Science saved my soul

[Michael]

This isn't so with NDE's or the other pieces of evidence you are speaking of. We can't experience another person's near death experience.

True. Then again we can interview them as with the Lancet study and see what the effect of the experience had on their lives, even years later. A lot of folks are *drastically* changed by such events, so obviously they believe them to be 'real'.

We can, however, weigh the same melon and come to good agreement as to its weight. That's the difference here.

How in the world would that tell us anything?

What science does do is figure out ways to test these ideas.

Until science finds 'evidence' however, hypothetical entities remain an 'act of faith', much like belief in gravitons.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

I don't suppose you have a study on NDE's to back that up?

The last one I remember reading was about increased CO2 levels in the blood.

Is that paradise beckoning, or just CO2 in your blood? - life - 08 April 2010 - New Scientist

Personally, I've never understood why people get excited about NDEs as brains are bound to do odd but similar things when they are stopped and started again, or nearly. People coming out of comas often have very odd ideas about what's been going on too and can take some time to get back to normal.

 

[Michael]

The last one I remember reading was about increased CO2 levels in the blood.

Is that paradise beckoning, or just CO2 in your blood? - life - 08 April 2010 - New Scientist

Personally, I've never understood why people get excited about NDEs as brains are bound to do odd but similar things when they are stopped and started again, or nearly. People coming out of comas often have very odd ideas about what's been going on too and can take some time to get back to normal.

Interesting. Do you happen to have a link to the actual paper?

One of the more interesting things of the Lancet study was the effect the experience tended to have on peoples lives long term, and the fact that "what they learned" during the experience didn't typically jive with their preconceived belief set going into the experience.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It is a belief based on evidence, the lack of it for the assertion that a god exists. It is the rejection of that claim. Not a claim in and of its self.

Do I reject the existence of a being of pure energy? Yes. One has never been demonstrated to me and no evidence for this has ever been presented

Do I reject the existence of a "pure mind"? I'd first ask what you mean by that. But if you mean some universal consciousness then yes, I reject that too on the basis of no evidence for it and no demonstration of its plausibility or possibility.

So let's review facts as we observe them without conclussions first.

1. The atom and every chemical compound in a rock or in us is governed by the electrical force.

2. Without electrical forces you could not move, breathe and your heart would not beat and no blood would flow.

3. Electrical forces are everywhere we have ever gone and took readings. Not a single space probe has reported negative results, ever.

4. Without electrical forces in your brain we couldn't have this discussion.


So, calculate the odds that electrical forces in the universe won't form a conscious mind.

Sometimes paradoxes arise science is unable to answer, it's the way things work.

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[hep-th/0208013] Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

I would say the odds of a being of electrical thought is much higher than one having to form from non-living matter to begin with, and then slowly evolve over billions of years into something finally able to become conscious. The odds are better for the intelligences to exist in the universe than they are for you to exist. Yet I do not see you objecting to the odds life formed from non-life. Therefore you accept these odds as not only highly possible, but as factual.

We would not be here discussing this if it was not for electrical interactions. I mean you still claim to be measuring electrical interactions from the initial Big Bang. Unless you think the CMB is not an Electromagnetic event? You want expansion to be caused by some form of energy. Everything we see is emitting an excess of electromagnetic radiation constantly as well.

I would say the odds are stacked highly in favor of a mind or minds existing in the universe. Can I prove it? No, but neither can one disprove it. You and I can't prove life evolved from non-life either, but what is the alternative? So you gotta have faith any way you go. My faith just has a better chance of being true than yours is all.

The odds against us forming is astronomical, yet science routinely considers the possibility of it occurring everywhere throughout the universe as a given fact, hence their probes to Mars to detect life, possibly Titan, and other planets orbiting other suns. Don't see you objecting to the odds once again.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

So let's review facts as we observe them without conclussions first.

1. The atom and every chemical compound in a rock or in us is governed by the electrical force.

2. Without electrical forces you could not move, breathe and your heart would not beat and no blood would flow.

3. Electrical forces are everywhere we have ever gone and took readings. Not a single space probe has reported negative results, ever.

4. Without electrical forces in your brain we couldn't have this discussion.


So, calculate the odds that electrical forces in the universe won't form a conscious mind.

Sometimes paradoxes arise science is unable to answer, it's the way things work.

Boltzmann brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[hep-th/0208013] Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

I would say the odds of a being of electrical thought is much higher than one having to form from non-living matter to begin with, and then slowly evolve over billions of years into something finally able to become conscious. The odds are better for the intelligences to exist in the universe than they are for you to exist. Yet I do not see you objecting to the odds life formed from non-life. Therefore you accept these odds as not only highly possible, but as factual.

We would not be here discussing this if it was not for electrical interactions. I mean you still claim to be measuring electrical interactions from the initial Big Bang. Unless you think the CMB is not an Electromagnetic event? You want expansion to be caused by some form of energy. Everything we see is emitting an excess of electromagnetic radiation constantly as well.

I would say the odds are stacked highly in favor of a mind or minds existing in the universe. Can I prove it? No, but neither can one disprove it. You and I can't prove life evolved from non-life either, but what is the alternative? So you gotta have faith any way you go. My faith just has a better chance of being true than yours is all.

The odds against us forming is astronomical, yet science routinely considers the possibility of it occurring everywhere throughout the universe as a given fact, hence their probes to Mars to detect life, possibly Titan, and other planets orbiting other suns. Don't see you objecting to the odds once again.

1) There is more than just one force in nature. There is the strong nuclear force, the weak, gravity, and electromagnetic. So, that "fact" is quite off.

2) True enough. And without gravity I wouldn't be here to do those things either.

3) In our tiny little corner of the galaxy, even as we peer out, you are probably correct. I have never heard a hypothesis as to why it should be expected otherwise. (any radio channel tuned to static can pick up radiowaves from the Big Bang.)

4) I'm not sure there is much of a discussion occurring anymore. I get the feeling this is headed towards a non sequitor...

"So, calculate the odds that electrical forces in the universe won't form a conscious mind."

And there it is. But let me get this straight, your god is some universal consciousness that is a product OF the universe. Therefore, not its cause or its supreme ruler?

"I would say the odds of a being of electrical thought is much higher than one having to form from non-living matter to begin with, and then slowly evolve over billions of years into something finally able to become conscious."

You could say that, but it doesn't make it true. How exactly does one go about calculating those odds? And how does one determine that it is likely to be true given that we have no examples of such a purely energy mind?

"The odds are better for the intelligences to exist in the universe than they are for you to exist."

Clearly not. As I can demonstrate my own existence very easily. Meaning the odds of my existence are 1.

"Yet I do not see you objecting to the odds life formed from non-life."

Given what we know at the present time, clearly the odds here must also be that life from non-life is a statistical certainty. That isn't the problematic question in science. It is "Which natural process initiated the development of life?" And just to be clear, I don't think there is such a clear dividing line between life and non-life (at least not at the smaller scales such as viruses and bacteria).

"We would not be here discussing this if it was not for electrical interactions. I mean you still claim to be measuring electrical interactions from the initial Big Bang. Unless you think the CMB is not an Electromagnetic event? You want expansion to be caused by some form of energy. Everything we see is emitting an excess of electromagnetic radiation constantly as well. "

I am no physicist and I am unaware of any such claims I have made that you are charging. As for the need for energy in order to initiate it, I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. We are not even certain that the Big Bang necessarily need to have had a cause. So, I don't know how you assert that it did have to have one and that you know what it was.

"I would say the odds are stacked highly in favor of a mind or minds existing in the universe. Can I prove it? No, but neither can one disprove it. You and I can't prove life evolved from non-life either, but what is the alternative? So you gotta have faith any way you go. My faith just has a better chance of being true than yours is all."

That is one of the single stupidest things I have ever read. You can't prove a negative and you can't provide evidence for the non-existence or non-occurrence of anything or any event. I can't prove fairies don't exist but I certainly don't deem them plausible.

We have shown how it is possible and plausible for life to come from non-life. But we may indeed never prove it by replicating it. That is why we go back to the fossil record and look closer, to see what stands apart.

"The odds against us forming is astronomical, yet science routinely considers the possibility of it occurring everywhere throughout the universe as a given fact, hence their probes to Mars to detect life, possibly Titan, and other planets orbiting other suns. Don't see you objecting to the odds once again."

There you go again claiming odds when you have not actually said what those odds are or how you calculate them. And only if the odds are 0, is the event unlikely to occur. 1 in a million odds, still mean that this thing or event will occur once every million tries or so.

We are not looking for life on these planets (not yet). We are still looking for signatures that indicate that the planet may be hospitable for life or have been hospitable for life (we are looking for the traces of life on Mars, but only secondarily since we are still looking at the evidence of water and other chemical signatures).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

1) There is more than just one force in nature. There is the strong nuclear force, the weak, gravity, and electromagnetic. So, that "fact" is quite off.

