Quanta Physics

[Drotar]

Hey, fellow YEC's. I'm going through a study of quantum mechanics, sort of independent research, and for all interested, this is a great Christian site, and it's very, very, very elementary. Everyone can understand it.


http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqm.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqmrules.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqmbohrandernie.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqmnursery.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqmstandardmodel.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artqmgreatlight.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctintro.html



http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctss.html
http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctframedns.html
http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctulam.html
http://www.abarim-publications.com/ulamgohome.html
http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctquilt.html


http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctsuspects.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctdeceitful.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctmbs.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artcthhs.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artctbellcurve.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artbintro.html

http://www.abarim-publications.com/artbfourhorses.html


I haven't personally read them all, I'm going through them, but it's easy, and kind of fun too. Humurous even. The cartoons accomodate my short attention span.

TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[lucaspa]

Hey, fellow YEC's. I'm going through a study of quantum mechanics, sort of independent research, and for all interested, this is a great Christian site, and it's very, very, very elementary. Everyone can understand it.

Drotar, I've looked thru 4 pages of the QM material and it seems accurate.

What worries me is the opening page:
"During the 20[size=+0]th[/size] century the notorious chasm between science and religion—or rather the scientific and revelatory reality models—almost completely closed. This meant a few things:

• The validity and authority of the Bible was all the more confirmed. Presently it requires more blind faith to believe that the Bible is not divine than to believe the opposite.
• It became possible to closely understand mind boggling Scriptural events such as the creation, the crucifixion, resurrection and the nature of God, man and the universe, by means of Quantum Mechanics and Chaos Theory.
• The emergence of Jesus Christ and the church of Jesus Christ on the terrestrial surface was preceded and is explained by highly similar events in the material universe.
• The debate between creationism and evolutionism was rendered obsolete (leaving neither victorious, by the way). "

None of these seem true.
1. The validity of the Bible depends on your interpretation of the Bible. There is no consensus among scientists that the Bible is either divine or not divine. However, the author came to this conclusion, it is not a conclusion from science.

2. QM and Chaos don't even address the crucifixion or resurrection. I agree that QM does seem to say something about the nature of God, but I doubt that a lot of what it says is liked by the author of this site.

3. Again, science has not reached any consensus on the emergence of Jesus Christ being explained by events in the material universe. This is not any conclusion of science. The most that science does is allow God and Jesus.

4. It appears that the author is making the common mistake of equating evolution with atheism. This calls into doubt any other conclusions he has on the relationship of science and religion. Evolution has most definitely won in the creationism vs evolution "debate". Atheism has most definitely not won.

 

[Drotar]

I was discussing with someone else about the Big Bang theory.

Do you accept the "Big Bang" theory?

 

[Drotar]

Is gravity caused by the number of electrons an object has? Or protons?

That might explain by helium floats and lead is so heavy.

Is gravity an electromagnetic force? What is gravity?

If it is electromagnetic, wouldn't there be anti-gravity? TTYL Jesus loves you!

 

[lucaspa]

I was discussing with someone else about the Big Bang theory.

Do you accept the "Big Bang" theory?

I don't have much choice. The evidence is overwhelming. Altho the classic version of BB is being challenged by a new theory called "ekpyrotic". Instead of a point, it may have been spread out. The humorous way of putting it is the "Big Splash".

1. C Seife, Big bangs's new rival debuts with a splash. Science 292: 189-190, Apr 13, 2001. "Ekpyrotic" model. 11 dimensions, 6 rolled up and safely ignored. In perfectly flat 5D space float 2-4D membranes. One is our universe, the other a hidden "parallel" universe. Random fluctuations cause hidden universe to shed membrane that floats to our universe with quantum fluctuations. Some of energy of collision becomes matter and energy in our universe. Removes need for inflation. Removes singularity of big bang, instead is a "platelike splash". Big bang and ekpyrotic have different gravity waves. If another membrane peels off of hidden universe, then would destroy ours on impact. www.arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5515/189

 

[lucaspa]

Is gravity caused by the number of electrons an object has? Or protons?

That might explain by helium floats and lead is so heavy.

Is gravity an electromagnetic force? What is gravity?

If it is electromagnetic, wouldn't there be anti-gravity?

The explanation for helium and lead is in the density of the atoms. In lead the atoms are packed very close together. In Helium they are very spread out. The reason a helium balloon rises is that the helium atoms are so spread out that they displace a greater weight of air than the balloon weighs. Archimedes Principle. Look it up on the web.

In Relativity, gravity is a warping of spacetime. Think of a very large elastic rubber sheet. Put a golf ball and a bowling ball on the sheet. Both will depress the sheet. That is gravity. The amount and size of the depression gives you the strength of the gravity field of the golf ball and the bowling ball.

Gravity is not electromagnetic. In fact, it is the failure to find a way to express gravity in terms of any of the other forces: electromagnetic, strong nuclear force, weak nuclear force that is the stumbling block to a unified field theory.