Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: socratus on 16/03/2006 18:57:06
-
Evolution.
The most simple design, which was created by the God, is atom of hydrogen.
The most complex design, which was created by the God, is the Man.
The Man is alive essence.
Animals, bird, fish are alive essences.
And an atom?
And atom is also alive design.
The atom of hydrogen lives 12 minutes.
And someone a long time ago has already said, that if
to give suffices time to atom of hydrogen, he will turn into Man.
Therefore, the one, who creates a general picture of Life,
must consider development of evolution of Life from atom up to the Man.
* * *
Once upon a time, in the beginning, there was one "single point " accidentally.
Then it has caught a cold accidentally and has blown up: Big Bang " has taken place.
It was the reason of accidental creation of some hundreds
(thousands) kinds of elementary particles and their girlfriends - antiparticles.
Then stars were formed accidentally.
Then the Planet the Earth was formed accidentally.
Then atom of hydrogen was accidentally formed.
Then complex atom was accidentally formed.
Then was accidentally formed vegetative and fauna.
Then the man was created accidentally.
And this man can accidentally think logically.
But of course, unfortunately, not always.
* * *
What was one "single point " surrounded with?
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING
In common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING
in the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
From only this simple physical parameter I create a general picture of Genesis.
Best wishes.
Socratus
-
there are much smaller "simpler" units of "creation" than Hydrogen atoms.
Are YOUR mice nude? [;)]
-
Science & Philosophy.Religion & Physics. XXIc.
That the conception “God” was not illusory, it is necessary somehow
to convince in His( Its) connection with reality.
We can not be pleased with the simple description and analyse of the usage
of this conception in religious speech.
The statement, that we can know nothing about the God is wrong.
In this case God is practically denied.
The God, about whom (which) I know nothing,
for me is not already the God and any dialogue with It( Him) is impossible.
/M.J.CHARLESWORTH./
* * *
Can we concretely know anything about the God ?
It is possible to explain religion with the help of the
physical and mathematical theorems?
Yes. It is possible.
Because creating all MATERIAL WORLD the God
could only working in any absolute reference system
and only under any physical and mathematical laws.
* * *
It is consider now, that absolute temperature of the Universe is Ò=2,7Ê.
It is an absolute reference system (now).
But we all know that our Universe is expanding......
This temperature ( Ò=2,7Ê ) is not constant,
and continues to decrease and,
therefore, in the future will decrease down to Ò=0Ê.
* * *
The physicists can not indefinitely break particles.
The science can not eternally develop to “mad infinity.”
Everything, to what physics have approached now is stated,
but without the formulas, in ancient Indian Veda,s books.
Western science, by other way, has reached the same knowledge,
which were known in the East 10000 years ago.
The quantum theory has confirmed religious ideas of the East.
Socratus.
-
quote:
The most complex design, which was created by the God, is the Man.
Personally, I find that women are a lot more complex??
Subduction causes orogeny.
-
quote:
Originally posted by socratus
Everything, to what physics have approached now is stated,
but without the formulas, in ancient Indian Veda,s books.
Western science, by other way, has reached the same knowledge,
which were known in the East 10000 years ago.
The quantum theory has confirmed religious ideas of the East.
Socratus.
I have no idea whether this is true, although I would have thought that even if their philosphy had some overlaps with QM it was more likely a fluke than any deeper insight. Religious ideas, especially from the east have a tendancy to be conveniently non-specific.
Could these religious theories make any testable predictions without the benefit of hindsight. If not then they are essentially useless, and they are probably right in the same way that horroscopes are right - they are so vague that you fill in the gaps yourself.
-
daveshorts wrote:
"Religious ideas, especially from the east
have a tendancy to be conveniently non-specific."
* * *
And does western science is concrete?
* * *
How does the palace of our physics look like?
Its base consists of:
1. Abstract separate absolute space of Newton
and abstract separate absolute time of Newton.
2. Abstract ideal gas,
3. Abstract absolutely black body,
4. Abstract negative 4- dimensional space.
There are:
1. Abstract ideal particles,
2. Abstract virtual particles.
Which:
1. Have abstract inertial movement,
2. Can make abstract virtual transitions.
They create:
1. Abstract 11 - dimensional space.
2. Abstract 27 - dimensional space.
3. etc.
* * *
We live in 3- dimensional space.
We are real and logically thinking people
have created these abstractions.
So, how to understand the abstract palace of our physics?
-
How abstract the theories are is not the point, do they predict concrete outcomes?
Using western science you can predict energy levels in atoms to many significant figures, predict how bridges will move in the wind, where the planets will be for thousands of years, how a transistor will behave etc etc, etc.
Did vega predict anything testable without hindsight, if not, even if he did have divine inspiration and was completely correct, it ain't very useful to the rest of us.
-
People say, the eastern science is abstract.
And is the western science more correct?
-
About absolute reference frame……
1 Ptolemee considered, that reference frame connected with the Earth
is absolute.
2. Copernicus proved, that reference frame connected with the Sun
is absolute.
3. Then they began to consider, that reference frame connected with far stars
is absolute.
4. Now it is consider, that reference frame connected with relict isotropic radiation
T = 2,7K is absolute.
And if has the scientific thought stopped in this point?
What is farther?