• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Time is tight

"We know, that Gravity is transferred by soem sort of particle."
No we do not, as the graviton has never been found.
"We know, that no particle transfers "time""
Don't "know" that either, as no one can truly define time.
And both time and gravity could be wave form only for all we "know".
Electricity and magnetism, the child forces of gravity and time, are both particle and wave, but time and gravity are little understood.
Time, as the opposing force to gravity fits right in the the strong and weak forces and gravity. Gravity causes compression, time causes expansion.

I use the word "time", as it is the force that keeps mass and events separate and distinct. Science defines these forces in different ways, but the Alpha fine-structure constant is, I think, describing these forces and how they work together.

The inherent strength of the electromagnetic force is characterized by a parameter called the fine structure constant (denoted by the Greek letter alpha), defined as the charge of the electron squared divided by the product of Planck's constant and the speed of light. The size of alpha determines how well atoms hold together and what types of light atoms will emit when heated up.

An interesting point here is that if alpha goes too far in one direction atoms will not bind. Matter as we know it comes apart.
The Bible says that in the last days the sun, moon, and stars all dissolve.
Most people think that can not happen, and ascribe those verses to symbology only.
However recently it has been discovered that the fine-structure "constant" is changing, and in the direction I just described.

The Bible says water was here before anything else, and that includes ammonia. Water comes from H+ and OH- ions, and everything else comes from water and those components. Just as the Son of God comes from the male/female God, and the material Creation comes from the Son and the components within the Son.
You are looking at things only from man's perspective. But if you want to understand the Creation, you have to look at things from the perspective of God, the Creator.
 
Upvote 0
Duane: The Bible says water was here before anything else...

DNAunion: Then the Bible is wrong. Water contains oxygen, and oxygen was not produced from the Big Bang. Basically, hydrogen and helium were the only elements produced from the Big Bang itself (in about 3:1 ratio), and that was only after a while (because at earlier times, protons and electrons couldn't produce stable atoms of any kind).

Oxygen is created through stellar nucleosynthesis. So you have to have stars before you can have water. And stars were not present immediately following the Big Bang.
 
Upvote 0
Seems kind of weird.
In explaining where particles aquire their mass, he begins with a particle with mass.
Peter Higgs has a model in which particle masses arise in a beautiful, but complex, progression. He starts with a particle that has only mass, and no other characteristics, such as charge, that distinguish particles from empty space. We can call his particle H. H interacts with other particles; for example if H is near an electron, there is a force between the two. H is of a class of particles called "bosons".
In the mathematics of quantum mechanics describing creation and annihilation of elementary particles, as observed at accelerators, particles at particular points arise from "fields" spread over space and time. Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with the particle H can be chosen in such a way that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is one with the field not zero. It is surprising that the field is not zero in empty space, but the result, not an obvious one, is: all particles that can interact with H gain mass from the interaction.

Thus mathematics links the existence of H to a contribution to the mass of all particles with which H interacts. A picture that corresponds to the mathematics is of the lowest energy state, "empty" space, having a crown of H particles with no energy of their own. Other particles get their masses by interacting with this collection of zero-energy H particles. The mass (or inertia or resistance to change in motion) of a particle comes from its being "grabbed at" by Higgs particles when we try and move it.

Question, where did the particle come from?
And where did the mass of this particle come from?

Circular reasoning, as far as I can see.
Higgs found that parameters in the equations for the field associated with the particle H can be "chosen in such a way" that the lowest energy state of that field (empty space) is one with the field not zero.

A little juggling of numbers here is ok, i guess.?!

And you call my stuff strange?
I have been describing the Alpha Particle and Alpha Point here for some time now.
Can you make associations?
 
Upvote 0
The Bible starts from the beginning, while science is starting from the middle. Conditions were different in the beginning from the present day, but it is the present day observations that science is based on.

As such, what the Bible says can be true, and also the observations today can be true. But trying to get back to the beginning without knowing the beginning is probably impossible.
The so called "Big Bang" was no explosion according to the Bible, it was an outward expansion that sounds pretty calm.
And the present day physics can be explained from the progression in the Biblical account of creation, but no one wants to seriously consider it as it goes against the current thinking.
 
Upvote 0
Duane:  The Bible starts from the beginning, while science is starting from the middle.

 

DNAunion:  No, the Bible started less than 6,000 years ago when some guys sat down and wrote stories about serpents and fruit trees, 40-day-40-night floods, slaughtering of life to offer up bloody sacrifices to a God, one man raping of women in the field and the offended side slaughtering a whole city in retaliation, God's pride overtaking him such that he tortures Job and many others just to prove a point to Satan, etc.
 
Upvote 0
Evolution has been confirmed experimentally? Where, how and when?
Micro evolution or macro? Cosmological?

Yes, certain things in the theory of relativity have been confirmed, but that still does not answer any of the questions of how life arose.
Or how the universe began. Or how it has changed since that first instant of time.

Do you have a problem with creation? Or just the young earth theory, which I personally do not ascribe to if we are speaking of a 6000 year old earth.
 
Upvote 0
Duane: Evolution has been confirmed experimentally? Where, how and when? Micro evolution or macro? Cosmological?

DNAunion: Micro? Yes. Macro? Well, if I can translate that into common descent (which is what I think most people asking that question would mean), then no, it has not been confirmed experimentally AFAIK. But it is a very logical conclusion supported by a lot indirect scientific evidence.

Duane: Yes, certain things in the theory of relativity have been confirmed, but that still does not answer any of the questions of how life arose.

DNAunion: Agreed - but relativity isn't meant to explain the origin of life.

And yes, OOL research still has a long way to go before it can state that it has a convincing, plausible, continuous, purely natural pathway from mere inanimate matter to a complex, highly ordered, and organized structure like an autonomous cell.

Duane: Do you have a problem with creation?

DNAunion: If someone offers it as fact...yes. If someone offers Biblical verses as their only support...yes. If someone distorts science in order to try to get it support their creation position...yes.

I am not saying you did those things - I am answering your question in general.

Duane: Or just the young earth theory, which I personally do not ascribe to if we are speaking of a 6000 year old earth.

DNAunion: Young Earth Creationism is not compatible with science. The Earth is billions of years old - the Universe, billions more.
 
Upvote 0

Hector Medina

Questioning Roman Catholic
May 10, 2002
845
6
44
San Antonio,Texas USA
Visit site
✟31,223.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
You can't put physical limitations on God.
He created the universe including time,gravity,citirphical force intertia and everything and there are somethings that we canot yet understand.

In Christ,

Hector
 
Upvote 0

Lacmeh

Well-Known Member
Aug 5, 2002
711
1
Visit site
✟1,156.00
You still have a fewe misconceptions.
In the beginnig was the quark-gluon plasma, not he H+ion. The proton formed quite a bit later. Then came Hydrogen and Helium. Oxygen was formed alot of time later still. Like Nitrogen.
Ammonia dissolves like water in Nh2- and Nh+. Ammonia is liquid, when water is solid.
Once you find the particle, that transfers a force, you can find means to block that force.
Time and gravity surely aren´t opposites. If they were, then there would not exist either time or gravity

What gives modern physics a headache is, that the proton or electron aren´t the smallest particles on which matter is built. They are built up from quarks and those quarks are built up from something smaller. Thus invalidating the electric elementary charge. Since OH- Ion and proton is built from alot of quarks (In case of proton 3), it can´t be a „god particle“. The „god particle“ must be much smaller than a quark.

And the binding of elements is mostly a matter of energy state. With enough energy input you can bind almost anything. Or with altering the circumstances. You thing Gold is less likely to oxidate than Iron? No it isn´t in all circumstances. Since all our tables are based on water, it is a fact for water solutions. But change the medium to Sulfuric acid and it´s not true anymore. What reactions are possible in liquid Ammonia no one really looked into that. Who are we to declare water the only medium, that makes life possible, when not testing other possible liquids?
 
Upvote 0

lithium.

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2002
4,662
4
nowhere
✟37,536.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Originally posted by DNAunion
DNAunion: Micro? Yes. Macro? Well, if I can translate that into common descent (which is what I think most people asking that question would mean), then no, it has not been confirmed experimentally AFAIK. But it is a very logical conclusion supported by a lot indirect scientific evidence.



DNAunion: Agreed - but relativity isn't meant to explain the origin of life.

And yes, OOL research still has a long way to go before it can state that it has a convincing, plausible, continuous, purely natural pathway from mere inanimate matter to a complex, highly ordered, and organized structure like an autonomous cell.



DNAunion: If someone offers it as fact...yes. If someone offers Biblical verses as their only support...yes. If someone distorts science in order to try to get it support their creation position...yes.

I am not saying you did those things - I am answering your question in general.



DNAunion: Young Earth Creationism is not compatible with science. The Earth is billions of years old - the Universe, billions more.

I completely agree will all of what DNAunion said. Science has proven evoution, but the only proof that god is real is in the bible one place.
 
Upvote 0

ocean

Banned (just kidding)
Sep 25, 2002
1,426
3
45
van city
✟24,736.00
Faith
Agnostic
Duane,

How could water be the first element if there was no oxygen to form it? Water is simply a hydrogen atom combined with 2 oxygen atoms. Water produces H+ and OH- ions, but it is not coposed of it.

Time is not a quantum, it is not a force, it is not a wave or a particle, it is just a human measurement of the passage of events. Time doesn't exist.

Edited to add:(In theory, it could be a wave or a particle, no one is 100% sure.)

 
 
Upvote 0
There was oxygen, from the OH- ion that formed with the formation of Light.
The first substance was water. Science may say what happens now, but it can not address how things formed. The Bible does that, but does not go into specific detail.
The system works in a specific way, but the system did not begin that way.

The inanimate matter did not give rise to Life, it was the other way around. The Life created the physical substance for the Body of the Life within that Life.

You are all trying to work back from here and it just does not work that way. You have to start at the beginning and get here from there.
 
Upvote 0