Don't even bring the Strong Force into the equation, that is so bogus it is pathetic.
It was once believed that protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and a force was needed to explain how positive protons could stay together and not fly apart, so the strong force was postulated as this force. It was discovered in later years that they were not fundamental particles, but were composed of quarks controlled by the Color Charge force. The strong force was then considered a sub-field of the Color Charge field.

Strong interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Before the 1970s, physicists were uncertain about the binding mechanism of the atomic nucleus. It was known that the nucleus was composed of protons and neutrons and that protons possessed positive electric charge while neutrons were electrically neutral. However, these facts seemed to contradict one another. By physical understanding at that time, positive charges would repel one another and the nucleus should therefore fly apart. However, this was never observed. New physics was needed to explain this phenomenon.

A stronger attractive force was postulated to explain how the atomic nucleus was bound together despite the protons' mutual electromagnetic repulsion. This hypothesized force was called the strong force, which was believed to be a fundamental force that acted on the nucleons (the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus). Experiments suggested that this force bound protons and neutrons together with equal strength.

It was later discovered that protons and neutrons were not fundamental particles, but were made up of constituent particles called quarks. The strong attraction between nucleons was the side-effect of a more fundamental force that bound the quarks together in the protons and neutrons. The theory of quantum chromodynamics explains that quarks carry what is called a color charge, although it has no relation to visible color. Quarks with unlike color charge attract one another as a result of the strong interaction, which is mediated by particles called gluons."

As we delve deeper we find this:

Gluon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Gluons

( /ˈɡluːɒnz/; from English glue) are elementary particles that act as the exchange particles (or gauge bosons) for the strong force between quarks, analogous to the exchange of photons in the electromagnetic force between two charged particles.
Since quarks make up the baryons and the mesons, and the strong interaction takes place between baryons and mesons, one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction, or that the strong interaction is like a residual color force that extends beyond the baryons, for example when protons and neutrons are bound together in a nucleus."

So " one could say that the color force is the source of the strong interaction," and to be considered a fundamental force " In particle physics,

fundamental interactions (sometimes called interactive forces or fundamental forces) are the ways that elementary particles interact with one another. An interaction is fundamental when it cannot be described in terms of other interactions."

Fundamental interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was first wrongly asserted that the protons and neutrons were fundamental particles and governed by the strong force, then when Color Charge was found, the strong force became a sub-filed of this force. In effect the strong force can know be described in terms of the Color Charge, so it no longer can claim fundamental force status. Yet they to this day call it a fundamental force, when in reality it is the color charge of the fundamental particles (quarks) that governs the atom.

Now you are free to continue to believe the strong force is a fundamental force although it is now known it is caused by another force.

As for Color charge we read:

Since gluons carry colour charge, two gluons can also interact. A typical interaction vertex (called the three gluon vertex) for gluons involves g+g→g. This is shown here, along with its colour line representation. The colour-line diagrams can be restated in terms of conservation laws of colour; however, as noted before, this is not a gauge invariant language. Note that in a typical non-Abelian gauge theory the gauge boson carries the charge of the theory, and hence has interactions of this kind; for example, the W boson in the electroweak theory. In the electroweak theory, the W also carries electric charge, and hence interacts with a photon.
In particle physics, colour charge is a property of quarks and gluons that is related to the particles' strong interactions in the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD). Colour charge has analogies with the notion of electric charge of particles, but because of the mathematical complications of QCD, there are many technical differences. The "colour" of quarks and gluons is completely unrelated to visual perception of colour.[1] Rather, it is a name for a property that has almost no manifestation at distances above the size of an atomic nucleus. The term colour was chosen because the abstract property to which it refers has three aspects, which are analogized to the three primary colours of red, green, and blue.[2] By comparison, the electromagnetic charge has a single aspect, which takes the values positive or negative.

Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge disguised as color. It is then claimed EM has only one. So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other. Or maybe there is a third state after all, a balance of forces called as is the term, neutral. So charge can exist in any of the three configurations and we begin to see why the term color was added to misdirect.
So if indeed charge can be only two configurations of one force is the space around us overall negative or overall positive since it can be only one of those two?
As for the weak force that's just electromagnetic. So should be under Electrical forces anyways.
Weak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particle physics, the weak interaction is the mechanism responsible for the weak force or weak nuclear force,... The theory of the weak interaction is sometimes called quantum flavordynamics (QFD), in analogy with the terms QCD and QED, but in practice the term is rarely used because the weak force is best understood in terms of electro-weak theory.

Electroweak interaction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In particle physics, the electroweak interaction is the unified description of two of the four known fundamental interactions of nature: electromagnetism and the weak interaction. Although these two forces appear very different at everyday low energies, the theory models them as two different aspects of the same force.

So that leaves only gravity.
10 to 1 odds gravity is in reality EM in nature as well.

2) True enough. And without gravity I wouldn't be here to do those things either.

Depends on if gravity is in reality an aspect of the EM force as I believe it will be shown to be.

3) In our tiny little corner of the galaxy, even as we peer out, you are probably correct. I have never heard a hypothesis as to why it should be expected otherwise. (any radio channel tuned to static can pick up radiowaves from the Big Bang.)

And electric currents between Sun and Earth.
NASA Spacecraft Make New Discoveries about Northern Lights - NASA Science
Scientists discover surprise in Earth's upper atmosphere / UCLA Newsroom
Between Sun and Moon, so I expect there is one between the Earth and Moon we just have not discovered yet. just learned about the one to Earth and Sun.
NASA - Electric Moon Jolts the Solar Wind
Hazards of Solar Wind On Moon | NASA Lunar Science Institute
And one between Jupiter and It's moons.
Io’s footprint on Jupiter takes the lead : Bad Astronomy
2001 News Releases - Jupiter's Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field
Io - The Electric Moon
And between Saturn and its moons.
NASA - Cassini Sees Saturn Electric Link With Enceladus
And we already know what charged particles do in a magnetic field.
Charged Particle in a Magnetic Field
And if the planets and moons were not charged in relation to the surrounding space and the Sun, there would be no electric currents flowing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

"So, calculate the odds that electrical forces in the universe won't form a conscious mind."

less than the odds life will evolve from non-life, yet you happily except those odds, then go on to speculate as factual life on other planets as well. Odds were good enough for you then, even less odds suddenly not????

And there it is. But let me get this straight, your god is some universal consciousness that is a product OF the universe. Therefore, not its cause or its supreme ruler?

No, my God is energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, and from which all matter formed.
Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess your god is the Big Bang, since it created everything, even though energy had to exist before since your very own Laws of Thermodynamics demand it to be so. So basically the Big Bang is http://media.philly.com/images/And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg

You could say that, but it doesn't make it true. How exactly does one go about calculating those odds? And how does one determine that it is likely to be true given that we have no examples of such a purely energy mind?

About the same way you go about it to claim life evolved from non-life. You have no proof of that either. Never has any life been produced in a laboratory from non-life. If you want to say you "Believe" it happened that way, that's fine, I "Believe" it didn't. You can't prove your claim any more than mine, so I would say your claim is based on personal belief the same as mine.

Given what we know at the present time, clearly the odds here must also be that life from non-life is a statistical certainty. That isn't the problematic question in science. It is "Which natural process initiated the development of life?" And just to be clear, I don't think there is such a clear dividing line between life and non-life (at least not at the smaller scales such as viruses and bacteria).

And yet once again energy cannot be created, so there must have existed something before the Big Bang. No matter how far back and how many Big Bangs you may choose to apply, there must have been energy before. The body can't work without electric currents. Even evolutionists want electric currents (lightning) to have been the spark that created life, and I so totally agree! Then what do you do, you promptly ignore it thereafter. If it caused life, don't you think electrical events would give you the best shot at evolution? After all, z-pinches - a natural event in plasma - would give you all the radiation and electrical forces you need to explain non-transitory species.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pinches may also become unstable,[11] and generate radiation across the electromagnetic spectrum, including radio waves, x-rays[12] and gamma rays,[13] and also neutrons[14] and synchrotron radiation.

What we observe everywhere in the universe no matter where we look.

I am no physicist and I am unaware of any such claims I have made that you are charging. As for the need for energy in order to initiate it, I have no idea how you draw that conclusion. We are not even certain that the Big Bang necessarily need to have had a cause. So, I don't know how you assert that it did have to have one and that you know what it was.

If it didn't have a prior cause then it was a miracle and an act of creation, so I agree with you and science. Are you now violating the Law of cause and Effect?
Causality (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Causality is the relationship between causes and effects.[1][2] It is considered to be fundamental to all natural science, especially physics.

That is one of the single stupidest things I have ever read. You can't prove a negative and you can't provide evidence for the non-existence or non-occurrence of anything or any event. I can't prove fairies don't exist but I certainly don't deem them plausible

We have shown how it is possible and plausible for life to come from non-life. But we may indeed never prove it by replicating it. That is why we go back to the fossil record and look closer, to see what stands apart. .

I can't prove life evolved from non-life either, nor can you. If you can, do so, and quit trying to misdirect. Can you or can you not prove it? And I expect laboratory evidence. If not your claim holds no more grounds than mine and they are equal.
You want the BB to have had no cause now, violating your own physics. At least I am consistent and claim the violation of physics is by definition a miracle. Every effect must have a cause. If you are going to disregard a primary tenant of science, you might as well throw it all out.
I don't disregard any science, just peoples interpretation of what they observe.

There you go again claiming odds when you have not actually said what those odds are or how you calculate them. And only if the odds are 0, is the event unlikely to occur. 1 in a million odds, still mean that this thing or event will occur once every million tries or so.

We are not looking for life on these planets (not yet). We are still looking for signatures that indicate that the planet may be hospitable for life or have been hospitable for life (we are looking for the traces of life on Mars, but only secondarily since we are still looking at the evidence of water and other chemical signatures).

You got the link in my post above to the paper that is still considered a paradox as it has never been successfully disputed.
So the Mars mission isn't looking for life? What you mean to say is it has looked, but has found no evidence. Granted, we will give it the benefit of the doubt since it doesn't have a full laboratory suite. As well as we have found Mars meteorites on Earth, so one can presume Earth meteorites on Mars. So if life is found (which I doubt anyways) we then must confirm it is not Earth life transported there by apparently the same force that can put pieces of Mars on Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

True. Then again we can interview them as with the Lancet study and see what the effect of the experience had on their lives, even years later. A lot of folks are *drastically* changed by such events, so obviously they believe them to be 'real'.



How in the world would that tell us anything?



Until science finds 'evidence' however, hypothetical entities remain an 'act of faith', much like belief in gravitons.

I'm sorry, I don't believe one little bit of life after death experiences. This is not to say I discount the possibility of projecting ones conscious mind, after all, it is merely electrical in nature. But dust we are and to dust we shall return until the resurrection. I do however belief that when the heart stops beating there is still energy within the brain and death is likened to sleep and in sleep one dreams. One is not really dead until all the electrical activity in the brain completely stops.

One is in stress and the subconscious is merely highly active in an attempt to prevent its demise, and dreams are the way the subconscious works out problems which lead to those Eureka moments in waking life when the conscious mind finally understands what the subconscious already does.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Question, quarks have 3 aspects of charge disguised as color.

Yes, there are three different varieties of color charge, conventionally called red, green, and blue.

It is then claimed EM has only one.

Correct, EM (not electroweak) has only one charge, conventionally called charge.

So which is it, is space positive or negative? It can be no other.

Non sequitur. Any object can be positive, negative, or neutral. This is not the same thing as red, green, and blue, if that's what you're attempting to imply.

A quark can be red, antired, or neither.
A quark can be green, antigreen, or neither.
A quark can be blue, antiblue, or neither.

QCD allows three completely separate degrees of color freedom. EM only has one degree of freedom (charge).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Yes, there are three different varieties of color charge, conventionally called red, green, and blue.

So they change flavors like neutrinos? A proton has 1 up - blue, 1 up- red and 1 down - green.

A neutron has 1 up - blue, 1 down - red and 1 down green.

Let's just be honest, and call them positive and negative charges, with one being of a different mass and therefore a voltage differential exists.

So two up and a down make a positive, but two down and an up make a neutral??? Even when it isn't neutral or it wouldn't have a permanent electric dipole field and magnetic dipole moment.

And what causes the electrons electric dipole field and magnetic dipole moment?? Science is saying it takes 3 quarks, but why don't electrons have them? Maybe because you want the neutron to be neutral when it's not?

Personally I think you are full of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron

From several unsolved puzzles in particle physics, it is clear that the Standard Model is not the final and full description of all particles and their interactions.

Agreed, because colour is useless and you should be looking at the voltage differentials between smaller particles instead of pretending a particle is neutral. If it was neutral then it would not interact with the proton and keep them in place. Common sense people. Use it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
[The heavier quarks rapidly change into up and down quarks through a process of particle decay:[/quote]
EM forces are good enough to describe your radioactive decay dating theories, wouldn't mess with it if I was you.

Quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, color charge, mass, and spin.

