The Instigator
suriaguru
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
ASB
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points

The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/3/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,797 times Debate No: 14238
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

suriaguru

Con

The nature of anything can be known from the universal laws of nature
ASB

Pro

Since this is your debate... I will let you go first while I study this topic. I do not want to see anything that is not relevant to this subject... you know something that does not exist.
Debate Round No. 1
suriaguru

Con

How can the nature of anything be known form the universal laws of nature?
ASB

Pro

If you search for divisibility,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for comparability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for connectivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for sensitivity,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for transformability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for substitutability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

If you search for satisfiability,
you will find it everywhere in everything!

This is a universal law of nature ANYTHING can be known from this
atoms and molecules make up all things and if one
searches for the things I listed they will find it in atoms therefore
anything

All the laws of nature are discoverable in everyone and everything.-Sivashanmugan

http://analaytical.wikia.com...
Debate Round No. 2
suriaguru

Con

I wish I will die with the confusion out of the theory of sivashanmugam.
Is it semantics?
Are they the universal laws? Mass confusion or clear confusion?
ASB

Pro

The theory has to be both semantics.
The theory interprets and theorizes logic.

And universal law
With this law, you can find the nature of anything... try to prove me wrong.
Debate Round No. 3
suriaguru

Con

Theory of sivashanmugam (TOS) says that,
if you search for divisibility, you will find it everywhere in everything.
My question is:
Is a photon divisible?
Quantum mechanics says that photons are indivisible particles.
Quantum mechanics also says that photon is not a particle.

At the height of all, TOS is tossing my brain - divisibility is universal.
Is divisibility universal?

Science says that nothing is universal.
Therefore,
The nature of anything cannot be known from the universal laws of nature!!
ASB

Pro

By definition, matter is that which has mass.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com...

Yes, it can be mathematically calculated. No, it can't be experimentally calculated. The electron has a mass of 9.11 x 10-28 and 5.1 x 1014 photons can produce the photo-electric effect, then the mass of a photon can be calculated to be 1.8 x 10-42 g.

So a photon has MASS.

http://www.kentuckyscience.com...


"In physics, the question of whether matter is infinitely divisible is the question of whether it is true that no matter how small the pieces into which a physical object has been cut, they can be split further. The word atom originally meant a smallest possible particle of matter, which cannot be further divided. Later, those objects to which the name atom had been assigned were found to be further divisible, but the word atom nonetheless continues to refer to them."

http://www.economicexpert.com...

Physics says that matter is matter is not infinitely divisible, yet science proves that TIME will tell when the science of
Quantum Mechanics is proved wrong.

It sometimes TAKES TIME to prove theories right.
Debate Round No. 4
suriaguru

Con

You mean to say that quantum mechanics has not proved that photons are indivisible particles.
But, everyone argues that photons are indivisible. Is that an argument without a proof?
ASB

Pro

Yes, I believe that I, single-handedly proved to you that quantum mechanics wrong.

Science says that all matter is divisible.
Definition of matter is one that has mass.
It has been proved that a photon has a mass of 1.8(10)-42g.
That means that a photon is matter.
They said before that an atom was the lowest unit matter can be divided until they came up with what was inside of the atom.
Quantum mechanics says that a quantum (photon) is the lowest unit, and that it cannot divided further.
This is contradictory because one that has mass can be divided further.
Conclusion: As long as an object has mass, it can be divided.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Too ambiguous to likely be fun debating. It could be true by definition, or maybe never true because the "true nature" of things is unknowable. Con should provide an opening case that defines terms and makes it clear what the contention is.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Not sure.
Posted by maryjahwanna 6 years ago
maryjahwanna
sorry, I'm new, what does this even mean?
Posted by Koopin 6 years ago
Koopin
So you are CON and PRO?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
suriaguruASBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by TUF 6 years ago
TUF
suriaguruASBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07