[JoeT777]

So again I ask you, what is a photon?

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I’m grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I’m correct, it’s still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don’t see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

[Capuchin]

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

Based on a brief reading of Wikipedia it still appears that the pair produced by bombarding a nucleus (matter) with a photon to produce an electron and a positron. So, I don't see this as production of matter directly from energy.

JoeT

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

[JoeT777]

A photon is not matter, it has 0 mass.

In pair production the nucleus does not lose any mass - it is simply needed for conservation of momentum. The pure energy of the photon creates particles with mass.

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

[Capuchin]

Ok I'll accept that only because I don't have the knowledge to argue otherwise. So, make an apple with a photon.

JoeT

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

[JoeT777]

Edit: Sorry I made a mess up of the math, I meant you supply the 27PJ photon first.

So, that’s the best you can do for sending me a rotten apple!

JoeT

[Tj3]

Still way off base TJ3....
Matter and energy are the same thing.

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.

[Tj3]

Well : as you well know I proved you wrong when I stated that although a compass normally points "somewhere" northwards, there is quite an area on earth where that is NOT so.

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc. but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

[Tj3]

Quantum physics is outside my expertise. This is the best I can do for photon and represents the limits of my understanding of particle physics. “In physics, the photon is the elementary particle responsible for 'light energy' or electromagnetic phenomena. It is the carrier of electromagnetic radiation of all wavelengths, including in decreasing order of energy, gamma rays, X-rays, ultraviolet light, visible light, infrared light, microwaves, and radio waves.” Photon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As I understand it, its rest mass is zero. I'm grouping here but its relativistic mass may be relatively high given its high speed. If I'm correct, it's still matter.

Joe,

These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet. A photon has not been isolated. It is simply a concept given to try to to explain how electromagnetic energy works.

[JoeT777]

Cred,

In your own mind you may believe that magnetic compasses based in Israel point west, but that is something that you hold by faith, but it is certainly not science.

That correct functioning compasses in that area can point southwards, westwards, etc., but not northwards.

That is where a lot of disagreements on here originate with you - you can never admit that you are wrong even when everyone starting from children in grade in grade one know better about where compasses point.

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot of the science has changed since then. Come to think of it, I don’t think they had photons back then.

JoeT

[Tj3]

It doesn’t matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter; all of which gets backs to St. Thomas's five postulates for proofs of God’s existence.

Actually, it was kind of fun. I had to reach back 40 years – and of course a lot has the science has changed since then.

JoeT

Quite right and you made some good points in the discussion.

The fact that the relationship between matter and energy is defined by E=MC squared proves by itself that matter and energy are not the same thing. This has never been taught by science.

I find it fascinating that the atheists on here claim to use facts and science, and yet the science has consistently been on the side of the Christians on here.

[michealb]

So you oppose science, and now you are telling us what you believe by faith.

No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it. Which doesn't surprise me if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.

These guys are just trying to play games by asking a question that no one has answered as of yet.

If I had an irony censor it would have over loaded on this post from you.

[Tj3]

No I am right in line with today's accepted science you just don't understand it.

Like when scientists say that matter and energy are not the same thing, you say that I don't understand that they mean to say that they are? :D

You are right. I don't understand how you manage to turn around what scientist say. You accept on faith that you are right when the percentage of scientists who say that energy and matter are not the same thing dramatically exceeds those who believe in evolution. And yet you accept evolution and your belief that matter is energy on faith.

That is neither scientific nor consistent.

[michealb]

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

[Tj3]

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²

It seems to me that you are the one having problems with it. You are telling us that it should be E=M

What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept.

No, energy is something that can in fact be measured.

M is mass which is simply a state of energy.

In your belief system. If that were true then we would not have a conversion between mass and energy, because they would be one and the same.

[JoeT777]

if you are sure god did something why waste the time studying what other people say when you know god did it.

You might recall that we believe that God created the heavens and the earth in perfect order. To the Christian, science is a way to explore how that perfect order of nature works. Science isn’t the purview of those who don’t believe in God.

