First cause of the universe.

[Subduction Zone]

Which requires matter, which didn't create itself either.

No, space-time simply describes our universe. and the Big Bang led to the formation of matter.

By the way, you should not use the word "create" since it implies agency. It is better to use an unbiased term.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Already done routinely.

Even Fermilab did this as a matter of course: it took high energy protons and slammed them together. The energy was enough to form a slew of other particles, among which were often found proton/anti-proton pairs.

A proton has an energy equivalent of just under 1 GeV. To get a proton/anti-proton pair requires a bit under 2 GeV under ideal circumstances. Center of mass energies at this scale have been done for decades now.

Okay, I had to wrap my head around that a bit. Just a clarification. So the relativistic mass of the two protons that are colliding has to be a bit over the rest mass of four protons?

 

[Audie]

What hogwash. Order doesn't spring from chaos.

How droll.

Never noticed crystal formation.

 

[Polymath257]

Neutrons and anti-neutrons?

By the time of the neutron dominated era, the matter and anti-matter had already annihilated leaving just a little bit of matter (which became all we see). All matter we see today comes from an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter at the level of one part in a billion.

The initial production quarks was likely to involve both quarks and anti-quarks, or, potentially, there was another type of particle that decayed into the quarks, leaving that 1 in a billion matter quarks instead of anti-matter.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, I had to wrap my head around that a bit. Just a clarification. So the relativistic mass of the two protons that are colliding has to be a bit over the rest mass of four protons?

Yes. That is the basic idea. Remember Fermilab dealt with low TeV energies. That's a thousand times as much as a single proton or anti-proton.

One difficulty is that protons and anti-protons are not elementary: they are formed by quarks and anti-quarks. And *which* quarks and anti-quarks are produced is somewhat random, so not every collision forms the same outgoing particles. But yes, proton/anti-proton pairs were generated (and this was even one of the sources of the anti-proton beam used for other collisions).

 

[Subduction Zone]

By the time of the neutron dominated era, the matter and anti-matter had already annihilated leaving just a little bit of matter (which became all we see). All matter we see today comes from an asymmetry between matter and anti-matter at the level of one part in a billion.

The initial production quarks was likely to involve both quarks and anti-quarks, or, potentially, there was another type of particle that decayed into the quarks, leaving that 1 in a billion matter quarks instead of anti-matter.

Thanks, I am behind the times

 

[stvdv]

Yeah, every non-ism isn't anything. Atheism is "not being a theist". Why would you need to explain to the group that it's not a thing?

Some seem to forget their Atheism means only lack of something, while calling theist's Scriptures irrelevant.

Seems fair, but above all needed, to give the true picture. Always good to remember, when pointing 1 finger, belittling the "love" of others, that 3 fingers point back

 

[stvdv]

Scripture is not a reliable source for knowledge, so irrelevant.

But thanks for agreeing that scripture isn't a reliable source.

We were talking about facts, knowledgeable stuff

I care for Wisdom more than for knowledge

Scriptures can lead to Wisdom
@stvdvRF
Not irrelevant to me

 

[Polymath257]

Naughty, naughty, you are leaving out the stars... once again you need energy and elements to exist first.

No, I went back to nucleogenesis, which was way before the first stars, Stars formed the heavier elements out of lighter ones, but the nucleogenesis stage of the Big Bang is what formed the lighter elements that those first stars were made of.

 

[stvdv]

Scripture is not a reliable source for knowledge, so irrelevant.

Atheism is even less of a source...to be precise

That is a very odd statement. Atheists are not claiming to be a source. Do you think that theists are the source of the beginning of the universe? I have never seen a theist claim that either.

In the right context
Not as odd as you think

"Source..." for knowledge

 

[rational experiences]

If you say human thinker don't you realise when you say universe it is human known described first as the universe.

As you biology name it universe you can't then pretend it doesn't exist.

As......
It never could exist if you falsify its meaning.
You would own no human reason about before as a type not a universe.

So you said my human theists claim human words are God exact. Created creation. Not what was it's pre substance might be.

Pre substance hence would state nothing existing would own the type.

So nothing is expressed in that sentence as you are so self possessed about knowing you self coerce by use of human words.

Was your owned scientists warning.

Human consciousness tells the truth but also uses lying to tell a truth only one self agreed with.

Then that one self has to find other humans who think alike.

How you began cult human lying causes as scientists. As if we said it's not believable you murdered our life or families life as your strategy.

Why the bible said you are our destroyer as you use all chosen human tactics to be successful. Did and have destroyed life on earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the right context
Not as odd as you think

"Source..." for knowledge

I sincerely doubt that.

 

[F1fan]

Scripture IS the reliable source for WISDOM

Not given what we observe of believers. Look at all the disagreements, so which ones are the wise ones? Look how many Christians behave contrary to what Jesus taught. Wise?

Science is the reliable source for knowledge

Atheism is nothing except "lack of..."

...belief in any gods. Correct.

 

[Audie]

We were talking about facts, knowledgeable stuff

I care for Wisdom more than for knowledge.

Scriptures can lead to Wisdom
@stvdvRF
Not irrelevant to me

Scrip is not irrelevant to knowledge.
Its very much in opposition to it.

Its not wise to be ignorant.

 

[ppp]

That is a claim I am not prepared to make; are you? I think the firmest ground would be to admit that we just don't know; which is what I said.

That there was never nothing? Yes. Absolutely. Think about what nothing means. It means that there is no that there literally is no thing that exists. No matter. No energy. No forces. No fields. It is the absence of being, for if anything existed, there would be something. It is the absence of being.

Can the absence of being be? No. That is a logical contradiction.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, I went back to nucleogenesis, which was way before the first stars, Stars formed the heavier elements out of lighter ones, but the nucleogenesis stage of the Big Bang is what formed the lighter elements that those first stars were made of.

And as long as you are here, one more. I know that particles are frequently detected using some sort of cloud chamber. Running over the basic physics it seems that one uses some knowledge of the particle that one is working with to determine what is observed. So does the rate of change of curvature tell us the mass? i know that the curvature is going to be the result of a combination of the mass and the velocity of the particle. But a heavy particle would probably slow down at a slower rate than say an electron does. The few articles that I read did not give any details on how one tells the difference between an electron and a proton. Oh, almost forgot, and clockwise or counterclockwise would tell us positive or negative.

Is that basically right or am I off again?

 

[stvdv]

Scripture IS the reliable source for WISDOM

Science is the reliable source for knowledge

Atheism is nothing except "lack of..."

Really?

Yes

You have evidence of that?

Evidence can be useful when trying to get facts straight while gaining knowledge about material things. Wisdom is not about evidence.

I don't see all that much wisdom in scripture

Scripture is the source that can lead one towards Wisdom. It's usually not enough to only read and study. Hence it's declared that Science is below the "mind", and Spirituality is beyond the mind

Note: "mind" is defined as "bundle of thoughts" here
@stvdvRF

 

[Subduction Zone]

That there was never nothing? Yes. Absolutely. Think about what nothing means. It means that there is no that there literally is no thing that exists. No matter. No energy. No forces. No fields. It is the absence of being, for if anything existed, there would be something. It is the absence of being.

Can the absence of being be? No. That is a logical contradiction.

I agree. It is likely that "Nothing" is impossible in our universe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes


Evidence can be useful when trying to get facts straight while gaining knowledge about material things. Wisdom is not about evidence.


Scripture is the source that can lead one towards Wisdom. It's usually not enough to only read and study. Hence it's declared that Science is below the "mind", and Spirituality is beyond the mind

Note: "mind" is defined as "bundle of thoughts" here

Just declaring something as a fact does not cut it. If I claimed that "Scripture is BS" that claim would be just as strong as yours.

 

[Audie]

Not given what we observe of believers. Look at all the disagreements, so which ones are the wise ones? Look how many Christians behave contrary to what Jesus taught. Wise?


...belief in any gods. Correct.

Atheism isnt a lack, unlesx you hold
that robust health is best described as a lack of, oh, say, dengue, beriberi, ague, vapours, and
malaria.