The Architekt Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) Why do scientist, religion and quantum physicist talk bad about each other?? I have read over and over again about how quantum physicist and regular physicist are always in debates about the quantum of action this, and derivatives that.... While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't. Take this away from the believer in god, they may end up an abuser "again", a hater "again" etc.. Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer, so they chose an idolization such as god to have something to believe in. Maybe those whom believe in god like homosexuals, lesbians, abused women, foster children, minorities and etc, were never "welcomed" in this world, made fun of , placed as slaves, irraticated from the face of this world, had "laws" against them and etc. And maybe now this god gives them inspiration. Is it not science that created the atom bomb? Did it not displace thousands of "innocent lives?" Is it not the belief in god that can transform a drug abuser into a new person by pure faith alone? Would anyone that believes in god, create an atom bomb? Does math not give science a way to measure things? Does "strong nuclear forces" keep the entire universe together? Why are singularities? versus what are singularities. The point is that anything intangible can be used either for good and or for bad.. In some moments in my life, I question rather if science is for me because their is so much fact, fiction and conspiracy that is tagged along with it.. What is the point of proving anything anyway? Is it a noble piece prize? power? control? Surly if reward was not granted, their would be no need for biases within these categories of: Scientist, Religion and Quantum Theory Well, just a thought here, thanks if you read this... Edited July 1, 2012 by The Architekt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Why do scientist, religion and quantum physicist talk bad about each other?? The best ones don't. I refer you to the Cambridge University Book On Space and Time edited by S. Majid It includes essays by John Polkinghorne, particle physicist and anglican thologian Michael Heller Professor of Philosophy at the Pontifical Academy and some who are scientists pure and simple. They get along just fine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 ! Moderator Note Not sure where to put this, but one thing seems clear — it's not a physics discussion. There are some religious topics raised, so religion it is, but if someone has a better idea, it can be moved there Is it not science that created the atom bomb?Did it not displace thousands of "innocent lives?"Is it not the belief in god that can transform a drug abuser into a new person by pure faith alone?Would anyone that believes in god, create an atom bomb? Scientists built the bomb, at the direction of the government. Politicians and military decided to fund it and later decided to use it. Why build it? Because the enemy was thought to be building one. We were at war. Given the history of religion and war, it seems disingenuous to ask the question "why would anyone who believes in god do such a thing" ——Do many (or any) drug abusers get transformed by faith alone? I think there are a lot of steps involved, with faith being one that is part of some transformations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 "Is it not science that created the atom bomb? Did it not displace thousands of "innocent lives?" Is it not the belief in god that can transform a drug abuser into a new person by pure faith alone? Would anyone that believes in god, create an atom bomb? Does math not give science a way to measure things? Does "strong nuclear forces" keep the entire universe together?" No, that was technology. No, that was politics No, not reliably, there are drug dependent theists. Yes, for example, Hitler was working on it. You might want to look to the Middle"east for other examples. Frankly, given the prevailing attitudes when the first bombs were created I think it's certain that at least some of those involved were religious. Not really, though it does help to model things. No it's too short range. Gravity holds the universe together (though there may be other factors. Science is looking into this. Theology just pretends that Goddidit is an answer.) One of the fundamental tensions between science and religion is that religion keeps disproving things that religion claims are true. I object to this "While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't." Did it not occur to you that we may well have thought twice about it and come to the conclusion that, since it is a false hope, it is no real hope at all. Plenty of people find happiness in a whiskey bottle. That doesn't make drunkenness a good thing. So why is it a valid reason to support religion? "Take this away from the believer in god, they may end up an abuser "again", a hater "again" etc.. " If you think religion stops abuse then you should watch the news more http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases Similarly, if you think that hate isn't a feature of religion then you have not been paying attention. "Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer, so they chose an idolization such as god to have something to believe in." So poor educational success is a reason to applaud wooly thinking? What did you think you meant? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Architekt Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 (edited) I will start my reply with your statement of: I object to this "While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't." you said: Did it not occur to you that we may well have thought twice about it and come to the conclusion that, since it is a false hope, it is no real hope at all. I say "True" but doesn't money and time spend the same? If one has hope to pay their bills on time, and yet money spends the same "no matter how you earn it" IE, theft, prostitution, hard work, BA etc, then it is no real hope at all to pay your bills on time and live legally or illegally, within the psychology of belief. It's like love, once you know they have been cheating on you, it becomes an issue within the psychology of belief. So what you are saying is that E=mc squared had nothing to with the atom bomb? When I say bomb, I refer to the hydrogen atom bomb chemistry, I should have stated this sorry. However it is fact that the hydrogen atom was extensively studied in elementary physics? http://library.think...71F/atohyd.html Nuclear Fusion too? http://library.think...71F/fusion.html You stated this: I think it's certain that at least some of those involved were religious. But is this fact?????? You also stated this: You might want to look to the Middle"east for other examples: To me its Racist and Profiling To do so, let alone a waste of tax dollars. Supposedly they found none. http://www.iraqwar.org/adminlies.htm But, In the cartoon "Popeye" the bad guy was always portrayed as a brown skin looking middle eastern person. Movies such as Die Hard also portrayed the bad guy as a brown skin looking middle eastern person. Video games are another example in where brown skinned people are either basket players, thieves and etc. Which to me is advocating racial barriers in the world, and these these groups were not religious at all at least in technical terms. Here read it for yourself: United States Congress Apology on African Slavery and Jim Crows Laws. http://www.mcclatchy...avery-just.html You also stated this: "Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer Again: Jim Crows Laws & Racial Barriers Coupled with The price tag of school in general? Student Loans on the up-rise http://www.christian...xpensive-72351/ You stated this: Plenty of people find happiness in a whiskey bottle. That doesn't make drunkenness a good thing. So why is it a valid reason to support religion? No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears. You stated this: Similarly, if you think that hate isn't a feature of religion then you have not been paying attention. But, I am confused on this one, did you just recommend me this: You might want to look to the Middle"east for other examples: Is this a valid statement to have speculations on brown skinned people? Perhaps in the darkness as in all fields related to the unknown hidden forces of nature, we can find something else of illumination. May this be god, the devil, new discoveries, and or wisdom. Thanks for the reply... "Is it not science that created the atom bomb? Did it not displace thousands of "innocent lives?" Is it not the belief in god that can transform a drug abuser into a new person by pure faith alone? Would anyone that believes in god, create an atom bomb? Does math not give science a way to measure things? Does "strong nuclear forces" keep the entire universe together?" Religion by no means stops abuse this I know, however there are some whom's faith far superceed anything on this face if this world.. I think at times we should be introduced to some concepts especially about gays in the military, woman as leaders, brown skin people being target by "laws" and biases in general.. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A WOMAN DOCTOR! To me scientist are top of line on this world and humanity looks up to them for answers ESPECIALLY ME, if they become eventualities of typical people, then we are all are all lost. It is just very strange how the good and incredible traits of all subject, science, religion and quantum mechanics, never seldom get exposed to the greatest traits of all...It is always the negative people see and never the positive... No, that was technology. No, that was politics No, not reliably, there are drug dependent theists. Yes, for example, Hitler was working on it. You might want to look to the Middle"east for other examples. Frankly, given the prevailing attitudes when the first bombs were created I think it's certain that at least some of those involved were religious. Not really, though it does help to model things. No it's too short range. Gravity holds the universe together (though there may be other factors. Science is looking into this. Theology just pretends that Goddidit is an answer.) One of the fundamental tensions between science and religion is that religion keeps disproving things that religion claims are true. I object to this "While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't." Did it not occur to you that we may well have thought twice about it and come to the conclusion that, since it is a false hope, it is no real hope at all. Plenty of people find happiness in a whiskey bottle. That doesn't make drunkenness a good thing. So why is it a valid reason to support religion? "Take this away from the believer in god, they may end up an abuser "again", a hater "again" etc.. " If you think religion stops abuse then you should watch the news more http://en.wikipedia....sex_abuse_cases Similarly, if you think that hate isn't a feature of religion then you have not been paying attention. "Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer, so they chose an idolization such as god to have something to believe in." So poor educational success is a reason to applaud wooly thinking? What did you think you meant? Why build