You do remember Copernicus, the guy that got Galileo in trouble? He was a mathematician, astronomer, physician, classical scholar, translator, jurist, governor, military leader, diplomat, economist and (now get this) a Catholic cleric.
You see, Catholic believe all truth, even natural science is worthy knowledge. But that was only one. Well, then of course there are the following notable Catholic scientists:

List of Jesuit scientists

François d'Aguilon
Alexius Sylvius Polonus
Armand David
Giuseppe Asclepi
Joseph Bayma
Mario Bettinus
Giuseppe Biancani
Roger Joseph Boscovich
Louis-Ovide Brunet
Nicholas Callan
Jean Baptiste Carnoy
Nicolaus Copernicus
James Cullen (mathematician)
Adelir Antonio de Carli
Jan Dzierżon
Jean-Charles de la Faille
Gyula Fényi
José Gabriel Funes
Agostino Gemelli
George Coyne
Bartolomeu de Gusmão
Michał Heller
Victor-Alphonse Huard
Ányos Jedlik
Georg Joseph Kamel
Otto Kippes
Georges Lemaître
Pierre Macq
Marcin of Urzędów
Marie-Victorin
Gregor Mendel
Jozef Murgaš
Julius Nieuwland
Paul McNally
Léon Abel Provancher
George Schoener
Gaspar Schott
George Mary Searle
Angelo Secchi
Guseppe Toaldo
Julian Tenison Woods
Giuseppe Zamboni
Francesco Zantedeschi
Category:Roman Catholic scientist-clerics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But what do the superstitious know, right?

JoeT

[JoeT777]

Why do you both have such problems with
E=MC²
but it is also
M=E/C²
What you are missing is E is pure energy not heat energy not light energy. E is an abstract concept. M is mass which is simply a state of energy. Just as light and heat are. c2 is the conversion factor required to convert from units of mass to units of energy.
You are basically arguing that 1liter doesn't equal 1000mililiters because 1 and 1000 aren't the same thing.

All of this is widely accepted and just like evolution you not understanding it won't make it go away.

I don't have a problem with it, none what so ever. The problem is that it isn’t proof of “first cause/mover.”

JoeT

[inthebox]

Below I repost a list by Tom, one of the posters on this board who argued that this list shows proof for "God's" existence. Although I am tolerant towards any belief a person can have, I draw a clear line between what a person BELIEVES and what is covered by OSE.

Another point is that support queries for one specific view do not mean that - even without any OSE for another view - that other view is automatically "factual". Each claim has to be OSE proved on it's own merits.

I have a link to another Q&A board to show that this list is a "true" copy, but I am not allowed to post that link here. If you want the URL PM me, and I will forward you the link.

Here is Toms list of claims :

"Blindness is no excuse".

As you well know, and as I established very early on in this discussion we have only two options, and that is that God created all that there is, or that it came about naturally. I have asked a number of questions now to which neither you nor your atheist friends could provide a plausible answer. If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is onbly once answer. God created and thus God exists. For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God. And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted. The usual respond to these issues from non-Christians are insults, ad hominems, and ridicule - but no answer. That is in and of itself an admission that no answer for a natural explanation exists.

EYE : How about the eye. Can anyone give a plausible explanation as to how the eye came to be?

DNA : In each and every living or previously living cell, we find an operating system (O/S) program written which is more complex than any MAC or PC. In addition to the program, we find that each and every cell has the built in capability to read and interpret this programming language. And this goes back to the simplest, and, according to evolutionists, most ancient type of cell in existence.
If one found a PC with Windows O/S on it, or even a simple handheld with Windows CE O/S on it, it would automatically be taken to be proof positive of the existence of a capable and intelligent advanced designer. Do any atheists have a plausible explanation for how this advanced programming language, along with reader/interpreter came to be?

SIMPLE SINGLE CELL :
How did the simple cells come to be created?

POND SCUM : Pericles claimed that the answer to the question abive was that the single cells came from pond scum, which is in and itself a form of life - how did it come to be?