No, just electric charge, variations in mass and intensities of those charges, and spin because that is what things do when electric current flows and magnetic fields form. That is how we decipher negative and positive particles in high energy physics in particle accelerators. by the direction of the tracks they leave in cloud chambers in the magnetic field as they spiral.

Having electric charge, mass, color charge, and flavor, quarks are the only known elementary particles that engage in all four fundamental interactions of contemporary physics: electromagnetism, gravitation, strong interaction, and weak interaction.[13] Gravitation is too weak to be relevant to individual particle interactions except at extremes of energy (Planck energy) and distance scales (Planck distance). However, since no successful quantum theory of gravity exists, gravitation is not described by the Standard Model.

Once again, its all electric.

Maybe you should read this, pretty basic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_charge

 

[essentialsaltes]

A proton has 1 up - blue, 1 up- red and 1 down - green.

A neutron has 1 up - blue, 1 down - red and 1 down green.

Let's just be honest, and call them positive and negative charges

That would be the opposite of being honest. It would be wrong.

So two up and a down make a positive, but two down and an up make a neutral???

I'm not sure what the huge question marks are for. Up quarks have an electrical charge of +2/3 and the down quark has a charge of -1/3.

2 ups and a down = 2/3 + 2/3 + -1/3 = +1 for a proton
2 downs and an up = 2/3 + -1/3 + -1/3 = 0 for a neutron

Then as a totally separate issue, the quarks also have color charge, which is not the same as electrical charge.

And what causes the electrons electric dipole field

The electron dipole moment is zero as far as we can measure. Due to CP-violation, the electron is expected to have a tiny dipole moment, due to higher order quantum fluctuations that involve quarks.

and magnetic dipole moment??

Electrons have quantum spin, which gives them a magnetic moment.

If it was neutral then it would not interact with the proton and keep them in place.

The neutron is (net) neutral. Neutrons are not affected by electric fields.

Neutrons would not interact with protons only if electromagnetism were the only force in the universe. Since the neutron does interact with the proton, that shows that EM is not the only force in the universe.

Common sense people. Use it.

Likewise.

"Quarks have various intrinsic properties, including electric charge, color charge, mass, and spin."
No, just electric charge, variations in mass and intensities of those charges, and spin

Why on earth do you bother to quote authorities, if you immediately contradict them? You are arguing with yourself.

Usually people quote things that agree with their position. You quote something that disagrees with you. You should take this as evidence that you are wrong.

 

[Smidlee]

I haven't watch it all yet but I found it interesting he made a magically claim that we "step out of a SuperNova" (nature god) that somehow created an intelligent being with a conscience then shot himself in the foot about the magically claims of religion. The idea we are the creation of the stars is a very old religious idea.
Everyone does believe in some kind of god after all. (I don't believe I have a soul. I am a soul within a body.)

P.S it's still human nature the current generation believing their ancestors were a butch of idiots and that the new generation has arrived.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I haven't watch it all yet but I found it interesting he made a magically claim that we "step out of a SuperNova" (nature god) that somehow created an intelligent being with a conscience then shot himself in the foot about the magically claims of religion. The idea we are the creation of the stars is a very old religious idea.
Everyone does believe in some kind of god after all. (I don't believe I have a soul. I am a soul within a body.)

P.S it's still human nature the current generation believing their ancestors were a butch of idiots and that the new generation has arrived.

No one has a soul, that's another fantasy of puffed up Christians. Man "became" a living soul, the same word used for the animals, nephesh.

Nephesh - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard

The only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to reason beyond food gathering, to imagine and dream of the future.

Who claims to know the difference?

Ecclesiastes 3:20-21 "20. All go to one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again. 21. Who knows the spirit of man that goes upward, and the spirit of the beast that goes downward to the earth? 22. Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?"

Just laughable what modern Christendom has turned the Bible into, by their twisted reasoning's. Just as it is laughable what modern astronomy is turning science into.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Question.

Since the brain has electric currents traveling in it, and EM fields travel at the speed of c, does this mean in times of stress when time seems to slow it is because it actually is? Isn't c relativistic? So would not your thoughts traveling at c be relativistic and therefore capable of time dilation? Is this why the human brain can process billions of bits of information in the background - such as driving - while allowing you to consciously think of other things?

Maybe we are all warped

And btw, such things are admissible solutions to Mawell's equations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheeler–Feynman_absorber_theory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_interpretation

http://books.google.com/books?id=zB...ced wave solution maxwell's equations&f=false

See section on Maxwell's Equations - advanced potentials.

http://www.numericana.com/answer/maxwell.htm#equations

 

[Gottservant]

Science doesn't save your soul apparently, it turns you into something so twisted you don't want to live with it.

On the other hand, from Jesus we know that "religion is dwelling with God, faith is knowing Him".

If this guy ever stops hating people that care for each other around him, he will become a believer.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

That would be the opposite of being honest. It would be wrong.

No wrong would be in believing a charged particle isn't really a charged particle so one can continue to ignore the fact that everything is electrical.

Quarks have the unusual characteristic of having a fractional electric charge, unlike the proton and electron, which have integer charges of +1 and -1 respectively.

Call it color if you want, charge is charge, quit lying to yourself.

I'm not sure what the huge question marks are for. Up quarks have an electrical charge of +2/3 and the down quark has a charge of -1/3.

2 ups and a down = 2/3 + 2/3 + -1/3 = +1 for a proton
2 downs and an up = 2/3 + -1/3 + -1/3 = 0 for a neutron

Then as a totally separate issue, the quarks also have color charge, which is not the same as electrical charge.

So you say, so you say, yet charge is an electrical property wether you like it or nat, quit lying to yourself.

If it is neutral, then why does it have a permenent electric dipole field and a magnetic dipole moment?

The electron dipole moment is zero as far as we can measure. Due to CP-violation, the electron is expected to have a tiny dipole moment, due to higher order quantum fluctuations that involve quarks.

wrong. You just changed those internal quarks to *virtual* quarks. Shall we say Fairie Dust?
Electron electric dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
and wrong again
Electron magnetic dipole moment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quit lying to yourself.

neutron is (net) neutral. Neutrons are not affected by electric fields.

then why do two neutron immediately fly apart if they are neutral. two protons immediately fly apart. Two electrons immediately fly apart. Two neutrons immediately fly apart. So much for your neutrality, observations prove otherwise.
Quit lying to yourself.

Neutrons would not interact with protons only if electromagnetism were the only force in the universe. Since the neutron does interact with the proton, that shows that EM is not the only force in the universe.

That is the most rediculous thing anyone has ever said.
Quit lying to yourself.

Why on earth do you bother to quote authorities, if you immediately contradict them? You are arguing with yourself.

Because Your authorities can't even agree on the answer. They tell you one thing in one theory, then contradict it in the next, but you fail to see that because they are your god and can do no wrong.
Quit lying to yourself.

Usually people quote things that agree with their position. You quote something that disagrees with you. You should take this as evidence that you are wrong.

It does agree with my interpretation. If neutrons were neutral they would not fly apart, would not have an electric dipole field and would not have a magnetic dipole moment just like every single other particle including the ones you call positive and negative.

Quit lying to yourself.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Call it color if you want, charge is charge, quit lying to yourself.

Color is a charge in that it gives rise to fields. But it does not give rise to electromagnetic fields. It is linked to color fields which behave utterly differently. In particular, they do not obey the inverse square law.

So you say, so you say, yet charge is an electrical property wether you like it or nat

Color charge is not an electrical property. The use of the word 'charge' in 'color charge' is simply an analogy to electrical charge. The use of the word 'color' in 'color charge' is to distinguish it from electrical charge, since they are not the same thing.

If it is neutral, then why does it have a permenent electric dipole field and a magnetic dipole moment?

Like the electron, the neutron's electric dipole has not been measured. As far as we know, it is zero. However, we expect it to have a very small EDM because of the interaction of virtual quarks. You say that's fairy dust. Fine. If so, then the answer to your question is "The neutron does not have an electric dipole moment, and its measured value is zero within limits of detection. Therefore you are wrong to assert that it has one."

then why do two neutron immediately fly apart if they are neutral.

They do not. Although the dineutron is not a stable particle, the binding between two neutrons is almost strong enough. "A system made up of only two neutrons is not bound, though the attraction between them is very nearly enough to make them so." And the dineutron has been observed in certain radioactive decay modes. I defy you to present evidence that two neutrons placed near each other, will accelerate away from each other as though under the influence of an electrical force between them.
Regardless, neutrons are not deflected by electric fields. This is strong, direct, unambiguous evidence that they have no net electric charge.

That is the most rediculous thing anyone has ever said.

Says the person promoting transparently ridiculous pseudoscience.

quit lying to yourself
quit lying to yourself.
Quit lying to yourself.
Quit lying to yourself.
Quit lying to yourself.
Quit lying to yourself.
Quit lying to yourself.

