Gravity vs Mass

[Thief]

What does utility have to do with theoretical physics?
Science does try to describe the universe accurately. It's a research tool and follows the facts wherever they lead. Consequences of the facts have no bearing on their veracity.

hmmmm…….and I have posted soooooooo many times

science tells us HOW God did it

but you can't put God in a repeatable experiment
no petri dish can hold Him

I think there is WEIGHT in that statement

the gravity of this topic is soooooo heavy

a lot of substance to consider

massive implications

 

[viole]

not so fast.....

science simply has not found the means to deal with the little things

and science would insist on belief in dark energy and dark matter
they do insist

I'm fine with that

but without the repeatable results of experiment
nothing is proven

science has not find the means to treat little things? Maybe you are not aware that QM, the science of the very small so to speak, is arguably the most successful theory we have and ever had in physics.

more likely: you are expressing a wishful thinking since we both know that QM would destroy all assumptions you do to justify your metaphysics. Assumptions that might have worked at the time of Newton, but do not work anymore.

but as Lamaitre (the catholic priest who first theorized about the Big Bang) said to the pope himself, to attribute metaphysical meaning, or even evidence of a creator, to science is a very unwise thing to do.

as your reliance on causality, or repeatability, and similar outdated concepts, seems to confirm.

ciao

- viole

 

[Thief]

science has not find the means to treat little things? Maybe you are not aware that QM, the science of the very small so to speak, is arguably the most successful theory we have and ever had in physics.

this thread demos a lot of perspective
first using the word .....predict
and then denying it

I suspect
and the arguments herein point to it
nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause

denying the First Cause

as ALL causes lead back to a beginning

ironically
the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning

no apparent Cause

it just happened

but God is not apparent...…..is He?

 

[Valjean]

hmmmm…….and I have posted soooooooo many times

science tells us HOW God did it

but you can't put God in a repeatable experiment
no petri dish can hold Him.

Exactly. Science = how, religion = who.
Science works with factual evidence, and will include God as soon as actual supporting evidence is found. Thus far there is none, and the God concept is ignored.

Religion assumes God. God is axiomatic. Science is seen as a doctrinal threat.

Religion discourages investigation, and is little motivated by facts. Religion seeks support not in facts or investigation, but in criticism of science, with the view that any flaw in scientific understanding or methodology constitutes support for religious doctrine.

Science ignores religion. Religion obsesses about science.

 

[Polymath257]

if it's not a description of our universe

what good is your science?

what does it do for you?

It *is* a description of our universe. But it is a *probabilistic* description. From what we can tell, our universe isn't deterministic and causal; it is probabilistic and acausal.

But since atoms are quite small, anything macroscopic will have many of them, allowing a statistical treatment. This leads to statistical mechanics which gives very good descriptions of a wide range of phenomena. Much of solid state physics is based on this quantum description. In other words, semiconductors and computers are understood using quantum mechanics.

 

[Valjean]

this thread demos a lot of perspective
first using the word .....predict
and then denying it

I suspect
and the arguments herein point to it
nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause

denying the First Cause

as ALL causes lead back to a beginning

ironically
the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning

no apparent Cause

it just happened

but God is not apparent...…..is He?

We don't ignore cause. We just have no reason to assume an invisible, uncaused, omnipotent, intentional personage was a first cause. We've assumed that so many times in the past, and each time a Goddidit "explanation" was superseded by a natural one.

We research mechanism, not agency, and agency doesn't explain mechanism.
Religion tries to square theoretical physics with everyday, human experience; but the universe is nothing like what we perceive, and can't be explained from a commonsense, human perspective.

 

[Valjean]

...nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause
denying the First Cause
as ALL causes lead back to a beginning.

"Nonbelievers are hardly an ontologically homogenous bloc.

Creationists insist on a cause, and equate agency with cause. Against established physics, they see the universe in terms of human experience and cognition. They think their little worlds are real, and try to explain everything from this blinkered perspective.

ironically. the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning
no apparent Causeit just happened
but God is not apparent...…..is He?

No, he's not. In fact, he's neither apparent nor a necessary part of the equation.

 

[Polymath257]

this thread demos a lot of perspective
first using the word .....predict
and then denying it

Yes, *predict* probabilities.

But not specific events.

Do you see the difference?

I suspect
and the arguments herein point to it
nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause

Irrelevant. The observations show that causality,
at least as classically understood (a cause leads to
only one effect, and at every occurrence), is false.

denying the First Cause

as ALL causes lead back to a beginning

Or to uncaused quantum events.

ironically
the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning

no apparent Cause

it just happened

but God is not apparent...…..is He?

Well, we know the universe exists. We know that QM is a very good description of how the universe works. And we know that QM is not a causal description. We also know that QM is going to be relevant in the early universe because of the energy levels then.

So that, at the very least, shows that the 'first cause' argument fails. it is simply not applicable to the universe we see around us.

 

[viole]

this thread demos a lot of perspective
first using the word .....predict
and then denying it

I suspect
and the arguments herein point to it
nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause

denying the First Cause

as ALL causes lead back to a beginning

ironically
the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning

no apparent Cause

it just happened

but God is not apparent...…..is He?

it is not a question of unbelieving, it is a question that your scientific knowledge needs an upgrade double quick. Especially, if you need it to justify your metaphysics.

ciao
- viole

 

[Polymath257]

One big problem is that the notion of causality is not an easy one to pin down precisely.

In physics, it is limited to saying that events that are space-like separated are uncorrelated. In other words, it is impossible for influences to transmit faster than light.

 

[tas8831]

science tells us HOW God did it

When you were given your amazing high IQ science award back in 8th grade, did you learn about the fallacy of begging the question?

 

[tas8831]

I suspect
and the arguments herein point to it
nonbelievers INSIST a lack of cause

denying the First Cause

as ALL causes lead back to a beginning

ironically
the SAME frame of discussion arises......in the beginning

no apparent Cause

it just happened

but God is not apparent...…..is He?

Not at all.

Why is your particular preferred Deity the 'first cause'?

Maybe it is Vishnu.

 

[Thief]

Religion assumes God.

and science assumes dark energy and dark matter

and God was God of the Dark before He created light

 

[Thief]

Not at all.

Why is your particular preferred Deity the 'first cause'?

Maybe it is Vishnu.

Almighty

that is the only name I use to Him

 

[Thief]

it is impossible for influences to transmit faster than light.

so if we run into each at the speed of light
that applied force would not be 2C?

collider event?

 

[Thief]

Yes, *predict* probabilities.

But not specific events.

Do you see the difference?



Irrelevant. The observations show that causality,
at least as classically understood (a cause leads to
only one effect, and at every occurrence), is false.



Or to uncaused quantum events.



Well, we know the universe exists. We know that QM is a very good description of how the universe works. And we know that QM is not a causal description. We also know that QM is going to be relevant in the early universe because of the energy levels then.

So that, at the very least, shows that the 'first cause' argument fails. it is simply not applicable to the universe we see around us.

Someone had to be First
you are simply denying....He wasn't there in the beginning

THAT implies your spirit is only a product of substance
and you are soon to be dust

not much point in generation 7billion copies of a learning device
only to have all those numbers crumble

 

[Heyo]

and science assumes dark energy and dark matter

No.
Scientists observed phenomena. They called them Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
No assumption.

 

[Native]

cause and effect CANNOT be separated

With another sentence: "Everything is connected and entangled" - Even native tribe cultures knew that and to a large extend, they also knew HOW and WHY = a causality.

Well, then, your instructor needed to update his/her understanding of modern science. As stated, this is simply false.

Further on:

Causality, as classically understood, is simply false. Given initial conditions it is usually not possible to predict the specific outcome of a single experiment, even in theory.

It is very common and normal for modern educated scientists and laymen to state such a denial.

Quote from - Causality - Wikipedia
“Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it”.

Yes but "intuition" and "natural philosophy" isn´t learned in scientific physics, which is why all kinds of "cosmological statements" are full of dogmas which aren´t explained:

"Everything in the Universe is formed from nothing in the Big Bang".

"The Universe is suddenly increasing the velocity of the expansion".

"Dark energy" is added in order to confirm this dogma.

"The Solar System is formed from a cosmic cloud which suddenly decided to collapse in it self".

"Dark matter is inserted in galaxies just to confirm the gravity dogmas".

- And so on and so on . . . No natural and logical causal explanations, but loads of assumptions on what´s going on. And if the assumptions fails, more dark this and that are just added into the already failed assumptions.

Again:
"Quote from - Causality - Wikipedia
“Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it”.

That is: In order to be able explain causal cosmological conditions, INTUITION and PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING is needed in order to grasp causal conditions and THEN describe and underpin these causal facts with modern scientific methods.

 

[Native]

Someone had to be First
you are simply denying....He wasn't there in the beginning

IMO this perception is a mental result of the Abrahamic religion heritage. Several other ancient religions states everything in the Universe to be an eternal stage of formation/creation/dissolution and recreation/re-formation, which of course discards the very idea of a beginning, included a Big Bang.

 

[Native]

No.
Scientists observed phenomena. They called them Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
No assumption.

I´ll question that. Scientists ASSUMED "dark matter" by observing the (abnormal) rotational conditions around an ASSUMED "heavy dark object" in the galactic center. And they ASSUMED the Universe to expand via "dark energy" with an increasing speed, which is impossible.

In these cases scientists didn´t "observe phenomena", they did not understand the observations but just inserted dark ghosts in order to confirm themselves and their equations. They stated facts just by looking at the circumstantial conditions which doesn´t hold water in the cosmic or any other court.