Purephysics

I wasn't aware it was from Gilgamesh, though it is hardly surprising given that a number of religion stories are simply borrowed from other traditions and religions. Though the flood wasn't one of the key topics in the Blog.

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible. My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one. It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world. Instead of creating ridiculously long posts here and in other places I decided to disseminate my idea via a blog, which can [not] be found at url removed In which I post under the pseudonym "Alexander Black" or as it may turn into "Alexander The Atheist". Currently I have Blogs for Genesis 1:1-2 (TAANIG pt.1 & 2), but my next outing will likely see Gen 1:3-7 treated under the same critical analysis. I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

Recently I started an evaluation of the first book in the Bible. My aim was to test, in its own terms, what the Genesis says about the creation of the world in real terms - not, as is so often the case, as an exhaustive comparison to science. I wanted to try and understand the Bible (or at least this part of it) in a historical context not a religious one. It is my opinion that no one can make a really objective evaluation of the Bible if they approach it as a religious text, it must be approached as a factual one - at least factual at the time it was written. Genesis can be traced back to the 10th century BCE and as such constitutes a primitive view and attempted explanation of the world. Instead of creating ridiculously long posts here and in other places I decided to disseminate my idea via a blog, which can be found at a website the Mods blocked because it violates our "no advertising rules In which I post under the pseudonym "Alexander Black" or as it may turn into "Alexander The Atheist". Currently I have Blogs for Genesis 1:1-2 (TAANIG pt.1 & 2), but my next outing will likely see Gen 1:3-7 treated under the same critical analysis. I would be very interested in feedback and other ideas.

That's just what I was thinking, and alluded too as well.

You make some interesting (if not slightly odd) assumptions in this; primarily you appear to have attempted to mix relativistic physics (speed of light, Einstein's Relativity) with quantum mechanics (sub-atomic particles). This quandary has been the subject of much research for some considerable time - the search for the theory of everything, currently, I believe, being lead by Superstring theory. You have managed to simplify it so (as you believe) because you have not given the subject a rigorous enough treatment. In this you have also not provided any mathematical models of proofs for your assumptions. Currently, this is conjecture at best. ^^ This doesn't make an logical sense. You've poked a hole in something but unfortunately haven't really provided any form of justification, a "because..." to answer your problem. I'd suggest a little more study into either of the fields would be greatly beneficial.

I would have to agree here. No one can see into the future, technology is advancing, we a discovering new things all the time. Look at Graphene, what an amazing substance, no one could have predicted that 100 years ago. I think "warp speed" or "hyper drives" or whatever you want to call them are a distinct possibility, we have the theory we just don't have the means to do it right now.

The speed of light in a vacuum is 299,792,458 m/s. (300,000 km/s) According to SR; c is the maximum speed at which all matter, energy, and information can travel. The rate at which light can propergate through a transparent material is less than c. The ratio between c and the speed v at which light travels in a material is the 'refractive index' n. Of the material: n=c/v For visible light through glass the value of n is about 1.5. therfore, light through glass travels as c/1.5 = 200,000 km/s.

You're absolutely right, I meant in the way that light acts as both particle and wave. I beleive I'm right in saying that with respect to red shift and the doppler effect, we are viewing light as a wave not a particle.

Hey all, Some of you may have read my previous posts about attaining an education in physics. I had to put things on hold for a bit; moving, new baby, new job, you know the deal. I'm back and looking for some good introductory reading in physics to get the brain box buzzing again. I'm currently reading "The Elegant Universe" and "A Brief History of Time", supplementing with "Explaining Physics" by Stephen Pople. I've been recommended the "Feynman Lectures" as a start and good grounding and feelings on that would be much appreciated, as would any other suggestions. (nothing too academic or advanced as I am still learning and found such works as "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose to be very math heavy and poorly explained)

the speed of light © is indeed a physical constant (given the correct parametres). the doppler effect is to do with the frequency of light, not its speed (wave-partucle duality) in relation to the observer. SR is not sonething i feel can be conpressed into a post. probably wiki that one. ;-)

you know that all makes perfect sense. But I am now considering a different and more accurate train of thought; an ability cannot be tested if that person does not have the necessary tools. Therefore I must learnt the skills before I can test if I have natural ability in them, or not. (if good memory is a prerequisite then I should be ok with that). there are some very interesting points here in this discussion though. and certainly some pause for thought.

