Jump to content


Photo

How Old Is The Earth?


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 13 July 2005 - 08:41 PM

How could radiation become matter


Brian Green put it best in "The Elegant Universe" when he referred to energy as the ultimate convertable currency; energy can be turned into matter which is shown mathematically by the famous E=mc^2. This means that if an energy fluctuation is large enough it can cause an electron and positron to come into existence.

#42 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 14 July 2005 - 10:49 PM

Just curious if this has been ever been observed or tested anywhere. I don't think so, but hey, maybe it has....

#43 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 15 July 2005 - 06:18 AM

Just curious if this has been ever been observed or tested anywhere. I don't think so, but hey, maybe it has....

View Post


Energy creating mass most definately occurs. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

Edit: If your question concerned vacuum fluctuations it is wise to familiarize yourself with the Casimir Effect.

#44 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 15 July 2005 - 11:33 PM

"for example by colliding electrons and positrons."

Here we go with colliding things again. Remember everything is getting farther apart here, it all originated from a central point.

#45 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 25 July 2005 - 05:48 AM

"for example by colliding electrons and positrons."

Here we go with colliding things again. Remember everything is getting farther apart here, it all originated from a central point.

View Post



Sure the universe is expanding, but locally objects collide. I am not sure what this has to do with my statement. What I was talking about is a quantum phenomenon and, of course, deals with the very small. I gave an example of how energy created in a particle collision can create particles that did not previously exist. This is because matter and energy are just different phases of the same thing.

#46 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 31 July 2005 - 10:07 PM

"Sure the universe is expanding, but locally objects collide."

I think you're missing my point. From a big bang, EVERYTHING would be flowing outward and expanding from a central point, and getting farther away from each other. There would therefore be no way that anything would collide. Even if it's all radiation, it's still getting farther away, and isn't gonna collide.

#47 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 August 2005 - 01:55 PM

"Sure the universe is expanding, but locally objects collide."

I think you're missing my point. From a big bang, EVERYTHING would be flowing outward and expanding from a central point, and getting farther away from each other. There would therefore be no way that anything would collide. Even if it's all radiation, it's still getting farther away, and isn't gonna collide.

View Post


Perhaps you are assuming a perfectly smooth expansion, coupled with a perfectly smooth transition from radiation to matter. All it will take is for one atom to be under the gravitational influence of another atom and the clumping has begun. Google ‘Brownian motion’ as a possible phenomena occurring.

#48 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 03 August 2005 - 10:53 PM

Even if it's not a smooth expansion, such as one part moving slower than the rest? If that's the case, you still have the same problem, while the other atoms are going slower, then the faster ones are gaining even greater distance. Besides all this, I think I'm trying to debate on unfamiliar ground, I haven't taken enough classes or read enough yet to really understand all of these concepts.

#49 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 August 2005 - 02:11 PM

Even if it's not a smooth expansion, such as one part moving slower than the rest? If that's the case, you still have the same problem, while the other atoms are going slower, then the faster ones are gaining even greater distance.

View Post


Well it is a measurable phenomena, it’s not as if there s any debate about what’s is being observed i.e. the universe is expanding.

Although the term big bang leads one to draw upon an explosion as an analogy, it’s not the best. The big bang is an expansion, the difference being there is no shock wave or the like. If one were to travel back in time to a short time after the big bang, position yourself ‘half way’ from the ‘centre’, you would not experience any motion or view particles screaming past you, as if on the way to the ‘edge’. What you would see is the universe moving away (in every direction) like the zoom feature of a video camera in reverse. As far as you would be concerned you are stationary (as is every other particle) it is space that is expanding and you are along for the ride.


Besides all this, I think I'm trying to debate on unfamiliar ground, I haven't taken enough classes or read enough yet to really understand all of these concepts.

View Post


Cosmology is a non intuitive yet fascinating subject, and by no means has a conclusive answer been agreed upon, in my life time the theories have swayed one way then the other several times. You live in an exciting age of discovery regarding cosmology, and you being in your teens will see much advancement in the understanding of the fabric of the universe.

#50 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 04 August 2005 - 09:40 PM

"The big bang is an expansion, the difference being there is no shock wave or the like. If one were to travel back in time to a short time after the big bang, position yourself ‘half way’ from the ‘centre’, you would not experience any motion or view particles screaming past you, as if on the way to the ‘edge’. What you would see is the universe moving away (in every direction) like the zoom feature of a video camera in reverse. As far as you would be concerned you are stationary (as is every other particle) it is space that is expanding and you are along for the ride."


It seems to me that one theoretical problem with all this is, what is space? We could not exist outside of space, so in our minds, nothing does exist outside of space, not even "nothing" exists outside of space, it's simply isn't is. Think about it a while, my brain slumped in on itself, :D

#51 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 August 2005 - 02:03 PM

It seems to me that one theoretical problem with all this is, what is space? We could not exist outside of space, so in our minds, nothing does exist outside of space, not even "nothing" exists outside of space, it's simply isn't is. Think about it a while, my brain slumped in on itself,

View Post


You have it. Indeed what is space is a fundamental problem, i.e. can you exist ‘outside’ of space, (current thinking is that one cannot).

At this point in the conversation I feel I can only recommend Steven Hawking’s books “The Universe in a Nut Shell” and, “A Brief History of Time” Both of which are written for the general public (no math), and almost certainly a copy will be in your local library. They are quite readable and entertaining. The first chapters deal with physics and relativity, then they get into the new theories of what, matter, space and time actually are.

#52 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 08 August 2005 - 11:00 PM

I'd prefer not to read anything by Steven Hawking, but hey, what can it hurt? Maybe I'll learn something.

#53 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 09 August 2005 - 02:40 PM

I'd prefer not to read anything by Steven Hawking, but hey, what can it hurt? Maybe I'll learn something.

View Post


No mater what side of the fence one decides to align oneself with, to argue effectively against, you will need some understanding of the position of your opposition. Standard debating technique. Else you will have to rely on the honesty of others.

p.s. any particular reason why you object the Steven Hawking?

#54 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 10 August 2005 - 11:22 PM

Apparently he refused to debate Dr. h*vind, lol. I wonder why...?

#55 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 August 2005 - 02:18 PM

Apparently he refused to debate Dr. h*vind, lol. I wonder why...?

View Post


!! Seriously? :) Did h*vind really challenge Hawkins to a debate, or are you pulling my leg. :)

P.S. Work coupled with a very long overdue holiday, takes me away from all computers, for nearly a month, so this will be my last day of posting for a while

#56 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 11 August 2005 - 03:42 PM

I have never heard about a Hawking vs. h*vind debate. If its true that h*vind challenged Hawking it is probably good for h*vind that Hawking didn't accept (though I doubt it was because Hawking wasn't up to the intellectual challange :) ). Most of what would be considered Hawking's discussion points would most likely be beyond what anyone unfamiliar with advanced theoretical cosmology would understand. I am a graduating senior and will have my physics degree this December and I know that I am not yet prepared to discuss theoretical cosmology with Hawking.

#57 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 12 August 2005 - 11:38 PM

Oh yeah, h*vind even offers the challenge out again on his video. "Steve I'll take you on any time anywhere at my own expense."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users