Does the universe have a cause?

[BidenPresident]

F

So, I have to ban you for every thread. Goodbye.

 

[Obtenebrator]

So, I have to ban you for every thread. Goodbye.

Because you couldn't handle some dishing back to you what you dish out to everyone? Fucking troll.

 

[Obtenebrator]

You are mentally ill. Tired of having to think of you to ban each time I start a thread.

Speaking of mentally ill:

you need to be violently murdered

I hope you get violently murdered.

you need to be violently murdered

go kill yourself

go kill yourself you piece of shit

go kill yourself you worthless troll

go kill yourself you worthless troll

go kill yourself you worthless troll

You need to be killed.

I hope you get violently murdered.

You need to be killed.

go kill yourself you worthless troll

go kill yourself you worthless troll

go kill yourself you piece of garbage

 

[Cypress]

^^^^When you say "only time" that is usually an indicator that you think the ONLY instance is that.



I was just going from your words when you said the ONLY time.




Give it a rest, you fucking troll.

The fact you couldn't comprehend my post is evidence your geochem PhD is fictitious.

In the first paragraph I wrote that the only time matter is completely annihilated and converted to pure energy is in matter antimatter reactions.

In my second paragraph, I wrote that in reactions in involving nuclei, a lot of mass is preserved because energy is released but matter still remains in the form of lighter nuclei.

^^^ That is exactly what fission is, even though you didn't recognize it.

I was agreeing with Zen mode that matter is not completely destroyed.

Now, I am not getting back on your merry-go-round, where you eventually blow a fuse and start screaming at me in all caps

 

[IBDaMann]

Why should anyone care what you think?

I provide correct answers.

 

[BidenPresident]

I provide correct answers.

You are rarely articulate.

 

[Cypress]

Matter is thoroughly defined (chemistry) and detailed (periodic table of the elements).

No, atoms are not fundamental particles, and the periodic table shows or reveals nothing about the particle zoo of fundamental particles.

You won't find any information about quarks, neutrinos, or positrons, or any of the antiparticle leptons on the periodic table.

We are not even sure if quarks are actually fundamental. String theory implies they are not.

Quantum field theory postulates that what we think of as discrete chunks of matter, are actually just perturbations in the quantum energy fields.

So a definitive and universally true definition of matter has never been established.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

As near as I can remember, the only time matter is converted into pure energy are matter-antimatter reactions.

Anytime matter is converted into energy, the energy is pure energy. There is no such thing as "impure" energy.

Conventionally in reactions involving nuclei, some mass is converted to energy,

Wrong wording. Some matter is converted to energy and yes, that energy is pure energy ... which when divided by the speed of light squared, represents that amount of mass. The mass is still there; the matter is not.

... but some mass is left behind

The exact same amount of mass remains. You meant to write that some matter is left behind. Of course. Naturally there is some matter left behind for the rest of the universe.

A PhD in the physical sciences would recognize ...

Why are you, i.e. a scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent copy-past Quora Raider, pretending to speak for physics PhDs? You have no clue what one will or will not recognize, and you certainly aren't one.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are rarely articulate.

Can I look at your data?

 

[BidenPresident]

Can I look at your data?

I have no idea what your posts are. Bye!

 

[IBDaMann]

I have no idea what your posts are.

Illiteracy? If you think an education is expensive, try ignorance.

 

[BidenPresident]

Illiteracy? If you think an education is expensive, try ignorance.

You are very ignorant.

 

[IBDaMann]

No, atoms are not fundamental particles,

So, you claim chemistry is wrong? You claim that the periodic table of the elements is wrong?

and the periodic table shows or reveals nothing about the particle zoo of fundamental particles.

The periodic table lists the fundamental particles, i.e. atoms. Once again, you don't know what you are talking about. What are you claiming is erroneous about the periodic table?

You won't find any information about quarks, neutrinos, or positrons, or any of the antiparticle leptons on the periodic table.

Why do you believe that there are any such particles? Why do you think the periodic table hasn't been modified to cover any of them?

String theory implies they are not.

String theory is not science; it's distraction fantasy.

Thus far, chemistry continues to work.

Quantum field theory postulates that what we think of as discrete chunks of matter, are actually just perturbations in the quantum energy fields.

Big deal. Has "quantum field theory" survived the scientfic method? No? What does that mean?

So a definitive and universally true definition of matter has never been established.

What the fuck do you think chemistry is? What part of chemistry are you claiming is somehow incorrect?

 

[IBDaMann]

You are very ignorant.

What do I not know?

 

[Cypress]

What the fuck do you think chemistry is? What part of chemistry are you claiming is somehow incorrect?

That's really funny that you thought the periodic table somehow defined the elementary structure of matter.

Obviously, you have never heard of the Standard Model of particle physics, which is the best current theory of the fundamental elementary nature of matter (let the frantic Googling begin)

I will give you one free science lesson without charging tuition:

The science of chemistry is essentially the science of how atoms and molecules bond through electron interactions.

Particle physics is the science of the fundamental elementary nature of matter at the deepest level of nature.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[IBDaMann]

That's really funny that you thought the periodic table somehow defined the elementary structure of matter.

It's hilarious that you confuse chemistry with the periodic table of the elements.

Obviously, you have never heard of the Standard Model of particle physics,

Obviously you have never heard of chemistry.

... which is the best current theory of the fundamental elementary nature of matter

Chemistry is the best comprehensive theory of matter.

I will give you one free science lesson without charging tuition:

You are a science denier. Were you planning on giving me a science-denial lesson?

The science of chemistry is essentially the science of how atoms and molecules bond through electron interactions.

Nope. Chemistry is the science of matter.

Particle physics is the science of the fundamental elementary nature of matter at the deepest level of nature.

Nature doesn't have levels. There is only nature. Particle physics is theoretical and is still just research. There are no falsifiable models that have passed the scrutiny of the scientific method. Hence, the same periodic table of the elements.

@ everyone on JPP, show of hands ... how many of you have seen leptons creeping into chemical formulae? How many of you have seen gluons included in your gasoline octane rating?

 

[Cypress]

^^^
Actually thought atoms and the periodic table represent the fundamental elementary particles of matter, and then frantically Googled the Standard Model after being taught the difference between chemistry and particle physics.

No more free science lessons for you, unless you start paying me tuition

CLICK HERE to see how IBDumbass fantasizes that he has deeply original, profound insights about science and religion, but he is actually just plagiarizing and paraphrasing insights that other people have already had for many years

CLICK HERE To See Why IBDumbass Doesn't Post in Good Faith - He hounds me with what he imagines is a 'gotcha!' question, but when it blows up in his face he runs away from the thread like a little girl

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

​

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

​

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

​

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

​

 

[Cypress]

Russell said "matter" is not defined in science.

That's a pretty insight

In a very real sense, matter is not defined by a definitive and universally true principle of knowledge at this time.

Some idiot on this thread proudly posted with a flourish a picture of the periodic table.

Atoms are not fundamental. They are higher order expressions of an underlying nature of matter. Conventional chemistry doesn't even really deal with the subatomic, and particle physics is really the science that looks into matter at the deepest levels of reality.

You can also find scientists who don't even think quarks are fundamental elementary particles. They are going to say quarks are higher order expressions of vibrating strings.

There's also the question of whether matter is more particle-like or wave-like at the level of quanta.

There's also the question of whether we should even be thinking of matter as discrete, point like objects, or whether matter are just being expressed by perturbations in quantum fields.

 

[BidenPresident]

That's a pretty insight

In a very real sense, matter is not defined by a definitive and universally true principle of knowledge at this time.

Some idiot on this thread proudly posted with a flourish a picture of the periodic table.

Atoms are not fundamental. They are higher order expressions of an underlying nature of matter. Conventional chemistry doesn't even really deal with the subatomic, and particle physics is really the science that looks into matter at the deepest levels of reality.

You can also find scientists who don't even think quarks are fundamental elementary particles. They are going to say quarks are higher order expressions of vibrating strings.

There's also the question of whether matter is more particle-like or wave-like at the level of quanta.

There's also the question of whether we should even be thinking of matter as discrete, point like objects, or whether matter are just being expressed by perturbations in quantum fields.

The distinction between physical things and social things is not made. The lack of distinction is made by Russell “both mind and matter are composed of a neutral-stuff which, in isolation, is neither mental nor material” (Russell 1921: 25).

 

[Cypress]

The distinction between physical things and social things is not made. The lack of distinction is made by Russell “both mind and matter are composed of a neutral-stuff which, in isolation, is neither mental nor material” (Russell 1921: 25).

Oh that's interesting. That seems to be a lasting debate in philosophy of mind: is the mental separate from the physical, or not?