Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, that's theorem, proven only on a blackboard with zero observational science or direct measurement.

Phantom doesn't know how to read and interpret the meat of scientific papers, they read the title and hope it supports their point. There's been many times they have given me what they thought was an experiment but it was actually just a hypothetical computer model lol

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Feel free to provide a singular example.

You're going to send the bot into an angry feedback loop of bad memes and misinterpreted science

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Again, that's theorem, proven only on a blackboard with zero observational science or direct measurement.

What is "theorem"? What are you referring to? What blackboard? Are you referring to the graviton article? If so, you don't understand how the physics was done. Read it again.

a reply to: Phantom423

I asked you for an example of a device which can detect Gravitons, not a theory on how Gravitons interact with our universe.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

I asked you for an example of a device which can detect Gravitons, not a theory on how Gravitons interact with our universe.

What device?

a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly.

And you do not have a clue.

Experimental observation

Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector.[19] The reason is the extremely low cross section for the interaction of gravitons with matter. For example, a detector with the mass of Jupiter and 100% efficiency, placed in close orbit around a neutron star, would only be expected to observe one graviton every 10 years, even under the most favorable conditions. It would be impossible to discriminate these events from the background of neutrinos, since the dimensions of the required neutrino shield would ensure collapse into a black hole.[19]

LIGO and Virgo collaborations' observations have directly detected gravitational waves.[20][21][22] Others have postulated that graviton scattering yields gravitational waves as particle interactions yield coherent states.[23] Although these experiments cannot detect individual gravitons, they might provide information about certain properties of the graviton.[24] For example, if gravitational waves were observed to propagate slower than c (the speed of light in vacuum), that would imply that the graviton has mass (however, gravitational waves must propagate slower than c in a region with non-zero mass density if they are to be detectable).[25] Recent observations of gravitational waves have put an upper bound of 1.2×10−22 eV/c2 on the graviton's mass.[20] Astronomical observations of the kinematics of galaxies, especially the galaxy rotation problem and modified Newtonian dynamics, might point toward gravitons having non-zero mass.[26][27]

My suggestion is you get yourself a bunch of textbooks on chemistry, physics and the scientific method. You are clueless as to how science works.

a reply to: Phantom423

Did you just bolster my idea that Gravity is a fictitious force and then criticize me for leading you to that revelation?

If gravity can't be measured or observed then it resides in the realm of belief.

My academic qualifications are from a physics background, based on this conversation they're far more pertinent than your own experience.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Exactly.

You're in way over your pay grade. I suggest you stop while you think you are ahead.

Angular momentum based graviton detector
J. P. M. Pitelli and T. Rick Perche
Phys. Rev. D 104, 065016 – Published 21 September 2021
Article has an altmetric score of 2
More
Article
References
Citing Articles (4)
PDFHTMLExport Citation

ABSTRACT
We show that gravitons with energy
E
<
Ω
, where
Ω
is the energy gap a localized nonrelativistic system, can be detected by finite-time interactions with a detector. Our detector is based on a quadrupole moment interaction between the hydrogen atom and the gravitational field in the linearized approximation. In this model, the external agent responsible for switching the interaction on an off inputs energy into the system, which creates a nonzero excitation probability even when the field is in the vacuum state. However, when the gravitational field is in a one-particle state with angular momentum, we obtain excitations due to the field’s particle content. These detector excitations are then associated with the detection of gravitons. We also discuss a possible physical realization of our model where the electromagnetic field plays the role of the external agent.

a reply to: Phantom423

I never tried to prove or disprove a god or any supernatural creature. I have no evidence for or against the existence
of supernatural creatures. No evidence = no science.

No evidence according to your obvious bias. As for me, our existence
being absolutely dependent on exactly the right planet provisioned with
all the life supporting systems we need to survive. Temperature sustanence
oxygen to breathe water. Those requirements are miniscuel in comparison
to the full scope of what is needed to support life on this planet. You think
you can just ignore the timing of it all. Blatently ignoring the obvious
cognition and super intelligence responsible for everything we;ve
been provided?

Just a random thoughtless occurrence of chance with no intention
or purpose. I;m sorry but if that's what you suggest it looks far
more ridiculous then anything you can ridicule me for suggesting.

You wont even acknowledge the miracle of life we are experiencing
with or with out a supreme being. Either way it's 100% miraculous.
But nothing for you to be thankful for.

a reply to: Phantom423

The relevant adjectives in your quote which you should consider in re-assessment are "model" and "approximation".

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Did you just bolster my idea that Gravity is a fictitious force and then criticize me for leading you to that revelation?

Phantom does that all the time. Hilarious in their own quote they sent it literally says:

"Unambiguous detection of individual gravitons, though not prohibited by any fundamental law, is impossible with any physically reasonable detector."

And then Phantom says you're the one who doesnt have a clue, despite the fact they just proved your point. It's insanity. It's good though because it just goes to show the depth of the average evolution believer. Their faith is based on a house of cards.

a reply to: cooperton

Yeah, i noticed they bolstered my opinion but then paradoxically criticized it in the same sentence.

"It's ok tho, all i need to confirm my scientific beliefs are a detector with the mass of Jupiter and to place it in orbit around a neutron star. Then i'll be able to prove i'm right if i get lucky with 10 years of data."

Yeah, real observational science right there.

I tell you what i can detect, my bullsh!t meter is off the charts atm.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: cooperton

"It's ok tho, all i need to confirm my scientific beliefs are a detector with the mass of Jupiter and to place it in orbit around a neutron star. Then i'll be able to prove i'm right if i get lucky with 10 years of data."


Yeah, real observational science right there.

"praise science"
lolol



Is your degree in theoretical physics by any chance? Do you think gravity is due to curved spacetime or something totally foreign to our current comprehension? Been working on a few things and would like to know your thoughts

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

Did you just bolster my idea that Gravity is a fictitious force and then criticize me for leading you to that revelation?

If gravity can't be measured or observed then it resides in the realm of belief.

My academic qualifications are from a physics background, based on this conversation they're far more pertinent than your own experience.

I gave you the link. You didn't read it. Nor did you do any research about gravity. Only a complete idiot would claim that gravity was fictitious.

a reply to: cooperton

Computer science but i've ventured into the quantum world due to my experience reading OTDR results and formulating analysis of them as part of my job.

I believe the latter, and that most of our current theories are totally incomplete at best and completely flawed at worse. We've spent thousands of years analyzing the macro, i think our understanding of the quantum field and beyond is in it's infancy and the relationship between the scales is totally misunderstood.

If i didn't understand photons and electrons to some degree, i'd be out of employment.

originally posted by: Saloon
a reply to: Phantom423

I never tried to prove or disprove a god or any supernatural creature. I have no evidence for or against the existence
of supernatural creatures. No evidence = no science.

No evidence according to your obvious bias. As for me, our existence
being absolutely dependent on exactly the right planet provisioned with
all the life supporting systems we need to survive. Temperature sustanence
oxygen to breathe water. Those requirements are miniscuel in comparison
to the full scope of what is needed to support life on this planet. You think
you can just ignore the timing of it all. Blatently ignoring the obvious
cognition and super intelligence responsible for everything we;ve
been provided?

Just a random thoughtless occurrence of chance with no intention
or purpose. I;m sorry but if that's what you suggest it looks far
more ridiculous then anything you can ridicule me for suggesting.

You wont even acknowledge the miracle of life we are experiencing
with or with out a supreme being. Either way it's 100% miraculous.
But nothing for you to be thankful for.

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to your own science unless you have evidence.
No evidence = no science.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

The relevant adjectives in your quote which you should consider in re-assessment are "model" and "approximation".

Just one more clue that you have never studied science, read scientific papers or understand anything about science at all.

Cooper, aka "Mr. Pond Scum", is more in your league.

a reply to: Phantom423

en.wikipedia.org...

"The notion of "fictitious force" arises in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[24][25] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[26][27] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity could be modeled as a fictitious force. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to inertial reference frames (the equivalence principle). Developing this insight, Einstein formulated a theory with gravity as a fictitious force, and attributed the apparent acceleration due to gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See the Eötvös experiment."

Einstein seems to agree with me at least. I'll take his word above your own. According to you he's an idiot as well?

a reply to: Phantom423

Do you really need to be so offensive and insulting? I can easily return the favor although i prefer to keep conversation civilized in the interests of constructive debate.

Not agreeing with you doesn't make me an idiot.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: Phantom423

en.wikipedia.org...

"The notion of "fictitious force" arises in Einstein's general theory of relativity.[24][25] All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity.[26][27] This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity could be modeled as a fictitious force. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to inertial reference frames (the equivalence principle). Developing this insight, Einstein formulated a theory with gravity as a fictitious force, and attributed the apparent acceleration due to gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity. See the Eötvös experiment."

Einstein seems to agree with me at least. I'll take his word above your own.

Well that's news to everyone. Einstein developed a theory based on a fictitious force. Why don't you publish a paper about that? I'm sure that NASA and the rocket industry will be very interested to learn that they don't need fuel to propel a rocket into space. It was just in their head all the time! Get rid of that equation for gravity! We don't need it! Granade says so.