• 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.

My argument against materialism

Belz... said:
See my previous post about you not understanding anything you claim to understand.

You didn't "get it" at all. Physical presence IS an action. They are not two different categories.
Click to expand...

Ok,

The table I am leaning on has a presence due to the continued actions of forms of energy.

This is presumably time dependent, as action occurs in time so in theory if time stood still for an observable period the table would disappear for a moment.

If this table were traveling in a space ship at close to the speed of light, the activity would slow down relative to here on earth.

This suggests that this time is framed in relation to the energies in the table and not independent.

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
Then, as I said earlier, you've come to the wrong universe.



Yes.

What do you even think you mean when you say an atom is "constituted of energy"?
Click to expand...

Matter is what materialists talk about, tell me what it is, of what is it constituted?

Or do we have particles constituted of some undefinable stuff?
 
punshhh said:
Ok,

The table I am leaning on has a presence due to the continued actions of forms of energy.

This is presumably time dependent, as action occurs in time so in theory if time stood still for an observable period the table would disappear for a moment.
Click to expand...
Non-sequitur.

If this table were traveling in a space ship at close to the speed of light, the activity would slow down relative to here on earth.
Click to expand...
Yes.

This suggests that this time is framed in relation to the energies in the table and not independent.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
 
kenkoskinen said:
Originally Posted by kenkoskinen
PixyMesa Your http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit reference is not about any comparisons in the gravity vs. EM discussion.
Click to expand...
Try reading it again. The article covers exactly that point.

PixyMisa in your earlier post you claimed EM can signify on the planetary scale but repulsively. This can't be, but on Earth EM does hold molecules together and they are here on the large scale. To test the Roche limit on an Earth-like planet, it would have to be in close orbit around a massive star, a neutron star or black hole.
Click to expand...
No. Any large planet would do. Any of the gas giants in our own solar system.

Such a scenario has never been observed but I'm saying the case involves tensile strength via EM and gravity. Their standard math doesn't compute the case. I wouldn't get too high on the Roche limit stuff as it stands.
Click to expand...
Read the article. It covers precisely that.

The article states: "Some real satellites, both natural and artificial, can orbit within their Roche limits because they are held together by forces other than gravitation. Jupiter's moon Metis and Saturn's moon Pan are examples of such satellites, which hold together because of their tensile strength."

Although there is an estimate on the mass of Pan, Metis' is unknown (see Wikipedia articles Pan (moon) & Metis (moon). It's hard to imagine that gravity isn't a factor in their cohesion. Maybe we already have an example (perhaps two) where EM & gravity working together have out foxed the Roche limit.
Click to expand...
No. These bodies are, as I noted already, inside the fluid Roche limit, but outside the rigid Roche limit. The are quite small bodies - and markedly non-spherical, which means that the electromagnetic force signifies at that scale, a few tens of kilometres.

Larger celestial bodies - larger moons and the largest asteroids, and of course all the planets - are approximately spherical precisely because gravity has won out over the electromagnetic force as far as tensile strength goes. The electromagnetic force is far, far stronger when it comes to compression, which, as I said, is why planets don't collapse into tiny neutron stars.

I wrote:
"You claim that gravity holds planets together and the electromagnetic force keeps them from collapsing into tiny little neutron stars. Do you have any idea what it takes to create a neutron star? You need a large star to go supernova and a neutron star is left in the aftermath. If the star were larger yet, it would form a stellar black hole. A planet can't become even a tiny neutron star and the EM bonds in molecules couldn't possibly prevent it.
Click to expand...
The bonds in molecules are irrelevant on a planetary scale. The repulsive forces between attoms are what matter.

On earth there are lots of molecules. EM force binds atoms and molecules together. It acts like an atomic glue holding things together. It works along with gravity in holding our world together. http://videolectures.net/mit802s02_lewin_lec01/
Click to expand...
Not really, no. That's why the world is round.

You wrote: "Yes. Was there a point to all that?"

The point is on Earth EM works with gravity to hold our world together. How could you have missed it ... again? View the video EM is worldwide on Earth and not repulsive.
Click to expand...
Of course the electromagnetic force is repulsive. What do you think it is that stops the Earth from collapsing under its own gravity?
 
kenkoskinen said:
dlorde My aim was to critique the entire narrative and not just the flood part of the stories per sec.
Click to expand...
That's fine, I'm all in favour, but criticising the literal meaning of parts that were not meant literally is - to be polite - pointless.

I included the science because I wanted to. It's like Ricky Nelson's line "Garden Party."

'n' it's all right now, learned my lesson well
You see, ya can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself
Click to expand...
Again, that's fine - if you don't want other people to read it; but you apparently do - you pointed me to it, and it's on a public website for download.

Just sayin'...
 
PixyMisa said:
Apparently unpossible.

It's been explained several times. You keep asking the same questions, based on the same false assumptions.
Click to expand...

So atoms are a form of energy, I will take Dancing Davids statement on this as being correct.

Energy in the form or state of a particle.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
 
Last edited:
Trent Wray said:
...It's merely building up a statistical probability that what I'm trusting as knowledge to be sound and trustworthy. Say, 95%. In this sense, I still see faith as being synonymous with knowledge
Click to expand...

Um, if faith is the extent to which you find your knowledge sound and trustworthy, then faith is not synonymous with knowledge, it is a judgement about your knowledge...
 
kenkoskinen said:
Dancing David

You wrote:There would be no solar wind.

The solar wind comes from the Sun and in this thought experiment we agreed the EM force was turned off only on Earth. Therefore cosmic rays from the Sun would increase as the new Earth would no longer have a protective magnetic field.
Click to expand...
Sure I was thinking on a larger scale, oops.
You wrote: I get this, but the collisions would not be that spectacular, I agree that the EM forces are there and provide structure, but gravity is just as essential.

I agree!

You wrote: "There could be no collisions as that is provided by the charge on the eelctrons. You would essentially have some form of dark matter."

Well yes ... if the EM field were on. But we are imagining that it is turned off therefore protons and electrons emitted by the Sun would strike simply because the new Earth was in their path.

You wrote: "let us take a less extreme example, what happens if the partcicles of a planet are neutral, they come together because of gravity and they stick to each other because of short range consequences of the EM forces."

Yes gravity interacts with neutral & charged particles alike. I'm not aware of neutrons, for example, sticking together because of any EM short range consequences. Do you have a source? Neutral particles are supposed to be blind to and don't interact with EM. In atomic nuclei the residual nuclear force can and does bind neutrons.
Click to expand...

I meant the short range EM binding between molecules, sorry ,and atoms.

By the way when you want you can quote a post, then insert
{/quote}
to start your comment and
{quote}
to end your comment

use square brackets "[" instead of the curly "{"
 
Robin said:
Originally Posted by punshhh
Thankyou for your analogy, I agree with Albell about the mass, I see this as the elastic.
So the energy stretch of the elastic is exchanged with other pieces of elastic via force.
Does the energy only have a presence as the extension of elastic?
and presumably the elastic is composed of a different form of energy, which forms the atom?
Click to expand...
No, that is not what I meant at all.
Click to expand...

I can't help thinking of Feynman on magnets:

'Fun to Imagine' 4: Magnets
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom