- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by kuthu" You believe in science and not in god right.
u believe in science and not in god right.
so u trust newton or any scientist rather than god.
do u know the equations of gravitation and how it is derived.
we use equations of circular motion .that means we are comparing a case of swinging a ball or something tied to a thread .
but can u go on swinging the ball for infinite time .
do u have the power ...[text shortened]... es sun earth or any massive body has this to keep it swinging. i say this infinite power is god.
So you trust Newton or any scientist rather than god. "
Apart from the ongoing dispute over the meaning of the word believe, it's more a 'belief' in science as opposed to any one scientist.
" Do you know the equations of gravitation and how it is derived?
We use equations of circular motion. That means we are comparing a case of swinging a ball or something tied to a thread but can u go on swinging the ball for infinite time.
Do you have the power? But how does sun earth or any massive body have this to keep it swinging. I say this infinite power is god. "
I certainly know Newton’s equations of gravitation very well, however they have been superseded by GR, which is unbelievably complex, and I will study in my next degree. That said neither use circular motion, except in simplified theoretical situations, as objects actually (appear) to travel in ellipses, (which was the break through made by Kepler which made the Copernican solar system model actually fit with reality (at that point it's predictions were less accurate than the Geocentric model with epicycles) and which then was given a theoretical explanation by Newton.) however the idea that objects experience a 'force' acting on them that somehow exactly compensates for the differing mass's of object's and keeps them going round in identical orbits despite their differing masses (your on the end of a string idea) is the central fallacy of Newton’s model. Objects follow the geometry of space-time (and if they have mass help to change that geometry),
It is also a common mistake to say that you need 'infinite' or unlimited 'power' to keep something in an orbit. Excluding for the moment tidal forces that cause energy loss, over an entire closed orbit no energy is lost or gained (merely transferred between potential and kinetic and back again). This means that there is no net power expenditure over the orbit.
01 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat's too much of physics...Does not fit into spiritualism..Or are you trying to say that equations of physics also govern spiritual phenomena..?
"[b] You believe in science and not in god right.
So you trust Newton or any scientist rather than god. "
Apart from the ongoing dispute over the meaning of the word believe, it's more a 'belief' in science as opposed to any one scientist.
" Do you know the equations of gravitation and how it is derived?
We use equations of circular motio d back again). This means that there is no net power expenditure over the orbit.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by coolwarriorIf someone uses their mistaken view of physics (or science in general) to justify there view (in any arena not just this forum) then how are you supposed to counter their argument without pointing out their mistake? Also science has been fighting with religion throughout history, what makes you think that’s going to stop anytime soon? I did suggest a science forum at one point but the idea dropped like a lead balloon.
That's too much of physics...Does not fit into spiritualism..Or are you trying to say that equations of physics also govern spiritual phenomena..?
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat makes it spiritual science as opposed to natural science. The two worlds don't meet. Those who try to use arguments of uncertainty principle to justify the uncertainties of of vague spiritual phenomena are mistaken. Science is about verifiable and repeatable experiments. But spiritualism is about FAITH, which by definition is not subject to experimental verification.
If someone uses their mistaken view of physics (or science in general) to justify there view (in any arena not just this forum) then how are you supposed to counter their argument without pointing out their mistake? Also science has been fighting with religion throughout history, what makes you think that’s going to stop anytime soon? I did suggest a science forum at one point but the idea dropped like a lead balloon.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by coolwarriorI agree that you can't succesfully use scientific ideas to justify spirituality as as I have explained in other threads the two are mutually exclusive. however when someone does try to use science in this way, or simply misuses a scientific idea/principle, in any feild, why should't their mistake be corrected, and there argument disproved? Also there is no such thing as spritual science, that would be an oxymoron.
That makes it spiritual science as opposed to natural science. The two worlds don't meet. Those who try to use arguments of uncertainty principle to justify the uncertainties of of vague spiritual phenomena are mistaken. Science is about verifiable and repeatable experiments. But spiritualism is about FAITH, which by definition is not subject to experimental verification.
01 Aug 06
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo you're saying that science is restricted to the study of Minkowski 4 dimensional vector space?
I agree that you can't succesfully use scientific ideas to justify spirituality as as I have explained in other threads the two are mutually exclusive. however when someone does try to use science in this way, or simply misuses a scientific idea/principle, in any feild, why should't their mistake be corrected, and there argument disproved? Also there is no such thing as spritual science, that would be an oxymoron.
02 Aug 06
Googelfudge, you seem like a klever person and very learned and all, compered to me at least.
You posed some very inyerresting arguments in this thread, but tell me because I am very curiouse to know, in your personal opinion how did everything begin.
By that I mean the umiverse, earth the whole "shebang" so to say. Enlighten me if you will, convince me even that my beliefs are all wrong and that your's are right.
Ps. First tell me your beliefs and then I will tell you mine ok. 🙂
02 Aug 06
Originally posted by ErwinI'm making the assumption that you are a christian of some flavour. I'm afraid, as has been noted many times before by both me and Googlefudge, that the question of where did everything come from is unanswerable by modern science. Indeed, it may not even be a logically valid question, since time must have come into existance at some point (I would love to use the word time, but it's completely loaded with assumptions). Causality cannot function outside of time, since there needs to be a "before" and an "after" for it to operate.
Googelfudge, you seem like a klever person and very learned and all, compered to me at least.
You posed some very inyerresting arguments in this thread, but tell me because I am very curiouse to know, in your personal opinion how did everything begin.
By that I mean the umiverse, earth the whole "shebang" so to say. Enlighten me if you will, convince me eve ...[text shortened]... that your's are right.
Ps. First tell me your beliefs and then I will tell you mine ok. 🙂
Christians here would say "look, that's where God must be." However, this is a fallacious argument. Whilst it is a possibility that God exists at that point, there is an almost infinite variety of other posibilities, most of them being nothing existing at that time. The overbearing likelihood would have to be that God does not exist at that time. Likewise, one could also say "look, that's where the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER must be", or Allah, or almost anything else you want to invent.
The argument from stupidity for the existance of God is no argument at all.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
03 Aug 06
Originally posted by ErwinThere is very good evidence that the 'visible' universe (and all the stuff in it) was created in a fireball explosion some 13.7 billion yrs ago which we call 'The Big Bang'. However at this present point in time (and possibly at any point in time but anyway) there is no way of determining if there is anything more than the visible universe (either specially or temporally). The big bang marks a point before which our current theories can't go and barring the discovery of FTL travel the edge of the visible universe marks a line beyond which we can't pass or see. Science can't therefore say anything (definitive) about what is beyond these points, although there is plenty of room for speculation, it is more philosophy than science as it can't be experimentally verified or disproved (yet). If you are interested in the big bang however and/or our current understanding of how the universe works I can point you in the direction of some good books on the subject, as it is a tad to complicated to adequately explain in a forum and even if I had the time, inclination, and space to write it there are others who have already done so and have almost certainly done a better job than I would.
Googelfudge, you seem like a klever person and very learned and all, compered to me at least.
You posed some very inyerresting arguments in this thread, but tell me because I am very curiouse to know, in your personal opinion how did everything begin.
By that I mean the umiverse, earth the whole "shebang" so to say. Enlighten me if you will, convince me eve ...[text shortened]... that your's are right.
Ps. First tell me your beliefs and then I will tell you mine ok. 🙂
03 Aug 06
Thanks for your reply googlefudge.
By the way yes I am a Christian, a Protestant not a Catholic though. Growing, up my dearly departed mother took us along to her Baptist Church, and I also attended a Christian school from grade 5-12.
Now I als o have a question for those who believe in evolution.
Ever since I read a statement in one of my since books at school I have been wondering about this, it has to do with evolution ovcourse.
That argument or statement goes something like," if you where to put a new born babby into a sound proof room, (and rase it there, feeding it and changing its diepers as well of course) and you never spoke to it, played music to it, showed it pitures, or stimulated it an any whay whatsoever. Then what would become of it?
The logical answer to this question would be that the child would not be abel to reed, write, or comunicate in any meeningful way at all. In fact even if you continued this experiment untill the child was say 5, he will still act like an infent because it was never tought otherwise.