(July 22, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(July 22, 2016 at 10:27 am)Little Rik Wrote: Despite your stupidity   in judging what you don't know the question is rather interesting.
Why the energy escape in some elements and not in others?
Easy reply son.
According to yoga the creation is continuous.
It never stop.
That means that the one who pop up first is at the top of the line and the one who pop up later is behind.
Like when you get in a taxi queue.
All elements that compose the universe are of different nature although they spring up from the same source.
Some elements are older than other that is why their latent stage is coming to an end while for other it
will come later.
Elements like uranium and other are older than many other that is why their time to awake has come.
Got it?  

This is simply wrong.  Uranium isn't 'older'.  It has an imbalance in the binding energy of the nucleus as I have already explained.

This 'old matter' business is just plain wrong.  Uranium can be synthesized and it's still radioactive even though it's new uranium.

If this oldness business is according to Yoga, then Yoga is flat out wrong.

How can you be so stupid after having been told the cause of radioactivity?

You surely may well know the technical reasons why there is radioactivity in some matter but you do not know the causes behind it.
Physical science tell us that unstable nucleus tries to achieve a balanced state by given off a neutron or proton and this is done via radioactive decay but that is not the cause why there is instability in the first place.
You don't get it yog, do you?      

(July 24, 2016 at 9:25 am)Little Rik Wrote: No contradiction Mister.
When you are alive (in your body so to speak) you can chose to neglect what your consciousness suggest to you.
If that goes on for long time the consciousness will stop interfering.
Your new bad habit will take over.
That doesn't mean that the consciousness separate from the energy.

You -just- told us that consciousness and energy can be separated.  

Quote:Is still there but not acting so we can say it is disconnected.
When the body die the consciousness carry on in that state you were when alive.
It is only after you reincarnate again and again and you learn how to live properly that the consciousness
goes back to the normal level in which is able to prevail and the balance is restored.

So, when you say it's disconnected, you don't actually mean it.  What else don't you mean, when you say it?  That consciousness carries on, that we are reincarnated, that there is a normal level of balance?  I just don't know how we can take you at your word if you won't let us, and that's ignoring whether or not your word has -any- value whatsoever.

(July 24, 2016 at 9:46 am)Stimbo Wrote: Yeah, we get it. You're vastly superior and you're only tolerating us poor mad monkeys out of pity, and maybe a forlorn hope that one of us might see the light someday. It's nothing to do with your arrogance and condescension or anything.

Newsflash - we're laughing at the 'superior intellect'.

You know the old saying.........He who laughs last, laughs best ..........

I would like if anyone of you explain to me why there is radioactivity in some matter.
After millions or maybe billion years that the universe exist radioactivity should have gone ages ago
because radioactivity doesn't last for that long.
But it is there.
From here come natural to think that creation goes on and on and a creator is there.
So how atheists reconcile all this?

I give you food for though now.
Let us see if you can come out with anything that make sense for once.  

(July 24, 2016 at 10:14 am)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 24, 2016 at 9:25 am)Little Rik Wrote: No contradiction Mister.
When you are alive (in your body so to speak) you can chose to neglect what your consciousness suggest to you.
If that goes on for long time the consciousness will stop interfering.
Your new bad habit will take over.
That doesn't mean that the consciousness separate from the energy.

You -just- told us that consciousness and energy can be separated.  

Quote:Is still there but not acting so we can say it is disconnected.
When the body die the consciousness carry on in that state you were when alive.
It is only after you reincarnate again and again and you learn how to live properly that the consciousness
goes back to the normal level in which is able to prevail and the balance is restored.

So, when you say it's disconnected, you don't actually mean it.  What else don't you mean, when you say it?  That consciousness carries on, that we are reincarnated, that there is a normal level of balance?  I just don't know how we can take you at your word if you won't let us, and that's ignoring whether or not your word has -any- value whatsoever.

You forgot to take in consideration the free will in humans Rit.
Because of the free will you can mold or shape the consciousness the way you like
and all this turn the consciousness stronger or weaker to the stage that lose all her value
and this is the reason why I say get disconnected.
Disconnected to your reality not disconnected to your existence.  

I'm not sure how free will is applicable, except insomuch as you may have freely willed to make your comments unreliable with reference to your own comments.  You're going to need to sort this out, or no one will get whatever truth you're trying to express, regardless of whether or not you possess it.

(July 24, 2016 at 10:42 am)Rhythm Wrote: I'm not sure how free will is applicable, except insomuch as you may have freely willed to make your comments unreliable with reference to your own comments.  You're going to need to sort this out, or no one will get whatever truth you're trying to express, regardless of whether or not you possess it.

When you dream or fantasizing your consciousness is there but you are not aware of it.
Some people with bad habits get in that situation often or all the time.  

That's a complete non-cognitive.  Dreaming and fantasizing implicitly assume that you are self aware.  Find some way to tell us whatever it is you know that doesn't immediately contradict whatever you're telling us.

(July 24, 2016 at 10:10 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(July 22, 2016 at 12:02 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: This is simply wrong.  Uranium isn't 'older'.  It has an imbalance in the binding energy of the nucleus as I have already explained.

This 'old matter' business is just plain wrong.  Uranium can be synthesized and it's still radioactive even though it's new uranium.

If this oldness business is according to Yoga, then Yoga is flat out wrong.

How can you be so stupid after having been told the cause of radioactivity?

You surely may well know the technical reasons why there is radioactivity in some matter but you do not know the causes behind it.
Physical science tell us that unstable nucleus tries to achieve a balanced state by given off a neutron or proton and this is done via radioactive decay but that is not the cause why there is instability in the first place.
You don't get it yog, do you?      

Then you are claiming you 'know' the causes behind it.  Go ahead and tell me how you know that radioactive elements are the oldest.  You don't know.  You just have a story that attributes age to radioactive elements.  What's your evidence that radioactive elements are the oldest?

If radioactivity were due to age, then the rate of decay would be a linear function, as age of expiration is a linear function.  But the rate of decay, the half-life, is an exponential function.  There's no way that a linear process can underlie an exponential function.  So it's not possible that radioactive decay is due to age.

So no, you don't know the underlying cause.  You never thought about that, did you?

Wrong again, Mr. Yoga.

Quote:There are four primary sources of radioactive elements on earth:

1. Primordial. These elements were radioactive when the earth was formed. They came from the supernova that produced all the elements on earth. The elements were produced by fusion in the star. The force of fusion was sufficient in the last stages of the supernova to produce the elements heavier than lead (e.g., uranium and thorium). Also, some primordial elements are not that heavy, (e.g., potassium-40). They were also formed in the star.
    
   
2. Cosmogenic. These elements are formed by cosmic rays hitting the earth's atmosphere and transmuting a stable element into a radioactive one. Cosmic rays are primarily protons. When the proton hits a nucleus in the atmosphere it will often knock out a neutron and make an unstable element (e.g., carbon-14).
      
   
3. Human made. Humans make radioactive elements by hitting the nucleus with particles which change the neutron to proton balance, making them radioactive. Accelerators and nuclear reactors are the primary ways. We also hit very heavy elements with particles or other nuclei to make very heavy elements which are also radioactive. Nuclear weapons are also a source of radioactive elements through fusion, fission, and particle bombardment.
      
   
4. Decay of the above. Often radioactive elements produced by the above processes will decay into an element that is also radioactive. For example, as uranium is decaying to become lead, it goes through a variety of radioactive states (e.g. radium-226 and radon-222). These elements are not primordial since their half life is too short. They are produced by the decay of primordial elements.
   

https://www.quora.com/What-exactly-are-r...come-to-be

So, yes we do know the causes behind the instability in many cases and it's not "being old."

Wikipedia Wrote:Nucleosynthesis is the process that creates new atomic nuclei from pre-existing nucleons, primarily protons and neutrons. The first nuclei were formed about three minutes after the Big Bang, through the process called Big Bang nucleosynthesis. It was then that hydrogen and helium formed to become the content of the first stars, and this primeval process is responsible for the present hydrogen/helium ratio of the cosmos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleosynthesis

Moreover, the primordial hydrogen and helium are the oldest elements and the bulk of that is not radioactive.

Wouldn't radioactive elements have "woken up" as plants or birds or people or somesuch shit long ago..being the eldest? Why do they remain as they are, and as they've always been, in that scenario?

(July 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Little Rik Wrote: You know the old saying.........He who laughs last, laughs best ..........

Laughs longest. More correctly, "Laugh on laugh on my friend. He laugheth best that laugheth to the end". Note to the audience that Rik keaped away from my commentary on his arrogant condescension like the good trained dolphin that he is, and splashed down here:

(July 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Little Rik Wrote: I would like if anyone of you explain to me why there is radioactivity in some matter.
After millions or maybe billion years that the universe exist radioactivity should have gone ages ago
because radioactivity doesn't last for that long.
But it is there.
From here come natural to think that creation goes on and on and a creator is there.
So how atheists reconcile all this?

Unstable elements such as Uranium-238 have half-lives of billions of years - U-238 itself has a h/l of 4.7 billion years. These decay into further radioactive isotopes, such as Thorium-230, with comparatively long halflives. It's an ongoing process of radioactive decay, not ongoing creation ex nihilo - so no creator required.

(July 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Little Rik Wrote: I give you food for though now.
Let us see if you can come out with anything that make sense for once.