Science 'versus' God and Religion

[srikar]

how can u Expain science( I mean, what are your views).

Some people says modern science, Is there any science called old science
Let me know the difference please.

 

[sniffy]

the new science came after the old science

 

[LaidBack]

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous persons involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupuncture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, Buddhist meditates about their relationships with their bodies and their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determining mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attributed communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.

Seems to me most of the claims and or outcomes would have been possible with or without religious influences..

In fact if we consider that Science is the result of confirmed observations, for answer one the Natives who depended directly upon the ongoing resources of their environment simply would have failed themselves if they ignored what was available, so my reasoning has with or with out religion number one is not a strong enough case..

For number two.. Are you really serious? What a load of crock! well OK lets bite and hear what you have to say by elaborating on your claims in a little more details?

Anyway for your third answer... yet again, you have twisted what can only be availed by scientific methods rather than some some religious method of believing a plant will do this and or the ad hoc ramblings whilst mixing herbal ingredients will do what one intends it to do without really knowing which and what herbs one must use, if you consider what herbs are used again the results intended are from previous observations which is a scientific method..
if it really were a religious method it wouldn't matter what herbs were used and it really wouldn't matter what words were uttered if gawds and or REAL magic was involved, are you with me on this now or are you going to insist magic and miracles and religious gawds have the ultimate power!????

For your fourth answer... Acupuncture has not been developed via religion! Let me suggest you research more in depth! In fact if you go over your whole list and research further you will discover how rituals via religions have pilfered "discovered scientific facts" as a tool to enhance credibility for ones own personal gains in wealth and or status..

I am serious here, with or with out religions all the above are not really from the result of blind faith and or haphazard beliefs, but rather the result of an observation that can be confirmed as a fact..

Perhaps you are not familiar to what the words Religious and or religion really means?

Let alone that scientific and or science infers to confirmed facts and or truths rather than religious belief and or blind faith that one advocates to as if they advocate to facts, even if they are not confirmed as facts! Such as the claim of a gawd!

 

[scorpius]

It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together.

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. ”
_____________________________

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?
____________________________

Dear Scorpius. Good question.
Maybe Sandage implies they're both the same.
Apparently you're on to that, and I certainly think so.

Best Regards,
- KO

 

[Kaiduorkhon]

how can u Expain science( I mean, what are your views).

Some people says modern science, Is there any science called old science
Let me know the difference please.

___________________________

Dear Srikar:
To the best of my knowledge, the line between old and new science is usually drawn at the chronological line of about 1900, when Max Planck's Quantum Mechanics emerged upon the scientific scenario. Before then it was called 'Classical Mechanics', whereas, since, it's 'wave mechanics' and 'field theory' - two different schools of thought, entailing the discontinuous wave mechanics of quantum theory, and the continuous field (peaked out by J.C. Maxwell in the late 1800's) and popularized by Einstein. There's been a 'fork in the road' on continuity and discontinuity, ever since...

Best regards,
- KO

 

[LaidBack]

“ Originally Posted by Kaiduorkhon
It has been posted that Carl Sandage wrote:
..They say I’m on some sort of religious quest, looking for God; but God is the way it’s put together. ”
_____________________________

HOW does he know it was god and not NATURE?
____________________________

Dear Scorpius. Good question.
Maybe Sandage implies they're both the same.
Apparently you're on to that, and I certainly think so.

Best Regards,
- KO

For all religions that last statement is as good as it gets..

Nothing can dispute current reality, and to imply the Universe as "Gawd" is just the same as implying "Gawd" as the Universe..

But that's only if the Big Bang theory is wrong! unless gawd {the Universe} was Born and or created via a big bang!...:shrug: hey I never advocated to the big bang anyway! As it infers an increasing creation of energy from nothing...

My reasoning has the Universe simply always existed..

If all the religions stuck to the truth then no one could have disputed whatever factual statements were made by it, and in fact science could have provided further evidence to support its claims..

Therefore science is only a threat to religions that are with contradiction and non compliance to proper reality.. Scientology included!

 

[Grantywanty]

I think most of the examples given above illustrate the need to understand our connectedness to nature. I don't think many biologists would poo poo that.

This is incorrect. Current biologists - those not tied in with industry - recognize this to varying degrees. What was pointing out were ideas that WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY SCIENTISTS BEFORE who poo pood irrational pagans - for t he most part - who believed these things. Givent hat this has happened before, and we are not talking about a long time ago with many of the ideas, I think a little humility or better said, reality awareness, would lead scientists to believe this might continue to happen with certain ideas they poo poo now.

In addition a number of the post have to with health, human bodies, mind/body relationships.

The one relating mystical ideas to Einstein could have been broadened out to include many other ideas that have found support pre-QM and post-QM.

 

[Grantywanty]

scientists and rationalists often assume that they know enough and have access to the appropriate technology to judge the existence of certain phenomena. They may use very restricted scientific methodology on the job and in the ways they carry out research, but when it comes to discussions they speculate and in ways that are not scientific about phenomena they know little about. A look at the changes in the history of science should create a more humble and open attitude. A more agnostic position (I am not thinking about the belief in God specifically) but they poo poo.

They should be embarrassed.

 

[Sarkus]

1) interconnectedness between species. Native American concern that damaging seemingly insignificant life form or smaller ecological niches and systems would affect humans was denied until it bit us in the ass
2) There are a number of Eastern Religious beliefs about time that fit rather well with Einstein's ideas about Time being a dimension and that change is essentially illusory: we are simply shifting vantage.
3) Pharmacology companies have for many years known that shamans and other folk healers were right about a wide variety of plant medicines. These medicines in many many cases were not found via empirical study or random sampling but via trance communication with the plants themselves. If you do not believe this check out some of the preparation practices used by indigenous poeple's involved in removing poisons and highlighting medically active compounds. It's like believing they won the lottery over and over to think they just ran around eating plants and noticed the healing patterns.
4) Acupunture which came out of folk religious practices and is based on 'energies' not recognized by western science and meridians, also not recognized by Western science, which were 'perceived' (western quotes) by people who western science considered to be making magical claims, has also proven to be effective in the treatment of a wide range of illnesses.
5) claims by fakirs, yoga masters, buddhist meditators about their relationships with their bodies adn their ability to control all sorts or organ functions, endocrine release and suppression, the brain and so on were poo pooed and later turned out to be in systematically regular instances correct. (I could split this one up in to a number of different examples, but I will keep it as 1) I could add other numbers to include the health benefits that were attributed to these practices that have also turned out to be true despite denial by scientists in the beginning that this was not possible.
6) Dream interpretation and use in determing mental health issues and as non-random events. A standard shamanic practice not taken up (again) by Western authority figures until Freud got on the scene. I assume this will get poo pooed by everyone who thinks Freud is dead. But actually the followers of Freud who uses his ideas about dreams, defense mechanisms, the unconscious are doing very well out there; many of them have merged techniques with the cognitive psychologists and TEST THEIR IDEAS WITH SCIENTIFIC RIGOR and are having very high rates of success with clients. government grants, university positions, hospital positions and so on.
6)nature as healing. Indigenous predictions about the problems of city living and how nature 'heals' us has been and continues to be solidly documented by all sorts of studies relating to mental illness, stress, recovery from physical illness, sense of well being in healthy individuals and many, many programs are now in place in hospitals and communities where ill and recovered and burned out people are put in gardens or in other more natural setting AS A PLANNED PART OF THEIR RECOVERY. The 'need' and 'healing power' of nature and more fundamentally our interconnectedness with it was heartily poo pooed by scientists until their hippie brethren in the ranks began actually testing.
7) there are numerous instances where indigenous people attibuted communicative or sensory abilities to animals that were beyond current technology to test and were poo pooed but later turned out to be true. Check elephant communication as one example. These beliefs of course are on the boundary between communal knowledge and religious knowledge, these facets of society not separated out so much amongst we pagans.

You seem confused between scientists and "science".
Most of these things you mention have been understood and followed by their followers/believers because at some stage those matters underwent some form of scientific method - e.g. observation led to formulation of informal theory led to prediction which was later confirmed by observation.

E.g. Elephant communication...
Those living in proximity to elephants would have noticed how they appeared to communicate with each other. They might not have been able to explain how - but constant observation, constant accumulation of evidence led them to their conclusions.

In fact ALL your examples can be seen as having undergone some similar process - of accumulation of evidence - despite not being able to understand the exact detailed chain of cause-effect.

This knowledge might have been passed down through religious texts or through religious rituals etc - but the foundation of that knowledge would have been the same.

Your point about pharmacology and plants... you will have been unaware of the vast swathe of trial-and-error that goes on in discovering new foods. Medicinal properties of plants will also have been learnt from watching other animals... How do dogs know to eat certain types of grass when they're ill? Is it knowledge given to them by God?


Your issue seems to be with people called "scientists" in the modern understanding of the term - the white-coated people in labs. These people generally have specific agendas - and will poo-poo things as a result where their true scientific stance will actually be one of no opinion. They should be agnostic on any element of science that they have not directly examined.

So don't confuse science with scientists.
Science (specifically the scientific method) is merely the methodology of reaching rational conclusions through collection of evidence, generating theories for prediction, and testing predictions.

 

[LaidBack]

This is incorrect. Current biologists - those not tied in with industry - recognize this to varying degrees. What was pointing out were ideas that WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY SCIENTISTS BEFORE who poo pooed irrational pagans - for the most part - who believed these things.

There is a big difference in simply accepting a statement - Especially with no evidence backing said statement up! my reasoning has this as blind Faith!
In the above case if the statements based observations are based on sound facts, Science at first will challenge the statements but by deciphering the evidence may provide further evidence in support of it, But...

Science and or Scientists insists to know all the details and whats more, all the details MUST conform with all other factual details, while the above religious reasoning simply may have piggybacked on another individuals limited knowledge on the premise the information and or data held must be based on facts and is absolutely complete, a faith if you will that the information was gained objectively.. which if one considers how an observation has led to the statement and then confirmed as fact long long ago where sparse details may have been quite adequate, the point is if its a fact it is under no threat..

Don't you think we as a race have progressed past the point of needing to relying on non existing gawds and vague religious explanations lacking much conforming details?

Most good scientists are sceptics and or are objective by nature- Way before they even obtain their final recognition as a Scientist (Via ones Education)..
And let me point out - A scientist is only as good as the institute and or the Lecturers the institute employs, and let me say one learns very quickly which institutes produce viable and productive or the Unproductive "Religiously infected" scientists and or physicists...

Anyway by being objective all bases are covered so that what ever is being objectively scrutinized, any deceit and or non conformance's patched into a statement will be exposed, this is how the truth is eek-ed out!

Given that this has happened before, and we are not talking about a long time ago with many of the ideas, I think a little humility or better said, reality awareness, would lead scientists to believe this might continue to happen with certain ideas they poo poo now.

In addition a number of the post have to with health, human bodies, mind/body relationships.

The one relating mystical ideas to Einstein could have been broadened out to include many other ideas that have found support pre-QM and post-QM.

Good Scientists via poo pooing "objection-ally" will always eventually eek out the facts... No matter how many religiously infected scientists dispute or defend whatever is inferred, The truth and facts always wins the day, simply because truth is conformance... The Pagans observed long ago nature and in today's climate science has the capacity to elaborate on those details, and here is the problem, Pagans insist on a magical nature, while science insists on all of the details which points out why its not magic!.

Need it be said.. "Religions will always resist facts if the facts threaten their Sect and or Flocks numbers"

Evolution is a prime example of where Science and the inference to a gawd clashes where the more evidence that is uncovered and correlated with past discovered evidence, the more the religions end up being exposed as being fraudulent.

