Because its density is so high, neutrons spin in the same way that electrons do so must obey the Pauli Exclusion Principle. 6. A pulsar does not pulse, it emits beams of radiation that sweep around the sky as the neutron star rotates, and astronomers detect pulses when they sweep over the Earth. 11. Sometimes in binary systems, mass flows into a hot accretion disk around the neutron star and causes the emission of x rays.
HSC Chemistry Assessment task 1 Nuclear Chemistry Research report 1. Distinguish between stable and radioactive isotopes and describe the conditions which a nucleus is unstable. To understand if an element is stable we first must understand what stability is. The stability of the nucleus is directly related to the strength of the forces that hold the nuclear particles together. These protons and neutrons of the nucleus are called nucleons.
In Einstein’s answer, Einstein clouds his own answer to the question, “Do scientists pray, and if so, what do they pray for?” by using scientific evidences and supporting both sides of the argument, therefore not stating a clear purpose (Einstein 10). Without stating a clear purpose, the audience cannot understand what the speaker intends to say, or his purpose. Einstein also does not create much Ethos, because he does not put himself at the same level as his audience. Einstein does have Logos, but he defends both sides of the argument, so one cannot take much of a side based on what he says. Finally, he has no Pathos, because he drones on like a robot, revealing no personal emotion whatsoever.
McCloskey attempts to make an argument for the non-existence of God and to give reasons why atheism is more comforting than theism. This paper is a response to that article which will address certain ideas raised by Mr. McCloskey. This author is a theist and will present arguments to show the reasoning for the existence and necessity of God. To begin with, McCloskey suggests in his article that the theist’s arguments are “proofs” which do not provide definitive evidence for the existence of God, so therefore, they should be discarded. This is not a justified argument due to the fact that theists do not try to definitely prove the existence of God.
In “The Accidental Universe”, Alan Lightman illustrates how the role of science has been explaining and reasoning the unknown by methods of fundamental causes and principles. However, physicists are taking a new approach and Lightman argues this classic role may be diminishing. Recent developments in cosmological findings have led premier physicists to accept a new theory, known as the Multiverse Theory. The multiverse theory proposes that our universe is only one of a nearly infinite number, all with varying unpredictable and uncalculable properties. This theory has confronted many physicists with decisions that challenge conventional wisdom and this “fork in the road” has the potential to radically change the modern day fundamental physics.
I will be approaching this from a Dualist point of view and I will be referring to Dualism and it’s supporting arguments, namely; the indivisibility argument and the conceivability argument which explain how, logically, alternatives to dualism are not feasible. These logical arguments offer a firm base to support Descartes’ theories but there is a problem with explaining the interaction between the mind and brain if they are not identical. However, the difficulty in understanding how an interaction can occur does not automatically lend itself to providing evidence that the mind and the body are identical. Descartes believes that the body is intrinsically the same as other material objects in the world. It is an extended thing: reg extensa and has physical properties: its size, its shape and the fact it takes up space out there in the world.
Stacey Snyder Professor McMichael Introduction to Philosophy April 08, 2014 Paley’s Teleological Argument In this paper, I will be discussing Paley’s teleological argument for the existence of God. This is a valid argument but in my opinion it is not enough to prove the existence of God. I believe that even if all the premises are true and they relate to the conclusion, which they do, that the argument can still be proven wrong by other theories. Paley’s teleological arguments, also called the design argument, attempts to prove that God exists by proving that God created the earth and created humans. Paley’s version of the argument is commonly recognized by the “watchmaker” analogy which is as follows.
McCloskey states that one of the major problems is believing in an uncaused first cause. He states that the mere existence of the universe does not constitute for believing in a being (God). While McCloskey has this view, we learn in the readings of Evans and Manis (2009), that the term contingency of the universe is often used to refute the question of what about the universe support the claim that God exists (pg. 69). This merely states that if we look around at the universe we will see things that may or may not have existed if there was not a God or other necessary being.
We addressed objections to the Causal Principle (or PSR) from a philosophical perspective earlier in 3.4. Some critics of the argument deny that they share Craig's intuitions about the Causal Principle (Oppy 2002a). Others raise objections based on quantum physics (Davies, 1984, 200). On the quantum level, the connection between cause and effect, if not entirely broken, is to some extent loosened. For example, it appears that electrons can pass out of existence at one point and come back into existence elsewhere.
Religion and science contradict each other and to others beliefs of how the earth came, but its a personal opinion of which is correct. In my opinion, Religion play roles in people’s life’s but it does not go with how the earth has came about and how the earth is the way it is today. Science and religion do not really contradict each other, I feel like science has the upper hand in the situation because science can be backed up with facts and actual real life mean while religion is backed up by beliefs and what they think and how they interpret the bible. Science has been backed up by many scientists and scientific facts. Work cited Harrison, Peter.