Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Good news everyone! The Boards.ie Subscription service is live. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Artificial Life Created

1…1718202223

Comments

  • #572
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Ok, here is what I posted. Observe the bit in bold.

    Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
    Pre Big Bang Theory:
    Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

    The hypothetical I gave showed how someone could get an idea originating from their faith, and explore it with science. I'm NOT saying this happened with the big bang, but rather how things from faith CAN encourage scientific exploration. The Bible says things about the reality of this world, and a scientist can take some ideas from this, and explore them scientifically.

    Ok, to try and clear this up, can you answer me this.

    The scientist reads about this in the Bible and says I'm going to explore this scientifically. What precisely is he exploring? What does he test or model?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    I don't 'twist' WN, and another accusation of the sort will end my participation. If I have misunderstood something, thats exactly what it is.
    You "misunderstood" that my problem was I want to redefine science to exclude the religious?
    JimiTime wrote: »
    That is simply not true. It doesn't matter where I get an idea from. The process I follow to explore this idea will be what makes it science or not.

    How does one explore an abstract idea with the scientific method, ie an idea that does not relate back to any current observable phenomena. How does one test this?

    You appear to be saying that religious curiosity can inspire people to go looking for observable phenomena. Fine. But that isn't science, and it is particularly unhelpful to have a pre-conceived notion in your head when you go into science as to where you think this observable phenomena comes from.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    Christian who is also Scientist:
    'The Bible says the world had a beginning' (Not Science)
    'If the world began, there may be observable phenomena to show this' (Strating to think in scientific terms, from an idea implanted from faith)
    'I'm going to look to see if there is any indication of a starting point'

    Not science.

    It is really that simple. What you are describing is not science. From the point where there is an observable phenomena then it is science but once you have an unexplained observable phenomena you don't need any of the other bits. No one has ever had trouble finding things that are unexplained.


  • #573
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    You didn;t read this bit then.

    No, I think you didn't read it.
    It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life.

    These particles are matter. They are just not what ordinary people consider to be matter because they are so small.
    Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

    After the matter is created, it gets destroyed.

    Just because it gets destroyed does not mean it was not created.
    It also goes on to say it is not impossible to separate them, its just really difficult.
    Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

    "It takes a huge amount of energy to create matter" = You can create matter.
    So to create a universe your way an accelerator had to exist and appear from nothing. Not only that but it needed massive amounts of energy from nothing and "something" from nothing with the technological expertise beyond what we humans have now from nothing.

    What are you arguing ? That nothing can come from something or that energy can create matter ?

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596.300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=physics-math
    According to quantum field theory, empty space is actually fizzing with short-lived stuff that appears, looks around a bit, decides it doesn't like it and disappears again, all in the name of preventing the universe from violating the uncertainty principle.

    Ergo, something came from nothing.
    Can you not see how ludicrously ridiculous your arguments are.

    Have you figured out the difference between a theory, a fact and a hypothesis yet ?


  • #574
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    E=MC^2 disagrees

    Sweet Lord above how stupid can one man be.

    Prove it so. Go out there and reverse a nuclear explosion back to solid uranium. Go on, I dare you. I double dare you.

    Actually as a proof of concept start with a banger. I won't suggest where you set it off but it should be somewhere you can capture are retain the energy released so you can put it all back together again just as you found it.


  • #575
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Sweet Lord above how stupid can one man be.

    Prove it so. Go out there and reverse a nuclear explosion back to solid uranium. Go on, I dare you. I double dare you.

    Actually as a proof of concept start with a banger. I won't suggest where you set it off but it should be somewhere you can capture are retain the energy released so you can put it all back together again just as you found it.

    I don't know exactly how stupid one man can be. What would you call not reading the post on the previous page that gave two examples of scientists creating matter from energy?

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66079620&postcount=570


  • #576
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Not science.

    It is really that simple. What you are describing is not science. From the point where there is an observable phenomena then it is science but once you have an unexplained observable phenomena you don't need any of the other bits. No one has ever had trouble finding things that are unexplained.

    Limited, blickered, narrow minded rubbish.

