Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Lillen]

Remeber Johns word "and see i saw a new earth and new heaven being formed", It says in past tense, it says "I saw" and not "I will see". it is already something observed. And i believe this very prophetic word, this passage will be come reality in this modern age as it says "and see".

 

[Nabobalis]

Never seen any for that. But that's another thread.

Yeah but you still wouldn't listen anyhow.

Let me make it easy

Wish you had, that block of text looks horrible in the reply box. Feel like I'm about to do a heart bypass on it.

so why? do you have some reason physical matter should behave this way? or are you just an observer of what God did?

What do you mean by "some reason physical matter should behave this way?"
All you have quoted there is about how quarks are an elementary particle and make up matter.

Are you asking why matter is made up of smaller elements? If so, the only answer I can give is, that is the way nature works.

why?

A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed.

Here or here.

so in our world, hadrons are where quarks hang...

Hadrons are an particle that is made up of quarks.

that says a lot..?

What does? That there is 6 flavours of quarks? Would you prefer physicists to make them disappear for you?

why? why do particles decay?

Particles decay because they are unstable due to their high mass and particles like to be as light as possible.

says...who?? have you seen some far far away? where? show us?

Well Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and guess what they are made of?

That's right, up and down quarks.

nonsense. in other words the only way man in this state and quadrant knows that they can be formed is by collisions. if the spiritual world forms them another way, our way would not be the only way

What are you going on about? Spiritual world?

The other quarks are heavy so they are formed in high energy situations which are on earth either cosmic rays or particle accelerators.

in other words they are a certain way! how and why you do not seem to know

That is the way it is. Why? I don't know, maybe someone else does.

so?

So what? That line was just stating a fact about quarks.

this merely observes what is, without comprehension of how and why

The quark model is just a way to classify all the quarks and how they combine into particles. It predicted some new particles which were found experimentally.

basically a hadron is held together by the strong force, which is not understood. some credit is due for seeing how things work, and are set up in a pattern, so as to be able to predict a missing part of the pattern. but remember, that is just observing what God made, and what is held together even now by forces you do not comprehend

The strong force is(I believe, won't know till my lecturer moves on to the strong force in the coming weeks.) well understood and comes under the name of Quantum chromodynamics.That is outside my field of knowledge.

We need to observe things and gather evidence before we make statements about the nature of matter. Unlike some people.

No surprises here.

Nope, you are asking the wrong questions so you can then go either:

1. Goddidit
2. Spirit World didit

Therefore science sucks​

?? Someone did that here? Poor excuse.

You do.

Believe being the key word there. But, since science have no clue anyhow, who cares?

I doubt that our time sets the clocks of the universe. Since you admit not knowing even what it is, how could you make it apply way out there??

Believe isn't the key word since I use it differently than you do. There is no evidence to suggest that time has changed over the history of the universe and without evidence we can not account for things that you make up.

 

[Lillen]

And also, for the believers. Notice one thing in genesis, we have dominion over nature, over all living creatures in sea and on shore. We are in charge over the nature, including the universe (as we name the stars and galaxies by name). As a scientist you are not incharge over the nature, you only discover the nature as gods people charge it to be - Remeber at one time the dispute was if light was a particle or a wave. I believe that during this time the light was infact either a particle and wave until some brilliant genious commanded light to be both (something scientists can "observe"). Before this age, the sun was concidered the light, until some brilliant genious commanded that ligth was fotons. Another great example we have is the atom, it has not always looked the way we look at atoms today. and during this time, the smallest part of nature looked exaclty as some brilliant genious commanded it to look like.

 

[dad]

There is one - and only one - reason why you never "seem to fight as much" with AV: you never adress his points at all, ..

No. See, the thing is, I don't much care how God did it. But He did. So, who really cares about the details of how? We will find out one day. Now, so called science folks here, on the other hand claim stuff as science that in effect says that God was and is not part of it. So, whether Setterfield is right, or answers in genesis, or anyone else who believes is Jesus as the savior, it doesn't matter all that much.

But I notice in wonderment that you do seem to "fight" with Lillen right now, though he also professes to be a Christian and proclaims "different views".

Testing the waters. Seems to be less than clear what is going on there.

 

[dad]

This is the very reason there are people believing that there are Martians at mars, there are proffessional scientist that believe that mars is inhabited. The parallell connection is that indians existed in what we know as USA, totally isolated from the age gone by and totally impossible to get there without a miricle.

I guess walking and canoes could be considered a miracle?

You can argue that they row in canotes, but I don't buy that. I believe they were found innocent by God as they entered hell, and a door to what even old eurpean literature descibes as the holy land were opened and they lived in harmony there until the old world found a pathway

Well, the only pathway Christians believe there is to heaven is believing in Jesus. Are you suggesting that the natives were dead, and on the way to hell, but were found as having good works, so God stuck em in New York!??

which concidered imossible to find since the authrities firmly believed that the earth was flat.

I do not believe that most people thought the world was flat, and if they did, it was unrelated to the bible.

The connection is there. And i am not the only one that believes so. Martians, ie dogmen, who already travelled in a wormhole to Mars from the present world.

Wrong thread....

 

[dad]

Remeber Johns word "and see i saw a new earth and new heaven being formed", It says in past tense, it says "I saw" and not "I will see". it is already something observed. And i believe this very prophetic word, this passage will be come reality in this modern age as it says "and see".

Right. It will come to exist, and John saw it when he went to the future.

 

[dad]

Yeah but you still wouldn't listen anyhow.

I listen to fact, evidence and what is known. Not to fables of alternate creation based on nothing.

What do you mean by "some reason physical matter should behave this way?"
All you have quoted there is about how quarks are an elementary particle and make up matter.

They group in a certain way, and are affected by the strong nuclear force, which you do not know anything about, as far as what it actually is. They have a certain function, and work a certain way. All in accordance with the basic fundamental forces that you don't know about, in any meaningful way.

Are you asking why matter is made up of smaller elements? If so, the only answer I can give is, that is the way nature works.

Bingo.

A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed.

Here or here.

So?? Point?

Hadrons are an particle that is made up of quarks.

Right, so quarks always are found that way..no? So?

What does? That there is 6 flavours of quarks? Would you prefer physicists to make them disappear for you?

No, but there are many flavors of ice cream too...so what?

Particles decay because they are unstable due to their high mass and particles like to be as light as possible.

In other words particles in our state decay. Right. They won't in the future, and it seems to be debatable whether they do in far away space. The laws of physics of the present are required for that.

Well Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe and guess what they are made of?

Tell us how you know that.. This seems to assume that the spectral signature coming in tells us what is in the interior of stars? Elaborate.

That's right, up and down quarks.

Talk to us about up and down quarks you have seen way up in the far away universe? What, that is the only kind you see?

What are you going on about? Spiritual world?

Get out more. It is all through history, and is well known, and observed, and tested, and recorded.

The other quarks are heavy so they are formed in high energy situations which are on earth either cosmic rays or particle accelerators.

That says nothing! In other words, silly man can only make them by smashing God's good stuff together. That doesn't mean they can only be made that way in the universe. That should be obvious.

That is the way it is. Why? I don't know, maybe someone else does.

So you don't know. OK

So what? That line was just stating a fact about quarks.

So a pointless line was inserted?

The quark model is just a way to classify all the quarks and how they combine into particles. It predicted some new particles which were found experimentally.

As I said, man can detect some of the patterns of God. Small, or otherwise.

The strong force is(I believe, won't know till my lecturer moves on to the strong force in the coming weeks.) well understood and comes under the name of Quantum chromodynamics.That is outside my field of knowledge.

It is not know at all. Just how it works. Don't hold your breath. Try asking Prof some hard questions. He might think you are smart.

We need to observe things and gather evidence before we make statements about the nature of matter. Unlike some people.

Very good, get on it, then. Report back when you find something.

Nope, you are asking the wrong questions so you can then go either:

1. Goddidit
2. Spirit World didit

Therefore science sucks​

If science doesn't know, we can go anywhere. No news there.

Believe isn't the key word since I use it differently than you do. There is no evidence to suggest that time has changed over the history of the universe and without evidence we can not account for things that you make up.

Believe is the key word. Since that is all you have to declare all things the same since the creation of the world. How would you have any reason to know anything about what the laws were and forces, and fabric of the universe? You say it like all that matters is what Johnny come lately science can grab hold of now.

 

[Nabobalis]

I listen to fact, evidence and what is known. Not to fables of alternate creation based on nothing.

You don't listen to evidence or fact as seen by your posts. The evidence is in front of you, go to a library and get a few books on cosmology and physics in general.

They group in a certain way, and are affected by the strong nuclear force, which you do not know anything about, as far as what it actually is. They have a certain function, and work a certain way. All in accordance with the basic fundamental forces that you don't know about, in any meaningful way.

[FONT=&quot]I agree if you are talking about me, however if you ask anyone who is either a professor or a PhD student doing particle physics you would get an answer.[/FONT]

Also we know much about the strong force, it is called QCD.

Bingo.

You sure you got a full house?

So?? Point?

The point was that you asked for a reason why quarks are never seen alone and I just gave it to you but you seemed to ignore it.

Right, so quarks always are found that way..no? So?

Yes, quarks are always in hadrons.

No, but there are many flavors of ice cream too...so what?

So you don't like that there are 6 flavours of quarks? I don't see your issue here.

In other words particles in our state decay. Right. They won't in the future, and it seems to be debatable whether they do in far away space. The laws of physics of the present are required for that.

They won't in the future? I assume you have evidence for that statement.
Also evidence for the issue you have with the laws of physics being different from the past.

Tell us how you know that.. This seems to assume that the spectral signature coming in tells us what is in the interior of stars? Elaborate.

Spectral lines do tell us what the star is made of. Not much else to say.

Talk to us about up and down quarks you have seen way up in the far away universe? What, that is the only kind you see?

Get out more. It is all through history, and is well known, and observed, and tested, and recorded.

I do get out alot thanks. I don't know what it is, let alone read anything that mentions it.

That says nothing! In other words, silly man can only make them by smashing God's good stuff together. That doesn't mean they can only be made that way in the universe. That should be obvious.

They are made naturally too which you just seemed to gloss over so you could make this point.

So you don't know. OK

Yeah, I don't know.

So a pointless line was inserted?

No, because the article was about quarks and it was stating all the facts about quarks. It is how encyclopaedias work btw.

As I said, man can detect some of the patterns of God. Small, or otherwise.

Ok, if you want to call it patterns of god, go ahead. It does not change anything.

It is not know at all. Just how it works. Don't hold your breath. Try asking Prof some hard questions. He might think you are smart.

Hard questions like: why are we here and why do things work the way they are?

Very good, get on it, then. Report back when you find something.

We already have but you have just dismissed it straight.

If science doesn't know, we can go anywhere. No news there.

Nope, no news there but instead of deciding to wait to get any evidence you want to just add your explanation ad hoc.

Believe is the key word. Since that is all you have to declare all things the same since the creation of the world. How would you have any reason to know anything about what the laws were and forces, and fabric of the universe? You say it like all that matters is what Johnny come lately science can grab hold of now.

No you are still confused. You are the person who has to prove that it was different. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise and if there was, it would be incorporated into the theories we have.

 

[dad]

And also, for the believers. Notice one thing in genesis, we have dominion over nature, over all living creatures in sea and on shore.

I think that was before the fall.

We are in charge over the nature, including the universe (as we name the stars and galaxies by name).

Don't think so.

As a scientist you are not incharge over the nature, you only discover the nature as gods people charge it to be - Remeber at one time the dispute was if light was a particle or a wave. I believe that during this time the light was infact either a particle and wave until some brilliant genious commanded light to be both (something scientists can "observe").

Maybe some other genius will find out there is even more to it.

Before this age, the sun was concidered the light, until some brilliant genious commanded that ligth was fotons.

?

Another great example we have is the atom, it has not always looked the way we look at atoms today. and during this time, the smallest part of nature looked exaclty as some brilliant genious commanded it to look like.

So who commanded the atom again??

