Where did Intelligence begin, in matter or fundamental energy?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... even modern cosmology believes the universe is accelerating. Clocks slow with increases in velocity. So the rate clocks tick today is NOT the same rate they ticked in the past. The further one calculates back in time the faster clocks ticked and the faster decay rates occurred.

Just ask the twin who believed his decay rates were constant until he returned to the stationary frame and found out he was wrong, that his clocks had ticked slower and he had decayed slower, even though he sincerely believed he had not.

It sounds plausible, but it's wrong. The accelerating expansion of the universe is not an inertial acceleration, it's the expansion of spacetime itself (it's why galaxies can have superluminal separation velocities). You'll see a Doppler-style red shift due to the velocity of separation, but no time dilation due to change of inertial frames.

But even if this were not the case, what difference would it make if time for the whole universe ran faster or slower in the past? The rate of passing of time doesn't only affect radioactive decay, it affects everything; without something with a different inertial history to compare with, there's no way to know and it makes no difference.

 

[Larniavc]

Who knows, when we truly understand the things made, we will have those answers and all excuses will vanish. Romans 1:20

We don't understand how protons, neutrons and electrons are made, let alone how they are assembled. But we do understand it is energy that binds them, infuses them, and from which they were made. That invisible power from which all things are, is in all things, and to which all things will return. That energy which can neither be created nor destroyed so has always existed and will always exist.

It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides us, that drives us; it is purpose that defines, purpose that binds us. We are here because of you, Mr. Anderson. We're here to take from you what you tried to take from us. Purpose.

 

[Larniavc]

Which you had no conscious control of, nor could you direct which egg joined with which sperm.

Of course not.

Sperm can't think. What an odd notion.

 

[Larniavc]

Which you had no conscious control of, nor could you direct which egg joined with which sperm. So you personally by your own will created nothing. Your will only brought what already existed into a position where life might or might not have happened. Apparently it happened, but not because you willed it to. It was pure chance that egg met with that sperm. You raised him, but had no choice in the billions of possibilities your son could have been.

I've made tables and chairs, but never created a single one, just assembled what already existed.

Not so.

The wood in a tree is not a chair. You're not creating wood, you're creating a chair.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

We don't understand how protons, neutrons and electrons are made, let alone how they are assembled.

Er, yes we do. Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) explains how protons and neutrons are made via the Pair Production process. They're made of two flavours of quarks ('up' and 'down'). Electrons are made by exciting the electromagnetic field. All can be made in high-energy particle colliders.

E.T.A. for 'electromagnetic field', read 'electron field' (photons are the excitations of the electromagnetic field).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It sounds plausible, but it's wrong. The accelerating expansion of the universe is not an inertial acceleration, it's the expansion of spacetime itself (it's why galaxies can have superluminal separation velocities). You'll see a Doppler-style red shift due to the velocity of separation, but no time dilation due to change of inertial frames.

But even if this were not the case, what difference would it make if time for the whole universe ran faster or slower in the past? The rate of passing of time doesn't only affect radioactive decay, it affects everything; without something with a different inertial history to compare with, there's no way to know and it makes no difference.

Yes, yes, and your laboratory evidence is?

If two boats were on a river that magically went in both directions, each boat would be accelerating, but would believe they were not if they based this incorrect belief on their movement compared to the water. Like those boats they can make all the ridiculous claims they like, but the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing velocity belies their magical explanation. Two things do not increase in distance with increase in velocity and magically not increase in speed.

I see another brainwashed into believing illogical claims are somehow logical.

But you know it does make a difference. Even had the twin not returned to the stationary frame he still would have aged slower. You understand this truth. He can believe everything remains the same but you and I understand he is wrong. It makes a difference because you KNOW, regardless if you have no way to deduce the rate of change you KNOW it is changing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Er, yes we do. Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) explains how protons and neutrons are made via the Pair Production process. They're made of two flavours of quarks ('up' and 'down'). Electrons are made by exciting the electromagnetic field. All can be made in high-energy particle colliders.

Sure they are, and quarks are made up of?

And electrons wouldn't decay into neutrinos and photons if they were just excitations of the EM field.

And we have never made anything in a particle accelerator. We have taken existing particles and smashed them together either breaking them down into their constituent parts or combining them into rare particles. But no one and I repeat no one has ever taken just pure energy and created a single thing.

And we don't even know what an electric or magnetic field is. Read the description of them. They say nothing of what they really are, just describe observations and how particles react in them.

No, we don't really have a clue yet, just best guesses.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Not so.

The wood in a tree is not a chair. You're not creating wood, you're creating a chair.

No, I am building a chair, assembling it from pre existing materials.

Genesis 1:1 - Wikipedia

"bara ("([he] created/creating") The second word is the Hebrew verb bara(ברא‎). It is in the masculine form, so that "he" is implied. (English verbs do not distinguish between he, she, and it.) A peculiarity of this verb is that it is always used with God as its subject, meaning that only God can "bara";"

I choose not to assign to myself what only God can do

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, yes, and your laboratory evidence is?

If two boats were on a river that magically went in both directions, each boat would be accelerating, but would believe they were not if they based this incorrect belief on their movement compared to the water. Like those boats they can make all the ridiculous claims they like, but the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us at an increasing velocity belies their magical explanation. Two things do not increase in distance with increase in velocity and magically not increase in speed.

A physical analogy involving magic is useless. The relevant fact is that for distant galaxies, their separation velocity is not the result of a change of inertial frame. So there will be only the Doppler effect - each will see the other's clock running slow, but when you adjust for their relative movement, no differential aging occurs. You don't have to believe it; nature doesn't care what you believe. But if you brush up your Special Relativity, you can understand it.

Even had the twin not returned to the stationary frame he still would have aged slower. You understand this truth. He can believe everything remains the same but you and I understand he is wrong. It makes a difference because you KNOW, regardless if you have no way to deduce the rate of change you KNOW it is changing.

In the special relativity analysis, the significant difference in aging occurs when the travelling twin makes his turn-around to return, changing from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming frame (there will be a small difference due to the initial acceleration). If the travelling twin continues travelling away at constant velocity, he won't age any slower than his twin; in that situation each twin will see the other twin aging slower; they are in inertial frames moving relative to each other.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sure they are, and quarks are made up of?

Quarks are excitations of the quark field.

... electrons wouldn't decay into neutrinos and photons if they were just excitations of the EM field.

As I understand it, that would imply electric charge is not conserved, and charge conservation is thought to be fundamental - but assuming a violation of charge conservation, this paper summarizes how it might occur.

In the very simplest terms, quantum fields interact (resonate) with one-another, and given appropriate conditions, the excitation of one field can be dissipated as excitations of one or more other fields.

... we have never made anything in a particle accelerator. We have taken existing particles and smashed them together either breaking them down into their constituent parts or combining them into rare particles. But no one and I repeat no one has ever taken just pure energy and created a single thing.

That's consistent with what I told you before - there is no such thing as 'pure energy', it's a contextual property of 'stuff', i.e. excitations of various quantum fields.

... we don't even know what an electric or magnetic field is. Read the description of them. They say nothing of what they really are, just describe observations and how particles react in them.

That's true, we don't know what quantum fields are, we just know how they behave. But you don't have to be a physicist or a philosopher to realize that we can never know what the fabric of reality ultimately is (it's debatable whether the question even makes sense).

 

[Larniavc]

No, I am building a chair, assembling it from pre existing materials.

Genesis 1:1 - Wikipedia

"bara ("([he] created/creating") The second word is the Hebrew verb bara(ברא‎). It is in the masculine form, so that "he" is implied. (English verbs do not distinguish between he, she, and it.) A peculiarity of this verb is that it is always used with God as its subject, meaning that only God can "bara";"

I choose not to assign to myself what only God can do

Of course you are.

But this is just the pointless regression to 'yeah but who made the Universe'.

My body assembled the molecules needed to build my son.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And electrons wouldn't decay into neutrinos and photons if they were just excitations of the EM field.

Reading back, I see I made a mistake - my apologies, I mistakenly put 'electromagnetic field' when I should have put 'electron field'. It doesn't affect the subsequent details.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A physical analogy involving magic is useless. The relevant fact is that for distant galaxies, their separation velocity is not the result of a change of inertial frame. So there will be only the Doppler effect - each will see the other's clock running slow, but when you adjust for their relative movement, no differential aging occurs. You don't have to believe it; nature doesn't care what you believe. But if you brush up your Special Relativity, you can understand it.

SR has nothing to do with magic expansion. You don't understand the history. It was once the actual velocity of galaxies through space until technology advanced and the redshift z values became too high to support that belief. Instead of letting the theory be falsified they changed it to the magical expansion of nothing. There is no reason to believe in magic when actual physics explains what cosmological redshift is.

A New Non-Doppler Redshift

In the special relativity analysis, the significant difference in aging occurs when the travelling twin makes his turn-around to return, changing from the outgoing inertial frame to the incoming frame (there will be a small difference due to the initial acceleration). If the travelling twin continues travelling away at constant velocity, he won't age any slower than his twin; in that situation each twin will see the other twin aging slower; they are in inertial frames moving relative to each other.

You do realize your promoting pseudoscience? We have actual tests with clocks on airplanes. There was no magical frame switching involved, just the increase in velocity of those clocks. The direct emperical evidence shows their excuse of frame switching on the turn around is pure pseudoscience and not supported by laboratory evidence. It is changes in velocity alone which causes clocks to slow. Energy is added at the quantum level proportionally to the change in velocity from acceleration.

Now you are certainly entitled to believe in Fairie Dust, but we have direct emperical evidence that magical frame switching is not involved.

Now to the next confused point. The accelerating twin sees the stationary twins clocks as slower. Like you he truly believes it is the stationary twins clocks which have slowed. Sadly he finds out he is wrong and it his his clocks that have slowed. The stationary twin is stationary. He neither underwent acceleration, nor was he involved in magical frame switching. His clocks do not change regardless of what the other twin might believe. He is the controll in the experiment.

So even though you know the twin in motion can not perceive the stationary twins clocks correctly, nor even his own, you will persist with believing what you know to be wrong?

Like you the traveling twin thought it was the other clock that had slowed. Like you he was wrong. In reality he was seeing a reflection in the other clocks of what was occurring to his own clocks.

Remember, the stationary twin is stationary, his clocks never change regardless of what the traveling twin believes.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Reading back, I see I made a mistake - my apologies, I mistakenly put 'electromagnetic field' when I should have put 'electron field'. It doesn't affect the subsequent details.

It does affect the subsequent details. Electrons decay into neutrinos, which they would not do if they were not composed of other particles.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Of course you are.

But this is just the pointless regression to 'yeah but who made the Universe'.

My body assembled the molecules needed to build my son.

Agreed, but you still didn't create him. Your body helped assemble him from pre existing matter, including the food you ate.

 

[Larniavc]

Agreed, but you still didn't create him. Your body helped assemble him from pre existing matter, including the food you ate.

Thus making him. Or do carpenters not make tables?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It does affect the subsequent details. Electrons decay into neutrinos, which they would not do if they were not composed of other particles.

They are not composed of other particles; as excitations of the electron field, they are elementary (fundamental) fermions. Electron decay has been speculated but not observed and thought not to happen because of charge conservation.

The paper I linked previously describes the requirements for electron decay, which is basically when the excitation energy of the electron field is transferred to excitations of the neutrino and electromagnetic fields, producing neutrinos & photons.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

They are not composed of other particles; as excitations of the electron field, they are elementary (fundamental) fermions. Electron decay has been speculated but not observed and thought not to happen because of charge conservation.

The paper I linked previously describes the requirements for electron decay, which is basically when the excitation energy of the electron field is transferred to excitations of the neutrino and electromagnetic fields, producing neutrinos & photons.

And this Quark field, it is composed of? And this electron field is composed of? And this quantum field is composed of?

No matter how small you try to go you will in the end, end up with energy. What excited these fields in the first place to create the first particle, let alone created these fields?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Thus making him. Or do carpenters not make tables?

The build tables, they do not create them.

Genesis 1:1 - Wikipedia

"bara ("([he] created/creating") The second word is the Hebrew verb bara(ברא‎). It is in the masculine form, so that "he" is implied. (English verbs do not distinguish between he, she, and it.) A peculiarity of this verb is that it is always used with God as its subject, meaning that only God can "bara";"

Don't ask me to assign to me what is assigned only to God. I know modern society has no problem using the word incorrectly for man and trying to do away with the need for God.

 

[PsychoSarah]

And this Quark field, it is composed of? And this electron field is composed of? And this quantum field is composed of?

No matter how small you try to go you will in the end, end up with energy. What excited these fields in the first place to create the first particle, let alone created these fields?

I personally don't know the answer to those questions, but I must ask why it all ending at "energy" would even matter? If it all ended at glip-glorp, you'd just end up asking "what caused the glip-glorp to exist or form?" I dunno, but stating some deity that may or may not exist did it isn't going to help me or anyone else understand the universe better. You have to substantiate the claim that a deity exists before you can start to figure out its role as it relates to the universe.