yes it is still the same accurate because the smaller particales can still be divided and the element would still be a part of that.
I think that the definition is still accurate because an atom is still an atom. Its not an atom if its cut smaller.
No, becuas they will be a diffret elements.
no it can't because an atom has one specific element if it is split into two it would become a different element because it wouldnt contain the same exact amount of protons nuetrons or electrons to be that atom so it isnt accurate this is jason's comment by the way i'm just on kory's account right now and kory says hi!
no it can't because an atom has one specific element if it is split into two it would become a different element because it wouldnt contain the same exact amount of protons nuetrons or electrons to be that atom so it isnt accurate this is jason's comment by the way i'm just on kory's account right now and kory says hi!
yes
because i believe the scientist
I got 100% on it. 10outof10
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
yes because if u change an atom it will change the eliment and that is all i have to say.
No, because if there is something smaller than that, then an atom is not the smallest partical.
Yes because when the smaller particles are devided, they are no longer that element.
Yes, because the particles are part of the atom. The particles make up the atom.
Yes because an atom is an atom and that will not change no matter how small the the atom is.
idk, :D i guess, No because well idk the answer sorry..LOL
Yes, it is the smallest thing that still is the SAME ELEMENT. It may not be the smallest particle becaus of protons, neutrons, and electrons, but those arent the same element that it started out as. It is a completely different thing.
-Yes;Because it is Still an atom with all the parts of an atom put together.
Signed*Christa((:
Hiya!
Yes if you just make smaller particles, it's still the same element...just a whole lot smaller.
:)
I think it is yes, because an atom is still the same. i belive in scientists and in Mr. Hoegh!!
no becuase if you cut it in half then it will lose half of its protons nuetrons and electrons and will not be the same element but still will be an atom.
Yes, because it still makes up that element. Just becuase there is something beyond the atom doesn't mean it isn't there anymore.
yes because u cant get any smaller than that and it will always be the smallest. lol
The definition is still the same. Just because there are smaller particles, doesn't change the definition. Now, if those smaller particles would still be the same element, than yes, it should change. But, if those particles don't keep the integrity of the element, than the definiton is still accurate.
Yes, because particles make up an atom and atoms make up elements.
No. If scientists know that an atom can be made up of more particles, than the orginal definition probably doesn't apply to what we know today.
no those particles but together make the element
comment- yes.because its still an atom, and it still has protons neutrons and electrons. also it is the smallest particle. if it got any smaller then it would still be accurate.
Ashley M said....
yes, because the particles make up the atom, the definition is correct.
i think it is a yes, because an atom is still an atom. i belive in Mr. Hoegh! also im Ashley L. this thing wouldnt let me sign in so yeh.
no, because if an atom is made of smaller particles that makes them the smallest.
Yes..if you make an element smaller, it's still the same just smaller!
Post a Comment