Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If M theory is not a correct theory, why is it that it's the only theory that had answered what caused the 'bang'?
It hasnt. No scientist can say they know what caused the big bang. We can speculate based on what we currently know about physics, but we do not know for certain the answer.
Explain your take on people of science who believe in the existence of God. Isn't it contradictory for people of facts and science to believe in the supernatural? Not trying to be a wise-guy, but many of my friends are engineers, physicists etc. and they go to church regularly and believe in the existence of God.
I do not believe in God. If when I type this I get struck by lightning, I might update my beliefs accordingly. Some (very few) folks I know and work with believe in God. Some, however do. My take on it? Believe what you want. With extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof, it's just not my cup of tea. I dont hold any ill will of any religious person. It has no impact on my work or life.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,164,711 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tetto
Explain your take on people of science who believe in the existence of God. Isn't it contradictory for people of facts and science to believe in the supernatural? Not trying to be a wise-guy, but many of my friends are engineers, physicists etc. and they go to church regularly and believe in the existence of God.
Just because there isn't scientific proof for something, doesn't necessarily mean that thing doesn't exist. There are presumably many things that exist for which there is no good scientific evidence.
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence for some sort of Higher Power that seems to have effortless control of biological and physical events (for example, the purported miracles of Jesus, and of "saints" down to the present time). However of course anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind.
There's also the Anthropic Principle, which notes that several of the physical constants in our universe seem to be finely-tuned to allow for life, and even a species which can contemplate it all. For example, very slight changes in the ..... Gravitational Constant? would make a universe that would expand too quickly or slowly to allow for the formation of galaxies that would lead to the formation of life. Other constants slightly changed might not allow for carbon chemistry (the basis of life) to work. There are many such example of constants that have to be just right for life to happen.
Many physicists argue that this problem can be solved if one assumes a vast number of universes in a multiverse, with a wide variety of constants and laws ....... and we just happened to be one of the lucky ones that allow for our genesis. But as far as I know, there is no direct evidence for a multiverse. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Gravity is really weak. It's weaker than the electromagnetic force by over 30 orders of magnitude.
I don't see how gravity can be considered weak. The way I see it, gravitational acceleration is the net result of the difference in field strength. Gravity is on all sides of us but is slightly stronger on the side where the other mass is (our earth). Imagine how powerful the field really is. It's strong enough to keep the sun and earth locked together and likewise the moon and just look at the effects the moon has on our tides and that's over a fair distance. A magnetic field seem strong because it acts over such a short distance that the difference in field strength is greater. Make sense?
I don't see how gravity can be considered weak. The way I see it, gravitational acceleration is the net result of the difference in field strength. Gravity is on all sides of us but is slightly stronger on the side where the other mass is (our earth). Imagine how powerful the field really is. It's strong enough to keep the sun and earth locked together and likewise the moon and just look at the effects the moon has on our tides and that's over a fair distance. A magnetic field seem strong because it acts over such a short distance that the difference in field strength is greater. Make sense?
Gravity is considered weak because its coupling constant is really small. The fine structure constant alpha, which is the square the charge of the electron e normalized by the Planck charge, \sqrt{4 \pi \epsilon_0 \hbar c}. Its value is approximately 1/137. A similar constant can be given for gravity, namely the square of the electron mass me normalized by the Planck mass, G/\hbar c. Its value is approximately 1.7 x 10^-45. That's why physicists consider gravity to be such a weak force.
Of course, all the other forces can be screened (weak and strong because their carriers are finite mass, EM because there are both positive and negative charges), so over long enough length scales gravity eventually wins out.
How does man not know the universe may be a multi-time reality where he is aware to be, restricted to only one position of observation through the cosmos in motion which would be intimately connected to time ?
If the universe is a multi-time reality placing havoc into BB , wouldn't the expansion appear to be exactly as seen, in other words if two things are in motion, a) place of observation b) expanding universe....and both conditions of movement have a role in their effect with time, how can a conclusion be made for the whole( universe) with respects to time ( BB) .
BB= a master clock would be the finding if BB proved although, how is a master clock free from its own assumption in the investigation. It seems man is able to comfortably say relative to experience in time-space the universe is in a turned on state of affairs. From a totally uneducated but curious perspective the combination for understanding , implications of mechanic's of both the expanding universe and observation, seems a problem, then with the quantum double slit experiment and its amazing & confounding observations in time, where man and the tiny particles team up both in this instance sharing for mutual final observations demonstrating its collective view and I guess second opinion of the universe. Just in case not saying or suggesting a multi-time or saying BB is unlikely and think the experts are going about the exploration in a very very talented and intelligent way.
Last edited by Sophronius; 08-13-2014 at 09:23 AM..
Explain your take on people of science who believe in the existence of God. Isn't it contradictory for people of facts and science to believe in the supernatural? Not trying to be a wise-guy, but many of my friends are engineers, physicists etc. and they go to church regularly and believe in the existence of God.
C-D has a sub-forum for just that kind of question.
Just because there isn't scientific proof for something, doesn't necessarily mean that thing doesn't exist. There are presumably many things that exist for which there is no good scientific evidence.
There's plenty of anecdotal evidence for some sort of Higher Power that seems to have effortless control of biological and physical events (for example, the purported miracles of Jesus, and of "saints" down to the present time). However of course anecdotal evidence is the weakest kind.
There's also the Anthropic Principle, which notes that several of the physical constants in our universe seem to be finely-tuned to allow for life, and even a species which can contemplate it all. For example, very slight changes in the ..... Gravitational Constant? would make a universe that would expand too quickly or slowly to allow for the formation of galaxies that would lead to the formation of life. Other constants slightly changed might not allow for carbon chemistry (the basis of life) to work. There are many such example of constants that have to be just right for life to happen.
Many physicists argue that this problem can be solved if one assumes a vast number of universes in a multiverse, with a wide variety of constants and laws ....... and we just happened to be one of the lucky ones that allow for our genesis. But as far as I know, there is no direct evidence for a multiverse. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Your arguments are pretty much the same as any other religious person, which is understandable. I wont really get into it here, it's not really the right forum for it. If claims of a "God" ever come up with a single shred of evidence, I'd be happy to entertain them. As it stands right now, there are none whatsoever.
How does man not know the universe may be a multi-time reality where he is aware to be, restricted to only one position of observation through the cosmos in motion which would be intimately connected to time ?
If the universe is a multi-time reality placing havoc into BB , wouldn't the expansion appear to be exactly as seen, in other words if two things are in motion, a) place of observation b) expanding universe....and both conditions of movement have a role in their effect with time, how can a conclusion be made for the whole( universe) with respects to time ( BB) .
BB= a master clock would be the finding if BB proved although, how is a master clock free from its own assumption in the investigation. It seems man is able to comfortably say relative to experience in time-space the universe is in a turned on state of affairs. From a totally uneducated but curious perspective the combination for understanding , implications of mechanic's of both the expanding universe and observation, seems a problem, then with the quantum double slit experiment and its amazing & confounding observations in time, where man and the tiny particles team up both in this instance sharing for mutual final observations demonstrating its collective view and I guess second opinion of the universe. Just in case not saying or suggesting a multi-time or saying BB is unlikely and think the experts are going about the exploration in a very very talented and intelligent way.
I could not understand this at all. If you can make the post clearer.............
Okay thanks, the terms used can be found in a book called About Time by expert physicist Paul Davies. Not referring to my post but terms used such as master clock, multi-time, If nothing is understood as worded will leave it at that with thanks for reading, (only have a very general curiosity from time to time, no big deal)
Last edited by Sophronius; 08-13-2014 at 02:19 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
