To all people who are so-called seeker of truth

[SioDenz]

---

The difference between science and religion is that science would accept and change the truth while religion doesn't accept and change the truth. What is written in the bible is the only truth for religion.

Unsaon man pag Prove sa truth sa religion nga mostly spiritual man.. Sama ana ig mamatay ka adto ka langit or impyerno, unsaon man na nimu pag Prove beh? na prove na diay na? di nimu ma compare an science sa religion kay an science ma prove man jud na physically, pwedi man ka Himu experiment. An religion kay lahi man, spiritual man nah. Na hala, I prove daw nang Impyerno ug langit beh maka prove ba ka.

[SioDenz]

Yes and That is very sad for the religious fanatics!

Mao jud nah, wa man sad gani ka naka Disprove sa pagtuo sa mga so-called fanatics. unsaon man nila pag dawat sa tinuod nga hasta ikaw di man gani ka Prove nga sayop sila. Ikaw man gani cge paman gani ka Pangita ana imu TRUTH sama nila.

[joshua259]

Unsaon man pag Prove sa truth sa religion nga mostly spiritual man.. Sama ana ig mamatay ka adto ka langit or impyerno, unsaon man na nimu pag Prove beh? na prove na diay na? di nimu ma compare an science sa religion kay an science ma prove man jud na physically, pwedi man ka Himu experiment. An religion kay lahi man, spiritual man nah. Na hala, I prove daw nang Impyerno ug langit beh maka prove ba ka.

The bible can prove it bro, so as they say. I can't prove to you that heaven and hell exist cause i don't have friends over there and i haven't been there either. Like i said science ACCEPTS and CHANGES the TRUTH while religions DOES NOT.

[regnauld]

Mao jud nah, wa man sad gani ka naka Disprove sa pagtuo sa mga so-called fanatics. unsaon man nila pag dawat sa tinuod nga hasta ikaw di man gani ka Prove nga sayop sila. Ikaw man gani cge paman gani ka Pangita ana imu TRUTH sama nila.

You have a point. I am not against religion but only to religious fanaticism when someone declares that their religion is the only one true religion.

My point is: "No Religion is Higher Than Truth."

[The_Child]

Actually, there is no fixed or ABSOLUTE TRUTH even in science. Look at the Newton's Law. It was turned upside down by Einstein and I have read somewhere that Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was also debunked by Quantum Physics! Nothing is fixed in this universe. Everything is Constant and that is CHANGE!

Hello??

Where in GOd's name did that statement came from? Einstein only contributed little to QUantum Physics. ANd neither Quantum Physics nor GTR does it invalidate Newtonian laws! General Theory of RElativity debunked by quantum mechanics? advice: stick to religious/spiritual examples nalang at least there, its more vague and less objective than science, dili kaayo maklaro.

Kung magpadala ka ug tawo sa buwan, quantum physics imong gamiton? Kung mag pa dala ug satelite sa space quantum physics imong gamiton? kwentahon nimo ang speed sa eroplano in a given time over a given flight plan, quantum physics imong gamiton?

ever heard of 6.626 by 10 with a magnitude of -34? think about it every time you refer to quantum mechanics? hint: thats the planck constant.

before we blunt out fine names in science, we should, just at least be familiar with what we are talking about.

reflect, before we blurt. Cheers!

[handsoff241]

*cricket sounds*

*cricket sounds*

*cricket sounds*






note: google is a window/tab away.

[regnauld]

Hello??

Where in GOd's name did that statement came from? Einstein only contributed little to QUantum Physics. ANd neither Quantum Physics nor GTR does not invalidate Newtonian laws! General Theory of RElativity debunked by quantum mechanics? advice: stick to religious/spiritual examples nalang at least there, its more vague and less objective than science, dili kaayo maklaro.

Kung magpadala ka ug tawo sa buwan, quantum physics imong gamiton? Kung mag pa dala ug satelite sa space quantum physics imong gamiton? kwentahon nimo ang speed sa eroplano in a given time over a given flight plan, quantum physics imong gamiton?

ever heard of 6.626 by 10 with a magnitude of -34? think about it every time you refer to quantum mechanics? hint: thats the planck constant.

before we blunt out fine names in science, we should, just at least be familiar with what we are talking about.

reflect, before we blurt. Cheers!

it's not that Newton's work was proven wrong by Einstein but rather that it was proven incomplete, limited as it were.

