Purephysics

I wasn't aware it was from Gilgamesh, though it is hardly surprising given that a number of religion stories are simply borrowed from other traditions and religions. Though the flood wasn't one of the key topics in the Blog.

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible. My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one. It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world. Instead of creating ridiculously long posts here and in other places I decided to disseminate my idea via a blog, which can [not] be found at url removed In which I post under the pseudonym "Alexander Black" or as it may turn into "Alexander The Atheist". Currently I have Blogs for Genesis 1:1-2 (TAANIG pt.1 & 2), but my next outing will likely see Gen 1:3-7 treated under the same critical analysis. I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible. My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one. It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world. Instead of creating ridiculously long posts here and in other places I decided to disseminate my idea via a blog, which can be found at a website the Mods blocked because it violates our "no advertising rules In which I post under the pseudonym "Alexander Black" or as it may turn into "Alexander The Atheist". Currently I have Blogs for Genesis 1:1-2 (TAANIG pt.1 & 2), but my next outing will likely see Gen 1:3-7 treated under the same critical analysis. I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

That's just what I was thinking, and alluded too as well.

You make some interesting (if not slightly odd) assumptions in this; primarily you appear to have attempted to mix relativistic physics (speed of light, Einstein's Relativity) with quantum mechanics (sub-atomic particles). This quandary has been the subject of much research for some considerable time - the search for the theory of everything, currently, I believe, being lead by Superstring theory. You have managed to simplify it so (as you believe) because you have not given the subject a rigorous enough treatment. In this you have also not provided any mathematical models of proofs for your assumptions. Currently, this is conjecture at best. ^^ This doesn't make an logical sense. You've poked a hole in something but unfortunately haven't really provided any form of justification, a "because..." to answer your problem. I'd suggest a little more study into either of the fields would be greatly beneficial.

I would have to agree here. No one can see into the future, technology is advancing, we a discovering new things all the time. Look at Graphene, what an amazing substance, no one could have predicted that 100 years ago. I think "warp speed" or "hyper drives" or whatever you want to call them are a distinct possibility, we have the theory we just don't have the means to do it right now.

The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s. (300,000 km/s) According to SR; c is the maximum speed at which all matter, energy, and information can travel. The rate at which light can propergate through a transparent material is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is the 'refractive index' n. Of the material: n=c/v For visible light through glass the value of n is about 1.5. therfore, light through glass travels as c/1.5 = 200,000 km/s.

You're absolutely right, I meant in the way that light acts as both particle and wave. I beleive I'm right in saying that with respect to red shift and the doppler effect, we are viewing light as a wave not a particle.

Hey all, Some of you may have read my previous posts about attaining an education in physics. I had to put things on hold for a bit; moving, new baby, new job, you know the deal. I'm back and looking for some good introductory reading in physics to get the brain box buzzing again. I'm currently reading "The Elegant Universe" and "A Brief History of Time", supplementing with "Explaining Physics" by Stephen Pople. I've been recommended the "Feynman Lectures" as a start and good grounding and feelings on that would be much appreciated, as would any other suggestions. (nothing too academic or advanced as I am still learning and found such works as "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose to be very math heavy and poorly explained)

the speed of light © is indeed a physical constant (given the correct parametres). the doppler effect is to do with the frequency of light, not its speed (wave-partucle duality) in relation to the observer. SR is not sonething i feel can be conpressed into a post. probably wiki that one. ;-)

you know that all makes perfect sense. But I am now considering a different and more accurate train of thought; an ability cannot be tested if that person does not have the necessary tools. Therefore I must learnt the skills before I can test if I have natural ability in them, or not. (if good memory is a prerequisite then I should be ok with that). there are some very interesting points here in this discussion though. and certainly some pause for thought.

Aha, thank you for clearing that up. I thought I'd over looked something a bit

According to E=Mc^2 and general relativity theory; yes - As an objects velocity increases so does its mass, and thanks to newtons use of the inverse square law in his gravitational equation, we can conclude that a greater mass means greater gravitational force. Thus a greater warping of spacetime.