Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

No, he doesn't. I know orders of magnitude more than he does, because I have 2000 years of mathematics and physical experiments to stand on.

Great! If you know more than Aristotle did, I am sure your next step is to prove to me that you can produce matter out of nothing. Go ahead and make my day, because I am indeed all ears.

 

[linwood]

As I can see, you don't agree that a myth can be explained metaphorically into a fact; and to break it down into ignorance, you insist that is preferable. You have just confirmed my belief that this attitude conveys spiritual vandalism.

And you are confirming my earlier statement that you ascribe more to my words than my intent.
I have no problem understanding or believing that a myth can be based upon and/or dissected to find fact.
In fact I believe most myths have this property to one extent or another.

The trouble is often that they are unraveled with a bias that does nothing more than confirm beliefs already held by the unraveler.
That is the case we have here.

Great! Finally, I am sure I am going to have an answer to my questions.

You seem to already have the answers to your questions.
It makes me wonder why you bother asking for what you already have.
Usually when people do this they have a manipulative ulterior motive.

Energy is an accident of matter; and matter could have never come out of nothing or could always be there.

Can you provide support/reference for this assertion?

Have you ever read about Moses Maimonides, a famous scholar, Philosopher, Theologian, Physics and Medical Doctor? If you can read his opus prima "The Guide for the Perplexed," you could probably change your mind if you are not beyond repair as atheistic pre-conceived notions are concerned.

It`s unlikely a Torah scholar from the 10th century could alter the beliefs I hold today based upon the scientific method.
"Physics" didn`t even exist as a science in his lifetime.

Have you forgotten your statement of preference to turn a theistic myth into the ignorance of atheism? I did not twist your words. I only translated them into more clear English.

Apparently I have, could you please quote this statement for me?

We are talking about Theism versus Atheism. You referred to myth as being preferred to be replaced with ignorance. Didn't you mean the ignorance of not knowing or being sure about anything as far as Atheism os concerned?

No, not at all.
I was referring to your OP in which you requested...

Originally Posted by Ben Masada
Yes, just like you; as soon as you tell me where the Universe comes from. I mean, how the Universe came about without a Creator or the Primal Mover, to coin Philosophical rhetoric.

And please, do not discard my question as nonsense or tell me that you don't know, because Atheism itself will lose all its raison d'etre. One cannot discard an axiom if he can't replace it with an option.

I am speaking of a very narrow empirical subject (Origins of the cosmos) while it seems you are speaking of a very broad philosophical subject (Theistic vs. atheistic world views)

This may be the source of our misnderstanding.

Is that why you quote Astrophysics to raise a fight with Theism? I wonder because I also believe that Atheism has nothing to do with Physics or Astrophysics. In that case, you have nothing to prove Atheism.

I believe you are confused, I have quoted no one nor have I raised a fight with anyone or anything nor am I attempting to prove or disprove atheism/theism.

And the point I am trying to make is that literalism is not the only way to interpret the Scriptures.....

I am in perfect agreement with you and don`t see where you got the idea I thought otherwise.
You seem quite unnecessarily argumentative in ascribing properties to my statements which they clearly do not contain.

...Metaphorically, what seems to you a myth can be turned into a fact.

I don`t believe a myth can be "turned into" fact.
I believe with enough evidence a myth can be revealed to contain or be based upon fact.
A Myth as it stands is a myth because the truth of it has not yet been discovered if it ever can be.
Depending on the myth of course.

 

[PolyHedral]

You don't get it, do you? Let us imagine an X-Ray tube. Perhaps I'll be able to get through you. Think of an enormous X-Ray tube; quite a distance between the cathode and the anode. That's an absolute vacuum where the protons of energy are supposed to travel from cathode to anode in order to produce X-rays. There is absolutely nothing in he vacumm between the cathode and anode as long as you do not activate the rotor which will cause the cathode to produce ellectrode energy whose photons will hit the anode and produce X-Ray energy. The point is that the Technician must activate matter to produce energy, which justifies my point that energy is an accident of matter.

The bolded statement is false.

Great! If you know more than Aristotle did, I am sure your next step is to prove to me that you can produce matter out of nothing. Go ahead and make my day, because I am indeed all ears.

Where do you think the energy for a nuclear reaction comes from? The products of nuclear decay are very, very slightly lighter than the reactants, and that extra mass is the energy that is produced by the reaction.

 

[Meow Mix]

You don't get it, do you? Let us imagine an X-Ray tube. Perhaps I'll be able to get through you. Think of an enormous X-Ray tube; quite a distance between the cathode and the anode. That's an absolute vacuum where the protons of energy are supposed to travel from cathode to anode in order to produce X-rays. There is absolutely nothing in he vacumm between the cathode and anode as long as you do not activate the rotor which will cause the cathode to produce ellectrode energy whose photons will hit the anode and produce X-Ray energy. The point is that the Technician must activate matter to produce energy, which justifies my point that energy is an accident of matter.

With respect, as a cosmology grad student I do in fact "get it." You have an incorrect understanding about the relationship between matter, energy, and mass. Energy and mass are equivalent and are conserved -- matter is not.

Matter routinely appears and disappears without causation and "out of nothing" in a quantum vacuum. However, energy/mass are conserved.

In fact it's fair to say that the statement you appear so fond of -- that "energy is an accident of matter" -- is exactly backwards. Energy seems to be more fundamental than matter, considering matter is routinely destroyed and created whereas energy/mass is conserved.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think Aristotle knew a little better than you and I. He said that matter cannot come out of nothing. And that's a fact and not simply a theory. Can you create matter out of nothing? Perhaps you can if you are a magician. And I base my belief that matter can be created on, in the fact that the universe exists, and that it is composed of matter.

Matter can indeed be destroyed, as well as created out of non-matter. We have known and proven it for over sixty years now.

Aristotle may have said otherwise, but he was wrong. Many of his contemporaries were equally bright philosophers with wildly different speculations. Ultimately, the only way of finding out the truth is by examining the facts, and for all his merits Aristotle simply lacked the means to do so.

 

[Meow Mix]

Matter can indeed be destroyed, as well as created out of non-matter. We have known and proven it for over sixty years now.

Aristotle may have said otherwise, but he was wrong. Many of his contemporaries were equally bright philosophers with wildly different speculations. Ultimately, the only way of finding out the truth is by examining the facts, and for all his merits Aristotle simply lacked the means to do so.

Indeed. With respect Ben, you really need to shy away from appeals to authority. They're fallacious for a reason and you should know that. "Because this famous person said so" is not a valid argument.

 

[linwood]

Matter can indeed be destroyed, as well as created out of non-matter. We have known and proven it for over sixty years now.

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[LuisDantas]

Well, I may have jumped the gun, but isn't that the idea behind nuclear fission?

Oh well, okay, I goofed. Sorry.

 

[PolyHedral]

Well, I may have jumped the gun, but isn't that the idea behind nuclear fission?

Oh well, okay, I goofed. Sorry.

Check the first word, "Indeed." She's agreeing with you.

 

[LuisDantas]

Linwood isn't. And he is correct in that I am not as certain on the matter as I made believe.

 

[Ben Masada]

Indeed. With respect Ben, you really need to shy away from appeals to authority. They're fallacious for a reason and you should know that. "Because this famous person said so" is not a valid argument.

At least, they have made for themselves a name with a lot of credibility for their powerful minds. All we do is to plagiarize their thoughts and build our own on their foundations.

 

[Ben Masada]

Matter can indeed be destroyed, as well as created out of non-matter. We have known and proven it for over sixty years now.

Aristotle may have said otherwise, but he was wrong. Many of his contemporaries were equally bright philosophers with wildly different speculations. Ultimately, the only way of finding out the truth is by examining the facts, and for all his merits Aristotle simply lacked the means to do so.

Well, prove to us that matter can be created out of nothing. Because that's what you mean by created out of non-matter, as far as I can unerstand. Go ahead, I am all ears.

 

[Ben Masada]

With respect, as a cosmology grad student I do in fact "get it." You have an incorrect understanding about the relationship between matter, energy, and mass. Energy and mass are equivalent and are conserved -- matter is not.

Matter routinely appears and disappears without causation and "out of nothing" in a quantum vacuum. However, energy/mass are conserved.

In fact it's fair to say that the statement you appear so fond of -- that "energy is an accident of matter" -- is exactly backwards. Energy seems to be more fundamental than matter, considering matter is routinely destroyed and created whereas energy/mass is conserved.

Sorry young lady, in spite of all your future degrees in Comology, I beg to disagree with you. I understand mass as the amount of matter in an object or substance. Therefore, energy and mass are not equivalent. Matter must be somehow activated to produce energy. I told you already with the analogy of the X-Rays vacuum tube. For matter to be an accident of energy is illogical and a pill hard to swallow. Energy cannot be produced in matter in the state of inertia.

Now, as you say, matter can be routinely destroyed and created whereas energy/mass is conserved. That's a change for a change, because I am tired to hear that matter cannot have a beginning nor be destroyed but transformed. Now, you admit that matter is routinely destroyed and created. Atheists never cease amazing me. Then, you forward a very illogical proposition. If mass is the amount of matter in an object, how can matter be destroyed and mass be preserved? Neither is energy preserved but transferred from matter to matter, and reacted according to the new form matter has taken as it apparently got destroyed or transformed.

 

[Ben Masada]

The bolded statement is false.

Where do you think the energy for a nuclear reaction comes from? The products of nuclear decay are very, very slightly lighter than the reactants, and that extra mass is the energy that is produced by the reaction.

