Explain this scientists

Dee

No offence but how is this a debate topic? Why do you not do a google search if you really want info or is there another agenda at play?

대왕광개토

@janesix I think you should post this question on science forum.

jesusisGod777

Any debate starts with a question.

Jesus Christ is Lord.

MayCaesar

I suggest that you watch this video to understand the problem with your questions. It is Feynman, a Nobel prize winner in physics and one of the main contributors to quantum mechanics in human history. He explains how simple questions can result in very-very-very complex multi-level answers, which are never exhaustive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Answering the question "What is a photon?" depends on what exactly you want to know. Strict definition? Relation to particle physics? Properties? Origin? All of the above?

Vaulk

This isn't a debate and contrary to the claim that "Any debate starts with a question", there's no evidence presented to support that and I'm going to willingly commit a logical fallacy here and say "No, no they don't and you're dead wrong".  Please stop posting debates with fewer than 100 words.  I mean seriously, if you cannot summon the brainpower to articulate your position, formulate your premise, justify it with at LEAST logic or reasoning and to summarize your conclusion then just don't...it's insulting to what a debate is supposed to be.  This looks like something from a 3rd grader's facebook page and isn't worth a debate.

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

Philosiphy is defined as 
the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Considering that all debates on this forumn require the debate to be posed in the form of a question your answer is fallacious.

Again I say all good debates start with a question.

You're wrong , and Debra disagrees.

jesusisGod777

The fact that you can't answer the question is the point of the debate.

I guess they weren't smart enough to figure it out which is the reason they can't answer.

Vaulk

jesusisGod777 said:

@Vaulk

Considering that all debates on this forumn require the debate to be posed in the form of a question your answer is fallacious.

Again I say all good debates start with a question.

You're wrong , and Debra disagrees.

You sure about that?

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3911/lower-prices-are-more-important-than-creating-jobs-for-americans
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3903/abortion-is-wrong
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3907/couple-faces-possible-fines-or-jail-time-for-using-right-to-religious-liberty-and-free-speech
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/3594/the-universe-is-designed
https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/48561#Comment_48561

These are just a few debates that not only AREN'T posed in the form of a question but WERE NOT required to be posed in the form of a question.  

Lastly, first it was "Any" debate starts with a question and now it's "All good debates" start with a question.  Where is your evidence to support this assertion?  I've provided you with irrefutable proof that all debates on this forum aren't required to be in the form of a question, show me any evidence that "All good debates start with a question". 

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

I said "supposed" to be.

1. Questions are analytical 

ques·tion

/ˈkwesCH(ə)n/

Learn to pronounce

noun

1. 1.
   a sentence worded or expressed so as to elicit information.

   "we hope this leaflet has been helpful in answering your questions"

   synonyms:

   inquiry, query;  interrogation,examination;  informalquiz,quizzing "you didn't answer my question

   
   Debate
   
   

   de·bate

   /dəˈbāt/

   Learn to pronounce

   noun

   1. 1.
      a formal discussion
      on a particular topic
   2. All debates are arguments.
   3. Since all bedates are arguments they can be posed as a question, statement, or take any form of discussion.
      
      

Vaulk

jesusisGod777 said:

@Vaulk

I said "supposed" to be

jesusisGod777 said:

@Vaulk

Considering that all debates on this forumn require the debate to be posed in the form of a question your answer is fallacious.

No I'm afraid you didn't say "Supposed to be.  These grey blocks above here are your statements.  You said "All debates on this forum require the debate to be posed in the form of a question".

This point of argument is no longer up for debate as far as I'm concerned as now you're resorting to simply claiming that you didn't say something that I've quoted you on twice now.

Lastly, questions don't contradict statements...ever.  I recently had this discussion with another member and it seems that this issue is some sort of wide-spread misunderstanding.  I can ask questions all day long but none of them will contradict any statement without an answer.  Questions don't include answers, that's why there's a distinction between the two.  You've stated 

jesusisGod777 said:

@Vaulk

1. 1. All debates are arguments.

