- Jan 17, 2005
- 44,905
- 1,259
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
So knowledge is a good thing, yah? Now, what do you think of science not having knowledge of how all these fundamental things work??
Upvote
0
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.
So knowledge is a good thing, yah? Now, what do you think of science not having knowledge of how all these fundamental things work??Knowledge allows us to percive our world the way others has described it....
We can't know for sure, but, based on what we've observed so far, we have reason to think they will be the same and no demonstrable reason to think they won't be. The Bible, I'm afraid, isn't good enough reason to think they won't be.I would think that if you do not know something you have no reason to think something. Well, Christians have reason to think something.
So, bottom line, you're still not understanding what 'intrinsic' means, then. OK.What I want to see science understand is what embeds the property in there. Not just declaring that they notice one is embedded! Science is so shallow intellectually.
Mom would never let us kids play in the deep end of the pool until we could swim.
Likewise, mother nature won't let her kids play in the deep end of the knowledge pool until they can swim.
Based on what you have observed so far, you do not know waht the basic forces and laws are caused by! That cannot propel you very far.We can't know for sure, but, based on what we've observed so far, we have reason to think they will be the same and no demonstrable reason to think they won't be. The Bible, I'm afraid, isn't good enough reason to think they won't be.
Tell us, then.So, bottom line, you're still not understanding what 'intrinsic' means, then. OK.
If Hawking says we are in a hologram, that is unrelated to knowledge.Knowledge allows us to percive our world the way others has described it.... whether hawking describes a universe as a hologram, or God describes it as being created in six days...
LOL!! You aren't really a creationist.. are you dad? How many times have I asked you to actually tell us what practical benefit dadology is to understanding anything?
Put your money where your mouth is, scoffer!
No idea what that has to do with the inability of physical only science to delve into the deeper basics of life and forces and laws.
All that is has to offer doesn't happen to include knowledge of that makes the world tick...i.e. the fundamental forces. That is the issue here. Not rhetoric. By the way, what if time did not exist in far away space? Or, what if time did not exist for far away stars? Would you be able to tell? What is time?Of course not! You have shown no practical benefit to dadology, other than making yourself feel important. This while you make use of all that science has to offer you while scoffing at the basic methodology of science.
So how does that work then? Science does not know all these basic fundamentals mentioned in the thread. What is it you imagine it does know about it?? Besides NOT KNOWING!!!!!?There are always going to be things that mankind doesn't yet know. It's science that does something about it.
Speak for yourself. I am not part of your species. I have no cockroach ancestors!If you have such a problem with science being the method in which we, as a species, obtain knowledge, then what's your suggestion?
Hek, I haven't got there yet..You keep insinuating that science doesn't teach us anything because nobody can describe gravity in a manner in which you are capable of understanding -- yet, you've failed to show any substantial explanation of these forces yourself.
About...what? And, how would you know!!?? Like we would trust someone admittedly clueless about the basics?You're just as, if not more, ignorant than the science you are doing a miserable job at trying to persecute.
What is it, in your own words now, that you think has been explained to me in this thread?? I wasn't born yesterday. Paaleeeese.In short, whether or not you're too dumb to understand what's been explained to you, then at least try and prove your own case. If you can't, then simply shut up.
So how does that work then? Science does not know all these basics of the thread. What is it you imagine it does about it?? Besides NOT KNOWING!!!!!?
Speak for yourself. I am not part of your species. I have no cockroach ancestors!
Hek, I haven't got there yet..Too much fun watching science squirm.
About...what? And, how would you know!!??
What is it, in your own words now, that you think has been explained to me in this thread?? I wasn't born yesterday. Paaleeeese.
So how did the forces come to exist as is? How do you know they will remain the same? How do the forces work?
Oh really? So tell us then, how does the strong interaction work? By that, I mean, what causes it precisely?
The Strong Force
A force which can hold a nucleus together against the enormous forces of repulsion of the protons is strong indeed. However, it is not an inverse square force like the electromagnetic force and it has a very short range. Yukawa modeled the strong force as an exchange force in which the exchange particles are pions and other heavier particles. The range of a particle exchange force is limited by the uncertainty principle. It is the strongest of the four fundamental forces
Since the protons and neutrons which make up the nucleus are themselves considered to be made up of quarks, and the quarks are considered to be held together by the color force, the strong force between nucleons may be considered to be a residual color force. In the standard model, therefore, the basic exchange particle is the gluon which mediates the forces between quarks. Since the individual gluons and quarks are contained within the proton or neutron, the masses attributed to them cannot be used in the range relationship to predict the range of the force. When something is viewed as emerging from a proton or neutron, then it must be at least a quark-antiquark pair, so it is then plausible that the pion as the lightest meson should serve as a predictor of the maximum range of the strong force between nucleons.
The sketch is an attempt to show one of many forms the gluon interaction between nucleons could take, this one involving up-antiup pair production and annililation and producing a π- bridging the nucleons.
"An intrinsic property is an essential or inherent property of a system or of a material itself or within. " wiki
So how did the property get into the material?
[URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/intrinsic" said:Dictionary[/URL]]in·trin·sic   
[in-trin-sik, -zik]
adjective
1.
belonging to a thing by its very nature: the intrinsic value of a gold ring.
Also, how about time? Do you know what it is? Can we say that time exists in the far universe? If so, how do you know that? And please, don't say because it exists here!
All that is has to offer doesn't happen to include knowledge of that makes the world tick...i.e. the fundamental forces. That is the issue here. Not rhetoric. By the way, what if time did not exist in far away space? Or, what if time did not exist for far away stars? Would you be able to tell? What is time?
I mean, this stuff is so simple, I feel like calling this 'see science run'
I don't know how my car works and it propels me pretty far because I understand how to use it. I also don't know how shoes are made, yet I wear them and use them daily. In other words, not knowing where things come from does not stop you from being able to use them or make predictions to the extent that you have knowledge.Based on what you have observed so far, you do not know waht the basic forces and laws are caused by! That cannot propel you very far.
An intrinsic property is one that is inherent of the object or material in question. It is something that is simply part of it and was not inserted. Just like matter has density, mass, color, etc, they were not 'put in,' but are an essential part of matter as a result of the interactions of particles and forces.Tell us, then.
Studying, researching, experimenting, testing, etc.
Johannes Kepler - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quantum mechanics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Large Hadron Collider - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
?? So now people that ask what science actually knows about the basics are 'self righteous'? That smacks of religiousness to me.What's you're self-righteousness doing? Oh, right... opposing human knowledge. An activist for the pro-stupidity movement.
Wrong feeling. Good thing we don't go by your feelings here. Evolving was a created trait. Nothing to deny. It started with the created creatures in Eden.No human is, actually. I have a feeling you deny all the evidence for biological evolution, while thinking that we are supposed to be descended from insects gives away your total ignorance on the subject.
Science itself doesn't speak. It is the reps here and on other forums that speak for it.You're truly delusional. For one, a method of knowledge can't "squirm" any more that math or literature.
?? Talking about the basic fundamentals and how science has no clue about any of them is a sinister thing.This thread is evidence of your motives.
That says nothing, though. Nothing at all. How does the property come to exist and what is it exactly, and why does it affect physical mass, etc?That gravity is a property of mass
I would think so, looking at how little they know!, and that scientists are always trying to learn more.
So you think that is news? That science won't know everything? Give us a break.It's been explained that we will never know everything, and you simply know far less than the lot of us. That's what's been explained.
All bow...If it wasn't for science, you wouldn't have the medicine you rely on, the internet you're using, the car you drive, the sanitary food you enjoy, and the list is endless. You wouldn't even know that there are the forces you're asking about.
Thank you, I try. I just don't like puffy pretend knowledge that opposes God and the truth.Your game is sad. All you do is find the currently perceived limit of knowledge and use that against a method for knowledge.
There might be hope for you. You admit limits.So when your questions in this thread are made into an answer that's dumbed down enough to your liking, you'll just move on to the next limit of knowledge.
I couldn't care less. Forces can change as God wills, and they have and will! Why freak out over the johnny come lately force de jour?? Heaven is close, and there, we can quickly find real answers.My question again is, what are you doing to learn about the weak, strong, and gravitational forces?
Ok dad, I give up.
How does gravity work? And don't just tell me God makes it work, I want to explain HOW he does this. You know, so that we can actually use the knowledge to make an anti-gravity device or something?
How would I know?? If science doesn't know, why would I? I think it works the way God ordained it. It works on physical mass. The spiritual is likely involved, I would think. In the same way that it is involved in the sun. Science has some half baked notions of how the sun works, and what it is made of. In reality they don't know. My, quite a long list of what is not known. The missing neutrino problem meant that if the sun was as they thought, the law of thermodynamics would have been violated. So they decided that the neutrinos changed flavor on the way here somehow. Convenient. In a newer article I read lately, it is now thought that there might be a fourth flavor of neutrinos. I think that is because there is something going on that they could only explain inventing another flavor. Bottom line, they just don't really know.
In the tribulation period, we see that God says the sun will be one third dark. The daylight time will be different. There is no way to explain that with the ideas science has of how the sun works! Is there? Then, a little later it all goes out! No way to explain that for sure with science. Not only that, but men will still be alive, so there must be some heat, despite no sunlight. What we have then is an orb that is tuned to the will of God, and that is really how the sun works!
Phooey on physical only models.
Then what you think of as science is not a player in the creation debate.Again, you want to know why we are here and why it works the way it does, that is not science.
Neither link details where the force comes from, just how it works. Whoopee do.That is the more general source I could find. From here.
If that is too complex there is this:
Strong interaction - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now time, that is an interesting thing. I unfortunately do not know enough about the "essence" of time and I don't think there is any real idea within the physics community either.
Hey, I get that, you don't know.I mean time is basically used as a unit of passage between events. But fundamentally it isn't really fully understood.
Yeah yeah...so name something you see that is evidence that the distant universe is bound with time as we are...?Time is not seperate from space. everything we see is evidence that time and space are one and the same and form a type of foam Einstein referred to as Spacetime.
Says...who?? Some say that it likely involves knowing the outcome (in some cases) before it happens, what they consider time travel. By the way can you point us to one of these little substances that are 'grainy' and small? Or is that all theory?even in modern quantum mechanics time is an aspect of space which becomes a grainy substance close to the Planck scale.
as far as the fundamental forces, they arose because of symmetry breaking spontaneously at or near the moments immediately following the big bang.
above a certain level of energy, all forces we recognise today as fundamental were in fact aspects of one penultimate force. as the universe expanded and it's volume increased, so it's energy saturation decreased, until at a certain point it fell below the level keeping matter ultra energetic, at which point the symmetry between the forces spontaneously broke, causing not only the precipitation of particles we recognize today as matter, but the "superforce" to break into it's four aspects we see today.
now since dad has no idea what i'm talking about because he is obviously an uneducated, inbred redneck evangelist, i'll try to explain it like i would to an idiot.
if you take a ball and poise it at the top of a hill, that ball has lots of energy, IN POTENTIA. by this i mean the ball has numerous ways it could fall and roll down the hill, but it has yet to take the trip so at this point the likelihood if it falling left is equal to that of it falling right. this makes the ball SYMMETRICAL.
the minute a fluctuation occurs, like say some wind or an earthquake (or in the case of the big bang, a vacuum fluctuation, and don't say what causes those MORON, they are an essential function of quanta and how the work, which is why they have to be measured as wave functions),
the ball rolls down the hill, we'll say to the left. at that point it's SYMMETRY is said to have been BROKEN. spontaneous symmetry breaking.