 

[dad]

So i figured out what is going on here while i was at work yesterday. (lucky for you, i wanted very badly to get on here and just tear your faulted logic and bibley bullshnix apart but unfortunately had a job to do... i digress)

Dad is clearly inbred, and unfortunately his brain must not bear the standard human capacity to understand higher reasoning and logic. therefore, he feels SOOOO terrible about himself, (it's okay dad... my sister was 'tarded, now she's a pilot.) that he tried to make being INTELLIGENT look STUPID so he himself will feel better about having the intelligence quotient equivalent to a pond scum or perhaps troglodyte.

as far as proof the rest of the universe runs on the same 'TIME' we do, we have proof that it DOESN'T, which means that it DOES. light echoes from distant supernovas are commonly bent and slowed by quasars, black holes, and other galaxies, proving that the speed of light is constant and affected by gravity. I'm not going to drop the math in here because you wouldn't understand it, suffice it to say that if light is affected in the way it is observed to be affected, then:

A)Time is a part of space, and the more energetic an object becomes the slower time goes for it, indicating that the speed of light is constant but affected by gravity

B)Time and the Speed of Light are both relative to the observer.

this has been proved. the reason it has been proved is that something was writted down, it made predictions, and since this action long ago before world war II when einstein predicted the action of the universe as affected by his theorem it has been observed that the universe acts again and again in accordance with it.

if i spread my cheeks and take dump on your face dad, you can't say "that turd came from god!" because all evidence is that it came from betwixt my cheeks.

you are so stupid it's painful. i hope god wipes your type of ignorance from this planet. you say that science squirms and run your big mouth but i haven't seen you making ANY type of predictions that come true. the only thing you FSCKING christians can come up with is "oh the worlds gonna end tomorrow!" or "I am the son of god and reincarnation of jesus. here drink this kool=aid!"

see? you people do NOTHING worthwhile in this world. and every time one of you "PROPHECIES" the end of the world or the FSCKNG coming of the messiah he is always NECCESARILY WRONG because there are no such thing in either case unless the end is affected by the laws of physics in which case it will not occur for BILLIONS and BILLIONS of years from now.

your ingnorance is the worst kind. it is NOT okay to just sit back and not know anything about anything and try to feel cool about that. like "oh, i don't know what a quark is, never understood physics class in high school so i guess science is wrong since i'm too stupid to understand it. i'll just say god does everything". okay well FSCKING MORON let's play at the same game shall we?

HOW DOES GOD MAKE GRAVITY HAPPEN? by your logic, if one is not able to explain the EXACT METHOD that such things happen by in a way YOU can understand it (difficult to explain to someone like you dad, when your family tree is a STUMP. sorry your left eye's in the right socket and your right eye's in the left socket. douche.) then YOU ARE WRONG. So GOD JUST MAKES IT HAPPEN is not a valid answer. why? because GOD JUST MAKES IT HAPPEN cannot make predictions about the living universe in real time that become answered like the two clocks experiment which proved time is slower close to the earth or the fscking eclipse experiment that proved that light is affected by massive objects.

the only thing you're going to be able to predict is how aweful you feel about being a stupid redneck and when the next time you're gonna plant your lips firmly around your pastor's shaft to partake of his man juice.

i hope you die. have a good evening. may your stupidity be purged from the earth.

This post should be reported. On this forum, manners are best. Come back when you learn some respect.

 

[dad]

You don't listen to evidence or fact as seen by your posts. The evidence is in front of you, go to a library and get a few books on cosmology and physics in general.

What will they tell me? That you actually do know the basics? No. Cosmology is story telling. Nothing more...loosely based on how things on earth work, and superimposing that far away in their imagination.

[FONT="]I agree if you are talking about me, however if you ask anyone who is either a professor or a PhD student doing particle physics you would get an answer.[/FONT]

I doubt it. If I did, so would they!

Also we know much about the strong force, it is called QCD.

Well, that cinches it then. Why didn't you say so earlier? Impressive letters. Meaningless, but impressive.

The point was that you asked for a reason why quarks are never seen alone and I just gave it to you but you seemed to ignore it.

Well,
"A free quark is not observed because by the time the separation is on an observable scale, the energy is far above the pair production energy for quark-antiquark pairs. For the U and D quarks the masses are 10s of MeV so pair production would occur for distances much less than a fermi. You would expect a lot of mesons (quark-antiquark pairs) in very high energy collision experiments and that is what is observed."

