Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not speaking for @Valjean, but so long as you express your beliefs AS belief, then I would not consider that preaching.
the bible is not the last word about what IS REAL, the truth.It appears to me that you are saying, if I as a Christian, share my thoughts, perspectives, or beliefs in a thread such as this in the Theism category … then it’s preaching. It that what you are saying?
I'm also going to answer even though this was addressed to another poster. I use the word preach to describe posters who only want to express their opinions, but are uninterested in the replies. If their opinions are religious and offered unsolicited, then it is literal preaching, but even if we are discussing politics or global warming or some non-religious topic, it's metaphorical preaching. Such people aren't interested in defending their positions from rebuttal, and often fail to acknowledge even seeing one. Then, they repeat themselves. That's what I mean by preaching.It appears to me that you are saying, if I as a Christian, share my thoughts, perspectives, or beliefs in a thread such as this in the Theism category … then it’s preaching. It that what you are saying?
the bible is not the last word about what IS REAL, the truth.
Thoughts and opinions are not the same as claims and assertions.It appears to me that you are saying, if I as a Christian, share my thoughts, perspectives, or beliefs in a thread such as this in the Theism category … then it’s preaching. It that what you are saying?
Even with just thoughts and opinions, some justification would be appreciated.Okay, I appreciate your feedback.
The way I approach this is to look at our modern universe and notice that matter dominates. Typically, the most stable state, under any give starting conditions, will become the dominate product. This not random, but based on free energy. Since matter dominates it follows it was more stabile at some given formation conditions. If we change conditions we can get different results.No, that is *not* the current thinking. it turns out that the symmetry between matter and anti-matter is not perfect. This break in the symmetry is known as CP violation and is an experimental fact. This takes the slight imbalance out of the realm of chance and into the realm of certainty.
Now, there are aspects we don't understand. For example, the asymmetry we have found so far is rather weak and doesn't explain ALL of the imbalance we observe. There are also questions concerning leptogenesis. But these are areas of active research and there is every reason to think that there is no *fundamental* problem here.
Sorry, but this doesn't work to explain the asymmetry between matter and anti-matter. To do that, you would have to explain why the negatively charged anti-proton (which has the same mass as the usual proton) isn't favored. Also, the anti-electron (known as the positron) is just as fundamental as the electron.
Um, no. The nucleus does NOT contain positrons! A proton will *change* into a neutron and a positron (and a neutrino), but a neutron can equally well *change* into a proton and an electron (and an anti-neutrino).
And, once again, this does NOT explain the imbalance between matter and anti-matter since the corresponding reaction where an anti-proton emits an electron to become an anti-neutron (and an anti-neutrino) would be equally possible. This would also be an example of beta decay (and, similarly, an anti-neutron could change into an anti-proton and emit a positron and a neutrino).
What you have given is NOT an explanation of matter/anti-matter asymmetry!
Relativistic quantum chemistry combines relativistic mechanics with quantum chemistry to calculate elemental properties and structure, especially for the heavier elements of the periodic table.
I would expect it to be loving anyway. I've written 8 books and some are on the subject.I have a genuine question for theists and it is not meant to be a trick in any way. There are many things that I would expect to see in a universe containing a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god that I don't see in this universe, which leads me to conclude that such a god is unlikely to exist. I'm curious as to what theists would expect to see in a godless universe, and how a godless universe would differ from one in which a god existed. What would you expect this universe to look like if no gods existed, and how would that be different from the current universe?
Right. An electron is a particle with those *properties*: positive charge and a (rather small) mass.Electrons are elementary particles meaning they cannot be broken down any further in particle colliders. Electrons contain negative charge and mass, which can be measured as two separate variables. However, being elementary particles, these two attributes cannot be separated when these are configured as an electron.
I see nothing similar to this at all.This, to me, means the electron is using something like a unified force/state that causes its mass and negative charge to merge as one thing with two united attributes. This is loosely similar to a magnet with two poles, with neither pole able to exist all by itself; magnetic monopole.
Huh??The electron has internal energy, and it should be able to swing left or right to enhance its mass at the expense of charge and or its charge at the expense of mass; E=MC2, since they are both part of one thing; fat electrons with less EM or skinny electrons with enhanced EM. I would guess the neutron star appear to form fat electrons that will seem to have very little negative charge; neutral. This shift in balance would be based on the extreme gravity and mass density, shifting the electron pendulum to the mass side.
Correct. A proton is made from 3 quarks: two up quarks with charges of +2/3 and one down quark with a charge of -1/3. There are also a bunch of neutrally charged gluons.The positron is similar, but typically its positive charge exists as part of a composite called the proton. The proton is not an elementary particle but can be broken down further.
No, a proton is NOT a 'fat positron' any more than an anti-proton is a 'fat electron'. The positron is an elementary particle, just like the electron.The looser association of positive charge in our universe, tells us that positive charge is also part of a similar unified affects as the electron, but it also appears to have more affinity for mass; the fat positron setting with less repulsion between positive charge. The more balance electrons do not annihilate due to the difference in charge setting. It is the mobile of the electron that adds higher magnetic affects for enhanced charge stability; moving charge creates a magnetic affect.
First, it is not a matter of being 'close enough'. The electron density of a hydrogen atom is actually concentrated at the nucleus.If you look at an atom like hydrogen, to make it simple, it has a negative and positive charge; electron and proton. What prevents these two opposite charges from finding each other an annihilating, like a positron and electron? What makes the positive charge when connected to the higher mass; proton, prevent the negative charge from getting close enough to cancel? Neutron stars can force the issue with extreme pressure and gravity.
Not even close. The uncertainty effect is NOT sue to relativistic effects. It is seen in classical settings as well. Also, you are thinking of electrons too much in classical terms. They are NOT 'little balls' with definite positions and speeds.One way to answer this is connected to Special Relativity. As electrons go into lower and lower orbital states, the speed of the electron increases, sort of like the skater pulling her ams in, so she spins faster. This extra speed places the negative charge of the electron in a different reference, within space-time; special relativity. As the electron approaches, the uncertainty in position and momentum between the two charges, increases. I would attribute that uncertainty to separated space and separated time.
The uncertainty in position is due to a smaller mass.The electron has much higher space requirement than the proton.
Huh?The electron and its negative charge has more distance potential.
So much confidence, so little understanding.As it approach the proton, its volume of space gets less; distance potential lowers. The enhanced velocity now has to occupy less space. Through conservation, there is a shift from distance potential, to time potential, so it can occupy the same linear space with less volume of space; velocity increases. Within space-time, this causes a reference change via special relativity, making the two references decouple via a level of uncertainty within their EM fields.
Non existent.
God created the universe... no God... no universe.
There is a branch of Chemistry called Relativistic Quantum Chemistry.
For example, why is gold the color it is, when most of the metals, besides copper, are silver? The outer electrons in large atoms like gold are moving at fast enough speeds to create relativistic affects. The result is a time shift in the frequency of any reflected light; yellow shift. The relativity also causing a decoupling of EM fields, between gold and other atoms making gold nonreactive. Gold is very precious since the electron cloud is not exactly in our reference, even if the nucleus is.
So your argument seems to be that the universe needs defining, that this requires order, and that order requires an intelligent designer. Why should anybody accept that claim? Where's your evidenced argument to go with those claims? Nowhere. Nature seems to order itself spontaneously.There would be no "godless universe" because there would be no source of order through which the universe could define itself.