Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atom

2007-10-09T22:45:35Z

Stephlieze:

''This page is over '''atoms'''. Atoms are theory, '''not a fact'''. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the [[intelligent matter]] theory''. Comment by User: Garklieo

This entry clearly illustrates the inconsistency of the Conservapedia approach to science. The theory of evolution, which has an enormous range of experimental and observational support is reported skeptically. But the theory of quarks (QCD) is reported as simple fact though it has little experimental support. It would be easy to fill the page with quotes from quark skeptics at major universities as they do with evolution.

: Who are the quark skeptics? I never heard of any serious dispute about the theory of quarks. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 13:48, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0021-1753(198106)72%3A2%3C216%3ATHOTQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-J] [http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3687]

::: I couldn't find anyone contradicting basic quark theory. A 1981 paper seemed to want to address some philosophical issues, I'm not sure. The 2003 story said that some observation was 10% different from what was expected, but no one is doubting quarks. Quark theory is rock solid science. (So is most of evolution, but that is for another page.) [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 23:58, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Most elementary particle physicists believe there are elements of truth in the quark model but none of them think its completely correct. The most serious criticisms are that (i) it has very few new experimental verifications, (ii) it is not renormalizable (the mathematics behind it don't really make sense), and (iii) it is inconsistent with Einstein's theory of gravity (general relativity).

:::: However, you and I both know that if there were something in the Bible contradicting quark theory, there would be a "Discovery Institute" dedicated to debunking it. Anyone expressing any reservations (such as lamenting the lack of experimental data) would be dragged out as a hero of the opposition.

:::::Sure, the standard model needs extended. So did Newtonian mechanics and SR. It's still rock solid in its domain of application. The part about lack of experimental verification is about as wrong as it could be; basically every particle physics experiment involving hadrons generates vast quantities of data supporting the quark model. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::: The anonymous comment is wrong on every count. QCD is renormalizable. Bible quotes about quarks would have no effect on the Discovery Institute. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:58, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I misspoke (miswrote?). QCD is renormalizable but the need for renormalization indicates that the theory has fundamental mathematical problems. Read Feynman on this point, for example. You might like the experimental support for quark models, but observational support for evolution is ten times stronger. You insist on calling evolution "just a theory" but have no problem saying the quark model is a fact. Are you seriously saying that the funders of the Discovery Institute are not motivated by religion? Are you seriously saying that they are scientists who happen to have a different opinion about evolution? -Lgm

:::::::: You are getting way off-topic here. I have no problem saying evolution is a fact. I don't know who funds the Discovery Institute, and I wouldn't try to read their minds anyway. I am not saying that those funders are scientists; they probably are not. They do seem to have a different opinion about evolution, but so what? They are entitled to their opinions. And none of this has anything to do with atoms. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 21:44, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::It may have nothing to do with atoms, but it has much to do with the conservapedia. Sometimes they dredge up uncertainty where there is none (evolution). In other places, they report more certainty than there is (quarks).

::::::::At the level of support the central theories of modern science enjoy, I'm not entirely sure attempting to rank them in terms of strength is even particularly meaningful. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:30, 30 March 2007 (EDT)

== Biblical Discussion ==
I don't see why the Bible quote was removed; it is a ''direct statement'' from the Bible on the nature of matter. [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 07:00, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

:As a general rule, I'd get RSchlafy's ok first before putting the information back in. It is unclear God is specifically directing that verse towards the atom or that all people of faith would necessarily take that position. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 08:45, 22 June 2007 (EDT)
:: Sure, I will remember that next time. Thanks! [[User:Tomservo|Tomservo]] 11:03, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

: I think that the Bible quote is silly in this context. Are you trying to say that Christians don't believe in gluons? Can you point to some source that uses that Bible quote to help explain which particles are held together and which are not? [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 11:53, 22 June 2007 (EDT)

