Can Science be my religion?

[koti]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

This should mean there is some space where time does not pass.

 

Not at all. This just means, like strange already explained that there is no universal now, now is relative and its a measured property of time, not something to do with perception. Time runs differently for different observers, this doesn’t mean that time doesn’t pass for some observers or it stops.

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Could the occurrence of an event in nature be impacted by the observation?

Not really...it depends how you define „observation” If by observation you mean perception then no. If by observation you mean applying electromagnetic radiation onto a subject (turning your lamp on to see whats is the room) then yes. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by koti

[Strange]

40 minutes ago, Lasse said:

This should mean there is some space where time does not pass.

It doesn't imply that. Just because people disagree on "now" doesn't mean that time stops.

40 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I agree. But the perception of time not supposed to impact the nature of time. It will pass regardless the observation or the circumstances of the event. The rate of passing is a different issue.

It is not about "perception". The rate of time is seen to pass differently by different observers.

40 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Or is it a physical condition where time do not pass?

At the boundary of an black hole, time dilation becomes infinite so no time would pass as seen by a distant observer. Someone falling into the black hole would not notice any change to time, though.

Quote

Could the occurrence of an event in nature be impacted by the observation?

That is a completely different thing. Nothing to do with time ore relativity. But there is the quantum Zeno effect, where the state of system won't change if measured.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_Zeno_effect

And, more generally, any attempt to measure something will change the thing being measured: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)

(But, again, nothing to do with relativity. And why are you asking these questions in a thread on religion. Start a thread in physics if you want to ask questions like this.)

Edited April 10, 2018 by Strange

[koti]

@Lasse, could it be that you are confusing  faith with trust? From what you wrote so far it is pretty apparent that you have certain scientific knowledge and that you believe that science, based on its previous success will bring results in the future. This line of thought is trust in results - not belief or faith. The use of the the word „believe” in my previous sentence is equivalent with trust in this context. Considering that your English is somewhat lacking, could it be that this whole disagreement is semantical?

[Lasse]

18 minutes ago, koti said:

@Lasse, could it be that you are confusing  faith with trust? From what you wrote so far it is pretty apparent that you have certain scientific knowledge and that you believe that science, based on its previous success will bring results in the future. This line of thought is trust in results - not belief or faith. The use of the the word „believe” in my previous sentence is equivalent with trust in this context. Considering that your English is somewhat lacking, could it be that this whole disagreement is semantical?

Interesting question.

I think my faith is built on trust earned by proof.

You might be right with the language barrier. 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I think my faith is built on trust earned by proof.

Then your faith is not faith, its trust like I suspected. Trust earned by proof like you phrase it is the very definition of science. Science is in direct contradiction to faith which is based on blind, baseless belief that pink unicorns will glaze you with rainbows next Sunday. 

[Lasse]

As much evidence I see so deep my trust gets giving my faith that it is right.

By that I am sensible on unclear/blur explanations. I think Einstein is Right. 

I think entity with an expansion rate of c2 (almost infinite) has to exist. Must be space. We can perceive anything in it independent from the relativity of the observer.

Check it from the Universes point of view. I.e. which part of it we should not speak about....or we do not understand.. .our recognition is fundamentally related to our perception...

22 minutes ago, koti said:

Then your faith is not faith, its trust like I suspected. Trust earned by proof like you phrase it is the very definition of science. Science is in direct contradiction to faith which is based on blind, baseless belief that pink unicorns will glaze you with rainbows next Sunday. 

This pink unicorn you repeatedly refer to once you have to show me..

So I can know that the conclusion you made, that there is One, is based on reality (1) or it is just Zero (moment of observation in spacetime) which you try to make One.

And if you anyway made the recognition (imagined it) isn't it became one pack of information? You can refer to it and I can imagine.

Can you delete absolutely the information from your brain so its value can became 0 as it is in reality?

Edited April 10, 2018 by Lasse

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Lasse said:

I.e. Now is now everywhere regardless of the physical circumstances.

That's a tautology so it really doesn't have much value.

[Lasse]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

That's a tautology so it really doesn't have much value.

I agree.

I can believe in whatever i like to but that is not Faith. Faith needs Evidence and evidence earned Trust.

[swansont]

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I agree.

I can believe in whatever i like to but that is not Faith. Faith needs Evidence and evidence earned Trust.

No, faith does not need evidence. That's what makes it religion.

[Lasse]

26 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, faith does not need evidence. That's what makes it religion.

Everything is evidence. The question is do I understand every part of it and do I have to deny absolutely the unknown parts existence if I do not know just sense? Like the Future.

Until that everyone can believe what they want, Related to how much they know and understand.

Since everything is relative.

Does relativity is incuding that everything is related to something?

Isn't that fundamentally would be Space and Time...?

Edited April 10, 2018 by Lasse

[dimreepr]

20 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Everything is evidence. The question is do I understand every part of it and do I have to deny absolutely the unknown parts existence if I do not know just sense? Like the Future.

How can you have evidence of the unknown/unknowable?

[Lasse]

If i never can touch space and time isnt it than a physical reality based observable, measurable sense...information...

[dimreepr]

4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

If i never can touch space and time isnt it than a physical reality based observable, measurable sense...information...

That's another one that doesn't parse, please take more care to make sense.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Everything is evidence. The question is do I understand every part of it and do I have to deny absolutely the unknown parts existence if I do not know just sense? Like the Future.

No, everything is not evidence.

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Until that everyone can believe what they want, Related to how much they know and understand.

Since everything is relative.

Does relativity is incuding that everything is related to something?

That's not what relativity means in physics.

 

[Lasse]

33 minutes ago, swansont said:

No, everything is not evidence.

That's not what relativity means in physics.

 

What has got no information?

How information from Nature can be false and by that not an evidence?

 

Could we say that everything is related to something and by that relativ to everything else.

Does relativity exclude or include to be relative in proportion to something (e.q: mass)

Edited April 10, 2018 by Lasse

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Lasse said:

Since everything is relative.

Not everything is relative. 

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

What has got no information?

How information from Nature can be false and by that not an evidence?

 

You are confusing 'information' and 'evidence'.

Information stands alone. Evidence is information (or data) that supports the validity of what you are asserting.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

What has got no information?

How information from Nature can be false and by that not an evidence?

If I, for example, yell out loud and something blows up, that is not evidence that I cause the explosion. To be counted as evidence you have to be able to eliminate alternative explanations for a phenomenon.

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Could we say that everything is related to something and by that relativ to everything else.

Does relativity exclude or include to be relative in proportion to something (e.q: mass)

Relativity basically says that certain measurements are not absolute. They depend on the frame of reference you are in. We don't measure time, or length, the same if we are in different frames of reference. Time and length are relative.

[iNow]

9 hours ago, Lasse said:

True. So:

"I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"?

I am not able to even imagine, that there would be a space in the Universe where time would not relate to the physical circumstances it is measured in.

Or 

I can not imagine that there would be space in the universe where we would not be able to measure time. i.e. In every point of space in the universe time is passing even it is related to the physical circumstances it is measured in.

What I tried to nudge:

There can not be space in the Universe where Time could absolutely stop, and we would not be able to measure it somehow (regardless from its nature being relative everywhere).

Thank you for your clarification. I am sympathetic to this view. You may have noticed my username, iNow. This is an abbreviation of the original, infiniteNow. I've learned a lot since choosing that username, but my point is that I can relate to where you're coming from.

A few things I've learned:

1 - Despite our perceptions, "now" is not infinite. 

2 - Different observers experience time differently, and this includes the present moment. There is no universal or infinite now, even though our tiny human brains feel like there should be (nature is under no obligation to align with our feelings of common sense).

3 - Time cannot absolutely stop. The closest you might get is to a photon which travels at the speed of light. If that photon stopped, so would it's time, but photons don't stop. By definition, they travel at the speed of light. They don't have a valid reference frame for measurement because they are never at rest (and being at rest is required for a valid reference frame in this situation). There is no where in the universe that time could absolutely stop, even though this runs against our horrible human common sense.

Anyway... others here have already addressed this, and frankly most of them are far better versed on this material than me. I do want to thank you for clarifying your comments, though, and did want to share that I'm sympathetic to your views... even though they're misguided.

[Lasse]

1.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Despite our perceptions, "now" is not infinite. 

True.

If there can be a common moment of now than the universe is finite and has limitations.

2.

2 hours ago, iNow said:

Different observers experience time differently,

True,

2 hours ago, iNow said:

this includes the present moment. 

true

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There is no universal now,

This I would question because this would indicate that time does not pass somewhere.

"There is no infinite now"

True.

That would be finite now and time passes everywhere.

Evolution towards infinity. A potential maybe. There is a very strict balance between energy matter and space(time).

Information can travel 13.8 billion years...

What we relatively perceive.

There is Nature, there is Reality right? 

Time is a continuum. How could be somewhere in space that time does not pass? Infinity would indicate that but than should be applied over the whole system. There are no signs of infinity.

The uncertainty principle feels a bit missguiding. 

2 hours ago, iNow said:

even though our tiny human brains feel like there should be (nature is under no obligation to align with our feelings of common sense

True.

 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Lasse

[iNow]

16 minutes ago, Lasse said:

How could be somewhere in space that time does not pass?

Everybody here seems to already agree: There isn't

17 minutes ago, Lasse said:

The uncertainty principle feels a bit missguiding. 

And fortunately is not relevant here in this context

[Lasse]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

There is no infinite now,

True

If this is true then there has to be an universal very big but finite Now.

 

I am kind of releived reading your words iNow.

 

[zapatos]

30 minutes ago, Lasse said:

 

If this is true then there has to be an universal very big but finite Now.

Based on what scientific principle?

[Lasse]

Logic and signs of application.

[zapatos]

Would you mind walking me through the logic and signs of application?