Mixing God with Science

[Aristarchus in Exile]

The bible says God is clothed with light (Psalm 102:4.)

 

Photons are therefore a curiousity for me, and in the physics forum I found this.

 

"Actually matter can be made from light. Using the mass example can be overcome. Other examples such as charge can also be overcome.

 

Some scientists have suggested all matter is made from light, and there being experimental evidence when a particle and an antiparticle of the same family comes together ''somehow'' knocks the photons out of what ever substructure they create."

 

Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon?

[John Cuthber]

"Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon? "

Define God.

I have heard that "God is everywhere", on the other hand my personal belief is that He's only in peoples' imagination.

[swansont]

The bible says God is clothed with light (Psalm 102:4.)

 

Photons are therefore a curiousity for me, and in the physics forum I found this.

 

"Actually matter can be made from light. Using the mass example can be overcome. Other examples such as charge can also be overcome.

 

Some scientists have suggested all matter is made from light, and there being experimental evidence when a particle and an antiparticle of the same family comes together ''somehow'' knocks the photons out of what ever substructure they create."

 

"Suggested" is not the same as "generally accepted to be true". You'll note that the claim that matter can be made of light was not substantiated.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

"Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon? "

Define God.

I have heard that "God is everywhere", on the other hand my personal belief is that He's only in peoples' imagination.

 

Definition of God .. "God is Love," found in several places in the bible including John 4:8.

 

Can I justify God allowing this or that or the other thing on earth? No, other than to say God's decisions are just.

 

"Suggested" is not the same as "generally accepted to be true". You'll note that the claim that matter can be made of light was not substantiated.

 

It seems elementary because photons are energy, and there appears to be what I have heard described as phase transistions in which energy is changed to matter .. but not being a physicist I only have glimpses of what these things mean.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Appolinaria]

Yes, but in my opinion, the "light" and photons from the sun are two different things.

 

 

God first created light and darkness... then on the fourth day he created the sun and stars. So I think there is a difference between the word "light" in the Bible, and what we call light. The Bible says the sun and stars are given to Earth so we can identify the difference between the eternal light & darkness... so a photon would be a way of identifying this "light" god created on the first day..

 

 

I have been thinking about this so much lately. I really think there is a super particle that permeates everything and brings consciousness to it all... a super observer.... solidifying our existence as opposed to a state of infinite possibilities. It travels faster than the speed of light, allowing it to observe from the future, creating the present.

 

 

What if the radiation from the sun created photons, emitting from it at the speed of light. but I think there is some kind of particle, traveling faster than the speed of light... also a product of radiation...

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Yes, but in my opinion, the "light" and photons from the sun are two different things.

 

 

God first created light and darkness... then on the fourth day he created the sun and stars. So I think there is a difference between the word "light" in the Bible, and what we call light. The Bible says the sun and stars are given to Earth so we can identify the difference between the eternal light & darkness... so a photon would be a way of identifying this "light" god created on the first day..

 

 

I have been thinking about this so much lately. I really think there is a super particle that permeates everything and brings consciousness to it all... a super observer.... solidifying our existence as opposed to a state of infinite possibilities. It travels faster than the speed of light, allowing it to observe from the future, creating the present.

 

 

What if the radiation from the sun created photons, emitting from it at the speed of light. but I think there is some kind of particle, traveling faster than the speed of light... also a product of radiation...

 

I've had the same thoughts about the super particle, and it appears that's what the particle accelerators are seeking, but I've also had a thought that speed is irrelevant, as proposed in non-locality action at a distance, in which everything is already connected as if space and time do not exist, and of course God has that kind of power.

[Appolinaria]

first God created the possibility of light, then the sun to define it… the sun creates photons and all of their possible paths, but we define it.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Iggy]

Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon?

Definition of God .. "God is Love,"

Photons are elementary particles in the standard model. They aren't made of love or any constituent parts capable of expressing or feeling love or any other emotion.

 

...not being a physicist I only have glimpses of what these things mean.

I'm also not a physicist, but I know something about science that might be helpful with your idea of mixing God with science.

 

Science works by comparing predictions to reality. If the prediction is wrong then the model responsible for the prediction is wrong.

 

You would ask "what if God were in a photon?" or "what if love were the property of photons?". What predictions can you make from that assumption? A loving entity would try to do good and avoid doing harm to others. A photon that lands on a person whether they have a sunburn or not is indifferent.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Photons are elementary particles in the standard model. They aren't made of love or any constituent parts capable of expressing or feeling love or any other emotion.

 

 

I'm also not a physicist, but I know something about science that might be helpful with your idea of mixing God with science.

 

Science works by comparing predictions to reality. If the prediction is wrong then the model responsible for the prediction is wrong.

 

You would ask "what if God were in a photon?" or "what if love were the property of photons?". What predictions can you make from that assumption? A loving entity would try to do good and avoid doing harm to others. A photon that lands on a person whether they have a sunburn or not is indifferent.

 

Uness there is a possibility that questions can be considered presumptions I made no assumption, I asked a question. I will ramble. There is science, and false science. The bible speaks of "science falsely so called." 1 Timothy 6:20 In my opinion, because we cannot have perfect knowledge of science while on this planet any science which sets itself as 'absolute fact' is false science, as there are uncountable clear and huge examples of scientific fact having been proven false. I consider consensus a false god because those of the consensus conspire to agree that it is fact, and often punish those who disagree. A photon cannot do harm any more than alcohol can do harm, but overexposure may do harm, although I don't know if overexposure to photons can do harm (unless applied directly to the optic instruments giving sight) although overexposure to other forms of radiation does do harm. Will God do harm? God does punish evildoers if they continue long in their evil .. this is called justice and judgement, and applies especially to those who knowlingly abuse the grace of God, Christians who are christians because they believe in the grace of Jesus Christ. As the scripture says 'God is clothed with light as a garment' it is clear that light is a garment and not God, so I have become clearer on that. You lose my understanding with your phrasings involving the word 'prediction' and 'models.'

[Iggy]

Uness there is a possibility that questions can be considered presumptions I made no assumption, I asked a question.

 

You don't understand what I said. I explained how you can use science to answer your own question.

 

May I ask, have you ever had a class in science -- maybe in high school?

 

There is science, and false science.... any science which sets itself as 'absolute fact' is false science, as there are uncountable clear and huge examples of scientific fact having been proven false.

 

There is a difference between non-science and incorrect science. Astrology, for example, is non-science or pseudo science. Kepler's laws are not exactly correct but are scientific.

 

The difference has to do with the scientific method. Are you familiar with the scientific method? I have a feeling you are not because you misunderstood what I meant about testing an assumption.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

You don't understand what I said. I explained how you can use science to answer your own question.

 

May I ask, have you ever had a class in science -- maybe in high school?

 

 

 

There is a difference between non-science and incorrect science. Astrology, for example, is non-science or pseudo science. Kepler's laws are not exactly correct but are scientific.

 

The difference has to do with the scientific method. Are you familiar with the scientific method? I have a feeling you are not because you misunderstood what I meant about testing an assumption.

 

In grade nine science I scored 100 percent without making a note through the school year.

 

I think pseudo science is when theories (the big bang, the speed of light being constant and inalienable) are considered facts.

 

I think if you reread my post you will see that I did not understand your question, but answered it the best I could.

 

Scientific method's definitions include words like "empirical denotes information gained by means of observation or experimentation."

the word 'observation' is open to many definitions according to the likes, dislikes, prejudices, etc of the observer .. the same applies for the word experimentation.

 

I think true science keeps an open mind, a mind that says despite heavy evidence of confirmation, this theory may still be wrong, the other person may be right. Check out what Linus Pauling thought about quasicrystals. That is the attitude that is missing in the minds of most scientifically inclined people I meet on these kinds of forums.

Edited October 19, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Iggy]

In grade nine science I scored 100 percent without making a note through the school year.

Good.

 

I think pseudo science is when theories (the big bang, the speed of light being constant and inalienable) are considered facts.

No, that is not right. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience if people consider it fact or not. Astrology, for example, is pseudoscience even if nobody considers it fact.

 

Pseudoscience or non-science is something that cannot be proven wrong -- something that is not falsifiable.

 

I think true science keeps an open mind, a mind that says despite heavy evidence of confirmation, this theory may still be wrong

That is fundamental to science.

 

the other person may be right.

If the 'other person' is proposing something scientific then they can be proven wrong using the scientific method.

 

That is the attitude that is missing in the minds of most scientifically inclined people I meet on these kinds of forums.

No scientifically inclined person (or anyone with even an elementary understanding of the scientific method) would think that observations can prove a theory true. They either prove it false or support it. Science is skeptical.

 

Your impression of science, like your impression of pseudoscience, seems somewhat warped to me.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Good.

 

 

No, that is not right. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience if people consider it fact or not. Astrology, for example, is pseudoscience even if nobody considers it fact.

