• 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

kenkoskinen said:
Huh? Mechanics ... do you mean car repair or something else? Now let me guess: maybe quantum mechanics, the mechanics of motion or the mechanics of woo-science? If you mean "the mechanics of motion" and all of it is only due to EM or gravity, what about the motions caused by the nuclear forces? If that's the case, then, even you have to admit ... logic forbid ... you are wrong!
Click to expand...
Do you think he's deliberately misinterpreting what you said?

By Newton's Laws of Motion, that inward force, if not counterbalanced, will result in an inward acceleration...
Click to expand...
Newton's law of motion aren't an inward "force" or a specific "force" of any kind. They are principles of an object's stationary position or changes in an object's motion. Nor do the laws of motion imply any necessary acceleration.
Click to expand...
Yup - looks like deliberate misinterpretation :( Even I can see that 'that inward force' refers to gravity and 'by Newton's Laws of Motion' refers to the effect gravity will have - it's either deliberate or a total failure of reading comprehension.

That's really quite disappointing.
 
kenkoskinen said:
What does Fiend God mean?
Click to expand...

I see your ignorance runs deeper than physics.

Nonsense: see post #2244
Click to expand...

Pointing repeatedly to a post of yours in which you are utterly wrong is not very convincing.

Woo!
Click to expand...

Again, how do you know this ? You obviously are not very knolwedgeable in physics, so I can only surmise this is another case of Dunning-Kruger.

Why do you call it "woo", exactly ? Did I summon mystical pixies to explain this very simple concept ?

Let's see if you can follow this:

1- EM forces can be attractive or repulsive, depending on the situation.

2- Gravity is attractive.

3- Given that a planet, say Earth, has a gravity field, you'd expect it to collapse into a singularity unless _some_ force was counteracting gravity.

4- There are only two other forces, and both of them act on too small a range to have an effect in this scenario.

5- What is the force counteracting gravity ?

What's really difficult to understand, here ?

Read here for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure

Relevant bit said:
Electron degeneracy pressure will halt the gravitational collapse of a star if its mass is below the Chandrasekhar Limit (1.38 solar masses[2]). This is the pressure that prevents a white dwarf star from collapsing. A star exceeding this limit and without usable nuclear fuel will continue to collapse to form either a neutron star or black hole, because the degeneracy pressure provided by the electrons is weaker than the inward pull of gravity.
Click to expand...

Jupiter doesn't have that much mass.
 
Last edited:
Electron Degeneracy Pressure isn't EM Replusion!

Belz... said:
I see your ignorance runs deeper than physics.



Pointing repeatedly to a post of yours in which you are utterly wrong is not very convincing.



Again, how do you know this ? You obviously are not very knolwedgeable in physics, so I can only surmise this is another case of Dunning-Kruger.

Why do you call it "woo", exactly ? Did I summon mystical pixies to explain this very simple concept ?

Let's see if you can follow this:

1- EM forces can be attractive or repulsive, depending on the situation.

2- Gravity is attractive.

3- Given that a planet, say Earth, has a gravity field, you'd expect it to collapse into a singularity unless _some_ force was counteracting gravity.

4- There are only two other forces, and both of them act on too small a range to have an effect in this scenario.

5- What is the force counteracting gravity ?

What's really difficult to understand, here ?

Read here for a summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure

Jupiter doesn't have that much mass.
Click to expand...

Belz: Your comment is typical of woo-science theorists! Electron degeneracy pressure is a feature of fermions, based on the Pauli Exclusion Principle. It has nothing to do with the so-called EM repulsion, which doesn't exist on Jupiter or anywhere else in our universe! EM doesn't counteract gravity. This is why I call it woo-science. Skeptics drop the woo term on so many others because they are irrational and without evidence. Look in the mirror on this one!

I pasted in the first few sentences of your article, please read them!

"Electron degeneracy pressure is a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time. The force provided by this pressure sets a limit on the extent to which matter can be squeezed together without it collapsing into a neutron star or black hole. It is an important factor in stellar physics because it is responsible for the existence of white dwarfs."
 
kenkoskinen said:
Belz: Your comment is typical of woo-science theorists!
Click to expand...

Amazing. So you have no intention of learning actual science.

Your ignorance is willful, and you deserve no sympathy.

EM doesn't counteract gravity.
Click to expand...

What does, then ? Why don't planets collapse into singularities ? Let's see what YOU said:

Of course, gravity is a universal force. However gravity on Jupiter is only maintaining the planet in its current form. Gravity doesn't super crunch things inward. If it did that, Jupiter & the universe wouldn't exist. Gravity works by the mass/energy count in a locality. It can't go beyond it, neither below it.
Click to expand...

THAT is WOO !!! You are not explaining anything. You're saying that gravity magically stops attracting stuff for some reason you don't give. There is NO reason why gravity wouldn't pull things into the smallest possible dot, unless something was preventing it from doing so. We already KNOW of such forces.

"Electron degeneracy pressure is a consequence of the Pauli exclusion principle, which states that two fermions cannot occupy the same quantum state at the same time. The force provided by this pressure sets a limit on the extent to which matter can be squeezed together without it collapsing into a neutron star or black hole. It is an important factor in stellar physics because it is responsible for the existence of white dwarfs."
Click to expand...

Electrons are Fermions, Ken.
 
Last edited:
AlBell said:
mu

The words 'idealism' and 'materialism' are useful tags that attempt to convey the underlying ontologic choice.

Do you prefer Reality is 'with-intent' or 'without-intent'?
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with ontology?

For the record, I am quite satisfied that people have intentions, I have no reason to worry that the Univese doesn't have any.
 
Last edited:
Counter Forces to Gravity Do Not Exist in Celestial Bodies

Mister Agenda said:
I've missed the last few pages, so please forgive if I'm re-stating the obvious, but gravity would super crunch things inward without counter forces against it, primarily the repulsive force of EM. Of course EM doesn't repulse gravity, it repulses other EM fields of like charges so it takes an extraordinary mass to generate enough gravity to overcome that repulsion. Black holes have enough mass in a small enough space to do that, Jupiter doesn't.
Click to expand...

Gravity isn't a universally force whose power is chipped away by local counter forces such those in an ionized EM field. Its power and action depends on the mass/density/energy in a locality. Our Sun consists of ionized particles in such a field but we know the Sun's form is the result of nuclear energy from its core radiating outwards and gravity's attraction. The ionized particles and energy in the Sun's plasmic field make up the mass/energy that gravitates. In other words, gravity acts on the collective field's mass/energy which means the collective swirls of ionized particles gravitate. Counter forces per sec against gravity don't exist in planets, moons, comets, stars etc. However the outward radiation from nuclear fusion in stars does fight gravity. Obviously we don't see this in planets.
 
Last edited:
Why would black holes even exist if gravity wasn't always "attempting" to crush all mass into the smallest possible volume?

Galaxies and solar systems exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their center mostly by angular momentum.

Stars exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their centers by the outward force produced by their fusion.

Planets exist because of gravity.. but their mass doesn't have significant angular momentum or a fusion reaction in their core. They are prevented from being crushed into their center by the fact that the atoms and molecules that make them up have electromagnetic forces that keep them apart.

Neutron stars exist by gravity but they have the Pauli Exclusion Principle keeping their neutrons from occupying the same space. This prevents them from being crushed into their centers.

Black holes have so much gravity that they break ALL of this.
 
ehcks said:
Why would black holes even exist if gravity wasn't always "attempting" to crush all mass into the smallest possible volume?

Galaxies and solar systems exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their center mostly by angular momentum.

Stars exist because of gravity, while they are prevented from being crushed into their centers by the outward force produced by their fusion.

Planets exist because of gravity.. but their mass doesn't have significant angular momentum or a fusion reaction in their core. They are prevented from being crushed into their center by the fact that the atoms and molecules that make them up have electromagnetic forces that keep them apart.

Neutron stars exist by gravity but they have the Pauli Exclusion Principle keeping their neutrons from occupying the same space. This prevents them from being crushed into their centers.

Black holes have so much gravity that they break ALL of this.
Click to expand...

Take note Ken,the Pauli Exclusion Principle,have you ever heard of it?
 
Paul Exclusion Principle is not EM Repulsion

dafydd said:
Take note Ken,the Pauli Exclusion Principle,have you ever heard of it?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have but this principle only applies to fermions. The forces including EM are carried by bosons and the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to them. Its action is not related to your imagined EM repulsion. Sorry about that.
 
kenkoskinen said:
Yes, I have but this principle only applies to fermions. The forces including EM are carried by bosons and the Pauli Exclusion Principle doesn't apply to them. Its action is not related to your imagined EM repulsion. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Ok, sure. But what are the Bosons?

You have the photon, of course, but then you have the W boson, the Z boson, gluons, the theoretical Higgs boson, and also theoretical gravitons.

None of these are protons, neutrons, or electrons.


ETA: Out of the bosons, only the photon is related to the electromagnetic force. W and Z bosons mediate the Weak force, while gluons have the Strong force.
 
Last edited:
Ken,
If I drop a cannon ball from the top of a building, it'll probably end up moving pretty quickly before it hits the ground. But when it lands (assuming it doesn't bounce or roll away or something), it'll stop. Newton's first law (roughly) says that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force. What force could cause my cannon ball to stop moving? Or is this case an exception to the law?

Also, are you surprised to find that so many people here seem to disagree with you regarding the role of EM forces?
 
Probably Not said:
Ken,
If I drop a cannon ball from the top of a building, it'll probably end up moving pretty quickly before it hits the ground. But when it lands (assuming it doesn't bounce or roll away or something), it'll stop. Newton's first law (roughly) says that an object in motion stays in motion unless acted upon by a force. What force could cause my cannon ball to stop moving? Or is this case an exception to the law?

Also, are you surprised to find that so many people here seem to disagree with you regarding the role of EM forces?
Click to expand...

The whole of physics disagrees with him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom