God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:15 pm

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.
==.
#
God Himself is Creator.
He/She/It created Everything.
So God must be Scientist and must use Physical/
Mathematical Laws and Formulas for His/Her/Its work.
#
For forty days and forty nights Moses wrote the tablets
of ‘ The Ten Commandments’.
Which Commandments are they?
They are moral, ethical Commandments.
Can be written ‘Ten Scientific Commandments’ ?
I think ‘ Yes’, God has given to us everything that necessary
to understand Him and His Genesis using Physical /
Mathematical Laws and Formulas.
===.
Scheme.
Ten Scientific Commandments:
Fundamental Theory of Existence.

1 The infinite vacuum T=0K. ( background energy space: E ).
2 The particle:
C/D = pi, R/N= k , E = Mc^2 = kc^2 , h = 0 , i^2= -1
3 The spins: h =E/t , h =kb, h* = h/2pi
4 The photon, the inertia
5 The electron: e^2 = h*ca, E = h*f , electromagnetic field
6 The gravitation, the star, the time and space
7 The Proton
8
The Evolution of interaction between Electron and Proton
a) electromagnetic
b) nuclear
c) biological
9
The Laws
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
10
The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.
========.
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============.
#
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ‘ Theory of Vacuum & Light Quanta ‘.
==========..
#
I want to know how God created this world
I am not interested in this or that phenomenon,
in the spectrum of this or that element
I want to know His thoughts; the rest are details
/ Einstein /
==========.


socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Sun Jan 09, 2011 2:23 pm

What god are you talking about?

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by John T Mainer on Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:05 pm

Of what possible theological significance are a random selection of the "laws of physics". You do know that they are not laws, but models, subject to continual revision, frequently superceded when better models are produced, or one of thier founding assumptions becomes testable and fails?

You start with an unprovable assumption; that god (no word about who you are talking about, there are a few) created everything. A second assumption for which there is no doccumented reference, even in apocryphaly, in the lore; that the laws given to Moses on ten stone tablets were the laws of physics.

This is rank foolishness. The laws as we understand them today are not the laws we understood in the past, and do not contain the laws as we will understand them in the future. There is also a third assumption that is even more staggering in scope, that renders this whole line of inquiry moot, even were the first two points accepted; you assume your "god" is a scientist because he/she/it created.

Is my wife a biologist because she created my children? Is my daughter a physicist because she can induce phase change of matter from solid to plasma? While qualifying her in demolitions, it does not make her a scientist. We need to use Newtonian physics to explain ballistics, but a paranoid monkey can shoot up a congress woman and a crowd of innocents in a Safeway without having a clue of the principles involved in the weapons he is using, the biology of the humans he is killing, or any philosophical or moral understanding of the act he commits, or the consequences that follows.

The power to do does not confer the ability to understand, even for gods.

_________________
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
"Let justice be done, though the heavens fall."
avatar
John T Mainer
Moderator
Moderator

Posts : 1004
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Maple Ridge, BC Can

http://community.bc-freehold.org/news.php

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by tmarie64 on Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:59 pm

Excellent points, John.

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:04 am

John T Mainer wrote:
The laws as we understand them today
are not the laws we understood in the past,
and do not contain the laws as we will understand them in the future.
1.
The today’s opinion about philosophy of physics.
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_physics
#
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science