Mass is not energy but the amount of matter in an object or substance. The atomic concentration of the mass in the matter, once somehow activated by a different kind of matter is what produces the explosion as highly deadly ingredients are spread to sow death and destruction.

 

[PolyHedral]

Mass is not energy but the amount of matter in an object or substance. The atomic concentration of the mass in the matter, once somehow activated by a different kind of matter is what produces the explosion as highly deadly ingredients are spread to sow death and destruction.

Then I shall use a subtler example.

Protons, the main components of every atom, are composed of 3 objects called quarks, specifically, two "up" quarks and a "down" quark. ("Up" and "down" are just two of the six types of quarks. They have nothing to do with direction.)

A down quark has a mass of 7.31×10^-30 kg. An up quark has a mass of 3.03×10^-30 kg. From these numbers, it is fairly simple to show that the proton must have a mass of 10.34×10^-30 kg.

The proton's actual mass is 1672.622×10^-30 kg, about 100 times greater. Where is all this extra mass coming from? The answer is very simple: the potential energy of the strong force, which binds the quarks together. The vast majority of the proton's mass is not its components on their own, but generated by the interaction between its components.

If you don't believe me, feel free to click the links. The numbers add up. (or don't, as they shouldn't.)

 

[Ben Masada]

And you are confirming my earlier statement that you ascribe more to my words than my intent.

Intents are revealed through words.

You seem to already have the answers to your questions. It makes me wonder why you bother asking for what you already have. Usually when people do this they have a manipulative ulterior motive.

Let us say, I am in search of a confirmation to what I already have in mind as an answer to my questions. Pity that only very rarely I meet with the same Logic.

It`s unlikely a Torah scholar from the 10th century could alter the beliefs I hold today based upon the scientific method. "Physics" didn`t even exist as a science in his lifetime.

Perhaps not as an official subject in college. No wonder the second Moses was considered more important than the first Moses.

I am speaking of a very narrow empirical subject (Origins of the cosmos) while it seems you are speaking of a very broad philosophical subject (Theistic vs. atheistic world views)

Isn't Theism vs. Atheism we are talking about in this forum? I wonder where on earth Astrophysics has anything to do at all with Atheism. Perhaps an Atheistic cop-out to fight Theism?

I am in perfect agreement with you and don`t see where you got the idea I thought otherwise. You seem quite unnecessarily argumentative in ascribing properties to my statements which they clearly do not contain.

Perhaps you have cut it in to answer a post of mine to someone else. This kind of confusion is not uncommon.

I don`t believe a myth can be "turned into" fact. I believe with enough evidence a myth can be revealed to contain or be based upon fact.

Nevertheless, it can when the myth is interpreted metaphorically.

A Myth as it stands is a myth because the truth of it has not yet been discovered if it ever can be. Depending on the myth of course.

You have defined above the nature of a scientific theory. When the truth is discovered, the theory either reaches the level of a fact or dies in obsolescence, which is the general rule in Astrophysics.

 

[Meow Mix]

Sorry young lady, in spite of all your future degrees in Comology, I beg to disagree with you. I understand mass as the amount of matter in an object or substance. Therefore, energy and mass are not equivalent. Matter must be somehow activated to produce energy. I told you already with the analogy of the X-Rays vacuum tube. For matter to be an accident of energy is illogical and a pill hard to swallow. Energy cannot be produced in matter in the state of inertia.

1) Mass is not "the amount of matter in an object." That's density.

2) Mass and energy are indeed equivalent. For someone who appeals to authority and especially Jewish scientists so much, you should realize that one of Einstein's most touted achievements was showing the ratio at which energy is equivalent to mass in an elegant, globally recognized formula: E = mc^2.

Have you forgotten our prior discussion of the casimir effect and Hawking radiation? I gave you clear examples of matter being created and destroyed routinely; why have you forgotten so fast? Did you perhaps misunderstand what I was presenting to you?

Now, as you say, matter can be routinely destroyed and created whereas energy/mass is conserved. That's a change for a change, because I am tired to hear that matter cannot have a beginning nor be destroyed but transformed. Now, you admit that matter is routinely destroyed and created.

When have I ever at any time said that matter can't be created or destroyed? If you can find a place where I typed that I'll send you $1,000 cash in small bills.

Atheists never cease amazing me. Then, you forward a very illogical proposition. If mass is the amount of matter in an object, how can matter be destroyed and mass be preserved? Neither is energy preserved but transferred from matter to matter, and reacted according to the new form matter has taken as it apparently got destroyed or transformed

Perhaps you'd be less amazed by atheists if you understood what you were talking about a little better. Mass is not the "amount of matter in an object," and matter is routinely destroyed with the mass preserved in the form of energy. Energy doesn't have to exist in matter, it can also exist in fields. You can have an entire universe that contains ZERO matter that is still chock full of energy -- again, if you're more impressed by appeals to authority (I still don't understand why you'd willingly use fallacious reasoning though) than by direct data look no further than your pal Einstein.

