What Is Space Actually On?

[noonereal]

Volcanoes can be explained. Life cannot be.

LOL, this is schoolyard nonsense. But you don't know this, do you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What I know is of no value to anyone even though it's scientifically accurate.

Yet you can't produce a shred of evidence or science. Because there is none. This renders your claim to be false. A claim does not become true, when you utter it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Which does not mean questions are science. For reasons already clearly stated. Sorry. You said something silly and false, time to move on...

No, you have yet to provide anything to substantiate that asking questions is not science.
That is patently ridiculous, and I have actually enjoyed watching you still trying to maintain it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, you have yet to provide anything to substantiate that asking questions is not science.

*except for a very clear and definitive argument and the definition of the scientific method

 

[Woodznutz]

It clearly is not, since you cannot produce a shred of evidence or a scientific test of it.

You keep saying false things.

If you deconstruct an animal or plant, you will see design, whether you admit it or not. Just because people do goofy things with their bodies or brains doesn't mean they aren't a product of design. Even something as simple as a beaver dam made by a dumb animal shows design. Design in the natural world is anathema to scientists because it demands a designer.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

*except for a very clear and definitive argument and the definition of the scientific method

Haha... which began with a question... you are funny I'll give you that.

 

[scruffy]

I'd like to know how atoms that are billions of years old are energized.

You are full of erroneous assumptions.

What is "energized", WTF are you talking about?

I will repeat, a primer on quantum electrodynamics will answer many of your questions.

"Charge" is somewhat like "mass", because you can start with the classic quantum conundrum: matter is energy, same thing - but the quantum theory says there is a small but significant probability that your energy could be off in a distant galaxy somewhere. That thing you're looking at that you call an atom, LOOKS stable, it "looks like" the mass all stays in one place, but the underlying physics says something different. So how do you reconcile the two views?

To answer that, you have to have some pretty good math knowledge. For instance, wavelets.

What Is a Wavelet? - MATLAB & Simulink

Learn general information about wavelets and how to detect a signal discontinuity.

www.mathworks.com

The answer to your question is, the atom IS energy. It doesnt need to be energized, it's already energized. If you try to energize it some more, the electron will just fly off into a more distant galaxy, that"s all.

When you say "the atom is there" and you point to a location, it means your energy wavelets are "coupled" there, interacting by way of the underlying symmetries (which is what electrodynamics will help you understand, it's the most complete description of spacetime symmetries we have).

Why a charge stays together, is a lot like why a mass stays together, but charges are easier to understand.

The classic example of atomic alteration is radioactive decay. Einstein spent a lot of time on this issue. Black body radiation is also interesting. What you may call creation is what I call combinatorics, and it's merely the opposite of decay. Both always happen, that is the nature of the underlying symmetry.

There is no such thing as a "de-energized atom". There are atoms that move, and atoms that stay in one place, and to describe the movement of an atom from one place to another requires you to solve lots and lots of simultaneous Schrodinger equations - which is computationally intractable so no one ever does it - instead they draw those dumb little Feynman diagrams that are supposed to represent all the possible pathways

How an electron jumps from one galaxy to another is through a process Einstein called "spooky action at a distance", which has to do with the tails of wavelets supporting non-local dynamics. Prigogine got the Nobel Prize in the 70's for showing how non-local interactions can lead to stable "shapes" that either move or don't move, much like the aforementioned atoms either move or dont move depending on the momentum.

The generation of a stable shape from a bunch of microstatistics is an example of a self organizing process, which is part and parcel of the physics of the universe. In chemistry the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction is frequently cited, and in neuroscience there is Hebbian learning.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26765555

Here is BZ in action:

Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Here is the classic text from Prigogine:

https://www.yumpu.com/en/image/facebook/39729471.jpg

Here is an example of how non equilibrium thermodynamics can lead to stable spatial boundaries ("looks a lot like an atom" - the shape stays in one place even though the energy is all over the place).

https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-023-39107-y/MediaObjects/41467_2023_39107_Fig5_HTML.png

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you deconstruct an animal or plant, you will see design, whether you admit it or not.

No, I won't. You might, but that isn't evidence of design. So you have made no progress. Not even sure what you think your point is.

"Looks like design to me! Therefore: Design!"... I guess. The weakest of points that can be made.

Even something as simple as a beaver dam made by a dumb animal shows design.

Well, it isn't. Else beaver dams would not be so terrible. It's just an animal blocking the flow of water. By your odd standard, when an apple falls down instead of up, that's design.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Haha... which began with a question...

So what? So do a lot of things. Questions are not science.

 

[Woodznutz]

It requires zero changes at the atomic level.

Zero.

I think you mean, "molecular level". Which would just be a chemical reaction. As mundane as it gets.

So, this is false?

Changes on the level of atoms include1234:

• Chemical reactions, which take place when the atoms of two or more substances exchange or share electrons. The reaction produces atoms and molecules with the electrons arranged differently. The changed configuration of the atoms involves a change in energy, meaning the chemical reaction either gives off or absorbs light, heat or electricity.
• Periodic trends, which are specific patterns that are present in the periodic table that illustrate different aspects of a certain element, including its size and its electronic properties.
• The ground state of an atom, which is the lowest energy state of the atom. When those atoms are given energy, the electrons absorb the energy and move to a higher energy level. These energy levels of the electrons in atoms are quantized, meaning again that the electron must move from one energy level to another in discrete steps rather than continuously.
• Atoms can attach to one or more other atoms by chemical bonds to form chemical compounds such as molecules or crystals. The ability of atoms to attach and detach is responsible for most of the physical changes observed in nature. Chemistry is the discipline that studies these changes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Molecules are made of atoms, aren't they?

So what?

You are just talking about chemical reactions, then. As mundane as it gets.

 

[Woodznutz]

No, I won't. You might, but that isn't evidence of design. So you have made no progress. Not even sure what you think your point is.

"Looks like design to me! Therefore: Design!"... I guess. The weakest of points that can be made.



Well, it isn't. Else beaver dams would not be so terrible. It's just an animal blocking the flow of water. By your odd standard, when an apple falls down instead of up, that's design.

Everything falls down, by design. If not for the design of gravity things would 'fall' up, down, and sideways.

 

[Woodznutz]

So what?

You are just talking about chemical reactions, then. As mundane as it gets.

So, chemical reactions, like burning wood, isn't a change?

 

[Woodznutz]

Yet you can't produce a shred of evidence or science. Because there is none. This renders your claim to be false. A claim does not become true, when you utter it.

I haven't presented my claims yet, why so fast to judge?

 

[scruffy]

ID is easily proven, just reverse engineer complex organisms and voila, design appears.

Oh come on. What idiot would design a bassackwards eyeball where the nerves come out the front instead of the back?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Everything falls down, by design.

False. Well that was easy. See how easily your claims are dismissed when you don't have any argument or evidence?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, chemical reactions, like burning wood, isn't a change?

Your interrogation has ended. We have been over this. State your claims, and we will scrutinize them.

 

[Woodznutz]

Well, it isn't. Else beaver dams would not be so terrible. It's just an animal blocking the flow of water. By your odd standard, when an apple falls down instead of up, that's design.

If not designed to block the flow of water, why does it block the flow of water? You could use many different materials to block the flow of water that are not intended for that purpose, but once in place they stop the flow of water by design.

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually, I relate everything to the ToE argument. Evolution requires some pretty complex changes at the atomic level.

No it doesn't ... carbon is carbon ... what "complex changes at the atomic level" need to happen? ... even lipids are chains of carbon atoms, the same as we see in all the universe ...

Like Toobfreak said, carbon bonds with herself ...

 

[Woodznutz]

False. Well that was easy. See how easily your claims are dismissed when you don't have any argument or evidence?

My evidence is that stuff always falls down (on earth).