Religion tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
For example: God created woman from Adam’s rib,
using physical laws. So, what is Religion?
Religion is the poor man’s philosophy.
“The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and
product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable,
but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.
No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. “
/ Albert Einstein. /
=========.
Modern Physics tells us nothing but fables and fantasies!
For example: One Galaxy can eat another Galaxy.
#
Cosmic cannibalising:
Images show one galaxy engulfing another http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/cosmic-cannibalising-images-show-one-galaxy-engulfing-another-1780652.html
#
The Discovery of one Galaxy “Attacking” Another http://www.astronomyexpert.co.uk/the-recent-discovery-of-one-galaxy-attacking-another.html
. . .. etc
Question: Where did Galaxies come from? We don’t have answer.
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
Tell me what an electron is and I’ll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
#
I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
/ Richard Feynman /.
#
The Editor of the Australian magazine Cosmos asked,
‘ Is it time to call a spade a spade, and admit that theoretical
physics is heading down the wrong track? ‘
#
And somebody wrote:
The theoretical physics is a greatest joke in human history.
#
So, what is Physics? Physics is the poor man’s philosophy.
== .
What to do?
I think, at first, we must answer to the simple classic question:
what did come first the chicken or the egg ?
If somebody didn’t understand this question, I will ask it simpler:
What was before Vacuum or Gravity ?
Does Gravity exist in Vacuum or vice versa?
Why I ask these questions.
Because the Universe ( as a whole ) is Two- Measured,
there are two Worlds: Vacuum and Gravity.
#
The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
/ Paul Dirac ./
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. Socratus.
To say that modern physics is like religion is a fallacy. Religion teaches revealed wisdom backed by faith. Science teaches theory backed by testing and honed by constant skepticism. In religion, what is taught from the central wisdom can never be questioned by a true believer. In science, you aren’t a true scientist unless you have doubts. True scientists look at their own work with a critical eye and work hard to maintain objectivity. Religious scholars work from the point of a group of writings or sayings from the religion’s prophets and make interpretations of how to perceive existence, derivative from those works.
The truly religious never seek to overthrow the writing of their prophets. In science, its always assumed that what is held true now could be modified or completely overthrown by new evidence in the future. It is this essential humility of science that gives it the ability to make new discoveries. The people you quote are not saying they are charlatans and admitting permanent failure. They are being honest, and saying that currently, our knowledge is incomplete.
Because of this, physics isn’t telling fairy tales. It is presenting the facts as best as current understanding can give, and if bodies of evidence point clearly to a new concept, the current understanding will be set aside and the new concept will be held as most true.
One other thing. Those who feel that knowledge must be complete or otherwise science is a failure have no idea how impossible it is to have complete knowledge. I doubt we will ever have the technology to, say, tell me the spin of all the particles in my thumbnail, much less understand the careening of all the particles in existence. If you cannot accept current scientific theory as our current best effort, with the knowledge of improvement in the future, then you will never be happy because it is simply impossible to know everything.
To say that modern physics is like religion is a fallacy.
Religion teaches revealed wisdom backed by faith. Science teaches theory backed by testing and honed
by constant skepticism. In religion, what is taught from the central wisdom can never be questioned
by a true believer. In science, you aren’t a true scientist unless you have doubts. True scientists look
at their own work with a critical eye and work hard to maintain objectivity. Religious scholars work from
the point of a group of writings or sayings from the religion’s prophets and make interpretations of how
to perceive existence, derivative from those works.
The truly religious never seek to overthrow the writing of their prophets. In science, its always assumed
that what is held true now could be modified or completely overthrown by new evidence in the future.
It is this essential humility of science that gives it the ability to make new discoveries.
The people you quote are not saying they are charlatans and admitting permanent failure.
They are being honest, and saying that currently, our knowledge is incomplete.
Because of this, physics isn’t telling fairy tales.
It is presenting the facts as best as current understanding can give, and if bodies of evidence
point clearly to a new concept, the current understanding will be set aside and the new concept
will be held as most true.
One other thing. Those who feel that knowledge must be complete or otherwise science is a failure
have no idea how impossible it is to have complete knowledge.
I doubt we will ever have the technology to, say, tell me the spin of all the particles in my thumbnail,
much less understand the careening of all the particles in existence.
If you cannot accept current scientific theory as our current best effort,
with the knowledge of improvement in the future, then you will never be happy
because it is simply impossible to know everything.
Mr. Glenn Millam
I can understand you and I respect your opinion.
But let us think:
Where did Existence come from?
What is the Source of the Universe ?
========.
Now we have three ( 3) sources of the Universe:
Big bang , vacuum and God.
Which of them is correct ?
About big band and god my opinion is:
the action, when the God compressed all Universe
into his palm, physicists had named -a singular point
And action, when the God opened his palm,
physicists had named - the Big Bang
My opinion on Vacuum I explain in the scheme :
Fundamental Theory 0f Existence:
1 The infinite vacuum T=0K
2 The particle: C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
4 The photon, the inertia
5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6 The gravitation, the star, the time
7 The proton
8 The atom(s)
9 The cell(s)
10 The Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
11 The test
==========.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
=========================.
P.S.
Of course, not you or I can approve what this scheme is true.
But I hope what once in the future ( maybe in the XXIIc )
scientists will prove it.
=====================.
This is something I devote a lot of thought to myself. All three things are incomplete in their evidence, so far. I do think that the answers all point to a central question: Does free will exist?
Those who argue against it, saying that it is an illusion caused by incomplete knowledge or vision, to me sound like Einstein in denial of the discoveries of quantum physics, “I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.” But apparently He does as numerous experiments have shown.
If so, then think of a Universe where time can be reversed by an observer outside it. If the Universe is reversed for a given period of time then set back into forward motion, given the nature of physics as we now understand them, will all the parts fall in exactly into place the way they were before when the Universe reaches the timeframe that was the “present” when the reversal took place? My answer would be no, because each particle represents a quantum probability wave, and each time the “dice are rolled,” so to speak, the total results will come up differently. The results may appear simularly, given that all these probabilities, played on each other, seem smooth and predictable. But the fact is that, at the lowest levels, the Universe seems to run on random chance.
If you were to devise a Universe with free will, you would have to have randomness in it. For what is free will but possibility itself?
This is something I devote a lot of thought to myself.
All three things are incomplete in their evidence, so far.
I do think that the answers all point to a central question: Does free will exist?
Those who argue against it, saying that it is an illusion caused by incomplete knowledge or vision,
to me sound like Einstein in denial of the discoveries of quantum physics,
“I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.”
But apparently He does as numerous experiments have shown.
If so, then think of a Universe where time can be reversed by an observer outside it.
If the Universe is reversed for a given period of time then set back into forward motion,
given the nature of physics as we now understand them, will all the parts fall in exactly
into place the way they were before when the Universe reaches the timeframe that was
the “present” when the reversal took place? My answer would be no, because each particle
represents a quantum probability wave, and each time the “dice are rolled,” so to speak,
the total results will come up differently. The results may appear simularly,
given that all these probabilities, played on each other, seem smooth and predictable.
But the fact is that, at the lowest levels, the Universe seems to run on random chance.
If you were to devise a Universe with free will,
you would have to have randomness in it.
For what is free will but possibility itself?
============================
I see.
You search for a ‘Reference Frame ‘ for ‘ free will’
I wish you to be lucky.
====.
S.
This topic is usually a minefield, but every once in a while, it’s fun to venture into it. Here are my personal thoughts:
On the main topic, science is a process of coming to know something whereas religion is an organized set of beliefs, traditions, histories, and rites. Both seek to define and act correctly in the world around them. Both are confronted with unknowns, and both seek answers. The process is different, the source of answers is different, and the consequential conclusions and actions are usually different.
The properties of the vacuum and the nature of gravity are basic, unsolved mysteries at the present time, but I suspect that within 30 years, we’ll have figured out the answers. My personal opinion is based on the ideas of R. Buckminster Fuller, and I highly recommend to anyone out there reading a transcript of “Everything I Know”. The universe works entirely on two forces, attraction and repulsion (or tension and compression), with the macro behavior of particles and planets seeking the point of resting energy, driven by these forces and distracted by inertia. There is an ongoing dance of energy transfer between potential and kinetic energy, at times concentrating energy and at times diffusing it. Energy in tension is transferred in a straight line, but energy under compression is transferred into 90 degree lateral motion. These ideas translate into philosophy and spirituality in the guise of yin-yang, persuation-coersion, construction-destruction, good-evil, etc, but the ideas are very basic.
The vacuum of space is space-time energy at rest, but in high tension. Energy released into this medium spirals around, alternating between electrical and magnetic fields, traveling at the speed of light, until it is absorbed by an orbiting electron, thus adding to its orbital (or wavelength) energy. A neutron is a bit of double-looped energy in compression, being a looped and tied thread of the space-time fabric (the universal energy in tension, or the vacuum). It is balanced in its forces, but if the loops somehow get out of sync, one loop will take most of the energy (but not charge) from the other, thus separating into a proton and electron. This is where we can see the interchangability of energy and matter, or E=MC^2.
Since particles are formed of looped EM threads, some of the local fabric is used, which shortens the available fabric between that particle and any particle next to it. However, the not-so-local fabric is not shortened, so this creates a relative shortage of fabric between the particles, or a higher-tension area. The particles are attracted to each other by this high-tension, low-pressure area. The closer they are, the steeper is the gradient between the middle area and the surrounding fabric, and this gradient is experienced as gravity. As long as there are two particles anywhere in the universe, this principle will apply. Particles will seek to get closer together until the force of the electrons or protons balances with them with an equally strong repulsive force. But as I mentioned before, repulsive forces tend to induce a perpendicular force and motion at larger scales. The inverse but complementary electrical and magnetic fields store and transfer this energy by bending and flexing, but they never break (that we know of, hopefully). Unbalanced ions or electrons are influenced by these fields. Thus, gravity is universal, but electromagnetism is charge-specific. When the minor loop of a space-time thread of an electron loses a bit of thread, that released thread is introduced into the surrounding fabric of interwoven electro-magnetic forces, which creates a wave that oscillates as it is transformed back and forth in a polarized way (think inertial spin). When this wave hits another electron, it crashes against the electron, forcing part of the fabric into the electron, giving it more energy and inertial spin around the proton. Electrons like to be reversely paired in atoms, which balances their forces. Unpaired electrons create an imbalance in the larger EM field, and create a macro bias (or bend of stored energy) in the larger fabric. If you get enough of these together, you have a permanent magnet that you can stick to your fridge, but I digress.
According to R. Buckminster Fuller, there are certain configurations that represent the simplest shapes. The tetrahedron is the simplest 3D shape, and even within the atom, paired electrons arrange themselves into the simplest orbits that mirror simple shapes. For this reason, the oxygen atom has valence electrons at certain points, where hydrogens can hook on, forming the water molecule. For this reason, chemicals have certain characteristics and properties. For this reason, I’m able to think and type and post on this thread.
On the other question about whether free will exists, I think we have the illusion of free will, but our will is limited to our available choices, defined by our genetics, and directed by our learned preferences and social pressure. Free will beyond that is philosophical and academic.
Hopefully I didn’t step on too many landmines. Note: These are my personal views and do not represent anything or anyone else.
This topic is usually a minefield, but every once in a while,
it’s fun to venture into it. Here are my personal thoughts:
On the main topic, science is a process of coming to know something whereas religion is an organized
set of beliefs, traditions, histories, and rites. Both seek to define and act correctly in the world around them.
Both are confronted with unknowns, and both seek answers.
The process is different, the source of answers is different, and the consequential conclusions
and actions are usually different.
================
The properties of the vacuum and the nature of gravity are basic, unsolved mysteries
at the present time, but I suspect that within 30 years, we’ll have figured out the answers.
My personal opinion is based on
the ideas of R. Buckminster Fuller, and I highly recommend to anyone out there reading
a transcript of “Everything I Know”.
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . .
Hopefully I didn’t step on too many landmines.
Note:
These are my personal views
and do not represent anything or anyone else.
===============
This topic is usually a minefield, but every once in a while,
it’s fun to venture into it. Here are my personal thoughts:
On the main topic, science is a process of coming to know something
whereas religion is an organized set of beliefs, traditions, histories, and rites.
Both seek to define and act correctly in the world around them.
Both are confronted with unknowns, and both seek answers.
The process is different, the source of answers is different,
and the consequential conclusions and actions are usually different.
/ AaronB /
=============.
This part of your email belongs to the theory of knowledge.
My opinion.
What is the material basis of Consciousness ? http://forum.philosophynow.org/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3489&start=0
#
All religions, arts and sciences are branches of the same tree.
/ Albert Einstein /
==========================.
The second part of your email maybe is correct.
You use words ‘vacuum’, ‘electron’ often and easily.
But can you explain what ‘vacuum’ and ‘electron’ are.
=============.
#
# The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can’t correctly
describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
of something more complex?
/ Paul Dirac ./
#
The pure vacuum is nothing . . . . so . . . .
A pure vacuum may be the as a sound of one hand clapping.
/ One personal view /
#
#
You know, it would be sufficient to really understand the electron.
/ Albert Einstein./
#
Tell me what an electron is and I’ll then tell you everything.
/ Somebody./
#
” The electron that can be told is not the true electron.”
/ David Harrison /
#
==============.
P.S.
I tried to imagine the easiest way God could have done it.
/ Albert Einstein. /
========.
What is the material basis of consciousness? Atoms, molecules, neurotransmitting chemicals, nerve cells, white/grey matter, brain structures, blood/oxygen flow, electrochemical information input through nerve pathways from sensory organs, and information processing by localized/specialized regions of the brain. I’ve studied mental disorders and worked with those with reduced conscious abilities and states in my Social Work studies and job experience. I’ve worked with cancer patients and in a hospice center. Consciousness is not a binary state. It is the result of a complex and problem-prone electrochemical network of subsystems. Full awareness (alert consciousness) is susceptible to degradation by lack of oxygen, overstimulation, hormone imbalance, drug use, sleep deprivation, dehydration, overheating, hypothermia, blunt force trauma, strokes, aneurysms, and many other causes. The electrons running around in the brain are part of consciousness, but at a very basic level, and I don’t read any more meaning into it.
What is an electron and the vacuum? I would recommend reading the Wikipedia article about the electron. More simply, as I tried to explain earlier, I think it is the result of a decayed neutron after the proton absorbs most of the available mass, leaving only a small amount of mass, but a full charge in the electron. A neutron would be like a double slip knot. If the double slip knot is symmetric, it is stable. If it becomes unstable, one side of the double slip knot will absorb most of the thread. The thread is perceived as mass when it is trapped in a knot. The twisted knot is the charge. The proton/electron split is the result of a double knot becoming lop-sided, or out-of balance. The electron is the primary conveyor of energy between the vacuum (space-time fabric at rest) and matter (looped and tied fabric). Photons are waves travelling on the fabric. Antiparticles are knots tied in the opposite direction as our standard particles, which if they come together with a standard particle, they unravel each other and release their constituent threads back to the surrounding fabric, which releases that trapped energy in waves (gamma rays, etc). High-energy waves crossing each other at the correct angles can result in the creation of a knot. Thus the conversion of energy and matter.
To me, the really fundamental questions are: where did the primal tension come from, and what created the primal waves that led to matter formation? In other words, where did the energy come from that pulled the vacuum tight, and what made the initial waves that formed the first matter? I think I understand what the vacuum and electron are, but I want to know where the energy came from to form them. That’s the big mystery for me. Perhaps I have it backwards, and instead of a universal fabric in high tension, it is fundamentally a compression-based fabric starting out at zero energy, but that still leaves the open question of where the energy came from to form the matter.
Focus Fusion Society 
Note: These are my personal views and do not represent anything or anyone else.