etc . . . . . .
2.
My opinion.
#
- Why we don’t have Philosophy of Physics ?
==========
There is Classic Mechanic and Quantum Mechanic,
but there isn’t Philosophy of Physics. Why ?
=======.
1.
In thermodynamics particles are "mathematical points",
2.
In QT particles are "mathematical points",
3.
In SRT particles are points.
4.
In QED particles are points.
5.
The energy, impulse, linear and angular momentum in physics
is also a " mathematical point".
6.
Then one "mathematical point" ( particle) interacts with another
"mathematical point" (energy, impulse ..etc ) the physicists say:
" The Quantum theory and micro-world are paradoxical."
==========
Therefore I wrote :
Physics - Particle and its shadow Math Point.
Our Earth moves straight and rotates around itself.
Let us take an infinite small point and suggested
it also has these two kinds of movement.
What will be happen ?
1
An infinite small point moves straight and its trajectory
shows us a straight line ( SRT)
2
An infinite small point changes its straight direction
( for example near Sun) and its trajectory curves ( GRT)
3
An infinite small point can rotate around itself.(?!)
Here is hidden a puzzle.(!)
Stupid question:
Does anybody ever draw point in his life?
!!!
Take pen and make point.
What do you see ?
Point,- you say.
And I see point, which has geometrical form of circle ( c/d=pi=3,14).
And even the smallest point will have geometrical form of circle
And even an Infinite Smallest Point will have geometrical form of circle
4
The SRT talks about an infinite small point which moves
in the Emptiness.(!) Which geometrical form can have this point ?
The Third law of Thermodynamics says in the Emptiness (!)
( in the Cold Emptiness ) an infinite small point cannot have volume.
It means an infinite small point must have geometrical form of circle
5
According to SRT this circle – particle cannot be firm,
it must be elastic.(!)
6.
In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the interaction
between an Infinite Small Particle and Geometry.
==========
P.S.
In an Italian railway station.
It was more then two hours 'till the departure of the train.
I went to the café and ordered a cup of coffee. Soon two men
and a very beautiful, slim woman took a place opposite me.
They ordered something to drink and one of the man opened
a case of violin and took out a bow. He began to explain
something about the bow, carefully and gently touching it.
Then another man took this bow and also enthusiastically
continued this conversation. For half an hour the bow was passed
from one hands to another followed with enthusiastic discussion.
And the beautiful woman looked at bow, at both these men without
saying a word. For half an hour I watched this group with admiration
and excitement. What a class! What a cultural level!
What a beauty!
And now let's imagine the bow pressed into a "mathematical point"
and the musicians speak seriously about a "mathematical point"
which must produce a sound from a violin.
Everybody will say I describe an idiotic situation.
Well, I agree.
But why doesn't anybody say it to physicists when they observe
an elementary particle as a "mathematical point" , without paying
attention to its geometrical form.
#
If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle the
paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
We will have Philosophy of Physics.
#
When Feynman said "I think I can safely say that nobody
understands quantum mechanics." it was only because nobody took
into consideration the geometrical form of a particle.
=====================.
#
- The Electron’s puzzles.

The electron is not a point.
It is forbidden to electron to be hard as a steel, it must be elastic.
The electron doesn't have really orbit . . .
It is a reason of a standing wave of fantastically high frequency.
It can be a corpuscular and a wave at the same time.
On the one hand, in interaction with aether all its parameters
becomes infinite, but on the other hand, it is the reason
of electromagnetic waves and a density in the aether.
The electron has a negative twin brother - positron.
#
1900, 1905
Planck and Einstein found the energy of electron: E=h*f.
1916
Sommerfeld found the formula of electron : e^2=ah*c,
it means: e = +ah*c and e = -ah*c.
1928
Dirac found two more formulas of electron’s energy:
+E=Mc^2 and -E=Mc^2.
Questions.
Why does electron have five ( 5 ) formulas ?
Why does electron obey four ( 4) Laws ?
a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy/ mass
b) The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle / Law
c) The Pauli Exclusion Principle/ Law
d) The Fermi-Dirac statistics
#
Dirac’s formula E= (+ / -) E=Mc^2
on the one hand is a ‘rest particle, but on the other hand the
‘rest particle” haves enough active energy to blow up big cities
like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
My question is: Why can electron’s a rest/ potential energy
change into a high active energy?
Which electron’s act makes this process possible?
What does the formula E= (+ / -) E=Mc^2 mean ?
=====.
What is an electron ?
Now nobody knows .
In the internet we can read hundreds theories of electron.
For example.
More than ten different models of the electron are presented here. (!!!)
More than twenty models are discussed briefly. (!!!)
Thus, the book gives a complete picture of contemporary theoretical
thinking (traditional and new) about the physics of the electron.
/ The book "What is the Electron?"
Volodimir Simulik. Montreal, Canada. 2005. /
http://redshift.vif.com/BookBlurbs/Electron.htm
All of them are problematical.
So, why we call an electron a simple elementary
particle if it looks not very simple ?
We can read hundreds books and magazines about philosophy of physics.
But how can we trust them if we don’t have the real model of Electron ?
=====================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus



socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by tmarie64 on Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:42 am

Sorry, hun, you're gonna have to do better than Wiki to convince most of us. There are those who don't care that it can be edited by ANYONE and there's not a requirement of professionalism or truth.
So, you're gonna have to find a real source, not a "he said-she said" site that any crackpot can edit.

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:23 am

If this comforts you, man, and makes sense to you, I'm happy for you. We all look at the world and our gods in different ways.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:05 am

tmarie64 wrote:Sorry, hun, you're gonna have to do better than Wiki
to convince most of us. There are those who don't care that it can be
edited by ANYONE and there's not a requirement of professionalism or truth.
So, you're gonna have to find a real source, not a "he said-she said" site
that any crackpot can edit.
tmarie64 ,
You will understand me better reading this article.
#
- Hallelujah !! String Theory !!
==.
Science has always been a source of heresy.
====.
Lee Smolin wrote:
I have written this book in the hope that it will contribute
to an honest and useful discussion among experts and
lay readers alike.
/ ‘ The trouble with Physics’. Page XVIII. /
I will take Smolin’s proposition and try to explain my
amateur’s thoughts about that was called ‘String theory’.
=============.
#
Three years ago I posted an article ‘ The Special Theory
of Relativity’ I wrote:
‘ String theory acts in 11- D space.
But if we don't know what 1+1 = 2 is
how can we know what 5+4 = 9 is?
And if we don't know what 4-D negative Mincowski space
is how can we understand 11-D space ( String theory) ?’
I wrote: . . . .
‘If I were a king, I would publish a law:
every physicist who takes part in the creation
of 4D space and higher is to be awarded a medal
"To the winner over common sense".
Why?
Because they have won us using the
absurd ideas of Minkowski and Kaluza. ‘
This was a reason that I refused to read any information
about ‘String theory’.
And later on different forums I posted emails, trying
to explain, that the point is only a shadow of real particle,
that it is impossible to understand Physics and Nature
thinking of particle as a point.
I wrote: In 1915 Einstein connected Mass with Geometry.
Maybe now, in 2010, somebody will try to understand the
interaction between an elementary particle and geometry.
I wrote:
If physicists think about a particle as a " mathematical point"
the result can be only paradoxical. And I am sure if somebody
takes into consideration the geometrical form of particle
the paradoxes in Physics will disappear.
#
Travelling in Scotland, by chance, in a secondhand shop
I bought a book: ‘ The trouble with Physics’ by Lee Smolin.
This book changed my opinion about ‘String theory’.
Now I say: Hallelujah ! Hallelujah ! Why? Because
‘… particles could not be seen as points, which is how
they always been seen before. Instead, they were ‘stringlike’,
existing only in a single dimension, and could be stretched, . .
And . . . they vibrated.’ / Page 103. / ‘ . . the idea of particles
as vibrations of strings was the missing link that could work
powerfully to resolve many open problems.’ / Page 124./
It is nice. It is pleasant to read this idea.
So, the string particle is a dynamic particle. And the string can
have different geometric forms: ‘String can be both closed and
open. A closed string is a loop. An open string is a line;
it has ends’. / Page 106./ And now few physicists try to connect
forces, movement and geometry of the quantum particle together.
Hallelujah ! It is a progress. It is a step to truth.
Now I say: the truth is hidden in the ‘ String theory ’.
#
But there are many string theories. And the growing catalogue
of string theories evokes trouble. Because one theory is better
than the other one, but at the same time each new theory brings
new problems. Maybe therefore Lee Smolin wrote:
‘ . . . at least one big idea is missing.
How do we find that missing idea?’ / Page 308. /
Interesting: What was missed by ‘ the brightest and
best- educated scientists’ who worked very hard doing
many complicated calculations ?
New particle? New D ? New force? New idea?
Where did they have an error?
I will try to understand this situation.
#
If I were professor I would great super – super 55D for
explaining everything. But I am a peasant and the best way
for me is to take the simplest reference frame – the Euclidean
space ( 2D) . And maybe (who knows ?) Newton was right
saying: ‘ Truth is ever to be found in simplicity,
and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.’
Now I will put a virtual- ideal particle in this 2D.
The 2D is a thin and flat homogeneous space, so my particle
also must be thin and flat and very symmetrical.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited line- string?
No. In my opinion even this very thin and tiny line
under good microscope will be looked as a rectangle.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited loop?
No. The geometrical form of a loop is too complex,
needs supplementary forces to create it.
Can it be a very thin and tiny limited circle?
Yes.
From all geometrical forms the circle is the most symmetrical.
The surface of a circle takes up the minimal area it can and
I will write it by formula: C/D= pi= 3.14. (!)
But I can put many particles there, for example,
Avogadro’s number of particles: N(a). (!)
#
What is my next step?
If I were a mathematician I would say nothing.
But if I were a physicist I would say that 2D must have
some physical parameters like: volume (V), temperature (T)
and density (P). Yes, it seems the idea is right.
Then, volume (V) is zero,
temperature (T) is zero
but . . but density (P) cannot be zero if 2D is a real space
then its density can approximately be zero.
#
What can I do with these three parameters?
I have only one possibility, to write the simplest formula:
VP/T=R (Clapeyron formula !)
What is R? R is some kind of physical state of my 2D.
And if I divide the whole space R by Avogadro’s
numbers of particles then I have a formula R/ N(a) = k,
then k ( as a Boltzmann constant) is some kind of
physical state of one single virtual- ideal particle. (!)
#
But all creators of Quantum theory said that this space,
as a whole, must have some kind of background energy (E).
And its value must be enormous.
But the background mass of every Avogadro’s particles
in 2D has approximately zero mass, it is approximately
massless (M).
So, if I divide enormous energy (E) by approximately
massless (M) then the potential energy/ mass of every single
virtual- ideal particle ( according Einstein and Dirac) is
E/M=c^2 (potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 ! )
( I don’t know why physicists call E/M= c^2 ‘rest mass’
and never say potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .)
In potential state my particle doesn’t move,
so its impulse is h = 0.
#
My conclusion.
I have virtual- ideal- massless particle which has
geometrical and physical parameters:
C/D= pi= 3.14 . . . . , R/ N(a) = k, E/M=c^2, h=0.
All my virtual- ideal- massless particles are possible to call
‘ bosons’ or ‘antiparticles’ . These bosons are approximately
massless but have huge potential energy/mass E/M=c^2 .
But I have no fermions, no electric charge, no tachyons,
no time, no mass, no movement at this picture.
#
Smolin wrote: ‘ – the missing element – must have been
one of the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’/page 102/
Where was ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’?
In the hope to understand Smolin’s thought I will draw
historical scheme: Quantum Theory ---->
----> Thermodynamics ----> Theory of gases ----> Ideal Gas.
So, ‘the earliest triumphs of abstract thinking.’ was connected
with idea of an ‘Ideal Gas’. From Ideal Gas our trouble with
physics begins. I think the ‘Ideal Gas’ cannot be an abstract
hypothesis. In my opinion the ‘Ideal Gas’ must be a real model
of vacuum: T=0K . We can use all laws of ‘Ideal Gas’ for
explaining the situation in Vacuum: T=0K. The ‘ Ideal Gas’ as
abstract as ‘ Vacuum ‘ and vice versa.
===================..
Now, thinking logically, I must explain all the effects of
motions. And. . . and I cannot say it better than Newton:
‘For the basic problem of philosophy seems to be to discover
the forces of nature from the phenomena of motions
and then to demonstrate the other phenomena from these forces.’
#
How can one single virtual- ideal particle start its movement?
At first, it will be right to think about some simple kind of
movement, for example: my particle will move in straight line
along 2D surface from some point A to the point B.
What is possible to say now?
According to the Michelson-Morley experiment my particle
must move with constant speed: c=1 and its speed is independent.
Its speed doesn’t depend on any other object or subject, it means
the reason of its speed is hidden in itself, it is its inner impulse.
This impulse doesn’t come from any formulas or equations.
And when Planck introduced this inner impulse(h) to physicists,
he took it from heaven, from ceiling. Sorry. Sorry.
I must write: Planck introduced this inner impulse (h) intuitively.
I must write: Planck introduced his unit (h) phenomenologically.
At any way, having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle flies with speed c=1. We call it photon now.
Photon’s movement from some point A to the point B
doesn’t change the flat and homogeneous 2D surface.
Of course, my photon must be careful, because in some local
place some sun’s gravitation can catch and change its trajectory
I hope it will be lucky to escape from the sun’s gravity love.
#
My photon can have other possibility to move. This second
possibility was discover by Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck
in 1925. They said the elementary particle can rotate
around its diameter using its own angular inner impulse:
h * = h /2pi. So, when photon rotates around its diameter
it looks like a string ( open string) and this string vibrates.
My god, that is a strange technical terminology the physicists
use: ‘ vibrate, vibration’.
If I were a physicist I would say no ‘ vibrate, vibration’ but
‘ frequency’, ‘the particle rotates with high frequency’.
The frequency is a key to every particle, by frequency we know
the radiation spectrum of various kinds of waves.
Now I can say: then my photon starts to curl its rotation
goes with enormous frequency, faster than constant speed
of photon. Now its speed is c>1. We call it ‘tachyon’.
The tachyon’s spinning creates electric charge and
electrical waves and now we call it ‘electron’ or ‘fermions’.
So, in my opinion, virtual- ideal particle, photon, tachyon
and electron are only different names of one and the same
particle – quantum of light.
The frequency of every string particle can change.
( The various states of vibration . . . Page 103.)
The geometrical form of string can change.
( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted - Page 103.)
Thanks to rotating movement the ‘massless’ of particles
increased and it became real observed particle.
Stop ! !!
I have missed here something important.
What have I missed?
#
( When they gained energy, they stretched; when they
gave up energy, they contracted - Page 103.)
What does it mean? What did Smolin want to say?
How can I understand this process ?
. . . . . . . . . . .
My particle is a circle. When this circle started to curl around
itself its form changed. Now it has volume and looks like a sphere.
What is the law between particle’s volume and energy?
I think: big volume – low energy, small volume – high energy.
The more speed / impulse ----> the more particle (as a volume)
compress ----> the more energy .
And when the speed decrease – - the energy decrease too –
but the volume of particle will increase.
My particle behaves like ‘ a springy circle’ (!)
This springy circle can curl into small sphere which must
have volume and therefore can be describe as a
‘stringlike particle with vibrations’ only approximately .
Springy particle - it means the particle is able to spring back
into its former position. In my opinion this is the meaning of
‘ The Law of mass/energy conservation and transformation’
#
Once more.
Quantum of light has potential energy (- E=Mc^2 ).
When it starts to curl around its diameter the potential energy
(- E=Mc^2 ) is hidden and we can observe its electronic
energy ( E=h*f).
But there is situation when this hidden potential energy goes
out and we can see its great active power ( + E=Mc^2 )
looking the destroyed cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In my opinion the particle’s transformation from one state into
the other was legalized as ‘ The Law of mass/energy
conservation and transformation’.
#
Different geometrical forms of string particle
( open - closed ), different frequencies of string particle are
reason of different radiation (from ultraviolet to infrared ),
are also reason of new situation in 2D.
Now the surface of my 2D in local area is changed.
On one hand it is electromagnetic field now,
on the other hand the spinning electron
changed the temperature of the surface in local area.
Now this local area has Debye temperature: Q(d)= h*f(max) / k.
Maybe in this space a grain of gravity theory is hidden.
Who knows?
==================..
My conclusion.
It is no bad idea to ask question:
what are physical parameters of every new super D?
It is possible to understand many things using 2D.
The missing ‘big idea’ in ‘String theory’ is hidden in the
simple question: ‘ What was the form of particle before
it started to curl?’
The time appears as a period of electron’s action.
I ‘mix bosons with fermions’ (page 105) without using
any supersymmetries.
And I have:
a) In potential state the impulse of particle is h = 0. ( boson)
b) Having Planck’s inner impulse (unit h=1) my
particle moves straight with constant speed c=1. ( photon)
c) Having Goudsmit / Uhlenbeck inner angular impulse
h * = h /2pi. the particle rotates around its diameter.
( electron/ tachyon/ fermion).
Maybe the different conditions of (h) is the key to all
other phenomena.
Maybe this process can explain ‘the dualism of particle.’
Maybe this interpretation can explain where the energy comes from.
Maybe, if the space of my circle curls and changes then we need to
use Riemann geometry .
Maybe, if the speed of the particle is independent and self-contained
then we need to use nonlinear equations.
Maybe . . . . .
Maybe it is time to end now.
I reread my article. It is not bad, not bad for amateur,
who thinks about philosophy of physics for 28 years.
Of course, my interpretation is only scheme. And if
I were a physicist I would make from this scheme a theory:
‘ Elementary particle as a springy circle’.
But as a peasant I can only hope that maybe somebody
from Smolin’s ‘few . . . most talented and accomplished
physicists’ will do it. Who knows? Why do I doubt?
Because I read Smolin’s opinion: ‘ Not that every scientist
is a seeker, most are not.’ (!) Ce la vie !
#
Now I must go to my farm, to my garden.
I want to plant some trees and flowers today.
=.
All the best.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
====================.
==============================…
P.S.
History.
Einstein spent his life trying to construct a ‘unified field theory‘.
He tried to explain electromagnetism using geometry just as he
had done with gravity.
De Broglie and Heisenberg tried to unite different forces
using constants ( h) and ( h*).
The year 2010: particle as a springy circle + ( h) and ( h*) +
+ Riemann geometry + nonlinear equations . . . . ?!?!
P.S.
...the more a subject is understood,
the more briefly it may be explained.
/ Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 /
#
You do not really understand something unless
you can explain it to your grandmother.
/ Albert Einstein /
#
And Rutherford said, if you understand something
you can explain it to barmen woman.
#
And somebody wrote : Of course , if I understand
something I can explain it to my son.
====================================.

socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:13 am

gillyflower wrote:If this comforts you, man, and makes sense to you,
I'm happy for you. We all look at the world and our gods in different ways.
There are many meaning of the word ‘ Religion’.
What is Religion for me?
#
Book ‘ The pushcart prize, III:
Best of the small presses.
From a journey through the land of Israel.
By Pinchas Saden. Pages 132-133 ‘

‘ To be religious, in my terms, means to understand that
life is a parable of which God is the meaning – that is,
to live life as a struggle to make contact with the divine.
. . . .
– in other words, by the drying up of the previously
renewable source of human contact with God.
. . . . . .
There can be no other significance to life beside worshiping Him.
The rest is simple a question of how one understands this worship –
- that is, of how one understands God.
Worshiping God, as the phrase suggests*, has nothing to do with
pleasure or cultural frills. It is work, hard work, like paving a road,
or farming land, or building a house.
In general, I don’t believe that the purpose of life in this world is
to snatch a little pleasure here or there. If it were, we might as
well have been born bedbugs. In whatever we live and do – in our
happiness, our suffering, our love, our hate, our passions,
our thoughts – we must live and do it not just for itself, but as
a parable, as a question, as a war. As work. As worship.
What is man? Man is question. God is answer.
If the answer were available here, in this life, the question
would be unnecessary. The painful tension between the two
gives life its energy.’
=====================. .
/ * In Hebrew the word for ‘ Worship’ avoda,
is the same as the word for ‘ work’. Translator./
========.
Best wishes
Israel Socratus

socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:21 am

No, you would make your string into a hypothesis first, wouldn't you? A theory is an assumption that is widely held, until a better assumption comes along, according to some dictionaries although it is common for people who aren't in the science field to mix the two up. I don't see what your speculation has to do with religion unless this is an explanation of your religion?

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:40 am

I'm still puzzling over how what are stated in both Jewish and Christian scriptures as the Ten Commandments have anything whatsoever to do with physics.

"Thou shalt not steal," for instance, has no relationship whatsoever to any law of physics unless Socratus perceives some sort of arcane connection that completely escapes me.

And why would God give physics laws to a nomadic people who had neither the understanding nor capability to do anything with them?

This simply doesn't make sense, unless as Gilly said it's Socratus's explanation of what s/he finds spiritually meaningful.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by DotNotInOz on Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:45 am

The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.

As for suggesting that parapsychology and meditation can produce demonstrable results, anyone who's done the slightest bit of work with either knows that that is virtually impossible.

"Scientific"? I hardly think so.
avatar
DotNotInOz

Posts : 2795
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : St Louis MO burb

Back to top Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Mon Jan 10, 2011 12:12 pm

DotNotInOz wrote:
The test.
Every theory must be tested logically ( theoretical ) and practically
a) Theory : Dualism of Consciousness: (consciousness / unconsciousness)
b) Practice : Parapsychology. Meditation.

As for suggesting that parapsychology and meditation can produce
demonstrable results, anyone who's done the slightest bit of work
with either knows that that is virtually impossible.

"Scientific"? I hardly think so.
Parapsychology.
#
May 14, 2009. 10:46 am |
Categories: Army and Marines, DarpaWatch, Science!

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/05/pe...telepathy-push/

Pentagon Preps Soldier Telepathy Push.

Forget the battlefield radios, the combat PDAs or even infantry hand signals.
When the soldiers of the future want to communicate, they’ll read each other’s minds.
At least, that’s the hope of researchers at the Pentagon’s mad-science division Darpa.
The agency’s budget for the next fiscal year includes $4 million to start up a program
called Silent Talk.
The goal is to “allow user-to-user communication on the battlefield without the use
of vocalized speech through analysis of neural signals.” That’s on top of the $4
million the Army handed out last year to the University of California to investigate
the potential for computer-mediated telepathy.
Before being vocalized, speech exists as word-specific neural signals in the mind.
Darpa wants to develop technology that would detect these signals of “pre-speech,”
analyze them, and then transmit the statement to an intended interlocutor. Darpa plans
to use EEG to read the brain waves. It’s a technique they’re also testing in a project to
devise mind-reading binoculars that alert soldiers to threats faster the conscious mind
can process them.
The project has three major goals, according to Darpa. First, try to map a person’s
EEG patterns to his or her individual words. Then, see if those patterns are generalizable
— if everyone has similar patterns. Last, “construct a fieldable pre-prototype that would
decode the signal and transmit over a limited range.”
The military has been funding a handful of mind-tapping technology recently, and
already have monkeys capable of telepathic limb control. Telepathy may also have
advantages beyond covert battlefield chatter. Last year, the National Research Council
and the Defense Intelligence Agency released a report suggesting that neuroscience
might also be useful to “make the enemy obey our commands.” The first step, though,
may be getting a grunt to obey his officer’s remotely-transmitted thoughts.
– Katie Drummond and Noah Shachtman

ALSO:
DARPA to Map Monkey Brains
Feds Turn to ‘Brain Music’ to Boost Emergency Worker Performance …
Darpa: Heat + Energy = Brains. Now Make Us Some.
Top Pentagon Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes
Monkey Brain Controls Walking ‘Bot
Pentagon Begins Fake Cat Brain Project
Darpa’s Math Quiz: Model the Brain, Find Biology’s Laws, Solve …
Pentagon’s PCs Bend to Your Brain
Binoculars that Tap the Brain
Army Funds ‘Synthetic Telepathy’ Research
Darpa Wants Brainy Machines to Replace Bored G.I.s
==================================== . .
#
But modern parapsychologists ( as well as ancients wise men )
know to transfer their thoughts without nanotechnological machines.

Books:
1.
Uri.
/ Andrija Puharich /
2.
Geller effect.
/ Guy Lyon Playfair /
3.
Books about Wolf Messing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Messing
4.
Etc.
5.
Maybe it is interesting to now about:
Telekinesis at the quantum level .

http://www.whps.com/misaha/ArticleEngl-4.htm
======= . .
Conclusion.
Our brain , our brain waves, our thought have great potential power.
But we don’t know to use it and turn it into active power.
============= . .



socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:45 pm

You know, you might try conversing with us rather than interact as a lecturer. Have you come looking for a group of people to lecture?

Whatever floats your boat but nothing you've linked to or quoted is anything but speculation. I gather you like to think about the "what might be" of the future rather than have an interest in religion? Why post it in a religious forum? We have other forums on this board that deal with science and pseudoscience.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by sacrificialgoddess on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:52 pm

Um, Soctrates?




_________________
Remember one thing about democracy. We can have anything we want and at the same time, we always end up with exactly what we deserve.

Edward Albee
avatar
sacrificialgoddess
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3199
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Oklahoma

http://kltompkins.wordpress.com/

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:55 pm

"But modern parapsychologists ( as well as ancients wise men )
know to transfer their thoughts without nanotechnological machines."

I would like you to prove this. So far as I have read, no one has been able to prove that anyone can transfer their thoughts.

And Ancient Wise Men? Come on! Prove that all men who are old are wise. Or are you saying that "wise men" in the olden days - and prove to me that there was a culture in this world that called some men "wise men" - were indeed wise and could transfer their thoughts. Could ancient "wise women" do it too or is this something you think only men can do?

Then again some people here probably can read my thoughts right about now. Smile




_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 2:56 pm

sacrificialgoddess wrote:Um, Soctrates?




Exactly!

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by allthegoodnamesweretaken on Mon Jan 10, 2011 5:34 pm

Socrates, your thread starts with a premise that I personally disagree with.

Now, I don't care if you believe in the premise, but I don't, and I don't see your justification of the premise as something that someone would agree with, unless they believed in it already.

I have my won gods, you have yours. We can talk about them, but if you just want to lecture me on how you think your god is, you can blow it out your ass.
avatar
allthegoodnamesweretaken

Posts : 2700
Join date : 2009-04-01
Location : Some where in middle america

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by DeavonReye on Mon Jan 10, 2011 6:39 pm

gillyflower wrote:
sacrificialgoddess wrote:Um, Soctrates?




Exactly!

