bascule Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp Yes folks, that's right, the strong force doesn't hold the atomic nucleus together, Jesus does. Anyone who says otherwise is advocating "a desperate theory to explain away truth" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Jesus-ons hold togather teh atom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Peon Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 Without Jesus you would fly into outerspace. He holds us to the earth! Where is your respect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted September 13, 2005 Author Share Posted September 13, 2005 I love how the source he cites for this is drdino.com, discussed at length here, which claims, among other things: "Scientists have theorized that the T-Rex could probably breathe fire" "The most up to date scientific information shows that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago, they lived with man. There are still some around today." And what do they actually have to say about gluons? Your search - site:drdino.com gluons - did not match any documents. Nothing, I guess... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted September 13, 2005 Share Posted September 13, 2005 The funny thing is, I almost think those "Chick Tracts" are parodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locrian Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Didn't Jack Black propose that Rock-Ons hold atoms together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 Didn't Jack Black propose that Rock-Ons hold atoms together? IDk, but I do know that his 15 minutes of being considered "funny" are long since up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Locrian Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 You thought he was funny?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellbender Posted September 16, 2005 Share Posted September 16, 2005 You thought he was funny?? The overweight, mid 30's dumb stoner role was good for a chuckle the first time around, yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starbug1 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 The overweight, mid 30's dumb stoner role was good for a chuckle the first time around, yes. From what movie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted January 28, 2006 Author Share Posted January 28, 2006 From what movie? How about Bongwater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starbug1 Posted January 28, 2006 Share Posted January 28, 2006 Yikes. I didn't even know he was in that movie. My image of him is totally blown. Really, I think he made it better as a musician. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 3, 2006 Share Posted February 3, 2006 Bascule: Do you understand the strong force? Perhaps you would care to explain it to us? Just how does it hold the atomic nucleus together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Bascule: Do you understand the strong force? Perhaps you would care to explain it to us? Just how does it hold the atomic nucleus together? Severian, you obviously know more about physics than I do. So why are you asking me, a layman, for an explanation? I've certainly never studied quantum chromodynamics in an academic setting. If you have questions about the strong force, perhaps you should direct them at swansont rather than me. I can only suspect a religiously-derived ulterior motive. Are you saying the strong force doesn't hold together the atomic nucleus? Surely you don't agree with Chick that the strong force is "a desperate theory to explain away truth" and that electromagnetic repulsion should cause an atomic nucleus to blow apart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I am just curious to see if you think that anyone understands what holds the atomic nucleus together. Do you think that? Your original post seems to imply that you do. (Let me give you a hint. If you can answer my original question, and prove it, you will win the Nobel Prize - or rather I will, since I would steal the proof.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bascule Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 I am just curious to see if you think that anyone[/b'] understands what holds the atomic nucleus together. Do you think that? I've never had reason to suspect that our knowledge was incomplete in that respect, no. Your original post seems to imply that you do. (Let me give you a hint. If you can answer my original question, and prove it, you will win the Nobel Prize - or rather I will, since I would steal the proof.) So what are you saying, that the specific nature of the strong force interactions which hold together the atomic nucleus are presently unknown? This is the first I've heard of it and some more information on the matter would certainly be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Severian Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 We think we understand the force at very small distances <1fm (or about the size of a proton) very well, but when the distances become larger than that our traditional methods of investigation (perturbation theory) break down. Although it seems reasonable that the quarks which make up the proton are held in there by QCD and its gluons, no-one has ever been able to prove it. The phenomenon is called "confinement" and whomever proves it will win the big one. There are of course atomic models which describe nuclear bonding via the (residual) strong force, but they are just models, not real understanding. Gribov claimed that he had proven confinement, but he refused to write down his proof or explain it to anyone. And then he 'conventiently' died... [Edit: there are a few papers on the web which claim to understand Gribov's confinement, such as http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0008229, but they are all pretty much devoid of content.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john5746 Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 So, do you think scientists are trying to hide the truth? Who do you place your faith in for providing the eventual answer, science or religion? In this parady, is the boy providing answers or hiding truth? Scientist don't have all the answers, theologians aren't even looking for the answers, since they have God. As a lay person, I place my faith in science with matters of the physical world. It has proven to be the best system to explain the physical world. The theologians have the rest to think about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 5, 2006 Share Posted February 5, 2006 Jack Chick has the right idea, but he's been tragically deceived. It's not Jesus holding things together... it's SATAN. If not for Satan, we'd all disolve into pure energy and go straight to heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mace Sin Posted February 6, 2006 Share Posted February 6, 2006 I love how all these Chick Tracts show the quiet and oppressed Christian, while the Big Evil Atheists are constantly abusing them in all ways. And that tract still doesn't prove how a Sky Fairy will send you to eternal torment if you don't love Him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
padren Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 ...and here I thought no dialog could appear more staged and hokey than a presidential Town Hall meeting. When will the Atomic Christ-Force be peer reviewed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sisyphus Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 When will the Atomic Christ-Force be peer reviewed? Well, being that Chick's peers are paranoid psychotic pseudo-Christians, I imagine it has been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted February 7, 2006 Share Posted February 7, 2006 But what if you don't believe in jesus.... BANG! insane_alien is now a cloud of subatomic particles. Random phyzorcist: "ooo look quarks can exist on their own" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now