Jump to content

Science and Religion are opposed


vodkafan
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi. This of course is not a new idea. But it was brought home to me when I started reading an old book (The Golden Bough by J.G. Frazer).

 

I am putting it in my own words here but it basically adds up to this:

 

Science took over from Magic. Both science and magic are related in that they both say: If I do this, then this will happen. This happens because I did that. I can prove it. There are rules.

 

Religion , on the other hand, says that it doesn't matter what I do because God decides at all times. God can change the rules and break them as He wants.

 

comments welcome.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi. This of course is not a new idea. But it was brought home to me when I started reading an old book (The Golden Bough by J.G. Frazer).I am putting it in my own words here but it basically adds up to this:Science took over from Magic. Both science and magic are related in that they both say: If I do this, then this will happen. This happens because I did that. I can prove it. There are rules.

 

Religion , on the other hand, says that it doesn't matter what I do because God decides at all times. God can change the rules and break them as He wants.

 

comments welcome.

The rules have been changed. Science is a Religious belief system. The basis for science is considered to be a belief in theories, rather than facts, as it once was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The rules have been changed. Science is a Religious belief system. The basis for science is considered to be a belief in theories, rather than facts, as it once was.

Hi Einstein are you joshing with me....science surely must always be founded on provable empirical observation and experimentation and all that....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Einstein are you joshing with me....science surely must always be founded on provable empirical observation and experimentation and all that....

Empirical observation that hasn't occurred yet is being propagandized as fact. Black holes are a perfect example. How about Dark Matter? And of course all the rumors about a coverup over the GPS satellites not being able to use the relativity equations that were created to predict the actual time dilation and contraction.What about the speed of light speed limit? Considered to be fact. Yet radar speed guns would not work if these really were facts.

 

There appears to be many religious beliefs in science to me.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Empirical observation that hasn't occurred yet is being propagandized as fact. Black holes are a perfect example. How about Dark Matter? And of course all the rumors about a coverup over the GPS satellites not being able to use the relativity equations that were created to predict the actual time dilation and contraction.What about the speed of light speed limit? Considered to be fact. Yet radar speed guns would not work if these really were facts.There appears to be many religious beliefs in science to me.

I don't know much about any of those things. I try just to keep an open mind. I was aware that Dark Matter is a phenomona that hasn't actually been explained yet. It's more of an awareness that some of the sums don't add up.Most of the time , of course, in your day to day life you can have a belief about something and whether you are right or wrong won't make a minute difference to you. For instance, I have never really thought that the universe is infinite. It is merely very very big. We surmise it's infinite because the maths says so. But maybe the math is inadequate. It's just the best fit we have at the moment.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about any of those things. I try just to keep an open mind. I was aware that Dark Matter is a phenomona that hasn't actually been explained yet. It's more of an awareness that some of the sums don't add up.Most of the time , of course, in your day to day life you can have a belief about something and whether you are right or wrong won't make a minute difference to you. For instance, I have never really thought that the universe is infinite. It is merely very very big. We surmise it's infinite because the maths says so. But maybe the math is inadequate. It's just the best fit we have at the moment.

I think the math also is a big religious belief problem as well. The idea that everything has to have balance might be a stumbling block. It might be sacrilege to even consider that imbalance is the key to complete understanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the math also is a big religious belief problem as well. The idea that everything has to have balance might be a stumbling block. It might be sacrilege to even consider that imbalance is the key to complete understanding.

I know that I start to feel imbalanced as soon as I start reading quantum theory. It seems like anything goes with the little bits. Anything that could happen does! But I don't have any problem knowing that they have to do their crazy antics to hold up the bits we can measure and use .Of course, none of it will pay my rent or get my kids washed in the morning for school. Religion neither.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
"What about the speed of light speed limit? Considered to be fact. Yet radar speed guns would not work if these really were facts."What??????

There are red shifted and blue shifted references frames which are motion frames that either add or subtract to the speed of light. Then there are time dilated reference frames which will retard the speed of light. So technically the speed of light is dependent on the frame of motion it was in prior to being emitted in addition to its time dilation. Since the flow of time is not constant throughout the universe, then it stands to reason that the speed of light is also not constant. There is no preferred time dilation frame that I know of.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are red shifted and blue shifted references frames which are motion frames that either add or subtract to the speed of light. Then there are time dilated reference frames which will retard the speed of light. So technically the speed of light is dependent on the frame of motion it was in prior to being emitted in addition to its time dilation. Since the flow of time is not constant throughout the universe, then it stands to reason that the speed of light is also not constant. There is no preferred time dilation frame that I know of.

You understand that red shift and blue shift refer to frequency not velocity, correct?Red and Blue light are different frequencies, but they still travel at the same "relative" velocity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So technically the speed of light is dependent on the frame of motion it was in prior to being emitted in addition to its time dilation. .

Regardless of Reference Frame, it always comes up "C".Some may argue a "medium" affects the "speed" of light. According to QED, this really isn't true either. Light takes longer to get through glass and other mediums because the photons are constantly absorbed and re-emitted along the way. It is this time of absorbtion and re-emittence that creates a delay, not an actual change in velocity.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" Doppler effect, whereby the frequency of the returned signal is increased in proportion to the object's speed of approach if the object is approaching, and lowered if the object is receding."