AUSTRALIAN BRUSH TURKEY : An interesting animal. It does not sit the eggs to incubate them, but rather creates a compost pile to provide the heat, which must be maintained at aorund 33 degress. The eggs are layed down at the precise depth and in a circle where that exact heat will be maintained. The turkey does not lay the eggs right away, but waits until the compost pile has reached the necessary temperature. The is requires that the brush turkey understand heat and decomposition, as well as how the heat radiates and be able to calculate the precise depth and pattern at which the necessary heat occurs. And it has to understand that this is all required to hatch chicks. To have gained this knowledge by chance would be impossible because there are too many variables to all the brush turkey to figure out the linkage between heat and hatching eggs and then precisely what heat is required and how to obtain it. The existence of God and his creation of this animal explains this.

MACAWS : Macaws are birds that feed on poisonous seeds, and in order to live, after they eat, they must eat a certain type of mud which neutralizes the poison.
How did this evolve? What is the natural explanation for this? The existence of God explains it.
---
If you cannot provide a plausible answer, or if you respond with abuse, then that is as good as an admission that you know that God exists, but canniot bring yourself to admit the truth. I look forward to your response. Tom

Well, that was the list. An interesting list with queries on evolution. Surely evolutionists will be able to reply to Tom's various questions.

"If there is no possible means by which these events occurred naturally, then there is only once answer. God created and thus God exists", Toms stated. But that is of course nonsense. Who decides if there was no other possible mean? Even if at this moment we do not know such mean, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"For each of these questions for which there is no natural answer, you have a proof of God". Again : who decides if there was no natural answer? Even if at this moment we do not know such answer, we may know one tomorrow or next year or next century. That we do not know now is no proof.

"And there are many many more proofs that could yet be posted".
There is a saying : A fool can ask more questions than all wise men can answer ....

A list on evolution queries is no OSE for "God's" existence. Why not post direct OSE for "God's" existence? The answer is simple : because such evidence does not exist. You can only BELIEVE in "God's" existence.

Whatever you can post on queries on whatever subject, it will never be OSE for "God's" existence. Only direct OSE for "God's" existence will be.

Any comments ?

:)

.

.

Cred:

Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.

Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?

What do you, Cred, have as OSE of the origins of life and why we are here?

THe fact is people do believe in God and the vast majority of those that don't believe in evolution. It is fair to ask for OSE of both. Now if you subscribe to a different theory, like extraterrestrial intelligence, where is your OSE?


You discounted a theologic / Catholic evidence of God's existence because it was written by man. Well everything that you know is by man - do you have to OSE for everything a fallible human does?


As to the physics and chemistry - why are there the "laws of nature?" Who created these laws?

[Credendovidis]

Cred: Tj3 and Joe have given evidence that evolution is not factual. Read through 40 pages and the links.
Now, that may not be OSE to you, but why does it seem to irritate you that evolution is not factual? Or that there are those of us that demand the same OSE of evolution?

Inthebox : you suggest that there is OSE for these queries on evolution. But I see no OSE. Just queries. And people who are willing and trying to answer these queries (although this is not the evolution board, where that should be done).

And even if there ever was OSE for these evolution queries, THAT IS NOT OSE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF "GOD" !!!

The only thing that can be accepted as OSE for the existence of "God" is DIRECT OSE for the existence of "God".
Not Subjective Suggested Evidence (SSE).
Subjective refers to interpretation. Objective refers to factual.

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

.

.

[Credendovidis]

It doesn't matter much. The point is, and our friends know it, is that matter cannot create itself, and that energy cannot create matter....

Energy and matter are one and the same. They are different appearances of one and the same. In the universe that can be seen everywhere. Matter appears out of - and disappears into - energy.

Energy can create matter. And matter can create energy (any nuclear explosion proves that ). In this process "create" refers to conversion.
As to energy : the universe is loaded with energy. Every cubicle micron of space is loaded with energy. That does not mean that every format of energy is usuable energy (as many here seem to interpret energy).

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

:rolleyes:

.

.

[Capuchin]

But that has nothing to do with (this topic : ) Objective Supported Evidence for the existence of "God".

Thanks for this: If anyone wants to correct the gaps in their knowledge of relativity or any other physics topic, please come to the physics board, we'd be glad to explain it :)