Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

If you believe in God, refute this! (Page 142)

zorrro IF-Dazzler

Joined: 29 July 2008
Posts: 2702

Posted: 01 November 2012 at 10:41am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

Vintage.Wine Goldie
Vintage.Wine
Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 1152

Posted: 01 November 2012 at 11:58am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum




Reason I brought up the subject of fields was to "resolve" electron indistinguishability.

And, as an afterthought, I wanted to emphasize the importance of fields from the point of view of disturbances happening in those fields; these disturbances are nothing but "virtual particles". Your statement about empty space creating matter / anti-matter of course deals with these very disturbances that I was talking about!

To understand "real particles" we need to understand why the vacuum state is unstable enough to produce these disturbances ("virtual particles"). These form the bridge between the "something" that is the physical universe and the "nothing" that is the vacuum (free space). To get to "nothing", the disturbances in fields have to be fleshed out.




 K ....Tongue

@ Bold Blue: 
  Because..Vacuum has energy ...  As far as I understand that, the Virtual particles exist due to
Vacuum Energy's density that produces the short wavelength electromagnetic noise .. And the  Asymmetry is engendered when they exist in the event horizon of a black hole ( And absorbed there within Planck's time ) .
 
  

   So I believe even the virtual particles creation is an implication of this underlying  energy ( It's density ) ..the source of which again remains unknown ...  ..So back to the square one ..Ouch

 Vintu ..Stern Smile

 Ps.
The Energy element is difficult to get rid of. Tongue


Vintage.Wine Goldie
Vintage.Wine
Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 1152

Posted: 01 November 2012 at 12:27pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by Freethinker112

Originally posted by BirdieNumNum


Actually, it was upto Vintu to prove because he has been going on and on about energy creating us, but still let's analyse what I said.

Energy creating itself. How can something create itself? Creation means something coming into existence which did not exist before. Creation of energy means energy coming into existence and it did not exist before that. So, if it did not exist prior to its creation, how can it create itself? It cannot.

Creation was in the sense that theists use. Of course we possess energy and our body needs energy to be alive. But the matter of our body possess energy, it didn't create us.


 Free ... LOL 

@ Bold:   I bet what I have been saying all along was not a  double entendre ...Each time you get back after exiling ( Away from DM )  for a few days, you interpret the same lines in a different way ..LOL ..and come up with a newer skit ..LOL 

 All that I had said was ...We are the PART of the energy ...Not that the energy created us.. Every single electron in your body has associated energy ( The same energy)  ..Now does that sound wrong?
 
 You were saying that the Brain is the creator of everything ..Vitality and consciousness...

  Now to your analysis ..Energy can't be created or destroyed ...But the newer hypothesis suggests that the total energy in the universe is  ZERO ..Cause the positive energy in the matter is negated by the negative energy of the gravity ..But actual annihilation process is time consuming ..So we can assume that the energy doesn't exist ..We as a product of matter ...get to see the illusion of our existence before our delayed destruction...But all matter would be eventually negated ...ascertaining the Cyclic nature of the universe ...

 Which again means that we are moving both forward and backward in time ( In wider scope of that word ) and there is no beginning or an end to anything ..


 Vintu ...Tongue


K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2031

Posted: 01 November 2012 at 12:41pm | IP Logged
OK, it's imperative to parse these two sentences:

1. An electron has charge
2. A photon has energy

When you say has, is it inside the electron/photon or enveloping the electron/photon?

if inside the electron/photon, where exactly?

If enveloping the electron/photon, how much radius?

This is where we get into force fields and lines of force, FYI.

So, going back to the statement from previous posts, if space has energy, then what is the field of that?!

If space is all that there is, then the field can't extend outside of space now, can it? How is it possible then to "contain" that energy within?

Back to the drawing board, people!

Vintage.Wine Goldie
Vintage.Wine
Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 1152

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 8:47am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

OK, it's imperative to parse these two sentences:

1. An electron has charge
2. A photon has energy

When you say has, is it inside the electron/photon or enveloping the electron/photon?

if inside the electron/photon, where exactly?

If enveloping the electron/photon, how much radius?

This is where we get into force fields and lines of force, FYI.

So, going back to the statement from previous posts, if space has energy, then what is the field of that?!

If space is all that there is, then the field can't extend outside of space now, can it? How is it possible then to "contain" that energy within?


Back to the drawing board, people!



K... Tongue 

 @ Bold 1:  ....I think its the Property of those particles ...Hence it can't be inside or outside ..Its everywhere ...Like Consciousness in the property of a living being ...and its everywhere ..all locations ..

 @ Bold 2:  Its the vacuum...thats expanding ...Although the energy of the density within would remain constant ..The cosmical constant that cause the galactic / stellar redshifts ...

