Do electrons exits?

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
It's not clear that gravitons are imaginary.
It's not clear that Cinderella's invisible pink unicorns are imaginary.

In order to put something into the "imaginary" column because they have not been observed, you have to be able to observe them, look in all the places they could be, and failed to find them.

That is not the case with gravitons. We lack the ability to detect them.
In other words, gravitons belong in the same class with invisble pink unicorns.

BTW, if you use your criteria for God, you end up having to say that God is imaginary. Since you have made it plain you believe in God, it means that your criteria is flawed.
I know God exists because I observe his physical effects; I know gravitons do not exist because they have no effects.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I know God exists because I observe his physical effects; I know gravitons do not exist because they have no effects.

Interesting. So when I see an effect in my life that you might ascribe to God but I do not, does that make God real only for you but not for me?

Whose "model" is correct?

My understanding of the Graviton is that it is hypothetical as a "mediator" or the gravitational force, just as there are particle mediators of all the other known forces.

Right now we have photons to mediate electromagnetism, intermediate vector bosons for the weak force, gluons and pi nucleons to mediate the strong, the remaining "hole" (no pun intended) is what, if anything, mediates the graviational force? Gravitons are proposed but not yet observed.

I don't know if this makes it "real" or "imaginary" so much as "hypothetical".
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
I know God exists because I observe his physical effects; I know gravitons do not exist because they have no effects.

I would love to see God! What effects are you talking about?
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Interesting. So when I see an effect in my life that you might ascribe to God but I do not, does that make God real only for you but not for me?
I really don't care whether God is real for you or not. Your choice if you want to reject causality and observation and physics and say the universe is uncaused.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it to them." -- Romans 1:19

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -- Romans 1:20

Even the most primitive minds understood this.

"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.

Whose "model" is correct?
I think Pythagoras's model is correct, however lots of people thought Ptolemy's model was correct...:thumbsup:

My understanding of the Graviton is that it is hypothetical as a "mediator" or the gravitational force, just as there are particle mediators of all the other known forces.
That's my understanding of My Little Pony as well.

Right now we have photons to mediate electromagnetism, intermediate vector bosons for the weak force, gluons and pi nucleons to mediate the strong, the remaining "hole" (no pun intended) is what, if anything, mediates the graviational force? Gravitons are proposed but not yet observed.

I don't know if this makes it "real" or "imaginary" so much as "hypothetical".
Observed = real. Hypothetical = imaginary.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
I would love to see God! What effects are you talking about?
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

Behold: the Pillars of Creation.

Pillars-of-Creation_sm.jpg


Note: they are called Pillars of Creation not Pillars of Evolution...:thumbsup:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it to them." -- Romans 1:19

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -- Romans 1:20
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wiccan_Child
Upvote 0

jonmichael818

Newbie
Nov 28, 2010
287
4
42
united states
✟7,969.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's not clear that Cinderella's invisible pink unicorns are imaginary.
I don't remember Cinderella having a unicorn of any kind? If she did, then I might be able to agree with you.;)

In other words, gravitons belong in the same class with invisble pink unicorns.
Wrong.
Gravitons are postulated as a result of a HUGE amount of experimental and observed evidence. Invisible pink unicorns is simply an idea that you pulled out of thin air.

Not the same class.


I know God exists because I observe his physical effects; I know gravitons do not exist because they have no effects.
And if those physical effects can be explained by other means than god, then where does that leave god?

I assume you believe gravity exists? If so, then what is your theory on what gravity is, where it comes from, how it works?
If you say god did it, that does not explain very much, so how did god do it?
I need specific details, not some vague bible verse.
 
Upvote 0

thaumaturgy

Well-Known Member
Nov 17, 2006
7,541
882
✟12,333.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I really don't care whether God is real for you or not. Your choice if you want to reject causality and observation and physics and say the universe is uncaused.

As opposed to an "uncaused God", right?

Even the most primitive minds understood this.

Weeellll, to be fair the most primitive minds probably weren't thinking about the judeo Christian God Jahweh.

But let me get this straight: the most primitive minds who didn't know why the sun appeared to rise or set, or why storms or earthquakes occured, decided to come up with some "idea" (hypothesis) about forces beyond their control and comprehension, varying from the Olympian gods of ancient Greece, to the multitudes of gods and avatars of said gods of Hinduism, to the various Canaanite gods to the god "El" in the Old Testament ultimately to "I am" and JHWH.

And this plethora of a variety of gods is a "proof" of the one God's existence?

That's my understanding of My Little Pony as well.

Does your copy of My Little Pony contain lots of Feynman diagrams? :confused:

Could you scan it and put it on the internet for us?

Observed = real. Hypothetical = imaginary.

Well, I guess we'll have to wait and see won't we? I mean, gravitation is considered one of the 4 fundamental forces and the only one so far without a known mediator particle, so let's use the proper term: hypothetical.

It is hypothesized and awaiting evidence for its existence or failure to provide evidence. It may be "imaginary" in the crudest sense of the word, but this is science. Investigation is still ongoing.
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands." -- Psalm 19:1

Behold: the Pillars of Creation.

Pillars-of-Creation_sm.jpg


Note: they are called Pillars of Creation not Pillars of Evolution...:thumbsup:

"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it to them." -- Romans 1:19

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:" -- Romans 1:20

OK. I'm still waiting for the effects that show there's a God. You showed me something call the "Pillars of Creation" but I don't see how something's name shows god is real. After all, there a constellations named "fish." Unless God is a couple of fish in space...
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Gravitons are postulated as a result of a HUGE amount of experimental and observed evidence.
LOL.

Gravitons have never been observed.

Invisible pink unicorns have been observed as much as gravitons.

All those so-called "observations" and experiments would have produced better results wearing tinfoil hats.

"...all that work is in vain." -- Geoffrey Burbidge, astrophysicist, 2000

"It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is, from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing." -- Stephen J. Crothers, astrophysicist, August 2009

Invisible pink unicorns is simply an idea that you pulled out of thin air.

Not the same class.
Likewise gravitons. Exact same class.

In the electric model of the universe gravitons belong in the exact same class as invisible pink unicorns -- unobserved fantasies and wishful thinking.

And if those physical effects can be explained by other means than god, then where does that leave god?
I say God created gravity whereas gravity is your God.

Newton said "God and gravity did it."

Hawking says "gravity did it without God."

I assume you believe gravity exists?
I accept gravity and reject universal gravitation.

Gravity is an ancient observation (Lucretius/Plutarch); universal gravitation is a 17th century myth (Newton).

I believe that electromagnetism causes gravity.

If so, then what is your theory on what gravity is, where it comes from, how it works?
I reject Newtonian universal gravitation and General Relativity is favor of electromagnetism -- this was the view of Pythagoras, Kepler, Faraday, Tesla, Brown, Velikovsky etc.

KEPLER

"The example of the magnet I have hit upon is a very pretty one, and entirely suited to the subject; indeed, it is little short of being the very truth." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

"For, by the demonstration of the Englishman William Gilbert, the earth itself is a big magnet...." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

"It is therefore plausible, since the Earth moves the moon through its species and magnetic body, while the sun moves the planets similarly through an emitted species, that the sun is likewise a magnetic body." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer/mathematician, New Astronomy, 1609

"But come: let us follow more closely the tracks of this similarity of the planetary reciprocation [libration] to the motion of a magnet, and that by a most beautiful geometric demonstration, so that it might appear that a magnet has such a motion as that which we perceive in the planet." -- Johannes Kepler, astronomer, New Astronomy, 1609

FARADAY

"The long and constant persuasion that all the forces of nature are mutually dependent, having one common origin, or rather being different manifestations of one fundamental power, has often made me think on the possibility of establishing, by experiment, a connection between gravity and electricity …no terms could exaggerate the value of the relation they would establish.'' -- Michael Faraday, physicist, 1865

KILMER

"Magnetism is possessed by the whole mass of the earth and universe of heavenly bodies, and is an essence of known demonstration and laws. By adopting it we have the advantage over the gravity theory by the use of the polar relation to magnetism. A magnetic north pole presented to a magnetic south pole, or a south pole to a north pole, attracts, while a north pole to another north pole or a south pole to another repels. This gives to us a better reason than gravitation can for the elliptical orbit of the planets instead of the circular. It also gives us some light on the mystery of the tides, the philosophy of which the profoundest study has not solved. Certain facts are apparent; but for the explanation of the true theory such men as Laplace and Newton, and others more recent, have labored in vain." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

"I hope that some reader interested in astronomical matters will take occasion to make some reply to this letter [The Myth of Gravitation] and possibly contend that electro-magnetism cannot supersede Newton's theory of gravitation in the suspension and movement of the universe of worlds." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

