Jump to content

physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion .


yahya515

Recommended Posts

It means nothing to move or lock any of my posts, I have sent my messages! also this article will be published in journal of American physical society.

When the OP admits to soapboxing an audience is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

 

It's been accepted?

Yes, it was not accepted when you asked this, but I knew it will be accepted because I am a prophet, it was with editors and it accepted, but not published yet, I respect you Swansont, because you respect science, even though I do not agree with your beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it was not accepted when you asked this, but I knew it will be accepted because I am a prophet, it was with editors and it accepted, but not published yet, I respect you Swansont, because you respect science, even though I do not agree with your beliefs.

Are we all talking about the same journal here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I apologize for every person in this forum, I am not the christ, I am not a prophet, I am not religious, I love science , I was just joking!


I predicted that it will be published because I believe in myself


the only person I agree with is swansont

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, science does not change, but I changed my believe

Science does change when new evidence comes to light. Unfortunately, it is peoples beliefs that are not usually so flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Science does change when new evidence comes to light. Unfortunately, it is peoples beliefs that are not usually so flexible.

but people change sceince , they have the power to change sceintific (beleifs) , so they are flexible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 5 weeks later...

To make ex nihilo creation a scientific idea would require a redefinition of science and its method. Better to keep it as a metaphysical conjecture, I'd say, and leave the definition of science alone. The idea doesn't work in logic so it won't ever work in science. I wonder why anyone would adopt an idea that is so obviously perverse. .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ajb; In your post, two posts above(sorry, quote not working on mobile properly); shouldn't it be the other way-that science doesn't change, our knowldge does.

 

The methodology remains consistent, but science NEEDS to be capable of change, otherwise it becomes intractable and untrustworthy. We need to know there may be better explanations, otherwise we stop asking questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ajb; In your post, two posts above(sorry, quote not working on mobile properly); shouldn't it be the other way-that science doesn't change, our knowldge does.

 

Physics changed when we discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, to name two famous instances — you go where the evidence leads. What you don't do is force the evidence to conform with the model. Physics, especially > 100 years back, is littered with failed models that had to be tossed when we learned more. (That's a good thing)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite right Swansont. This is why I predict that physicists will sort out the problems of philosophy before professional academic philosophers do. They seem to be stuck in a permanent rut, while physicists seems to have more courage. I just wish they'd move on more quickly. But the really interesting books on philosophy, or having the greatest implications for philosophy, seem to be more and more written by physicists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Physics changed when we discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, to name two famous instances you go where the evidence leads. What you don't do is force the evidence to conform with the model. Physics, especially > 100 years back, is littered with failed models that had to be tossed when we learned more. (That's a good thing)

Should we phrase it as 'Physics changed' or as 'our understanding changed.' If we say what we understand of the physical world is physics, wouldn't in a way mean that physics is our religion and changes with belief.A kind of flexible religion. I feel, the physical world behaves as it is, and physics remains same, just our understanding of it alters. Edited by rktpro
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel, the physical world behaves as it is, and physics remains same, just our understanding of it alters.

Here you use the word physics to mean how the natural world behaves. I have used the word physics to mean the way in which we describe and hence understand how the natural world behaves.

 

I am not sure what the overall standing is, but I would say that "physics is something that people do to understand the physical world".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm with ajb here — when we say physics, the implication is that it's a body of knowledge that expresses our understanding of how nature behaves. To say physics changed or our understanding changed is the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

YahYa. It is clear from your OP that you are speaking about one very particular religion, and one very particular interpretation of it. To extend this argument to the whole of religion is crazy. It leads you to say that religion promotes creationism when this is clearly not the case. It's would be like someone dismissing physics because they disagree with the views of certain physicists. It's would be a major error. To dismiss a theory you first have to get to know it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.