 

" This equation holds precisely only when object speeds are low compared to that of light"

 

Radar gun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

If you look at the equations on the page, you'll see that "C" is a constant, not a variable.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doppler applies to sound as well, you can hear pitch change, but velocity of sound at given atmospheric conditions hasn't changed.

 

"Pitch" here correlates to the red(lower) and blue(higher) frequencies of visible light.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frequency goes up or down based on the velocity of the wave generator in relation to the receiver. You do need to put the concept into a visual format in your mind to understand this. So far it appears you seem to be avoiding this necessary step to understanding.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The frequency goes up or down based on the velocity of the wave generator in relation to the receiver. .

For most examples, certainly for Radar Guns. The return "Wave Generator" is the electrons in the atom(s) of the car,(QED). For a given gun emitted frequency, there will be a given car return frequency.You can point that radar gun at a non moving car and the "Wave Generator" electrons will give you the same frequency of photons all day long.

 

When you have relative velocity, that is when you have Doppler shift in frequency.

 

Were you referring to the magnetron as the initial wave generator?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see you aren't familiar with the visualization. If a blue shifted light wave comes in and you clock its velocity, it will be moving faster than "C" velocity.

Not that I have ever been taught or seen. Do you have a reputable link for such?Ahhhh, I'm guessing, you are referring to blue faster in some media?, again this is not about velocity, it is about absorbtion and emission times for photons in given media.

 

Time taken to absorb and re-emit photons along the way "appears" to give different velocity, but velocity is the same in this instance. "QED" goes into detail about this.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi. This of course is not a new idea. But it was brought home to me when I started reading an old book (The Golden Bough by J.G. Frazer).I am putting it in my own words here but it basically adds up to this:Science took over from Magic. Both science and magic are related in that they both say: If I do this, then this will happen. This happens because I did that. I can prove it. There are rules.

 

Religion , on the other hand, says that it doesn't matter what I do because God decides at all times. God can change the rules and break them as He wants.

 

comments welcome.

Hi, vodkafan. A summary statement of religion is somewhat problematic because of the wide scope of religious beliefs in the world and over time. Another problem is that "religion" doesn't even seem to've been a defined concept until quite recent times in human history, though practices that are viewed as religious have existed for at least thousands of years.The particular summary you have paraphrased seems to lean towards a view of "Predestination", which is not by any means a universal religious belief. Many who believe in a divine being or beings also believe that humans retain the ability to chose their destiny either completely or to varying degrees.

 

As far as a comparison to science, my personal thought has always been that they are disciplines that serve as ways to understand the world (universe, people, objects, experiences, etc.) around us. In many ways, I think that other disciplines such as economics and psychology serve the same purpose - to further our understanding and abilities. While many people do indeed have issues with either religion or science to the exclusion of the other, I have always felt comfortable embracing both.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Two roadblocks as I see it are religious documents (bible, koran, etc) require devotees to accept the writings literally and when it comes to scientific aspects of past theological events atheistic scientists seem to have stopped asking "what if?"

 

My opinion is that even though religious texts contain events which defy the science of the time most every event in these texts can be explained in modern scientific terms. To try to do so, however, is both defiance of the literal theologic requirements as well as anachronistic thus in defiance of modern accepted science. Being as how this is a Time Travel forum you have to admit that if time travel existed it would explain just about everything in the religious histories and possibly disprove most religions however time travel doesnt exist, so, well, "what if?"

 

What if "God" is just an advanced form of life we havent yet discovered? Pretend just for a second there is a life out there somewhere in a total energy-based form. It lives in a version of its own community, is pretty smart and one day it invents these crude little automatons out of the materials laying around in its workshop- bits of carbon, some rudimentary power supply and a simple form of programming with a limited learining algorythm. These new robots are built pretty well, kinda look like the designer but not exactly because the designer doesnt quite know how to duplicate certain things so it shortcuts with less elegant versions of its own physical features. Then, one day, as a bit of a scientific experiment it starts dumping these little drones on planets around its solar system where they adapt to the environment because thats what theyre programmed to do becuase theyre built in their creators image.

 

Then the designers race blows themselves to bits in stupid wars over unprovable theological differences or arguments about how their currency should be made or spent or saved or what color light their energy emits. Y'know, important shit.

 

Eventually the little drones become pretty smart themselves and start to build their own crude little automatons out of stuff laying around their own little workshops- bits of carbon, some rudimetary power supplies and limited learining algorythms. Then one day, for the purpose of scientific experiment, they start dumping these little drones on planets around their own solar system where they adapt because thats what theyre programmed to do.

 

We're printing synthetic organs in labs now. It's only a matter of time before we're building a new species out of whole cloth. Some day we will be some other life forms "god" and we'll probably be long gone by then. I, for one, believe in God but however remote it may be I 'm not sure I really want to find out anything about "him". I'd hate to find out that God is just an older, slightly more advanced version of us making robots in his lab during business hours and speculating about the origins of his own creator in his downtime.

 

Or worse: reading about what his species version of Kim Kardashian is wearing while on his lunch break.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...