An argument, in its many forms of meaning, must be diverging, opposing, or conflicting and must be in statement form because questions cannot diverge, oppose or conflict...they are merely inquiries that are designed to elicit information...not to establish information.  Therefor questions, in and of themselves, do no constitute an argument...ever.  Since all debates are arguments and arguments cannot be questions then questions cannot be debates.  

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

Oversight, I was thinking about another debate.not as big a deal to me as to you. Cry me a river or two.

Everytime I've attempted to post a debate on this forumn it has stated,

The debate must be posted in the form of a question.

There are ways around that.

Either way if the site makes such a statement then the site determines a debate must be asked in the form of a question.

Point 1.

Questions in themselves do not constitue arguments.

Listen whoever you are.

No one suggested questions by themselves are a form of argument.

It depends on whether or not the question, is itself posed in an argumentative manner such as with the question asked in the debate which,insinuated by asking the question, that there is a lack of knowledge on behalf of the scientific community that determines they lack credibility.

I said questions are analytical.

However questions can be intended to be argumentative or imply that someone doesn't know something and therefore suggest that their lack of knowledge implys that they can not make a creidble statement

The type of question asked here on a debate forumn should give you enough of a reason to understand or imply that any question posted on this forumn is related to debate or intends to debate a specific issue.

That should be obvious

Obviousssssssssssssssss.


The notion that questions don't contradict statements is absurd. It depends on whether or not a question contradicts a statement, so your statements fallacious.

Does it make sense that questions don't contradict statements when a  statement can be contradictory and someone can ask whether or not the statement is a contradiction such as, is not what you said a contradiction considering your statements false? 

For instance is someone said the sun's a sauare and someone responded,

" Well, is the sun a square considering the sounds round and roundness defines the shape of something"

You could contradict someone while asking a question.

Therefore all debates are arguments and can be posed as questions and questions can be debates.

Jesus is Lord.

MayCaesar

jesusisGod777 said:

The fact that you can't answer the question is the point of the debate.

I guess they weren't smart enough to figure it out which is the reason they can't answer.

I can answer the questions in a lot of different ways. The point I made was exactly that there is no simple answer that will satisfy everyone, so before answering, I need to know on what level you want the answer to be.

For analogy, consider the question, "Who are you?" How would you respond to it? There are millions different ways you can answer, depending on what exactly you want to convey and what the person asking you wants to know exactly.

This is a very complicated subject, but you are looking for a simple answer that would exhaust it. I am sorry, but such an answer does not exist.

Vaulk

@jesusisGod777

jesusisGod777 said:

@Vaulk


" Well, is the sun a square considering the sounds round and roundness defines the shape of something"

You could contradict someone while asking a question.

Therefore all debates are arguments and can be posed as questions and questions can be debates.

Jesus is Lord.

This right here is exactly why you're wrong.  The question listed above definitely "Suggests" that there's a contradiction but the question itself does not contradict anything.  The reason the question in its current form doesn't contradict anything is because the answer is assumed but not provided.  The answer to the question could possibly serve as a contradiction but the question itself merely assumes a contradiction.

If your argument is based on a question that assumes something is or isn't true then your argument is based on assumption and therefor fallacious.  You must establish your argument in order for it to be valid.  

In certain degrees, asking questions are absolutely a part of the debating process however, the question in and of itself does not serve as an argument because if it did then it would be possible to ask a question without receiving an answer and STILL WIN A DEBATE.

Example:

John: I'm older than you

Susan: Do you know how old I actually am?  No?  I guess I win then.

John: I didn't even answer your question...how is it that you won?

Susan: Because my question assumes that you aren't familiar with what you're talking about and since questions can contradict...my argument is sufficient in and of itself to contradict your original statement.

John: But you don't even know if I actually DO know your age.

Susan: Doesn't matter, I win by assumption.

Do you see how ridiculous this sounds?  The answer to Susan's question was never presented yet she assumes that her question serves as valid contradiction.  This example is asinine.

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

First I don't take this as seriously as you because I don't lack a degree of self-esteem that I have to prove what is obvious.

To prove what is obvious only emphasizes two things:

1. You and the person your talking to are .

Debate island:

most of you here are retarted.not kind of retarted seriously retarted.

Second a,contradiction is simply a contradiction. Its not based on an evaluation, it's based on concept.

Third , I don't even read half of what any of you write. Has to do with why I make oversights because I really could care less about what you all have to say. I'm an educator with a master's degree.

I don't need to learn and am qualified to speak. Running through the first two sentences of most of what you people say here clarifys your ignorance.


P.s.

I only read the first two sentences you wrote.

Vaulk

@jesusisGod777

Since you only read the first two lines, I'll try to keep this short for you. I wasn't aware that your Masters Degree made you a better human being than me and therefor entirely above and beyond being respectful, courteous or civil.  My apologies for not recognizing your obvious superiority.

jesusisGod777

@Vaulk

I read the first line in that one.

It's about being educated.

If you're talking about being a better person the entire reason I said what I said was to encourage the person who made the statement not discourage them like many of you do.

Jesus is Lord.

KdCuber

@janesix
What is mass
What is energy
What is a photon

Those are indeed very interesting questions. However, scientists now know the answers to them, after centuries of scientific innovation and development. I will unfortunately have to dumb the answer down, since i don't expect you to have a degree in physics (otherwise you'd know the answers XD)

I will start with the easiest question, and work my way through, since these questions are all interconnected. 
"What is a photon". A photon is an elementary particle with null invariant mass (the mass that isn't dependent on the velocity at which a body travels. This is a pretty important concept in Special Relativity), which has a measured velocity of around 300 000 km/s in vacuum (space is a vacuum). Interestingly, this is exactly the speed of light, the speed that a light signal will travel at. This is not a mere coincidence, indeed the photon IS light in a certain sense. Formally, it is the messenger particle of the electromagnetic force. 

All 4 fundamental forces have a so called "messenger particle". These define how the force acts and why. 

Now, you might think: "But I was taught that light was a wave, not a stream of particles". That is, just like the answer, both true and untrue XD. You see, photons have a "wave-particle duality". Sometimes they behave as waves, other times they behave as particles. This is the fundamental pillar on top of which Quantum Mechanics (the theory of quanta, very very small things. More precisely, a quantum is the minimum "amount" of an observable, such as a minmum length in the universe, the Planck length) was developed. In conclusion, light behaves as a wave and a stream of particles, it depends on outer parameters.  


"What is energy". 
This is probably the best question to follow my answer on photons. Why? Because, although photons have no mass, they have energy! I know I know, you were probably taught at school that the energy of a particle is dependent on the mass (you might have even see the equation E = 1/2 m v^2 + mgh), but that's WRONG. You don't believe me? Switch off one of your light bulbs right now, and touch the light bulb. Is it warm? That's because some of the energy that light was carrying was lost to the "system" in the form of heat. The sun is another perfect example, because its light warms the earth! This is because, as i told you earlier, photons can behave like waves, and waves have energy. Indeed, the energy of a photon depends on its frequency.

However, normal objects do have "normal" energy, such as kinetic and potential energy. In a certain sense, energy is an observable that must be applied on an object to make it "behave" in a certain sense. For example, if you want to heat an object, you heat it, you use ENERGY. 

"What is mass"
Now this question... man this is a hard one. Unfortunately I'm still doing my MSc, so I haven't quite studied QFT and accelerator physics to the extent needed to answer, but I'll try. Remember back in 2010 when there was all this fuss going on about the "Higg's Boson" or the God Particle? Yeah, it has to do with this. Up until then we had no real explanation for why things had mass. We knew matter had mass, but not why. Theoretically, this boson had already been hypothesized back in the 60s, but hadn't been observed. Then, suddenly, in 2010, at the CERN laboratory, a new elementary particle was observed after two massless particles collided. This new particle was a perfect fit for the descriptions made by Higgs back in the 60s, because it WAS that particle. The Higg's boson told us why some particles had mass, and why others didn't. 

So to answer your question, mass is an intrinsic property that belongs to all bodies which defines the way it interacts with neighboring bodies and decides how to curve space-time. That is probably the best way to describe it IMO.