ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Na, you need a multi-phasic dilithium field transponder with heisenberg structure capacity fusion cycle, and don't forget to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Can religion reject this science ?
- Thread starter james blunt
- Start date
-
- Tags
- science
Na, you need a multi-phasic dilithium field transponder with heisenberg structure capacity fusion cycle, and don't forget to reverse the polarity of the neutron flow!
Hi!
james blunt: I have read quite shocking statements such as "I don't need math to understand phisics", or" I have been in many forums learning phisics". I might have misunderstood, I apologize if so. But phisics are not based in intuitions, precisely math is a tool used to obtain certain deductions, and to build certain models that are not intuitive. Our senses many times are not enough to recognize our surroundings. The universe is resulting to be not intuitive.
In what refers to your initial statements, I think, the same that some have already said: You should define what you consider space is, and give some sense to the title. Why should religion reject those statements? Additionally, why do you say "this science". Do you belive there are many types of science? Are your statements a division or a specific type of science? I assume you are not "creating" science without math and based in forum reading. You could maybe talk of quantum phisics, or particle phisics, or infinitessimal math, these are all subjects of science.
Kind regards.
Leo
james blunt: I have read quite shocking statements such as "I don't need math to understand phisics", or" I have been in many forums learning phisics". I might have misunderstood, I apologize if so. But phisics are not based in intuitions, precisely math is a tool used to obtain certain deductions, and to build certain models that are not intuitive. Our senses many times are not enough to recognize our surroundings. The universe is resulting to be not intuitive.
In what refers to your initial statements, I think, the same that some have already said: You should define what you consider space is, and give some sense to the title. Why should religion reject those statements? Additionally, why do you say "this science". Do you belive there are many types of science? Are your statements a division or a specific type of science? I assume you are not "creating" science without math and based in forum reading. You could maybe talk of quantum phisics, or particle phisics, or infinitessimal math, these are all subjects of science.
Kind regards.
Leo
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
It is not the role of religion to confirm or deny science, unless science tries to appoint itself an authority in something relevant to the role of religion.
Does God exist?
Do humans have a purpose?
Do we have free will?
Is matter created by design or chance?
If science doesn't conflict with religion in something relevant to what religion decides are the main questions, science is probably irrelevant. A Christian doesn't deny water conducts electricity or gravity exists. But if you were to state that electricity comes from pure mechanistic laws rather than caused by a deity, a religious type might debate with you. From what I read, it seemed to just be about space, and I wasn't clear why I was supposed to object to this.
Does God exist?
Do humans have a purpose?
Do we have free will?
Is matter created by design or chance?
If science doesn't conflict with religion in something relevant to what religion decides are the main questions, science is probably irrelevant. A Christian doesn't deny water conducts electricity or gravity exists. But if you were to state that electricity comes from pure mechanistic laws rather than caused by a deity, a religious type might debate with you. From what I read, it seemed to just be about space, and I wasn't clear why I was supposed to object to this.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Moving on........
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that as always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from a nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle was required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this is possible , using what knowledge we do know about the Universe .
If you wanted to know why the thread mentions religion and thinks of God , see in red.
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that as always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from a nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle was required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this is possible , using what knowledge we do know about the Universe .
If you wanted to know why the thread mentions religion and thinks of God , see in red.
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
The Bible never claimed to be the perfect record of anything.
Where does the Bible say that Noah and his family were all that was left of humanity after the Flood?
I'm confused.
Are you claiming you have evidence that Noah and his family were not all that survived or that there was no Flood?
Prestor John
Well-Known Member
That is a possibility of course and the Bible does not directly contradict it, but I still believe the Flood was a world-event.
What geological evidence shows that there was no world-wide Flood event?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know the Bible never claims to be perfect and it is refreshing to hear that you understand that.
In Gen. 6 13 God tells Noah that he is going to put an end to all people. Since Noah was to be saved this implies that anyone not with him would die.
Then Gen. 6 17-18 he makes this clearer.
Finally in Gen. 7 21-23 it says that everything that breathes air died as a result of the flood, excepting Noah and his family.
That there was no flood. I could provide links or you might look up the concept of a population bottleneck. The gist of it is that if a population of a group is greatly reduced the genetic diversity of the group will also be greatly reduced. And that diversity will take some time to develop again. For example cheetahs went through such an event about ten thousand years ago. Scientists can calculate that their population got down to less than ten breeding individuals. As a result all cheetahs are very closely related to each other genetically than you are to your sisters or brothers. There is no problem doing organ transplants with cheetahs. With people extensive tissue matching needs to be done. If the Noah's Ark story were true the threat of waking up in a cheap hotel bathtub missing a kidney could be a reality.
That is just one example of how we know that the story is not true.
Lack of appropriate sedimentary layers, lack of population bottlenecks, evidence of dry conditions extending continuously back for millions of years, etc.
There is no scientific doubt: there was no world-wide flood in the last 500 million years. I think that covers the Noah story.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Hello people , I've done some more on my paper and added some maths . What do you think please?
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, explaining opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .
The Micro bang theory considers the aspects of a very high-density and high-temperature state , recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing space to exist in or occur in , thus concluding pre-existing absolute space as explained prior . In consideration of ZPE , the micro bang theory considers the physics involved and what would happen to a manifested mono-pole point charge that manifested at any given point of space.
It would be seemingly apparent that surrounding spatial points of the ZPE point would be a lesser state energy than the higher state energy point . In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , the high energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . To assume that a manifested mono-pole point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the self drive mechanism of high energy transition to lower energy state points , would seem a ''true'' assumption based on existing facts of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .
The Micro bang theory proposes that from the instant of manifestation of the mono-pole electrostatic point charge , it is instantly attracted to all the surrounding lesser energy space in an isotropic manner . Thus causing self annihilation of the mono-pole electrostatic point charge . Additionally , the Micro Bang theory proposes that because the manifested charge is instantly in a state of self annihilation , the density is instantly weakened beyond the magnitude needed to create an electrostatic strong force , to create a binary existence with an opposite pole electrostatic charge . There can be no doubt , that a mono-poles individualism has no binary bond to retain form without an opposite charged mono-pole , thus explaining the self annihilation of the manifesting energy , namely Micro bangs , the rudiment of energy that powers the Universe !
It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole .
In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang theory expresses :
1) Q- / k = 0 to express a negative charged mono-pole divided by absolute space and annihilated out of negligible existence
2) Q+ / k = 0 to express a positive charged mono-pole divided by absolute space and annihilated out of negligible existence
2. Micro bang theory ( Virtual particles popping into and out of existence ).
We've already discussed the absolute of space and in a sense , space is an infinite volume of nothingness that has always existed and will always exist . It would seem quite impossible that a fundamental energy that powered the Universe could manifest itself from nothingness . Any given point of space would have no force or pressure acting on it , it would seem a miracle would be required for zero point energy (ZPE) , to be created at any given point of space . The notion of how energy first manifested if imperceivable , we can only make our best guess's , using our knowledge , logic and intuition of how this manifestation event could of possibly happened .
The present model , The Big Bang Theory , suggests the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state but gives no origin reason(s) of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested . Micro bang theory is my proposal and best guess of how this high-density , high -temperature state manifested, explaining opposite polarity electrostatic point charges (mono-poles) , popping into and out of existence .
The Micro bang theory considers the aspects of a very high-density and high-temperature state , recognising and proposing , that for any form of energy to exist or any event to take place , that energy or event would with a certainty need a pre-existing space to exist in or occur in , thus concluding pre-existing absolute space as explained prior . In consideration of ZPE , the micro bang theory considers the physics involved and what would happen to a manifested mono-pole point charge that manifested at any given point of space.
It would be seemingly apparent that surrounding spatial points of the ZPE point would be a lesser state energy than the higher state energy point . In consideration of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions , the high energy state points energy , traverses to lower energy state points . To assume that a manifested mono-pole point charge simply self annihilates by dispersing into space , by the self drive mechanism of high energy transition to lower energy state points , would seem a ''true'' assumption based on existing facts of thermal dynamics and spectral emissions .
The Micro bang theory proposes that from the instant of manifestation of the mono-pole electrostatic point charge , it is instantly attracted to all the surrounding lesser energy space in an isotropic manner . Thus causing self annihilation of the mono-pole electrostatic point charge . Additionally , the Micro Bang theory proposes that because the manifested charge is instantly in a state of self annihilation , the density is instantly weakened beyond the magnitude needed to create an electrostatic strong force , to create a binary existence with an opposite pole electrostatic charge . There can be no doubt , that a mono-poles individualism has no binary bond to retain form without an opposite charged mono-pole , thus explaining the self annihilation of the manifesting energy , namely Micro bangs , the rudiment of energy that powers the Universe !
It's difficult to express the Micro bang process mathematically in terms of units and values , the infinity of space having no representation in terms of dimensions or values , XYZt and entropy being irrelevant . To gain mutual understanding the Micro bang theory requests that you'll preliminary accept the value k to represent infinite absolute space . Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole .
In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang theory expresses :
1) Q- / k = 0 to express a negative charged mono-pole divided by absolute space and annihilated out of negligible existence
2) Q+ / k = 0 to express a positive charged mono-pole divided by absolute space and annihilated out of negligible existence
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Polly wanna cracker?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Dude , I'm working very hard on this , I'm sure you understand hard work and dedication ?
C'mon , hows it looking ?
u know u like it
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
If you were working hard you would start by learning the basics. All you can do is parrot. When a person parrots without knowledge it is rather obvious. Your math skills are lacking, that does not mean that you cannot learn. Your understanding of units is nonexistent. There is no reason that you cannot learn how to use units correctly. In fact right now learning how to use units correctly is even more important for you than to learn how to do math. Your claims can be easily refuted because your units are always wrong. And though I hate to use the word "always" this is one case where it is justified. When one's units are wrong an opponent need not show that the math is wrong. An error in units is fatal in a physics argument.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Hows it an error in units when I've explained my use?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
An explanation in use never excuses an error in units.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Sometimes analogies are useful teaching tools.
Let's say a person is walking through the woods and hears a thud and a series of curses, then another thud and a series of curses. Going over a small rise he sees a person running into a tree with his head. He asks the tree charger what he is doing and the charger tells him that he is the greatest lumberjack in the world and the he is felling the tree that he is running into. The observer explain to him that he is going about it all wrong. The observer admits to never felling a tree himself, but he knows people that have done so and is aware of the history of lumberjacks how they started with axes, moved up to hand powered saws, and then gasoline powered chainsaws and beyond. He explains that no one has ever chopped down anything beyond a sapling with his head. Meanwhile the tree charger keeps claiming that he is the greatest lumberjack in the world, even though he admits to never felling a tree himself either. He knows his head butting technique will work if he hits the tree right.
Meanwhile, resting his sore head, the tree butter complains because no banks will fund his tree removal service. That he can't find any lumberjacks that will work for him and use his techniques.
What do you think of the tree butter?
Let's say a person is walking through the woods and hears a thud and a series of curses, then another thud and a series of curses. Going over a small rise he sees a person running into a tree with his head. He asks the tree charger what he is doing and the charger tells him that he is the greatest lumberjack in the world and the he is felling the tree that he is running into. The observer explain to him that he is going about it all wrong. The observer admits to never felling a tree himself, but he knows people that have done so and is aware of the history of lumberjacks how they started with axes, moved up to hand powered saws, and then gasoline powered chainsaws and beyond. He explains that no one has ever chopped down anything beyond a sapling with his head. Meanwhile the tree charger keeps claiming that he is the greatest lumberjack in the world, even though he admits to never felling a tree himself either. He knows his head butting technique will work if he hits the tree right.
Meanwhile, resting his sore head, the tree butter complains because no banks will fund his tree removal service. That he can't find any lumberjacks that will work for him and use his techniques.
What do you think of the tree butter?
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Coulomb uses Q for charge so how is it wrong?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what? You supposedly have a charge. What are you going to do with it? A charge all by itself is meaningless.
This is why you need to learn how to use units, what they are for, how they relate to each other. If you understood basic physics you would understand what it means when energy is represented using distance, time, and mass.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
It's a charge popping into and out of existence, what do you mean so what ? A charge divided by space .
I don't see your point at all , how it is wrong ?
Do you mean like 1.60217662 × 10-19 / k = 0
That is what Q- is .
Electron charge, (symbol e), fundamental physical constant expressing the naturally occurring unit of electric charge, equal to 1.6021765 × 10−19 coulomb, or 4.80320451 × 10−10 electrostatic unit (esu, or statcoulomb). In addition to the electron, all freely existing charged subatomic particles thus far discovered have an electric charge equal to this value or some whole-number multiple of it.
e / k = 0 ?
+1 e / k = 0 ?
Is that better for you ?
Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole .
It's you being obtuse not me being incorrect . Electrons and Protons are mono-poles .
Q- = electron charge
Q+ = Proton charge
I can't say electron or proton because my model is not the same . You'll understand more when I have wrote more I should Imagine .
How about I edit and write :
Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).
Maybe
e / <E (k) = 0
+1e / <E (k) = 0
Momentum P=<E
Force = <E
Or how about
e / S∞ = 0
+1e / S∞ = 0
E / <E = 4/3 πr³ is rather genius , I explain that in section 4 .
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Polly wanna cracker? Bwaaakk!
If all you can do is parrot concepts that you do not understand no one will take you seriously.
If all you can do is parrot concepts that you do not understand no one will take you seriously.
james blunt
Well-Known Member
Parrot concepts ? I've not heard of micro bangs and my theory before anywhere !
Hows my maths looking ?
Additionally the Micro bang theory requests the preliminary acceptance of Q- to represent a negative charged mono-pole (traditionally an electron charge) and Q+ to represent a positive charged mono-pole (traditionally a Proton charge).
In preliminary acceptance of these values , the Micro bang theory expresses :
1) Q- / <E (k) = 0 to express a negative charged mono-pole divided by the lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence
2) Q+ / <E (k) = 0 to express a positive charged mono-pole divided by the lesser energy state of absolute space , annihilated out of negligible existence