Ummm. . . . I don't get it. confused
avatar
DeavonReye

Posts : 769
Join date : 2009-06-15
Location : SW MO

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:28 pm

Deavon, it comes from blog postings, I think. TL;DR stands for Too Long:Didn't Read or a TeaL DeeR, picture or words. Whenever anyone's posts go on and on, or they make a habit of doing that, you will see it posted. People who blog have little patience for it.

_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by tmarie64 on Mon Jan 10, 2011 7:48 pm

Socratus, I understand you just fine. Demanding better sources than one that can be edited by any crackpot that runs across the site does NOT mean I don't understand. It MEANS I demand better sources.

_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by DeavonReye on Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:00 pm

gillyflower wrote:Deavon, it comes from blog postings, I think. TL;DR stands for Too Long:Didn't Read or a TeaL DeeR, picture or words. Whenever anyone's posts go on and on, or they make a habit of doing that, you will see it posted. People who blog have little patience for it.

AAAHHHH!!! Got it. Thanks!

As for the posts from this person, I started to read the long posts, but only got so far into his . . . ramblings. . . and decided that they were not worth my time. So the little cute TeaL DeeR is approprate. Smile
avatar
DeavonReye

Posts : 769
Join date : 2009-06-15
Location : SW MO

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by gillyflower on Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:32 pm

tmarie64 wrote:Socratus, I understand you just fine. Demanding better sources than one that can be edited by any crackpot that runs across the site does NOT mean I don't understand. It MEANS I demand better sources.

Actually, in the comparisons that have been run on Wikipedia, it seems to be slightly more accurate than other encyclopedias. For researchers of the college and above level, citing Wikipedia is unexceptable but then so are citations from most general encyclopedias. The real value of Wikipedia at that level (aside from a quickie overview) is the bibliography at the end of the articles. It gives people a quick way to find more scholarly works on the subject.

Wikipedia is invaluable for people who just want a quick overview of a subject or when one wants to provide some basic information. Many of our patrons only want or need that.


_________________
Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones. Marcus Aurelius
avatar
gillyflower
Admin
Admin

Posts : 3400
Join date : 2009-04-01

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by tmarie64 on Mon Jan 10, 2011 8:53 pm

As long as someone is trying to sell me something, a belief, they are going to have to do better than Wiki.


_________________
"Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened."
— Dr. Seuss
avatar
tmarie64
Admin
Admin

Posts : 1903
Join date : 2009-04-02
Location : Richmond, VA

Back to top Go down

God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by socratus on Tue Jan 11, 2011 1:25 am

The God spoke in the darkness: “Let there be light !”
. . . . . . . .
And the God said in the darkness:
Let there be light: and there was light.
So, we must examine three conceptions: God, darkness and light.
1
In the darkness it means in the spacetime of dark mass/ energy.
The spacetime of dark mass/ energy it means in the Vacuum.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of Energy: E= 0.
The Vacuum is the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous Space
of the lowest ( the background ) level of temperature: T= 0K.
2.
The God is hidden into the Infinite/ Eternal Homogeneous
Energy Space and we don’t know that to say about Him/ Her/ It.
But we know, that according to Quantum Physics a virtual
energetic particles can exist in this Infinite/ Eternal
Homogeneous Energy Space.
So, we can suppose that, maybe, from these virtual energetic
particles the God created light/ quantum of light.
3.
So, in the beginning God created the Light.
How did He do it?
The Bible explain us that the God created the light very easy.
God simply said: ‘Let there be light: and there was light.’
And for many years everybody adopted this convincing proof
without any doubt.
Only poor Einstein had doubts. He wrote sadly :
‘ All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me
no nearer to the answer to the question, 'What are light quanta?'
Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it,
but he is mistaken. ‘
But Tom, Dick and Harry laughed.
‘What cannot the old Jew understand?’ they said bewilder.
‘ Isn’t clear that quantum of light is a simply wave-particle,
of course, simultaneously ?’
. . . . .
And now one part of mankind ( Religious part ) believes that
God created the light in very easy way.
And the other part of mankind ( Scientific part ) believes that
the light is the quantum of light which simply has his own
wave-particle abilities, of course, simultaneously.

These two great Mystical beliefs govern on the planet Earth
without understand each other. This is situation that we have now.
===============================.
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik Socratus

==============.

socratus

Posts : 6
Join date : 2011-01-09
Location : Israel

http://www.socratus.com

Back to top Go down

Re: God as a Scientist : Ten Scientific Commandments.

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum