Welcome to UK420

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more!

This message will be removed once you have signed in.


troy

science vs religion

1,123 posts in this topic

You think the Hubble is a bad thing?

I wasn`t asking the BBC, I was asking you :)

Never said it was a bad thing, it does great work :)

eta, The data from Hubble is excellent, how that is interpreted is the problem, but on funding, what about the LHC?

I answered you, I see a BIG similarity between "Let there be Light" - God, and "Let there be a Big Bang" - Belgian priest.

Especially if you follow them both through as to what happened next, i'll bet some clever literate person here could define the similarities, then god did this then god did that for religion, hyperinflation and the creation of the basic particles for the BB etc etc

I'm not a clever enough literate enough person to do it justice, but I guess that perhaps @@Boojum would be capable of it, if he was to put his mind to it. ;) I hope he is interested in taking it on, I'd love to read it :)

eta ah, you mean you asked me about sub atomic particles etc...

I will say again, I answered you, the origin of all those things was the Big Bang.

Or, a meringue?. ;)

Edited by Rex Mundi

Share this post


Link to post

I answered you, I see a BIG similarity between "Let there be Light" - God, and "Let there be a Big Bang" - Belgian priest.

But a Belgian priest never said let there be a big bang as far as I know, it was Fred Hoyle who coined the phrase, you are making no sense today Rex

Share this post


Link to post

"Monseigneur Georges Lemaître, a Belgian Catholic Priest, was the originator of what would become known as the "Big Bang Theory". - wiki

So it was Fred Hoyle who said "Let there be a Big Bang"... ;)

I'm sorry if my sense of humour makes no sense to you, forgive me for being a poor comedian, a poor teacher and a poor student too.

Much of what passes for science today makes no sense to me.... Higgs Boson.... what's that all about then??? Did Prof Higgs deserve that prize?

Share this post


Link to post

Science vs religion..... whats the difference?

Share this post


Link to post

, you are making no sense today Rex

So, gravity.... which is it, Newtonian force or GR curved space-time fabric which only appears to be a force?

How it can be both makes no sense to me.

But thank you, I guess you mean that I do make sense sometimes :)

eta... also, I doubt that God said "Let there be Light".... but who wants to argue about who said what...

Edited by Rex Mundi

Share this post


Link to post

you are making no sense today Rex

Ah, I've slept on it, and I think I now realise why you say that... my error, let me clarify.

In that Horizon prog I linked to, the narrator harped on about the fantastic discovery of Newton that gravity was a force that kept the moon in orbit, then he harped on about the fantastic work of Einstein and GR that orbits were caused by the curvature of spacetime and therefore not a force, only looked like a force I quote from that prog

"...any object that passes through that warped spacetime, will move as if being pulled by a force and that's what we experience as gravity"....

"General Relativity is probably one of the greatest feats of human thinking ever accomplished..... and bizarre as the theory may sound experimental evidence has proved that Einstein was right, gravity really is a distortion of space and time."

"Armed with Newtons gravity and Einsteins theory of relativity scientists could predict and explain the movements of everything in the Cosmos, from an apple falling to the ground to the orbits of the planets and the stars.

Einstein and Newton completely revolutionised our understanding of the Universe, and they revealed much of the inner workings of the Cosmos, using almost entirely the power of abstract thought , now great minds like those don't come along very often, and luckily they don't need to because human beings have another great skill thats just as useful when it comes to unraveling the secrets of the universe, we are very good at building things "

I then made my comment about the HST, but that was just me wrongly leaping ahead, in the prog they then go on about building ever more powerful telescopes, eventually mentioning the HST, so I shouldn't have linked HST directly to Newton/Einstein in that way.

HST was built for one reason only, that was to get a telescope above the Earths atmosphere, not to prove that both Newton and Einstein were right....

Which is the real point of my post, how can both of these theories be right?

Newtons gravity is a force, Einsteins gravity is only a pseudo force.

I apologise for my error.

Can we continue discussing the above?

Edited by Rex Mundi

Share this post


Link to post

Which is the real point of my post, how can both of these theories be right?

Newtons gravity is a force, Einsteins gravity is only a pseudo force.

yes, as layman myself I have to agree, although gravity is supposed to warp space time so this is where the confusion lies perhaps, but why the need to expand on the idea of gravity, unless of course, that the theoretical scientists are correct in their prediction of gravitons lol:)

I don`t know tbh

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

 

So, gravity.... which is it, Newtonian force or GR curved space-time fabric which only appears to be a force?

