My argument against materialism

[Mister Agenda]

Rem acu tetigisti.

Thanks, both for the compliment and the chance to learn a latin phrase I was unfamiliar with.

 

[Mister Agenda]

Thanks for your visit.

I'm no Sol, but I want to give this another shot.

I'm not sure what you mean? You correctly claimed gravity alone caused the accelerations leading to the impact. After the impact, you then speak of a rapid acceleration being caused by another force and then call it EM? I don't follow this. Do you mean the acceleration of a rebound immediately after impact? Anyway, yes EM bonds the atoms/molecules of the balls together. And yes when solids collide you can have a rebound (if that's what you meant?)

This seems to be at the heart of the issue. You understand that EM bonds matter together in the absence of overwhelming gravity. That EM is what makes something solid under these conditions. There has to be a miscommunication at this point, because all anyone who is disagreeing with you is saying is that the fields of EM force in normal matter prevent it from collapsing unless there is a greater outside force pushing the particles together.

*That's what I was thinking as I read it, but you caught yourself. I fail to see the point in the black hole example?

I ran a thought experiment on the Earth and took away EM. There would be a loss of volume and a loss of mass/energy. However, there would not be enough mass/energy left to create a black hole. The prior world's mass wasn't even enough i.e. we subtracted EM and having enough mass/energy is key in generating a black hole. However it proves that the Earth is held together by EM and gravity. Jupiter is a gas giant & gravity is the key to holding it together. The Earth has lots of molecules in the solid state and the EM bonds are stronger than in gases.

Yes, planets are held together by EM and gravity. The particles planets are composed of are also held apart primarily by EM, because this force is repulsive as well as attractive. It is true that without gravity, the repulsive EM forces would dissipate Jupiter's atmosphere. Without gravity, Earth will also dissipate, but at a much slower rate since it is mostly solid.

So, you have all the basics right, but there is some sort of disconnect between your understanding of the role of EM forces in cohering planets through molecular bonds, and how that prevents them from collapsing when they have insufficient mass to overcome the strength of those bonds in combination with the repulsive force between electron shells that keeps atomic nuclei from 'touching' each other under normal conditions.

 

[Belz...]

So, you have all the basics right, but there is some sort of disconnect between your understanding of the role of EM forces in cohering planets through molecular bonds, and how that prevents them from collapsing when they have insufficient mass to overcome the strength of those bonds in combination with the repulsive force between electron shells that keeps atomic nuclei from 'touching' each other under normal conditions.

This is what I think, too. I mean, he agrees with the whole principle but not with the logical conclusion it leads to. Weird.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Magical Black Holes?

Originally Posted by sol invictus
That isn't correct. The black hole that would form would have less energy than the earth right when you switched off EM, because some energy would be radiated away in gravity waves. The rest would go into the hole. There is no minimum mass/energy for a black hole - its mass can be anything between zero and infinity.

If EM were switched off it wouldn't radiate away as anything, never mind gravitational waves. This is because it is physically impossible and as such is merely a thought experiment. A black hole can only form due to an ample form of mass/energy/density in a locality. This value can't be zero ... now you're talking magic!

I think this is Ken's major misunderstanding here: he seems to think that gravity will only pull you towards the center of mass up to a certain point. This obviously makes no sense: if there is no counter-force involved, any force will simply continue to accelerate whatever it's acting upon. I believe that this is why he didn't answer my hypothetical scenario (similar to yours, in fact): he can see how ridiculous his own ideas are when applied this way.

Gravity can only attract according to mass/energy values in a location. It also doesn't understand "inwards" in any absolute sense. And this is one problem with the "Laws of Motion" necessitating the formation of a black hole (in a gravitational field) nonsense. There will be more about this later. There are resistances to gravity's action but as I will show these aren't "counter-forces" to gravity! There also isn't any EM repulsion of the sort you people imagine. And yes I will address the flaw in the Pauli Exclusion Principle related thing when you typed the huge characters: Electrons are Fermions! More is coming ... keep up the nonsense! (Really who is influenced by such adolescent tactics? Are you?)

 

[Probably Not]

A black hole can only form due to an ample form of mass/energy/density in a locality. This value can't be zero ... now you're talking magic!

But the value could be anything even infinitesimally greater than zero. How much mass do you imagine is needed to form a black hole?

In the absence of force to counter the attraction of gravity, what could cause the mass of an object (even a very tiny object with very little mass) to stop its collapse towards a singularity?

 

[PixyMisa]

If EM were switched off it wouldn't radiate away as anything, never mind gravitational waves. This is because it is physically impossible and as such is merely a thought experiment.

So you're just fine with your thought experiment until it reaches conclusions you don't like, and then suddenly it's impossible?

A black hole can only form due to an ample form of mass/energy/density in a locality.

Actually, it's only the density that matters.

Gravity can only attract according to mass/energy values in a location. It also doesn't understand "inwards" in any absolute sense.

Of course. But for any collection of matter, there is a center of mass, and the force vector of gravity is towards that centre.

And this is one problem with the "Laws of Motion" necessitating the formation of a black hole (in a gravitational field) nonsense.

Nope. Without another force to counterbalance gravity, any collection of matter would collapse into a black hole.

There will be more about this later.

That's nice.

There are resistances to gravity's action but as I will show these aren't "counter-forces" to gravity!

They can't be anything else. The only thing that can resist a force is BY DEFINITION another force.

There also isn't any EM repulsion of the sort you people imagine.

Ken, let's say you have two negatively charged objects. Examining only electromagnetism, what is the force between the two?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

And yes I will address the flaw in the Pauli Exclusion Principle related thing when you typed the huge characters: Electrons are Fermions!

So... Electrons aren't fermions?

More is coming ... keep up the nonsense! (Really who is influenced by such adolescent tactics? Are you?)

No-one is influenced by your adolescent tactics.

 

[PixyMisa]

So, you have all the basics right, but there is some sort of disconnect between your understanding of the role of EM forces in cohering planets through molecular bonds, and how that prevents them from collapsing when they have insufficient mass to overcome the strength of those bonds in combination with the repulsive force between electron shells that keeps atomic nuclei from 'touching' each other under normal conditions.

He seems to have arrived at the Standard Model without passing through Kepler, Galileo, or Newton. Not surprisingly, this is causing him problems.

 

[kenkoskinen]

Misunderstandings

Originally Posted by Mister Agenda
So, you have all the basics right, but there is some sort of disconnect between your understanding of the role of EM forces in cohering planets through molecular bonds, and how that prevents them from collapsing when they have insufficient mass to overcome the strength of those bonds in combination with the repulsive force between electron shells that keeps atomic nuclei from 'touching' each other under normal conditions.

This is what I think, too. I mean, he agrees with the whole principle but not with the logical conclusion it leads to. Weird.

Yes, there are misunderstandings. They stem from physical resistance factors to gravitation, which are well known to an imagined & unusual EM repulsion assumed to be involved. I will show there are such resistance factors but these aren't directly due to any of the four known forces. EM doesn't quantum mechanically repel in the cases you suggest. This is why I've been calling it woo science. It's impossible! More is coming!

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes, there are misunderstandings. They stem from physical resistance factors to gravitation

Gravity is a force. The only "physical resistance factors" to forces are other forces.

EM doesn't quantum mechanically repel in the cases you suggest.

Ken, let's say you have two negatively charged objects. Examining only electromagnetism, what is the force between the two?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

 

[kenkoskinen]

He seems to have arrived at the Standard Model without passing through Kepler, Galileo, or Newton. Not surprisingly, this is causing him problems.

Well Pixy this is another example of you cutting things off before the pass and putting out an non-answer cloaked as an answer. I most certainly don't think what your stated. Soon I will highlight why we have been disagreeing. Most good debates include misunderstandings and so does this one. I'm not that interesting in winning a debate ... I'm much more interested in taking mini-steps toward understanding our universe. I hope we are on the same page!

 

[PixyMisa]

Well Pixy this is another example of you cutting things off before the pass and putting out an non-answer cloaked as an answer. I most certainly don't think what your stated. Soon I will highlight why we have been disagreeing.

Soon? That's nice. Meanwhile, Ken, let's say you have two negatively charged objects. Examining only electromagnetism, what is the force between the two?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

Most good debates include misunderstandings and so does this one. I'm not that interesting in winning a debate ... I'm much more interested in taking mini-steps toward understanding our universe. I hope we are on the same page!

Ken, you're not even in the same library.

 

[Probably Not]

Hypothetically...

A completely hypothetical situation that obviously has nothing to do with anyone here. Lets say, years ago, you learned something about nature, or physics, or history. It makes sense to you, and you live your life with this knowledge, and its comfortable and it works for you. Maybe it even inspires you to write some poetry.

Lets say that at some point, in a completely unrelated conversation, you come to realize that nobody else in the world shares your understanding. In fact, they think you're wrong. They give you URLs to read. Maybe they recommend a book or two. Some of the people who disagree with you are professionals in the field relevant to your belief. They don't write any poetry at all, but they do seem to be able to back up their statements with mathematics.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea to instantly abandon your belief based on just this.. but wouldn't this at least give a completely hypothetical person pause? Maybe just to take a break for a day or two to do some independent reading up on things? Or to talk to someone at your local college? Ken, what do you think a reasonable person who found him or herself in this situation should do?

 

[Belz...]

If EM were switched off it wouldn't radiate away as anything, never mind gravitational waves. This is because it is physically impossible and as such is merely a thought experiment.

And within that thought experiment, what would happen ?

A black hole can only form due to an ample form of mass/energy/density in a locality. This value can't be zero ... now you're talking magic!

