The Most Foolish Theory in Physics

Singularitarian said:
The questions that physics raises today where the same questions that gave life the mythologies of the human imagination, which would then make them metaphors of the New Age of Science.
Click to expand...
realpaladin said:
No they were not. They might resemble them because of the wording used to formulate them, but the connotations and background is wholly different.
Click to expand...

Singularitarian said:
Not really.

Indeed, the theory of physics during the 1700's was rooted into honouring the Church, th Vatican most prominently. Because of this, when physical theorists noted there seems to be a beginning to time, the Vatican was most pleased with it, because it corresponded to religious genesis.

However, going further back than this, the Ancient Greeks where the real first physicists of the world (and the race unto which we got the name ''atom'' for an indivisible unit, even though we know this is not true now) - and most of the physicists then developed physics on the foundation of theology, not so much the story of the Divinity we call the testiments, but rather inclusively studying their philosophical contexts, and as any educated person will know, the roots of philosophy and religion stem even deeper.
Click to expand...

realpaladin said:
So let me try this again.

But first, what school teaches you that the Greeks are a race instead of a culture?

Your abstract reasoning is lacking. Because I asked you why, today, we still should look unto science as we do unto religion.

You respond with some history, but fail to finish it.

I say that it would be my argument, but you fail to see my logical conclusion;

"But because Science is a methodology rather than a belief, it could break free from it's religious roots and, at first co-exist, and finally refute it's religious roots.

Had it been a mere belief system, it would have stayed where it was."

Capiche kiddo?
Click to expand...

So, at what point did you make it clear?
 
wackyvorlon said:
I'm curious: If the big bang theory is wrong, then where does the cosmic microwave background radiation come from? Under the big bang theory, as I understand it, this is ordinary black body radiation. That explanation doesn't seem to survive in a universe without a big bang.
Click to expand...


It could be explained by saying the CMB is the same as the Zero-Point Energy Field. We have also found similarities between dark energy and the zero-point field, and both of them equally have similarities with the background temperatures.
 
catbasket said:
Not that much more advanced. From University of the West of Scotland it appears that students with a Physics HND can join year three of their Physics course whereas students with three relevant A-Levels can join year two.
Click to expand...


There is a level of satisfaction required also however. The level taught in schools is no way near as hard as the college work for the HND. The equivalence of an NC is about the same as the current educational levels from highschool, which is sufficiently harder as well. The course i am taking now will either give me a position working in science in an institute, or it could also allow me to continue on to get a Bachelors.
 
Also, scottish education hasn't changed in over 100 years, making it the most difficult eductionary system in britain.
 
Singularitarian said:
There is a level of satisfaction required also however. The level taught in schools is no way near as hard as the college work for the HND. The equivalence of an NC is about the same as the current educational levels from highschool, which is sufficiently harder as well. The course i am taking now will either give me a position working in science in an institute, or it could also allow me to continue on to get a Bachelors.
Click to expand...

So once you've finished this course, you'll be able to join a degree programme.
 
Singularitarian said:
It could be explained by saying the CMB is the same as the Zero-Point Energy Field. We have also found similarities between dark energy and the zero-point field, and both of them equally have similarities with the background temperatures.
Click to expand...

Whenever I hear the words "zero point energy" alarm bells go off. Now, isn't the "zero point energy field" supposed to represent the state of lowest energy? If that's the case, then why is the radiation detectable?
 
Singularitarian said:
*snip* Besides, my education is not really important. *snip*
Click to expand...

Singularitarian... I can say that, because I have no formal higher education. Leave the discounting of the importance of an education, and where it was obtained, to the unqualified... people like ME. Saying "My education is unimportant" on a skeptic's forum makes you appear soft, unable to provide evidence for your assertions, and you look like a goldfish from a pond tossed into a deepdeep ocean.

It should be obvious to you by now.

I'm an amateur astronomer, and have been reading about cosmology all my life, and as an amateur... your arguments are hollow, even to me, and I know... less than almost anyone here. If you're trying to impress people by turning well-supported physics, and cosmology, on its ear, this would be among the worst forums you could choose.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
What exactly is your "Diploma in Physics"?
Click to expand...
HND is Higher National Diploma, so if he's studying for that he could have an Ordinary National Diploma in Physics. But if he has an A-Level in Physics he wouldn't need the OND to study at HND level (iirc). Maybe he means his A-Level.

Magnifico2.0 said:
Waitaminnit. "Educationary"? ...this has gotta be a put on.
Click to expand...
Also a possibility.
 
I agree...I've been reading these exchanges for a few days and there's no way this guy can be for real.
 
Magnifico2.0 said:
Singularitarian... I can say that, because I have no formal higher education. Leave the discounting of the importance of an education, and where it was obtained, to the unqualified... people like ME. Saying "My education is unimportant" on a skeptic's forum makes you appear soft, unable to provide evidence for your assertions, and you look like a goldfish from a pond tossed into a deepdeep ocean.

It should be obvious to you by now.

I'm an amateur astronomer, and have been reading about cosmology all my life, and as an amateur... your arguments are hollow, even to me, and I know... less than almost anyone here. If you're trying to impress people by turning well-supported physics, and cosmology, on its ear, this would be among the worst forums you could choose.
Click to expand...

I am not here for any self grandure or out to impress, just to inspire this thread for all that it was intended, hoping to entice some intelligent discussion.
 
Singularitarian said:
I am not here for any self grandure or out to impress, just to inspire this thread for all that it was intended, hoping to entice some intelligent discussion.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the new sigline. It captures us very well; we hope to add to intelligent discussion, but usually end up just being clowns. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom