Can religion reject this science ?

[viole]

I ask you to show falsity of the seven postulates ?

You can't do it can you ?

Just open a book on relativity. It is good to know at least what the rest of the world knows since more than 100 years.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Actually , the completed ''book'' is so the future . Do you have any objection to the seven postulates or do you intend on just posting unrelated comments ?

I told you. Open a relativity book.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Polymath257]

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we all agree upon definition and semantics . Firstly I would like to draw our attention to the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

Please try again and try reading this time !

It would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates .

Added - Evidence: Tests of general relativity

Does not test the seven postulates .

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

Can you provide any shred of evidence to show falsity of postulate one ?

I already know you can't !

Yes. ALL of the evidence for the Big bang model.

The Big Bang is a useless theory that doesn't work !

Space was not created at the BB unless the universe started within a solid , but that is room rather than space that always exists. Any event needs a space to happen in , simple logic and science .

On the contrary, the reason it is used is because it works. it does, however, disagree with your axioms.

No, the BB does not postulate that the universe began with a solid.

Perhaps you should learn a bit of math before claiming what must or must not be true.

 

[David T]

The Universe Inside and Out !


Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a journey of discovery that considers past science and present science . A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .
The Universe inside and out makes reference to Dirac , Newton , Higg's , Tesla and Einstein , concluding an united field theory namely the N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space.
Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the nature of light and the nature of time .


Chapter One - Absolute Newtonian Space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we all agree upon definition and semantics . Firstly I would like to draw our attention to the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

It is important we do not change the context of our definitions where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

In consideration of what is space ?

I propose that space is the single property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and true to observation , it would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence to the contrary !



(To be continued , comments thus far ? )

Last edited: 3 minutes ago

"concluding an united field theory"

Suddenly its lala land here. But i am sure religion can reject it for a whole bunch other reasons just as lala.

 

[james blunt]

Just open a book on relativity. It is good to know at least what the rest of the world knows since more than 100 years.

Ciao

- viole

Avoiding the question , I'll take that as you have no objection to the postulates and you can't demonstrate falsity . Therefore showing the postulates to be axioms .

 

[james blunt]

"concluding an united field theory"

Suddenly its lala land here. But i am sure religion can reject it for a whole bunch other reasons just as lala.

No objection to the postulates then ?

 

[james blunt]

Yes. ALL of the evidence for the Big bang model.



.

Hello Poly, please provide evidence to falsify the postulates ?

The big bang is a theory that does not falsify the postulates .

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

Give me one example of how space can be destroyed ?

In fact , anyone give one example ?

 

[viole]

Avoiding the question , I'll take that as you have no objection to the postulates and you can't demonstrate falsity . Therefore showing the postulates to be axioms .

James,

you are positing postulates that are so old that it is mind boggling that anyone would still use them. You seem to have missed the whole physics of the 20th century and you have the audacity to ask us to accept a view that is ancient and totally discredited. Only people without a clue of physics and math could do that without feeling embarrassed from the start.

I am not sure what your goal is, but if it is to prove something using wrong premises, then that will take you nowhere. It would be like showing the existence of Superman by assuming the existence of kryptonite. Much too easy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

James,

you are positing postulates that are so old that it is mind boggling that anyone would still use them. You seem to have missed the whole physics of the 20th century and you have the audacity to ask us to accept a view that is ancient and totally discredited. Only people without a clue of physics and math could do that without feeling embarrassed from the start.

I am not sure what your goal is, but if it is to prove something using wrong premises, then that will take you nowhere. It would be like showing the existence of Superman by assuming the existence of kryptonite. Much too easy.

Ciao

- viole

You're saying a lot of words that have no meaning to the postulates ! If you can't prove falsity , then why don't you be honest and admit it ?

 

[viole]

No need for Religion to reject science.

Who cares if they do?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You're saying a lot of words that have no meaning to the postulates ! If you can't prove falsity , then why don't you be honest and admit it ?

James,

first of all space does not exist in isolation. It is part of 4-dimensional manifold endowed with a pseudo-riemannian metric.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

James,

first of all space does not exist in isolation. It is part of 4-dimensional manifold endowed with a pseudo-riemannian metric.

Ciao

- viole

No, you are reciting space-time , ignoring the postulates that show space-time occupies immovable space . You are pre-judging on one chapter and not considering the provided facts .

Can you provide just one example of how space can be destroyed ?

Can you not understand the provided definition of space ?

 

[ratiocinator]

If you can't prove falsity , then why don't you be honest and admit it ?

They have been falsified by the evidence for relativity. That's it - (very) old news. You are wrong, get over it.

 

[james blunt]

They have been falsified by the evidence for relativity. That's it - (very) old news. You are wrong, get over it.

Relativity does not falsify the provided postulates , try again !

 

[viole]

No, you are reciting space-time , ignoring the postulates that show space-time occupies immovable space . You are pre-judging on one chapter and not considering the provided facts .

Can you provide just one example of how space can be destroyed ?

Can you not understand the provided definition of space ?

Space-time occupies space? LOL
Yes, and space-time takes time.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Relativity does not falsify the provided postulates , try again !

Of course it does since it denies objectivity of space.

I have to ask in order to adapt my answers accordingly: how much do you know of relativity?

Ciao

- viole

 

[ChristineM]

The Universe Inside and Out !


Introduction.

The Universe inside and out is a journey of discovery that considers past science and present science . A journey of discover that will advance present science thoughts and theory , opening up a whole new era of science in regards to physics and physical process .
The Universe inside and out makes reference to Dirac , Newton , Higg's , Tesla and Einstein , concluding an united field theory namely the N-field theory , an united field theory that explains the beginning of the visual universe , unites field matter ( spatial quantum fields ) and atomic matter ( Visible objects ) into an united manifold that is independent of space.
Additionally the Universe inside and out explains the gravity mechanism , the nature of light and the nature of time .


Chapter One - Absolute Newtonian Space .

For purposeful and meaningful discussion I feel it is of utmost importance that we all agree upon definition and semantics . Firstly I would like to draw our attention to the definition of space

1. A continuous area or expanse which is free, available, or unoccupied.

It is important we do not change the context of our definitions where semantics are important . People often generalise space as being contents included which is contradictory to our definition of space and not of fact .

In consideration of what is space ?

I propose that space is the single property of an infinite void , agreeing with Newton that space is absolute and immovable . In regards to space there is no evidence that suggests anything other than these provided seven postulates :

1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

2) Space is immovable

3) Space is timeless and has no mechanism to age or decay

4) Space is the unique property of a void

5) Space has no mechanism to be visibly light or visibly dark

6) Space is transparent

7) Space has no physicality

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and true to observation , it would be quite absurd and subjective to disagree with the postulates without providing proof of evidence to demonstrate falsity of the postulates . Objectively , the seven postulates hold true and are unarguable without evidence to the contrary !



(To be continued , comments thus far ? )

Last edited: 3 minutes ago

1 thats energy/matter, not space which comprises both
2 wrong, it is inflating
3 entropy
4 look up the definition of void and space
5 photons
6 only where you can see through it
7 space is crowded with physicality

This is already proven, but it is absurd to claim observed phenomenon dont exist without providing proof of your claims

Methinks you are confusing space and void. Point 4 should help you

 

[james blunt]

Space-time occupies space? LOL

Ciao

- viole

That's correct , space-time energy i.e spatial field matter and spatial atomic matter . Space-time curves relative to absolute space .

If we could create a perfect vacuum with perfect shielding , the property of the vacuum would be just space .

 

[james blunt]

Of course it does since it denies objectivity of space.

I have to ask in order to adapt my answers accordingly: how much do you know of relativity?

Ciao

- viole

I know relativity better than Einstein knew relativity , I've advanced Einstein .

 

[viole]

I know relativity better than Einstein knew relativity , I've advanced Einstein .

OK, I am out.

Have fun.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

OK, I am out.

Have fun.

Ciao

- viole

I'm out is what they all say when they can't show falsity .

Good day to you .