Why don't creationists publish?

[genuineoriginal]

Ya wanna tell that to the people who run those big machines that accelerate thing like electrons and protons? They are acutely aware that when they take something that starts with an astoundingly small mass, like a single proton, that as they accelerate it to near the speed of light, that they literally have to push it with enormous amounts of energy to speed it up just a little bit.

It is this increase in mass that results in a very fast particle undergoing a quick stop to actually turn into two particles. A commonly used and well understood phenomenon in accelerator physics.

The mass does not increase due to an increase in speed.
The particles are encountering resistance in the quantum field.

 

[redfern]

The mass does not increase due to an increase in speed.
The particles are encountering resistance in the quantum field.

And that resistance goes to infinity just as the particle is reaching the speed of light?

Is this your opinion, or do you have some source you could point me to?

 

[genuineoriginal]

And that resistance goes to infinity just as the particle is reaching the speed of light?

Do you have anything that shows that happening in real life (not just mathematical games)?

 

[redfern]

Do you have anything that shows that happening in real life (not just mathematical games)?

Just a couple hundred of labs with atomic particle accelerators. Check with Cern, for example, or SLAC.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Just a couple hundred of labs with atomic particle accelerators. Check with Cern, for example, or SLAC.

When did the earth get destroyed by these hundreds of particles with infinite mass?
I must have missed it.

 

[redfern]

When did the earth get destroyed by these hundreds of particles with infinite mass?
I must have missed it.

Would have been infinite mass if they had reached c. But when a single proton feels like a freight train, then you have to stop at 99.99% of c.

 

[Stripe]

Do you have anything that shows that happening in real life (not just mathematical games)?

He doesn't even like math. :chuckle:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[redfern]

Way ahead of you, mate. (on using real numerical values to disprove Einstein).

Is this numerical disproof something we can expect soon?

 

[Stripe]

Is this numerical disproof something we can expect soon?

:rotfl:

No. You should come back in 2039. :thumb:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[genuineoriginal]

Would have been infinite mass if they had reached c. But when a single proton feels like a freight train, then you have to stop at 99.99% of c.

It would never have reached infinite mass, no matter how much you increased the speed.
Mass does not change when speed changes.
Mass changing due to an increase of speed would violate the physical laws.

The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle known as the Higgs boson, which is used by the field to continuously interact with other particles, such as the electron. Particles that interact with the field are "given" mass and, in a similar fashion to an object passing through a treacle (or molasses), will become slower as they pass through it. The result of a particle "gaining" mass from the field is the prevention of its ability to travel at the speed of light. Mass itself is not generated by the Higgs field; the act of creating matter or energy from nothing would violate the laws of conservation. Mass is, however, "given" to particles via the Higgs field's use of Higgs boson particles. Higgs bosons contain the relative mass in the form of energy and once the field has endowed a formally massless particle, the particle in question will slow down as it has now become "heavy".

​

The explanation about the Higgs field is mostly accurate, with the exception of the mistaken notion that the Higgs field "gives" mass to particles instead of resisting the motion of particles.

Other names for "the Higgs field" are "the quantum field" and even "aether".

 

[Silent Hunter]

It would never have reached infinite mass, no matter how much you increased the speed.
Mass does not change when speed changes.
Mass changing due to an increase of speed would violate the physical laws.

The Higgs field is a field of energy that is thought to exist in every region of the universe. The field is accompanied by a fundamental particle known as the Higgs boson, which is used by the field to continuously interact with other particles, such as the electron. Particles that interact with the field are "given" mass and, in a similar fashion to an object passing through a treacle (or molasses), will become slower as they pass through it. The result of a particle "gaining" mass from the field is the prevention of its ability to travel at the speed of light. Mass itself is not generated by the Higgs field; the act of creating matter or energy from nothing would violate the laws of conservation. Mass is, however, "given" to particles via the Higgs field's use of Higgs boson particles. Higgs bosons contain the relative mass in the form of energy and once the field has endowed a formally massless particle, the particle in question will slow down as it has now become "heavy".

​

The explanation about the Higgs field is mostly accurate, with the exception of the mistaken notion that the Higgs field "gives" mass to particles instead of resisting the motion of particles.

Other names for "the Higgs field" are "the quantum field" and even "aether".

:yawn:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CMAx6BAgKEBk&usg=AOvVaw3UU4QerlUhgBgI_CgyaM66

 

[Stripe]

:yawn:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...CMAx6BAgKEBk&usg=AOvVaw3UU4QerlUhgBgI_CgyaM66

:troll:

If you disagree, spell it out. Links to random Wiki pages are a waste of time.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[Silent Hunter]

If you disagree, spell it out. Links to random Wiki pages are a waste of time.

Had you bothered to visit the "random link" you would have noticed how "Mass in Special Relativity" DIRECTLY addresses go's lack of paying attention in school. But then, waving your hand dismissively is what you do best.

 

[Stripe]

Had you bothered to visit the "random link" you would have noticed how "Mass in Special Relativity" DIRECTLY addresses go's lack of paying attention in school. But then, waving your hand dismissively is what you do best.

:yawn:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Had you bothered to visit the "random link" you would have noticed how "Mass in Special Relativity" DIRECTLY addresses go's lack of paying attention in school. But then, waving your hand dismissively is what you do best.

I'm pretty sure this is a "debate" forum, not a link-sharing site...

In addition to that, don't the rules say something about link-dropping? :idunno:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Had you bothered to visit the "random link" you would have noticed how "Mass in Special Relativity" DIRECTLY addresses go's lack of paying attention in school. But then, waving your hand dismissively is what you do best.

I'm pretty sure this is a "debate" forum, not a link-sharing site...

If we were discussing the nuances of a particular religious doctrine, then sure, this is a "debate" forum. As it is, he is contesting the validity of established science which has withstood over 100 years of rigorous testing and "debate" in a scientific setting. If he has a better explanation for the physical world perhaps he should submit for publishing his rigorously tested "theory" to the appropriate journal.

In addition to that, don't the rules say something about link-dropping?

If my doing a bit of leg-work on his behalf to assist him in his understanding of physics is the horrendously petty crime of "link-dropping", then I assume it will be dealt with by the appropriate authority. We should, of course, ignore his own cut-and-paste and "link-dropping", right? (Lets not be hypocritical.) Rather than waste TOL's precious bandwidth with a long-winded (TLDR) explanation he might not understand or bother to read anyway, I chose to link him to a more concise location for study and consideration he can view at his leisure. Either way, it seems, the outcomes will be identical.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Had you bothered to visit the "random link" you would have noticed how "Mass in Special Relativity" DIRECTLY addresses go's lack of paying attention in school. But then, waving your hand dismissively is what you do best.

Your link shows how scientists are equivocating in order to justify a belief in an impossibility.

In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.

​

Mass in special relativity incorporates the general understandings from the laws of motion of special relativity along with its concept of mass–energy equivalence. The word mass is given two meanings in special relativity: one (rest or invariant mass, and its equivalent rest energy) is an invariant quantity which is the same for all observers in all reference frames; the other (relativistic mass or the equivalent total energy of the body) is dependent on the velocity of the observer.

​

 

[Stripe]

He is contesting the validity of established science.

A practice known among scientists as "science."

There is no such thing as "settled science" in science. That is properly known as "dogma."

You're a religious acolyte, Silent.

If he has a better explanation for the physical world perhaps he should submit for publishing his rigorously tested "theory" to the appropriate journal.

:yawn:

You guys who believe in evolution are always saying: "Why don't you Christians publish in science journals?" If a science journal is dumb enough to publish something that says everything came from nothing for no reason, I'm not too impressed. I'm not sure I want to be associated with that kind of stupidity. You have to go to college for years to be that dumb.

— source.

We should, of course, ignore his own cut-and-paste and "link-dropping", right?

You mean the quick, on-topic presentation of what he believes? You can ignore it if you want. The best way to do that is stay out of the discussion. :up:

I chose to link him to a more concise location for study and consideration.

Or you are trolling. Who knows what point you think is relevant on that site. :idunno:

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk

 

[chair]

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are scientific theories that work. They are counter-intuitive, but they work.

All of us use the effects of these theories constantly.

 

[Stripe]

Quantum Mechanics and Relativity are scientific theories that work. They are counter-intuitive, but they work.

All of us use the effects of these theories constantly.

Geocentrism "worked" as well. :idunno:

With enough epicycles, predicting the positions of the planets was more accurate than doing so using a nascent heliocentric model.

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk