On 26 May, 14:16, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is the binding force of an atom? My question arises from this; It
> is well known that in the nucleus of an atom there are protons and
> neutrons, protons being positively charged and neutrons having no
> charge (neutral) and of course electrons having a negative charge
> float freely about the nucleus on thier respective valances. What
> keeps the nucleus from repeling apart? Like polarities repel and
> neutrons have no charge so cannot cancel the protons positive charge
> out. The electrons are free even to join with other atoms so what
> keeps all matter from just flying apart into oblivion?
>

The Nucleus is held together bt the 'Strong Atomic Force' via gluons.
But, remember that the 'Weak Atomic Force' comes into play over longer
distances (W ans Z bosons) and, as all those components have rest
masses greater tha zero, gravity plays a role, as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gluons

These links should help!!


> On May 26, 7:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 26 May, 03:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Well Pat, it seems I'm not alone in recognizing your fruitless efforts
> > > in portraying a simple set of faith based beliefs as being anything
> > > other than the delusive conjuring that it is.  
>
> > Fruitless?  Methinks you've judged this a tad quickly.  Let's revisit
> > that in another 20 years.
>
> > >But let's have another
> > > look at what might be a plausible viewpoint concerning the spiritual,
> > > metaphysical and cosmological world in which we live.  Perhaps it is
> > > simply the cause and effect of human telepathy and interaction with a
> > > collective consciousness that has evolved and expanded throughout
> > > time, ergo: the advancement of humanity via the communicative ability
> > > of the consciousness with that of the collective consciousness and
> > > subconsciousness.  In 386 BC no man woke up one morning and discovered
> > > laser technology but in time it was discovered through the "collective
> > > knowledge of the collective subconscious".
>
> > Doesn't exactly explain how the Earth came into being, though.  So, I
> > think there's a distinct lack of 'cosmology' to that viewpoint.
>
> > > I know you are desperate to prove the existence of a supreme being
> > > that created the universe and out of your desperation you conjure
> > > ideas just as did the ancients who were desperate to have explanations
> > > for lightning, thunder and the solar eclipse.  I can only be impressed
> > > by the tenacity with which you hold onto these antiquated ideas of
> > > what life is all about.  Like I said earlier, it can be quite amusing.
>
> > Always glad to put a smile on someone's face!!  ;-)
>
> > > Vam is right in identifying your approach as totally anthropologically
> > > based.  
>
> > Yet, actually, I've proved that false.  But, as you liked it, you too
> > are wrong.
>
> > >You actually think that because humans have intent in action
> > > there must be a creator who has intent.
>
> > No, rather, the existence of intelligence and awareness is evidence
> > that there is intelligence and awareness at work.  I simply have
> > joined the dots.
>
> > >You are simply an advanced
> > > organism among the other organisms on the planet that ingest, digest
> > > and excrete. (don't forget the toilet paper)
> > > What I would really like for you to answer is this....................
> > > Exactly where does this "Great Creator" come from?
>
> > Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
>
> > > Who made the "Great Creator"?
>
> > Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
>
> > > The Super Creator of Great Creators?
>
> > Energy is neither created nor destroyed.
>
> > > Where does it end?
>
> > As soon as you get it through your head that energy is neither created
> > nor destroyed and that energy is the 'stuff' of which God is made.
>
> > > I can answer that, it ends right here because it is simply another
> > > which came first chicken or egg question.
> > > IF there is a God then WHO created God and Who created the God who
> > > created the God who created God?
>
> > I refer you to energy.  Science is happy with the fact that energy is
> > neither created nor destroyed.  So, I ask YOU, who created energy?  No
> > one.  Energy exists.  It is that simple fact that stands as the
> > underlying axiom.
>
> > > Imagination is a wonderful thing until we take it seriously!  Imagine
> > > you can fly then jump out the window.  Then you will realize the
> > > reality of your fantasy.   That is if you live and I'm hoping you
> > > aren't taking this suggestion seriously but if you are I hope you are
> > > living on the first floor or better yet jump out of the basement
> > > window.  LOL
>
> > Of course, as I'm in the UK, the first floor is one floor above the
> > ground floor.  But, I'm not suicidal.  Death catches us all
> > eventually, it's completely fair in that regard.  Whilst some may take
> > issue with which HOW death catches us, that is their problem in that
> > it takes omniscience to understand why things must be the way they
> > must be.  Although it does NOT take omniscience to understand that it
> > takes omniscience to understand the previous statement; just decent
> > insight.  ;-)
>
> > > On May 25, 7:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 25 May, 02:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > You talk about it all with such affirmation but in all actuality it is
> > > > > something that you have bought into and choose to believe based on
> > > > > some written text.  What makes you think that book is any different
> > > > > from any other book, I see no difference between you and a Jehovah
> > > > > Witness. What makes your belief more believable.  There is absolutely
> > > > > not a shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a god or
> > > > > supreme being that is a creator of the universe and life.  Even if
> > > > > there was one I don't see why such a great creator would have to say
> > > > > something through the writings of a bunch of ignorant desert dwelling
> > > > > sheep and goat herders.  There is no evidence of any heaven or hell or
> > > > > anything that suggests consequential outcomes to action.  We suspect
> > > > > and give in to superstition in fear of it being real when all the time
> > > > > we know it is false without foundation.
>
> > > > LOL!!  You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written
> > > > something like this.  OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative.
> > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with
> > > > no cause.  There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any
> > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause.  With
> > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic
> > > > viewpoint).  Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is
> > > > it 'without purpose'?  How often do you act without purpose?  So,
> > > > again, (y)our own experience seems to point to intelligent beings
> > > > doing things with purposeful intent.  Yet the atheist argument is that
> > > > this causeless effect is without purpose; yet they feel it is their
> > > > purpose to point that out.  No dichotomy there, oh no!  Not even
> > > > you're own existence stands as any evidence to the committed atheist.
> > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to
> > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action
> > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction.  If you think you have
> > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you.  However, I'm
> > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how
> > > > ridiculous your argument sounds.  Effects without causes and no
> > > > reactions to actions?  What universe do you live in?
>
> > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me.  
> > > > > > > Why
> > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me?
>
> > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to 
> > > > > > > enjoy
> > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to
> > > > > > > kiss god's ass?
>
> > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said.
>
> > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic.
>
> > > > > > You're supposed to.  It's a test.  You may be failing.  How would 
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > know?
>
> > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> 
> > > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained 
> > > > > > > > phenomena
> > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man 
> > > > > > > > made "God
> > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the 
> > > > > > > > world
> > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often 
> > > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as 
> > > > > > > > empirical
> > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this 
> > > > > > > > is mass
> > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the
> > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these
> > > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on 
> > > > > > > > your lack
> > > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing 
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound 
> > > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the 
> > > > > > > > believing
> > > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down 
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and 
> > > > > > > > greed for
> > > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the
> > > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is 
> > > > > > > > not the
> > > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to 
> > > > > > > > convince
> > > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain 
> > > > > > > > that God
> > > > > > > > shall do his own work with you.
>
> > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat.  What you say still 
> > > > > > > > > evokes
> > > > > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent.  To say what IS 
> > > > > > > > > just IS
> > > > > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my 
> > > > > > > > > window.
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Reply via email to