• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Intelligent Design

hammegk said:
Yeah, I got the desire to cease this exchange with you.
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is why you would drop Hawking's name as someone who thinks there may be some meaning to "before the Big Bang". You had to know someone would call you on something like that.
 
If anyone has something on the matter interactions and photons, please give some sources.

Though if we are talking about 2 objects which have mass they need not touch eachother to interact.

And balance is a sense. Atleast I would call it that. Any reaseon why I shouldn't? And that sense senses gravity. So there are no photons involved. Right?

Edit:
Now that I think about, mechanisms how we sense gravity would need to interact with eachother. There we would need photons then. If indeed photons are needed for matter interaction.
 
Last edited:
uruk said:
Just for everybody's sake, here a link to what Hawking has to say on the matter:
http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/bot.html
Click to expand...
There were some new bits there, but that's pretty much what I remembered.

eta: So, either hammegk is either making things up once again and to cowardly to own up to it, or he knows something that Hawking himself is unaware of.
 
Last edited:
.13. said:
If anyone has something on the matter interactions and photons, please give some sources.

Though if we are talking about 2 objects which have mass they need not touch eachother to interact.

And balance is a sense. Atleast I would call it that. Any reaseon why I shouldn't? And that sense senses gravity. So there are no photons involved. Right?

Edit:
Now that I think about, mechanisms how we sense gravity would need to interact with eachother. There we would need photons then. If indeed photons are needed for matter interaction.
Click to expand...

The carrier of the electro-magnetic force is the photon. When two objects come into contact with each other the electron in the electron shells begin to exchange photons. It's the transfere or emission of photons that keeps the electron shells from touching (repelling each other) and therefore the two objects separate from each other. Atoms are mostly empty space.
 
uruk said:
The carrier of the electro-magnetic force is the photon. When two objects come into contact with each other the electron in the electron shells begin to exchange photons. It's the transfere or emission of photons that keeps the electron shells from touching (repelling each other) and therefore the two objects separate from each other. Atoms are mostly empty space.
Click to expand...


Interesting. And it makes sense, too, now that I think about it. Thanks, uruk. :)

ETA: This is the nuclear weak force, right? What is the other one?
 
Upchurch said:
There were some new bits there, but that's pretty much what I remembered.

eta: So, either hammegk is either making things up once again and to cowardly to own up to it, or he knows something that Hawking himself is unaware of.
Click to expand...
I just wanted to put everything out on the table. Leave no room to wiggle so to speak.
 
uruk said:
I just wanted to put everything out on the table. Leave no room to wiggle so to speak.
Click to expand...
No, I think you found an excellent source: the man himself. It does not, however coincide with hammegk's erroneous claims. The onus is now on him to support or retract his claim.
 
Taffer said:
Interesting. And it makes sense, too, now that I think about it. Thanks, uruk. :)

ETA: This is the nuclear weak force, right? What is the other one?
Click to expand...

Weak nuclear force is responsible for atomic decay, particularly beta decay. It is mediated by W and Z bosons. Strong nuclear force is responsible for holding the protons together (Kinda like atomic velcro). It is mediated by gluons.


don't mention it. I live to serve.
 
Guess who said this "One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be."

What a bunch of doofs.;) Although if you haven't finished high school and possibly first-year physics, ignore that.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
No, I think you found an excellent source: the man himself. It does not, however coincide with hammegk's erroneous claims. The onus is now on him to support or retract his claim.
Click to expand...
I know, It was meant to show hammegk what Hawking's thoughts were on the subject.

'Didn't mean to butt in..........ok I did.
 
uruk said:
The carrier of the electro-magnetic force is the photon. When two objects come into contact with each other the electron in the electron shells begin to exchange photons. It's the transfere or emission of photons that keeps the electron shells from touching (repelling each other) and therefore the two objects separate from each other. Atoms are mostly empty space.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that seems to make sense.

I don't want to derail this thread much, but it doesn't really seem to be going anywhere anymore so here goes. This got me thinking.

That explanation doesn't apply for neutronstars does it? Because they are comprised of neutrons.(?) So when 2 of those come to contact there has to be something else instead of photons?
 
hammegk said:
Guess who said this "One could say: "The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary." The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be."

What a bunch of doofs.;) Although if you haven't finished high school and possibly first-year physics, ignore that.
Click to expand...

And, yet, since in the links that uruk provided, Hawkings said the universe has a beginning, you'll have to post your source before I'll believe you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom