A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD - Religion (4) - Nairaland
Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD (9191 Views)
Is It Proper For A Woman To Dress This Way And Preach On God's Alter? (Photo) / A Discussion On God And Consciousness Between An Atheist And A Pantheist. / Is It Rational To Believe In Afterlife [A Discussion] (2) (3) (4)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply) (Go Down)
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 1:02am On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:1) Rocks are minerals that were manufactured by exploding stars, not directly by elementary particles. 2) Why do you say the rocks of earth are electrically neutral (I assume this is what you meant)? This is not true. Many minerals found in rocks have net electric charges. (I hate to sound like a broken record, but I insist you watch the NASA video I shared) 3) When the rocks become massive enough, gravity takes over. Gravity is a very weak force, but its effect is noticeable when massive objects are involved. It is what's keeping the earth together. Gravity is also what keeps the sun together, against the immense outward pressure from nuclear fusion. 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:06am On Oct 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, LOL. Apart from the salt video, which other matter has been observed to form spontaneously into clumps? Why did the cameras capture planets and stars like we have now when they supposedly peered into the past as far as 13.2 billion years ago? Nobody asked you about waves. Stick to the question. If you don't know when the physical laws began to act, I take it that you don't know enough to make claims like "matter spontaneously forms clumps." |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:12am On Oct 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: So gravity continued to pull rocks together until the earth was formed? Is that how the earth was formed? You couldn't even tell me when gravity began to exist. LOL. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:51am On Oct 14, 2016 |
Isn't it funny that most Big Bangists cannot tell you the situation of things before the Big Bang, or what existed before the Big Bang, or even what the Big Bang is, yet they believe that the Big Bang happened? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by Antiparticle(m): 3:08am On Oct 14, 2016 |
Let me just interject here briefly, we don't need to know what happened before the Big Bang in order to analyze what we know happened almost immediately after it started. (Knowing what happened before would be extraordinary helpful to science though). The path you are on is a "God of the gaps" argument. Your assertion is like saying that "because I don't know what happened before I was born, therefore I have no authority to discuss or evaluate anything that happened after I was born". This is an indefensible logical fallacy. In any case, I think @AgentOfAllah has done a detailed job on describing the physics of the aftermath of the Big Bang, beyond what I could, and I deeply thank him for that. @DoctorAlien, shall we move on to the ice cores? PS: Before we continue, I would once again ask you reconsider the basis of your questions. Are you asking questions because you are curious to find out the truth about the nature of reality? Or are you asking questions to arbitrarily railroad any findings that contradict your 6000-year-old universe hypothesis? If it is the latter, then this conversation is not helpful for any of us. DoctorAlien: 1 Like |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:59pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
Antiparticle, You will agree with me that you can only discuss and evaluate such things as happened after you were born as far as your memory can recollect. You cannot discuss or evaluate what happened at least within the first year after your birth. You only believe what you were told happened then. And if a child happens to lose his parents who brought him up, and indeed all the people who could relate to him the things that happened when he was still a baby, before they could do so, then you can agree with me that such a child has no means of knowing with certainty what happened(at least with regards to his origin) then. He only knows with certainty as far as his memory can recollect. I hope you catch my logic here. Yea. What do you think about the fact that the dating of the ice cores in Antarctica are based on the assumptions that the accumulation rate has not varied greatly over the past? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by akintom(m): 2:41pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien: 1 Like |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 2:59pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by akintom(m): 3:37pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien: Sorry about the mix up. I meant to quote ANTIPARTICLE. Without any intended patronage of antiparticle, he's demonstrated to me an exemplary intellectual maturity, pure intention, and appreciable empathy. These are what endeared me in his contribution. AgentofAllah was a delicious icing. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by akintom(m): 3:39pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
Antiparticle: I must give this credit to you. You have greatly influenced and endeared me in multi dimensional ways on how to productively engage in public debate. Thanks |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 3:40pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
akintom: In any way, you're welcome. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 7:47pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:Is this a trick question? Let's start with all the naturally occurring elements, compounds and molecules in existence. Why did the cameras capture planets and stars like we have now when they supposedly peered into the past as far as 13.2 billion years ago? Nobody asked you about waves. Stick to the question.Imagine a room lit with 100 deep-UV bulbs and 1 green bulb; were you to enter that room, you will only see green light, and then probably conclude that there is only green light in that room. This erroneous conclusion stems from the fact that the spectral sensitivity of your eyes does not cover UV wavelengths. However, if you entered the room with an InGaAs photodetector, you will be able to see the green light as well as the light from the 100 deep UV bulbs because InGaAs photodetectors are sensitive to UV spectrum. Same thing applies to optical telescopes. If you look into space with them, no matter how far back you go, you will only be able to see things within the spectral range of optical telescopes. To see other things outside of this spectral range (e.g. redshifted microwave background, where disorderliness will surely exist), you will need a different kind of telescope that can detect microwave signals. This is where WMAP and CHIME come in. That said, please do NOT enter a room filled with deep UV bulbs. If you do, you will come out with your skin completely ionised and your eyes cooked beyond redemption! If you don't know when the physical laws began to act, I take it that you don't know enough to make claims like "matter spontaneously forms clumps."This is a preposterous presumption. I am most certain you don't need to know how/when gravity came about to be sure that jumping from a 100 storey building would inexorably result in your shattered brain sullying the pavement. So I am surprised that you think I must know when physical laws came to be in order to know what their effects on matter can be. DoctorAlien:Precisely! In fact, the earth still continues to cannibalise space debris like meteors and asteroids that manage to come within its gravitational vicinity. Sometimes we see them as shooting stars or meteor showers; and the ones that make it past our atmosphere, we call meteorites. You couldn't even tell me when gravity began to exist. LOL.Nope, but I can tell you what it does. 2 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 8:22pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, You have again carefully avoided the question I asked. Why did the cameras capture fully formed stars and planets like we have now, when they supposedly peered over 13.2 billion years into the past? They shouldn't see stars and planets like we have now since they saw close to the Big Bang. Why is that? If the earth was formed the way you said, then two heavy things should be able to stick together if you brought them close enough, because of gravitational force. Yes? Again, if arbitrary rocks continued to be pulled together by gravitational force to form the earth, how did the earth manage to realize an oblate spheriodal shape? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 10:08pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:Oh, I see what you're trying to imply! That stars and planets shouldn't have existed by 500,000,000 years after the big bang? Actually, I doubt they've found planets that old (planets can only form from the spilled guts of a dead star). However, I am not sure why you think stars shouldn't exist by then, but they most definitely did, at least, according to images from WMAP. We see from those results that stars formed from as early as 200,000,000 years after the big bang. So, if there is a very old star within the viewing field of an optical telescope, there is no reason why it shouldn't be observable. If the earth was formed the way you said, then two heavy things should be able to stick together if you brought them close enough, because of gravitational force. Yes?The gravitational force acting on two masses is given by: F = G M1m2/r2, where the gravitational constant, 'G', has a value: 6.674×10−11 N⋅m2/kg2. It is clear that the gravitational force of attraction scales with mass of the bodies involved. Now, if you were to carry this experiment out in space, there will be an ever so tiny force (check out the value of G) that will act on them until they eventually stick together (this assumes that G-force is greater than the rate of expansion of the fabric of space itself). On the other hand, if you carry this experiment out on earth, you cannot discount the effect of earth's mass. The reason we all stick to earth is because earth is so massive that it exacts a strong gravitational force on us. Likewise, if you leave two heavy things (which are considerably lighter than earth) lying around, the force of gravity being exerted on them by earth will be much stronger (due to earth's mass) than the force of gravity they experience between each other. As such, they are unlikely to stick together, and more likely to stick to earth! Again, if arbitrary rocks continued to be pulled together by gravitational force to form the earth, how did the earth manage to realize an oblate spheriodal shape?Gravity acts as a point force whose field is omnidirectional. Gravitational field emanates from the centre of mass of an object, therefore all masses tend to act towards each other's centre (until an equilibrium centre is reached). Of course, when an object becomes very massive, its core will heat up due to immense pressure (if you compress anything with enough pressure, it will melt due to excessive agitation of its atoms), so as the core of the earth heated up, it became fluid, and so began to assume the most energetically stable shape available(that of its gravitational field). Also, at the time the earth was forming, space was richer in debris than it is now, so the friction from rain of meteorites happening from all corners caused the surface of the earth to heat up and melt. Since this molten surface could burrow through rocks, it sank in, following the spherical path of the earth's gravitational field (towards earth's centre). By the time the space debris had significantly reduced, earth began to cool down, and then stayed spherical. The oblateness is simply due to earth's rotation around an axis. The centrifugal force of that rotation tends to cause the flattening of the regions around the rotation axis. 3 Likes 1 Share |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 10:51pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, No fully formed star or planet like we have now should exist less than 0.6 billion years after the Big Bang. Maybe you need to read more on the what scientists found after peering over 13.2 billion years into the past. Is gravitational force magnetic? According to you, two rocks joined together in space due to gravity. Then another rock joined them. Another joined them. And then we have the earth. How did those jointed rocks manage to start rotating on their axis? Can you give an example of an object whose core heats up due to immense pressure if it becomes massive? Did anything compress the earth(conglomeration of gravity-joined rocks)? What was that? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 11:29pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, Moreover, if the above description is your view of how the earth was formed, then you must be the only one who holds such a view. Which means it is not the truth. I wonder why you preach it with much fervor and ardor. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 11:48pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:Why? Is gravitational force magnetic?No, gravitational force is an attractive force, but it is not magnetic. Magnetic force is something else. It comes from the electronic properties of matter. According to you, two rocks joined together in space due to gravity. Then another rock joined them. Another joined them. And then we have the earth. How did those jointed rocks manage to start rotating on their axis?The short answer is: Law of conservation of momentum! The longer answer is that the seed rock(s) most probably was/were already spinning on an axis before accretion. When an explosion (like supernova) happens, some of the debris will acquire angular momentum, whose direction and angular velocity will be dependent on the vector and magnitude of the force from such an explosion. In case you are unaware, there is almost zero friction in space, meaning a spinning rock will not stop spinning until another stronger force acts on it. Can you give an example of an object whose core heats up due to immense pressure if it becomes massive? Did anything compress the earth(conglomeration of gravity-joined rocks)? What was that?Actually, I need to correct my initial statement. Pressure does not cause the core to melt, it makes it harder to melt! But yes, the earth's core is compressed by the pressure exerted by its outer layer. So earth was liquid due mostly to the impact from space debris, not from the pressure at its core. This video does justice to the explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZYGfJsj1q4 1 Like 1 Share |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 11:56pm On Oct 14, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:The only view that was solely mine in the description is the supposition that earth's pressure melted its core. This view is wrong, and I have since corrected it. However, there are many brilliant documentaries on the origins of the earth on YouTube. I encourage you to watch them. Here's one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhBc8iHGODo |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 12:04am On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, Most stars are between 1 - 10 billion years old, scientists say. They also say some stars may be close to 13.8 billion years old. But I want you to note the phrase "may be." That's about how certain it is. May be. If gravitational force is not magnetic, why did the first two rocks which came together in the process of earth formation not bounce of each other? When a Supernova occurs, what is the nature of the resulting debris? Also, have two spinning bodies ever been observed to join together? Supposedly, two or more rocks came together and joined themselves. How can their outer layers exert pressure on their centre? How did space debris make the earth liquid? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 12:08am On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: I have been playing all along with your "rocks came together to form the earth" idea, maybe to see if you can realize how ridiculous it is. Actually, that assertion is as wrong as it can be. Have you ever heard of the "meter size barrier"? Maybe you need to read more, eager scientist. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 1:11am On Oct 15, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:I think the operative word here is "most". "Most" does not preclude the possibility that some stars are older than 10 billion years. If images from WMAP show stars as old as 13 billion years, it is not clear to me why you, I or any scientist should dispute that. I am not sure which scientists you talk to, but I will most certainly pick the results of a properly executed experiment over your word or that of any scientist. As such, I am convinced that there are stars that existed as early as 200 million years after the big bang. So unless you believe there is something scientifically wrong with very early stars, I don't see a reason for us to harp on this point. If gravitational force is not magnetic, why did the first two rocks which came together in the process of earth formation not bounce of each other?1) How do you know how many rocks were involved in the initial collision? 2) Not all collisions are elastic! 3) Even collisions between magnets can be elastic. When a Supernova occurs, what is the nature of the resulting debris?Everything from single elements to compounds, molecules and minerals. Also, have two spinning bodies ever been observed to join together?A football and the earth? Supposedly, two or more rocks came together and joined themselves. How can their outer layers exert pressure on their centre?All forces have vectors. Gravity happens to have its vector pointing towards the centre of mass of a body. When two or more objects come together, their centre of gravity adjusts in accordance with the new distribution of mass, and the pressure from the force of gravity will be most intense at this new mass centre. Happens when you dive deep into the sea too. How did space debris make the earth liquid?Conversion of kinetic energy to thermal energy (friction), I would imagine. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 1:22am On Oct 15, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:I disagree that rocks coming together to form earth is a ridiculous idea. And nope, never heard of the "meter-size barrier", but it looks interesting. Thanks for bringing it to me attention! Maybe you need to read more, eager scientist.Maybe I do! 1 Like |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:43am On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, How did you know that stars existed 200 million years after the Big Bang? What about the fully formed planets scientists saw when they peered over 13.2 billion years into the past? When inelastic collisions occur, the objects involved don't stay joined forever. It is rather funny that what you hold as truth on the origin of the Universe is mere speculation/hypothesis. I must laugh at your "football and the earth" example  . Football does not stick inseparably to the earth. That is not an example of two spinning bodies joining together.Are you trying to modify your words? Has "outer layers" suddenly turned into "vector"? I'm happy you said this is your imagination. You can hold on to your imagination. But it's not the truth, anyway. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 1:57am On Oct 15, 2016 |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 2:18am On Oct 15, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:I've told you! Results from WMAP. What about the fully formed planets scientists saw when they peered over 13.2 billion years into the past?Looked this up, and the oldest known planet is estimated at ~13 billion years old. So what's your point? When inelastic collisions occur, the objects involved don't stay joined forever.Is this DoctorAlien's law of inelastic collision? They do, unless another force acts on them. It is rather funny that what you hold as truth on the origin of the Universe is mere speculation/hypothesis.What is speculation? I must laugh at your "football and the earth" exampleNothing sticks inseparably to another (except maybe quarks). With the right amount of energy, you can separate just about anything. Are you trying to modify your words? Has "outer layers" suddenly turned into "vector"?Yes, I modified my words to better accurately describe what I intended to convey. I'm happy you said this is your imagination. You can hold on to your imagination. But it's not the truth, anyway.I'm glad I am able to make you happy. |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 2:35am On Oct 15, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:Okay, I promise I'll read it with an objective mind, and get back to you. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ So I've read the parts of the article that I understand, and I can immediately observe that there is a flaw in their claim about the CMB. They suggest it is from the earth's oceans. The earth's oceans?? That's nonsense! The satellites used in mapping CMB are not on earth, and do not face earth, so unless there is a massive microwave mirror positioned in such a way that it reflects signals from the earth's oceans back to WMAP and COBE, it doesn't make sense that they should be detecting signals from earth's ocean. The closest analogy I can make is that of receiving Astra 2x (Sky UK) channels from Eutelsat 36 (DSTv) transmitters, never mind that their signals come from different directions. I have not completely studied all of the claims because, frankly, I don't understand many of their more sophisticated arguments, but if they can be wrong on such a fundamental level, then I plead Occam's razor, and refuse to waste my time trying to understand the others. Also, Pierre's many attempts at redefining Physics as we know it have been roundly discredited. Check: 1) http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille 2) http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/19/us/ripples-in-ohio-from-ad-on-the-big-bang.html?_r=0 3) https://www.quora.com/Does-the-recent-claimed-proof-by-Pierre-Marie-Robitaille-of-the-invalidity-of-Kirchhoffs-law-of-thermal-radiation-have-any-implications-for-physics |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 5:42pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, You said that the product of a supernova is Everything from single elements to compounds, molecules and minerals. Although this is terribly wrong, given that the analysis of the Crab supernova of A.D. 1054 revealed the presence of only hydrogen and helium, I still have a question for you: The first-generation(population III) stars were made up of only hydrogen and helium, supposedly. How then did "compounds and molecules and minerals" form in the stars? What minerals formed in the stars? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 5:55pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah: For stars to have formed after the Big Bang, gases would need to clump together. Have gases ever been observed to clump together? |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 6:35pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by raphieMontella: 6:46pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
I dont expect you to believe tho. DoctorAlien:once again...sorry guys for interferring o.. F U ORIONIS technical report on the star |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by AgentOfAllah: 6:47pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
DoctorAlien:Young stars burn their fuel through nuclear fusion. This is done by fusing the nuclei of two hydrogen atoms to form helium. The mass of helium is a little less than the sum of masses of two H atoms MHe < MH + MH So by law of conservation of energy, the lost mass must be account for. The energy equivalent of that mass is given by the famous relativity equation, E=mc2. That is the energy that is given off by new He nuclei. Even after this, nuclear fusion continues to happen. Berilium (Be) has a slightly lower mass than the sum of two He atom MBe < MHe + MHe So again, the nuclei of two He atoms are fused to give Be. Through out the life time of the star, it continues to burn and manufacture new elements by fusion, and this continues until iron (Fe). After Fe, the nuclear fusion cannot produce energy anymore because the mass of of the sum of two Iron neclei becomes less than the mass of say Tellurium (Te). MTe > MFe + MFe Consequently, energy is not given off anymore, but required to created the next set of element. It is at this stage that the star starts to collapse on itself (due to gravitational pressure), and if it is massive enough (i.e >1.4X the mass of Mr Sol A.K.A. the Chandrasekhar limit), this collapse will lead to a final violent and spectacular eruption of energy (as in a supernova). It is from this wondrous amount of energy that the previously manufactured elements hidden in the guts of the dying star are further synthesised into other massive elements, compounds, molecules and minerals; wherefrom we derive planets, their many hidden treasures and organic matter. 1 Like |
| Re: A Discussion between Antiparticle and DoctorAlien on GOD by DoctorAlien(m): 6:55pm On Oct 15, 2016 |
AgentOfAllah, You have again shown that you don't even have a good knowledge of stellar evolution. Have you heard of the "helium mass 4 gap"? There is no way heavy elements could have formed, going by the stellar evolution. Read more. |
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (Reply)
Six Ways To Express Love For God / Top 10 Most Religious Countries In The World / Vocalize Your Faith - Pastor Chris Oyakhilome
(Go Up)
| Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 107 |