Understanding Cosmology (Post 1)

[shunyadragon]

Well that's a start, glad to hear you are not an atheist, not that I have anything personal against atheists, but it is somewhat sad that their present closed mind prevents them from transcending their limitations, and realizing the open ended reality on the other side.

It appears regardless of your claims you have something against atheism if not atheists.

Of course it is, atheistic science believes there was a beginning to the Cosmos, they believe the Cosmos is not conscious, etc..

First, there is no such thing as atheistic science. It is a given that atheists do not believe the Cosmos is conscious, because it is a religious belief. Many Theists like myself the cosmos is not conscious. It is a questions science cannot falsify and remains neutral to the question.

News alert, an eternal Cosmos is complete, absolute reality does not evolve, only parts evolve to learn what and who they really are, in an etern process.

Well if you believe the Cosmos is complete OK, but science does not believe the Cosmos is necessarily complete. At present it is an unanswered question.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

It appears regardless of your claims you have something against atheism if not atheists.

First, there is no such thing as atheistic science. It is a given that atheists do not believe the Cosmos is conscious, because it is a religious belief. Many Theists like myself the cosmos is not conscious. It is a questions science cannot falsify and remains neutral to the question.


Well if you believe the Cosmos is complete OK, but science does not believe the Cosmos is necessarily complete. At present it is an unanswered question.

I have nothing against atheism, like I have nothing against children.

I won't argue the point, let us engage as humble students of existence as it is.

So from left field, is an electron particle solid like a billiard ball, or is it more like a cloud of smaller energy 'particles'?

 

[shunyadragon]

So from left field, is an electron particle solid like a billiard ball, or is it more like a cloud of smaller energy 'particles'?

An electron neither like billiard ball or more like cloud of smaller particles. Appearance is more like a fuzzy ball. with a negative charge.

Electron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The electron (
e−
, or
β−
in nuclear reactions) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[14] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure.[1] The electron's mass is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.[15] Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, per the Pauli exclusion principle.[14] Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: They can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

An electron neither like billiard ball or more like cloud of smaller particles. Appearance is more like a fuzzy ball. with a negative charge.

Electron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The electron (
e−
, or
β−
in nuclear reactions) is a subatomic particle with a negative one elementary electric charge.[13] Electrons belong to the first generation of the lepton particle family,[14] and are generally thought to be elementary particles because they have no known components or substructure.[1] The electron's mass is approximately 1/1836 that of the proton.[15] Quantum mechanical properties of the electron include an intrinsic angular momentum (spin) of a half-integer value, expressed in units of the reduced Planck constant, ħ. Being fermions, no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state, per the Pauli exclusion principle.[14] Like all elementary particles, electrons exhibit properties of both particles and waves: They can collide with other particles and can be diffracted like light. The wave properties of electrons are easier to observe with experiments than those of other particles like neutrons and protons because electrons have a lower mass and hence a longer de Broglie wavelength for a given energy.

A fuzzyball like appearance is what I meant by cloud-like appearance. So when this fuzzyball electron meets a fuzzyball positron, would not that whatever it is that constitutes the cloud/fuzzyballs, become gamma ray energy? And the reciprocal process from gamma ray to electron fuzzyball positron fuzzyball pair?

 

[shunyadragon]

A fuzzyball like appearance is what I meant by cloud-like appearance. So when this fuzzyball electron meets a fuzzyball positron, would not that whatever it is that constitutes the cloud/fuzzyballs,

You are getting into complicated Physics of the basic particles of matter. Before we go down this 'rabbit hole' where you apparently do not understand the basics of particle physics and Quantum Mechanics what is your purpose of this line of reasoning?????

You proposed a a cloud of particles which is inaccurate, and it is not cloud like. No. they do not normally meet. Your line of reasoning is getting confusing, The positron is an electron with a positive charge If they collide, annihilation occurs, which is a very very rare occurrence.

Is positron decay the same as gamma decay? | Homework.Study.com

Answer to: Is positron decay the same as gamma decay? By signing up, you'll get thousands of step-by-step solutions to your homework questions. You...

homework.study.com

Although gamma radiation is part of the result when electrons and positrons annihilate each other, they are not the same. Even their nature differs from each other. Positrons are the quanta of positron decay and the antimatter of electrons. Gamma radiation is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency higher than Hertz.

become gamma ray energy? And the reciprocal process from gamma ray to electron fuzzyball positron fuzzyball pair?

No, confusing statement. See above.

 

[Audie]

....atheists, but it is somewhat sad that their present closed mind prevents them from transcending their limitations, and realizing the open ended reality on the other side.

Of course it is, atheistic science believes .....

News alert, an eternal Cosmos is complete, absolute reality does not evolve, only parts evolve to learn what and who they really are, in an eternal process.

News of the obvious:

All of the above is 100% unsupportable nonsense that you made up.

And, also News of the well known, people with
something real to say don't have to make things up.

 

[Audie]

Apparently as I don't do belief.

As if

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You are getting into complicated Physics of the basic particles of matter. Before we go down this 'rabbit hole' where you apparently do not understand the basics of particle physics and Quantum Mechanics what is your purpose of this line of reasoning?????

You proposed a a cloud of particles which is inaccurate, and it is not cloud like. No. they do not normally meet. Your line of reasoning is getting confusing, The positron is an electron with a positive charge If they collide, annihilation occurs, which is a very very rare occurrence.

Is positron decay the same as gamma decay? | Homework.Study.com

Answer to: Is positron decay the same as gamma decay? By signing up, you'll get thousands of step-by-step solutions to your homework questions. You...

homework.study.com

Although gamma radiation is part of the result when electrons and positrons annihilate each other, they are not the same. Even their nature differs from each other. Positrons are the quanta of positron decay and the antimatter of electrons. Gamma radiation is an electromagnetic wave with a frequency higher than Hertz.



No, confusing statement. See above.

The purpose of my enquiry to try to 'see' the underlying reality represented by the language/conceptualization of both science and religion wrt things.

So wrt the electron, the fuzzyball description is a start, but what is it made of? Is it fluidic in form? Etc.. Now I understand that science may not speculate on some of these, and that's ok, but if I contemplate ideas that are not scientific, please put your religious hat on and try and see it from a non-scientific view.

An Electron may gain energy prior to its decay to its ground state by emitting a photon. Now this implies that the fuzzyball's mass and size can change. So what is the constituent 'stuff' of the Electron?

Different subject, put your religious hat on and give this a try, The spirit of God is said to be omnipresent, it is not material. Is there anything in science that is said to be universally omnipresent, and not material?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

News of the obvious:

All of the above is 100% unsupportable nonsense that you made up.

And, also News of the well known, people with
something real to say don't have to make things up.

As an atheist, your belief naturally limits your understanding. Belief is conceptual, reality is that which the concepts are meant to represent.

 

[Pogo]

The purpose of my enquiry to try to 'see' the underlying reality represented by the language/conceptualization of both science and religion wrt things.

So wrt the electron, the fuzzyball description is a start, but what is it made of? Is it fluidic in form? Etc.. Now I understand that science may not speculate on some of these, and that's ok, but if I contemplate ideas that are not scientific, please put your religious hat on and try and see it from a non-scientific view.

An Electron may gain energy prior to its decay to its ground state by emitting a photon. Now this implies that the fuzzyball's mass and size can change. So what is the constituent 'stuff' of the Electron?

Different subject, put your religious hat on and give this a try, The spirit of God is said to be omnipresent, it is not material. Is there anything in science that is said to be universally omnipresent, and not material?

Take your religious hat off and get an education in physics such that you understand it well enough to contemplate whether there are phenomena that you wish to insert your god of the gaps into.
For starters, photons have no mass so it is a good chance that everything you think is to anyone educated, religious or not, nonsense.

 

[Pogo]

As an atheist, your belief naturally limits your understanding. Belief is conceptual, reality is that which the concepts are meant to represent.

No, this is just as @Audie says "unsupportable nonsense" from a person who is trying to justify their emotions. It has nothing to do with reality beyond your own subjective understanding.

Oh, it also has nothing to do with theism, that is just your get out of jail free card to disregard anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Take your religious hat off and get an education in physics such that you understand it well enough to contemplate whether there are phenomena that you wish to insert your god of the gaps into.
For starters, photons have no mass so it is a good chance that everything you think is to anyone educated, religious or not, nonsense.

Have a read...
What is the mass of a photon?

Photons are traditionally said to be massless. This is a figure of speech that physicists use to describe something about how a photon's particle-like properties are described by the language of special relativity.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, this is just as @Audie says "unsupportable nonsense" from a person who is trying to justify their emotions. It has nothing to do with reality beyond your own subjective understanding.

Oh, it also has nothing to do with theism, that is just your get out of jail free card to disregard anyone who disagrees with you.

So what do you think the Greek prefix 'a' means in the context of the concept 'atheist'?

 

[Pogo]

Have a read...
What is the mass of a photon?

Like I said.

Bad theology based on marginal understandings of physics is not only bad theology but bad physics as well but if you are reduced to a god of the gaps argument, you are not alone.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Like I said.

Bad theology based on marginal understandings of physics is not only bad theology but bad physics as well but if you are reduced to a god of the gaps argument, you are not alone.

Concepts are concepts, whether of science or religion, reality is on the other side of the concepts, and it is the reality represented by the concepts that is required to be realized, not as a belief, but in reality.

 

[Pogo]

Concepts are concepts, whether of science or religion, reality is on the other side of the concepts, and it is the reality represented by the concepts that is required to be realized, not as a belief, but in reality.

Whatever.

 

[Audie]

Concepts are concepts, whether of science or religion, reality is on the other side of the concepts, and it is the reality represented by the concepts that is required to be realized, not as a belief, but in reality.

The problem is that actually understanding
things like math,chemistry etc takes a lot of
hard work.

Lazy unrealistic people figure they can
shortcut into deep Knowledge with some
woo woo words and a special attitude.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The problem is that actually understanding
things like math,chemistry etc takes a lot of
hard work.

Lazy unrealistic people figure they can
shortcut into deep Knowledge with some
woo woo words and a special attitude.

Yes, it does take a lot of hard work.

Thing is, there is more to existence than the 5% of existence that math, chemistry, etc., deal with. but nothing less than the 100% reality for me, it is so divinely awesome.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, it does take a lot of hard work.

Thing is, there is more to existence than the 5% of existence that math, chemistry, etc., deal with. but nothing less than the 100% reality for me, it is so divinely awesome.

Well when you reach 5% of what your recent random acquaintances on the internet know, come back and we can discuss the other 95% of reality.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well when you reach 5% of what your recent random acquaintances on the internet know, come back and we can discuss the other 95% of reality.

Thank you, are you religious?