No, you're talking ignorance.

Why do you think they talked about microscopic black holes from the LHC ?

There is no minimum mass for a black hole. If nothing prevents said mass from compressing then it will form a black hole, whether that mass is one kilogram or a thousand suns.

That's the central problem of your misunderstanding; and if you had bothered to answer my question about the scenario I submitted to you, you would've been able to spot it.

There are resistances to gravity's action but as I will show these aren't "counter-forces" to gravity!

If it's a resistance, then isn't it a force ?

And yes I will address the flaw in the Pauli Exclusion Principle related thing when you typed the huge characters: Electrons are Fermions!

You mean you SAW those characters ? Well, so you just ignored my point about electrons, then. Why are you continuing your willful ignorance ?

 

[Belz...]

Actually, it's only the density that matters.

[...]

Nope. Without another force to counterbalance gravity, any collection of matter would collapse into a black hole.

I've been telling him this but for some reason he's immune to evidence and logic.

 

[kenkoskinen]

The Wolf Pack Attack!

Gravity is a force. The only "physical resistance factors" to forces are other forces.

Not specifically, and I will show why later. I do have a life but will get to it soon.

Ken, let's say you have two negatively charged objects. Examining only electromagnetism, what is the force between the two?

1. Attraction
2. Repulsion
3. Zero

Yes, Pixy when I wrote the previous post I misfired, I was tired and inserted an incorrect word. In EM, unlike charges attract, unlike charges repel and neutral charges don't interact. Are we okay now, about this?

I could also knock you on some of your misfires. You correct me ... and I correct you. The only difference is when you (as a long time wolf) misfire, your pack members don't bear their teeth. In any case I'm good to go ... I hope you are too! Screw the pack attack!

 

[kenkoskinen]

And within that thought experiment, what would happen ?



No, you're talking ignorance.

Why do you think they talked about microscopic black holes from the LHC ?

There is no minimum mass for a black hole. If nothing prevents said mass from compressing then it will form a black hole, whether that mass is one kilogram or a thousand suns.

That's the central problem of your misunderstanding; and if you had bothered to answer my question about the scenario I submitted to you, you would've been able to spot it.



If it's a resistance, then isn't it a force ?



You mean you SAW those characters ? Well, so you just ignored my point about electrons, then. Why are you continuing your willful ignorance ?

Belz, why continue the juvenile rhetoric? Does it make you feel powerful? Okay ... but I'm here mainly for the physics ... but sometimes I do respond in kind. In the end the emotionalism doesn't count! I hope you don't waste any more energy doing those, do nothing, large letter on screen shows! I will answer the issues shortly. Be patient, I have another life to live.

 

[gentlehorse]

Not specifically, and I will show why later.

Keeping what you've posted thus far in mind, I sincerely doubt it.

Yes, Pixy when I wrote the previous post I misfired, I was tired and inserted an incorrect word. In EM, unlike charges attract, unlike charges repel and neutral charges don't interact. Are we okay now, about this?

Another misfire... Just saying--

I could also knock you on some of your misfires. You correct me ... and I correct you. The only difference is when you (as a long time wolf) misfire, your pack members don't bear their teeth. In any case I'm good to go ... I hope you are too! Screw the pack attack!

There is no pack. You are making erroneous claims and others are attempting to correct you.

 

[Belz...]

Belz, why continue the juvenile rhetoric?

What rhetoric whould that be ?

Does it make you feel powerful?

What in the blue hell are you babbling about ?

Be patient, I have another life to live.

Considering the amount of empty posts you have on this thread that could've been filled with actual content...

 

[dafydd]

A completely hypothetical situation that obviously has nothing to do with anyone here. Lets say, years ago, you learned something about nature, or physics, or history. It makes sense to you, and you live your life with this knowledge, and its comfortable and it works for you. Maybe it even inspires you to write some poetry.

Lets say that at some point, in a completely unrelated conversation, you come to realize that nobody else in the world shares your understanding. In fact, they think you're wrong. They give you URLs to read. Maybe they recommend a book or two. Some of the people who disagree with you are professionals in the field relevant to your belief. They don't write any poetry at all, but they do seem to be able to back up their statements with mathematics.

I'm not saying it would be a good idea to instantly abandon your belief based on just this.. but wouldn't this at least give a completely hypothetical person pause? Maybe just to take a break for a day or two to do some independent reading up on things? Or to talk to someone at your local college? Ken, what do you think a reasonable person who found him or herself in this situation should do?

Thank you. The voice of reason.

 

[dafydd]

Yes, there are misunderstandings. They stem from physical resistance factors to gravitation, which are well known to an imagined & unusual EM repulsion assumed to be involved. I will show there are such resistance factors but these aren't directly due to any of the four known forces. EM doesn't quantum mechanically repel in the cases you suggest. This is why I've been calling it woo science. It's impossible! More is coming!

When?