Have you seen free quarks, or detected them in some way? Also, what does it matter? Generally quarks are in the form of a haldron..no? Have you some explanation why, or not?

Yes, quarks are always in hadrons.

Ah...OK. So God arranged it that way...so?

So you don't like that there are 6 flavours of quarks? I don't see your issue here.

Hey they just found that there might be a fourth flavor of neutrino. What would I care if there are 6, or 8?? Point?

They won't in the future? I assume you have evidence for that statement.
Also evidence for the issue you have with the laws of physics being different from the past.

Of course. Unlike science, that just looks at how things now work, and dreams it will always be so, till a big bad black hole eats the universe, or some such lunacy, the bible is evidenced many ways. And observers from the future have reported what it actually is like.

Spectral lines do tell us what the star is made of. Not much else to say.

Well, how would we know if that also deals in the core of the star? Or just the outer layers? In other words, although hydrogen exists in some form, there may be a lot of other things too, that we can't detect. If stars are associated with the spiritual, that is a virtual certainty. So all you have is what amounts to a belief that the stars are pure physical material, in a state that is like ours on earth, regarding laws, and forces!

They are made naturally too which you just seemed to gloss over so you could make this point.

Well, so? You mean made in our earth nature of the present. Like how?

Yeah, I don't know.

Well, OK. That is a big gap in knowledge.

No, because the article was about quarks and it was stating all the facts about quarks.

Unless some random 'fact' is relative to the discussion why harp on it, and bring it up??

Ok, if you want to call it patterns of god, go ahead. It does not change anything.

Doesn't change what?

Nope, no news there but instead of deciding to wait to get any evidence you want to just add your explanation ad hoc.

Wait for science to get evidence? Well, they ought to wait till then before telling creation stories.

No you are still confused. You are the person who has to prove that it was different. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise and if there was, it would be incorporated into the theories we have.

No, I can take God's word for it, thanks. If you claim otherwise, you prove it. You can't. Welcome to your beliefs. We all have our own.

 

[dad]

you're an idiot. i hope you die.

That isn't the way debate is done.

 

[dad]

awwww i must have hit a nerve. did i hurt your feelings? too bad. i will NEVER, EVER EVER EVER respect someone like you. you people are a fscking plague upon the earth the likes of which haven't been seen since exodus. (ha even threw in a bible ref. happy?)

you are sad, stupid, and demonstrably wrong. glad someone could finally hit the nail on the head. clearly, no response, a nerve was hit.

you're an idiot. face it. either learn something and make yourself a little better than the rest of 'your kind' or hurry up and die so we can slowly decrease the stupidity saturation of the human populous, one person at a time.

Bye bye

 

[dad]

christian evangelist moron land .

Anyone is free to put evidence on the table once they learn manners.

 

[dad]

okay how's this. i have lots of repressed anger due to a bad childhood. i'm sorry, and would like to apologize for the hurtful things i've said. i have a very low tolerance for stupidity and felt bombarded by it for some reason.

i sincerely apologize. very sincerely...

OK, good start. Now take some time out. Think about the wrong you've done. Being sorry doesn't mean that there are no consequences.

 

[dad]

i .....

censored

 

[dad]

o....

censored

 

[Lillen]

To take dads party even though we have our disagreements, may i inform you that darkness is a code word for ignorance.

And the multis darkness is striking. You just don't say "bip off and die" to anyone. In a free world we practice something that is called freedom of speech. I would bet my faith that this multi once said on muhammed cartoon issue, "Bip off and die for we have freedom of speech". Yet now this multi ask one who percives facts diffrent from him to "bip off and die" when he utter himself freely. That not irrelvance, no it's not, it is darkness

'Total darkness'

 

[dad]

if you ever are interested in reading A Brief History Of Time,...

God gave us a brief history of time. Hawking's fanciful same state dreams not needed.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

God gave us a brief history of time. Hawking's fanciful same state dreams not needed.

Nope. The document purporting to be God's word is provably wrong.

But feel free to try again: the Vedas are a good read.