 

My response: Are you familiar with quasi crystals and how Linus Pauling, twice Nobel winner, campaigned virulently against their existance as well as calling Dan Shechtman who discovered them a quasi scientist. Strange to me that a quasi scientist like Schechtman is awarded a nobel.

Pseudoscience or non-science is something that cannot be proven wrong -- something that is not falsifiable.

 

My response: Big Bang cannot be proven. Yet it's Consensus Science.

 

 

That is fundamental to science.

 

My response: That may be fundamental to science, but scientists often displace fundamentals with dogma.

 

 

If the 'other person' is proposing something scientific then they can be proven wrong using the scientific method.

 

My response: They can only be proven wrong if the theory is wrong .. it may take 2,000 years, as in Aristarchus's case, to be proven right. Until then the Consensus called him a quasi scientist using quasi science. http://en.wikipedia....archus_of_Samos

No scientifically inclined person (or anyone with even an elementary understanding of the scientific method) would think that observations can prove a theory true. They either prove it false or support it. Science is skeptical.

 

My response: Science may be sceptical, but scientists often become dogmatic.

Your impression of science, like your impression of pseudoscience, seems somewhat warped to me.

 

My response: Your character, personality and method of communication seem warped to me simply because you use subtlety in using the term 'warped.' Does my observation of you make it so? I suggest you improve impressions of yourself if you wish to be viewed in favourable light.

 

Anyway Iggy .. the kind of exchange that you and I just have is a good reason for me to discontinue with this forum, as it seems that internet forums are almost never truly congenial places, and who needs the aggravation. Besisdes, the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Aristarchus in Exile

[Iggy]

My response: Are you familiar with quasi crystals and how Linus Pauling, twice Nobel winner, campaigned virulently against their existance as well as calling Dan Shechtman who discovered them a quasi scientist. Strange to me that a quasi scientist like Schechtman is awarded a nobel.

I am not

 

Pseudoscience or non-science is something that cannot be proven wrong -- something that is not falsifiable.

 

My response: Big Bang cannot be proven. Yet it's Consensus Science.

you've confused "cannot be proven" with "cannot be proven wrong". The big bang model could conceivably be proven wrong. There are conceivable observations which would falsify it. That is what makes it scientific. If it could not be proven wrong no matter what observation or experiment were made then it would be non-falsifiable and pseudo-scientific.

 

My response: That may be fundamental to science, but scientists often displace fundamentals with dogma.

With all due respect, I don't think you are in a position to characterize what "scientists often do", because -- quite frankly -- you clearly don't know.

 

My response: They can only be proven wrong if the theory is wrong

The point is that scientific theories are structured so that an experiment or an observation can conceivably prove them wrong. A theory that could never be proven wrong no matter what future observations or experiments show is worthless.

 

Science may be sceptical, but scientists often become dogmatic.

Facts, unlike scientific theories, can easily be proven true. Facts speak for themselves. It may be that you find science dogmatic because it accepts facts. It may be for some other reason. Whatever the case, your impression seems quite warped to me.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

Anyway Iggy .. the kind of exchange that you and I just have is a good reason for me to discontinue with this forum, as it seems that internet forums are almost never truly congenial places, and who needs the aggravation. Besisdes, the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends.

It's clear that the reason "the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends" is because, no offense intended, you have closed your mind off, to the point where you think yours is the only open mind and everyone else's is closed.

 

You stated that Big Bang cannot be proven, it was explained that scientific theories are only supported or falsified, not proven, and yet you still think you're being harshly treated and villified.

 

Forgive the analogy, but it's a bit like you've been pulled over by a cop, and you're arguing about 1) your right to drive on this public road, 2) at the stated speed limit, 3) in an adequately functioning vehicle, but what he's trying to tell you is that it's illegal to drive on the left side in this country. And no matter how he phrases it, you're still pissed off about dogmatic police oppression.

[Aristarchus in Exile]

It's clear that the reason "the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends" is because, no offense intended, you have closed your mind off, to the point where you think yours is the only open mind and everyone else's is closed.

 

You stated that Big Bang cannot be proven, it was explained that scientific theories are only supported or falsified, not proven, and yet you still think you're being harshly treated and villified.

 

Forgive the analogy, but it's a bit like you've been pulled over by a cop, and you're arguing about 1) your right to drive on this public road, 2) at the stated speed limit, 3) in an adequately functioning vehicle, but what he's trying to tell you is that it's illegal to drive on the left side in this country. And no matter how he phrases it, you're still pissed off about dogmatic police oppression.

 

The arguments I was referring to are the endless arguments found on science forums, not just the ones I'm involved in.

 

You appear to find accusations easy to make. If you have read bible scripture you might have discovered who the chief accuser is. I have NEVER thought that my mind is the only open mind and everyone else is closed, so you are fabricating as well as accusing and insulting. I have read several books on cosmology in which the wonderfully educated authors are open minded to the point that they admit their well researched, well founded and well written proposals may be wrong. That kind of attitude is not found often on internet discussion forums where the participants' qualifications provide lots of time for intenet chatter and power tripping but little opportunity for publication.

 

If a scientific theory cannot be proven, the theorist and supporters are pretty much wasting their time in theorizing and supporting. Some scientific theories can be proven .. for instance, theorize mixing chemicals and applying a match and what happens. If a theory was involved in the creation of dynamite, that theory was proven.

 

Your Police anaology doesn't apply in the least for many reasons.

 

I never said I was being harshly treated, I never felt I was being harshly treated. The term 'warped' directed at me was used either as an insult or to test my response .. probably an insult but not certainly an insult, and because I'm not Jesus Christ I responded in a less than perfect way, but in a way which included charity.

[Iggy]

If a scientific theory cannot be proven, the theorist and supporters are pretty much wasting their time in theorizing and supporting.

Classical mechanics, as an example, cannot be proven true while no one would hold that Newton was wasting his time developing and supporting it. It got us to the moon.

 

Some scientific theories can be proven .. for instance, theorize mixing chemicals and applying a match and what happens. If a theory was involved in the creation of dynamite, that theory was proven.

The scientific laws and theories that predict and explain the working of dynamite (such as the laws of entropy and enthalpy) are not proven universally true by their successful application. For example, you might use the laws of chemical thermodynamics to predict how to make dynamite. If that prediction is confirmed by doing the procedure and successfully creating dynamite it does not prove the laws of chemical thermodynamics universally true. There may be yet another prediction of the laws which ends up being false.

 

The successful confirmation of a prediction of a law or theory does not prove the law or theory true, but a failed prediction does, in general, prove it false.

 

The recipe for dynamite itself is not a law, theory, or model of science.

 

To give another example... relativity predicted time dilation before it was observed. When that prediction was confirmed it did not prove relativity true -- it supported the theory. Every test of relativity remains potentially fatal to the theory.

 

The term 'warped' directed at me was used either as an insult or to test my response

I wasn't calling you warped, but rather your impression of science. I chose the word "warped" deliberately in the sense that your understanding of how science works twists your conclusion about scientists out of shape -- saying that they are dogmatic.

Edited October 20, 2011 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

If a scientific theory cannot be proven, the theorist and supporters are pretty much wasting their time in theorizing and supporting.

I'll try one more time.

 

Iron-clad proof, the kind you're asking for, tends to make people stop looking for other answers. Science thinks that's bad.

 

If a thousand hikers try to find a trail through the mountains and can't, and the locals take that as iron-clad proof there is no way to get through, hikers might stop trying to explore for one.

 

Instead, science would say that every experiment supports the conclusion that there is no trail through the mountains. Science would say that the road around the mountains is the best available answer for those looking to get to the other side. Saying it this way, there are still hikers who keep trying to find a better trail. The Road Around the Mountains Theory is supported, it's the best answer so far, but it's not proof.

 

Does that make sense?

[Aristarchus in Exile]

Classical mechanics, as an example, cannot be proven true while no one would hold that Newton was wasting his time developing and supporting it. It got us to the moon.

 

 

I wasn't calling you warped, but rather your impression of science. I chose the word "warped" deliberately in the sense that your understanding of how science works twists your conclusion about scientists out of shape -- saying that they are dogmatic.

 

I don't have endless time so will respond to only two of your comments.

 

Getting us to the moon proves classical nmechanics true. There may be things we don't understand yet, like quantum mechanics, but that does not mean classical mechanics is not true. The theory has been well tested and well proven.

 

You read posts too quickly, i did not say "scientists are dogmatic," I said some scientists are dogmatic, or can become dogmatic. I don't have enough time to reread my exact words.

 

I'll try one more time.

 

Iron-clad proof, the kind you're asking for, tends to make people stop looking for other answers. Science thinks that's bad.

 

If a thousand hikers try to find a trail through the mountains and can't, and the locals take that as iron-clad proof there is no way to get through, hikers might stop trying to explore for one.

 

Instead, science would say that every experiment supports the conclusion that there is no trail through the mountains. Science would say that the road around the mountains is the best available answer for those looking to get to the other side. Saying it this way, there are still hikers who keep trying to find a better trail. The Road Around the Mountains Theory is supported, it's the best answer so far, but it's not proof.

 

Does that make sense?

 

Yes, you make sense. That is good, but it doesn't mean there is no trail through the mountains. In time, someone will probably find a trail through the mountains. Until then, the consensus road around the mountains theory is changed in the minds of some scientists to the ONLY answer because it's the one they were taught, in fact, they can forget the original search. That is not good. Please note that I said "changed in the minds of SOME scientists" and not ALL scientists. Please believe me that I have my own difficulties remaining open minded, but in my experience not NEARLY as difficult as

some scientifically minded people, in particular, those who have a little knowledge only but who think themselves more highly than they should, and there are many of them. I experience that effect on every discussion forum I go into, and not just scientific forums.

[Iggy]

I don't have endless time so will respond to only two of your comments.

 

Getting us to the moon proves classical nmechanics true. There may be things we don't understand yet, like quantum mechanics, but that does not mean classical mechanics is not true. The theory has been well tested and well proven.

It is conceptually impossible to prove true and it has been falsified.

 

I understand if you don't have time to look this stuff up before you say it, but you should at least follow your own advice:

 

I think true science keeps an open mind, a mind that says despite heavy evidence of confirmation, this theory may still be wrong

[Aristarchus in Exile]

It is conceptually impossible to prove true and it has been falsified.

 

I understand if you don't have time to look this stuff up before you say it, but you should at least follow your own advice:

 

 

 

You're right .. thank you .. classical mechanics might be imperfect, as evidenced by the possible straying of the two probes which appeared to be 'off course' part way into the trip of departure from our solar system.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "it is conceptually impossible to prove true and it has been falsified." I don't know what the 'it' is that you're talking about.

[Phi for All]

I don't understand what you mean by "it is conceptually impossible to prove true and it has been falsified." I don't know what the 'it' is that you're talking about.

I'm not answering for Iggy, but any theory is conceptually impossible to prove true, if only because we can never stop devising tests for it (it's a technicality, and an extremely important one). And classical mechanics fails in its explanations at the quantum level, and so has been falsified.

[Iggy]

I don't understand what you mean by "it is conceptually impossible to prove true and it has been falsified." I don't know what the 'it' is that you're talking about.

I'm sorry -- I was not very clear. Classical mechanics is the "it".

 

Classical mechanics, and the laws that make it up, could never be proven universally true. Like Phi says, one could never test its whole domain. It could only be supported, and it was in fact very well supported in the 19th century, but no observation or group of observations could ever confirm it in an absolute sense.

 

Observations such as the perihelion precession of mercury and the 1919 solar eclipse observation actually ended up proving classical mechanics wrong. Those same observations supported relativistic mechanics.

 

Classical mechanics is still very useful because it is a good approximation to relativity and quantum mechanics at slow speeds and large size. The slower the speed and the larger the size under consideration the better it works.

 

Classical mechanics was also a stepping stone leading to those theories. So, even though the classical laws of mechanics are not exactly correct, it was by no means a waste of time for Newton to develop them.

Edited October 21, 2011 by Iggy

[rktpro]

"Is a part of God or God entire inside every photon? "

Define God.

I have heard that "God is everywhere", on the other hand my personal belief is that He's only in peoples' imagination.

 

Interesting and general question.

God is one which can't be defined by any material senses. (Kenopanishad: Hindu Scripture)

God resides in every photon to give his power to it to function.

God is everywhere and it's written in full detail in Hindu Scriptures.

First, you must know that Vedas are the ultimate source of philosophy in the world. You won't understand until you read one. They are really difficult.

[PeterJ]

Anyway Iggy .. the kind of exchange that you and I just have is a good reason for me to discontinue with this forum, as it seems that internet forums are almost never truly congenial places, and who needs the aggravation. Besisdes, the arguments are repeated and have been repeated and will be repeated until the earth ends.

Aristarchus - Seems to me you've misread Iggy. He was only clarifying a misunderstanding. He suggested that unless your idea is scientifically testable then it ain't science. This is just a fact. He did not say (I think) that because your idea is untestable it is wrong.

 

Anyway, I liked your idea, although it seems still very undeveloped. Nonlocality could suggest a super-particle, but it could suggest, as a few physcists speculate, that our idea of temporal and spatial extension is flawed, and that there is a sense in which all particles are in the same place and time. Or something like that.