New Video!

The Video's page is now home to another production! Check it out if you're interested. If not, then never mind. =)

Umar, Abu Dhar and the 3 Men

The Legacy of Islam. It's not often that you get to hear a story that portrays Islam in its truest form without mankinds words or actions giving reason to doubt it. Below is an inspiring 6 minute video narrating a beautiful story showing the purity of a Muslim reaching out to another Muslim in need, and the forgiveness that lies in every Muslim's heart.    

Here is the Youtube link if the video doesn't play for whatever reason: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx_nTf67Ou0

Television by Roald Dahl

The most important thing we've learned,
So far as children are concerned,
Is never, NEVER, NEVER let
Them near your television set --
Or better still, just don't install
The idiotic thing at all.
In almost every house we've been,
We've watched them gaping at the screen.
They loll and slop and lounge about,
And stare until their eyes pop out.
(Last week in someone's place we saw
A dozen eyeballs on the floor.)
They sit and stare and stare and sit
Until they're hypnotised by it,
Until they're absolutely drunk
With all that shocking ghastly junk.
Oh yes, we know it keeps them still,
They don't climb out the window sill,
They never fight or kick or punch,
They leave you free to cook the lunch
And wash the dishes in the sink --
But did you ever stop to think,
To wonder just exactly what
This does to your beloved tot?
IT ROTS THE SENSE IN THE HEAD!
IT KILLS IMAGINATION DEAD!
IT CLOGS AND CLUTTERS UP THE MIND!
IT MAKES A CHILD SO DULL AND BLIND
HE CAN NO LONGER UNDERSTAND
A FANTASY, A FAIRYLAND!
HIS BRAIN BECOMES AS SOFT AS CHEESE!
HIS POWERS OF THINKING RUST AND FREEZE!
HE CANNOT THINK -- HE ONLY SEES!
'All right!' you'll cry. 'All right!' you'll say,
'But if we take the set away,
What shall we do to entertain
Our darling children? Please explain!'
We'll answer this by asking you,
'What used the darling ones to do?
'How used they keep themselves contented
Before this monster was invented?'
Have you forgotten? Don't you know?
We'll say it very loud and slow:
THEY ... USED ... TO ... READ! They'd READ and READ,
AND READ and READ, and then proceed
To READ some more. Great Scott! Gadzooks!
One half their lives was reading books!
The nursery shelves held books galore!
Books cluttered up the nursery floor!
And in the bedroom, by the bed,
More books were waiting to be read!
Such wondrous, fine, fantastic tales
Of dragons, gypsies, queens, and whales
And treasure isles, and distant shores
Where smugglers rowed with muffled oars,
And pirates wearing purple pants,
And sailing ships and elephants,
And cannibals crouching 'round the pot,
Stirring away at something hot.
(It smells so good, what can it be?
Good gracious, it's Penelope.)
The younger ones had Beatrix Potter
With Mr. Tod, the dirty rotter,
And Squirrel Nutkin, Pigling Bland,
And Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle and-
Just How The Camel Got His Hump,
And How the Monkey Lost His Rump,
And Mr. Toad, and bless my soul,
There's Mr. Rat and Mr. Mole-
Oh, books, what books they used to know,
Those children living long ago!
So please, oh please, we beg, we pray,
Go throw your TV set away,
And in its place you can install
A lovely bookshelf on the wall.
Then fill the shelves with lots of books,
Ignoring all the dirty looks,
The screams and yells, the bites and kicks,
And children hitting you with sticks-
Fear not, because we promise you
That, in about a week or two
Of having nothing else to do,
They'll now begin to feel the need
Of having something to read.
And once they start -- oh boy, oh boy!
You watch the slowly growing joy
That fills their hearts. They'll grow so keen
They'll wonder what they'd ever seen
In that ridiculous machine,
That nauseating, foul, unclean,
Repulsive television screen!
And later, each and every kid
Will love you more for what you did.

Roald Dahl

Tell Me Little Soldier Boy

Tell Me Little Soldier Boy;
     Are you proud of what you've accomplished?
          Are you proud of the sight,
Of people,
     Lying
          Still
               and
                   Cold?
Silenced by your hands,
     Silenced by my voice?

I ask you Little Soldier Boy;
     Are you happy with the tears you have brought,
Upon a Mother,
     Whilst her son lies in the sand,
Buried
        at
           Eighteen?
You laughed at her pain,
     Did you mean it?

You keep telling others,
     That you're bringing glory to your country;
To
     Your
          Home.
Your
     Family.
What is glory, Little Soldier Boy?
     Where is the honour,
          In killing others?
Killing people that are only defending,
     Their
          Homes.
Their
     Families.

Why Little Soldier Boy?
     Why treasure my existence?
          But not the lives of your brothers?
Haven't you a heart?
     A
        Soul?
A care for your race?
     Your world?
          Humanity?
Why clean my already gleaming surface every night?
     When a little girl stands behind you,
          Alone
               and
                    Afraid.
Coated with a second skin,
     Of mud?

Please Little Soldier Boy;
     Why the thirst for blood?
          For pain?
               For war?
Why don't you go home?
     To your mothers?
          Sisters?
               Brothers?
Why stay on the battlefield?
     Surrounded by death and despair?

Return home Little Soldier Boy.
     Where you can laugh in the rain,
          And play in the mud.
Without fearing death.
     Go home,
          Where you belong.
Let me free!
     Release me from my bondage;
          Don't let me slay the innocent.
I beg you Little Soldier Boy,
     Go home!
          Leave me behind.

I'm nothing but a tool for murder;
     I watch the flash of fear,
          In a child's eyes.
Before we unite,
     And wipe the look off their little face.
It doesn't always work that way though, does it?
     Sometimes their faces stay the same.
Haunted,
     Even
            In
               Death.

Let me free Little Soldier Boy;
     It's my only wish.
But I know you won't stop.
     Can't
          Stop.
So I'll always be here,
     By your side.
You holding me in a firm grip;
     Sometimes in fear,
          Sometimes in despair,
               Once or twice in joy.

I stay,
     Because you're my Little Soldier Boy.
And I've got nowhere else to go;
     No purpose,
          But as the saving force of your life.
               The saving point of your sanity.
                     Your purpose.

As
     The
          Weapon
                In
                    Your
                         Hands.

Finding your Muslim Identity - How? When? Why?

Your Muslim Identity.

    What do these words mean??? Is it referring to how you dress and act or is it in relation to something more?? And how do we manage our Muslim identity? How does it define who we are?

     Being a Muslim can sometimes be tough, especially whilst living in a western society where Haraam acts are the norm and in many cases considered ‘cool’. Many kids see being Muslim as a curse, a constant sign over their head declaring them as lame and no fun. Some Muslim kids and even Muslim adults will put on a disguise of sorts around non-Muslims; acting more like the people with which they are interacting.

   So how can we feel comfortable around all people, of all faiths, as a Muslim? How can we pull on our Muslim ’skin’ and keep it on with no disguises? How can we be the Muslim we ought to be but still be the person we want to be?

     So many kids nowadays will look at others and think, ’I wish I could do that’ or ’I  wish I could wear those clothes’ and maybe even more commonly, I wish I looked pretty like that; sometimes thinking this without realising that whatever they are missing out on isn’t actually that great a deal and that they look stunning just the way they are, even in their ‘Muslim wraps.’

     How many times have you looked out at the world and wished yourself someone else? How many times have you lain awake at night day-dreaming about being a stranger? However, why would you want to be a stranger, someone who is as strange to you as living on the bottom of the sea is? What is the popular saying? Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence? But it’s not really. Everything seems better as something else, someone else, someday else; it’s human nature to never be satisfied.

     Yet it is our obligation to be satisfied. Allah (swt) has given us so much and yet we are always ungrateful, trying to get more. Why? What is the purpose? Sure, we should always try our best in life but we should try for the sake of Allah, for the sake of ourselves. How will indulging ourselves in the Dunya serve us? How will shedding our Muslim skins help us in the Hereafter?

     So it’s time to take off the masks and put on the shining shroud of Islam. No more hanging around people who just don’t want to know about the truth. No more acting like a Western delinquent. It’s time to embrace the inner Muslim and show it to the world.

     How though? It can be scary to fully show yourself to the world. How can we be a Muslim without cutting ourselves off from everything? Easy!

* Keep a reminder with you, either mental or written down and whenever you find yourself longing over things from the Dunya, things which are anti-Islam or just some small thing which isn't necessary, take your reminder and cleanse your heart.

* Read a lot. Islamic books are extremely useful for expanding knowledge and growing inside. With knowledge comes wisdom and with wisdom comes faith. But don't stop with just Islamic books! There are many, many books out there which are beneficial, you just need to find them and keep an open mind.   

* Be yourself. Most importantly you need to be yourself. Don’t do something drastically Islamic as such if you yourself don’t feel it in your heart. Life is short, yet it is full of time. Use your time to grow, to learn and to embrace the inner Muslim that is there in everyone of us. 

Because then, you’ll be ready to show yourself to the world.

Under a sky without clouds

The following poem is one I wrote ages ago during the Somalian crisis. I've just finished editing it and finalising the smaller details. Now I'm making it into a PowerPoint Presentation, but it's not going exactly as I imagined it too. Insha'Allah I'll finish it soon so I can put it up on the Videos page.    

Under a sky without clouds, they wait for rain.

In meadows bare, they dream of flowers.

From a lack of water a riverbed is stained.

In a neglectful world, few care for Somalia. 

Children lie, weak from hunger,

Throats parched from a lack of water.

Skin stretched thin on bones, scarcely covered;

With no help, these lost souls cross the border. 

Death comes to those who wait,

And to those who run away.

Those who live are broken, lost;

Scarcely alive to breathe another day. 

Rivers bleed, with water that is dying.

Rocks wail, as they crumble into dust.

Forests scream, as they burn and fall.

Hearts break, as Somalia shatters.

We hear the screams, the pleas for help.

Of a mother shattered while her children wilt.

But nothing happens, from dawn to dusk;

Because in a selfish world; few care for Africa.

English Pronounciation

We all know English is a pretty ridiculous language, but did you know how ridiculous it really is? The following poem was written by G. Nolst Trenité and it highlights perfectly the shocking rules and twists of the tongue which we call the English language.

Dearest creature in creation,
Study English pronunciation.
I will teach you in my verse
Sounds like corpse, corps, horse, and worse.
I will keep you, Suzy, busy,
Make your head with heat grow dizzy.
Tear in eye, your dress will tear.
So shall I! Oh hear my prayer.
Just compare heart, beard, and heard,
Dies and diet, lord and word,
Sword and sward, retain and Britain.
(Mind the latter, how it’s written.)
Now I surely will not plague you
With such words as plaque and ague.
But be careful how you speak:
Say break and steak, but bleak and streak;
Cloven, oven, how and low,
Script, receipt, show, poem, and toe.
Hear me say, devoid of trickery,
Daughter, laughter, and Terpsichore,
Typhoid, measles, topsails, aisles,
Exiles, similes, and reviles;
Scholar, vicar, and cigar,
Solar, mica, war and far;
One, anemone, Balmoral,
Kitchen, lichen, laundry, laurel;
Gertrude, German, wind and mind,
Scene, Melpomene, mankind.
Billet does not rhyme with ballet,
Bouquet, wallet, mallet, chalet.
Blood and flood are not like food,
Nor is mould like should and would.
Viscous, viscount, load and broad,
Toward, to forward, to reward.
And your pronunciation’s OK
When you correctly say croquet,
Rounded, wounded, grieve and sieve,
Friend and fiend, alive and live.
Ivy, privy, famous; clamour
And enamour rhyme with hammer.
River, rival, tomb, bomb, comb,
Doll and roll and some and home.
Stranger does not rhyme with anger,
Neither does devour with clangour.
Souls but foul, haunt but aunt,
Font, front, wont, want, grand, and grant,
Shoes, goes, does. Now first say finger,
And then singer, ginger, linger,
Real, zeal, mauve, gauze, gouge and gauge,
Marriage, foliage, mirage, and age.
Query does not rhyme with very,
Nor does fury sound like bury.
Dost, lost, post and doth, cloth, loth.
Job, nob, bosom, transom, oath.
Though the differences seem little,
We say actual but victual.
Refer does not rhyme with deafer.
Fe0ffer does, and zephyr, heifer.
Mint, pint, senate and sedate;
Dull, bull, and George ate late.
Scenic, Arabic, Pacific,
Science, conscience, scientific.
Liberty, library, heave and heaven,
Rachel, ache, moustache, eleven.
We say hallowed, but allowed,
People, leopard, towed, but vowed.
Mark the differences, moreover,
Between mover, cover, clover;
Leeches, breeches, wise, precise,
Chalice, but police and lice;
Camel, constable, unstable,
Principle, disciple, label.
Petal, panel, and canal,
Wait, surprise, plait, promise, pal.
Worm and storm, chaise, chaos, chair,
Senator, spectator, mayor.
Tour, but our and succour, four.
Gas, alas, and Arkansas.
Sea, idea, Korea, area,
Psalm, Maria, but malaria.
Youth, south, southern, cleanse and clean.
Doctrine, turpentine, marine.
Compare alien with Italian,
Dandelion and battalion.
Sally with ally, yea, ye,
Eye, I, ay, aye, whey, and key.
Say aver, but ever, fever,
Neither, leisure, skein, deceiver.
Heron, granary, canary.
Crevice and device and aerie.
Face, but preface, not efface.
Phlegm, phlegmatic, ass, glass, bass.
Large, but target, gin, give, verging,
Ought, out, joust and scour, scourging.
Ear, but earn and wear and tear
Do not rhyme with here but ere.
Seven is right, but so is even,
Hyphen, roughen, nephew Stephen,
Monkey, donkey, Turk and jerk,
Ask, grasp, wasp, and cork and work.
Pronunciation (think of Psyche!)
Is a paling stout and spikey?
Won’t it make you lose your wits,
Writing groats and saying grits?
It’s a dark abyss or tunnel:
Strewn with stones, stowed, solace, gunwale,
Islington and Isle of Wight,
Housewife, verdict and indict.
Finally, which rhymes with enough,
Though, through, plough, or dough, or cough?
Hiccough has the sound of cup.
My advice is to give up!!!

A Frenchman actually stated that he would rather serve 6 months of hard labour than read six lines of this poem out loud! If you can actually read this poem out clearly, without a mistake, you will be speaking English better than 90% of the world's native English speakers!

My Islam, My Choice

From between the 11th the the 14th of January I attended my local youth group; The Diamonds of Islam's camp. One of the activities we did was a presentation night. We had 48 hours, from Wednesday night to Friday night to come up with something, be it a play, nasheed, speech or something along those lines on the theme 'My Islam, My Choice'. We could work as groups or individuals. I was one of the three individuals. The medium I chose was a speech. Here it is below:

*****

When you ask someone, anyone, what Islam is you will receive many different answers. From the extreme Islamicists that state Islam is the absolute, end of discussion law and believe anyone who says otherwise should be cursed and dealt with appropriately to the people who hate Islam with a passion and believe that Muslim should be eradicated from the globe and everyone in between you can imagine that there is a state of confusion around Islam. The religion itself is pure, bright, untainted yet human stubbornness and the nature of false assumptions can complicate even something as beautiful as Islam.
     As can maybe be expected Islam has, to some extent, received a bad reputation. People take what they have heard about Muslim countries and twist is to represent Islam. Due to war, poverty, famine and disease many predominantly Islamic countries are poorly educated and stuck in tradition. Those traditions are taken as Islam. However, Islam is not something that can be passed down through generations. Some bits of course can be passed down from father to son, mother to daughter but in this way details can be confused and mixed up. Something can be said incorrectly or be misinterpreted and that piece of 'Islamic knowledge' is then passed down through countless families.

     A classic example of this can be found in many Middle Eastern countries, or Muslim countries. Most of their knowledge is passed down through immediate families and as a result. can be confused. They become more traditions than Islam. Yet around the world they are portrayed as Islamic laws, Islamic ways of life. Privacy has become a thing of the past as the technology of television and the Internet send things viral around the world in seconds. Private incidences of daily village life are easily broadcast around the world, into the homes and minds of millions. Things people would never want spoken of, never mind discussed by thousands are distributed around the world with ease. Opinions are formed and dictated by a mere few minutes in front of a flat screen. People no longer have to travel and study for years to gain to knowledge they seek; it's all there at their fingertips. And while yes, this can be a good thing; knowledge is easier to obtain, it can also be much easier to come across false information that is easy to believe.

     Returning to passing knowledge through family ties. Don't let me be mistaken, knowledge can be passed down through generations; your parents are your first and most important teachers, but you always need to verify, check that your information is not a tradition, but rather part of the shining light of Islam.

     The theme of this youth camp is My Islam, My Choice. I will now explain how this speech is related to it. To me Islam is knowledge. Knowledge is what I strive to acquire. So it makes perfect logical sense that Islam is my choice, my way of life. For in the end, everyone makes a choice in life, we make several every single day. The most important choice for me is Islam, to be a Muslim. For Islam is knowledge, knowledge is my goal and therefore, Islam is my choice.

If's and Only's

“Katie?” Even whispered the sound of my name jolts me awake. I shift a little, blinking away the blurry edges of sleep. I’m not lying in my bed; I’m sitting in a chair. Did I fall asleep doing my homework again?  I blink again, then twice as I realise my face is pressed against something soft and spongy; a cushion? I lift my face slightly off the fabric, noticing that it’s a deep, deep blue; like the sea.

          “Katie? Sweetheart?” A hand lands on my upper arm as I slowly push myself upright. I slowly raise my gaze to take in my surroundings; the dreary grey-white walls, light blue bed-sheets and metallic grey cabinets of the hospital room glaring back at me. I slump; the events of the previous day rushing back to me. My eyes drift close, the flash of light and the high-pitched screech of metal and grass twisting together once again flooding my senses. I let out a hesitant breath, but it comes out more of a whimper.