 And this vacuum field must be limited not Infinite..as derived from the cosmic constant ..the event horizon of the universe is 16  billion  light years away ..So the accelerating mass / galaxies would escape that and the massive redshift might change their wavelengths to undetectable levels ..

 My point is ...  Vacuum has energy ...The Universe ( Observable ) has a horizon /a Virtual boundary ...So a state emptier than the vacuum ..which has ZERO density must exist beyond that ..And may be trillions of light years away from that another universe with vacuum with density might exist ...

 Those galaxies that escape the current universe might exist in another universe after many trillion years .. Ouch

                                                                                 OR

   If we ccnsider the flat / single infinite and open universe ...due to constantly decreasing mass of the vacuum, matter nuff to make more stars would exhaust ..The stars would emit all their energy and turn into black holes  as the protons would decay..Black holes  would
eventually disappear ...and what ll remain will be NEAR NOTHING ...LOL

 
 Vintu ...Tongue



K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2031

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 10:41am | IP Logged
Vintu, I was enunciating from the point of view of field lines and how the so called properties influence the regions of space around them





An electron has charge; it's a point particle as we know with no spatial extent. Yet, the lines of force influence the region of space around it.

My question was more related to the energy space itself has. What is the region of influence for the spatial energy? I think it gets circular to define the region in terms of the same region which has energy.

As for the cosmological constant, I think you are on the right track there even though what you said wasn't completely clear to me.

In short, I am looking into what exactly it means when someone says "vacuum energy". And what does that in turn mean in at the quantum scale.


K.Universe. Goldie
K.Universe.
K.Universe.

Joined: 02 September 2012
Posts: 2031

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 10:58am | IP Logged
It is possible that this is the reason space is expanding at the "outermost edges".

I think we need to separate space and energy. Space has energy is not a true statement IMO. Whatever is expanding the space is also a type of energy ("dark energy") as they put it, which means there is energy (first and foremost) and one "type" of it is responsible for "creation" of space (even though scientists deliberately avoid the word creation and prefer "expansion".




The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Vintage.Wine

Vintage.Wine Goldie
Vintage.Wine
Vintage.Wine

Joined: 03 July 2012
Posts: 1152

Posted: 02 November 2012 at 11:03am | IP Logged
Originally posted by K.Universe.

Vintu, I was enunciating from the point of view of field lines and how the so called properties influence the regions of space around them





An electron has charge; it's a point particle as we know with no spatial extent. Yet, the lines of force influence the region of space around it.

My question was more related to the energy space itself has. What is the region of influence for the spatial energy? I think it gets circular to define the region in terms of the same region which has energy.

As for the cosmological constant, I think you are on the right track there even though what you said wasn't completely clear to me.

In short, I am looking into what exactly it means when someone says "vacuum energy". And what does that in turn mean in at the quantum scale.




 K... Tongue

  Oh! Right ..So you are on about the Spatial Radius of the charge ..So I would like to believe the charge is propagated to a certain limited extent to the space around it..Though miniscule it can affect the other particles evenly or those that are oppositely charged. and this should happen because of the quantity of particles exerting the charge together ..
 
 For instance ..One ant ..can't pull a dead bug alone ..but a 100 ants together do the trick ...Same way the humungous quantity in which the particles exist make them capable of
exerting forces beyond their individual spatial radius ..

 As far as the Vacuum / dark energy is concerned I'm as much in the dark as could be ..LOL 
But what makes it viable for a hypothesis must be the theory that states ...the Mass / Energy density of the universe must be the same as the Critical Density ...<<<<   And this is where all the matter in the Universe fall short ...That accounts only for 4 % of the Critical Density and the Dark matter adds another 22 %  ..   So the remaining must be that of the vacuum ..As nothing else exists ..LOL ...So obviously the vacuum has Density ..Which fluctuates to create those Virtual particles...

 ^^^ Now does that make sense ?

  Vintu ... Tongue





 


The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

K.Universe._Angie_

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Do you believe there is a God ?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 87 88

Author: Summer3   Replies: 702   Views: 55920

Summer3 702 55920 18 November 2012 at 11:22pm by Summer3
do u believe in theory of karma?

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11 12

Author: monika.   Replies: 94   Views: 9596

monika. 94 9596 20 September 2011 at 11:49am by thegameison
Believe in prophecies ? Rome to tumble 11 May

2

Author: Summer3   Replies: 10   Views: 1274

Summer3 10 1274 12 May 2011 at 4:20am by Summer3
Do you believe in "paranormal things"?

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author: SolidSnake   Replies: 71   Views: 7974

SolidSnake 71 7974 17 September 2010 at 1:42am by _Angie_
Do you believe in fairytales?

2

Author: shalini1323   Replies: 11   Views: 1306

shalini1323 11 1306 27 April 2010 at 11:41pm by -Believe-

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

  • Please login to check your Last 10 Topics posted

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index