RE: Miracles and Anti-supernaturalism
August 6, 2013 at 3:57 pm
(This post was last modified: August 6, 2013 at 4:01 pm by Mister Agenda.)
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote:(August 5, 2013 at 2:59 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Instability is why the atom decays, it isn't the cause of the atom's decay. If your house is unstable, the storm or whatever that brings it down is still the cause of its collapse.
It decayed because it's unstable.
Unstable: prone to change or fail. Saying something decayed because it's unstable is like saying something is tall because of the amount of height it possesses. It's not an actual explanation.
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: In unstable nuclei the strong nuclear forces do not generate enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together permanently.
It's pretty likely that in a stable nuclei the strong nuclear forces do not generate enough binding energy to hold the nucleus together permanently either. Permanently is a very long time.
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: The nucleus is electrically neutral in a stable nucleus. It contains an equal number of positively charged protons and negatively charged electrons and their charges balance.
So an electrically neutral nucleus never spontaneously decays...oh, wait: Tritium consists of two neutrons, one proton, and one electron. It's electrically neutral...and radioactive, with a half-life between 12 and 13 years. Hydrogen 4, 5, 6, and 7 are all electrically neutral, and increasingly radioactive. They all contain one proton.
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: Strong nuclear force does not have enough energy to bind together an electrically positive or negative atom. That's just electricity. That's not some mystical black box.
I agree it's not mystical. Why does electrically neutral tritium decay, then? Note that it's not the only example of an unstable electrically neutral nucleus, just the least complicated.
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: It's about as baffling as how a Seesaw works.
A superficial understanding tends in the direction of thinking things are simpler than they really are.
(August 5, 2013 at 5:28 pm)Rahul Wrote: Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e., random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay.[1] However, the chance that a given atom will decay is constant over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
The above is correct and what everyone who disagrees with you has been saying all along. Do you think see-saws operate stochastically?