          “Honey?” The hand removes itself from my arm and the couch shifts as the owner settles down beside me. I force my eyes open again, if only to get away from the horrified faces. Dad’s face replaces them. He looks sad, mournful even. His eyes are red-rimmed and puffy, his hair in total disarray.     

          “Daddy?” I manage, before leaning forward into his arms. I can’t remember the last time I’ve called him Daddy; maybe in fourth grade when my hamster died and I asked Dad to bring him back. He couldn’t bring back what was already gone. Not then, not now.

          “Mum?” I whisper, fearing the answer. In a way I already know it. Some people believe that when someone close to them dies, they know it’s happened without having to be told. It’s as if a part of them dies with their loved ones. A single tear escapes my eyelash and trickles down my cheek; I feel like I’m dying all over, if not already dead in places.

          Dad strokes my hair gently, brushing away the hot splashes of his own tears.  “She’s gone. She…” His voice breaks painfully and I bury my head further into his arms. “She passed in her sleep; she didn’t suffer.” He’s whispering now; like he wants to believe his words. I don’t; I know she suffered. If not in the final few minutes then when time paused and the world turned into a entangled puzzle of metal, plastic and glass. Mum’s face crowds my mind; covered in blood and twisted, breathes coming in short gasps.

          If only I had been on time to leave for school. If only I had eaten breakfast quicker instead of flipping through my magazines. If only I had made sure all of my textbooks were ready yesterday instead of rushing around this morning trying to find them. If only… I block out the thoughts, the accusations, the guilt. If’s and only’s aren’t going to help my mother now.

          “You should be in bed, Katie.” Dad starts to stand up, gently scooping me up with him. He lifts me like I’m seven again and I’ve fallen asleep at dinner. Moving slowly as to not jolt my broken arm and bruised ribs Dad carefully crosses over to the bed and settles me down, pulling the blankets around me, tucking in the edges. I want to tell him I’d rather be in the chair; that being tucked up safe in bed is too much when my mother is chilling in the morgue; that I moved to the chair because I was afraid of who else slept in that bed and didn’t walk out, but nothing sounds from my lips.

          I’m tired, so tired.

          “Dad?” I say, slurring the word; eyes already drifting close.

          “Yes sweetheart?”

          “Don’t leave me.” I feel like I’m five again, lost and disorientated after a bad dream. But this isn’t a bad dream, this is a nightmare and there’s no waking up. A hand clasps itself over mine, dwarfing it in its size. It feels so warm against my skin. I feel so cold, like I’m frozen.

          I'm not going anywhere Katie." Dad whispers in my ear before gently kissing my forehead. "I'm not going to leave you." The world's growing quiet and fuzzy like it's floating away but I don't care; Dad's by my side, Dad's not leaving me. As the world finally grows still and dark, I feel a little bit warmer inside.

The Atomic Theory

As I am homeschooled I get to pick my own project topics. Each year I pick one large research project and I compile an essay to explain what I've learnt. In 2010 I wrote about The Big Bang Theory. Last year I wrote about the Atomic Theory. Here it is now, though it is a bit long and by a bit I mean a lot.

***

The atomic theory. It’s something you’d expect only to have been formed recently. The idea of discovering what matter is made of, its components, its ingredients; it’s something only current technology could have figured out, right? But amazingly the study into matter has been around a lot longer that you or I could have imagined. In fact, it has been around since the early days of ancient Greece.

     Greece? But that was so long ago! How could a civilisation that existed over 2500 years ago have started the concept of something so modern? It’s an amazing thought and it’s hard to believe at first, but the truth is that many philosophers and scientists of ancient Greece were the ones who laid down the fundamentals and ideologies that eventually gave life to our modern-way of thinking about the world round us. Take Archimedes for example. Everyone knows about him, what he did. Perhaps his most famous moment was when he discovered how to calculate how much an irregular object weighs. The story goes that he was taking a bath and noticed that the water rose when he entered the water. He believed he could measure the weight of objects too heavy to weigh by calculating how much water that object displaced. He thereby solved the problem the king was having in figuring out the mass of his crown. This simple discovery made way to equations on volume and mass, which multiple scientists and inventors around the world use every day in their work.

     But although the tale of Archimedes and his multiple inventions and achievements is very interesting that’s not why we are here. We are here to explore the history of the atomic theory and that begins with a different Greek philosopher. This story begins with Democritus, the man who is considered to be the ‘father of modern science.’

     Democritus was born in the city of Abdera in Thrace, Greece in-between the years 470 BC and 460 BC. No one is entirely certain as to the exact year in which he was born as historians differ in their views. At a young age Democritus was fascinated in the world around him. He was the son of an extremely rich soldier and later used his father’s wealth to travel the world, visiting places such as Egypt, Babylon, Ethiopia; even going as far as India and Eastern Asia. After returning to his native land Democritus began to study in-depth about Greece’s’ culture. He travelled through Greece, visiting Greek philosophers and with his immense wealth he was about to purchase several of their works.  These pieces of philosophy Democritus studied diligently, letting nothing distract him from his readings. Many of the philosophers that Democritus talked to and learnt from were trying to discover how the universe worked the way it did. They were trying to find the key element of the universe. Many of them had theories, some similar to one other, some completely different. One common belief was that the main element was water, with the air and fire as minor parts.

     Democritus had a different theory. He proposed that when you divide matter multiple times, it should reach a point when the particle could not be divided anymore, but still has the properties that the original subject included. He named that pure particle the atom, which originates from the Greek word atomos meaning without division. He suggested that atoms were eternal, immutable and indestructible. Between one atom and another there was just the nothing. Democritus’s theory concluded that the resources of matter that were perceivable to us could be clarified by the properties and the conduct of their atoms.

     Although Democritus’s theory was not valued at the time, his theory on the composition of matter was correct. In fact elements such as hydrogen (H), carbon (C), oxygen (O) and nitrogen (N) are composed of atoms of just one type, these elements being the foundation to life as they are found in most-to-all matter. These elements also help scientists to explain the universe; how objects are formed and how they correspond with each other in daily life. 

     Up to the late 18^th century, which was when Democritus’s theory was resurfaced and taken up for further investigation, Aristotles’ theory on the composition of matter was applied. Aristotles’ theory stated that matter could subdivide infinitely in pieces, each time more gradual. Therefore, Democritus’s theory did not come into light until the late 1700’s, over 2000 years after he founded it. 

   The quest to find what the world is made of really started racing along in the 18^th century. It was here when scientists really started to question their theories and ideologies. This was the beginning of the Enlightenment era; the period of scientific progression.

     During the late 1700’s two laws about chemical reactions emerged:

·         The 1^st was the law of conservation of mass. Formulated by Antoine Lavoisier in 1789, this law stated that the total mass in a chemical reaction remains constant (therefore, the reactants have the same mass as the products). 

·         The 2^nd law was the law of definite proportions. Proven by the French chemist Joseph Louis Proust is 1799, this law states that if a compound is broken down into its basic elements, then the masses of the elements will always have the same proportions, regardless of the quantity or source of the original substance. 

    Basing his study on these two laws plus Democritus’s theory on atoms, an English scientist by the name of John Dalton began to develop the law of multiple proportions. Basically, if two elements can join together to form more than one compound, then the ratios of the masses of the elements will be displayed as a ratio of minor integers.

     John Dalton believed that his theory could also explain why water absorbed different gases at different proportions; for example water absorbs carbon dioxide far easier than it can nitrogen. Dalton theorized that this was because of the mass and density of the gases compared to the water. Indeed, later it was proven that carbon dioxide particles are far heavier than nitrogen particles.

     Using Democritus’s theory as a base, Dalton started to expand on his atomic theory. He proposed that each chemical element is composed of atoms of unique, individual types, but though they cannot be destroyed or altered in a chemical means, they can merge and join to create a more complex structure; in other words, a chemical compound. This concept marked the first fully scientific theory on the atom, since Dalton had reached his conclusion through experimentation and examination of the results.

     Although Dalton had provided fundamental facts on the atom, because of the crude equipment he used his accuracy wasn’t the best. As a result many of his ratios were wrong. For example, Dalton put down oxygen as having the weight 5.5 times that of hydrogen; when in actual fact it is 16 times the weight. 

     This flaw in Dalton’s theory was eventually fixed by Amedeo Avogadro in 1811. Avogadro was an Italian savant, or a wise person. He started studying physics and chemistry at the age of 20 years and is best known for his contribution in molecular theory, particularly in the case of the Avogadro theory. The Avogadro theory states that the relationships between the masses of certain gases (of the same volume) depend on the relationships of their molecular weight. Therefore the molecular mass of a gas can be calculated from the mass of sample of known volume. But, although his theory would later be hailed has the start of the journey into sub-atomic particles Avogadro was ignored in the scientific world, even when other scientists were coming up with the same results. As a scientific theory Avogadro’s work wasn’t noticed in the scientific community until 1860, four years after his death. It was actually only through studies by Charles Frédéric Gerhardt and Auguste Laurent on organic chemistry that proved Avogadro’s work had some potential. However some experiments with some inorganic substances showed apparent exceptions to the law. This issue was finally determined unimportant by Stanislao Cannizzaro as these exceptions were due to molecular detachments at certain temperatures. It in 1911 that Avogadro’s theory was officially accepted, being that it was in a meeting commemorating the 100th anniversary of Avogadro’s publication of his paper stating the properties of his theory.