You are tiresome and your crackpot theory holds no water.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

"So, calculate the odds that electrical forces in the universe won't form a conscious mind."

less than the odds life will evolve from non-life, yet you happily except those odds, then go on to speculate as factual life on other planets as well. Odds were good enough for you then, even less odds suddenly not????

No, my God is energy, which can neither be created or destroyed, and from which all matter formed.
Laws of thermodynamics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I guess your god is the Big Bang, since it created everything, even though energy had to exist before since your very own Laws of Thermodynamics demand it to be so. So basically the Big Bang is http://media.philly.com/images/And_then_a_miracle_happens_cartoon.jpg

About the same way you go about it to claim life evolved from non-life. You have no proof of that either. Never has any life been produced in a laboratory from non-life. If you want to say you "Believe" it happened that way, that's fine, I "Believe" it didn't. You can't prove your claim any more than mine, so I would say your claim is based on personal belief the same as mine.


And yet once again energy cannot be created, so there must have existed something before the Big Bang. No matter how far back and how many Big Bangs you may choose to apply, there must have been energy before. The body can't work without electric currents. Even evolutionists want electric currents (lightning) to have been the spark that created life, and I so totally agree! Then what do you do, you promptly ignore it thereafter. If it caused life, don't you think electrical events would give you the best shot at evolution? After all, z-pinches - a natural event in plasma - would give you all the radiation and electrical forces you need to explain non-transitory species.
Z-pinch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pinch (plasma physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What we observe everywhere in the universe no matter where we look.
If it didn't have a prior cause then it was a miracle and an act of creation, so I agree with you and science. Are you now violating the Law of cause and Effect?
Causality (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I can't prove life evolved from non-life either, nor can you. If you can, do so, and quit trying to misdirect. Can you or can you not prove it? And I expect laboratory evidence. If not your claim holds no more grounds than mine and they are equal.
You want the BB to have had no cause now, violating your own physics. At least I am consistent and claim the violation of physics is by definition a miracle. Every effect must have a cause. If you are going to disregard a primary tenant of science, you might as well throw it all out.
I don't disregard any science, just peoples interpretation of what they observe.

You got the link in my post above to the paper that is still considered a paradox as it has never been successfully disputed.
So the Mars mission isn't looking for life? What you mean to say is it has looked, but has found no evidence. Granted, we will give it the benefit of the doubt since it doesn't have a full laboratory suite. As well as we have found Mars meteorites on Earth, so one can presume Earth meteorites on Mars. So if life is found (which I doubt anyways) we then must confirm it is not Earth life transported there by apparently the same force that can put pieces of Mars on Earth.[/QUOTE]

JustaTroll

You seem to have an understanding of physics I do not. Indeed, I'd even go as far as to say that you have an understanding of physics that no physicist has. I think I've wasted enough time...

 

[Smidlee]

No one has a soul, that's another fantasy of puffed up Christians. Man "became" a living soul, the same word used for the animals, nephesh.

Nephesh - Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon - New American Standard

The only thing that separates us from the animals is our ability to reason beyond food gathering, to imagine and dream of the future.

Who claims to know the difference?

You don't have to know Hebrew to know the scripture makes a huge difference the soul of man and the soul of an animal. An animal has a soul while man is a soul which Christ redeems.

Just laughable what modern Christendom has turned the Bible into, by their twisted reasoning's. Just as it is laughable what modern astronomy is turning science into.

Oh no you didn't quote Ecclesiastes where Solomon wrote in 2:12 he seek out to know wisdom, madness and folly. Notice how often in this book you read "under the sun" "I said in mine heart" "I perceive" as in 3:18 before the verse you quote.
The gospel (good news) is not found in Ecclesiastes as it's main focus in here on Earth.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

You don't have to know Hebrew to know the scripture makes a huge difference the soul of man and the soul of an animal. An animal has a soul while man is a soul which Christ redeems.

Maybe you might want to see what those verses really say in the original, not 6th removed languages.

Nephesh - Hebrew Thoughts - Language Studies - StudyLight.org

Oh no you didn't quote Ecclesiastes where Solomon wrote in 2:12 he seek out to know wisdom, madness and folly. Notice how often in this book you read "under the sun" "I said in mine heart" "I perceive" as in 3:18 before the verse you quote.
The gospel (good news) is not found in Ecclesiastes as it's main focus in here on Eaz.[/QUOTE]

Which is why Solomon asked exactly that, who dares to claim knowledge of the ways of God, that would indeed be madness and folly. Yet I see some that claim to know when they don't even know what nephesh means.