Science - The Amazing Derivitive manifesting The Creator

mubashir55

Dear All

Enjoy this stimulating lecture

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yu2TGmhkNWE&feature=player_embedded

StopS

I enjoyed the first half. It was when he talked about general issues and how humans tend to think and behave.

But then he decided to go into an area where he does not have the necessary knowledge. I wonder why people never speak about the limitations of a tool called the hammer - yet never stop invoking the limitations of another tool science.

Why are religious people so afraid of science? In my eyes it should be dead easy religions cover faith and spiritual, supernatural events and science explains demonstrable facts.

In the lecture he gets almost everything scientific wrong. Hawking is the name and a black hole was first predicted in 1916 by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity. A black hole has nothing to do with Dark Matter or Dark Energy and we don't know the absolute mass, size and density of the Universe which is why there is no accurate prediction as to end of the Universe. Then he mixes up the Big Bang with a black hole and goes into the possible unified theory superstring-theory or M-Theory, mistaking it for string theory and then sees fit to make jokes about the scientific method, which he quite obviously does not understand.

Sad! Yet he tries to mask his ignorance by calling himself a scientist studying science. Because he does not understand science he equates it with chance and presuppositionalism.

He proceeds to deceive people by making some populistic remarks and making a mess of the theory of evolution. Everything after 21 minutes is only absurd and pathetic. When he came to the monkeys I almost cried - with laughter and in a state of total disbelief. How can anyone be so ignorant and uneducated in the 21st century?

I just hope no Muslims believes his rant and takes this stupidity as anything but nonsense. I also hope people will first check everything - even what I am saying.

sytalls

He's clearly a molecular biologist, so he simply doesn't understand physics. When he was staying within his realm of science, he made some excellent points and presented his ideas clearly.

If he had formally studied physics, he wouldn't have had to come to his own conclusions that there is no truly unbiased way of approaching a hypothesis or theory. He would have learned early on, in quantum mechanics classes, that the observer and the observed cannot be separated. Heisenberg is interesting on this, in theorizing that classical pathways don't even come into existence until we observe them.

With that said, I do agree with the speaker's overall point about how people tend to take "science" as a form of religion, without even knowing that's what they're doing. For instance, outside the scientific world, a lot of people "believe" in gravity and have no problem saying so, yet they can't accurately say what gravity is. They usually go right to Newton's definition of gravity, and they're surprised to hear that this is "old science." Accurate enough to be used in the everyday world, but it's definitely been upstaged by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

I am not among those who think that God is Good/science is bad. On the contrary, I think God has allowed our knowledge to advance and given us conveniences as a result of the knowledge we've acquired. We don't understand quantum mechanics, but we make good use of what has been discovered mathematically and experimentally. Science (all branches) has become our "magic" of today, and it's a test...we can put our faith in our magic or we can know that it is only a convenience to use for a time. And no matter what we do or try, ultimately, God has the final say. He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.

StopS

He's clearly a molecular biologist, so he simply doesn't understand physics. When he was staying within his realm of science, he made some excellent points and presented his ideas clearly.

You can't be serious. Someone who has studied anything remotely scientific should understand science and the scientific method. He does not.
Someone studying biology should understand evolution and abiogenesis. This guy does not.
If my field is biology, I would make sure I know what I am talking about when speaking on other topics. This guy does not.

With that said, I do agree with the speaker's overall point about how people tend to take "science" as a form of religion, without even knowing that's what they're doing. For instance, outside the scientific world, a lot of people "believe" in gravity and have no problem saying so, yet they can't accurately say what gravity is. They usually go right to Newton's definition of gravity, and they're surprised to hear that this is "old science." Accurate enough to be used in the everyday world, but it's definitely been upstaged by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

There is a difference between empirical beliefs (gravity, sun coming up, ...) and the scientifically accurate definitions, where there is no room for belief. No! Newton's laws are not old and are as valid today as they were 200 years ago. Earth, Universe, particles are just different entities requiring different definitions. There no "upstaging" at all. And no religious feeling or approach. Oh dear, what a silly idea.

I am not among those who think that God is Good/science is bad. On the contrary, I think God has allowed our knowledge to advance and given us conveniences as a result of the knowledge we've acquired. We don't understand quantum mechanics, but we make good use of what has been discovered mathematically and experimentally. Science (all branches) has become our "magic" of today, and it's a test...we can put our faith in our magic or we can know that it is only a convenience to use for a time. And no matter what we do or try, ultimately, God has the final say. He is the Guardian and Disposer of all affairs.

Science is the complete opposite of magic. It is rational and is not dependant on tricks or the sleight of hand.

Science has no opinion of any gods or religious claims. It is based on facts. Religion is based on faith. Mutually incompatible, which is why I never understand why theists are so keen to drag their books under the spotlight of science.

mohf

StopS

It seems like you're confusing different pieces of information, and your failing to grasp the holistic paradigm which mr Rajablai shares. Furthermore, the ideas mr Rajabali shares are rational, and, imo, correct.

One more thing, you fail to discuss any of the ideas he actually shared, and put them to a rational test. You're just attempting to attack his credentials as a scientist, and questioning his correctness in a pathetic attempt to undermine his credibility. This only reveals your bias, and is telling about your ability to open up to a different point of view, and comprehend other peoples opinion.

In short, get your story straight. And next time, make some effort to understand the other point of view.

StopS

StopS

It seems like you're confusing different pieces of information, and your failing to grasp the holistic paradigm which mr Rajablai shares. Furthermore, the ideas mr Rajabali shares are rational, and, imo, correct.

Nope. Look again! If there is something correct in which he says, why don't you bring it up and we can all see if you are right. Like humans evolving from monkeys rotfl

One more thing, you fail to discuss any of the ideas he actually shared, and put them to a rational test. You're just attempting to attack his credentials as a scientist, and questioning his correctness in a pathetic attempt to undermine his credibility. This only reveals your bias, and is telling about your ability to open up to a different point of view, and comprehend other peoples opinion.

Wrong! I address specific issues, such as the understanding of the scientific method, gravity, Newton's laws, but NEVER, not once mention his credentials. So either you are mistaken or intentionally lying.

In short, get your story straight. And next time, make some effort to understand the other point of view.

Look, this is incredibly easy show me something that is accurate and correct in his speech and prove me wrong or shut up. Offering insults instead of valid arguments is a sign of intellectual defeat.

mohf

Nope. Look again! If there is something correct in which he says, why don't you bring it up and we can all see if you are right. Like humans evolving from monkeys rotfl

"Say Produce your proof, if you are truthful."

StopS

"Say Produce your proof, if you are truthful."

That's what he says. So bring it on.

mohf

Like humans evolving from monkeys rotfl

You are claiming here very clearly that he stated that humans evolved from monkeys. I call that bullshit. He said it in minute 31 as in reciting what other said. He never claimed it himself. You just proved youself that you are ignorant, biased and incapable of comprehending langustic expressions.

sytalls

My oh my, StopS, you do like to bait, don't you?

The definition of gravity has changed since Newton's time, and most people do not know that. While the mathematical laws are definitely still used (and I said so), they are outdated when it comes to how we "view" gravity since Einstein.

While I agree the speaker shouldn't address physics until he knows more about what he's talking about, I don't see how that had anything to do with methodology. He got his names and facts wrong by overreaching. As for evolution, the biologists seem to enjoy tinkering around with that. Other than a mild curiosity, it doesn't really hold much interest for me, and it's not my area of expertise.

Please note that I put "magic" in quotation marks. I do so because I'm not so sure that what was seen as magic, long ago, might not have been better scientific understanding by those deemed magicians. If a particle physicist could travel back in time and talk to Isaac Newton, the former might accuse the latter of believing in fairy tales. Given the level of technology in Newton's time, it would be impossible to recreate lab situations to support theories in quantum mechanics.

StopS

You are claiming here very clearly that he stated that humans evolved from monkeys. I call that bullshit. He said it in minute 31 as in reciting what other said. He never claimed it himself. You just proved youself that you are ignorant, biased and incapable of comprehending langustic expressions.

Well, I suggest you go and listen again to what he says. He does not "recite" anywhere. He says verbatim

"The proof of intelligence is in the DNA.
One of the proofs of intelligence is language.
See, we're intelligent beings. In fact, when they did studies on monkeys and apes, they found out how intelligent are the apes.
How did we come from them?
What's that missing link between us?"

So, no, he does not quote and say "this is what they found in a study How did we...."
No, he said it all by himself. I would challenge anyone to bring a study on how humans come from apes or monkeys. Only uneducated bigots would look into that. The same goes for a "missing link" between apes and humans". Oh boy, when will this idiocy stop?

And again you fail at providing some positive and constructive input show me something that is accurate and correct in his speech.
All you can do is criticize and whine.

Anything else you need to find that is outright wrong and idiotic in this rant of his?

StopS

My oh my, StopS, you do like to bait, don't you?

The definition of gravity has changed since Newton's time, and most people do not know that. While the mathematical laws are definitely still used (and I said so), they are outdated when it comes to how we "view" gravity since Einstein.

While I agree the speaker shouldn't address physics until he knows more about what he's talking about, I don't see how that had anything to do with methodology. He got his names and facts wrong by overreaching. As for evolution, the biologists seem to enjoy tinkering around with that. Other than a mild curiosity, it doesn't really hold much interest for me, and it's not my area of expertise.

Please note that I put "magic" in quotation marks. I do so because I'm not so sure that what was seen as magic, long ago, might not have been better scientific understanding by those deemed magicians. If a particle physicist could travel back in time and talk to Isaac Newton, the former might accuse the latter of believing in fairy tales. Given the level of technology in Newton's time, it would be impossible to recreate lab situations to support theories in quantum mechanics.

Oh dear, no, the definition of gravity has not changed. We have added information and knowledge, which is why the definition of gravity has been enhanced.

Again no! We "view" gravity the same way we did at the time of Newton. Newton explained gravity here on Earth and this is still as correct as the day he defined it.
What he could not do is define gravity on a large scale in the Universe. That is where Einstein came in. But his theories don't apply and break down when it comes to cosmogony, black holes or the very small. That's why we have Quantum level physics and we don't have anything for black holes yet.

And another very definitive and huge NO! Biologists, or rather evolutionary biologists are NOT I repeat NOT "tinkering" with evolution! Evolution happens and continues regardless of whether we are able to provide the correct explanation.

"The speaker" as you so kindly and generously call him, gets EVERYTHING wrong. There is nothing correct in the later 20 minutes of his speech. Nothing that I heard was correct. If someone provides a transcript I'm happy to go through it line by line and point out what the errors are and why they are wrong.

sytalls

The definition of gravity is not merely "enhanced," it changed with the General Theory of Relativity. Newton's law of gravity deals with a gravitational force, and it's "close enough for government work," even the governmental work of launching something into space. However, it most definitely differs from the way General Relativity describes gravity.

You don't need to tell me what quantum mechanics are used for. I've taken my steps on the Heaviside...and beyond.

StopS

The definition of gravity is not merely "enhanced," it changed with the General Theory of Relativity. Newton's law of gravity deals with a gravitational force, and it's "close enough for government work," even the governmental work of launching something into space. However, it most definitely differs from the way General Relativity describes gravity.

You don't need to tell me what quantum mechanics are used for. I've taken my steps on the Heaviside...and beyond.

Are we splitting hairs here or where is the problem?

"Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

Has this been shown to be wrong or valid? Has this been changed?

If you go to Wikipedia you get the formula for this

F = G \frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2}\ ,

where

F is the force between the masses,
G is the gravitational constant,
m1 is the first mass,
m2 is the second mass, and
r is the distance between the centers of the masses.

Is this still valid here on this planet?

I agree with you that this breaks down with larger masses, distances and precise timing. So what has changed is the calculation basis when dealing with processes and objects outside of our immediate planet. That's where we need the calculations based on Einstein's general theory. So how has Einstein changed the definition of gravity here on Earth?

sytalls

We're not splitting hairs.

Newton's law does not "break down" with larger masses. You can use it all the way to the ort cloud if you want. The problem is accuracy in predicted outcomes or measurements, as well as with too much being unexplained in terms of identifying the actual force.

You don't need to quote Wikistuff to tell me a law that is part of my DNA (mixing bio and physics again). To clarify that definition a little more...the force of gravity between two masses is directly proportional to the product of the masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them, multiplied times G (a gravitational constant). The acceleration of any object due to the force of gravity is 9.8 m/s(2). In the fundamental equation of F=ma, you get F=mg (g is the acceleration due to gravity).

I'm telling you that to save you some time in looking things up.

These equations and the more complicated versions that take into account other forces and relative positions and all...they are still used. I've said so all along. Classical mechanics is alive and well and in use and certainly has its honored place among laws that we definitely still rely on.

But, yes, to answer your question, the way we define gravity did change with General Relativity, where gravity is an outcome or consequence of the curve of space-time and our perceptions of what we feel as a "force." Newton could not explain where this force came from. He could measure it, use it and develop a law, but he couldn't fully explain what it was the way he could with other forces--in terms of mass, momentum, energy and so on.

Those physicists seeking to continue Einstein's work and find a unified field theory (to connect relativity and quantum physics) want to find the graviton, which is a theoretical particle. And this is where string theory comes in, as part of the effort of trying to develop a theory for quantum gravity.

If you want to hang a swing from a tree, you're fine using Newton's law of gravity to determine how strong the branch and rope need to be, so that you don't fall to the ground as you swing to and fro. But if you want to give an accurate definition of gravity, then you can't stop with Newton's equation, because it is incomplete in saying what the force of gravity actually is.

And this is what I was saying before...people think that's there is some unseen force, which they call "gravity," which is keeping their feet planted on the ground. They accept it, because they perceive their world that way and somebody told them, "You are being held to the earth by the force of gravity." They accept it because it's good enough for them; it works for them. The scientific mind can't accept it, because there is something unexplained...and that just won't do.

StopS