BROWN

"It is found that matter and electricity are very closely related in structure. ... it is self-evident that matter is connected with gravitation and it follows logically that electricity is likewise connected." -- T. Townsend Brown, physicist, Aug 1929

"The writer and his colleagues anticipated the present situation even as early as 1923, and began at that time to construct the necessary theoretical bridge between the two then separate phenomena, electricity and gravitation. The first actual demonstration of the relation was made in 1924." -- T. Townsend Brown, physicist, Aug 1929

VELIKOVSKY

"Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1946

"All planets revolve in approximately one plane. They revolve in a plane perpendicular to the lines of force of the sun’s magnetic field." -- Immanuel Velikovsky, polymath, 1946

CONTEMPORARY LOGIC

"When first observed by Voyager, the spoke movements [of Saturn's Rings] seemed to defy gravity and had the scientists very perplexed. Since the spokes rotate at the same rate as Saturn's magnetic field, it is apparent that the electromagnetic forces are also at work." -- Ron Baalke, astrophysicist, 1998

If you say god did it, that does not explain very much, so how did god do it?
I need specific details, not some vague bible verse.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,581
51,587
Guam
✟4,922,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Gravitons have never been observed.
Neither have UFOs, but that won't stop scientists from setting up shop and giving it an acronym (S.E.T.I.), while at the same time claiming God and the Flood and most other things in the Bible certainly don't exist.

Have you ever seen the equivalent of the LHC in a scientific search for God?

Of course not -- scientist don't even know where to begin to look, so they take the inexpensive way out and claim God doesn't exist.

That way, it makes them look like they know something we don't; without having to do research where they don't even know where to begin.
 
Upvote 0

Inept

Unfalsifiable
Jul 16, 2010
105
7
✟15,254.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Have you ever seen the equivalent of the LHC in a scientific search for God?

Of course not -- scientist don't even know where to begin to look, so they take the inexpensive way out and claim God doesn't exist.

That way, it makes them look like they know something we don't; without having to do research where they don't even know where to begin.

Science doesn't tend to concern itself with the supernatural.

If God was at all evident then faith wouldn't be required.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,581
51,587
Guam
✟4,922,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Science doesn't tend to concern itself with the supernatural.
Oh, really?

Like the time they tested ESP, telekenesis and so on?

If I recall the '70s correctly, Russian scientists sent a man in space and he tried to read symbols on cards through the mind of a scientist on earth.

The scientist on earth would hold up a card in front of him, and the Russian in space would say, "You are looking at a [whatever]".
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Neither have UFOs, but that won't stop scientists from setting up shop and giving it an acronym (S.E.T.I.)
U.F.O.s have been observed.

Millions of eyewitness accounts from around the world including Biblical eyewitness accounts.

"Who are these that fly as a cloud, and as the doves to their windows?" -- Isaiah 60:8

"And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the colour of amber, out of the midst of the fire. Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures. And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man." -- Ezekial 1:4-5

"And when I looked, behold the four wheels by the cherubims, one wheel by one cherub, and another wheel by another cherub: and the appearance of the wheels was as the colour of a beryl stone. And as for their appearances, they four had one likeness, as if a wheel had been in the midst of a wheel. When they went, they went upon their four sides; they turned not as they went, but to the place whither the head looked they followed it; they turned not as they went." -- Ezekial 10:9-11

"Then I turned, and lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a flying roll. And he said unto me, What seest thou? And I answered, I see a flying roll; the length thereof is twenty cubits, and the breadth thereof ten cubits." -- Zechariah 5:1-2

YouTube - UFOs - FOX News - Mexican Air Force.flv

while at the same time claiming God and the Flood and most other things in the Bible certainly don't exist.
They're insane.

Have you ever seen the equivalent of the LHC in a scientific search for God?
That's as ridiculous as S.E.T.I.

We don't need to search for God or extraterrestrials because they are in the Bible.

Of course not -- scientist don't even know where to begin to look, so they take the inexpensive way out and claim God doesn't exist.

That way, it makes them look like they know something we don't; without having to do research where they don't even know where to begin.
I agree.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Science doesn't tend to concern itself with the supernatural.
God is natural so that's irrelevant.

If God was at all falsifiable then faith wouldn't be required.
I agree that it is impossible to falsify something that is true -- namely God.

However, if God were at all falsifiable then faith would still be required.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'" -- Max Planck, physicist, 1932
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,851,581
51,587
Guam
✟4,922,249.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
U.F.O.s have been observed.
Yes they have, but I meant under "scientific conditions".