There is no doubt in my mind as to why most religions choose to provide an education for its infected victims new born and or Chill~N, its the only way their backward ideals and misinformation can eek out their ongoing deceit!

 

[Grantywanty]

In fact ALL your examples can be seen as having undergone some similar process - of accumulation of evidence - despite not being able to understand the exact detailed chain of cause-effect.

This is a very good argument. And you are right, I am being critical of scientists and not science. Scientists have tended to assume that a non-participartory experimental outsider vantage is the way to learn. They have been wrong to limit things like this. Nevertheless, beliefs based or exploratory methods once or currently considered dead ends, irrational by scientists DID PROVE to be valid ways of gathering knowledge. I think the process was often vastly more intuitive than you are making it sound. I do not think there were tremendous amounts of double blind tests and that solutions were found less by trial and error but by intuitive guesses. On the other hand I am not upset by your version. Your version would have shocked and been mocked by scientists at the time first encountering these beliefs and the practices that led to them.

Your point about pharmacology and plants... you will have been unaware of the vast swathe of trial-and-error that goes on in discovering new foods.

Sorry. I have come to this conclusion through my own experiences in nature, with healers from other cultures and through talks with a relative of mine who is an ethnobotonist who works for the pharmaceutical industry. I don't think you are aware of how complicated the preparation processes are for a wide range of 'folk cures'. Trial and error would have ABSOLUTELY DISCOURAGED the use of many cures because 1) the plants are extremely poisonous untreated 2) the required steps: heating, cooling, mixing with other plants or minerals at various stages required either consistant lottery winning miracles by tribes. Further these plants would have been avoided by animals.

It's a dirty little pharmaceutical industry secret: many of their people in the field are dumbfounded by the finds indigenous healers have discovered. Trial and error and watching animals just can't cover it.

Your issue seems to be with people called "scientists" in the modern understanding of the term - the white-coated people in labs. These people generally have specific agendas - and will poo-poo things as a result where their true scientific stance will actually be one of no opinion. They should be agnostic on any element of science that they have not directly examined.

I agree 100%. The poo pooing and speculating on the liklihood of certain hitherto unproven phenomena is not scientific. Look at the short post i made directly above yours, the one I am quoting here. That is precisely what I meant when I said they should be embarrassed and agnostic. Hell, we are even using the same 'metaphor'.

So don't confuse science with scientists.
Science (specifically the scientific method) is merely the methodology of reaching rational conclusions through collection of evidence, generating theories for prediction, and testing predictions.

you might be surprised to hear it, but I agree very much with what you are saying here.

And to be clear. I have a great deal of trust in the scientific method. I do think there are other ways of gaining knowledge.

 

[Grantywanty]

The problem with scientists

It's a bit unfair as an example because I think many scientists would have problems with his theories, but the pattern of response on LAIDBACK'S part follows the pattern of many scientists and rationalists to a variety of phenomena.

Laidback is saying that magic is impossible because of the conservation of force and momentum. He does not know what certain phenomena referred to as magic are. He does not know if these might IN WAYS NOT CURRENTLY measurable or known EVEN adhere to his limitations. He assumes that he can determine the liklihood of phenomena given his knowledge of science (primarily Newtonian when it comes to physics) and the technology we have available. He thinks he knows WHAT MAGIC MUST BE and therefore can rule it out.

He clearly would have been one of the scientists saying that atom bombs were impossible, that light MUST BE either a wave or a particle, that one could not possibly learn to control certain automatic processes in the body via meditative techniques and so on.

The presumption being that the unknown can always be judged because one's own knowledge (culture) is somehow complete.

Science itself is not the problem here, but I would like to suggest that there are tempermental tendencies within those persons making up the scientific community that makes them more likely to be open to certain kinds of approaches to gaining knowledge and to judging others out of hand.

As per usual, I must point out the tag team efforts of the monotheisms and rationalists when it comes to indigenous or pagan beliefs.

 

[LaidBack]

Gawd Vs Pogress

Laidback is saying that magic is impossible because of the conservation of force and momentum. He does not know what certain phenomena referred to as magic are. He does not know if these might IN WAYS NOT CURRENTLY measurable or known EVEN adhere to his limitations. He assumes that he can determine the likelihood of phenomena given his knowledge of science (primarily Newtonian when it comes to physics) and the technology we have available. He thinks he knows WHAT MAGIC MUST BE and therefore can rule it out.

And here is my reasoning why magic and miracles are Impossible..

And feel free to correct me where ever you want Grantywanty..

Everything possible is due from change, and change is only possible via momentum, but to achieve momentum an interaction between forces is necessary and for a force to be possible a momentum is needed.

The above is a conformance statement "A Truth if you will"

Its referred to as Cause and Effect! where no matter what! There is always a cause via a force via its velocities via a cause resulting from an effect, so on and so on.. its a logical truth statement..

The above information and or data can be obtained via a basics Physics course.

And in a well educated region the above information should have been availed as early in a Elementary or State School.

Magic simply implies to a change without considering the details, and when one insists in knowing the details one must confide in what changes has taken place and what forces were relied upon and further more what velocities implied inferred forces.

More than likely before and after the event, all physics must still comply within the boundaries of what we are able to observe and experience as our reality, to which I point out our Physical Laws are based upon this reality..

This means the event of inferred magic to some would indeed be magic!, but to those that have the knowledge of how the event is possible, and is simply an exercise that relies on "a previous state of conformity" ending up conforming to another state of reality but I point out via the use of known forces and momentum bound by actual physical laws of conformance.

To those that are unaware of whatever physics in reality was involved, cant explain it all in minute details as to how and why the event simply is not magic.. To them it indeed was magic, but in fact with enough research, and I insist in proper research "which is not infected with a religious mumbo jumbo mentality" EVERYTHING can be explainable, even as to why science and or scientists today are still referring to theoretical particles as if they are the actual reality!..

Anyway I don't expect everyone here to fully comprehend all the details so here's a simple example!

We all should know a light bulb is not a mini sun, And in a darkened room when we flick the switch on and shout out "let there be light" its not magic!

But consider this if one was a native who has never encountered our technology and who is not in the know?

Such an individual would more than likely drop on their knees thinking s/he was before a gawd who has just demonstrated a gawd damn miracle!

And if we try and explain all the details to the ignoramus it simply would be over their heads.. Far easier to state to them it was a magical trick.. but given the right information we cant really infer to magic but to the details..

Its all in how much correct data one has been availed which BTW exudes ones intelligence, and the only question that remains now is " How badly is religion and or the inference of a gawd infecting and limiting your regions average intelligence?

I am also wondering how many religious institutes are corrupting your regions education?

I am guessing if magic and miracles are often referred to, it must be as high as 40% or more of the population is still infected with a construct of a gawd and the religions that usually come with it..

 

[Itseemstome]

The subject would appear to have become, in part, Science ‘versus’ Religion.

The problem is that religion is a man-made invention to try and explain what he sees around him using subjective criteria. Science is the same, but using objective criteria.

The difference would appear to be that the religious believe that there is more than meets the eye, whilst the scientific believe that, potentially, there is not.

Here are a few snippets that I have gathered over the years which would, to me at least, appear to have some bearing on the debate.

1 Man was not just sitting round his camp-fire 4,000 (or 40,000) years ago, he was consuming hallucinogenic substances which gave him a very clear view of other realities that he perceived to be just as real. He drew interpretations of same in caves all around the world. Probably elsewhere too but these have failed to survive.

2 That, I would suggest is the origin of all religion. All that follows is homo sapiens frail attempts to make sense of it.

3 Science is beginning to find particles that, apparently, pop in and out of existence. For want of another word, could these particles be merely changing ‘dimension’. As an analogy, or model, which science works with all the time; take an infinitely thin circle on a sheet of paper. If you flip it through 90 degrees to ‘end on’ it apparently vanishes, but it is no less real for being invisible.

4 I can’t remember the name of the experiment, but if you send two particles of in different directions and, at some distance, measure their properties they are always identical; different every time you do the experiment but always identical to each other, no matter what the distance. This implies instantaneous communication, the speed of light not withstanding.

Both religion and science are only, after all, trying to make sense of what they perceive, what may exist that they don’t perceive is, at present, only speculation. The above points would hint at that limitation on our sense of perception.

Science versus God is however another question entirely and I may add something on that in time.

 

[Grantywanty]

The difference would appear to be that the religious believe that there is more than meets the eye, whilst the scientific believe that, potentially, there is not.

This is not correct. The scientists believe that the right eye is the only eye. They have the left eye closed and think no one should believe what that eye sees. Everyone assumes that religious is based on faith because the monotheists make so much noise about that stupid concept. There are many of us, pagans the monotheists would call us, who base our beliefs on experience.

 

[Grantywanty]

Science

Assumptions:

1)Distance is primary/isolation is primary - you must prove connections, whatever your intution tells you. It is best to assume things are disconnected.

2)Non-life/non-intelligence is primary - you must prove that something is alive and intelligent, whatever your intuition tells you. It is best to assume things are not alive and not intelligent.

'paganism'

Experiences

1) interconnection is primary
2) everything is alive and has its own form of intelligence

Scietists thinks they do not have to prove its assumptions. They just seem obvious to them - in part because they have cut off a lot of their own intuitions, in part because they have other skills. There are psychological reasons also why they are more comfortable with a dead universe with isolated monads AS THE BASIC POSTION.

In the long run Science is discovering that interconnection is vastly more the case then they realized. They have also shifted from a position where non-westerners are considered fully sentient, animals are considered to have consciousness and emotions, so one can hope that they will begin to notice other forms of life and intelligence that some of us already recognize and interact with.

Note that second issue carefully: science now recognizes life and intelliegence where once it did not. Give them another thousand years they will sound like mystics to this generations scientists. Unfortunately I can't wait for them to figure these things out and but then I don't need to.

 

[LaidBack]

3 Science is beginning to find particles that, apparently, pop in and out of existence. For want of another word, could these particles be merely changing ‘dimension’. As an analogy, or model, which science works with all the time; take an infinitely thin circle on a sheet of paper. If you flip it through 90 degrees to ‘end on’ it apparently vanishes, but it is no less real for being invisible.

4 I can’t remember the name of the experiment, but if you send two particles of in different directions and, at some distance, measure their properties they are always identical; different every time you do the experiment but always identical to each other, no matter what the distance. This implies instantaneous communication, the speed of light not withstanding.

Wrong! Instant communication implies magic and or a miracle that conforms to religious like reasoning.. No doubt about those religious Institutes with their dumb lecturers!

So lets think about this and consider the Particles structure and elaborate as to what velocities imply its structure, and then consider the other particles form and or structure..

Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible.. In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible! And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..

NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy... Another good experiment that points out why particle theory is a flawed model is by doing "Young's" Double slit experiment..

Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws - No ifs! and No buts! And if any theory doesn't conform to it, even the average schmo can expose what is implied by the theory as the lie and or deceit it is..

There is no communication between the two higher potentials (theoretical particles) being propagated, and I would suggest a more critical and objective stance to ensure you don't rely on bad data and or information..

Both religion and science are only, after all, trying to make sense of what they perceive, what may exist that they don’t perceive is, at present, only speculation. The above points would hint at that limitation on our sense of perception.

Science versus God is however another question entirely and I may add something on that in time.

In today's climate this IS not the case!

Science indeed for the most is in the pursuit for the truth, but currently Science is also grossly hindered by religions, and in particular, one that I have reason to believe is the most backward of the whole Damn Lot!..

Current Religions are relying on incorrect data and if this bad data is exposed to their infected victims, it could rob the Sects Income and or finally put an end to their deceit, the solution for these sects was to provide an education to their current flocks chill~n and from there it became obvious to keep these student under their wings they needed to provide a higher education as well..

I have no problems with this but what I do have problems with is, these institutes have introduced a very serious problem where misinformation has been introduced over and above correct information..

The result in just two decades has been absolute KAOS!

Take a gander at any good forum and it becomes obvious the world is over run with half R's-ed educated individuals that don't have a real clue..:shrug:

 

[Oli]

Wow!
Laidback seems to know very little about about anything.

Wrong! Instant communication implies magic and or a miracle that conforms to religious like reasoning.. No doubt about those religious Institutes with their dumb lecturers!

But it happens.

Now before we move on with respects of their ongoing separation, lets think a little more in-depth with respects to the WHOLE universes structure keeping in mind the fact that when an air-crafts higher potential with respects to our upper atmospheres lower pressure (potential) is allowed to return to the lower Potential.. Say a window or door is opened! This simple fact provides proof that a void simply is not possible.. In fact even Space and or Deep space consists of mass and if it didn't the electromagnetic waves via implied meeting velocities which also implies how mass is possible simply would not be possible! And for this reason Space really is referred to as a NEAR vacuum..

NOW~ When we deal with the theoretical particles, the above over sight by treating the environment as mass-less is what causes problems, because most assume the area implied as a particle is with momentum, when the facts are the area implied as a particle is actually experiencing meeting velocities which increases the areas potential to which is propagated to where there is a lower potential in mass, just like the above aircraft analogy... Another good experiment that points out why particle theory is a flawed model is by doing "Young's" Double slit experiment..

Any chance of putting that into English so that it's comprehensible?

Anyway the point is everything in reality must conform to Newtons Laws - No ifs! and No buts!

So relativity doesn't count?

Science indeed for the most is in the pursuit for the truth, but currently Science is also grossly hindered by religions, and in particular, one that I have reason to believe is the most backward of the whole Damn Lot!..

Science is hindered by religion?
Care to provide evidence?

Take a gander at any good forum and it becomes obvious the world is over run with half R's-ed educated individuals that don't have a real clue..

Well you got that bit right.

 

[LaidBack]

Ah its about time someone with some knowledge has come up with a reasonably challenging question!

Hi Oli, Nice start!

And I simply Love your Avatar, its a shame I am forced to point out I really do know what I have been rambling on about, I blame my failings on my grammar! And I insist! I do know my sheet!
So with your opening remark implying as per

Wow!
Laidback seems to know very little about about anything.

But it happens.

I am going to point out with a question.. which is going to have your sorry rz sorry you ever stated it!

Err~ other than that lets say you've got a head on your shoulder and you're OK by me! Pay attention now!..

To business!

Give me one example where time is not a critical component for any REAL communications? in other words I am not referring to some religious nuts attempt of implying magical phenomenon where its implied particles communicate with each other..<ROFLOL>

My guess is unless you do refer to magic and or some miracle all communications must utilize a quanta of time

Any chance of putting that into English so that it's comprehensible?

No! and let me apologise yet again for my ramblings, but if you really want to Know what I was on about, perhaps you should research Electronics..

There is no easy way to explain that particles are only theoretical, and further more the only way to point out flaws on its theories is by challenging the particles structure and demanding an explanation in detail of its implied form and further more how the form and or its structure interacts with the rest of the universe, eg (the velocities that implies ones forces for said particle correlated with the forces implied to be the Universes and by insisting they conform to strict Physical constructs just as Electronic theory does..

So relativity doesn't count?

Of course Relativity counts! In fact relativity is a critical component in all Physics!
Without the relative meeting velocities at "c" we wouldn't even have mass!

Science is hindered by religion?

Care to provide evidence?

Well you got that bit right.

Then why do I need to provide further evidence?

<LOL> But seeing you asked... Do you remember when a US of A court was with proceedings that ended a teachers career because some religious institute felt the truth expressed by the teacher with respects to evolution was threatening its religious constructs? Man! Did the Americans image really suffer on that one!

Well that school is not the only school hell bent in providing rubbish over the real truth just in order its religious propaganda has full effect on its infected victims!

In fact its because of these religious institutes physics and science is in all sorts of bother!