it? Because the enemy was thought to be building one. One thing that I have always held respect for is for the incredible mind's of scientist as I and the world look up to you all for what religion, rumor and or 'trends" cannot tell us about the world we live in from the physical perspective.. However, I do find it a very shame that science at times makes mistakes. Is this wrong to think at my basic levels of science understanding? IE no formal education yet. In our recent times still animals are victims of scientific experiment. Surly if placing a "person" on the moon is possible, then testing on "cloned organic specimens" or something like that, may also be possible in where any life form can be spared.... To think of science as "god" such as the "god" particle and or theory of everything, must at least to "some" degree hold validity in the science world as a religion onto themselves.. GOD PARTICLE SAID BY THE SCIENCE WORLD http://www.ndtv.com/...ent-soon-238372 Although this may be wrong of me to think, from what I read and listen to, at times scientist think they know it all, and leave all other sources of experiment invalid while not in the domains of science itself --->same as religion does. On the notion of thought to be believed based on scientific fact, should have scientist "based on fact" build this bomb, versus belief? Is this the same pattern that causes religion to also follow the same pattern of scientist as well in belief systems of anykind? ! Moderator Note Not sure where to put this, but one thing seems clear — it's not a physics discussion. There are some religious topics raised, so religion it is, but if someone has a better idea, it can be moved there Scientists built the bomb, at the direction of the government. Politicians and military decided to fund it and later decided to use it. Why build it? Because the enemy was thought to be building one. We were at war. Given the history of religion and war, it seems disingenuous to ask the question "why would anyone who believes in god do such a thing" —— Do many (or any) drug abusers get transformed by faith alone? I think there are a lot of steps involved, with faith being one that is part of some transformations. Edited July 1, 2012 by The Architekt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 You may think it's racist to point this out but Pakistan, Iran and a few other countries are run by largely religious governments and yet they are seeking to build ( or continue to build) nuclear weapons. The colour of their skin or the nature of their faith doesn't alter the fact. I didn't mention France, England, America , Russia or whatever because you might try to say that those are secular governments. Good luck finding an atheist queen, prime minister or president though. There is no meaningful "chemistry" in a hydrogen bomb. There seem to me to be two sorts of discussion on dimensional analysis on this sort of site. There are the ones where someone who understands it uses it to prove the falsehood of some weird claim. And there are ones where, when asked, the poster is unable to explain what they mean. So, what does this mean? "No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears."" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmb Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Why do scientist, religion and quantum physicist talk bad about each other?? I believe that is an inaccurate perception. I think about 35% of all physcists believe in God. The 65%who don't certainly don't all speak badly about religion. While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't. Sure they do. I believe that's a false impression that you gained somewhere/somehow. Perhaps from the few who are very noisey on that kind of thing. I'm a physicist and I'm a Christian and I certaintly don't think that way. Even when I wasn't religious I never thought badly about people who were religious Take this away from the believer in god, they may end up an abuser "again", a hater "again" etc.. Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer, so they chose an idolization such as god to have something to believe in. Oh, I don't know about that. I tend to disagree on that point. Maybe those whom believe in god like homosexuals, lesbians, abused women, foster children, minorities and etc, were never "welcomed" in this world, made fun of , placed as slaves, irraticated from the face of this world, had "laws" against them and etc. And maybe now this god gives them inspiration. I believe that such people believed in God but perhaps don't believe in the Bible. A lot of people seem to put them hand in hand. I think a lot of people who see a believed in God automatically assume they must be judeo-christian, which obviously isn' implied merely because one believes in God, although I'd say that the majority does think that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Banana Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 (edited) What is the point of proving anything anyway? Is it a noble piece prize? power? control? Exactly! The Nobel Peace prize is awarded to physicists who develop nuclear bombs to gain power and control over the world! EDIT: Architect, your posts remind me of Keep it up! Edited July 3, 2012 by Ben Bowen 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Love the youtube. +1, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm trying to work out what the joke should be for the punch-line to be a "Noble piece prize". In the meantime, I'm giggling at that video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abecedarian Posted July 5, 2012 Share Posted July 5, 2012 (edited) Why do scientist, religion and quantum physicist talk bad about each other?? I don't know. What are they saying about each other? Firstly, quantum physicists are scientists; quantum physics being a branch of science. The misconception they're at loggerheads probably comes from the fact sub-atomic particles appear to flout the laws of ordinary physics. All this does is present a challenge (which some would argue scientists love anyway). Quantum mechanics seemed crazy to many traditional physicists on first blush but now the difficulty is more in uniting the two, rather than any outright disagreement between scientists themselves. Einstein might have said "God doesn't play dice..." but later on, I believe he conceded with something like "Maybe there's is something in it after all..." (sic) To the best of my knowledge, they don't speak badly of one another, so I would be inclined to label that as false. Secondly, it's not religion itself, but its advocates who disagree - and they do a fair amount of that between themselves. At the fundamental end of things - yes, we do see objections to science. Mainly where science disproves such quackery as 'Young Earth Creationism' hailing from both the extremist Christian and Islamic corners. Note, one does not have to be a scientist in order to critically evaluate the rationality of certain claims, much to the chagrin of the faithful. Just some modicum of common sense is often all it takes. Thirdly, we should also take into account the changing relationship between the church and scientists throughout the ages. In the past, the Church has swung from funding the work of certain scientists to vilifying and silencing them. Then there's the point, there is nothing to stop scientists believing in God, if they so wish. Sir Isaac Newton, for one, was a Christian and there is a significant percentage of modern day physicists who follow some form of religion. Obviously, the important thing is that in order to be effective investigators, they shouldn't allow personal beliefs to get in the way, such as making religious inferences from the findings. While on the religion side most scientist denote the existence of god never thinking twice that maybe the belief in god gives someone hope in where, " the leaders" of this world can't. I take it you mean "Demote the existence of God"...? Well, actually, it's not strictly within the remit of science to either promote or demote God. You see, God, being supernatural, can't actually be classed as a scientific subject to begin with. Of course, if you take Lawrence Kraus or Richard Dawkins as well publicised examples, then you might be forgiven for thinking the whole of the scientific community is against religion... but that's not really the case, as I find it. Conversely, you can't expect any rational minded person to put up with some of the persecution endured by science teachers who have been threatened and bullied out of their jobs and communities in the radical sector of the U.S. Bible belt. Hope indeed! Take this away from the believer in god, they may end up an abuser "again", a hater "again" etc.. Maybe science and or school was too difficult for the believer, so they chose an idolization such as god to have something to believe in. It's a classical mistake to say that without God, people automatically turn to hate and abuse. It's just not true. Its an old hackneyed argument that some radical believers use, in an effort to show how 'Godlessness' leads to sin. And it's also an hypocrisy, because certain religious institutions are well known for throwing bags of hate towards minority groups and The Roman Catholic Church has shown instances of child abuse. If school was difficult for someone, then wouldn't that possibly show a learning difficulty? Fine, so let's fill the gaps with myths and hocus pocus. That's sure to help them! Maybe those whom believe in god like homosexuals, lesbians, abused women, foster children, minorities and etc, were never "welcomed" in this world, made fun of , placed as slaves, irraticated from the face of this world, had "laws" against them and etc. And maybe now this god gives them inspiration. What... you mean the same God who condemns homosexuals throughout his Holy book? The same God who never once spoke against slavery? Misogyny? No, I don't think there's much in that idea. Except the Church Of England seems to be easing up on a lot of so called 'sins' in recent times. Which just shows they know which side their bread is buttered. One look at the C.O.E.'s very reason for inception by Henry VIII speaks volumes! Is it not science that created the atom bomb? So scientists were involved in the processes which created the atom bomb. May I remind you, it was Christians who invented the ducking stool, the iron maiden, the boot, the rack and devised witch trials, which invariably ended with the burning of thousands of innocents...? Did it not displace thousands of "innocent lives?" Similarly, has not religion displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? Still counting... Is it not the belief in god that can transform a drug abuser into a new person by pure faith alone? As someone said, there are religious people with drug dependencies. By and large, I suppose it helps a lot of people to have something to believe in but this is by no means a hard and fast rule. Would anyone that believes in god, create an atom bomb? Without doubt!!! As already mentioned - one perfect example is Pakistan and there have been others. But you also need to take into account the politics which go hand in hand with religion, turning it into a violent force. Islamic terrorists... suicide bombers... dirty bombers... disease and gas attacks... would they use a nuclear bomb if they could get hold of one? That's one theory I wouldn't like to put to the test. In fact, I think today, it's even MORE likely for some religiously crazed despot to think of using one than the average secularist who treasures their one and only chance at life. Does math not give science a way to measure things? Er... yes. And...? Does "strong nuclear forces" keep the entire universe together? Why are singularities? versus what are singularities. Forgive me, but I fail to see the relevance of these questions to the original query. The point is that anything intangible can be used either for good and or for bad.. I couldn't agree more that anything can be used either for good or for bad. I'm not sure what you mean by 'anything intangible'...? In some moments in my life, I question rather if science is for me because their is so much fact, fiction and conspiracy that is tagged along with it.. Now you're getting into slightly more... tricky territory. Conspiracy theories are very fashionable at the moment. If you're unsure, my advice would be to research proven methods of determining the veracity of the claims. Familiarise yourself with terms such as Occams Razor and study the conspiracy to see if it's needlessly complicated or if pseudo-scientific terms are being coined in place of official ones. Study the material they want to show you in videos and determine their motives; ie: does it appear like they are wanting to sell you a book on religion or alternative science? While all the time remembering that the general public (especially in the U.S.A.) seem to be gripped by a growing trend of fear for national security and often would rather believe their own government is pulling all the strings, rather than that there could be a real threat from somewhere outside. Don't ask me why, but it's almost like some form of Stockholm syndrome in my humble opinion. Or maybe they feel safer the devil they know? What is the point of proving anything anyway? Is it a noble piece prize? power? control? A better question is: what would be the point of doing science if you had nothing to prove? In the case of astro-physics, there are many reasons, which range from space exploration to a life insurance policy for the human race over the next few thousand years. Take of it what you will, but one thing remains true - it's interesting, isn't it? Brian Cox said that we are living in a golden age of physics and space exploration, where we are on the brink of something that will really move the field forward in a huge way for subsequent generations. That should be reason enough, I would have thought. Ask an amateur astronomer why he sits on his back for hundreds of hours, observing the night sky. Something to talk about at his local astronomy group? Might get a star named after him one day... and how cool would that be? Surly if reward was not granted, their would be no need for biases within these categories of: Scientist, Religion and Quantum Theory Sorry, I don't quite understand why you mention religion here... but all I can say is - ask a dedicated scientist what drives him/ her. Then I suggest you either sit tight or dive for cover. Science tells a story, more gripping and fascinating than any work of fiction. The story of our world, our Universe, our very existence. What better reward could you envisage... than discovery? Sure there is wealth & power involved in the industrial and political sectors. Not everyone is quite that innocent and honest. But that's human nature and a lot depends on what is being researched and why. Well, just a thought here, thanks if you read this... No problem. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope you get something useful out of my reply. If not, thanks for reading anyway. Edited July 5, 2012 by Abecedarian 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Architekt Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) WOW! what a reply thanks! well I guess in many literature I read on science there is much too consider between the lines and out of the lines, but I will take your advice and try to "question" more things I read and stay on them for a longer period of time. One thing I read much about is The God Particle, Higgs Boson, and The Higgs Field.I think this is where quantum mechanics and phisics clash. Religion was always one to put a good finger on at-least for me, but I know religion and faith are two separate things. Thanks! I don't know. What are they saying about each other? Firstly, quantum physicists are scientists; quantum physics being a branch of science. The misconception they're at loggerheads probably comes from the fact sub-atomic particles appear to flout the laws of ordinary physics. All this does is present a challenge (which some would argue scientists love anyway). Quantum mechanics seemed crazy to many traditional physicists on first blush but now the difficulty is more in uniting the two, rather than any outright disagreement between scientists themselves. Einstein might have said "God doesn't play dice..." but later on, I believe he conceded with something like "Maybe there's is something in it after all..." (sic) To the best of my knowledge, they don't speak badly of one another, so I would be inclined to label that as false. Secondly, it's not religion itself, but its advocates who disagree - and they do a fair amount of that between themselves. At the fundamental end of things - yes, we do see objections to science. Mainly where science disproves such quackery as 'Young Earth Creationism' hailing from both the extremist Christian and Islamic corners. Note, one does not have to be a scientist in order to critically evaluate the rationality of certain claims, much to the chagrin of the faithful. Just some modicum of common sense is often all it takes. Thirdly, we should also take into account the changing relationship between the church and scientists throughout the ages. In the past, the Church has swung from funding the work of certain scientists to vilifying and silencing them. Then there's the point, there is nothing to stop scientists believing in God, if they so wish. Sir Isaac Newton, for one, was a Christian and there is a significant percentage of modern day physicists who follow some form of religion. Obviously, the important thing is that in order to be effective investigators, they shouldn't allow personal beliefs to get in the way, such as making religious inferences from the findings. I take it you mean "Demote the existence of God"...? Well, actually, it's not strictly within the remit of science to either promote or demote God. You see, God, being supernatural, can't actually be classed as a scientific subject to begin with. Of course, if you take Lawrence Kraus or Richard Dawkins as well publicised examples, then you might be forgiven for thinking the whole of the scientific community is against religion... but that's not really the case, as I find it. Conversely, you can't expect any rational minded person to put up with some of the persecution endured by science teachers who have been threatened and bullied out of their jobs and communities in the radical sector of the U.S. Bible belt. Hope indeed! It's a classical mistake to say that without God, people automatically turn to hate and abuse. It's just not true. Its an old hackneyed argument that some radical believers use, in an effort to show how 'Godlessness' leads to sin. And it's also an hypocrisy, because certain religious institutions are well known for throwing bags of hate towards minority groups and The Roman Catholic Church has shown instances of child abuse. If school was difficult for someone, then wouldn't that possibly show a learning difficulty? Fine, so let's fill the gaps with myths and hocus pocus. That's sure to help them! What... you mean the same God who condemns homosexuals throughout his Holy book? The same God who never once spoke against slavery? Misogyny? No, I don't think there's much in that idea. Except the Church Of England seems to be easing up on a lot of so called 'sins' in recent times. Which just shows they know which side their bread is buttered. One look at the C.O.E.'s very reason for inception by Henry VIII speaks volumes! So scientists were involved in the processes which created the atom bomb. May I remind you, it was Christians who invented the ducking stool, the iron maiden, the boot, the rack and devised witch trials, which invariably ended with the burning of thousands of innocents...? Similarly, has not religion displaced hundreds of thousands of innocent lives? Still counting... As someone said, there are religious people with drug dependencies. By and large, I suppose it helps a lot of people to have something to believe in but this is by no means a hard and fast rule. Without doubt!!! As already mentioned - one perfect example is Pakistan and there have been others. But you also need to take into account the politics which go hand in hand with religion, turning it into a violent force. Islamic terrorists... suicide bombers... dirty bombers... disease and gas attacks... would they use a nuclear bomb if they could get hold of one? That's one theory I wouldn't like to put to the test. In fact, I think today, it's even MORE likely for some religiously crazed despot to think of using one than the average secularist who treasures their one and only chance at life. Er... yes. And...? Forgive me, but I fail to see the relevance of these questions to the original query. I couldn't agree more that anything can be used either for good or for bad. I'm not sure what you mean by 'anything intangible'...? Now you're getting into slightly more... tricky territory. Conspiracy theories are very fashionable at the moment. If you're unsure, my advice would be to research proven methods of determining the veracity of the claims. Familiarise yourself with terms such as Occams Razor and study the conspiracy to see if it's needlessly complicated or if pseudo-scientific terms are being coined in place of official ones. Study the material they want to show you in videos and determine their motives; ie: does it appear like they are wanting to sell you a book on religion or alternative science? While all the time remembering that the general public (especially in the U.S.A.) seem to be gripped by a growing trend of fear for national security and often would rather believe their own government is pulling all the strings, rather than that there could be a real threat from somewhere outside. Don't ask me why, but it's almost like some form of Stockholm syndrome in my humble opinion. Or maybe they feel safer the devil they know? A better question is: what would be the point of doing science if you had nothing to prove? In the case of astro-physics, there are many reasons, which range from space exploration to a life insurance policy for the human race over the next few thousand years. Take of it what you will, but one thing remains true - it's interesting, isn't it? Brian Cox said that we are living in a golden age of physics and space exploration, where we are on the brink of something that will really move the field forward in a huge way for subsequent generations. That should be reason enough, I would have thought. Ask an amateur astronomer why he sits on his back for hundreds of hours, observing the night sky. Something to talk about at his local astronomy group? Might get a star named after him one day... and how cool would that be? Sorry, I don't quite understand why you mention religion here... but all I can say is - ask a dedicated scientist what drives him/ her. Then I suggest you either sit tight or dive for cover. Science tells a story, more gripping and fascinating than any work of fiction. The story of our world, our Universe, our very existence. What better reward could you envisage... than discovery? Sure there is wealth & power involved in the industrial and political sectors. Not everyone is quite that innocent and honest. But that's human nature and a lot depends on what is being researched and why. No problem. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I hope you get something useful out of my reply. If not, thanks for reading anyway. Ok, I admit this was funny! But I know some 3d artist whom can nails these effects down to realism,,,,,,,,,,,ha! Exactly! The Nobel Peace prize is awarded to physicists who develop nuclear bombs to gain power and control over the world! EDIT: Architect, your posts remind me of Keep it up! I have seen and even read some scientist in debates about " time travel" god particle, theory of everything, alien life on other worlds, humans are the only race in the universe, selected races, eugenics, population control, the list goes on and on, YES! I know some of these types can be extremist, but it doesn't change the concept here. Yes some but not most think that the belief in god also applies to the bible and its text. This is what confuses me all the time. I have many types of friends of which the bible "condones" for their lifestyles and very often this belief gets in the way of their lives. Nice to know you are a Christian, I get the impression you DON'T BELIEVE that gays and lesbians are NOT loved by god. I this what the Christian Bible Says? There are too many for me to read out there. It can be very confusing, books are read then you gain knowledge from them, but other books can be read then things get weird. Thanks.. I believe that is an inaccurate perception. I think about 35% of all physcists believe in God. The 65%who don't certainly don't all speak badly about religion. Sure they do. I believe that's a false impression that you gained somewhere/somehow. Perhaps from the few who are very noisey on that kind of thing. I'm a physicist and I'm a Christian and I certaintly don't think that way. Even when I wasn't religious I never thought badly about people who were religious Oh, I don't know about that. I tend to disagree on that point. I believe that such people believed in God but perhaps don't believe in the Bible. A lot of people seem to put them hand in hand. I think a lot of people who see a believed in God automatically assume they must be judeo-christian, which obviously isn' implied merely because one believes in God, although I'd say that the majority does think that. The point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc, people follow you... This is how racial barriers and war are spread, profiling is wrong no matter what resources you have. Leaders should get in the boxing rink if they have issues with each other, leave all others alone. But I KNOW, this will never change. About dimensional analysis, I am not even past basic math to give you an answer, am still learning, but had no idea it was used to prove the falsehood of some weird claim. Can Issac Newton, Albert Einstein be proved wrong then with this type of math????????? If So Then Interesting!!!!!!!! I though it was used to prove a claim. Or is that just complex numbers?? This area I need much work on but am already making much progress. Thanks... You may think it's racist to point this out but Pakistan, Iran and a few other countries are run by largely religious governments and yet they are seeking to build ( or continue to build) nuclear weapons. The colour of their skin or the nature of their faith doesn't alter the fact. I didn't mention France, England, America , Russia or whatever because you might try to say that those are secular governments. Good luck finding an atheist queen, prime minister or president though. There is no meaningful "chemistry" in a hydrogen bomb. There seem to me to be two sorts of discussion on dimensional analysis on this sort of site. There are the ones where someone who understands it uses it to prove the falsehood of some weird claim. And there are ones where, when asked, the poster is unable to explain what they mean. So, what does this mean? "No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears."" Edited July 6, 2012 by The Architekt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Since, as you say, you don't know about dimensional analysis, why did you claim to use it? "No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears." "The point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc, people follow you... " You missed preacher off the list of people likely to be followed. Was there a reason for that? As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has ever started a war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiot Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 (edited) John cuthberAs far as I know, no scientist or doctor has ever started a war. Your own good lady leader was a fellow chemist! the architektThe point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc, people follow you... This is how racial barriers and war are spread, profiling is wrong no matter what resources you have. Leaders should get in the boxing rink if they have issues with