What holds the Atom together?

[Mechanical Bliss]

Originally posted by tacoman528
 

your point is... 

   

My point was fairly obvious: you are wrong.

One of the premises of your argument was that the nucleus of an atom is composed entirely of what you called "positive material" which rejects the fact that there are two types of nucleons in the nucleus of an atom: protons AND neutrons. The number of neutrons in the nucleus of a given nuclide affects its stability, which is something you ignore if you incorrectly assume that there are not two types of nucleons.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

So if God and/or Jesus is holding the atoms of the universe together and we can blow them apart that makes man stronger than God right?

Tocoman... You have a very small opinion of God indeed...

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by tacoman528
 

We hope that we are raptured before this happens

The rapture is an idea that is only about 150 years old. Why do you believe it?

 

[lithium.]

Originally posted by Chris†opher Paul
The rapture is an idea that is only about 150 years old. Why do you believe it?

IMHO, it's because people are afraid to die.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

I believe that tacoman is being disresprectful to the people who have participated in this debate. He posed a question. His question was answered repeadedly (QUANTUM MECHANICS, THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE). He claims that his question was not answered. He obviously did not read the responses, let alone the links that people have provided. This is a disgrace to forum debating. Allow your opponents the opportunity to spend considerable time and effort, then ignore thier responses and declare yourself the victor. Your entire arguement is flawed, and it is not even original. You accept some scientific principles but not others - and without any justification more then "well nobody aint never seen no gluon before". This is intellectually dishonest, and it is a deliberate waste of other peoples time. I have encountered this type of immature debating style from creationists before, but have rarely seen such a disgusting display of mean spirited, unfair, dirty and dishonest behaviour. I really doubt that such shamefull behaviour is appropriate for someone who alledges to be a Christian. I believe that you are in fact a troll.

 

[Arikay]

get used to it. There are some, not many, but some here who do it on a regular basis.

Originally posted by Late_Cretaceous
I believe that tacoman is being disresprectful to the people who have participated in this debate. He posed a question. His question was answered repeadedly (QUANTUM MECHANICS, THE STRONG NUCLEAR FORCE). He claims that his question was not answered. He obviously did not read the responses, let alone the links that people have provided. This is a disgrace to forum debating. Allow your opponents the opportunity to spend considerable time and effort, then ignore thier responses and declare yourself the victor. Your entire arguement is flawed, and it is not even original. You accept some scientific principles but not others - and without any justification more then "well nobody aint never seen no gluon before". This is intellectually dishonest, and it is a deliberate waste of other peoples time. I have encountered this type of immature debating style from creationists before, but have rarely seen such a disgusting display of mean spirited, unfair, dirty and dishonest behaviour. I really doubt that such shamefull behaviour is appropriate for someone who alledges to be a Christian. I believe that you are in fact a troll.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Same old, same old. Hector gets his arguments from a couple of bad sources, asks what he thinks are "tough" questions, and ignores the answers.

I share your pain, Late_Cretaceous. Hector never has properly thanked those who tried to reason him out of his Hovind fixation; indeed, he has never even acknowledged that his views of biology are flawed. I doubt that nuclear physics will be a different story.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas
Same old, same old. Hector gets his arguments from a couple of bad sources, asks what he thinks are "tough" questions, and ignores the answers.

I share your pain, Late_Cretaceous. Hector never has properly thanked those who tried to reason him out of his Hovind fixation; indeed, he has never even acknowledged that his views of biology are flawed. I doubt that nuclear physics will be a different story.

Er, you mean tacoman528, not Hector right?

Although I can see how you would get confused.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Sheesh! Yep, I meant tacoman. LOL! Their "arguments" are pretty much interchangeable, though, since they both rely on Dr. Dino. Change the names, the point still stands.

 

[Duane Morse]

Tenek wrote "Somehow I don't think that God is going to create a universe so flawed that it needs His constant, omnipresent intervention to avoid completely dissolving."

Maybe it is not a flawed universe that needs His constant, omnipresent intervention. Maybe the universe exist BECAUSE of His constant presence.

And speaking of dissolving atoms, what do you think can bring it about?
Is it possible that at some point in the future they will dissolve? The Bible says it will happen. Poof, no more stars.

Isaiah 34:4 - And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Should be quite a sight. I can't wait to see it. I picture it as multi-colored streams of energy falling to the earth, which is then the only source of gravity at the center of a dissolved universe.

Interesting thing that was discovered recently. The Alpha fine-structure constant is not so constant after all. It has measurably changed over the past 6 billion years or so. I wonder how far it has to go before the fine tuning is too far out of wack and the atoms dissolve?

 

[Tenek]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
Tenek wrote "Somehow I don't think that God is going to create a universe so flawed that it needs His constant, omnipresent intervention to avoid completely dissolving."