    Science is the pursuit of knowledge and if someone wants to test the Bible scientifically who are you to try and stop them

    And someone said Christianity hindered science :confused:

    Next you'll be telling archeologists not to bother with exploring history scientifically.


  • Advertisement
  • #577
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
    Pre Big Bang Theory:
    Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

    The big bang is not a starting point for the universe.
    We don't know if there is a 'start' to the universe.
    Thats just one of the top of my head, where something biblical can be converted into science.

    Seems to me that what you 'think' is the big bang theory because of your religion fits with your religion.

    Your not talking about the big bang, your talking about the big bang for christians.
    Saying the world had a beginning is not science.

    Of course it is. If the evidence points to it.
    Another example could be a literal six day creation.
    Scientist who is also Christian: If I am to take the genesis account as literal, then God created the world in 6 days and Man out of the dust.

    Another example of where science completely disproves belief ? :confused:


  • #578
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    I don't know exactly how stupid one man can be. What would you call not reading the post on the previous page that gave two examples of scientists creating matter from energy?

    http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66079620&postcount=570

    They do not support the argument.

    Did they create useful matter. You know, the kind of stuff you and I and the rest of the world and universe is made of? No, they created particles, which are not real world building matter.

    Lets keep it real. Did they make an atom or matter. Just one tiny atom? No.

    For the sake of argument let us accept that a sub-atomic particle can be called matter.

    Did they do it with nothing? No, they used modern technology and loads of intelligence, the kind far inferior to what you and your ilk deny created the universe.

    To all intents and purposes using E=mc^2 to create real whole useful atomic matter is impossible for us.


  • #579
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    JimiTime wrote: »
    You have tunnel vision WN. It is MOST CERTAINLY science if I can model it.

    No Jimi it is not. It is the opposite of science. If it the opposite of the scientific method.

    Scientists example something. They then use the something to make a hypothesis. They then test this hypothesis or search for more evidence to support it.

    If evidence or experimentation contradicts the hypothesis then it is wrong and a new hypothesis is made.

    Starting out with a 'truth' with no supporting evidence and looking for evidence to support it is not science.
    Again, science is not defined by you. Science is a modelling tool. The origin of an idea, be it Darwin looking at birds on the Galapagos, or a Christian looking at a biblical account does not make it science. The process of testing this idea makes it science.

    The process of testing an idea formed from looking at evidence is science.
    The process of testing an idea from a book with no supporting evidence is not science.
    Maybe you misunderstand. I am not saying that you start with an immovable conclusion. I'm saying you start with an idea, e.g. The world has a beginning.

    Its still not science. Look at any scientific theory.

    Evolution
    First: Darwin goes travelling. Sees creatures with lots of similarities and differences. Sees birds of the same species with many different kinds of beak. The differing kind of beak better able to help the bird survive.
    Second: Darwin thinks about this, how could this possibly happen ?
    Third: Darwin makes a hypothesis that organisms must change slightly over generations to better adapt to their environment.
    Fourth: Darwin goes out and finds more evidence to support this, he experiments, he searches. He finds no contradictory evidence.

    Or Gravity;
    1. Stuff falls down. Newton thinks about it, why does stuff fall down ?
    ....


  • #580
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Sweet Lord above how stupid can one man be.

    Prove it so. Go out there and reverse a nuclear explosion back to solid uranium. Go on, I dare you. I double dare you.

    Or you know you could build a large hadron collider.

    But, sure who would be dumb enough to do that since it wouldn't work, would it. :rolleyes:
    I was hoping antimatter would be the future answer to our energy needs. It seems more research is needed for this to happen.

    No, even more research will not change this situation fundamentally; antimatter is certainly not able to solve our energy problems. First of all, you need energy to make antimatter (E=mc2) and unfortunately you do not get the same amount of energy back out of it. (See above, the loss factors are enormous.)

    Furthermore, the conversion from energy to matter and antimatter particles follows certain laws of nature, which also allow the production of many other, but very short-lived particles and antiparticles (e.g. muons, pions, neutrinos). These particles decay rapidly during the production process, and their energy is lost.

    Antimatter could only become a source of energy if you happened to find a large amount of antimatter lying around somewhere (e.g. in a distant galaxy), in the same way we find oil and oxygen lying around on Earth. But as far as we can see (billions of light years), the universe is entirely made of normal matter, and antimatter has to be painstakingly created.

    By the way, this shows that the symmetry between matter and antimatter as stated above does not seem to hold at very high energies, such as shortly after the Big Bang, as otherwise there should be as much matter as antimatter in the Universe. Future research might tell us is how this asymmetry came about.

    http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/spotlight/SpotlightAandD-en.html


  • #581
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    monosharp wrote: »
    Starting out with a 'truth' with no supporting evidence and looking for evidence to support it is not science.

    It doesn't even have to be considered truth. Starting out with an fuzzy idea that doesn't relate to any observed phenomena and then going to looking for evidence to support that is not science either.


  • Advertisement
  • #582
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    They do not support the argument.

    Did they create useful matter. You know, the kind of stuff you and I and the rest of the world and universe is made of? No, they created particles, which are not real world building matter.

    Lets keep it real. Did they make an atom or matter. Just one tiny atom? No.

    For the sake of argument let us accept that a sub-atomic particle can be called matter.

    Did they do it with nothing? No, they used modern technology and loads of intelligence, the kind far inferior to what you and your ilk deny created the universe.

    Ever hear of the no true scotsman fallacy?
    Teacher: All Scotsmen enjoy haggis.
    Student: My uncle is a Scotsman, and he doesn't like haggis!
    Teacher: Well, all true Scotsmen like haggis.
    StealthRolex: You can't create matter from energy
    Sam: Here are two examples
    StealthRolex: you can't create useful matter from energy.
    It is possible to create matter from energy. Whether it's useful or not is a subjective assessment and any inability we have to make it useful is a limit of our technology, not the laws of physics. Matter can be and has been created from energy. That is a fact.

    and since it has shown that you were wrong to say matter cannot be created from energy I find it quite useful ;)


  • #583
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    E=MC^2 disagrees

    Ok, I'll accept the point. But also show some math.

    1Lt water contains 111g H approximately

    using E=mc^2 we find that the energy involved is 10,000,000,000,000,000J

    So while impossible is not the right word lets just say it is a little difficult.


  • #584
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    You might want to try saying that to a masters of Ph.D candidate and see how far you get.

    I'm one. In a science. He's right.

    Will you change the goal posts now ? :pac: Or just question my education/school or discipline ?
    Based on your understanding of science then the Big Bang theory and Quantum Mechanics are not science as both of these started from a basis of non observable phenomena.

    Wrong.

    Georges Lemaître - Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae")

    The Big Bang started out with observation of radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae.


  • #585
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »

    and since it has shown that you were wrong to say matter cannot be created from energy I find it quite useful ;)

    I put my hands up but I didn't think you would be prepared to hold a grudge.


  • #586
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »

    Georges Lemaître - Un Univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques" ("A homogeneous Universe of constant mass and growing radius accounting for the radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae")

    The Big Bang started out with observation of radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae.

    Point accepted


  • #587
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    So while impossible is not the right word lets just say it is a little difficult.

    The energy isn't the hard bit. The possible energy released during the big bang was easily enough.

    The hard bit is how you stop some of the matter and anti-matter from destroying each other. So far I have not seen an explanation for this


  • #588
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    JimiTime wrote: »
    Here's an example of how a persons Christianity could help scientifically:
    Pre Big Bang Theory:
    Christian who is a scientist: The bible says the world had a beginning, so I'm going to see if there is scientific evidence for a starting point.

    Immediately thats not science.
    That is simply not true. It doesn't matter where I get an idea from. The process I follow to explore this idea will be what makes it science or not.

    Scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.


  • #589
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    I put my hands up but I didn't think you would be prepared to hold a grudge.

    Ah I'm not holding a grudge. I was just pointing out how this matter did serve a use, it showed us that matter can be created from energy even if we can't yet use it for anything


  • #590
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Wicknight wrote: »
    The energy isn't the hard bit. The possible energy released during the big bang was easily enough.

    The hard bit is how you stop some of the matter and anti-matter from destroying each other. So far I have not seen an explanation for this

    God. He used the matter to create the universe and us and sent the anti-matter to Hell along with the dark matter and dark energy :D


  • #591
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    They do not support the argument.

    Did they create useful matter. You know, the kind of stuff you and I and the rest of the world and universe is made of? No, they created particles, which are not real world building matter.

    Particles are not matter ? :pac:
    For the sake of argument let us accept that a sub-atomic particle can be called matter.

    Or for the sake of every scientific definition in the world.
    Did they do it with nothing? No, they used modern technology and loads of intelligence, the kind far inferior to what you and your ilk deny created the universe.

    Which argument are you making ?

    1. Something came from nothing. -> You've been corrected on this by several scientific papers.
    2. Energy can create matter, -> You've been corrected on this numerous times as well.
    To all intents and purposes using E=mc^2 to create real whole useful atomic matter is impossible for us.

    And 100 years ago the atom bomb was impossible for us.

    Talk about true scotsmen :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #592
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Ah I'm not holding a grudge. I was just pointing out how this matter did serve a use, it showed us that matter can be created from energy even if we can't yet use it for anything

    it also showed that to create anything of the order of a universe requires not nothing but something.


  • #593
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    1. Something came from nothing. -> You've been corrected on this by several scientific papers.

    Not proven. virtual particles are virtual and operate only at the quantum level.

    something from nothing

    if we are created from nothing such as virtual particles then we are constantly winking in and out of existence and are to all intents and purposes invisible to whatever real world exists. Therefore if we were created from nothing we do not exist except in the quantum world and someone else is observing our effects but cannot view us directly.

    Alternatively we were created from something and we live in a real world.


  • #594
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    God. He used the matter to create the universe and us and sent the anti-matter to Hell along with the dark matter and dark energy :D

    :pac:


  • #595
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    Not proven. virtual particles are virtual.

    something from nothing

    In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle.


  • #596
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    it also showed that to create anything of the order of a universe requires not nothing but something.

    You made the same error earlier in this thread. It doesn't show at all that something is required to create something, just that something was used in this case to create something.

    And I wasn't saying they had made something out of nothing, just that they had created matter from energy


  • #597
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    Immediately thats not science.

    No but it is the start of an idea.

    We live on a planet - where did it come from?
    The planet exists in a solar system - observable
    The solar system exists in a galaxy - observable
    other galaxies exist - observable
    Other galaxies are moving - observable
    other galaxies are moving in a particular direction - observable
    Question - if we reverse time what direction do the galaxies travel in?
    hypothesis - back to a singularity as observation indicates universe is not in a constant steady state but expanding.
    hypothesis - universe is finite and had a begining
    work work work work work work work work work work work work
    Theory - Big Bang. Universe started.
    Alternative description - creation event occurred.
    Does this conflict with the Bible? No.


  • #598
    StealthRolex
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,293 ✭✭✭StealthRolex


    monosharp wrote: »
    In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle.

    accepted but they are not created from nothing they are created from "nothing", "nothing" being an energy state containing energy.

    For all I know they could be angels sent by God to tease atheistic physicists.


  • #599
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    monosharp wrote: »
    In physics, a virtual particle is a particle that exists for a limited time and space, introducing uncertainty in their energy and momentum due to the uncertainty principle.

    Serious question.

    Have virtual particles been 100% proved to actually exist? Or are they a theory along the lines of string theory?

    Obviously it makes a difference since, if I understand Wicknight correctly, theoretical ideas that have not been positively proved are not science.


  • #600
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Obviously it makes a difference since, if I understand Wicknight correctly, theoretical ideas that have not been positively proved are not science.

    You don't understand Wicknight correctly.

    I'm currently debating whether I will bother to correct the numerous misunderstandings in your post, I'll get back to you.


  • Advertisement
  • #601
    monosharp
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,981 ✭✭✭monosharp


    StealthRolex wrote: »
    No but it is the start of an idea.

    We live on a planet - where did it come from?

    Observation.
    Question - if we reverse time what direction do the galaxies travel in?

    The idea comes from the observation of time, galaxies and the movement of the galaxies.
    hypothesis - universe is finite and had a begining
    work work work work work work work work work work work work
    Theory - Big Bang. Universe started.

    The big does not say the universe started then. We do not know how the universe started.


Advertisement