 

[Ben Masada]

1)

Mass is not "the amount of matter in an object." That's density.

MM, please, I had to consult the dictionary to decide this quetion about mass and density and the dictionary agrees with me that density is the thinkness of cosistency or impenetrability of mass in the matter of any substance.

2) Mass and energy are indeed equivalent. For someone who appeals to authority and especially Jewish scientists so much, you should realize that one of Einstein's most touted achievements was showing the ratio at which energy is equivalent to mass in an elegant, globally recognized formula: E = mc^2.

Therefore, mass cannot be equivalent to energy if matter is in the state of inertia. If you have a problem with appealing to authority, I find it perfectly normal. It means we have a mind of our own.

Have you forgotten our prior discussion of the casimir effect and Hawking radiation? I gave you clear examples of matter being created and destroyed routinely; why have you forgotten so fast? Did you perhaps misunderstand what I was presenting to you?

Now, you are appealing to authority (Hawking) as if I haven't just praised you for being against doing so.

When have I ever at any time said that matter can't be created or destroyed? If you can find a place where I typed that I'll send you $1,000 cash in small bills.

Why in small bills? I don't like small bills. I said that I am tired of reading about atheistic sayings that matter cannot be created or destroyed but transformed. But energy becomes a characteristic of the new form taken by matter. Now, if matter can be created and destroyed, how was the first matter created? I am sure not out of nothing.

Perhaps you'd be less amazed by atheists if you understood what you were talking about a little better.

...or what they are talking about in their babel of confusion.

Mass is not the "amount of matter in an object," and matter is routinely destroyed with the mass preserved in the form of energy.

I have it from the dictionary that mast is the density of matter. When matter is destroyed, mass follows through. Energy is transfered to be the by-product of the new form matter or mass has taken.

Energy doesn't have to exist in matter, it can also exist in fields.

Fields, if not in a vacuum, is matter, which once somehow activated will produce energy.

You can have an entire universe that contains ZERO matter that is still chock full of energy -

No, I cannot. This kind of universe you picture in mind must be of the vacuum nature not to produce energy. Only the word universe implies matter.

again, if you're more impressed by appeals to authority (I still don't understand why you'd willingly use fallacious reasoning though) than by direct data look no further than your pal Einstein.

What's that, have you changed your mind about appealing to autority? Einstein once said that the expansion of the universe could be God at His work of creation since Science has been unable to prove the theory as a fact.

 

[Jacksnyte]

1)


MM, please, I had to consult the dictionary to decide this quetion about mass and density and the dictionary agrees with me that density is the thinkness of cosistency or impenetrability of mass in the matter of any substance.



Therefore, mass cannot be equivalent to energy if matter is in the state of inertia. If you have a problem with appealing to authority, I find it perfectly normal. It means we have a mind of our own.



Now, you are appealing to authority (Hawking) as if I haven't just praised you for being against doing so.



Why in small bills? I don't like small bills. I said that I am tired of reading about atheistic sayings that matter cannot be created or destroyed but transformed. But energy becomes a characteristic of the new form taken by matter. Now, if matter can be created and destroyed, how was the first matter created? I am sure not out of nothing.



...or what they are talking about in their babel of confusion.



I have it from the dictionary that mast is the density of matter. When matter is destroyed, mass follows through. Energy is transfered to be the by-product of the new form matter or mass has taken.



Fields, if not in a vacuum, is matter, which once somehow activated will produce energy.



No, I cannot. This kind of universe you picture in mind must be of the vacuum nature not to produce energy. Only the word universe implies matter.



What's that, have you changed your mind about appealing to autority? Einstein once said that the expansion of the universe could be God at His work of creation since Science has been unable to prove the theory as a fact.

I would have to say that the argument presented by Ben Masada here is of the weakest and most circular type. Ben, you would seem to be side-stepping facts put before you so that you can remain willfully ignorant (I hope this isn't the case as you seem rather intelligent). I think that MM was telling you that matter is ultimately composed of energy, however energy is not composed of matter, and can stand alone. Ms. MeowMix, do I have it right?

 

[linwood]

Linwood isn't. And he is correct in that I am not as certain on the matter as I made believe.

That`s fine because now that you`ve stated it I`m less certain on my viewpoint than I was as well.

Cosmology/Astrophysics is a topic I love but find difficult to get beyond a laymans understanding of so when I hear something that conflicts with my views I want to check it out.

Considering the limits of our knowledge of the universe and the reams of new info coming out all the time I try to keep my POV up to date.

Something like matter being "created" would be a very big update indeed.
Might just lead me back to the church.

Just kidding.