By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

pleaserecycle said:
o_O.Q said:

but scientists are attempting to apply them to the real world through black holes

that's the point i've been making

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

we made that transition because you asked me to describe how they are applied practically

"There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity"

you are disagreeing with probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

despite that... i agree with you, most of the discussion on this is speculative and distinguished people in the field appear to disagree on this a lot, which was my argument to begin with



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
pleaserecycle said:

Somehow we've transitioned from the Big Bang to black holes, but the same principles apply.

General relativity is a classical field theory that describes space and time through a gravitational field.  Field theories propose that matter interacts with a field, such as a gravitational field or electric field, instead of interacting directly with other matter.  General relativity is classical in the sense that it does not account for quantum mechanical effects; therefore, we might expect that general relativity does not apply (breaks down) in the realm of subatomic particles or minuscule time scales.  The black hole singularity appears because we're applying general relativity in a realm where quantum mechanical effects are present.  There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity and the current state of research involves building a theory of general relativity that includes quantum mechanical effects so that the theory does not produce a singularity.

we made that transition because you asked me to describe how they are applied practically

"There is no physical evidence that supports the singularity"

you are disagreeing with probably the most famous physicist alive in our era stephen hawking

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity."

 

despite that... i agree with you, most of the discussion on this is speculative and distinguished people in the field appear to disagree on this a lot, which was my argument to begin with

You took that quote out of context.  Here is the whole paragraph:

"This possibility, that the galaxies would have missed each other, was supported by a paper by two Russians. They claimed that there would be no singularities in a solution of the field equations of general relativity, which was fully general, in the sense that it didn't have any exact symmetry. However, their claim was proved wrong, by a number of theorems by Roger Penrose and myself. These showed that general relativity predicted singularities, whenever more than a certain amount of mass was present in a region. The first theorems were designed to show that time came to an end, inside a black hole, formed by the collapse of a star. However, the expansion of the universe, is like the time reverse of the collapse of a star. I therefore want to show you, that observational evidence indicates the universe contains sufficient matter, that it is like the time reverse of a black hole, and so contains a singularity. "

Hawking is rebutting a claim that general relativity does not predict singularities.  He claims that with a sufficient amount of matter, general relativity will produce a singularity.  He says nothing about the physical existence of the singularity.  In a later paragraph he states:

"The no boundary proposal, predicts that the universe would start at a single point, like the North Pole of the Earth. But this point wouldn't be a singularity, like the Big Bang. Instead, it would be an ordinary point of space and time, like the North Pole is an ordinary point on the Earth, or so I'm told. I have not been there myself. "

Hawking is discussing his no boundary theorem (Hartle-Hawking State) in which the universe transitions between imaginary time and real time.  Like other researchers, Hawking is attempting to build a theory that does not result in a singularity.  

Even in a more recent lecture "The Origin of Universe" (2005) found on the same site, Hawking states:

"Although the singularity theorems of Penrose and myself, predicted that the universe had a beginning, they didn't say how it had begun. The equations of General Relativity would break down at the singularity. Thus Einstein's theory cannot predict how the universe will begin, but only how it will evolve once it has begun. There are two attitudes one can take to the results of Penrose and myself. One is to that God chose how the universe began for reasons we could not understand. This was the view of Pope John Paul. At a conference on cosmology in the Vatican, the Pope told the delegates that it was OK to study the universe after it began, but they should not inquire into the beginning itself, because that was the moment of creation, and the work of God. I was glad he didn't realize I had presented a paper at the conference suggesting how the universe began. I didn't fancy the thought of being handed over to the Inquisition, like Galileo. 


The other interpretation of our results, which is favored by most scientists, is that it indicates that the General Theory of Relativity breaks down in the very strong gravitational fields in the early universe. It has to be replaced by a more complete theory. One would expect this anyway, because General Relativity does not take account of the small scale structure of matter, which is governed by quantum theory. This does not matter normally, because the scale of the universe is enormous compared to the microscopic scales of quantum theory. But when the universe is the Planck size, a billion  trillion trillionth of a centimeter, the two scales are the same, and quantum theory has to be taken into account. "

You've attempted to list singularities as support for your claim that science involves faith.  I'm telling you, with the utmost respect, that you're fundamentally misunderstanding the existence and purpose of singularities.  I appreciate that you're questioning science - it's a quality that I wish more people possessed - but at some point you need to realize that you're selectively reading and quoting these articles out of context to fit your narrative.   

Last edited by pleaserecycle - on 16 January 2018

o_O.Q said:
OhNoYouDont said:

Read those definitions again, slap yourself in the face for your intransigence and then get a clue. Is this guy seriously this incompetent? His own definitions establish his extra chromosome. FFS

 

"intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.""

waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... lol were you not aware of that?

dunning-kruger indeed lol

Nobody agrees with you.

I really can't hold your hand through life. Either you spend some time understanding things or you pretend to understand things incorrectly and go through life with others thinking you're an idiot.

Your call, sport.



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Can you show me the passage in the atheists doctrine that directs atheists to kill people?"

you're answering my question with a question? do atheist kill people or not?

You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence. I responded to you with a return to BDBDBD's statement to you by addressing a true equivalence.

 

"the fact you suggest the laws of Newtonian physics and the laws of quantum mechanics may need to be rewritten and not just expanded on tells me that you are not well versed on the subject."

strawman

I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion.

 

i said that singularities are not currently accommodated in our physics laws

i then said that two possibilities are t(1)hat singularities may not exist and (2)that we may have to change our current laws of physics (furthermore i didn't say that these are the only possibilities )

Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics.

 

the idea you are pushing that there is only one path with regards to this problem - that singularities exist and we simply have to add to our laws of physics to include them is actually the silliest idea i've heard so far... let me reiterate this so you get it... we do not know yet if they even exist in a practical sense, got it yet?

Actually, I'm not arguing either way with you.  I've not said anything regarding singularities.

 

" You are arguing from ignorance and incredulity.  "

only because you are attacking a strawman though ( and even the strawman you attacked is a possibility since it is possible that our physics laws are not perfect, this stance as someone graciously pointed out previously is anti-science )

You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

By the way, do you not know how to multi-quote a single person?

 

"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."

can you describe logically what i'm equating?

 

"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."

i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted

you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?

secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist

 

"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."

so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess

this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure



OhNoYouDont said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"intrinsic : "Of or relating to the essential nature of a thing.""

waste is a part of the essential nature of technology... lol were you not aware of that?

dunning-kruger indeed lol

Nobody agrees with you.

I really can't hold your hand through life. Either you spend some time understanding things or you pretend to understand things incorrectly and go through life with others thinking you're an idiot.

Your call, sport.

lmao do you understand the diagrams that i posted?

tell me what the diagrams are saying and how they apply to my argument and you'll get a cookie



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

 

"You responded to BDBDBD with a false equivalence."

can you describe logically what i'm equating?

 

"I don't think you know what a strawman fallacy is.  I didn't rebut something you never said.  I'm saying you lack subject matter knowledge which means your position on the subject is based on a faulty premise which is leading you to a faulty conclusion."

i've quoted experts in the area to back what i've posted

you didn't rebut anything i said, can you for one quote a physicists who says that the laws of physics are perfect as they are and will never be modified as we learn more?

secondly i called your post a strawman because you are claiming that i'm saying that we have to change our laws of physics to accommodate singularities, when i'm actually saying that its a possibility and its also a possibility that they do not even exist

 

"Again, we do not need to change our laws of physics, only add to them.  This again shows you are not well versed with the modern model of physics."

so... you think our physics laws are perfect right now and we'll never have to rethink anything we think we know right now... well that's amusing i guess

this is the same as that other guy telling me that no aspect of evolution can be debated... you guys have a funny understanding of science for sure

Do you not understand the difference between rewriting something and adding to something?

Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics.  M-Theory is a solid candidate for answering questions beyond the Standard Model but it doesn't rewrite it.  Again, the fact you think they will be rewritten suggests you don't understand physics.  A meter is still a meter. Gravitational lensing is still gravitational lensing.  The laws that mathematically describe those aspects of physics do not require a rewrite simply because we develop an equation adequately describing physics in a singularity.  It simply becomes an added chapter in our body of knowledge.

"Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. "

yes i'm aware but i'm saying that to say that our laws edit:are perfect is stupid, there is always the possibility that we have to revise and update what we think we know

that you think otherwise shows me that you don't understand science

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 17 January 2018

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Relativity didn't rewrite Newtonian physics. It added to the overall body of knowledge of physics. "

yes i'm aware but i'm saying that to say that our laws our perfect is stupid, there is always the possibility that we have to revise and update what we think we know

that you think otherwise shows me that you don't understand science

You keep saying rewrite.  I keep saying add onto.

Do you understand the difference?

ok let me put it like this since you lack reading comprehension or something

do you think we are right about everything right now?



SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

ok let me put it like this since you lack reading comprehension or something

do you think we are right about everything right now?

So you don't know the difference.  Got it.

lmao dude there is a difference but the point is that i don't think and i'm sure the whole scientific community agrees with me that the current laws we have are perfect

they are subject to change over time as we learn more... sure they may not but we have to be open to the possibility which you amusingly enough are not, meaning you are anti-science

edit: and that includes what we think we know right now

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 17 January 2018

None, the threat is technological advances without a moral compass.
Science have no moral limits, religion is bounded by its own moral limits, it can go as far as their dogmas allow. There are, therefore, dangerous religions that demand violence, but most of them are clearly about a spiritual path, being to salvation and heaven (christianity), being to enlightment or nirvana (spiritualism, budhism).


Now, science is the methodical search for knowledge, it is neutral, in such boundaries of description.
Technology, in other hand, is like a unstopabble force, many times imoral by its own nature: change and enhance, being the environment and the human being, and animals, everything, without a moral compass or a brakes device to allow us the time to really think this:


- It is possible, but should we do it?


Mankind is, in part, forgeting spirituality and diving in a spiral of anxiety, pleasures without end and depression.
Tech will provide more and more of the poison that started the problem at first.


And in the end, not only deadly devices like bombs, but also the dream of defeating death with technology will be a curse.
Think about a mankind that almost abolishes death, but at the cost of their very souls: abortions, death camps of the imperfect, a clean and sterile reality where God is not invited.
We dream of getting there, but it will be our downfall.


It is like the monkey´s pawn, the very thing we wish for is our doom.
Without soul, man is a monster, we see it every day: screaming machines that can not stand to the minimal amount of disconfort, little trolls instead of humans.
It is a somber, dark and sad tomorrow technological advances without moral compass will bring.



My grammar errors are justified by the fact that I am a brazilian living in Brazil. I am also very stupid.

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

lmao dude there is a difference but the point is that i don't think and i'm sure the whole scientific community agrees with me that the current laws we have are perfect

they are subject to change over time as we learn more... sure they may not but we have to be open to the possibility which you amusingly enough are not, meaning you are anti-science

Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? 

Or did Relativity add to it?  Expand upon it?  Mathematically explain areas that classical mechanics did not account for? 

 

"Did Relativity rewrite classical mechanics?  Do we still not use them?  Do they not mathematically describe the common large object, low speed physics? ..."

this is irrelevant to what i'm saying... how could you possibly not see that lol

 

can you know for sure that everything put forward in classical mechanics and relativity is completely infallible and will never be rethought in the future... you should if you understand science

why are you treating this like a religion? aren't you against religion? lol