How do the non-spiritual explain it?

[Hollie]

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".

It's called Physics, you stupid bitch.

Sorry, you silly, angry fundamentalist but the "physics" you get from the Institute for Creation Research is a bit, how shall we say..."slanted" to appeal to people like yourself who are not real discriminating as to the accuracy of the "physics" they're presented.

 

[Boss]

What "spiritual beings" are you babbling about?

Secondly, was that rambling screed supposed to address some point?

I didn't mention "spiritual beings" and you'll seldom find an example of me ever mentioning such a thing. There's a good reason for that. It's because of our perception as humans. Something we define as a "being" implies there is something in the physical state of being. Since spiritual energy is not physical, there is no being. Its an oxymoron.

 

[Boss]

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".

It's called Physics, you stupid bitch.

Sorry, you silly, angry fundamentalist but the "physics" you get from the Institute for Creation Research is a bit, how shall we say..."slanted" to appeal to people like yourself who are not real discriminating as to the accuracy of the "physics" they're presented.

I didn't get the physics from ICR, they got the physics from science. Now I am sorry if creationists use valid science in their arguments, that doesn't negate the science.

I challenge you to ask ANY astrophysicist whether electrons could exist if the gravitational constant were higher or lower? You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.

These pesky constants are a big problem for atheist deniers. There is not a physical reason why the universe must have these constants, in fact, it is far more likely the universe wouldn't hit the lottery on every single one. And this is where the birth of Multiverse Theory comes in! You see, the atheist deniers need a way to explain a finely-tuned universe rationally. Their theory has now become, that we are just one of many universes, therefore, the possibility for a finely-tuned one is inevitable.

 

[Hollie]

It's comical to read his his silly "but..... but...... but...... but if the force of gravity was .000000001% less than it is, planets could not have formed".

It's called Physics, you stupid bitch.

Sorry, you silly, angry fundamentalist but the "physics" you get from the Institute for Creation Research is a bit, how shall we say..."slanted" to appeal to people like yourself who are not real discriminating as to the accuracy of the "physics" they're presented.

I didn't get the physics from ICR, they got the physics from science. Now I am sorry if creationists use valid science in their arguments, that doesn't negate the science.

I challenge you to ask ANY astrophysicist whether electrons could exist if the gravitational constant were higher or lower? You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.

These pesky constants are a big problem for atheist deniers. There is not a physical reason why the universe must have these constants, in fact, it is far more likely the universe wouldn't hit the lottery on every single one. And this is where the birth of Multiverse Theory comes in! You see, the atheist deniers need a way to explain a finely-tuned universe rationally. Their theory has now become, that we are just one of many universes, therefore, the possibility for a finely-tuned one is inevitable.

If you take time to actually study the putrid bile oozing from your fundamentalist creation ministries, you will find its not science at all.

Ah, the "finely tuned universe", meme. Just be honest, Bossy. You use every slogan and cliche' known to the ICR. Why are you pretending that your fundie Creation ministries are to be taken seriously on matters of science?

 

[edthecynic]

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.

Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.

INCORRECT!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created an electric quadrupole. The electromagnetic force due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on the order of nanometers. On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers

You are such an idiot, you say I'm incorrect and then post proof I was correct as I made it quite clear I was talking on an "astronomical scale" and you are too stupid to comprehend simple English!

 

[edthecynic]

You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.

Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.
IDIOT, with obviously NO degree in Physics or Chemistry!

 

[Boss]

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.

Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.

INCORRECT!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created an electric quadrupole. The electromagnetic force due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on the order of nanometers. On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers

You are such an idiot, you say I'm incorrect and then post proof I was correct as I made it quite clear I was talking on an "astronomical scale" and you are too stupid to comprehend simple English!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity.

Which is precisely in line with what I stated. It is YOU who is trying to distort and twist that around into something you can refute. Gravity is a weak fundamental force, the weakest of the four. This is not really relevant other than to note that if gravity were just ever-so-sightly stronger or weaker, no matter comprised of atoms could exist because the electrons can't orbit the nucleus. The gravitational constant has to be precise to within 10 to the 123 power or nothing works. No chemistry, no atoms, nothing material can exist.

Now Eddy.... You can make like a catfish and try to muddy up the waters to hide the fact that your ass is mine, I can appreciate your attempt to save face. I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about with this "astronomical scale" crap. Physics are physics. Of the known fundamental forces, Gravity is the weakest.

