View Single Post
(#13)
Old
Newton's Avatar
Newton Newton is offline
Unsaved trash
Under Investigation
 
Posts: 17
Join Date: Jan 2008
Newton is under investigation -- suspected to be Unsaved Trash.
Default Re: The Atomic Foundations of Science Debunked - 01-21-2008, 09:09 PM

I'm saying the means of carbon dating has existed since the dawn of Time. The fact we have now developed the equipment to measure the radioactive decay of carbon does not mean we invented carbon dating. In a similar way, we have not invented animals, but we discover new ones.

Radiation can be MEASURED with equipment invented by scientists, but we have known about radiation and known its existed before the equipment was developed. Besides, tell victims of Chernobyl or Hiroshima and other such related disasters involving a lot of radiation, that it does not exist.

Have you not understood my stance? I am a Christian, but that does not mean that science is all wrong! If you were to get ill and you were perscribed some medication, that would be developed by science. The fact you are using a computer is the fact you are appreciative of science. Interestingly enough, computers are explained by quantum theory, which of course, you won't believe in.

A ridiculous concept would be dark sucker theory. I won't bore you with the details, but that is a ridiculous concept. Atomic theory is not ridiculous.

Right, how to explain this...Lets put it into a bigger perspective. Electrons are golf balls, protons are basketballs and neutrons are footballs. If you have a single basketball and it is glued to a golf ball you can no longer call it a basketball or a golfball. Its something new.

If you have 6 basketballs, 6 footballs and 12 golfballs glued together, you have something new. Its now much bigger, and so it will be much harder to kick a long distance, it won't be able to fit through small gaps. Whilst they are made up of the same things, when you add them together they form different things which have different properties.

Or an even better way of explaining it. If you have some identical peices of wood. Now, they are all the same, but glue them together in a certain way and you will end up with a cube, which is 3D, rather than 2D (lets not be pedantic at this point). A cube is not a square, its a cube, but its made up of squares.

We can see atoms not in the traditional sense in that I can see the letters I am typing on the screen, but we can see it in different ways. Lets look at the picture below:



This is a flea, its an actual representation of a flea. However, we cannot call this a photograph, a photograph takes an image with light. This was taken with electrons. The electron microscope works by firing a beam of electrons at an image and we then see the image, its all to do with wavelength and resolution. The flea picture, is not a flea as we'd see it with a normal microscope, but its still certainly a flea!

With atoms its a little more complicated. I'm not sure of the exact prodedure. In a particle accelerator we can send two samples whizzing around a giant tube in opposite directions and then collide them together. If two cars crash you get a variety of visible effects. In a similar way we can capture the effects of a collision. As I said, I'm not sure of the exact procedure, I'm not a partical physicist.



Image courtesy of CERN.

What you are looking at now is odd. Its a computer representation of the collisions between a partical and an anti-partical. The lines you see are the paths taken by the various constituents of a particle. The two downward white tracks are Z-particles (pure energy, and the smallest particle we know of today). Ignore the red cuboids, these are used for mathmatical analysis of the images, and that is far beyond my scope. The yellow lines are quarks, which come in six flavours; up, down, spin etc. Other lines are other sub atomic particles such as measons (J p =0}) and baryons ( p =3/2+, 1/2+).

That image you have just seen is very rare and spectacular. This is how we see atoms, but not in a traditional sense. Its incredible!

I admit the forces are totally dependant on Jesus Christ. Have you NOT understood? I think I made myself quite clear. As a Christian I am not trying to invent something that is a replacement of God. That, as we would agree, is foolish. I, however, look at how God works in the world. Secular science requires a lot of faith, something I lack. I cannot have faith in science if God is not at its heart.

Dark matter and energy - very interesting, not something I even try to understand. Dark matter is something we cannot see, but we know its there. Its best to explain it in terms of black holes, because they are far more simple. A black hole has an incredibly massive gravitational pull. So massive in fact that light cannot escape it. So we cannot see it, because we can only see light (we cannot use electrons to see it because an electron microscope requires a vacuum to work or the electrons will hit something thats in the way, distorting the image). So when we observe a particular area of space which has a black hole in it we "see" a huge dark patch, there is no light so we cannot physically OBSERVE a black hole, but we know its there. We can see black holes because of things like, erm, say microwaves or x-rays, that are not pulled in by the black holes gravitational field.

Dark matter and energy is not something I am willing to tackle until you have a sound knowledge of physics. I would no way call myself and expert, but I have sufficient knowledge to understand the concepts.

Hope this helps.

Remember, keep an open mind.
Reply With Quote