Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 7:25 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
An uncaused cause
#41
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 9:46 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:40 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Google is God.

Wouldn't that be Yahoo?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yahoo sux big time!! At least here Down Under it does. Devil
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#42
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 9:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:46 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:40 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Google is God.

Wouldn't that be Yahoo?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yahoo sux big time!! At least here Down Under it does. Devil

Did you feel the breeze as that went over your head? Yahoo - god - Yahweh.
Reply
#43
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 9:50 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:47 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:46 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 9:40 am)Norfolk And Chance Wrote: Google is God.

Wouldn't that be Yahoo?

Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Yahoo sux big time!! At least here Down Under it does. Devil

Did you feel the breeze as that went over your head? Yahoo - god - Yahweh.

ROFLOL

Sometimes Phil... YOU are WAY over my head! .... But I loves ya anyway Heart
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
Reply
#44
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 9:20 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 7:29 am)orogenicman Wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

In nuclear physics, beta decay is a type of radioactive decay in which a beta particle (an electron or a positron) is emitted from an atom. There are two types of beta decay: beta minus and beta plus. In the case of beta decay that produces an electron emission, it is referred to as beta minus (β−), while in the case of a positron emission as beta plus (β+). In electron emission, an electron antineutrino is also emitted, while positron emission is accompanied by an electron neutrino. Beta decay is mediated by the weak force.

Emitted beta particles have a continuous kinetic energy spectrum, ranging from 0 to the maximal available energy (Q), which depends on the parent and daughter nuclear states that participate in the decay. A typical Q is around 1 MeV, but it can range from a few keV to a few tens of MeV. Since the rest mass energy of the electron is 511 keV, the most energetic beta particles are ultrarelativistic, with speeds very close to the speed of light.

Sometimes electron capture decay is included as a type of beta decay (and is referred to as "inverse beta decay"), because the basic process, mediated by the weak force is the same. However, no beta particle is emitted, but only an electron neutrino. Instead of beta-plus emission, an inner atomic electron is captured by a proton in the nucleus. This type of decay is therefore analogous to positron emission (and also happens, as an alternative decay route, in all positron-emitters). However, the route of electron capture is the only type of decay that is allowed in proton-rich nuclides that do not have sufficient energy to emit a positron (and neutrino). These may still reach a lower energy state, by the equivalent process of electron-capture and neutrino-emission

So my question is how spontaneous emission of an electron of a positron evidence of an uncaused cause?

Did you read the OP and the first few post after it? Please do so and if the sentence from the OP (and repeated in post #3) there is an uncaused cause that determines if an atomic nucleus undergoes type II or III beta decay. doesn't explain it in light of the OP clearly saying Type II and Type III are both caused by the neutron to proton ratio being to small yet there is no cause that determines which decay to follow, then I really have no idea what to tell you.

BTW, you do know Google isn't science right?

No one said that google is science, even though it was invented (I'm poretty sure but I could be wrong) by computer science majors at Carnegie Melon. Smile

And it was wikipedia, not google where I got my information, but I could just as easily gotten it from any number of thousands of university web sites and they would have given me the same information. Do you have a problem with bibliographied sources?

Of course, you didn't answer my question, neither here nor in the OP. So my question stands. How is spontaneous emission of an electron or a positron evidence of an uncaused cause?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero
Reply
#45
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 5:28 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Of course, you didn't answer my question, neither here nor in the OP. So my question stands. How is spontaneous emission of an electron or a positro tn evidence of an uncaused cause?

Of course I didn't answer your question because if you fucking read the OP you would see what was said was between type II and type III. You are asking about type I and type II which was not what was said. If you didn't read the OP why should i waste my time with your stupidity?

And once again, Goggle isn't science nor is a single source science. You can read all over the fucking internet that there are three types of beta decay.

Tell you what, either read the OP or you are going on ignore. Ask your asinine question about type I and type II once again and you go on ignore, deal?

edit: On second thought, after rereading your response to Google isn't science you are going on ignore.
Reply
#46
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm)Phil Wrote:
(April 23, 2012 at 5:28 pm)orogenicman Wrote: Of course, you didn't answer my question, neither here nor in the OP. So my question stands. How is spontaneous emission of an electron or a positro tn evidence of an uncaused cause?

Of course I didn't answer your question because if you fucking read the OP you would see what was said was between type II and type III. You are asking about type I and type II which was not what was said. If you didn't read the OP why should i waste my time with your stupidity?

And once again, Goggle isn't science nor is a single source science. You can read all over the fucking internet that there are three types of beta decay.

Tell you what, either read the OP or you are going on ignore. Ask your asinine question about type I and type II once again and you go on ignore, deal?

edit: On second thought, after rereading your response to Google isn't science you are going on ignore.

In fact, I read your OP carefully, Phil, and it is clear that you don't understand beta decay. There is no such thing as "Type II and type III" beta decay. There are only two types of beta decay, and those are beta minus and beta plus (ß- and ß+), which involve electron emisson or positron emission, respectively. And the emission is spontaneous. So once again, how is spontaneous emission involved in beta decay (which is the only type of emission there can be in beta decay) evidence of "uncaused cause"?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero
Reply
#47
RE: An uncaused cause
In case anybody here wants to be fooled by this morons insistence that I neither know what beta decay is or that there are only two types, here is a paper from MIT describing the three types of beta decay. See what happens when one relies on Google for science, they often end up looking stupid.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engin...mechan.pdf
Reply
#48
RE: An uncaused cause
(April 23, 2012 at 7:26 pm)Phil Wrote: In case anybody here wants to be fooled by this morons insistence that I neither know what beta decay is or that there are only two types, here is a paper from MIT describing the three types of beta decay. See what happens when one relies on Google for science, they often end up looking stupid.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/nuclear-engin...mechan.pdf

Well, to be honest, I had forgotten about electron capture, probably because it is not common (from your link: "Electron capture is only possible if ΔP - ΔD > EB.") Be that as it may, this still does not answer my question:

How is spontaneous emission involved in beta decay (which is the only type of emission there can be in beta decay) evidence of "uncaused cause"?
'The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and seal. It could not be expressed better.'
-- Samuel "Mark Twain" Clemens

"I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the scriptures, but with experiments, demonstrations, and observations".

- Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)

"In short, Meyer has shown that his first disastrous book was not a fluke: he is capable of going into any field in which he has no training or research experience and botching it just as badly as he did molecular biology. As I've written before, if you are a complete amateur and don't understand a subject, don't demonstrate the Dunning-Kruger effect by writing a book about it and proving your ignorance to everyone else! "

- Dr. Donald Prothero
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving the Existence of a First Cause Muhammad Rizvi 3 758 June 23, 2023 at 5:50 pm
Last Post: arewethereyet
  [Serious] Existential Inertia vs. Sustaining First Cause GrandizerII 8 1116 August 24, 2020 at 2:12 pm
Last Post: GrandizerII
  God As Grounding Cause datc 75 9760 May 27, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  God As Groundhog Cause BrianSoddingBoru4 8 1176 May 26, 2018 at 10:18 am
Last Post: Edwardo Piet
  Bhagavad Gita First Cause watchamadoodle 4 1319 April 6, 2015 at 8:48 am
Last Post: Mudhammam
  "Everything has a cause and an explanation" discussion. Pizza 66 14920 February 22, 2015 at 11:59 am
Last Post: The Reality Salesman01



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)