How it can be both makes no sense to me.

Space time curve is abit like the curvature of earth, as in the earth is so big when stand on it, it looks flat, it feels flat, it feels like im the right way up, doesn't feel like im spinning....unless it all stopped, then you'd notice, anyway, space is so large you cannot see it's curve, we cannot get far enough outside to properly even see, thats sort of my explaination of the "curve of space time".

Also gravity seems to be a combination of forces and energies interacting, it doesn't appear to be a singular formailty to me, that is nice and neat, i think gravity is a form of magnetism much in the way that particles are attracted to opposites, negative goes to positive, you're using "time" to bring up different points of view and then comparing them based on the growth of a new idea, we're looking at a complete universe in a sense but we can't look at ALL of the universe and even if we do, its constantly changing anyway, in science its very difficult because we figure out many things but small details can easily be missed, we only figure out whatever it is that someone figures out, its up to people really and because we have only our own minds to deciede if its true, we're mostly reserved because i'd imagine we have far more questions than answers, science technically has no goal, its a method, as people we tend to assume the goal of science it figure everything out, if you go in like that, you have failed instantly, i personally have went into the challenge in this way, its just the way i am, i dont really concern myself with good, bad, right, wrong, when it gets to this level, it simply doesn't really apply, the universe has mechanisms that defy the learned logic we have gained through schooling, society etc, it is terribly confusing to me when it comes to the wording, like an electron being negative and a proton being positive, when those words mean something completely different when talking about a person, but they're the same words, it really isn't scientific, mathamatics works for science because everything is its own specific individual unit, like atoms, energy, 1 is its own, 2 is, once, twice, it makes sense, you don't need names, symbols or anything to understand it because our brains memorise objects and because it memorises each structure, we "feel" thats why we can tell things are apart.

Share this post


Link to post

although gravity is supposed to warp space time so this is where the confusion lies perhaps,

And that.... lol that certainly adds to the confusion

and gravitons... lets just add another level of complication... lol lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

also that photons or light, don't have mass and they are attarcted to things with mass, massless objects move 187'000 miles per second, in every direction, objects with mass are limited and connected to each other by forces, we use light predominantly within our brain, our brain makes it "feel important", this is how we just put importance on the light, we know something about it, it is our main external sense, memory is our other large sense, this could explain what you were saying people noticed when they wrote down and god said let there be light, if you look at the idea of religion, namely god, fundementally they have the same idea as the laws of physics in a sense, that something controls eveything, is everything and does everything, we are uncertain of how much specific individuals thought really, even when looking at their words, they made writing and books and talking, so they're pretty intelligent but memory dictates how you think, if your memory has not grown, constructed information then made connections to other information in your memory, similarly to how atoms work, that they have similar fields and energies that attract and eventually things fall into place, if you put the right memories in order, you will get the right answers, we've had to go through alot because we all don't start off with the right starting point and first memories are very important, the next memory you get will be compared to that first memory and then exponentially, it can grow very wrong.

i would conclude the most confusing thing of all is, all this seperation we notice, you have to also remember that its all actually the same energy, it just makes it easier for us to discuss when we call things certain names and isolate them.

Edited by FunkyJazzJesus

Share this post


Link to post

Science vs religion..... whats the difference?

The one has a fundament that is always up for revision. It builds models and admits they are models. It arrives at shared, provisional truths.

The other has a fundament that never changes and isn't up for revision. It claims access to an Absolute Truth

NC

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

also that photons or light, don't have mass

it is very difficult to read your posts, but that bit I got... and there is where my model differs, imo, photons do have mass.

In the Standard Model, they are baffled by dark matter and dark energy, in my model, they are photons.

Share this post


Link to post

how would you describe mass then?

(apologies for my brain, it wants to go in every direction at once, summarising my thoughts isn't normally the way i talk, i go on and on and on, i can hold lots of memories at once, i find it difficult to recognise what people do and do not know, so i just say i what i think.)

Edited by FunkyJazzJesus

Share this post


Link to post

how would you describe mass then?

How would you describe it?

Protons for example have mass, so do electrons, and in my model so do photons... whats the problem with that?

Share this post


Link to post

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now