Aha, thank you for clearing that up. I thought I'd over looked something a bit

According to E=Mc^2 and general relativity theory; yes - As an objects velocity increases so does its mass, and thanks to newtons use of the inverse square law in his gravitational equation, we can conclude that a greater mass means greater gravitational force. Thus a greater warping of spacetime.

That's what I though. (not in so many words). People are born with a natural interest but not natural "abilities". if you have a natural interest and passion in an area then you can succeed in that area because you wil spend more time learning about that area. I've always liked math and science, but unfortunately in the former I had terribly boring teacher after terribly boring teacher, thus I never succeeded, they killed my enjoyment in the subject. And no matter how much you like sonething, if someone makes its boring, your study will suffer for it.

how would you define what you call a "minimum affinity" in math/logic? because math is a man made concept, therefore it is not something anyone is born with the ability to do. (I happen to know a mathematics teacher and a geophysicist that would agree) also I know someone who was an engineer for 40 something years, he confessed to me recently that when he started he was terrible at math, and it took him two years at nightschool to get up to standard. But he. did get there with practise and hard work. I'm not trying to say you are wrong, but maybe a more in-depth exposure of your thinking?

So essentially, physics is as difficult as you perceive it to be dependent on your level of interest in the subject. i guess the main worry id say i have is the math, it really isnt my strong point :-/

a friend if mine recently asked me this as he knew my plan to read physics at uni, having not started yet i couldnt really answer. So for some clarity, how hard/tough is physics to study for someone with no special natural abilities in math or science?

The idea of "validation" IS external scrutiny. Logic is proven, it is not fact just because you believe it to be. That would be religion, not science. (The two do not mix, no matter what anyone says.) Because YOU believe (there's that word again) that you have provided enough data for YOU to understand it. Doesn't catagorically mean you have provided enough data atall. It just means you can understand your concept, considering you wrote it, that's pretty much a given. "rigorous" means mathematical (SiC) and it's relation to physics. Which is a very mathematical science. This is not up for 'interpretation' either, it has been proven over hundreds of years of mathematics and physics. "Mathematical rigour can refer both to rigorous methods of mathematical proof and to rigorous methods of mathematical practice" (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigour#section_2) Nobody is questioning your intellect, we are only questioning your theory. Which is what happens in science. Science is the questioning of everything in search of fact and how to define it. Also be careful about stating your "above average IQ" this doesn't make you look as smart as you claim. A 'record of achievement' means exactly dick in this context. This ins'nt a job interview. It also doesn't make a good argument for the proof of your theory, it means nothing in relation to your theory. You can quote all the practice, degrees, PhD's, and Blue Ribbons you like, if your theory is tested to be wrong, it's wrong. Likewise if it's right, it's right. ~~ If you wish to form a credible argument, get your theory tested, experiments prove theories. That is the nature of science, ans particularly the nature of physics. Everythif has to be tested, and thus proved right or wrong. Even if you are wrong, at least you tried, at least you had the balls to throw it up for testing, and more than anything else; at least you can learn something from it.

So has the notion of attaining extraordinary speeds been left behind then?

That video seems to take almost every quote out of context. And thus, can create whatever context the creator (of the video) wishes to fit the quotes into. Religious ideology seems to be more and more encroaching on scientific territory these days, like it wants a peice of the action or something. A magazine called "Awake" dropped on my doormat just the other day, out of curiosity I decided to read it, (it was a Christian publication) but it had a large section on cosmology, which it dealt with in quite a scientific manner. Unfortunately it decided to quantify the entire scientific article in the end, by relating it to a passage in the bible; the reason for all the cosmological phenomena observed was down to God. The problem here exists in the interpretation of science by religeon and vice versa. This is due I feel to the fundamental differences in science and religeon. Science is about fact, and this about questioning everything. To seek the truth you just question all that you can observe. Religion is about belief, an unquestioning belief. To be a true believer you must never question what you are told.

You must understand that if you have a new theory, or you think you have a new theory, you are going to receive opposition. This is not a personal attack, (most of the time) so don't take it as such. No theory is apodictically true. Each is a model that must be checked by experiment. And there after either proved wrong or right. (look up: Michelson-Morley experiment) To check something experimentally in physics you need the correct application of math, that is how we quantify in physics. If this all seems too much I suggest you read this; http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html