Where science and religion become indistinguishable...

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by marv, Nov 27, 2004.

  1. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Man, the curious animal, has always sought the answers to the "what" and the "why" of existence. Not finding them, he is inclined to invent them. Religion has always provided the easiest route. The unknown and unanswerable could always be concealed in mysteries, the inexplicable described as miracles. But the more we learn about ourselves and the universe around us, the less satisfactory religion becomes. Religion is on the verge of becoming irrelevant. Real answers are needed so here comes physics, cosmology, astrophysics, and a host of related synods. But, in the process, physical science has also found it necessary to "fill in the blanks" with it's own saints, bishops, mysteries, and even a creation theory. In the end, this only serves to close the mind to real exploration and discovery.

    When St. Einstein says that all views of one physical event are valid, or when St. Schrödinger says that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time we stop looking for reality. St. Oppenheimer once spoke of a disciple, Julian Schwinger, that, "When ordinary people give a talk, it is to tell you that you can do it, but when Julian gives a talk, it is to tell you that only he can do it." This is the arrogance which has accrued to the physical sciences.

    Science has successfully assailed the notion that there was a "first man". Science has not been so successful in describing the creation of the universe. Absent a reasonable explanation where one was needed, a myth was created using questionable evidence. St. Einstein's cosmic constant posed a persistent and unsolvable problem until St. Hubble discovered a red shift among the galaxies. The universe was expanding. But from where? And from what? Furthermore, St. Hubble's discovery was not a complete solution. But nevermind, it was close enough to satisfy the faithful because little flaws can be ignored. And the question, "...from where..." must be the creation so sought after. Thus, the creation - the "Big Bang" - was eventually found; or should I say theorized. Again, nevermind that blue shifted galaxies have been found even further away than St. Hubble's red shifted galaxies. The truly faithful will not let this embarrassing detail interfere with their belief system.

    The faithful marched on attempting to determine the time of the origin of the universe. By including such things as St. Hubble's red shift, St. Einstein's fixed speed of light, and other elements into the calculus, they fixed the origin of the universe, the "Big Bang", anywhere from twelve to twenty billion years ago. Nevermind the enormous margin of error, the faithful will accept it.

    Now everyone knows that galaxies are not built overnight. They do take time. The clergy have calculated the various lengths of time required to make a galaxy depending on the nature of the galaxy in question. Generally, this is in the area of billions of years. But as our skills at building ever improved telescopes, we discover more and more galaxies as far as the lens can see. No matter that we keep saying that we've seen the earliest days of the universe, those days become ever more early. And heresy! Even some of those galaxies are blue shifted.

    Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious.
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Blandnuts Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    121
    "Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious."


    I agree with you, but how do we go about answering these questions?



    Fred
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    This is stupid. The difference between science and religion can be summed up in a nice two-word phrase: "empirical evidence". We do not simply take the ideas of Einstein, Hubble, Heisenberg, etc. as articles of faith - we believe their ideas because they conform well to our observations about the universe. Scientific ideas aren't dogma; scientists are perfectly willing to re-evaluate ideas or throw them out completely if new ideas come along that conform better to our observations.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Then you must believe that the cat in Heisenberg's box is both alive and dead at the same time. Now that requires faith!
    Many physicists "knew" well into the 1940's that speed faster than sound in an atmosphere was impossible because the molecules making up the atmosphere would simply stack up in front of the object. This was in spite of the fact that the sound barrier had been broken four centuries earlier by balls fired from early shoulder arms!
     
  8. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Although there is now a good bit of evidence, the exact nature of quantum indeterminacy is still something of an open question.
    The idea that physicists thought that nothing could move faster than sound until Chuck Yeager's 1947 flight is an urban myth. Scientists and engineers all knew that it was possible to accelerate an object faster than sound; however, many engineers did not believe that it was possible to create an aircraft structurally capable of withstanding the shockwaves that are produced during supersonic flight. Obviously this is not the same as believing that traveling faster than sound is impossible. Indeed, aviation engineers had been studying the shockwaves produced by supersonic objects as far back as the 1920s and 30s.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2004
  9. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    I admire your "Heisenberg's cat" answer; it's the textbook way of saying, "I don't know." The underlying question is, "Must something be only 'A', or must it be only 'B', or can it be both 'A' and 'B' simultaneously?"

    As to the "faster than sound" statement, it was the aeronautical engineers who had doubts about structural integrity. Nevertheless, some scientists of stature did have doubts about supersonic speeds for the reason stated. It was not urban myth.

    Earlier, you mentioned "empirical evidence" as giving credence to current observations about the universe. I've yet to see any empirical evidence proving the occurrence of a Big Bang or a Black Hole. At best, these theories are based on indirect observations and the calculations of physicists. Without direct observation, these simply remain as theories. But so long as they are presented as fact, they serve as blinders to other investigations.

    The Big Bang in particular requires a sequential series of theories for support.
     
    Last edited: Nov 27, 2004
  10. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    Nope. The fact that bullets travel faster than sound was first conclusively demonstrated by Ernst Mach in 1887 (we use 'Mach numbers' as measurments of supersonic speed in his honor). There hasn't been any controversy over objects being able to travel faster than sound since the 19th century. The origin of the 'sound barrier myth' is explained on this NASA historical web page http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4219/Chapter3.html:
     
  11. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Thanks, Nasor, I stand corrected since your information appears more accurate than mine.

    However, a reproduction of a British sixteenth century musket using powder of sixteenth formulation fired a ball at a little over 1000fps, something over mach 1 at sea level by my calculation. Also missed were the propeller tips of WWI aircraft. It's nice to know that the American media isn't alone in screwing things up.

    Again, thanks.
     
  12. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    it was schrodinger's cat btw. and it can be both alive and dead until you make the observation.
     
  13. blobrana Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,214
    Hum,
    I’m in two minds wither it was Schrödinger’s, Heisenberg's, cat...perhaps both??



    @marv
    "The Big Bang in particular requires a sequential series of theories for support."

    (just a quick note/continuation on the inflation thread)

    Hum,
    the big bang theory is <b>built upon</b> other theories, like the theory of gravity, or atomic theory, or the theory that the earth is round….most theories are like that…
    The big bang theory may be `incomplete`, in so much as we cant deal with the infinites with our current physics, but there is no reason why that theory has anything `particular` about it.
     
  14. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    >>>>I’m in two minds wither it was Schrödinger’s, Heisenberg's, cat...perhaps both??

    schodinger didn't know whether his cat was alive or dead and heisenberg either knew how fast his cat was going but not where it was or vice versa. neither should have owned pets imho.

    ;-)
     
  15. Starman Starman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    540
    [Perhaps there is something wrong with the religion of physics. Perhaps it's time we sit down and re-think how we go about seeking answers to very fundamental questions. Man has this insatiable appetite to complicate the simple and to create puzzles where the solutions are beyond the obvious.[/QUOTE]



    Mary it sounds like you have been abused by a Religious Scientist. Many others have different theories that are hard to prove. I have a few questions.

    1. Why do solar systems resemble Atoms?

    2. Why do Galaxies resemble Molecules?

    3. Why do the arangment of Super Clusters resemble strands of the double helix of DNA?

    4. If the String Theory and the Membrane Theory are now comming together with their 11 demensions dose anyone else see how this resembles cell division?

    If anyone has some answers to my questions it would be greatly appreciated.
     
  16. Nasor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,231
    I'm guessing that you're referring to the long-outdated model of the atom in which the electrons 'orbit' the nucleus like planets around the sun. Unfortunately that model is not at all correct.
    In what way to galaxies resemble molecules? I'm a chemist, so I know a few things about molecules, but it's not clear to me how they resemble galaxies.
     
  17. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    Redshifts and all that may be fine for supporting the big bang theory but the inflationary epoch model is built on squat - no evidence, no corroboration, zilch. Therefore: the big bang theory is still flawed.
     
  18. Starman Starman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    540
    Molecules are made up of atoms held together by the Strong force or The Gravity A wave. Atoms have a nucleus with variable amount of electrons or orbitals. Even though Solar systems do not resemble Atoms as we understand them it is an example of a system within a system all held together by Gravity.
     
  19. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    >>>> Gravity A wave.

    what is this?
     
  20. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    ...my name is marv, as in Marvin! And no, I haven't been "abused" by anyone. Actually, I dropped out of school.
     
  21. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    Science never claimed to explain everything. It only strives to understand it as much as possible.
    The examples given to claim the failures of science mostly demontrate the failure to understand them. An example is Schrödinger's cat. He used it as thought experiment demonstrate the problems of applying the principles quantum mechanics to macroscopic objects. He was, in fact not proposing that the cat is moving in quantum states.

    I understand that many details of various science branches are incomprehnsible to the layman (which in turn explains why one has to study to even understand them). However, they are far less dogmatich than you might want to believe (as e.g. religion is). More specifically, while I am no physiscist I understand that many of the modern theories are completely inituitive, which does not make them wrong.
     
  22. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Einstein "fudged" his description of space to fit his GR by adding his now infamous "cosmological constant". Only later, with the help of Friedman and Hubble, was he able to at least partially reconcile his theory with observation. See Appendix IV of his Relativity, the Special and General Theory.

    But today, Hubble's support of Einstein's expanding universe theory is coming apart as blue shifted galaxies are discovered further and further in the distance. Nevertheless, in spite of the growing evidence of contradiction, Einstein's GR and SR are considered most holy. Anyone refusing to accept them is considered a heritic. This is dogma.
     
  23. Starman Starman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    540
    There is a little known theory by Robert Lazar and here is a quote.
    ...And there are two specific different types of Gravity: Gravity A and Gravity B. Gravity A works on a smaller, micro scale while Gravity B works on a larger, macro scale.

    We are familiar with Gravity B. It is the big gravity wave that holds the Earth, as well as the rest of the planets, in orbit around the Sun and holds the moon, as well as man-made satellites, in orbit around the Earth. We are not familiar with Gravity A. It is the small gravity wave which is the major contributory force that holds together the mass that makes up all protons and neutrons. Gravity A is what is currently being labeled as the Strong Nuclear Force in mainstream physics, and Gravity A is the wave that you need to access and amplify to enable you to cause space-time distortion for interstellar travel..

    To keep them straight, just remember that Gravity A works on an atomic scale, and Gravity B is the big gravity wave that works on a stellar or planetary level. However, don't mistake the size of these waves for their strength, because Gravity A is a much stronger force than Gravity B. You can momentarily break the Gravity B field of the Earth simply by jumping in the air, so this is not an intense gravitational field.

    Locating Gravity A is no problem because it is found in the nucleus of every atom of all matter here on Earth, and all matter everywhere else in our universe. However accessing Gravity A with the naturally occurring elements found on Earth is a big problem. Actually, I'm not aware of any way of accessing the Gravity A wave using any Earth element, whether naturally occurring or synthesized, and here's why.

    We've already learned that Gravity A is the major force that holds together the mass that makes up protons and neutrons. This means the Gravity A wave we are trying to access is virtually inaccessible as it is located within matter, or at least the matter we have here on Earth.

    The most important attribute of these heavier stable elements is that the Gravity A wave is so abundant that it actually extends past the perimeter of the atom. These heavier, stable elements literally have their own Gravity A field around them in addition to the Gravity B field that is native to all elements.

    No naturally occurring atoms on Earth have enough protons and neutrons for the cumulative Gravity A wave to extend past the perimeter of the atom so you can access it. Even though the distance the Gravity A wave extends is infinitesimal, it IS accessible and has amplitude, wavelength and frequency just like any other wave in the electromagnetic spectrum. Once you can access the Gravity A wave, you can amplify it just like we amplify any other electromagnetic wave.

    So, back to our power source. Inside the reactor, element 115 is bombarded with a proton which plugs into the nucleus of the 115 atom and becomes element 116 which immediately decays and releases or radiates small amounts of antimatter. The antimatter is released in a vacuum into a tuned tube which keeps it from reacting with the matter that surrounds it. It is then directed toward the gaseous matter target at the end of the tube. The matter and antimatter collide and annihilate, totally converting to energy. The heat from this reaction is converted into electrical energy in a near 100% efficient thermoelectric generator. This is a device that converts heat directly into electrical energy. Many of our satellites and space probes use thermoelectric generators, but their efficiency is very, very low.

    All of these actions and reactions inside of the reactor are orchestrated perfectly like a tiny little ballet, and in this manner the reactor provides an enormous amount of power.

    So, back to our original question: What is the power source that provides the power required for this type of travel? The power source is a reactor which uses element 115 as a fuel, and uses a total annihilation reaction to provide the heat which it converts to energy, making it a compact, lightweight, efficient, onboard power source.

    I've got a couple of quick comments on element 115 for those of you that are interested. By virtue of the way it's used in the reactor, it depletes very slowly, and only 223 grams of 115, which is just under 1/2 a pound, can be utilized for a period of twenty to thirty years.

    Element 115's melting point is 1740 C.

    I need to state here that even though I had hands-on experience with element 115, I didn't melt any of it down and I didn't use any of it for twenty to thirty years to see if it depleted.



    I hope this answers your question.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2004

Share This Page