You probably are serious. Wow. Talking about what happened long ago as if you had some idea. That is all a story. Loosely based on present state laws. Weak indeed.so when this happened long ago, it caused the matter present due to the energy cooling and condensing into matter to take on their current traits,
Presto. And to think some people admitted not knowing this. Good thing you showed up. Was it Mickey Mouse with a magic wand by the way?creating the four forces and their associated fields and carrier particles (LONG LIVE THE GRAVITON), and essentially starting off everything.
Says...who!!it's senseless to say "okay well what causes time" because time is not an EFFECT of space, it IS space.
they are together the SPACETIME FOAM and they are one and the same, therefore since you've been told where SPACE and the FORCES came from, you also know where time came from. so eat that.
it's called the STRONG ANTROPIC PRINCIPLE.
if the universe WEREN'T fine tuned for our existance, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE TO OBSERVE IT.
what this means in the long run is that there are infinitely many universes, with infinitely many sets of starting conditions and altered strengths of the forces.
Try addressing the right party. I quoted someone saying that. No research needed. It is foolishness.you're a moron. it's not even hawking that SAID that, it was LEONARD SUSSKIND. and you don't even effing know what that MEANS SO DON'T KNOCK IT TILL YOU RESEARCH IT IDIOT.
Extra dimensional? Should we ask anyone to come meet our leaders here? (aliens from an extra dimension)Have you seen any of these dimensions? Name one that exists outside your head!susskind MEANT, a holograPH is basically a set of extradimensional information inscribed on the surface of a subdimensional surface. i.e. with our holograMs, we take a 3d image and convert that into information. this information is then placed on the surface of a 2d object and the information, to us, can describe a higher dimensional object upon viewing it, though the information is contained only on an area, not in a volume.
Nonsense. The only way black holes are seen is indirectly, and are mainly a way to use earth laws to explain stuff too far to actually know about!in black holes a singularity eats up matter that enters it, seemingly forever, for nothing escapes a black hole.
Great, so show us one. Let's see this in action.this violates a fundamental law of physics which states that energy can be created nor destroyed, called the conservation of information. however, the black hole as it has been found is more akin to a holograPH, because when something falls into it, it's event horizon expands and it becomes larger with the increase in mass, though the singularity can stay infinitely compressed.
Woulda coulda same state mind games. No bearing to reality outside one's head.therefore the information contained in the object that sunk and fell in becomes PART of the event horizon, which in essence is an AREA, which describes that the black hole, and all the information therein, is described on the surface of the event horizon in the form of bits. this goes on in much more depth, relating to particle-antiparticle pairs forming along the event horizon as a function of zero point energy and vacuum fluctuations which in the long run basically means the black hole can lose mass while retaining energy and information falling into it, and also emitting energy into the universe. (that's the part HAWKING figured out)
I think you described the language for your story well there.the only reason this is relevant to the UNIVERSE is because at the time just before the big bang, the universe was a singularity, which in idiot language means that right now for all we know we ourselves might exist inside an expanding singularity,
So can you name someone brought into being this way? How about a planet at least? ..Anything in the real world?everything we see being a function of the event horizon expanding with information encoded on it's surface, in essence bringing us into being.
Mind games are that way.this can go all sorts of places, some crazy some logical, from stating that it explains the state of the beginning of the universe to saying that we are currently inside a black hole and that the hubble space expanding is merely a function of more matter being eaten by the event horizon and entering 'our' singularity.
Just what is the point of your posts here? That we don't know everthing, so we don't know anything? That is garbage, but that seems to be your message.
The practical value of seeing that science does not know all that much, and nearly nothing important in the creation debate is great. Even I used to have a little reverence for it.None of your questions have any practical value whatsoever, and that is my message.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?