 

[Boss]

Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.

Because of the gravitational constant which is precisely tuned.

 

[Hollie]

We know that gravitational force is weak. In relation to other forces, it is among the weakest. The force of gravity is determined by a gravitational constant. If the force of gravity were a tad stronger or weaker, electrons could not exist. No electrons, no chemistry-- No chemistry, no life.

Speak for YOUR own stupidity. Gravity is actually the strongest force on a UNIVERSAL scale!

On astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other.

INCORRECT!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity. If you take two protons and hold them very close together, they will exert several forces on each other. Because they both have mass, the two protons exert gravitational attraction on each other. Because they both have a positive electric charge, they both exert electromagnetic repulsion on each other. Also, they both have internal “color” charge and thus exert attraction via the strong nuclear force. Because the strong nuclear force is the strongest at short distances, it dominates over the other forces and the two protons become bound, forming a helium nucleus (typically a neutron is also needed to keep the helium nucleus stable). Gravity is so weak at the atomic scale that scientists can typically ignore it without incurring significant errors in their calculations.

However, on astronomical scales, gravity does dominate over the other forces. There are two reasons for this: 1) gravity has a long range, and 2) there is no such thing as negative mass. Each force dies off as the two objects experiencing the force become more separated. The rate at which the forces die off is different for each force. The strong and weak nuclear forces are very short ranged, meaning that outside of the tiny nuclei of atoms, these forces quickly drop to zero. The tiny size of the nuclei of atoms is a direct result of the extreme short range of the nuclear forces. Two particles that are nanometers apart are far too distant from each other to exert an appreciable nuclear force on each other. If the nuclear forces are so weak for two particles only nanometers apart, it should be obvious that the nuclear forces are even more negligible on astronomical scales. For instance, the earth and sun are far too distant from each other (billions of meters) for their nuclear forces to reach each other. In contrast to the nuclear forces, both the electromagnetic force and gravity have infinite range and die off in strength as 1/r2.

If both electromagnetism and gravity have infinite range, why is the earth held in orbit around the sun by gravity and not by the electromagnetic force? The reason is that there is no such thing as negative mass, but there is such thing as negative electric charge. If you place a single positive electric charge near a single negative electric charge, and then measure their combined force on another, distant charge, you find that the negative charge tends to cancel out the positive charge somewhat. Such an object is called an electric dipole. The electromagnetic force caused by an electric dipole dies off as 1/r3 and not 1/r2 because of this canceling effect. Similarly, if you take two positive electric charges and two negative charges and place them close together properly, you have created an electric quadrupole. The electromagnetic force due to an electric quadrupole dies off even more rapidly, as 1/r4, because the negative charges do such a good job of canceling the positive charges. As you add more and more positive charges to an equal number of negative charges, the range of the electromagnetic force of the system gets shorter and shorter. The interesting thing is that most objects are made out of atoms, and most atoms have an equal number of positive and negative electric charges. Therefore, despite the fact that the raw electromagnetic force of a single charge has an infinite range, the effective range of the electromagnetic force for typical objects such as stars and planets is much shorter. In fact, neutral atoms have an effective electromagnetic range on the order of nanometers. On astronomical scales, this leaves only gravity. If there were such a thing as negative mass (antimatter has positive mass), and if atoms generally contained equal parts of positive and negative mass, then gravity would suffer the same fate as electromagnetism and there would be no significant force at the astronomical scale. Fortunately, there is no negative mass, and therefore the gravitational force of multiple bodies close together is always additive. In summary, gravity is the weakest of the forces in general, but it is the dominant one at astronomical scales because it has the longest range and because there is no negative mass.

Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers

You are such an idiot, you say I'm incorrect and then post proof I was correct as I made it quite clear I was talking on an "astronomical scale" and you are too stupid to comprehend simple English!

Actually, gravity is the weakest of the four fundamental forces. Ordered from strongest to weakest, the forces are 1) the strong nuclear force, 2) the electromagnetic force, 3) the weak nuclear force, and 4) gravity.

Which is precisely in line with what I stated. It is YOU who is trying to distort and twist that around into something you can refute. Gravity is a weak fundamental force, the weakest of the four. This is not really relevant other than to note that if gravity were just ever-so-sightly stronger or weaker, no matter comprised of atoms could exist because the electrons can't orbit the nucleus. The gravitational constant has to be precise to within 10 to the 123 power or nothing works. No chemistry, no atoms, nothing material can exist.