== Theory, not fact ==
I have tried to make mention of the point that theories are by definition not facts but for some reason I have been told not to point out on the article page that atoms are just a theory. Can anyone please explain the discrepancy? I want to flesh out the Christian perspective of the "theory" of atoms the same way it is done on the evolution page. There are real objections to this "theory" and I don't see why you won't allow equal time for both points of view to be expressed. I don't mean to be rude but Genesis clearly says Adam was made out of dirt and sand, yet that is clearly contradictory to this "theory" of the atoms. How do I go about obtaining permission to place a Christian section in this article? I can use the talk or a sandbox first if you like. Thank you. --[[User:Stephlieze|Stephlieze]] 18:45, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Stephlieze

2007-10-09T22:40:26Z

Stephlieze:

Use the talk page to make your comments please. --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:35, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:I don't follow, the disclaimer needs to go on the article page.--[[User:Stephlieze|Stephlieze]] 18:36, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
::Please use the talk page. There, you may set your opinions. Is it clear? --[[User:Joaquín Martínez]], [[User talk:Joaquín Martínez|talk]] 18:39, 9 October 2007 (EDT)
:::I wasn't aware that opinions and facts were now synonyms. I'll keep that in mind.--[[User:Stephlieze|Stephlieze]] 18:40, 9 October 2007 (EDT)

User talk:Stephlieze

2007-10-09T22:36:28Z

Stephlieze:

Gravitation

2007-10-09T22:27:02Z

Stephlieze:

:''This page is over '''gravity'''. Gravity is a theory, '''not a fact'''. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the [[intelligent falling]] theory''.
'''Gravitation''' is a [[phenomenon]] which attracts all objects within the [[universe]] to each other <ref>New Oxford American Dictionary, 2nd Edition</ref>. In modern [[physics]], it is explained by the [[Theory of relativity|General Theory of relativity]]. Before general relativity, gravitation was described by [[Sir Isaac Newton|Isaac Newton's]] law of universal gravitation, which is still useful in most situations.

Everything in the universe that has mass attracts every other thing that has mass. How much depends on the size of the masses and the distance between them. For normal objects, this pull is minute, but you can measure the pull between a very large object like the [[Earth]] and another object like you by standing on the scales. Your weight is the measure of the pull of gravity between you and the planet you are standing on. This force depends on your mass and the mass of that planet, but it also depends on your distance from the center of the planet. The further you are from the planet's center, the weaker the pull between it and your body. If you double your distance, the force is one quarter. At ten times the distance, the force is one hundredth. It drops off with the square of the distance. This is called the [[Inverse Square Law.]] <ref>http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/isq.html</ref>The force never becomes zero, no matter how far you travel.

The law itself is stated as

:<math>F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}</math>

Where the force due to gravity equals the mass of the first object, ''m''1, is multiplied by the mass of the second object, ''m''2, which is then divided by the distace between the center of mass of both objects, r, squared. This is then multipled by the [[gravitational constant]]: 6.67428x10-11 N m2 Kg -2

Gravitation is responsible for making objects accelerate towards each other as well as for the formation of the [[Earth]] and [[Sun]], the [[stars]] and the [[planets]].

==Gravity and Modern Physics==
Newton's [[Theory of Gravity]] was one of the earliest triumphs of modern [[physics]]. It now stands as both one of the most successful and most mysterious areas of that field. On one hand, the [[Theory_of_Relativity|General theory of Relativity]] is one of the most successful [[Scientific_Theory|scientific theories]] to date. On the other hand, how General Relativity might be reconciled with [[Quantum_mechanics|quantum physics]] during the first few milliseconds of the [[Big Bang]] remains an open question, and is one of the hotly contested areas among modern theoretical physicists. In the 1980s [[string theory]] was seen by many physicists as a more likely path towards a particular unification of gravity with the other fundamental forces (electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces), but the theory has been a failure.

== Christianity and Gravity ==

Some Christians do not believe in gravity. This is because it does not line up with Biblical accounts of how the universe works. It is known that the Earth is flat, and sits upon foundations (set by God himself). Also that the sun and other planets revolve around the earth. However, if there were such a thing as gravity then the Sun and other planets would simply fall, they wouldn't float and revolve around the earth. Also, Jesus ascended into Heaven. Again, not possible if gravity is real. And so instead of gravity it is thought that God simply keeps everything in balance. He creates a force around most of us much like gravity, because its useful for us. However, he lifts that force when need be (ie for the planets to revolve, and for Jesus to get to heaven).

== References ==
<div class="references-small">
<references />
[[category:physics]]

Atom

2007-10-09T22:27:01Z

Stephlieze:

:''This page is over '''atoms'''. Atoms are theory, '''not a fact'''. Information presented in this article should be critically interpreted and taken with an open mind. There are true challenges to this debated theory including the [[intelligent matter]] theory''.

[[Image:Atoms1.jpg|thumb|right|Subatomic resolution of atoms by AFM]]
An '''atom''' is the smallest unit of chemical element that still retains the element's properties. The word atom comes from the Greek term for indivisible, ''átomos''.

===Structure===
Atoms are comprised of three subatomic particles: positively charged [[proton]]s, electrically neutral [[neutron]]s and negatively charged [[electron]]s. Protons and neutrons are comprised of quarks and are contained in close proximity in the center of an atom, forming the [[nucleus]]. Electrons inhabit the space around the nucleus, and are arranged around it in a series of layers, known as [[electron shell|shells]] or energy levels.
Currently quarks and electrons are considered truly elementary particles, though neither are capable of being seen.

Those who understand electrical theory might notice that positively charged particles packed closely together would repel one another. The nucleus stays together because of what is known as the ''strong nuclear force''. The quantization of this force is a tiny particle called a "gluon".
===Atomic Number===

Chemical elements are made up of atoms with certain properties. The number of protons in the nucleus of an atom (known as the [[atomic number]]) determine the properties of the atom, and the element it constitutes. For example, [[Hydrogen]] has one proton, and therefore an atomic number of 1. [[Oxygen]] has 8 protons in its nucleus and has an atomic number of 8. Under normal conditions, atoms contain an equal number of protons and electrons.

===Ions===

Atoms are normally electrically neutral; they have no charge. However, electrons in the [[valence shell]] can be gained or lost (depending on the element and the conditions) to form an [[ion]]. An atom that loses electrons becomes positively charged and is known as a cation. An atom that gains electrons electrons becomes negatively charged and is known as an anion.

Many common substances are made up of ions. For example, [[sodium chloride]] (NaCl), otherwise known as table salt, is made up of [[sodium cations]] (Na+) and [[chlorine]] anions (Cl-) in equal proportions. The negatively charged chlorine ions are attracted to the positively charged sodium ions, forming an [[ionic bond]]. This results in a lattice structure, which is responsible for sodium chloride being crystalline in its solid state.

===Isotopes===

Atoms of the same element that have different numbers of neutrons are known as isotopes. Some isotopes are more stable than others, and occur more often in nature, but there is no "standard" number of neutrons in a given element. The atomic weight of an element is a weighted average of the number of neutrons and protons (number of protons remains constant in a given element) in all naturally occurring isotopes.
[[Category:Chemistry]]
[[Category:Physics]]

Centimorgan

2007-10-08T18:34:45Z

Stephlieze:

The '''Centimorgan''' is a measure of genetic distance that tells how far apart two [[genes]] are. Generally one centimorgan equals about 1 million [[base pairs]]. 1 centimorgan is equivalent to approximately .1 [[millimeter]].

[[category:genetics]]

Autosomal chromosome

2007-10-08T18:25:43Z

Stephlieze:

Autosomal chromosomes are [[chromosome]]s that determine an organism's sex.

[[category:genetics]]