0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science.
Quote from: socratus on 15/10/2008 11:35:00The Catholic Church adopted the theory of Big Bang as a good proof of God existing.Now we have unity between Religion and Science. Socratus,Your belief in a higher power, in some ways, must be a great support to you (it isn't one I can share though). One thing I would ask though is don't confuse belief with scientific evidence - even if the church chooses to muddy the waters when they make such claims about 'proof'.Maybe when mankind has found a way to find common ground between all the differing religions, we can move onto science & religion...
Nevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.
QuoteNevertheless though, regardless of how many spatial dimensions you plot in, as long as there's only a single time axis, the course will always be a line.That's not a valid conclusion at all. You could only insist that is the case in an infinitesimal time scale. If you are going in a curve you are definitely exploring two cartesian dimensions at the very least.I still think that, when you refer to a dimension, you mean something different from what I understand it to mean. The graphs you refer to simply show how one variable changes with another. They don't refer to how someone would 'experience' a journey. The slopes and curvatures tell you about displacements, velocities and accelerations so they give you an idea of what the journey would have been like - that's all.Two independent travellers would only bump into each other if ALL the coordinates were the same, at some point in the four dimensional graph - i.e. the lines / curves intersect somewhere /somewhen. You and I have probably walked past Piccadilly Tube station but on different days - so we didn't see each other.(I even wore a carnation, specially, so you would recognise me!) I certainly didn't travel in a straight line to get there and neither did you.
Har Har.I think I misunderstood your last post. Yes your path is a line - just not a straight one - and the line can involve variations in three spatial dimensions and a steady rate of progress in the t dimension / axis.The three spatial dimensions are necessary in order that you, I and everyone does not turn up at the same place all the time.
Yes; we're smeared out along the time axis by acceleration etc..
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information
Truthfulness, as to the existence of other parallel universes is unknowable, as judged from scientific deduction. The possibility of other universes is the product of intellectual speculation, not concrete fact.
We should focus upon the known, rather than that what can be inferred from clearly limited information; which is subject to new knowledge.
In fact, all of our knowledge about the known universe is subject to changing opinions.
Theories, grounded upon established science is[are] fine, as far as that[they] goes[go], yet to suggest that such theories correspond to verifiable facts[,] or reality departs from any notion of valid science.
This discussion should be framed in the context of speculative science, no less, no more.
This discussion qualifies as philosophy; a point of view, grounded in a broad scientific understanding, but not concrete science.
This distinction must be made clear, if we hope to differentiate between that which is knowable, in any realistic sense, and that which is not.
Knowledge about the properties of the universe are, as all science, provisional, therefore theories as to other universes are, at best speculative, and operate within the domain of philosophical and scientific speculation.
I do not question the validity of this effort. What I do question is the framing, or lack of, regarding such issues.