Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

[o_O.Q]

pleaserecycle said:

o_O.Q said:

"The researchers themselves are not using faith or belief.  "

i'm not trying to make this a general thing i believe of researchers but i do think that in terms of topics like the supporting evidence for singularities there is some degree of faith involved

faith in the idea that they eventually will come up with evidence that does not exist yet

 

Faith, specifically in Christianity, is rooted in the understanding that God has a plan that absolutely defines the past, present, and future.  Fundamentally, science attempts to put the control in human hands.  Even negative results from a study can positively contribute to the progression of science because future researchers will have one less option to consider.  Faith need not apply when both negative and positive results are beneficial.  

o_O.Q said: 

"I'm sorry, but you're misinterpreting singularities.  They do not break physics; they just mean that we need to update that specific part of our model."

the evidence required to update the model doesn't exist yet though

furthermore from what i gather they don't even know if they will be able to manifest the evidence... maybe its possible that the model they have has problems they are unaware of? maybe it needs to be reworked in a way that excludes their current theory for singularities? that's possible also

 

No, the evidence already exists.  A mathematical or physical inconsistency, such as infinite density at some point in time, warrants the search for a better model.  Every model that we use across physics and other sciences can, at most, be considered the best model we currently have and not the final, complete solution.    

o_O.Q said: 

"in the case of the Big Bang singularity, we need to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics.  The model itself works well for what we can currently observe.  "

but aren't we only able to see 3% of the universe around us anyway? don't they just call the rest dark matter? doesn't that imply that there's still a lot of work to be done?... i might be out of my depth here, i'll concede that

 

Cosmology is still a relatively new field and there are so many advancements every year that textbooks quickly become insufficient.  It's crazy because so many other fields have been (essentially) untouched for hundred of years.  

o_O.Q said: 

"A model that violates the conservation of energy would most likely break physics if it accurately represented physical observations."

singularities represent areas with infinite energy don't they? since mass is infinite... does that not break the law of conservation of energy?

again i'm not an astrophysicist so i'm just pitching a question as a layman in this field

It's an infinite density.  In a nutshell, the density of an object is equal to the mass of the object divided by the volume of the object.  When the mass of an object or system is constant, we can see that the density will decrease as the volume increases.  The mass of the universe is constant and the volume is increasing (the expanding universe), therefore the density must be decreasing with time.  As you can imagine, if we go backward in time the density will increase indefinitely because the volume will keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller.....

In the off chance that a model violating the conservation of energy passes peer review, it will swiftly be retracted in the next cycle.  Noether's theorem shows that the conservation of energy is not dependent on time or space; it will remain valid anytime anywhere.  If at some point we find an exception to the conservation of energy (which is possible, but not plausible) then we would need to entirely rewrite physics.  

And just to comment on one of your points with Pemalite:

o_O.Q said: 

"Prove it. Provide evidence. "

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_blackholes_singularities.html

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate.

In a subsequent paragraph of the same link, it states:

"The existence of a singularity is often taken as proof that the theory of general relativity has broken down, which is perhaps not unexpected as it occurs in conditions where quantum effects should become important. It is conceivable that some future combined theory of quantum gravity (such as current research into superstrings) may be able to describe black holeswithout the need for singularities, but such a theory is still many years away."

The laws of physics are not broken.  We just do not have any physics that describes what's happening in that very small scale.  There's a big difference between being broken and not being the best tool.  I wouldn't call a phillips-head screwdriver broken just because it can't turn a slot screw drive.  We can either chisel away parts of the screwdriver to make it work or find another tool.  But the phillips-head screwdriver is not broken.  

 

"The laws of physics are not broken.  We just do not have any physics that describes what's happening in that very small scale."

broken in this sense means that we're going beyond the bonds of what we currently know and that singularities do not fit into what we know in a practical sense

 

" As you can imagine, if we go backward in time the density will increase indefinitely because the volume will keep getting smaller and smaller and smaller and smaller....."

i get that but its not something that can be practically dealt with currently, that's what i'm saying