     Avogadro’s theory led to new and exciting discoveries on atomic principles. Many physicists expanded on his theory, Robert Brown and Jean Pirren being amongst them. But one of the perhaps more recognisable physicists adapting on Avogadro’s work would be J. J. Thompson. Up to the 20^th century atoms were thought to be the smallest possible division of matter. However in the late 1800’s Thompson, through his work with cathode rays, discovered the electron, an even smaller division of the atom. 

     Cathode rays are streams of electrons observed in vacuum tubes. Also known as electron beams or e-beams the cathode ray is the reason of the electrons discovery. This major discovery in atomic science was accomplished in 1897 by J. J. Thompson. He discovered that if a vacant glass tube is equipped with two electrodes and a voltage is applied, the glass opposite of the negative electrode is observed to glow, due to electrons emitted from and travelling perpendicular to the cathode (the electrode connected to the negative terminal of the voltage supply). Although Thompson is credited with the discovery of the electron he wasn’t actually the first to observe the cathode rays.

   It was in 1869 when the first cathode rays were observed by a German physicist Johann Hittorf. They were named in 1876 by Eugen Goldstein. He titled them kathodenstrahlen, or cathode rays. Even though they had been studied by multiple scientists it wasn’t until Thompson started experimenting with the rays that the connection to electrons was discovered. Thompson showed that the rays were composed of an unknown negatively-charged particle. It was this unknown particle that was later named the electron.

   Thompson believed that the electrons were originally from the molecules of gas around the cathode. He concluded that atoms were divisible and that his electrons were their building blocks. But the electrons were negative and the atom positive so Thompson theorized that the negative electrons were submerged in a sea of positive matter. This was the start of Thompson’s Plum Pudding Model. You may be wondering why he would call his model the ‘plum pudding’ but he had his reasons. Thompson saw the electrons as plums, submerged in the dense filling of the pudding, i.e. the atom’s body.

   Although Thompson’s model showed a very early yet basic and easy to understand diagram of the structure of an atom it wasn’t perfectly accurate. In 1909 one of Thompson’s former students Ernest Rutherford disproved the Plum Pudding Model. Rutherford opposed his teacher’s theory with one of his own. Instead of assuming that the entire atom’s body mass, minus the electrons, was positive Rutherford believed that in fact, only a small portion of the atom was positively charged. He believed that only the utmost center of the atom was positively charged; the electrons taking up the space around it.

   To prove his theory Rutherford, along with his colleagues Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden, performed the gold foil experiment. In this experiment the men shot alpha particles at a thin sheet of gold measuring their deflection with a fluorescent screen. If the atom was indeed completely positive then the particles should have passed through the screen without much deflection. However in the experiment the passing atom deflected substantially from the gold sheet. Upon further research Rutherford and his colleagues found that it wasn’t the whole atom deflecting but rather a small point in the center.

   This discovery led Rutherford to publish his planetary model in which a cloud of electrons surrounded and orbited the smaller, denser nucleus of positive energy, just like the planets orbiting the sun.

   But, unlike planets orbiting the sun, electrons are charged. As a result of this they emit electromagnetic waves which when they fluctuate affect the electrons orbit. If it loses energy an electron will drift closer to the nucleus and may collide with it, or even simply graze by. Another problem was that the planetary model couldn’t explain to the scientists the highly peaked emission and absorption spectra of the atoms they were studying.   

   With the start of the 20^th century came the development of quantum theory. It was established by Max Planck and Albert Einstein when they proposed that light energy is emitted or absorbed in discrete amounts known as quanta. A few years later in 1913, a Danish scientist named Neil Bohr assimilated this idea into his Bohr model of the atom. His model stated that an electron could only orbit the nucleus in particular circular orbits with fixed angular momentum and energy; the electron’s distance from the nucleus was proportional to its energy output. Therefore an electron could not spiral into the nucleus because it could not lose energy in a continuous manner. Instead, it could only make direct “quantum leaps” between the energy levels, those of which were predetermined. When these “quantum leaps” transpired, light was emitted or absorbed with frequency relative to the change of energy.

   Like the others before his, Bohr’s model wasn’t flawless. It could only predict the spectral lines of hydrogen, not multielectron atoms. And as study into spectrographic technology improved, extra spectral line of hydrogen and other atoms were discovered; all of which Bohr’s model couldn’t explain. In 1916, a temporary fix was devised. Arnold Sommerfeld added oblique orbits to the Bohr model to explain the extra emission lines, but this made the model problematic to use and it still couldn't explain the more compound atoms.

   Continuing with his work with alpha particles, Rutherford once again reemerges in scientific history. In 1918, nearly ten years after the composing of the planetary model, Rutherford was still experimenting with alpha particles, shooting them into different substances, this time using gases instead of gold foil. One of the gases he tested was nitrogen. He bombarded nitrogen gas with alpha particles and observed hydrogen nuclei being emitted from the gas. Rutherford concluded that the hydrogen nuclei were actually originally part of the nitrogen atoms.

   So essentially, Rutherford had split the atom. Something no one had ever accomplished before. But Rutherford didn’t stop there. He began to experiment more and more with gases and soon discovered that the positive charge of any atom could always be equated to that of an integer number of hydrogen nuclei. This, along with the known facts that hydrogen is the lightest element known and that the atomic mass of every other element was roughly equivalent to an integer number of hydrogen atoms, led him to conclude hydrogen nuclei were singular particles and a basic component of all atomic nuclei. In other words, the proton.

   Through further study and experiments Rutherford discovered that the nuclear mass of most atoms exceeded that of the protons it influenced. Rutherford thought that this additional mass was composed of previously unknown neutrally charged particles. As it was still only a theory Rutherford hesitantly labeled these particles ‘neutrons’.  

   10 years later Walter Bothe, following Rutherford’s style for blasting certain elements with alpha particles, observed that when he shot alpha particles into beryllium it emitted a certain highly penetrating, electrically neutral radiation. Later it was realized that this radiation could remove hydrogen atoms out of paraffin wax. Bothe believed the radiation to be a high-energy gamma radiation but James Chadwick decided that the ionization effect was too strong for it to be due to electromagnetic radiation. In 1932 Chadwick exposed several metals to the enigmatic ‘beryllium radiation.’ Finally through several more experiments Chadwick deduced that the radiation was actually composed of electrically neutral particles with a mass similar to that of a proton. Essentially, the neutron. For his work in confirming the existence of the neutron Chadwick received the Nobel Prize in 1935.

   In 1924, Louis de Broglie proposed that all moving particles, particularly subatomic particles such as electrons, exhibit a degree of wave-like behavior. Erwin Schrödinger, fascinated by this idea, explored whether or not the movement of an electron in an atom could be better explained as a wave rather than as a particle. His equation, published in 1926, described an electron as a wave particle instead of a point particle. This equation simplified the problems being caused by Bohr’s model. It illuminated the spectral phenomena that Bohr’s model failed to explain. But although Schrödinger’s equation was mathematically sound, it was difficult to visualize and therefore was somewhat dismissed by the scientific community. But a select few scientists were extremely motivated by Schrödinger’s ideas, one of which was Werner Heisenberg who was a pivotal piece in the discovery of an atomic formula which eventually made way to the atomic model.

   One of Schrödinger’s chief critics, Max Born, suggested that Schrödinger’s wave function described not the electron but rather all its possible states, and thus could be used to calculate the probability of finding an electron at any given location around the nucleus. This eliminated the two opposing theories of particle versus wave electrons and the idea of wave-particle duality was introduced. This theory stated that the electron may exhibit the properties of both a wave and a particle. For example, it can be refracted like a wave, and has mass as in a particle.

   Schrödinger’s theory paved the way to the atomic theories of today. A significance point of describing electrons as waveforms is that it is mathematically impossible to concurrently derive the position and momentum of an electron so Bohr’s model, i.e. an electron can only orbit the nucleus in particular circular orbits with fixed angular momentum and energy, formulated nearly 20 years previous was dismissed.             

   In its place a new model was formulated, the atomic model. This atomic model describes the positions of electrons in an atom in terms of probabilities. An electron can potentially be found at any distance from the nucleus, but, depending on its energy level, exists more frequently in certain regions around the nucleus than others. The orbits can vary in size and width, as long as the nucleus stays in the middle. 

   As far as major atomic discoveries, not much has happened since 1932. Minor findings such as the development of the string theory have kept scientists around the world searching for answers and new innovations. The world is waiting for another atomic model, another great scientific discovery. And one day maybe someone will prove that an electron is actually a loop of a string and another round of scientific excellence will begin.