Physics is Wrong

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You are assuming a creator couldn’t create a universe with a “memory” built in.
[/quote]
True.

Well, I think it’s a possibility that should be given it’s just due, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to rely on that and slam the door shut. God certainly could have done such a thing, hell it could have happened 20 seconds ago for all we know, but if we want to understand this existence we are participating in,we have to accept the possibility but continue to try an learn and dig in with the evidence we were given. It begs the question, why would God have done such a thing? Does it make sense? Maybe, maybe not, but the science is interesting and the journey often yeilds a lot of unexpected knowledge even if the journey is not completed or even completable.

[quote]
In fact it goes against the very claim of a christian god. [/quote]
Not sure what you mean here, but with what I think you mean I disagree. Like I said, God blowing the universe as we know it into existence yesterday complete with all knowledge and history is always a possibility. It’s not a probability though.
Studying, learning, seeking, information about the universe we know, is every bit a study of God as it is us and I think not studying it as hard as possible is a dishonor to Him.[/quote]

It is as logically possible and any other scenario. And I never promoted that we stop applying our minds.

122

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By science guy, I didn’t mean occupation, though engineering is applied science.[/quote]

Ah yes, engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompa of science!

123

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By science guy, I didn’t mean occupation, though engineering is applied science.[/quote]

Ah yes, engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompa of science![/quote]

lol. Some times they let us pursue our own visions…

And really I’d say science is a method of investigating the universe. It’s pure theoretical physics that isn’t real science.

124

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By science guy, I didn’t mean occupation, though engineering is applied science.[/quote]

Ah yes, engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompa of science![/quote]

lol. Some times they let us pursue our own visions…

[/quote]

Naw shucks, I’m just messin’ with ya.

:slight_smile:

125

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
By science guy, I didn’t mean occupation, though engineering is applied science.[/quote]

Ah yes, engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream. Hello, Oompa Loompa of science![/quote]

lol. Some times they let us pursue our own visions…

[/quote]

Naw shucks, I’m just messin’ with ya.

:)[/quote]

I know. But really good engineers have a born and bread desire to problem solve. Seeing and achieving the solution to a problem (any scientific problem) is generally their vision.

That’s how I ended up teaching myself electrical engineering and becoming the company’s electrical guy. It is all the same, overdeveloped (at the expense of other parts) section of my brain.

126

…lol.

127

Sooo… has anyone watched the CERN webcast I posted?

128

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]

Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]

DoubleDuce, I get the impression you’re trying to be edgy. You’re coming off as a retard.
Labels or not, the english language has a set of guidelines and definitions that all adhere by.
If you want to make up your own language, then do so, but don’t expect anyone to understand what the fuck you are saying.
And physics is pretty absolute. As an engineer, you should know this. Considering it’s the heart and soul of your work.
We can’t know where every atom is. We don’t need to know.

129

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]

Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]

DoubleDuce, I get the impression you’re trying to be edgy. You’re coming off as a retard.
Labels or not, the english language has a set of guidelines and definitions that all adhere by.
If you want to make up your own language, then do so, but don’t expect anyone to understand what the fuck you are saying.
And physics is pretty absolute. As an engineer, you should know this. Considering it’s the heart and soul of your work.
We can’t know where every atom is. We don’t need to know.
[/quote]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Names have nothing to do with the nature of things. I’m sorry you can’t understand that. Its because I’m an engineer I know science isn’t absolute at all.

And we can’t know where any atom is or was. But all that is is atoms.

130

For example, you cannot describe the color pink to a blind man. This is because words do not add or describe anything only in so far as they relate to real experience. If the words had actual inherent meaning, you would be able to make a blind person know what it’s like to see. You simply cannot, because words have no inherent value.

131

So this is what PWI forum is like in here?

God damn the OP is retarded.

Are all threads like this in here?

132

Many are detazathoth, many threads are.

133

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]groo wrote:
All of the continents were once connected in one huge continent know as Pangaea.[/quote]

Nothing but labels. tell be where the attom in my fingernail was back then[/quote]

DoubleDuce, I get the impression you’re trying to be edgy. You’re coming off as a retard.
Labels or not, the english language has a set of guidelines and definitions that all adhere by.
If you want to make up your own language, then do so, but don’t expect anyone to understand what the fuck you are saying.
And physics is pretty absolute. As an engineer, you should know this. Considering it’s the heart and soul of your work.
We can’t know where every atom is. We don’t need to know.
[/quote]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Names have nothing to do with the nature of things. I’m sorry you can’t understand that. Its because I’m an engineer I know science isn’t absolute at all.

And we can’t know where any atom is or was. But all that is is atoms.[/quote]

I’m an engineer too, dumbass.
Just cause you’re an engineer doesn’t mean you have some amazing power of insight.

You’re trying too hard. Way too hard.

134

[quote]detazathoth wrote:

Are all threads like this in here?[/quote]

Not at all. Usually, a bunch of physics or philosophy hacks will show up and talk in circles. Or, the conservatives will show up and shout down the liberals or the middle, regarding religion or politics.

And finally Brother Chris will eventually show up and say, “it’s true because the Catholic Church says it’s true”. And if by that time you don’t feel the need to push yourself away from the screen in a desperate attempt to maintain your sanity, well then you sir are perfectly suited to be a PWI regular :slight_smile:

In the end, the regulars’ bias will be on full display but if you really wanted to know what you needed to know, all you had to do was ask the Catholic Church in the first place. So, I ask; what does the Catholic Church have to say about this? :slight_smile:

135

[quote]pat wrote:

No. It disagrees that Genesis 1 and 2 are a historical account. I personally think that looking at it as a historical account misses the more important points made by Genesis 1 and 2. And it’s doesn’t matter if GR is not completely correct or not, that’s not going to change the fact that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old anyway.

Of course you do have biblical literalists who say they believe every word of the Bible literally. But they do not and I could prove it to them if I could have an honest discussion with one. So far it’s a no go. Now, I do think there is on person here I could have the discussion here with, but never got around to having it.

Anyhow, I will say this and mean it. If you think that a scientific fact proven true would invalidate your faith in God, you never really had any to begin with.[/quote]

I’m confused (not really :slight_smile: ).

I thought the Bible was the inerrant, inspired word of God Almighty. Amiwrong?

If the Bible is indeed inerrant, and inspired, why isn’t the world a few thousand years old?

If the Bible is not inerrant, and perhaps “uninspired”, who decides which parts of the Bible, if any, came from “God” and what came from man? How does one decide which to take as literal, and what not to?

In before BC says “because the Church says so”.

You may think I’m being facetious but I’d like to know how you (or anyone else) reconcile the logic here. Either the Bible is the inerrant inspired word of God, or it isn’t. Which is it?

136

[quote]colt44 wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]colt44 wrote:
This whole science vs. religion thing is getting old, and no-one here ever seems to come to an agreement.

If every scientific claim about the universe ended up being wrong and disproved, it does absolutely NOTHING to prove anything in religion as being true. All it does is disprove a scientific theory. There are tons of theories, and it is very common for science to come up with one, then find new evidence and refute the previous one, and make a new one.

Please stop with the “well if science isn’t true than religion must be” crap…[/quote]

Well I agree that theories about the universe being wrong, doesn’t suddenly make Genesis chap. 1-2 an archaeological fact. After all they were theories in the first place. The problem isn’t religion and the problem isn’t science. The problem is that people have tried to use religion to represent and be science, and people have used science as evidence against religion.

The truth of the matter is they are two different disciplines and speak to different things. That doesn’t mean they do not intersect at times, they most certainly do, but more of a complement rather than a contrary thing. What they are not it’s enemies or opposites.

I spoke to this in the “Occidental and Oriental Philosophies” thread, but I think it’s applicable here as much as there in terms of understand the core basis for each.

I said this:
"It’s such a misunderstanding of the topic. Philosophy is the father of all disciplines. Including religion. Everything, math, science, language everything essentially started as a philosophical question. What these disciplines do is answer a philosophical question and run with the answer. Math is just numerical philosophy. Science is empirical philosophy, literature is sound philosophy (we agree that certain sounds and symbols on a page mean a particular thing and then we are able to string these symbols together to make a greater meaning of collective symboilism. It in the case of spoken word, we basically grunt meaningfully. We just agree that certain grunts mean certain things and hence we are able to communicate). Religion, takes the philosophical position that God exists, that he has a will and a ‘personality’ and is personable and can be communicated with, and runs with that. It’s a discipline based on a philosophical position just like everything else. "

Bottom line, at their core, science and religion start with different philosophical propositions.[/quote]

Agreed to an extent. If science can prove that Earth existed longer than a few thousand years, than that does disprove a very important aspect of some people’s religious beliefs. [/quote]

Agreed.

Has religion withstood any rigorous “discipline”?

And I’d say religion does a bit more than take the philosophical position that God exists. Much more.

137

[quote]pat wrote:

Well first it’s not a history book. That’s a common misconception. That doesn’t mean there are not historical facts in it, but they are used to support the religious aspect of it not the other way around. So it’s not necessary that the historical events necessarily be balls, spot on to support what is trying to be communicated. Considering that many times they are recorded from oral tradition and stuff, chances are that things may be a hair off. Now that’s not to say that every fact in the Bible is off. Just because some are doesn’t mean they all are. You have to consider the time it was written, the context and the audience it was intended for and it makes a lot more sense. Further the Bible isn’t ‘a book’ its a collection of books all unique. And where you get the ‘Greek Bible’ is not historically factual I have no idea. Which one?

[/quote]

So following the above, I’d say there is room in your reasoning to conclude that Jesus was not divine and that the Gospels are accounts used to support religious tenets? Would you agree that your reasoning allows for that possibility? Do you agree you are on a slippery slope here?

138

My math teacher told me that pi equals the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter.

To which I answered that the true physical measurements of a circle are impossible to ever finitely know, not to mention that the actual value of pi is not fully known, nor is it possible to ever know it in its entirety. This doesn’t even account for the relativistic disparities wherein under the effect of a strong gravitational presence, spacetime warps to the extent that a circle’s diameter could in actuality be infinitely greater than its circumference.

…I failed the class.

I get what the OP is saying, but it is a bit silly to say that we should stop saying pi=C/D (or really making any absolute statement) simply because it is only 99.99999999% true in 99.99999999999% of cases.

Personally, I think this will likely pan out as a measurement error, but if it doesn’t then science is going to get really fucking exciting for a while. The real gold of this discovery is not that it demonstrates a fallibility of physics, but it instead throws into question causality. Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.

139

[quote]borrek wrote:
Read about the tachyon anti-telephone for an idea of why that is problematic for physicists Tachyonic antitelephone - Wikipedia Causality is where physics and philosophy start to comingle.[/quote]

Oh no…here we go again…

Seriously, though, that is actually really cool. Thanks for the link, I’ll be researching this a bit now.

140

The math makes my head hurt, though. :frowning: