My argument against materialism

[kenkoskinen]

That's not exactly true, but near enough.


What problem? What anomaly?


Those are all accounted for by the Big Bang, and have nothing to do with any singularity.


Okay.


But nowhere in there is there any mention of a singularity.


Bye.

Originally Posted by kenkoskinen
We know matter can arise from energy but we don't yet know the how & why questions. Nothing can come out of or arise from a singularity.

"That's not exactly true, but near enough."

In science we discover the "what" happens before the "how & why" answers. A singularity is a theoretical concept that stems from General Relativity. It's a point of infinite energy and a zero volume of space/time. This is nonsense to physics as all known laws breakdown. He have hit a pesky infinity and nothing can emerge from such a point. This is a major anomaly or break down in the Big Bang model. If there was an early universe singularity the universe shouldn't be here. We need a fix to this problem. One way is to show how everything by-passed the singularity ... good luck on this approach ... you'll need it. Or ... we need a new model of scientific genesis that doesn't have an early singularity ... that's the approach I'm working on.

Yes ... the detections the BB accounts for, do not have anything to do with the early singularity. The problem is swept aside or ignored. Scientists often work on the strengths of theories while ignoring problems they can't solve. Many times they think someone in the future will be able to jump the hurdle. Darwin for example didn't know the mechanism for arising new characteristics via natural selection but continued to work on his theory. And yes in the 20th century the science of genetics was developed.

Punnshh ... you keep insisting and/or looking for the singularity without realizing it is one of the unsolved theoretical anomalies in the BB theory. Cosmologist want to remove the cancer because it should have prevented the universe from appearing ... but the universe is here and so are we. If the BB theory is going to survive a fix for the singularity problem needs to be found.

Anytime you want to include the singularity it screws everything up. I hope I chose enough words so you understand it now.

 

[dlorde]

You also claim that gravity keeps large objects like planets held together. Not so ... the electromagnetic force primarily does that. Gravity causes things to fall and keeps planets in orbit around stars & moons in orbit around planets etc.

Do you have a reference for this?

My understanding is/was that apart from the initial collapse of a dust nebula under gravity, electrostatic and electromagnetic forces dominate for the aggregation of dust particles, up to around 200m diameter, then gravity joins in up to planetesimals (~10km diameter) after which gravitational attraction dominates. After all, a planet is defined (among other things) as a body whose gravitational field is strong enough to give it a rounded shape (i.e. overcome rigid body forces), so it would be overwhelmingly stronger than electromagnetic forces in holding it together.

However, a quick browse online shows plenty of descriptions of dust grain accretion and clumping through contact, but little to indicate the forces involved at various scales.

 

[Robin]

I had difficulty relating the bachelor analogy to matter.

The bachelor analogy is about pursuing questions that cannot, even in principle, have an answer.

Yes I acknowledge this, I am seeking acknowledgement from the materialists too.

But the materialists here have been telling you this for yonks.

I still see the potential for mysteries, if they extend beyond horizon, within which we are contained.

Of course there is potential for mysteries. Otherwise scientists would be out of a job.

And, yes, the rest of us can wonder and conjecture about those mysteries too.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Seems to me that way of expressing it is misleading because, whatever the true explanation, that one is known to be wrong. You might as well say 'fire appears to be caused by phlogiston'. YMMV.

I don't always chose the best expressions but you now you known the idea I had in mind. QE doesn't involved information exchange at super-luminal speeds but QE is still unexplained.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[Robin]

For what it is worth, here is my understanding of the matter/energy thing. Bear in mind that macro examples for micro concepts have the potential to be misleading.

Or I could just have it plain wrong.

But I think of a stretched elastic band. It has a certain amount of potential energy. But the energy is not some separate thing or stuff that gets stored in the elastic band.

Rather it is a fact about the properties and current state of the elastic band and the state is will assume when it is no longer held stretched.

So when we talk about matter and energy we are not talking about two things, we are talking about the same thing in different ways.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Do you have a reference for this?

My understanding is/was that apart from the initial collapse of a dust nebula under gravity, electrostatic and electromagnetic forces dominate for the aggregation of dust particles, up to around 200m diameter, then gravity joins in up to planetesimals (~10km diameter) after which gravitational attraction dominates. After all, a planet is defined (among other things) as a body whose gravitational field is strong enough to give it a rounded shape (i.e. overcome rigid body forces), so it would be overwhelmingly stronger than electromagnetic forces in holding it together.

However, a quick browse online shows plenty of descriptions of dust grain accretion and clumping through contact, but little to indicate the forces involved at various scales.

dlorde, you are discussing the building up of planets. I'm referring to what is commonly known in chemistry. Co-valent bonds via the electromagnetic force binds molecules together. You and I and the earth are made of molecules. What other reference do you need?

 

[AlBell]

For what it is worth, here is my understanding of the matter/energy thing. Bear in mind that macro examples for micro concepts have the potential to be misleading.

Or I could just have it plain wrong.

But I think of a stretched elastic band. It has a certain amount of potential energy. But the energy is not some separate thing or stuff that gets stored in the elastic band.

Rather it is a fact about the properties and current state of the elastic band and the state is will assume when it is no longer held stretched.

So when we talk about matter and energy we are not talking about two things, we are talking about the same thing in different ways.

Interesting thoughts there. The question isn't what is energy; rather, what is mass.

You've just moved Democritus to the quark & boson level. What the forces involved "are" remains a mystery; they just are. And course Higgs is a name for the (known) missing step closer to the enigma.

 

[dafydd]

I still see the potential for mysteries, if they extend beyond horizon, within which we are contained.

Drop the mystic hogwash and concentrate on reality.

 

[kenkoskinen]

dlorde, you are discussing the building up of planets. I'm referring to what is commonly known in chemistry. Co-valent bonds via the electromagnetic force binds molecules together. You and I and the earth are made of molecules. What other reference do you need?

I was rushed while doing the last post. Here is a better explanation.

dlorde, you are discussing the accretion of matter in the building of planets and what you say is basically correct. Gravity's action requires a lot of matter/mass to make a difference. I'm referring to what is currently holding or binding the planet's molecules. Co-valent bonds (commonly known in chemistry) via the electromagnetic force bind molecules together. Gravity on the molecular scale is minor. You and I and the earth are made of electromagnetically bound molecules. If you instantly canceled the molecular bound the planet would crumble and dissipate. Gravity is not holding our planet together in its current form. What other reference do you need?

 

[Belz...]

Drop the mystic hogwash and concentrate on reality.

That's like asking a plant to stop growing. That's what plants do.

 

[dlorde]

Gravity is not holding our planet together in its current form. What other reference do you need?

I was looking for some corroborating reference for the assertion that it is not gravity that holds our planet together in its present form.

I am aware that the forces holding molecules together are not gravitational, but AIUI the force holding our planet together in it's current form certainly is gravity. The oblate spheroidal form is a result of the equilibrium between force of gravity and that caused by the rotation. If Earth's gravity was somehow negated, it would fly apart regardless of intermolecular forces. It seems to me that if intermolecular forces were negated, Earth would become something like a small gas planet - held together by gravity like other gas planets.

If I am wrong, perhaps you could explain how gas planets are held together.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Intoductory physics
"In the 1970’s, further understanding revealed these mesons to be combinations of quarks and gluons, transmitted between nucleons that themselves were made of quarks and gluons. This new model allowed the strong forces that held nucleons together, to be felt in neighboring nucleons, as residual strong forces."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_force

Is sure does hold planets together, they are vastly held together by gravity, how many partciles on a planet can travel at the escape velocity?

Oh really, so volcanos can spew their lav in to outer sapce, and why not?
What is escape velocity?


Take it the SMT buddy, talk to some real physicists. Yes, everything is energy.

Dancing David ... the cause of the confusion is due to different terms for the nuclear forces. The strong force is called the strong nuclear force, the strong color force and sometimes simply as the strong nuclear interaction. This force holds quarks together. The residual nuclear force is also sometimes also referred to as the nuclear force or secondary nuclear force. It binds nucleons together such as protons and neutrons. However protons are positively charged and like charges repel. If a nucleus has two or more of them, what holds them together? The residual nuclear force over powers the electromagnetic repulsion. It also overpowers the electromagnetic pull via negatively charged electrons as they orbit positively charged protons in nuclei.

I wrote: Gravity is not primary in holding together planets and comets. Escape velocities including that of lava from erupting volcanoes do not have anything to do with what binds the planet together.

I wrote that: "energy is one of the most difficult things to define. etc." and this is so. Physicists have yet to come up with an all encompassing definition.

You wrote "everything is energy." This is a very vague statement, not even a definition.

Your rants have really made you look like a fool, but keep dancing. It's fun!

 

[kenkoskinen]

I was looking for some corroborating reference for the assertion that it is not gravity that holds our planet together in its present form.

I am aware that the forces holding molecules together are not gravitational, but AIUI the force holding our planet together in it's current form certainly is gravity. The oblate spheroidal form is a result of the equilibrium between force of gravity and that caused by the rotation. If Earth's gravity was somehow negated, it would fly apart regardless of intermolecular forces. It seems to me that if intermolecular forces were negated, Earth would become something like a small gas planet - held together by gravity like other gas planets.

If I am wrong, perhaps you could explain how gas planets are held together.

dlorde, I didn't say gravity wasn't a factor. The electromagnetic attraction is weaker in gases and plasmas and hence gravity plays the greater role such as in Jupiter and even in keeping most of our atmosphere around Earth. In other states of matter like liquids but especially solids (made up of molecules) the electromagnetic force plays the greater role in binding.

I couldn't find a reference but I'll google a bit later. Also, give it try and I certain something will pop up on our screens.

 

[dlorde]

dlorde, I didn't say gravity wasn't a factor. The electromagnetic attraction is weaker in gases and plasmas and hence gravity plays the greater role such as in Jupiter and even in keeping most of our atmosphere around Earth.

OK, but I need to clarify - despite the fact that gravity keeps our tenuous atmosphere in place, would you still maintain that:

If you instantly canceled the molecular bound the planet would crumble and dissipate. Gravity is not holding our planet together in its current form.

So if intermolecular forces disappeared, gravity would not hold the Earth in roughly the same spherical shape it has now, and it would become - what - an orbital ring around the sun?

 

[punshhh]

is so!

Matter is energy all the time.

Huston we have a problem

Pixy says matter is not constituted of energy.

Can anyone help? this could all go down the tubes.

 

[punshhh]

That's like asking a plant to stop growing. That's what plants do.

I once had an amazing dream where I was a plant growing and alive, it could feel the environment and everything.

 

[dlorde]

Huston we have a problem

Pixy says matter is not constituted of energy.

Can anyone help? this could all go down the tubes.

An equivalence relation is not an identity relation.

 

[Robin]

Interesting thoughts there. The question isn't what is energy; rather, what is mass.

You've just moved Democritus to the quark & boson level. What the forces involved "are" remains a mystery; they just are. And course Higgs is a name for the (known) missing step closer to the enigma.

As I said to punshhh it is a question ultimately without meaning. If we have a question "what is X?" and it had an answer "X is XX" then we would only have another question "what is XX?". If we had an answer "XX is XXX" then we would just have another question "what is XXXX?" and so on.

Ultimately there must be something that just is what it is.

If it was the case that God was at the bottom of it all then you would just have the question "What is God?".

Whatever the fundamental stuff is then we know the answer to what it is. It is whatever it is.

 

[AlBell]

Whatever the fundamental stuff is then we know the answer to what it is. It is whatever it is.

Agreed. And irrespective of where/what it is, the materialist / idealist divide makes different choices of the attributes of "it" which then color every aspect of their subsequent worldviews, those attributes also being unknowable.

I suspect most who haven't pondered these issues remain dualists.

 

[Trent Wray]

Establish standards for acceptance of concepts, and stick with them. What this argument amounts to is "Since we are not omnicient, we know nothing". Or, put another way, solipsism amounts to defining knowledge as 100% certainty, and defines 100% certainty as impossible; a circular argument. Define knowledge as 95% certainty and the circularity vanishes, along with the argument in favor of solipsism.

Using this argument, can you then define faith please?