• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Ask a physicist anything.

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Wiccan_Child, Oct 18, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +452
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    I suspect simply harder and harder gamma rays.

    However, the distinctions between the different EM bands are largely academic. They're all photons, just at different energies; but at lower energies they interact with different everyday materials in appreciably different ways. Once you get up to the x-ray end of things, the photons are so energetic they just start ripping through pretty much anything.
     
  2. 3sigma

    3sigma Well-Known Member

    +66
    Atheist
    Delta rays?
     
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,071
    Christian
    Well, actually there is a "consensus" that most of "dark matter" is "non baryonic" is mostly Lambda-ColdDarkMatter theories. That's rather "exotic" considering it's not composed of protons or neutrons. That leaves us with electrons (which I happen to believe exist out there in space), tiny things like neutrinos and what else?

    Well, come on now, isn't that a wee vague? There's quite a large difference in suggesting that our technology is limited therefore our we don't really know, vs. claiming that most of the "dark matter" is non baryonic in nature.

    Dark matter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    According to Wiki, most of the material is "non-baryonic" in nature. That's rather "exotic" don't you think?

    It's sort of like watching the fox guard the hen house. I think they go through an indoctrination and Phd time. --- Ok people, you talk about *ANYTHING BUT* "electricity". Terms like "magnetic reconnection" are in, terms like "electrical discharge" are out. Get it? Any questions? You wan't to be published right? It's remarkable that Birkeland was able to 'explain' and even simulate solar wind, "jets", coronal loops and aurora over 100 years ago in a lab using technologies of the earliest part of the 20th century, but astronomers today can't "explain" solar wind acceleration from a sphere in a vacuum. Science is not progressing at nearly the rate you imagine.

    Dark matter does not exist other than perhaps "MACHO" forms of "Dark matter", neutrino forms of "non-baryonic dark matter" and I suppose electrons could qualify as "non-baryonic", but they emit photons so I think they're out of the question. Due to the anti-EU bias in the industry, it's *DEFINITELY* out of the question. If you believe in any other form of "dark matter", then you must empirically demonstrate your case. Hypothetical SUSY particles do not exist to my knowledge and in no empirical way have they been confirmed to exist. Whatever mass is "out there" is simply 'unknown'. It's not necessarily as WIKI claims that most of the material is non-baryonic. Just in the past few years we've learned that galaxies are twice as bright as we once thought and have many times more small stars per large stars than we "estimated". All we know for sure is that our mass estimation techniques are highly faulty and there is much more bayonic material in every galaxy than we once thought.

    I'm curious at this point why you personally do not apply that same "faith" to the topic of God? Turn that statement around and imagine the impact of my using that same argument to you about the topic of God. Care to explain the apparent double standard here? Maybe I'm missing something but I don't get the feeling you'd consider that a convincing argument with the tables turned.

    SUSY particles are "hypothetical" entities that have yet to appear anywhere near a controlled experiment. It's a "wild idea" at this point in time and standard particle physics theory has been well documented to hold water to this point in time, to all tested energy states. SUSY theory is a non standard branch of particle physics theory, and for good reason.

    Astronomers take it several steps "out there" into speculationville by literally "making up" various properties and assigning them to hypothetical particles. They they then look at the sky and attempt to "Explain" what they see based on this plethora of made up properties wrapped in a thin veneer of acceptability using a substandard brand of particle physics theory and viola, they create a whole universe and claim to have explained it all down to the last 100,000 years or so and a couple of inches in diameter. Come on.

    It's pretty undeniable that electricity exists in nature and has a positive impact on human beings. You can pickup a number of consumer products at any Mall, any electrical appliance store, anywhere and see the value of scientific engineering. On the other hand, I am somehow supposed to believe that 96% of the presumed universe can't do anything or have any effect on humans today. When might they have some influence on humans? It's funny that nothing runs on "dark energy" yet it supposedly makes up 70+ percent of the universe. How do you know that this "acceleration energy" is unrelated to the EM field again? That is the one known force of nature that is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity. Plasma is an excellent conductor. How did your rule out the EM field as the cause of acceleration of a mostly plasma universe?

    Sorry, but it's not "irrelevant" that our technology is so limited we can't actually count stars in a galaxy. We have to "estimate" them based on a series of "assumptions" which we now know to have been false all along. The galaxies are twice as bright and far more heavily populated with stars than we once though and therefore any "missing mass" is likely due to our pitiful mass estimation attempts, not any "non-baryonic" material.

    I am amazed frankly that you "lack belief" in God because you've never seen God move anything, but you buy into the whole inflation/dark energy things hook line and sinker and allow it (in fact encourage it) to be taught as "science" in the classroom. There seems like a giant empirical double standard going on here.

    I need a cup of coffee so I'll stop here for the time being.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  4. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    It seems that way to me too. The power of faith...can't beat it. It's everywhere. Even in "science". :thumbsup:
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  5. TerranceL

    TerranceL Sarcasm is kind of an art isn't it?

    +4,550
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Libertarian
    I see you don't understand science.
     
  6. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Gamma rays are very high energy photons. While photons can theoretically have much higher energies still, we haven't encountered any, so we haven't given them a name yet. So, until we need to make a distinction, gamma rays generally incorporates everything with a frequency of 10[sup]22[/sup] Hz and up.
     
  7. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    If a house is built using hypothetical materials that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would the house itself be considered a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified?

    And if the house itself is a hypothetical structure that has not yet been confirmed or falsified would that house have any basis in reality? :)
     
  8. Thistlethorn

    Thistlethorn Defeated dad.

    785
    +48
    Agnostic
    Single
    Why don't you build a house on hypothetical materials and get back to us on that?
     
  9. pgp_protector

    pgp_protector Noted strange person

    +15,618
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Wouldn't a 0HZ EM Field just be a Static Magnetic Field ?

    After all Moving a Magnet Back & Forth at 1 HZ would create a 1 HZ EM Field Right ?
    Moving it Back & Forth at 1,000 Hz would create a 1K HZ EM Field

    ECT.
     
  10. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    How can a black hole exist if it is an abstract concept?

    What is the hole into?
    Is it true that Einstein did not believe in a black hole, claiming it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity?
     
  11. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +452
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    If it's built entirely out of hypothetical materials, yes.
    Not necessarily. The effects attributed to the hypothetical materials would still be there and would be observable. So something is there, whether or not it's the exact materials speculated would depend on further investigation to confirm or falsify them.
     
  12. Cabal

    Cabal Well-Known Member

    +452
    Atheist
    Engaged
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Who said they were?
    Haven't got a scooby.
    Probably. And?FYI: Even Einstein got it wrong sometimes.
     
  13. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    No. If you know the house has been built (e.g., by detecting its gravitational effects on galactic rotation curves - yes, I'm not stupid), then you know it's made if something. The house's walls may exhibit unusual properties, which may imply that they're made of some hitherto unknown material. But the house itself is not hypothetical.
    Yes. Hypotheses are by definition possibilities and are open for testing.
    Because it's not an abstract concept. It's simply a massive object under rather extreme conditions.
    It's not a hole, just as the Big Bang isn't a bang. 'Black hole' is a useful visual analogy, but it is neither black nor a hole.
    No. Black holes are a direct result of Einsteinian mechanics (and, indeed, classical mechanics). What Einstein rallied against was quantum mechanics.
     
  14. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Magnetic fields are created by moving charge (e.g., electrons whizzing through space). To generate a field of 0 Hz, the charges would have to be stationary. But if they're stationary, they don't generate a magnetic field. Of course, you could define a zero-strength EM field to exist when no charges are moving, and it wouldn't do much damage to physics. It'd be an unorthodox description of electromagnetics, but it would work.
     
  15. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    The house may not be hypothetical, but if our hypothetical description of that house has not been confirmed then how do we know we are really describing that house and not just a hypothetical house?
    Am I to conclude that a mere possibility is considered reality? This mean that anyone can mentally conceive what they consider to be a possibility and that possibility is then considered real.

    Just because it is open for test doesn’t make it real. The test itself might be trying to achieve the impossible.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  16. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    Why are cosmologists ignoring most of the universe? - Plasma: The other 99.9%

    plasmacosmology
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2009
  17. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Doveaman, you're tying yourself in knots. This entire conversation is centred around a hypothetical scenario: we have a hypothetical house, and a hypothetical description of that house. We know the house is hypothetical because we (by which I mean me, Wiccan_Child, and you, Doveaman) are having a hypothetical discussion. We're talking about a 'what' if'.
    No, obviously :scratch:.
    Do you know what a falsifiability test is? Go take a trip down Wikipedia.
    They don't ignore it. They simply don't believe it plays a fantastically important role in the large-scale structure of the universe.
     
  18. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +104,657
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
    are you a physicist?
     
  19. Chesterton

    Chesterton Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding Supporter

    +15,704
    Eastern Orthodox
    Single
    Actually he's a detective - hot on the trail of God. Or a theologian with a speciality. :)
     
  20. Doveaman

    Doveaman Re-Created, Not Evolved.

    +562
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    I’ll try to work myself out. Thanks. :)
    Maybe I was misunderstood. Forgive me. :sorry:

    OK, let’s try this:

    Lets say a plasma house was observed in space but because of lack of proper experiment on your part it was hypothesized by you to be a dark-energy house, without any experimental confirmation that dark-energy exist.

    This would mean, then, that the hypothetical explanation you gave for that house has no basis in reality since you are not actually describing the plasma house but only a hypothetical dark-energy house that you think exist.

    If the hypothetical explanation is flawed for lack of experiment then you end up seeing houses in space that are not really there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...