You know -- the kind where scientists run out there with their Secret Sam equipment, set up shop, then scratch their heads waiting for a U.F.O. to show up in their 'field of observation'?

Or you give them a photograph or actual piece from a crash site and they "lose" it.

I love it when they go sailing out on Loch Ness with their official Johnny Sonar underwater spy cams and whistle for Nessie to show up and she doesn't; then come back to shore scratching their heads and collecting their paychecks.

Oh, they might get a fish hook stuck in their behinds and demand Workmans' Compensation, but that's rare.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Yes they have, but I meant under "scientific conditions".

You know -- the kind where scientists run out there with their Secret Sam equipment, set up shop, then scratch their heads waiting for a U.F.O. to show up in their 'field of observation'?

Or you give them a photograph or actual piece from a crash site and they "lose" it.

I love it when they go sailing out on Loch Ness with their official Johnny Sonar underwater spy cams and whistle for Nessie to show up and she doesn't; then come back to shore scratching their heads and collecting their paychecks.

Oh, they might get a fish hook stuck in their behinds and demand Workmans' Compensation, but that's rare.
:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

sandwiches

Mas sabe el diablo por viejo que por diablo.
Jun 16, 2009
6,104
124
45
Dallas, Texas
✟22,030.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Neither have UFOs, but that won't stop scientists from setting up shop and giving it an acronym (S.E.T.I.), while at the same time claiming God and the Flood and most other things in the Bible certainly don't exist.

Have you ever seen the equivalent of the LHC in a scientific search for God?

Of course not -- scientist don't even know where to begin to look, so they take the inexpensive way out and claim God doesn't exist.

That way, it makes them look like they know something we don't; without having to do research where they don't even know where to begin.

Now, you make it sound like it's a matter of money and convenience that scientists don't look for God using their instruments. So, do you know how scientists should start testing for the existence of God, then, AV, since you seem to be comparing extraterrestrial intelligence to God? It's ironic that you're suggesting this considering that you preach randomly about God not fitting in a test tube or some such.

Oh, really?

Like the time they tested ESP, telekenesis and so on?

If I recall the '70s correctly, Russian scientists sent a man in space and he tried to read symbols on cards through the mind of a scientist on earth.

The scientist on earth would hold up a card in front of him, and the Russian in space would say, "You are looking at a [whatever]".

Telekinesis or ESP, if observable and demonstrable, would not be supernatural.
 
Upvote 0
K

knowledgeIsPower

Guest
Of course not -- scientist don't even know where to begin to look, so they take the inexpensive way out and claim God doesn't exist.
Maybe individual scientists do in their own personal capacity. This is there opinion and they're welcome to it, but science as a whole doesn't claim that. Stop lying. Your god doesn't like it when you lie.

However science as a whole does say that your god doesn't exist (you know... your weird conspiracy theorist one that hides all the evidence of all that awesome stuff he does) :D
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maxwell511

Contributor
Jun 12, 2005
6,073
260
40
Utah County
✟16,130.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Effectively no, technically yes. Such a GUT must be able to explain electronic behaviour, even if it doesn't actually posit electrons, but deduces them (in much the same the Standard Model doesn't posit protons, but rather posits their constituents).

Ultimately, if electrons exist, any attempt to explain everything must, in some way, account for these real particles. The Standard Model does this with protons, for instance.

I think we are at an impasse. We are different types of scientists, you study nature scientifically and I attempt to study scientists and engineers, and their findings and the way they find them, in a scientific way*.

A major hypothesis for me is whether scientific "truth"** is the result of the nature of reality or the nature of human reasoning and "social" conditions. You obviously think that it is the result of the nature of reality. I think that that it is a hypothesis that needs to be tested under Popperian criterion.

As an example of what I am talking about consider Brian Greene's lament in "The elegant universe" that the incorrect theory of General Relativity was found before the apparently more correct String Theory.

*A scientific finding, or the origin of new technology, is a natural event. A microwave is the result of natural processes and therefore is as applicable to scientific study as a giraffe. Unless you are a dualist, in which case I would say "shut up I am trying to do some science here".

**I believe science leads to more and more accurate predictions within paradigms and can cause paradigm shifts when needed. However I don't think we can ever call scientific knowledge "truth". It is our understanding of the nature of reality with the best information that we gathered.
 
Upvote 0