each other, leave all others alone Excellent point. Edited July 6, 2012 by studiot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Much as I'd like to stop and list Maggies' failings I can't really blame her for that one, she didn't invade the Falklands: Galtieri did. In any event, by that stage she was a politician rather than a scientist. It may well be better if politicians were to sort out their differences in a boxing ring, but the fact remains that including doctors and scientists in that list but leaving out religious leaders is somewhere between bizarre and biassed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Architekt Posted July 7, 2012 Author Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) Of coarse, preachers too.... I should have typed this: "The point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc = [crazy preachers], people follow you... " NOTE: Their are some incredible preachers out there though! Now About scientist: Sigmund Freud, A KNOWN COCAINE ADDICT: Was known to talk badly on the behalf of the African American People and the effects of cocaine use on their brains, Hispanics were not exempt either. In other words, Sigmund Freud said black people and Hispanics were dangerous under this drug called cocaine... ""WAIT!!!!!!!!!! I KNOW WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO SAY: What does this have to do with wars??? Plenty keep reading please."" Does Sigmund Freud concept relate to Hispanic and Black crime rate? However, I have seen other races just as "bizarre" on this drug and at that I think cocaine is out of style.... It is things like these I question and seldom understand, AND I AM NOT JOKING. What "I feel" is that this man "CONNECTED" Sigmund Freud created a barrier between two races, white and blacks using --->PURE PERCEPTION... "WHICH NOW BECOMES AN EMINENT WAR" CALLED DISCRIMINATION WHICH = Hate Crimes Deprivation Jim Crows Laws Segregation Police Brutality All creations of the same "root" principle or belief scaled and really bent out of shape. Which in turn also= Gang related turf wars within themselves Violent neighborhoods Misconceived, RAP MUSIC AND HIP HOP MUSIC, labeled all as filled with hate and violent words, not all of them. This is created by "now" the believers, regular people of the world, whom are really not keen to notice where the bias came from. In turn on the business side if it all, we have now video games, music videos, clothes and fashion, propaganda, and psychological tactics aimed at this very tactic that others "to" use as a promotional "theme" that builds up people's responses towards these types of subjects now as "products." Hence: Anger = Action to do something. Now, a large average of people love violence in movies, sex in commercials, sexy clothes, text messages, hook ups, people cheating, living in luxury forgetting about the self, make up, wigs, hair extension, " both men and women." All this is because tactics, such as what scientist such as Sigmund Freud used. Let us face the fact, money is a system that uses people to "deprive others" financially." It is the only weapon in where a human can do the most damage to another human. Lets face it, their maybe nothing we can do about this problem in our time. Changes only happen when one understands their "own political circles" and is able to open up their minds more than just on keeping a great "public status" = the human ego IE: They won't like me anymore and will fire me from my 6 figure a year job If agree that Sigmund Freud was = x x= racist x= woman x=lesbian x= stripper I think you get the point I am trying to make here, just throw some Boolean Operators up in their " get creative" Anyway Human ego, no more fancy cars, no more vacations, no fancy homes and etc = bad "public status" = the human Perhaps maybe this is where Quantum Mechanics Has The Upper Hand On Physics, whom knows........... They look into the hidden forces of nature to explain the why of things versus the what of things... My opinion, and philosophy on Dimensional Analysis: On dimensional analysis. The claim is simple, numbers represent a reality of some sort, a direction in where time is perceived within a system that "will no matter what" remain in one constant direction. This system is thus used like any other system of belief. It has no fertile objective nor structure, it is what you make of it. It is units within units, time within time, and structure within structure. It is the mess and the clean of anything that uses it, and its the only workable "thing" people can use to describe a physical perception due to its relation to leaner methods that describe "Some Type Of Distance." It is like money valid only upon transaction. It is a lie and a truth all in one. It is used by people in this world. Thxs! Since, as you say, you don't know about dimensional analysis, why did you claim to use it? "No valid support at all, both religion and science may be the same as dimensional analysis in where natural units disappears." "The point is when you point the finger at "anyone" especially when you hold positions as a scientist, doctor, leader and etc, people follow you... " You missed preacher off the list of people likely to be followed. Was there a reason for that? As far as I know, no scientist or doctor has ever started a war. Edited July 7, 2012 by The Architekt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ACG52 Posted July 7, 2012 Share Posted July 7, 2012 (edited) All I got out of that long, impossible to follow rant was that you really don't know what dimensional analysis is. Edited July 7, 2012 by ACG52 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now