Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 176 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 11 12
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Thus when we look at scientific evidence we must ask of ourselves is this the truth.

As being one of the truth seekers I personally feel one must look at any science argument and ask is this person telling the truth or have they been seduced by the devil.

Devil worshippers are common throughout science forums they seek to disinform through lying and deceit.

So when one looks at arguments one must ask is plausable or is this the work of the devil.


you should be able to look at the scientific evidence and tell if the evidence is the truth.

the person who gathered the scientific evidence does not matter to science.

it is the scientific evidence that matters to science.



LOL

Quote:
It is quite clear he is not a god he is the devil.


this is a science forum orac.

try to at least act scientific.



3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yes we are discussing science ethics.

Rev K would probably say lies even in the name of god or the devil in your case are wrong and a sin but lets stick to science ethics.

So would you describe your discussion as open and truthful and ethical at science Paul and is it morally and ethical Paul?

I mean if we were to have a moral ethical discusion it is interesting that the non believers are more truthful and honest which is rather interesting is religion just an excuse to be able to lie and decieve in a supposed gods name?


Last edited by Orac; 09/01/12 05:13 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paul, I take your points about orbiting bodies, etc, but I think you were responding to what you thought I said, rather than to what I actually said.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
The introduction of orbiting bodies to the mix recalls a long running discussion of the past in which I tried the patience of a number of posters (including Rede and the long vanished Kallog) by trying to sort out the energy used in a system such as the Earth/moon, simply to hold the moon in orbit. An orbit curves continuously, so the moon is constantly accelerating. Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?

I suspect not....


There are several other things relating to electrons in atoms that are going round in my head, but I would appreciate someone's comments on the other part of my post before progressing.

May I suggest that discussions about gods, devils and people's theological beliefs would be better placed in NQS.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
the person who gathered the scientific evidence does not matter to science.


Tell that to Pre. laugh


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

May I suggest that discussions about gods, devils and people's theological beliefs would be better placed in NQS.


Why it's not like we can have any actual serious physics discussion with the continual garbage from Paul and Socratus which is there intention to derail science discussion in the name of there stupid god(s).

Haven't you worked out thats there agenda.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?


from your lasst reply to me :

1) Acceleration requires energy input. Where does that energy come from?

the kinetic energy of rotation was put into the earth and the moon when they were formed.

the moon is sort of like a ball on a string attached to the earth
by gravity.

the kinetic energy of the earths rotation has been decreasing ever since its gravity has been tugging on the moon , keeping its one side facing the earth.

it may seem like alot of energy is required to keep the moon
facing the earth , but because the moon does have rotation
( we just dont see it )
it also has kinetic energy in the direction of its rotation.

so it has already almost enough momentum and the extra kinetic energy is supplied by the earths gravity.

just like a ball on a string.


2)Can the same question and its possible answer be applied to an electron “orbiting” the nucleus of an atom?


sure we could use a hydrogen atom !

even better deuterium.

a hydrogen atom with only 1 proton 1 neutron, and 1 electron.

the problem would be the spin of the electron would not resemble the spin of the moon.

so the earth sun system would better represent an atom.


Quote:
May I suggest that discussions about gods, devils and people's theological beliefs would be better placed in NQS.


I agree , perhaps a reply to the offender would be a more effective approach.

Im thinking about making a web browser that will filter out
certain members post , this way I can enjoy discussing science on this science forum.

because I would be able to cause them to completely disappear from the forum , even the side bars.

LOL







3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Haven't you worked out thats there agenda.


"It takes two to tango". Whatever anyone puts on the rail, we will be derailed only if we elect to drive over it, rather than ignoring in.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hey I ignore ones like Preearth there is no hope with him, but I would have thought with a group that supposedly stands for truth, honesty and integrity I stood a chance to put a mirror up and get them to see that there behaviour is against there own religion.

As I said I have had many a sensible discussion with Rev K and it's actually quite interesting.

However there is obviously also a dark side to some religions that this is deemed fair game because they in there own puny mind they view science as against the church. I can see why they have trouble with there seniors of the church if this is an indication of the "lets do anything to protect the church" attitude.

All I can say is thank the god of science I am an atheist :-)

Anyhow I will leave you to it.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bull excrement.


if a mad scientist were to begin murdering people with
a virus he made , would that say to you that science as a whole is
evil?

if you want to discuss the evils of today's
scientist vs todays priest and the number of
people murdered or injured in any way by
priest vs the number of people murdered or
injured in any way by scientist , then start a thread , I will
gladly participate.

the reason you want to discuss peoples beliefs is because you
are incapable of carrying on a scientific discussion.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Paul, thanks for your comments about orbits etc. If I remember rightly that is about the point we reached last time. Taking it any further would probably only serve to distrace us from looking at things on a quantum scale.

Originally Posted By: Orac
Anyhow I will leave you to it.


Orac, I hope that doesn't mean you are bowing out of this discussion. If we can avoid the distractions, I think we are just getting to the interesting bit.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Orac, I hope that doesn't mean you are bowing out of this discussion. If we can avoid the distractions, I think we are just getting to the interesting bit.


yes , the interesting bit.

now we might be able to discuss the question I originally asked

where does the energy come from when the electron moves out and then moves back in?

it must come from somewhere , surely you can agree with that.

using the atom solar system model , the electron would be a planet.

there would be energy required to move a planet say the earth further out into say mars orbit.

in the below video from Rice University an atom is excited until it size is the size of a period(.)

interesting stuff.











3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul

if you want to discuss the evils of today's
scientist vs todays priest and the number of
people murdered or injured in any way by
priest vs the number of people murdered or
injured in any way by scientist , then start a thread , I will
gladly participate.


No problem I will start a thread on deaths from science versus religion in NQS for you.

Before you get there be aware the official total from UN research is approximately 800 million people have died in religious wars. A far larger total have died from political wars but strangely enough science hasn't listed as a category so perhaps go do some research and get me some numbers.

Pehaps this is another of your truths.

Originally Posted By: paul

the reason you want to discuss peoples beliefs is because you
are incapable of carrying on a scientific discussion.


Discussions with you never invlove science they involve Paul crazies I believe you have been told that in this thread by many above comments.

I have no intention to feed a stupid troll.

Last edited by Orac; 09/02/12 03:44 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
approximately 800 million people have died in religious wars.


of course I did say ( todays ) not since the begining of time.

lets just make it the last 20 years , that would better reflect
today vs since the begining of time.
also finding statistics on either side would be difficult.
especially finding the murders by scientist since scientist used to be scientist
that worked to find cures not control
methods as todays so called scientist do.


for starters first your side needs to catch up.

you find 100,000 each year , like I have found then we can move on to the next occurance.

http://www.alternet.org/story/147318/100...panies_get_rich

I posted that bit above since you dont have the thread started yet.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Quick reply I will start the thread in a bit need to go do some reading from UN

I know the death toll on the war in somalia is over 500,000

A quick look at the islamic site

http://www.islam101.com/terror/christianViolence.htm

They blame christians for

Witness the slaughter of 900,000 Rwandans in 1994 in a population that was over 90 % Christian

The genocide of over 300,000 Muslims and systematic rape of over 100,000 Muslim women by Christian Serbs

I make that 1.7 million and thats just 3 conflicts in the last 20 years and I haven't even got the claims back from christians thats one sided.

Christians and Musleums love each other so much I am certain you are on a hiding to nothing on this issue but science is the great modern killer :-)

Anyhow go do some reading and we will start a new thread in NQS.

Edit: This may be a useful start point as it is somewhat independant

http://www.cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/deathswarsconflictsjune52006.pdf

And please read up on Kony and tell me whether you are happy we class him as a christian army, he is a great ambassador for christianity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

Last edited by Orac; 09/02/12 05:11 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
where does the energy come from when the electron moves out and then moves back in?


The honest answer has to be "I don't know", but in spite of that I have started putting together some thoughts. I have numbered the points for ease of response.

Conservation of energy in quantum systems.

1. Let’s consider a hydrogen atom. The usual image is of a nucleus with an electron orbiting it like a planet orbiting a star.

2. This analogy is not good because the electron is better thought of as occupying a specific energy level (EL) in relation to the nucleus, rather than an orbit.

3. The electron cannot be said to be at a specific point within that energy level. It would be better to think of it as being everywhere within that “shell”; or perhaps nowhere, if it is not being observed.

4. Consider the electron in its ground state; it occupies EL0. An input of exactly the right quantum of energy is needed to excite the electron so as to raise it to EL1.

5. Currently accepted wisdom says that a photon, of precisely the right wavelength can provide the energy to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1.

6. The electron promptly emits a photon which is the same wavelength (i.e. has the same energy) as the absorbed photon. The electron then returns to the ground state.

7. This appears to violate the law of conservation of energy because energy was used to move the electron from EL0 to EL1. Also energy must be exchanged when the electron returns to EL0.

8. Perhaps we can dispense with the problem of the return energy by arguing that an electromagnetic force associated with the nucleus brings the electron back, much as gravity brings things back towards the Earth, without net expenditure of energy.

9. There is still the question of where the energy comes from to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1 if the emitted photon caries the same energy as the incident photon.

10. If an orbiting planet moves to a more distant orbit, energy is required for the move. The planet moves through space. It can be tracked, so there is never any question as to where it is, or how the energy is being used.

11. The same cannot be said of the electron. At t=0 it is in EL0; at t=1 it is at EL1. There is no measurable or observable transition. There is no point at which the electron can be observed as being partly in EL0, and partly in EL1. In fact it can be argued that the electron does not exist in transition.

12. How much energy can be used by something that probably does not exist, possibly doing something it cannot really be said to be doing anyway?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Somewhere in this mix is uncertainty.

13. When the electron is at EL0, we cannot be absolutely sure it is at EL0. By far the greatest probability may be that it is there, but it might also be elsewhere. There is a non-zero possibility it could be on the other side of the Universe.

14. The photon is also a quon, so although the overwhelming probability is that it is on a collision course with the electron at EL0, it could be on the other side of the Universe.

15. We know the wavelength of the light involved, and thus of the specific photon; therefore we know its energy. How could the same packet of energy move the electron from EL0 to EL1,on the one hand, or from the other side of the Universe to EL1, on the other hand?

16. It could be argued that if the electron were on the other side of the Universe, the photon would not hit it; but what if they were both on the other side of the Universe? It begins to look as though discussing the energy necessary to bring about a quantum transition might have a lot in common with arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!


There never was nothing.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
7. This appears to violate the law of conservation of energy because energy was used to move the electron from EL0 to EL1. Also energy must be exchanged when the electron returns to EL0.


9. There is still the question of where the energy comes from to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1 if the emitted photon caries the same energy as the incident photon.

There is no violation of the conservation of energy because the energy that causes the translation from EL0 to EL1 is the energy of the photon which causes the translation. After that translation the photon is no longer present. The electron remains at the EL1 energy level for some time, possibly but not necessarily, very short, but the translation back to EL0 does not occur instantaneously. When the translation back to EL0 occurs the photon that is emitted carries away the extra energy that the electron had in the EL1 state. This is exactly the energy of the original electron. The whole thing about this is that the electron has to have the exact energy to raise the electron to the next energy level. Other photons, which have other energies (that is wave lengths) will have no effect on the electron.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
that was looking pretty interesting until the other side of the universe crept in.

see if my thoughts might somehow fit in.

Quote:
2. This analogy is not good because the electron is better thought of as occupying a specific energy level (EL) in relation to the nucleus, rather than an orbit.


the rice video show's clearly that the electron orbits.
a strobe is used to freeze frame the atom and the electron.


Quote:
The electron cannot be said to be at a specific point within that energy level. It would be better to think of it as being everywhere within that “shell”; or perhaps nowhere, if it is not being observed.


"unless it is observed" I think that the video also answers that.


Quote:
4. Consider the electron in its ground state; it occupies EL0. An input of exactly the right quantum of energy is needed to excite the electron so as to raise it to EL1.

5. Currently accepted wisdom says that a photon, of precisely the right wavelength can provide the energy to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1.

6. The electron promptly emits a photon which is the same wavelength (i.e. has the same energy) as the absorbed photon. The electron then returns to the ground state.

7. This appears to violate the law of conservation of energy because energy was used to move the electron from EL0 to EL1. Also energy must be exchanged when the electron returns to EL0.


ok

Quote:
8. Perhaps we can dispense with the problem of the return energy by arguing that an electromagnetic force associated with the nucleus brings the electron back, much as gravity brings things back towards the Earth, without net expenditure of energy.


we cant do that because there is an expenditure of energy.

Quote:
There is still the question of where the energy comes from to raise the electron from EL0 to EL1 if the emitted photon caries the same energy as the incident photon.


that might just be the answer!
I thought that several times , but science says the energy is the same.

if the energy of the emitted photon is lower than the absorbed photon then the exchange energy can be found through experimentation.

ie...how much energy is exchanged.

Quote:
10. If an orbiting planet moves to a more distant orbit, energy is required for the move. The planet moves through space. It can be tracked, so there is never any question as to where it is, or how the energy is being used.

11. The same cannot be said of the electron. At t=0 it is in EL0; at t=1 it is at EL1. There is no measurable or observable transition. There is no point at which the electron can be observed as being partly in EL0, and partly in EL1. In fact it can be argued that the electron does not exist in transition.


I believe the scientist around the world are finding ways to
actually see what is happening without the assumptions.
like in the Rice video.

I personally would not bet a penny that the electron does not exist during transition , that just does not agree with my reasoning.

Quote:
14. The photon is also a quon, so although the overwhelming probability is that it is on a collision course with the electron at EL0, it could be on the other side of the Universe.


the odds that the photon hits the electron are extremely minute.

Quote:
15. We know the wavelength of the light involved, and thus of the specific photon; therefore we know its energy. How could the same packet of energy move the electron from EL0 to EL1,on the one hand, or from the other side of the Universe to EL1, on the other hand?

16. It could be argued that if the electron were on the other side of the Universe, the photon would not hit it; but what if they were both on the other side of the Universe? It begins to look as though discussing the energy necessary to bring about a quantum transition might have a lot in common with arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!


alot of things could be argued , for instance suppose the photon enters the gravitational field of the proton and since it is light it is bent into the proton.

there may be something to this , the effects would be that the proton gains energy and extra positive charge thus more mass.

since the electron is in its orbit due to the amount of charge of the proton the electron would be moved out to EL1 to agree with the protons higher electromagnetic field.

the electron might just move along with the electromagnetic field as it expands.

now the electron needs to move back.
the atom stabilizes by emitting a photon and as the proton emits the photon its charge decreases and the electromagnetic field shrinks and the electron moves with the electromagnetic field.

everything is back to normal , no assumptions needed , and we didnt have to pay the energy required to travel to the other side of the universe.

but energy was used up in the process , conservation of energy stands.
conservation of mass stands.

science is back to normal once again.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
ROFL ... You are being trolled beautifully guys.

Notice everything is "might", "possibly" etc he leaves as many gaps to crawl out as he can because he never makes a definitive on how it occurs.

Thats why on the laser cooling I trapped him because he made the mistake of defining absolutely how the process worked because I got him angry and he made that mistake.

Seriously give it up it's just a troll from a religious whackjob.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Orac

the moderators of this forum may not know that the type of
harassment that you are engaged in is defended by the
Western Australia Internet Association

this web site may not have in its terms of use policy a section
regarding harassment of other members due to their religious beliefs.

but the storage mechanism , where the data on this web site is stored does have rues that must be followed , also the ISP that provides you with internet access or the location where you recieve internet access also has rules they must follow.


https://www.waia.asn.au/resources/acceptable-use-policy

Quote:
Using the Internet Access to menace or harass others;


you may want to refrain from your continuous harassing remarks
concerning religion.

also there are organizations that defend peoples religious beliefs on the internet.

I just though I would advise you on this matter.






3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 11 12

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokĀž»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5