Maybe it is not a flawed universe that needs His constant, omnipresent intervention. Maybe the universe exist BECAUSE of His constant presence.

And speaking of dissolving atoms, what do you think can bring it about?
Is it possible that at some point in the future they will dissolve? The Bible says it will happen. Poof, no more stars.

Isaiah 34:4 - And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved, and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll: and all their host shall fall down, as the leaf falleth off from the vine, and as a falling fig from the fig tree.

Should be quite a sight. I can't wait to see it. I picture it as multi-colored streams of energy falling to the earth, which is then the only source of gravity at the center of a dissolved universe.

Interesting thing that was discovered recently. The Alpha fine-structure constant is not so constant after all. It has measurably changed over the past 6 billion years or so. I wonder how far it has to go before the fine tuning is too far out of wack and the atoms dissolve?

That's odd, I thought energy had a gravitational field. *shrugs* Oh well.

What makes you think you're going to be able to see it if everything is destroyed? That would include you.

 

[Duane Morse]

The way it is described in the Bible suggests that the earth will not be included and we will be able to see it. Maybe everything beyond a certain radius from the earth will be effected, but not the planet itself.
Gravity is from mass, not energy.

 

[Tenek]

Originally posted by Duane Morse
The way it is described in the Bible suggests that the earth will not be included and we will be able to see it. Maybe everything beyond a certain radius from the earth will be effected, but not the planet itself.
Gravity is from mass, not energy.

But mass is energy...

Where's my physics book when I need it?

 

[Duane Morse]

Well, yes. At it's most basic level, everything is energy. So saying that gravity comes from energy may be technically correct. But as far as I know the gravity from, say, a photon of light can not be detected. And I do not think I have ever read anything suggesting that the "massless" particle of light has gravity.

So in the above scenerio the earth's mass would be the only source of gravity left in the universe. Or at least it would be the deepest gravity well where everything else would fall.

 

[TimeBeast]

Those who say that none of this has been proved to exist are partially correct. An electron is not an electron... it is simply the name we use to refer to one. And electrons don't necessarily exist... nor do particles or subatomic matter... you have to realise it is all theory. Particles are a model that fits all known observations. All Physics is a model that fits known observation. It's a way of explaining why a causes b, and then taking another a and predicting the b.

We know from experience, experiments, that the atom model fits everything we have seen. Why the nucleus is held together is due to strong force (which has actually been proved to be the exchange of mesons... a type of quantum particle) is simply part of the greater model of our universe around us, and in no way inhibits the existance of a God.

If you're not prepared to read up on it (which would require a lot of time, and a clear mind) simply take it from those who know... the nuclei of all atoms are held together by a proven method that fits the model of the universe and atoms will not be dissolving any time soon.

 

[Duane Morse]

The forces that bind atoms together have very little leeway. If the strong force were to change, or the speed of light were to change by a very small amount, the atoms would lose integrity. I do not know how much change would be required, but that change has been observed. It is changing and there is no way to tell when it will have changed too much. It could happen in a billion years, or tomorrow.

 

[Arikay]

do you have any info about this? Like an article or paper or something?

Originally posted by Duane Morse
The forces that bind atoms together have very little leeway. If the strong force were to change, or the speed of light were to change by a very small amount, the atoms would lose integrity. I do not know how much change would be required, but that change has been observed. It is changing and there is no way to tell when it will have changed too much. It could happen in a billion years, or tomorrow.

 

[Duane Morse]

http://www.aip.org/enews/physnews/1999/split/pnu410-1.htm
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/15/science/15PHYS.html
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/5/8/11

Here are a few.

 

[blader]

Originally posted by tacoman528
So you're saying it does, because it does. Doesn't sound too scientific to me.

Yes. The SCIENTIFIC theory that "God holds all the gazillion subatomic particles together forever and ever" makes a lot more sense to me...

Chrikey on a crutch man....

 

[blader]

Originally posted by tacoman528
None of you seem to know the answer. So I will have to properly inform you. If anyone here thinks they know the answer, then say it. In Colossians 1:17, it says that Jesus holds all things together. Its the only thing that makes sense. Think about it. You don't know the answer, yet the answer is before you. It is Jesus that holds everything together. I've given you my answer which is completely logical. For some of you, the best answer I've heard yet is, "Nothing Exists at all."

C'mon, people

PLENTY of people offered links that explains your answer. Your question is a simple one, but science is not a simple subject. It took hundreds of years for scientists to finally unlock the mysteries of the atom, and just because YOU refuse to do your research and actually READ or TRY to comprehend the links to the explanations people have provided you, does NOT mean that the explanations do not EXIST.

Comprende?