sculleywr said:
No, I don't go to Berkely, I cite their website for my knowledge of evolution. Thus far, Christian sources have refuted everything they post.
Do you have those refutations posted somewhere? I can show you refutations of creationist arguements.
I challenge you to tell me what they know by valid, recorded experiments. Not by guessing, not by suppositions, and not by unsupported theories.
Which theories are you challenging?
According to Nova (a science show that has episodes used at Berkeley and other colleges, including mine, Tennessee Temple University), the String Theory has NO support. the reader's digest stated, "As for the extra dimensions, they are wherever you lost your car keys." The originator of the String Theory said, "This theory isn't even out of the mathematical phase."
Yeah, it still is in an early phase. As I mentioned before, they're thinking of experiments to test the predictions, so we'll see what happens. There are ideas besides string theories like loop quantum gravity.
As for the multiverse theory, you need four things: a source of energy, a mechanism to convert that energy into usable kinetic energy, a machine to create those universes, and finally a machine to randomize the physical laws of each universe. And, to top it all, these things have to come together in a random way. This belief requires more faith than even I have. So tell me, what randomizes the physical laws in the bubble model, my favorite out of the groups.
If the bubble model is your favorite, read about it. The model has different regions of an inflationary universe become bubbles because of the vacuum within them changing to lower energy levels. Those regions each become child universes that could themselves have child universes.
There is a potential difference between the insides and outsides of the bubbles at their walls. As explained before, the bubbles have negative pressure in them, making them expand. Increasing the size of the bubble decreases the potential difference at their surfaces, but the negative pressure grows faster than the potential at the walls because the volume increases in a cubic manner while the surface area increases in a quadratic manner.
This gives the bubble walls a lot of kinetic energy. When the walls of different bubbles collide, it is thought that particles are produced. The source of energy for this comes from the potential difference between the energies of different regions of vacuum. Apparently, the constants could depend on how much potential difference there were in the bubbles and how the collided.
The energy for the vacuum that had the bubbles nucleate could come from a black hole in another universe. The creator of this model, known as chaotic inflation, said that a hundred-thousandth gram of matter could start the process. The model also predicted what patterns would appear in the very small fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background and it matched the real background. That is an example of indirect testing of a model.
What do you mean by things having to come together in a random way? The model does not have everything behaving randomly because the behavior of the bubbles don't change randomly, but follow what the model says.
I think it seems common that creationists try to use randomness to make scienific ideas and explainations look bad because they want to envoke imagary of free-for-all behavior. They also seem to think that such ideas would make people think it's ok to have free-for-all behavior themselves. No, scientists don't think like that. The theories are frameworks for our understanding of how things behave and we've seen that it's not a free-for-all. I don't see rocks suddenly decide to not be affected by gravity and fly up.
The bubble model has lots of bubbles and collisions, so it makes lots of child universes that each could have lots of child universes. So it's not suprising that at least some of them have life like ours. Having such a model is simpler than trying to explain how there's only one universe and how it ended up having life. And since it predicted the patterns seen in our universe's microwave background, it's not just a guess.
Faith in the methods of science is different from religious faith. Scientists believe that over time, ideas and models will be tested to see which ones best describe what we see. Theories can be improved on or replaced when there is evidence. It's also important that there are predictions, like the predictions of the bubble model made for the patterns of the microwave background.
Religious faith is believing in the ideas of a religion, no matter what evidence there may be against them without being willing to consider the possiblity that these ideas could be wrong. Religions also don't consider it important to have ideas be testable. I have often noticed creationists acting like they believe their religion first, then try to find evidence that support them without admitting that they may be wrong. Then I see how they also ignore evidence against them and also misrepresent things scientists say. They are trying to project their beliefs onto reality.
An example of a model that made predictions was the model that had the universe be made of cells shaped like dodecahedrons. It predicted certain patterns in the microwave background, which weren't found. So nobody believes in that model now if they know that its predictions didn't match reality.
Tbhis is the first time I haven't heard that an extremely dense ball of matter (very dense black hole?) exploded. That kind of big bang would have a center. the explosion I guess you are talking of would require the fabled collision of matter and its antimatter clone.
It doesn't have to have a center. It would only be centralized as seen from our universe. In the new one, it would be an infinite vacuum with some energy level that could change in some places, making bubbles. It seems possible that we may someday make such compact objects.
A collision of matter and antimatter won't make a big bang as in making an universe. It'd be a bang of high energy photons and if there's enough energy, other matter-antimatter particule pairs.
Antimatter is not a clone of matter because they have opposite charges from their matter counterparts. There can be antineutrons because neutrons are made of a up quark and two down quarks that each have a charge and they add up to zero. The antiquark counterparts of those have the opposite charges that add up to zero and can make an antineutron.
Antimatter is not a fable. As I explained before, it is used in PET imaging in hospitals. They've built entire devices to create and store antiparticles such as the Antiproton Deaccelerator at CERN. They also use Penning traps to hold particles or antiparticles by maintaining constant electric and magnetic fields.
A free neutron is not stable with a halflife of about 886 seconds. When it decays, it becomes a proton, electron and an antineutrino. The decay started with zero net electric charge and ended with zero net charge because the proton and electron have equal but opposite charges and the antineutino has no charge. Lepton number is conserved because there was no lepton to start with because the neutron is not a lepton. The electron is one and the antineutrino is an antilepton, the antimatter counterpart of the neutrino, a very light chargeless particle that interacts weaky with ordinary matter. Those particles were predicted because when they thought that neutrons decayed into a proton and electron, they noticed some energy was missing and thought that there should be a particle carrying that missing energy away and figured lepton number should be conserved. Then they discovered the neutrinos and antineutrinos with detectors.
Antineutrinos had been detected from nuclear power plants. The sun makes lots of neutrinos in the proton-proton chain fusion reaction. The reaction starts with two protons that fuse into deuterium, also resulting in a positron and neutrino. The positron annihilates with an electron to make two gamma ray photons. The deuterium fuses with another proton, making a helium-3 nucleus and a gamma ray. Two helium-3's can fuse, resulting in a helium-4 nucleus and two protons. There are other pathways that are dominant at different temperatures. So the Sun gives off energy in neutrinos and photons with some of them resulting from the annihilation of electrons and positrons. So some of the energy we get from the Sun comes from antimatter.
Here's a
page about the Antiproton Decelerator at CERN. They have an entire antiproton complex of devices. Here's their
main page about antimatter.
This would break the law of angular momentum since the explosion without a center would not be circular, but a random shape. You learn in like chapter three of high school physics that angular momentum can only be conserved if the directions and forces are perfect circles. Even an irregular galaxy would have a spin of some sort.
Thinking of an explosion with a random shape is still thinking in terms of an explosion of matter and energy in space. I've explained how the explosion includes space itself. The explosion doesn't have a shape in space because it happened everywhere in our universe. This is what the microwave background shows. It is very uniform across the sky with very small variations.
Angular momentum can be conserved if the directions of motion and the forces are not circles. For example, the angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system is conserved even if the Moon's orbit around the system's barycenter is not a circle, but an ellipse with an eccentricity of 0.0554.
We see the conservation of angular momentum in effect when measuring the distance between Earth and the Moon over time. The Moon raises tides on Earth, but the rotation of Earth is faster than the speed at which the Moon orbits Earth, so that shifts the tidal bulges ahead of the Moon. The Moon pulls back on the bulge closest to it and the bulge pulls on the Moon. This is a torque on Earth's rotation and angular momentum is transfered from the Earth's rotation to the Moon, making the Moon's orbit get bigger. So the Moon is slowly spiraling away. No angular momentum disappears from the Earth-Moon system.
This had been measured by sending laser pluses to the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment mirrors left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts and mirrors on Soviet Lunokhod rovers. They are shaped to reflect the pluses back to Earth where they are detected. Using the time between sending and receiving pluses and the speed of light, it had been found that the current rate of the Moon's movement away from Earth is 38 millimeters per year. It also had been found that general relativity predicts the Moon's orbit to the accuracy of those laser ranging measurements.
It's only the current rate, it would vary with the positions of the continents over geological time because those can affect the formation of the tidal bulges.
Entropy is not followed, because after it got highly irregular, it got more ordered. Irregular clouds of gas form planets and galaxies, somehow forming precisely spinning solar systems.
Remember that the second law of thermodynamics applies to a closed system. That allows for local order if entropy increases elsewhere as a result. Things like galaxies, stars and planets form by gravitational collapse and are not closed systems. When things form like that, the gravitational potential energy becomes kinetic energy. The newly formed planets were hot from this. The objects released lots of heat and that raises the entropy. Over time, the heat from gravitational collapse radiates into space, increasing the entropy out there. The second law does not apply just to each object because they can lose energy to their surroundings.
We see this with the Moon and Mars because those objects don't have much activity anymore like the Earth does with its plate tectonics. With giant planets like Jupiter, we still see them releasing energy from gravitational collapse because they still radiate more energy than they get from the Sun. The Sun is still hot because it releases energy by nuclear fusion.
You said that the matter got highly irregular and then highly ordered. The matter started out with high order because it was very uniform as the cosmic microwave background shows. It is still uniform on a very large scale. The formation of highly ordered objects like planets are made up by the entropy made by the release of energy from gravitational collapse. Considering only individual objects without considering their surrounding is a misuse of the second law because it only applies to closed systems.
Protoplanetary disks are disks because as the cloud collapses, conservation of angular momentum favors the disk spinning according to the net angular momentum of the cloud. That would involve fiction between particles to get them spinning the same way, which results in plenty of heat being released. Since the disks are not closed systems, the heat can be radiated into the universe, increasing entropy. We can see such disks out there.
Another example of order coming out of disorder natually is the formation of snow. Snow forms when water vapor turns directly into ice crystals, going from a disordered state to a more ordered state. This process releases 2833 Joules of heat per gram of water vapor that changes into ice. That is released into the environment, increasing the entropy because the snow crystal is not a closed system.
Now, I have a question, what in the hell is a quasar?
A quasar is an object that show high redshifts in their spectra. Over 60 thousand of them are known. The high redshifts show that they are very far away. The distances and their apparent brightnesss show that their actual brightnesss are very high, as much as a hundred times that of average galaxies. They vary in brightness over a period of weeks, so that restricts their sizes to up to a few light weeks across because they can't change themselves faster than light would take to travel across their physical sizes. Their emissions look like that of active galaxies. The best explanation for such small and energetic objects we have is that they're accretion disks of supermassive black holes. The matter in the disks get very dense, making it release a lot of energy before falling into the black holes.
The word quasar comes from the phase quasi-stellar radio source. The first ones that were found were energetic in radio wavelengths, althrough others were later found that were energetic in other wavelengths. The ones emitting visible light looked like stars, but weren't called stars because of the high redshifts showing that they were at great distances.
There are no nearby quasars because the supermassive black holes finish collecting large amounts of matter and stop being quasars. The quasars' great distances put them further back in the past of the universe because of the finite speed of light. Sagittarius A* is a bright and compact radio detected at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. A supermassive black hole had been found there by watching how fast the stars near it orbited. From their orbits, the mass of the object was found. It was 2.6 million solar masses and the only kind of object we know about that can be that massive are black holes. It doesn't emit as much energy as quasars because there's not as much matter orbiting it.
You also said you haven't heard of high energy particles that can damage DNA. They're cosmic rays, which are particles with high energies with a range spanning fourteen orders of magnitudes. They're subatomic particles that had been accelerated in outer space by the magnetic fields of the objects there. They're made by supernove and stars. They're detected when they hit particles in the upper atmosphere and make a shower of secondary particles. The flashes that astronauts saw in their eyes also were attibuted to cosmic rays going through them. Someone also wrote that the secondary particle shower made by cosmic rays could ionize air molecules, allowing the potential difference between thunderstorms and the ground to make lightning.
It sounds that you suffer depression because of hearing loss or what?