Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

reply to post by rwfresh


You don't have to be a Christian, but it still doesn't mean it is not a tactic used by the Christians.

if science is religion, you better not see a doctor when you get cancer if it is all based on faith.

The main issue is that the science of religion offers no theories, hypotheses or support of the absolute most important and profound questions mankind has. Which would be totally fine except they actively resist the questions themselves. They are aggressively resisting the quality and meaning of the questions themselves by bashing and attempting to dominate anyone that asks them. These questions persist because they preexist.

What is the first cause? How did inanimate chemicals turn into proteins? What triggered the big bang? Followers of the religion of science HATE these questions and the people who freely ask them. They actually believe that it is necessary to eliminate the questions through domination to enforce their ideology.

The hatred of these questions for which they have no answers is what drives them, not the scientific method as they declare. And again, their are real scientists our there that LOVE these questions and they too are threatened by the religion of science.

Look up what the scientific approach constitutes. So far it hasnt confirmed anything of the bible, not Aquaman moses and neither zombiejesus. And earth took a wee bit longer than 7 days to form too.

Seen as we might end up swallowed by a sun turning red giant the bible kinda got it right with the fiery end of days scenario though.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by rwfresh

 

You don't have to be a Christian, but it still doesn't mean it is not a tactic used by the Christians.

if science is religion, you better not see a doctor when you get cancer if it is all based on faith.

You want to paint me as a Christian who relies on faith otherwise you have no argument. What is the purpose of using the Christian tactic? What advantage would i have of using the tactic if i have absolutely no Christian agenda? Is wondering what preceded the big bang a Christian thing? Is belief in diversity a Christian thing? Is belief in love of humankind a Christian thing? Is belief in goodness, honesty, sharing something that should be resisted because the religion of science is unable to prove it's value?

If i get cancer, no i will likely not go to the doctor because i am a lover of truth and we all know statistically following a doctors advice and treatment during a bout of cancer usually results in unnecessary surgery and death. I would rather just die in peace thanks. If you are a scientist than you should listen to the statistics without emotion or an agenda. They speak for themselves.

How Religious discredit something they don;t agree with;

Step1) Label the idea/fact as a group, organization, religion, dogma, cult.

Step2) Bring it to the level of comparison, even if its apples and coconuts.

Step3) Connect the opposition with illogical history, fallacies, and pick and chosen indirect atrocities.

Step3) Win cause faith cannot be unproven thus in their head its correct and opposition automatically loses because of strings attached from connection that has nothing to do with it. *Hitler was a vegetarian thus all vegetarians are murders*

They will bring to their level and beat you with illogical gibberish!

Originally posted by Cassius666
Look up what the scientific approach constitutes. So far it hasnt confirmed anything of the bible, not Aquaman moses and neither zombiejesus. And earth took a wee bit longer than 7 days to form too.

Seen as we might end up swallowed by a sun turning red giant the bible kinda got it right with the fiery end of days scenario though.

But why immediately turn to the bible when confronted with the information I've presented? Where does that come from? Why is it that ANYONE who asks questions or points to a group that proclaims themselves science believers immediately an ignorant Christian with an evil agenda? Yes those Christians exist. I am not one of them in anyway.

Belief rules this world. You don't raise a gun and kill someone because of science. It's done out of belief. And the people that rule this world are not Christians or Muslims or Hindus or Jews. But they are FULL of belief because they sure are doing a lot of killing.

Originally posted by luciddream
How Religious discredit something they don;t agree with;

Step1) Label the idea/fact as a group, organization, religion, dogma, cult.

Interesting.. on so many levels. I mean the statement should be interesting to you as you know what you believe far better than i do.

I would just suggest that belief is what drives people. And what i don't agree with is violence, domination, mindless destruction, oppression. And if any group declares superiority over anyone else over a belief they hold as FACT then you have war. And the people that own and operate this planet are NOT Christians, they are NOT Muslims, they are NOT Hindus or Jews or Buddhists etc. They aren't. But they are absolutely ruled by belief and their beliefs bare the fruit we see expressed on this planet. What is their belief system? What does it look like? We have to imagine that they believe themselves stronger, smarter, more valuable. We should imagine that they believe themselves to be blameless and free of any moral or spiritual consequence.

If you believe in natural selection then we must understand that weaker ANYTHING is dominated by the stronger. And that domination is knowable by the fruit of it's expression. If you believe the ideological war on this planet is between the old religions you are played by the dominant one. PLAYED but not really part of it. Parishioners are not the priests.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Do they hold mass?

Apparently.

They also hold charge and spin too.

Unfortunately, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, if you know that they have mass, you can't know its location.

Its a very exclusive religion.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Do they hold mass?

Apparently.

They also hold charge and spin too.

Unfortunately, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, if you know that they have mass, you can't know its location.

Its a very exclusive religion.

edit on 17/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

hahahaha awesome.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Unfortunately, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, if you know that they have mass, you can't know its location.

Fortunately, due to the Pauli effect, you can find the location by following the trail of broken technical equipment.

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Do they hold mass?

Apparently.

They also hold charge and spin too.

Unfortunately, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, if you know that they have mass, you can't know its location.

Its a very exclusive religion.

edit on 17/8/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

i know this is way off topic,, but can you explain how light has energy but no mass ( and that all matter is pretty much made of light? ((if im not harmfully mistaken))) but then again sometimes does have mass?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

i know this is way off topic,, but can you explain how light has energy but no mass ( and that all matter is pretty much made of light? ((if im not harmfully mistaken))) but then again sometimes does have mass?

There are several answers to this question, but the first one is that photons are relativistic particles. They travel at the speed of light and are never seen at rest (perhaps because their tiny mass,if any, would make them undetectable).

As objects approach the speed of light, their mass increases, until at the speed of light, their mass becomes infinite. This is one of the constraints of Relativity.

So, by inference, since we know the photon cannot be infinite in mass, we have to then conjecture that the mass of the photon "at rest" must be zero.

Einsteins E = m c^2 formula tells us that energy and mass are linked but it does not imply that they are the same thing.

Mass can be thought of as the resistance a particle has when passing through the Higgs field. If a particle is "sticky" to the field, it has to fight the resistance to movement and therefore, we say it has mass. If a particle (like our Photon) has almost no resistance or is not "sticky" to the Higgs field, we say it is massles or low mass.

Photons, at the speed of light, do have a slight stickiness to the Higgs field and it is calculated that this value is something on the order of 10^-14 electronvolts/c^2 (where c = the speed of light [also, note how the mass is expressed just like Einstein's equation. It is just turned around to have the mass value alone on one side of the equal sign]).

This is tiny, in fact, it's mass is roughly equal to 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000074 of a Gram, and this is while traveling at the speed of light, where it is at its heaviest!

So, a Photon is essentially mass-less (depending on the state you measure it in) and all its energy is mostly in its incredible velocity.

Also, a Photon is not the same as a macro-world object, but is a fundamental quantum-world thing and so it can be a wave as well as a particle and can exhibit non-locality and other quantum weirdness. It is just an instance of something we can count which is slightly different than other tiny things we can count. Don't get too hung up on the metaphors we use to try and describe the strange stuff at this scale.

Cheers

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by chr0naut

Unfortunately, due to the Pauli exclusion principle, if you know that they have mass, you can't know its location.

Fortunately, due to the Pauli effect, you can find the location by following the trail of broken technical equipment.

edit on 17-8-2012 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)

Well, I'd get pissed off to if I was always being excluded.

I blame the anti-Pauline factor, myself.

reply to post by chr0naut


"There are several answers to this question, but the first one is that photons are relativistic particles. They travel at the speed of light and are never seen at rest (perhaps because their tiny mass,if any, would make them undetectable). "

I only read this part so far,, and have to ask,.,,.so we really dont know if photons exist as particles? I dont get how the slit experiment proves that light is composed of particles ( i dont really get how it travels as waves either) but why would the detectors interfering with the light make it obvious that a reaction of particles was taking place and not just a reaction of waves?

reply to post by chr0naut


"As objects approach the speed of light, their mass increases, until at the speed of light, their mass becomes infinite. This is one of the constraints of Relativity."

what would be causing the mass to increase? is it an increase of amount of energy needed for matter to remain solid while traveling a fast speed?

reply to post by chr0naut


I think you much for your detailed response!! its very appreciated,,

"Also, a Photon is not the same as a macro-world object, but is a fundamental quantum-world thing and so it can be a wave as well as a particle and can exhibit non-locality and other quantum weirdness. It is just an instance of something we can count which is slightly different than other tiny things we can count. Don't get too hung up on the metaphors we use to try and describe the strange stuff at this scale. "

yes,, but is photon responsible for all of the external atomic energy from the sun? all aspects of light are the result of the photon? im just curious because light ,the idea and existence of it is such an interesting thing, and im wondering if its strictly the photons role giving energy to living things on earth? Like particles share electrons and stuff and build up to create molecules,,, and then we are like huge complex compounds that still depend on that same quanta of energy which fuels our systems, solidity and expression...

Originally posted by cry93
reply to post by rwfresh

 

I am not nor will I ever be.

I guess " they" made a mistake with me.

Especially since I am what is deemed a Black American. My DNA does NOT lie to me nor does it choose sides.

I am multiracial. But I am African to the core.

are we not all african? at least we are according to mainstream science. so i take u must be born and raised in africa right? what part?

Op, I hope youre talking about something like scientology and not real-world, objective science based on the scientific method.

Wow, so let me get this straight: just because science requires proof it's evil. That's what your original rant summed up to. What your post amounted to was a rant on 'how dare people more intelligent than you and who have devoted their life to studying a subject in a rational, fact based manner point out you are wrong'.

You've really failed to grasp that science is the study of the facts. It's not an opinion, or made up like religion and a lot of conspiracy theories are.

Science is the tyranny of fact over fiction.

Let me explain simply the difference between science and religion

There's an apple in a box no one has seen. The religious person insists it's green. The scientist says 'it could be any colour'. The scientist opens the box and sees a red apple, and tells the religious person it's red. The religious person insists it's green. The scientist offers to show the relgious person the apple, but he declines and says the scientist is lying when he says he sees a green apple, or else he's removed the green apple and put in a red one. The scientist gets a scientist friend over who says, 'look, a red apple'. The religious person then insists the two scientists are part of a conspiracy, and that his unifiormed opinion is just as valid as theirs.

Science is what is. Religion is what people believe.

OK, here's couple for you sciencey religionists:

Why is the Sun's corona far hotter than the Sun itself? Good luck explaining that one. This proves that the THEORIES about the Sun being a ball of nuclear fusion are totally wrong.

On what do you base your idea of the Big Bang? Where does that nonsense come from? Redshift? Explain, "scientists":.

Black holes? A theoretical object which has never been observed. Gravity so strong nothing, not even light, can escape it. Except when sometimes it shoots stuff out for thousands of lightyears. Explain.