Can religion reject this science ?

[exchemist]

Careful, everyone, here cometh the next gambit to keep you all responding, pointlessly. The old "speed of light" one. Should be worth, ooh, about 3 pages....

 

[Polymath257]

Careful, everyone, here cometh the next gambit to keep you all responding, pointlessly.

Yeah, I think it's time for me to go do something worthwhile.....like petting my cat.

 

[exchemist]

Yeah, I think it's time for me to go do something worthwhile.....like petting my cat.

Or just looking out of the window.

 

[Polymath257]

The thread looks a lot different when the nonsense is put on ignore....just saying.

 

[james blunt]

Yeah, I think it's time for me to go do something worthwhile.....like petting my cat.

Chemist will try to get you to ban me next but I can see you are already acquainted , well people if the ban me from here to keep the truth hidden you can find me over on political forums which also have a science section . I will not give in until science stop lying about things .

 

[Polymath257]

Chemist will try to get you to ban me next but I can see you are already acquainted , well people if the ban me from here to keep the truth hidden you can find me over on political forums which also have a science section . I will not give in until science stop lying about things .

As far as I can see, you have broken none of the rules. Nonsense doesn't get a person banned from RF like it would in a science forum.

 

[james blunt]

Careful, everyone, here cometh the next gambit to keep you all responding, pointlessly. The old "speed of light" one. Should be worth, ooh, about 3 pages....

These science cyber police are so funny , they never give any real argument , they think they are funny and always disrupt science threads by me, they will happily let you talk about aliens or other things like that on science forums, but they will ban you right away if you attack their false ''bible'' .

Ask yourself people , what it is with him ? Why does he feel the need to stop me everywhere I go ?

 

[james blunt]

As far as I can see, you have broken none of the rules. Nonsense doesn't get a person banned from RF like it would in a science forum.

Thank you Poly , my theory might finally make it to the end then ! I am glad I put my trust in God and a religious forum.

I was right about you , you do have smarts and won't let other people influence you such as exchemist . There maybe a few more attacks on me yet, they generally call for reinforcements when they're ''losing'' to me .

 

[james blunt]

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 objective evidence to the contrary !

I ask for anybody in the world to provide evidence demonstrating falsity of the postulates ?

Providing a theory such as relativity is not evidential proof . Relativity does not demonstrate that space can be created or destroyed , it neither addresses the other postulates .

axiom
Dictionary result for axiom
/ˈaksɪəm/
noun

1. a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true

Does anyone deny the 7 postulates are self evidently true ?



Interlude

 

[james blunt]

Chapter One - Back in Time

The elders of the village, Soloman , Mohammad , David , Lou and Gorby gathered around the fire, it was an important evening as Jeremiah was about to make a huge revelation of importance to the village elders. The elders sat gazing into the fire , silence among them as they wondered with anticipation, what was so important? that Jeremiah had called for such a meeting of urgency. After a while , a figure of a man appeared from the shadows, at long last it was Jeremiah .

Jeremiah walked over to the fire and picked up a burning stick, then turned facing towards the elders.

''Elders of the village'' Jeremiah loudly says,

'' In my hands I have a stick, the stick is on fire, we made the fire by using flints, we have ingenuity''.

The elders of the village sat in silence, the crackling of the fire deafening to Jeremiah's ears.

''What do you mean by ingenuity Jeremiah '' ? eventually replied one of the elders.

'' I mean, we are not the same as a camel or a rock, we are inventive and creative, we are smart! '' explained Jeremiah.

The elders whispered among themselves what seemed forever , Jeremiah could see the frustration on their faces and he knew he needed to say something. After some thought , Jeremiah shouts out with shaking breath,

''how did we get here''?

The elders stared at Jeremiah in shock , then one by one began to applaud Jeremiah.

''Please tell us more Jeremiah of this great new wisdom you have found'' said several elders.

''Please , please'' they begged , '' what do you call this new wisdom''?

Jeremiah took a deep breath, '' I will call it creation and creation shall be the study of all things''.

The elders nodded with acceptance, the journey had begun.


''Please nod your heads in acceptance , I hope I covered any nationality with the elders names . We're all around my camp fire right now !''

''What is this greatness of divide between us , namely space ? ''

Jeremiah awaited the elders honest answers !

 

[viole]

Well, you apparently haven read any cosmologists or physicists on the issue. Do you have any idea what the space time continuum is ?

Of course. What I have no idea is whether people fully realize the consequences of the existence of this physical 4-dimensional manifold.

For starters, it cannot change. It cannot begin nor end. By definition.

Second, all events of the Universe are mapped on it. All. Including the ones that currently lie in your perceived future. So, adios free will.

Third. Time flow is an illusion played by our consciousness. A very stubborn illusion, apparently.

Time is the space between events

Nonsense. If you mean the distance between events, that is an invariant that does not depend on the inertial observer. However, the time between the two events measured by different observers might not be the same. There is no objective interval of time between any two events. Same with space.

You mentioned Wheeler. I recommend “spacetime physics” from him and others. Special relativity requiring no more than some trigonometry.

There was no universe, no events in the universe, no time.

Was? You still seem to think that there was a before with nada in it. Stubborn illusion....

Here two logic syllogisms you might understand, since you invoked logic

Non sequitur. Invoking logic does not entail potential to understand it.

Nothing existed before the universe, time exists in the universe, therefore, time did not exist before the universe

Here we go. Before the Universe. This is nonsensical since there was not a before the Universe. It is like saying nothing existed in nhvjgvhbvhgvjucn.

So, wrong premise, conclusion not warranted.

Time exists between events, before the creation of the universe there were no events, therefore, time did not exist before the creation of the universe

Again, there was no before. Any sentence addressing anything or nothing before the universe is meaningless. Especially if you also use tensed verbs. It is like addressing things that might or might not exist north of the north pole. Or some other absurd context.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Thank you Poly , my theory might finally make it to the end then ! I am glad I put my trust in God

With your scientific knowledge, what else could you do?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

With your scientific knowledge, what else could you do?

Ciao

- viole

Photon torpedoes , space ships , perpetual energy and motion , naval design ideas , energy ideas , hover cars , but I don't think you meant that , I think you meant it in a sarcastic manner .

If it's possible , I will find the set of physics that's workable , if we can engineer the physics correctly my notions will work .

I've dropped the BH device , that might be a bit nasty and destroy us all .

 

[shmogie]

Of course. What I have no idea is whether people fully realize the consequences of the existence of this physical 4-dimensional manifold.

For starters, it cannot change. It cannot begin nor end. By definition.

Second, all events of the Universe are mapped on it. All. Including the ones that currently lie in your perceived future. So, adios free will.

Third. Time flow is an illusion played by our consciousness. A very stubborn illusion, apparently.



Nonsense. If you mean the distance between events, that is an invariant that does not depend on the inertial observer. However, the time between the two events measured by different observers might not be the same. There is no objective interval of time between any two events. Same with space.

You mentioned Wheeler. I recommend “spacetime physics” from him and others. Special relativity requiring no more than some trigonometry.



Was? You still seem to think that there was a before with nada in it. Stubborn illusion....



Non sequitur. Invoking logic does not entail potential to understand it.



Here we go. Before the Universe. This is nonsensical since there was not a before the Universe. It is like saying nothing existed in nhvjgvhbvhgvjucn.

So, wrong premise, conclusion not warranted.



Again, there was no before. Any sentence addressing anything or nothing before the universe is meaningless. Especially if you also use tensed verbs. It is like addressing things that might or might not exist north of the north pole. Or some other absurd context.

Ciao

- viole

You cannot have it both ways, a created universe, and something in the universe that was not created.

You reject the BB theory, that's fine, but most cosmologists disagree with you.

You are a creature of this universe, every thing you know, or ever could know is based in this universe.

All natural law known and unknown is in this universe, including anything related to time.

There is and will always be no knowledge of anything that was prior to the BB, including time. Yes, I said prior.

Time is simply a product of a natural law, IN THIS UNIVERSE, like gravity. All natural law was created at the BB.

From an atheist science POV, IF, if there is anything outside our universe, other universes (brane theory, multiverses) the extant laws of nature could be totally different than in this universe, there could be more, or less, there could be no such thing as time.

 

[viole]

You cannot have it both ways, a created universe, and something in the universe that was not created.

That is unintellegible. What do you mean? You are begging the question by assuming creation in your premises.

You reject the BB theory, that's fine, but most cosmologists disagree with you.

I don’t. Are we now in making-up-things mode?

The block time theory is not in contradiction with modern cosmology. Obviously. It is just taking relativity at face value.

B. Greene has some nice youtubes about that subject.

You are a creature of this universe, every thing you know, or ever could know is based in this universe.

Tautologically, since there is probably nothing to know outside of it. With the possible exception that there is no outside.

All natural law known and unknown is in this universe, including anything related to time.

I told you, time is relative. As such, not objective. What you relly need to do is to step into spacetime, which is not the direct product of space and time, since none of them is objective.

There is and will always be no knowledge of anything that was prior to the BB, including time. Yes, I said prior.

You never know. String theorists postulates there was a physical prior.

So, either there was a prior, or not. If there was, then it makes no sense to say that the universe got created at the big bang. If there was not, then it is a fallacy to use it for arguments.

Your call.

Time is simply a product of a natural law, IN THIS UNIVERSE, like gravity. All natural law was created at the BB.

Oh dear. You are now making up things and contradicting yourself. You say we will never know, and a few sentences after you claim all laws of nature are created at the BB.

I suggest to make up your mind.

From an atheist science POV, IF, if there is anything outside our universe, other universes (brane theory, multiverses) the extant laws of nature could be totally different than in this universe, there could be more, or less, there could be no such thing as time.

What on earth is atheist science? Do you also have Christian science? What about astrologist science? Lol.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

Completely put off finishing my theory again , I think I'm just going leave the world to it and let them live in their delusions .
Can't teach the woeful ignorant , I'll be ok, I can convert sea water .

 

[Prestor John]

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

To which religion are you referring to and how does what you shared contradict it?

 

[james blunt]

To which religion are you referring to and how does what you shared contradict it?

The ''religion'' of science ?

 

[james blunt]

Continued : The Universe inside and out !

Author: Mystery

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 , Higgs , 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 true nature of light and the meaning 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

noun

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 suggest 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 visible light or visible 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 hold true to observation . It would be quite absurd , subjective and illogical 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 of the contrary .

Let us discuss each postulate individually and look for agreement !


1) Space cannot be created or destroyed

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed ! There is no observed evidence to suggest anything other than the proposed postulate . Even after a nuclear bomb test , when the cloud settles , the observed space remains unaltered although there will be increased radiation/energy levels , occupying that space .


2) Space is immovable

Bodies traverse through space and a bodies emitted spatial field moves with the body through space . The body moves relative to other bodies and all bodies move relative to space . Space itself being the relative stationary reference frame of fixed geometrical points . There is no evidence observational or otherwise to suggest that geometrical points of space can be displaced . Minkowski space-time , XYZt , is a 4 dimensional manifold coordinate system where the background is ''fixed '' and an objects coordinates are calculated by this . Einsteins space-time and curvature is of field lines relative to the ''fixed'' reference frame of Minowski's space-time . However , in all scenarios , XYZt , is a finite metric visual within a greater Newtonian absolute space .

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

Observationally with our eyes we can observe the decay of things and the aging of things . However , we never observe with our eyes the aging or the decaying of the space . Neither can we measure the age or decay of space as the only property of space itself is spatial room . It is quite clear literally speaking , that space itself has no mechanism to age or decay .

 

[ratiocinator]

No idea what good you think it will do to just repeat the same stuff that has already been addressed.

There's no reason or reasons why these postulates are not of axiom value and hold true to observation .

Except all the ones already given to you.

It would be illogical to suggest that space , which has no physicality , can be created or destroyed !

Space does have physicality. It has physical properties: dimensionality, geometry, and topology.