Now Eddy.... You can make like a catfish and try to muddy up the waters to hide the fact that your ass is mine, I can appreciate your attempt to save face. I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about with this "astronomical scale" crap. Physics are physics. Of the known fundamental forces, Gravity is the weakest.

You've been trolling your fundamentalist christian ministries again for your "gravitational constant" diatribe.

 

[Hollie]

Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.

Because of the gravitational constant which is precisely tuned.

Is the ICR having a recruitment drive?

 

[Boss]

....your "gravitational constant" diatribe.

LMFAOooo... Oh the Hits just keep on a comin'!

 

[Boss]

Gravitational Constant....

Hollie, this is the formula for finding the force (F) of gravity. In order for us to make this calculation (and we often have), we need to know the value of G.

This is the formula for the gravitational constant. I realize this is quite a bit over your head, but you look like an absolute idiot running around denouncing the gravitational constant as some creationist bullshit. I mean, really... you appear to be a retard.

 

[edthecynic]

I don't even know what the fuck you're talking about with this "astronomical scale" crap.

And yet the link YOU posted to defend YOUR crap mentions it REPEATEDLY, so you admit you don't even know what you posted!
IDIOT!
Why is gravity the strongest force Science Questions with Surprising Answers

 

[edthecynic]

Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.

Because of the gravitational constant which is precisely tuned.

So now the "gravitational constant" suddenly has nothing to do with the "NEUTRON."

Come on, admit it, you are just C&P stuff you have no understanding of in the slightest.

You see, the gravitational constant has to be precise or the electrons can't orbit the neutron of atoms. That's just basic physics and anyone with a degree in physics knows this.

Hydrogen has no neutron and yet its electron has no trouble orbiting its proton nucleus.
IDIOT, with obviously NO degree in Physics or Chemistry!

 

[edthecynic]

Gravitational Constant....

Hollie, this is the formula for finding the force (F) of gravity. In order for us to make this calculation (and we often have), we need to know the value of G.

This is the formula for the gravitational constant. I realize this is quite a bit over your head, but you look like an absolute idiot running around denouncing the gravitational constant as some creationist bullshit. I mean, really... you appear to be a retard.

Again, the need for a Straw Man. As you well know, it is the crap that the gravitational constant is "FINE TUNED" that is being argued as Creationist bullshit.
I mean, really... you ARE a retard.

 

[edthecynic]

Gravitational Constant....

Hollie, this is the formula for finding the force (F) of gravity. In order for us to make this calculation (and we often have), we need to know the value of G.

This is the formula for the gravitational constant. I realize this is quite a bit over your head, but you look like an absolute idiot running around denouncing the gravitational constant as some creationist bullshit. I mean, really... you appear to be a retard.

Didn't you leave something out?
Why yes, yes you did!

The gravitational constant is a physical constant that is difficult to measure with high accuracy.[3] In SI units, the 2010 CODATA-recommended value of the gravitational constant (with standard uncertainty in parentheses) is:[4]

with relative standard uncertainty 1.2×10−4.[4]

 

[Hollie]

....your "gravitational constant" diatribe.

LMFAOooo... Oh the Hits just keep on a comin'!

Oh they do, Bossy. As it was noted, you're trying to make some connection between the gravitational constant and your ID'iot creationist "finely tuned universe" slogans.

You need to revisit your heroes at the ICR because that slogan is meaningless outside of your christian creationist ministries.

 

[Boss]

So we now have two atheists on record, completely rejecting modern physics in order to support their "religious" belief. Denying that we have a gravitational constant so finely tuned we can develop a formula for calculating it accurately and have been doing so for over a century. Relegated to nit-picking tiny irrelevant details and pretending this somehow refutes my argument.

The more physical science refuses to give them answers they want, the more they will categorically reject science. This should suffice as all the evidence anyone needs that these two are on a mission and it's not a science mission.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Boss

We do not have exact precise measurement for every physical constant.

The idea that the universe is "fined tune" assumes that we do. It lso assumes something else--that the life we do know about is the only forms of life possible,and that the universe is homogenous plus several other things.

 

[dblack]

The 'fine tuned' argument always struck me us basically silly. All it really says is "if things were different, they'd be different." Yep.