You see, as past significant breakthrough's in, for example, theoretical physics were in their own way correct, they were oft limited as to not account for other layers of dynamics. Relativity is solid at a macroscopic level yet at the levels of QM there suddenly appears a variety of issues and problems. This is why, in science, we specify a theory's solid/valid status through its specific 'domain of application', because we do not have a UFT yet (Unified Field Theory) really encompassing all laws.

Cheers The Child!

BTW, you might want to read Schrodinger's cat!

[The_Child]

it's not that Newton's work was proven wrong by Einstein but rather that it was proven incomplete, limited as it were.

You see, as past significant breakthrough's in, for example, theoretical physics were in their own way correct, they were oft limited as to not account for other layers of dynamics. Relativity is solid at a macroscopic level yet at the levels of QM there suddenly appears a variety of issues and problems. This is why, in science, we specify a theory's solid/valid status through its specific 'domain of application', because we do not have a UFT yet (Unified Field Theory) really encompassing all laws.

Cheers The Child!

BTW, you might want to read Schrodinger's cat!

thats because you have a fancy rhetoric: "upside down" nothing was made upside down whether its classical physics, QM, or Einstein...
Yes, sir, you explain with the most vague sense - veiling something you might not be familiar with.
you lecture about science, why not listen to how you lecture before you start posting, no?

i wont argue about Physics with you. im sure, you know what your saying... So yeh, i wont argue. but sometimes do expect me react when some guy tends to lambast hard fact sciences with "unfounded 'ideology' of the most eccentric taste...


schrodinger's cat? if i were you sir, if you want to tell people to read something better tell them the book/magazine/journal of the title of the article and the book itself. Not just schrodinger's cat... i did not bother reading the original source since its in german, but i had the opportunity to have taken a class with a brilliant particle physics professor who talked about such things... from copernicus up to prof. gross on the present issues in creating the Strings theory (theory of Everything) if my prof was wrong then i am guilty as well for listening to him, but for now i think what he was blurting out is right.

RElativity? be specific, there are two kinds of relativity theory in science, general and special. "at the level of QM ... issues and problems" you couldnt get more vague than this....

advice: stick to "spiritual" examples nalang. lest a person who is actually doing physics in this forum might actually read it and be more passionate than i am in correcting the inconsistencies. So lets just have the usual examples like: astral projection, reincarnation, telepathy, et al. , i think its better that way


cheers! and kids lets not take for granted science education.

p.s
for those who wants to read it, its originally written in 1935, Natural Sciences (german science magazine) with the title, the situation of quantum mechanics. caveat: its in german!

[regnauld]

thats because you have a fancy rhetoric: "upside down" nothing was made upside down whether its classical physics, QM, or Einstein...
Yes, sir, you explain with the most vague sense - veiling something you might not be familiar with.
you lecture about science, why not listen to how you lecture before you start posting, no?

i wont argue about Physics with you. im sure, you know what your saying... So yeh, i wont argue. but sometimes do expect me react when some guy tends to lambast hard fact sciences with "unfounded 'ideology' of the most eccentric taste...


schrodinger's cat? if i were you sir, if you want to tell people to read something better tell them the book/magazine/journal of the title of the article and the book itself. Not just schrodinger's cat... i did not bother reading the original source since its in german, but i had the opportunity to have taken a class with a brilliant particle physics professor who talked about such things.... from copernicus up to prof. gross on the present issues in creating the Strings theory (theory of Everything)



p.s
for those who wants to read it, its originally written in 1935, Natural Sciences (german science magazine) with the title, the situation of quantum mechanics. caveat: its in german!

Up until the time of Einstein, physicists were comfortable with explaining the world using Newton's mechanistic theories. However, Einstein realized that there was a fatal flaw with the Newtonian view that presumed that gravity is felt instantaneously regardless of distance. Also, Newton's law of gravity really didn't explain exactly what gravity is. With a stroke of insight, Einstein realized that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, including gravity; and several years later was able to explain gravity as being the consequence of the curvature of four-dimensional space-time due to mass. These discoveries through the world of Newtonian physics upside-down, but as Einstein's theories demonstrated, the Newtonian view was still valid for objects whose speeds come nowhere near the speed of light. Hence, Newton's laws of motion and gravity were still valuable, but in actuality, are only good approximations that can be used to explain movement in our frame of reference. Einstein, however, could not accept the views being developed by his contemporaries in the field of subatomic particles because Einstein maintained that elegant simplicity and orderliness existed at all levels of the physical Universe. Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, on the other hand, discovered that the subatomic world was anything but simple and orderly. Instead, they, and the physicists who followed them, discovered that the subatomic world is not comprised of hard, independent and quantifiable particles; but of highly unpredictable and interconnected packets of energy that display characteristics both as particles with mass and waves of energy that can only be partially explained through the use of probabilities.

It was the discovery of quantum theory that modern physics has come to some strikingly similar conclusions that Eastern mystics came to over 2500 years earlier: namely, that everything in the Universe is interconnected, there are no completely independent parts, and that human consciousness is not independent of the Universe either. By entering deeply meditative states of consciousness, Eastern mystics for centuries have experienced intuitively the interconnected wholeness of reality (referred to the Tao in Taoism, the Brahman in Hinduism and the Dharmakaya in Buddhism) once they are able to set aside all other conscious thought and language. To Eastern mystics, language, which attempts to distinguish between various things, creates the illusion of separateness and independence that is the hallmark of Western science and philosophy as culminating in Newtonian physics. The notion that objects could be broken down into independent and mutually exclusive, lifeless parts was the philosophy embraced by many early Greek philosophers, such as Leucippus, Democritus and Aristotle; in contrast to the Greek philosophers of Parmenides and Heraclitus who were hylozoists and Eastern mystics. The popular Western view of separateness is also part of the driving patriarchal, anthropocentric view of Christianity ("yang" in Taoists terms); as opposed to the intuitive, interconnected and interpenetrative view of Eastern mysticism ("yin" in Taoists terms) that is also part of quantum theory.

[The_Child]

Up until the time of Einstein, physicists were comfortable with explaining the world using Newton's mechanistic theories. However, Einstein realized that there was a fatal flaw with the Newtonian view that presumed that gravity is felt instantaneously regardless of distance. Also, Newton's law of gravity really didn't explain exactly what gravity is. With a stroke of insight, Einstein realized that nothing could travel faster than the speed of light, including gravity; and several years later was able to explain gravity as being the consequence of the curvature of four-dimensional space-time due to mass. These discoveries through the world of Newtonian physics upside-down, but as Einstein's theories demonstrated, the Newtonian view was still valid for objects whose speeds come nowhere near the speed of light. Hence, Newton's laws of motion and gravity were still valuable, but in actuality, are only good approximations that can be used to explain movement in our frame of reference. Einstein, however, could not accept the views being developed by his contemporaries in the field of subatomic particles because Einstein maintained that elegant simplicity and orderliness existed at all levels of the physical Universe. Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, on the other hand, discovered that the subatomic world was anything but simple and orderly. Instead, they, and the physicists who followed them, discovered that the subatomic world is not comprised of hard, independent and quantifiable particles; but of highly unpredictable and interconnected packets of energy that display characteristics both as particles with mass and waves of energy that can only be partially explained through the use of probabilities.

It was the discovery of quantum theory that modern physics has come to some strikingly similar conclusions that Eastern mystics came to over 2500 years earlier: namely, that everything in the Universe is interconnected, there are no completely independent parts, and that human consciousness is not independent of the Universe either. By entering deeply meditative states of consciousness, Eastern mystics for centuries have experienced intuitively the interconnected wholeness of reality (referred to the Tao in Taoism, the Brahman in Hinduism and the Dharmakaya in Buddhism) once they are able to set aside all other conscious thought and language. To Eastern mystics, language, which attempts to distinguish between various things, creates the illusion of separateness and independence that is the hallmark of Western science and philosophy as culminating in Newtonian physics. The notion that objects could be broken down into independent and mutually exclusive, lifeless parts was the philosophy embraced by many early Greek philosophers, such as Leucippus, Democritus and Aristotle; in contrast to the Greek philosophers of Parmenides and Heraclitus who were hylozoists and Eastern mystics. The popular Western view of separateness is also part of the driving patriarchal, anthropocentric view of Christianity ("yang" in Taoists terms); as opposed to the intuitive, interconnected and interpenetrative view of Eastern mysticism ("yin" in Taoists terms) that is also part of quantum theory.

pag cite pud dinha ug reference sir oi... Plagiarism bya na diba sir?

the first paragraph was ok, but the second paragraph... becomes weird... untestable, non-validated, just plain pseudo-science.

and that hardly made newtons' law turned "upside down" ! hehehe. again, as ive said, planck's constant: qm only applies to objects almost equal to than the speed of light h= 6.626 x 10 to the negative 34.
reading is different from understanding!!!


science update:

consciousness is still debated upon on whether it is valid a study in science.

cheers!