physics with mathematics, philosophy , engineering and religion .

[Phi for All]

 

It's been accepted?

 

< cricket, cricket >

[moth]

It means nothing to move or lock any of my posts, I have sent my messages! also this article will be published in journal of American physical society.

When the OP admits to soapboxing an audience is irrelevant.

[yahya515]

 

It's been accepted?

Yes, it was not accepted when you asked this, but I knew it will be accepted because I am a prophet, it was with editors and it accepted, but not published yet, I respect you Swansont, because you respect science, even though I do not agree with your beliefs.

[ajb]

Yes, it was not accepted when you asked this, but I knew it will be accepted because I am a prophet, it was with editors and it accepted, but not published yet, I respect you Swansont, because you respect science, even though I do not agree with your beliefs.

Are we all talking about the same journal here?

[yahya515]

I apologize for every person in this forum, I am not the christ, I am not a prophet, I am not religious, I love science , I was just joking!

I predicted that it will be published because I believe in myself

the only person I agree with is swansont

[CharonY]

And that is why science does not care what you believe.

[yahya515]

And that is why science does not care what you believe.

Yes, science does not change, but I changed my believe

[ajb]

Yes, science does not change, but I changed my believe

Science does change when new evidence comes to light. Unfortunately, it is peoples beliefs that are not usually so flexible.

[yahya515]

Science does change when new evidence comes to light. Unfortunately, it is peoples beliefs that are not usually so flexible.

but people change sceince , they have the power to change sceintific (beleifs) , so they are flexible.

[yahya515]

Are we all talking about the same journal here?

Yes , and sorry for saying I am a prophet, it is the same journal , and not a journal for prophets , you are funny!

[yahya515]

No religious people of any religion will be friends.

[davidivad]

science nor religion will find a place for you in this world.

you must find this place yourself.

you are the answer

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad

[PeterJ]

To make ex nihilo creation a scientific idea would require a redefinition of science and its method. Better to keep it as a metaphysical conjecture, I'd say, and leave the definition of science alone. The idea doesn't work in logic so it won't ever work in science. I wonder why anyone would adopt an idea that is so obviously perverse. .

[rktpro]

ajb; In your post, two posts above(sorry, quote not working on mobile properly); shouldn't it be the other way-that science doesn't change, our knowldge does.

[Phi for All]

ajb; In your post, two posts above(sorry, quote not working on mobile properly); shouldn't it be the other way-that science doesn't change, our knowldge does.

 

The methodology remains consistent, but science NEEDS to be capable of change, otherwise it becomes intractable and untrustworthy. We need to know there may be better explanations, otherwise we stop asking questions.

[swansont]

ajb; In your post, two posts above(sorry, quote not working on mobile properly); shouldn't it be the other way-that science doesn't change, our knowldge does.

 

Physics changed when we discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, to name two famous instances — you go where the evidence leads. What you don't do is force the evidence to conform with the model. Physics, especially > 100 years back, is littered with failed models that had to be tossed when we learned more. (That's a good thing)

[PeterJ]

Quite right Swansont. This is why I predict that physicists will sort out the problems of philosophy before professional academic philosophers do. They seem to be stuck in a permanent rut, while physicists seems to have more courage. I just wish they'd move on more quickly. But the really interesting books on philosophy, or having the greatest implications for philosophy, seem to be more and more written by physicists.

[rktpro]

 

Physics changed when we discovered quantum mechanics and relativity, to name two famous instances you go where the evidence leads. What you don't do is force the evidence to conform with the model. Physics, especially > 100 years back, is littered with failed models that had to be tossed when we learned more. (That's a good thing)

Should we phrase it as 'Physics changed' or as 'our understanding changed.' If we say what we understand of the physical world is physics, wouldn't in a way mean that physics is our religion and changes with belief.A kind of flexible religion. I feel, the physical world behaves as it is, and physics remains same, just our understanding of it alters. Edited May 8, 2014 by rktpro

[ajb]

I feel, the physical world behaves as it is, and physics remains same, just our understanding of it alters.

Here you use the word physics to mean how the natural world behaves. I have used the word physics to mean the way in which we describe and hence understand how the natural world behaves.

 

I am not sure what the overall standing is, but I would say that "physics is something that people do to understand the physical world".

[swansont]

I'm with ajb here — when we say physics, the implication is that it's a body of knowledge that expresses our understanding of how nature behaves. To say physics changed or our understanding changed is the same thing.

[PeterJ]

YahYa. It is clear from your OP that you are speaking about one very particular religion, and one very particular interpretation of it. To extend this argument to the whole of religion is crazy. It leads you to say that religion promotes creationism when this is clearly not the case. It's would be like someone dismissing physics because they disagree with the views of certain physicists. It's would be a major error. To dismiss a theory you first have to get to know it.