Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Delphiki]

Better yet, don't read. You've shown you suck at reading enough as it is. Both of you.

 

[pgp_protector]

Don't you mean three?

Strong
Electromagnetic
Weak
Gravity

 

[AV1611VET]

Strong
Electromagnetic
Weak
Gravity

So, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?

 

[Delphiki]

So, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?

They are the same force. You can actually do a simple experiment to demonstrate this. If you make an elecrical circuit (with a small light bulb or something similar), and coil the wire in one part of it, then move a magnet along the coil, you will induce an electrical current. Alternatively, an electrical circuit will also have a magnetic field, which can be easily demonstrated my wrapping your coil around a ferromagnetic material such as iron.

Electromagnetism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

So, I take it electrical & magnetic got away with combining; but with the weak nuclear force, "two's company and three's a crowd"?

Electroweak exists at high energy levels.

 

[dad]

Also, if you're trying to figure out what the fundamental forces are "made of", then you've completely overlooked the definition of "fundamental".

Oh, come on! How should we define fundamental then? 'Anything science doesn't understand'?!

Not only is science the field that brought us to this current understanding, the bible remains to be 2000 years out of date in regards to this knowledge.

Oh come on. Don't sling dirt on the most tested and tried and proven amazing bestselling book of all time, just to cover for the glaring inadequacies of physical only science!

You can't that something falling in one of it's stories is the knowledge of gravity and try to attribute the credit to the bible -- especially when things have been on the ground and falling for ages before the bible.

But a lot more than that was going on. Besides that doesn't excuse you not knowing what the basic forces actually are.

 

[dad]

This is another problem, and an actual straw man. You ought to know better than to think that a rationalist would involve some kind of personified entity.

It's not that ANYONE did it. It's that these fundamentals always were, is, and will be.

You confused strawman with a lack of comprehension. What anyone, including you did not do here in this thread is explain what the fundamental forces are!

Stop stalling and give us some evidence of your claim that these forces were ever different. For the Nth time: Show us your evidence.

Off topic. The thread is about seeing what is known by science on some basic things. It is true that they don't know what state the universe was or will be or is in, and the evidence for that is their inability to show us here!

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Well, if you claim all creatures need to be represented at the flood time, you do make an assumption that they were there.

I didn't make the assumption. You did.

Absurd short sightedness. You assume present state evolving.

Prove things were different in the past.

We have no evidence that mass hyper evolution did not occur.

We have no evidence that it did.

Prove hyper evolution happened.

The time frame is not what I meant was wrong. As I explained, the sudden change time is the time that matters.

So you agree that the universe is 13.6 billion years old? Good to know.

Absurd. You assume some change IN decay rates. No. If there was no decay, no meltdown is expected.

The Oklo reactor proves you wrong.

There is no evidence that physical only, present state science is aware of for the flood. Since it involved more than the present state, can you see why?!

Prove that things changed in the past.

No. Thermodynamics is something in this present state. No great heat was generated in the different state past. Like in creation week. Land and waters were separated...no great heat.

Prove it.

Decay rates only matter where decay exists.

The Oklo reactor proves that decay rates have not changed for at least 2 billion years.

Science does. You have to wear it.

Science doesn't. You're wrong.

False! Not unless the states are the same.

Prove they were different.

In no way is that true. Why not be honest? Where do you think you have shown that??

Google is your friend.

Meaningless. Just be honest.

I am completely honest. You are being dishonest. You are making claims that cannot be supported by the Bible.

All kneel.

Nope. Only the infirm.

CMB is a state change remnant, or creation remnant. Redshift need not be caused as it is here in our state, on earth. That is merely a projection of a belief that all things must be the same way out there. No.

Prove it. The Bible doesn't say this.

Nope. Pure 100% uncut belief. The extrapolations are based on that same state belief.

Prove it. The Bible doesn't say this.

They didn't build ships to Eden, or creation, or heaven, or the far past, or future. Build me all the bridges you like, just realize that they do not involve the creation debate.

Science all hangs together. If the decay rates varied, the computer you're typing on wouldn't work.

But I don't think you're actually smart enough to understand why.

Nonsense. It points to the only hope and salvation of men.

The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and falsehoods.


You make the claims, you must support them. The Bible does not support you.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

You confused strawman with a lack of comprehension. What anyone, including you did not do here in this thread is explain what the fundamental forces are!

False. I did.

Off topic. The thread is about seeing what is known by science on some basic things. It is true that they don't know what state the universe was or will be or is in, and the evidence for that is their inability to show us here!

Absolutely false. We can extrapolate very nicely for billions of years in either direction. Extrapolations which we can use to prove that your "change" never happened.

Just science. Just facts.

All you have is your opinion - an opinion not supported by the Bible.

 

[dad]

The weak and strong interaction have been detailed. You just ignored it.

Source? Where was it that you explained in detail why a weak force exists? Or a strong one? Where was it you detailed exactly what causes them and how?

Gravity is until not 100% understood; we know what causes and what boson should mediate the force but have yet to obverse it.

Forget mediating a force, what causes it, not regulates it!? Your whole trip is physical only based, and assuming that it explains all things.

.. the fundamental nature of time is under heated discussion under the maths and theoretical physics minded people.

So they don't know. OK.

Once again you have yet to prove another state let alone that physics does not work the same elsewhere in the universe.

Look, our laws didn't restrain Jesus. They don't restrain angels. So they do not apply to the spiritual. The spiritual is know to exist. So we know that our laws have limits. Imagining what the past or future was like is speculation, either way. Not something modern science can prove. Yet the spiritual, and stark differences in the physical in the past are the record we have.

 

[dad]

Here's an analogy for you that I hope will get it through your thick skull.

What you're asking for is akin to asking "What kinds of coins would I use to give change for a penny?"

A penny is the most fundamental unit of U.S. currency -- in other words, the most basic. A penny is a penny and that's it. You want to know how much currency makes up a penny -- it's one penny.

Gravity is one of the four fundamental forces. What makes gravity? What is it made of? Gravity. Fundamental. Nothing more than a characteristic of mass. There is nothing more officially known about it. It is a fundamental and cannot currently be broken down into any other components.

Absurd. Why do physical objects attract? What puts gravity in a physical object, or how does gravity work? What causes gravity? Where did it come from? If you don't know, then why not have gravity simple cease to exist one day? Same with the other forces! If God is the God particle that they can't find, and His will dictates the forces, then the forces exist because of His will. When He wills it, they change pronto.

 

[dad]

I didn't make the assumption. You did.

Did you not assume that what we should look for in the way of flood evidence would include a fossil layer where 'all creatures need to be represented'?

Prove things were different in the past.

Prove things were the same in the past.

We have no evidence that it did.

If you refuse to accept historical or biblical as evidence, indeed you have nothing either way. Sad.

Prove hyper evolution happened.

The time frame is known, and evolving is known to have gone on. Simply connect the dots.

So you agree that the universe is 13.6 billion years old?

No. Several thousand.

The Oklo reactor proves you wrong.

Not in any way. That is in my back pocket.

Prove that things changed in the past.

Hey things change even now.

The Oklo reactor proves that decay rates have not changed for at least 2 billion years.

No. Common misconception. Too bad they dunked the whole area, flooded it, to destroy the evidence! But from all we got before that little number, I can say you have no case for old ages at all.

I am completely honest. You are being dishonest. You are making claims that cannot be supported by the Bible.

Like....?

Prove it. The Bible doesn't say this.

Who said it did? What we need to look at for CMB and redshift in distant stars is what is known by science.

Science all hangs together. If the decay rates varied, the computer you're typing on wouldn't work.

Nonsense. Strawman. No one cites varying decay rates.

The Bible is full of errors, contradictions, and falsehoods.

That is an error, and false.

You make the claims, you must support them. The Bible does not support you.

Show me where the bible opposes me? I dare you.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Did you not assume that what we should look for in the way of flood evidence would include a fossil layer where 'all creatures need to be represented'?

Nope. It's in your Bible. Remember it? Little book? Lousy history. Pretty poetry?

Prove things were the same in the past.

Sure.

The Oklo reactor. The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor

Varves. suigetsu

The 1986 supernova. http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/451/2/L53/pdf/1538-4357_451_2_L53.pdf

If you refuse to accept historical or biblical as evidence, indeed you have nothing either way. Sad.

I accept historical data. The Bible is not admissible for most history, since most of Genesis has been proven to be wrong.

The time frame is known, and evolving is known to have gone on. Simply connect the dots.

We do. They point to 4.6 billion years.

No. Several thousand.

Why are you not being truthful?

Not in any way. That is in my back pocket.

Poor dad. You don't even know what the reactor is, do you?

Hey things change even now.

Sure. No one argues that.

No. Common misconception. Too bad they dunked the whole area, flooded it, to destroy the evidence! But from all we got before that little number, I can say you have no case for old ages at all.

Which changes nothing about the radioactive traces.

You're really not very good at this, dad.

Who said it did? What we need to look at for CMB and redshift in distant stars is what is known by science.

We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.

Nonsense. Strawman. No one cites varying decay rates.

False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?

You're really not very good at this, are you?

That is an error, and false.

Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.

You're really not very good at this, are you dad?

Show me where the bible opposes me? I dare you.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

And that's just a flavor.

Don't try me on the Bible, dad. I'm better at this than you are.

 

[dad]

False. I did.

Great. A claim. Let's see the post #

Absolutely false. We can extrapolate very nicely for billions of years in either direction. Extrapolations which we can use to prove that your "change" never happened.

All you extrapolate is the present! That is only good as long as this state existed. You don't know how long that was. Chanting..'billions of years' doesn't cut it.

All you have is your opinion - an opinion not supported by the Bible.

Then show us a bible case against it or remain exposed as false. That simple. Anytime. It is not opinion that science has limits.

 

[dad]

Nope. It's in your Bible. Remember it? Little book? Lousy history. Pretty poetry?

Look, you cited certain things as required for a flood layer. Be honest.

The Oklo reactor. The Oklo Natural Nuclear Reactor

You think this is news? Have you some point in the link you want to relate to the thread?

Varves. suigetsu

Point. Christianforums.

The 1986 supernova. http://iopscience.iop.org/1538-4357/451/2/L53/pdf/1538-4357_451_2_L53.pdf

I accept historical data. The Bible is not admissible for most history, since most of Genesis has been proven to be wrong.

Example? That is a lie.

Which changes nothing about the radioactive traces.

Talk to us about a radioactive trace!? Got one that relates here??

We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.

False. Science falsely so called says it is. Real science does not. Not at all. That is a fable.

False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?

Yes. It deals with the present natural.

Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.

Which post was that in? Be honest.

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

And that's just a flavor.

Don't try me on the Bible, dad. I'm better at this than you are.

Hilarious. Would there be a point to the random verses? A flavor indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Would there be a point to the random verses?

-- Except for that last one she cited, I think she just might be hinting that you're an atheist!

-- I could be wrong, though.

 

[pgp_protector]

...snip....

We do. And science says it shows a 13.6 billion year old universe. If you accept what is shown by science, then you accept an old universe.

False. You really don't understand how science works, do you dad?

You're really not very good at this, are you?

Nope. The Bible has been proven to be wrong. Deal with it.

You're really not very good at this, are you dad?






Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

And that's just a flavor.

Don't try me on the Bible, dad. I'm better at this than you are.

-- Except for that last one she cited, I think she just might be hinting that you're an atheist!

-- I could be wrong, though.

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Look, you cited certain things as required for a flood layer. Be honest.

I didn't make the assumption. I comes right from your holy book. You might consider reading it.

You think this is news? Have you some point in the link you want to relate to the thread?

The Oklo reactor proves radioactive decay rates haven't changed in 2 billion years.

I see you were unable to address Suigetsu varves. Poor dad. I'll give you something easier next time.

Example? That is a lie.

Sure. Flood never happened. Exodus never happened. World older than 6 thousand years. Should I go on?

Talk to us about a radioactive trace!? Got one that relates here??

I gave you one above. You didn't read the paper, did you?

You're not very good at this, dad.

False. Science falsely so called says it is. Real science does not. Not at all. That is a fable.

Show me the peer-reviewed papers, dad. Show me science from the actual journals that supports you.

Didn't think ya could.

Yes. It deals with the present natural.

Nope. You don't know anything about science, do you?

Which post was that in? Be honest.

Feeling lazy?

Hilarious. Would there be a point to the random verses? A flavor indeed.

Sure. They all apply directly to you.

You're not very good at this, are you?

 

[AV1611VET]

Psalm 104:5 He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved

That's the exception I was talking about.

Note the others:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Does any one particular word stand out in those passages?

 

[pgp_protector]

That's the exception I was talking about.

Note the others:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Proverbs 18:2 A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.

Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Does any one particular word stand out in those passages?

None of them mention atheist, just fools.