Will the Religions Ever be Completely Driven out by the Sciences?

[Corvus]

I am also particularly interested in how bi metric gravity and massive gravitons might feature or manifest in M theory, if there is any description of them there. I shall look into it later.

 

[Corvus]

I also looked for a perturbation analysis to see how large scale structures would develop under this theory. Certainly, a massive graviton would affect such development. How does it compare to what we actually see?

This would certainly be a key to providing evidence of the theory. I have no idea if any modeling has been done in that area.

 

[Polymath257]

I am also particularly interested in how massive gravitons might feature or manifest in M theory, if there is any description of them there. I shall look into it later.

From what I can tell, the bimetric theories are mostly 5 dimensional theories with our universe as a brane.

 

[Corvus]

From what I can tell, the bimetric theories are mostly 5 dimensional theories with our universe as a brane.

5 including time? Which is not consistent with the 11 dimensions required by supergravity D10+1 time M theory, on the face of it, or the other members of the M theory group, such as the Heterotic groups and Type I and type II etc. All of which require 11 dimensions to unify gravity with the forces.

 

[Native]

I find it interesting that you claim that E&M is ignored while pointing to scientific articles dealing with E&M effects. On the other hand, you seem to want to ignore gravitational effects.
And I am guessing thaat you don't want to say anything about the other two basic forces: the weak and strong nuclear forces. Even you can't claim that they have a significant effect in terms of galactic dynamics.
Also, did you really just give a link the the Institute for Creation Research? Really?

Once again you go after the messinger and ignore the provided explanations And then you post other topics (weak and strong EM forces) instead of dealing with the posted contents, thus avoiding the nasty contents.

Yes isn´t it interesting that I linked to scientific articles about E&M, which you never have heard of since you asked for such links? And do you know why? Because the E&M is taboo in the established mainstream silly cosmology, so you and others can only get such informations from "outsiders and other crackpotters" who are able to think independently for themselves.

And apparently you have something against EM informations, just because the informations are mentioned in a site where the word "creation" appears!?

Did you even read the articles at all?

 

[Polymath257]

5 including time? Which is not consistent with the 11 dimensions required by supergravity D10+1 time M theory, on the face of it, or the other members of the M theory group, such as the Heterotic groups and Type I and type II etc. All of which require 11 dimensions to unify gravity with the forces.

Yes, 5 including time. I don't know how the requirement of 11 dimensions is avoided.

 

[Polymath257]

Once again you go after the messinger and ignore the provided explanations And then you post other topics (weak and strong EM forces) instead of dealing with the posted contents, thus avoiding the nasty contents.

Yes isn´t it interesting that I linked to scientific articles about E&M, which you never have heard of since you asked for such links? And do you know why? Because the E&M is taboo in the established mainstream silly cosmology, so you and others can only get such informations from "outsiders and other crackpotters" who are able to think independently for themselves.

And apparently you have something against EM informations, just because the informations are mentioned in a site where the word "creation" appears!?

Did you even read the articles at all?

It isn't so much that E&M are not discussed as it simply aren't relevant to the flat rotation curve. It certainly are relevant in other ways, though. And in the places where it is relevant, it is discussed at length.

E&M is very far from being taboo. It arises naturally when modeling any plasma, of which there are many types. It comes in naturally when discussing pulsars. And, as you pointed out, there is a magnetic field around our galaxy. But, since most objects are not charged, that is relatively insignificant for orbits.

As to the ICR, I am quite aware of how poor their science is in general. Anything from them is subject to extreme doubt.

 

[Native]

It isn't so much that E&M are not discussed as it simply aren't relevant to the flat rotation curve.

As even such thing as an hypothetical invention of an unseen "dark force" is judged to be relevant, all other real forces is relevant as a qualitative candidate for explaining the galactic rotation curve. But what is relevant here in your opinion?

And, as you pointed out, there is a magnetic field around our galaxy. But, since most objects are not charged, that is relatively insignificant for orbits.

Yes there is EM all over the places in the Universe, "but it doesn´t do anything", standard gravity cosmologists states

There are also ionized particles in Thunderstorms, but they don´t create lightnings. Electricity doesn´t do anything. All atoms in the Universe have no electromagnetic properties. It isn´t electricity which lits up the gravity proponents houses . . .

Everything is gravitational collisions and explosions, supported by all kinds of "unseen an undetected "dark magic forces", period . . .

 

[David1967]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences?

No, I don't believe they will.

Why or why not?

I think there will always be people that need religion in one form or another to make sense of their life.

BONUS QUESTION: What will the relationship of the religions to the sciences be in 100 years? Will religions become increasingly aligned with the sciences by discarding notions that are contradicted by the sciences?

I don't think we can put it under one umbrella. Depends on the religion. The more fundamentalist they are, the more resistance to any change. For myself I like to quote a local geology professor at the local university who I have fossil hunted with a few times. He is what I would call a more liberal leaning Christian. On one dig I asked his opinion regarding scripture and science. He was not bothered in the least, he simply shrugged and said, "The Bible is not a book on geology." I like that.

 

[Polymath257]

As even such thing as an hypothetical invention of an unseen "dark force" is judged to be relevant, all other real forces is relevant as a qualitative candidate for explaining the galactic rotation curve. But what is relevant here in your opinion?

Well, the data is what is relevant. The E&M forces alone cannot explain the lensing effects we see. It cannot explain the differences in the background radiation.

Yes there is EM all over the places in the Universe, "but it doesn´t do anything", standard gravity cosmologists states

On the contrary, it does quite a bit. We see it active in HII clouds. We see it active in pulsars. We see it active in magnetars. It is highly relevant for not allowing things to collapse entirely (for the most part). But it is relatively irrelevant to the dynamics because the vast majority of things in the universe are electrically neutral.

There are also ionized particles in Thunderstorms, but they don´t create lightnings. Electricity doesn´t do anything. All atoms in the Universe have no electromagnetic properties. It isn´t electricity which lits up the gravity proponents houses . . .

E&M forces are quite relevant in many phenomena. Just not *all* phenomena.

Everything is gravitational collisions and explosions, supported by all kinds of "unseen an undetected "dark magic forces", period . . .

No 'dark forces'. Dark matter and dark energy. Neither of which can be eliminated by considering E&M forces.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Will the religions ever be completely driven out by the sciences? Why or why not?

BONUS QUESTION: What will the relationship of the religions to the sciences be in 100 years? Will religions become increasingly aligned with the sciences by discarding notions that are contradicted by the sciences?

No. As the Harmony of Religion and Science is now assured. It will be when Science finds the Spirit of Faith, that our great potential shall be released.

Both these paths to truth will be uncovering things we can only just vaguely imagine. We will traverse time and space easily and swiftly. The power source will be based on magnetism. We will discover all planets have their own creatures to which no mind can compute. We will find that there are more creatures also on the Path of Knowing and Loving God. We will find great healing in natural Fruits and Nuts, hot and cold waters and the happiness of mind.

The Future is great, there is much about these subjects in the Baha'i Writings.

Regards Tony

 

[Native]

Well, the data is what is relevant. The E&M forces alone cannot explain the lensing effects we see. It cannot explain the differences in the background radiation.

Yes the data is of course relevant and these shows a different data in orbital motions in galaxies compared to our Solar System.

Data from the orbital plane in the Solar System and in the galactic disk are also very important of how the formation takes place. In both areas, it is very unlikely that the assumed "gravitational accreation" after a pre-solar explosion that planets (or stars in a galaxy) can be formed in a flat plane. This fits very well to a formation via a standing electric current and it´s perpendicular magnetic field which very naturally makes a flat/flattish plane. So I still goes with the EM as the bipolar-formative powers of formation in the Universe.

IMO the so called "gravitational lensing" is just a simple refraction of ligth in the atmosphere around the celestial lense, nothing else.

On the contrary, it does quite a bit. We see it active in HII clouds. We see it active in pulsars. We see it active in magnetars. It is highly relevant for not allowing things to collapse entirely (for the most part). But it is relatively irrelevant to the dynamics because the vast majority of things in the universe are electrically neutral.

I was just a little ironic here . . .

But it is relatively irrelevant to the dynamics because the vast majority of things in the universe are electrically neutral.

Not so. Anything can be dynamically affected by E&M on the plasma stage which evidently all formations begins with in cosmos.