Science and religion

[james blunt]

Ok, it's a statement of your assumptions. What is your evidence that these two equations actually apply to reality?

Observation and physical process .

 

[MJ Bailey]

Being an educated person who has not achieved a degree, I will lend an opinion; at times there are other variants in which need to be incorporated. Time and space have shared relevance giving the Delta theorem when do the other relevant sciences lend aspect to the continuum?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'll explain space-time and Albert later on in my theory , he is not wrong and neither was Newton .

You ask about proof / evidence of my four proposals , it is observable . A nuclear weapon cannot destroy space and there is no mechanism for space to age , things age relative to absolute space which I will explain also later on in my theory .

They are more axions than assumptions , self evidently true .

If you use the the word "theory" then you are saying that there is a test that could show it to be wrong if it was wrong. It appears that what you actually have is a WAG.

 

[james blunt]

An "amateur scientist?" LOLOLOL. Studying science as a hobby is great, but calling yourself a "scientist" if you don't even have a science degree is just laughable.

You do not understand science if you think it takes a degree to do science and be a scientist . I consider science is the study of all things using logic , rational thought and any existing information .
It is laughable to suggest such a thing , stick around you might learn some science .

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I'll explain space-time and Albert later on in my theory , he is not wrong and neither was Newton .

You ask about proof / evidence of my four proposals , it is observable . A nuclear weapon cannot destroy space and there is no mechanism for space to age , things age relative to absolute space which I will explain also later on in my theory .

They are more axions than assumptions , self evidently true .

No, they are not self-evidently true. The assertion that your propositions are observable means that you have evidence/observations to back them up.

If they are not backed up by evidence, they are assumptions that cannot be tested, unless you can show how they lead to your conclusions. Yes, they would be axioms, but they would still have to be demonstrated as true in order to make any valid logical inferences or conclusions.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Observation and physical process .

Please be specific. Which observations of which physical processes?

Which observations and physical processes validly leads to the conclusion that space is nothing but a property of an infinite void?

 

[james blunt]

No, they are not self-evidently true. The assertion that your propositions are observable means that you have evidence/observations to back them up.

If they are not backed up by evidence, they are assumptions that cannot be tested, unless you can show how they lead to your conclusions. Yes, they would be axioms, but they would still have to be demonstrated as true in order to make any valid logical inferences or conclusions.

Yes they are self evidently true !

Observe the space between your eyes and any distant object in your room . As you sit there you are aging and the object is aging , the space is not aging , it has no mechanism to age , it can't decay .
Now you can destroy you or the object but the space will remain . It is eternal .

Now there is 100's if not 1000's of examples I could give , but hopefully you can now see the obvious which is at the end of your nose .

 

[james blunt]

Please be specific. Which observations of which physical processes?

Which observations and physical processes validly leads to the conclusion that space is nothing but a property of an infinite void?

Field matter and atomic matter occupy space , things move relative to other things , space is the stationary reference frame that doesn't move .
Space has no mechanism other than storage space for storing occupancy of atomic matter and field matter .

See ?

 

[james blunt]

In continuation :

Absolute space, in its own nature, without regard to anything external, remains always similar and immovable. Relative space is some movable dimension or measure of the absolute spaces; which our senses determine by its position to bodies: and which is vulgarly taken for immovable space ... Absolute motion is the translation of a body from one absolute place into another: and relative motion, the translation from one relative place into another ...

— Isaac Newton

Newton recognises in thought Einsteins relative space - time before Einstein wrote relativity . Einsteins space-time being a relative overlay of absolute space .
The N-field theory proposes that relative space time is field matter and atomic matter that occupy Newtons absolute space . Einstein consideration of space time and a ''fabric'' being the overlay which in essence is the field matter and atomic matter interior of a black hole .

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Yes they are self evidently true !

Observe the space between your eyes and any distant object in your room . As you sit there you are aging and the object is aging , the space is not aging , it has no mechanism to age , it can't decay .
Now you can destroy you or the object but the space will remain . It is eternal .

Now there is 100's if not 1000's of examples I could give , but hopefully you can now see the obvious which is at the end of your nose .

an observation of one individual over a period of a few minutes does not demonstrate anything. Thought experiments are one way to begin to untangle what we observe.

What I observe in a few moments where I am standing does not say ANYTHING of note about whether space is a property of an infinite void, is or is not destructible or createable, is or is not connected to or independent of time. It does not even say that what I observe has any correspondence to reality at all.

As for aging, it is a statement of change over time. How do you show that space does not change over time, especially if the time period in which the change takes place is many orders of magnitude larger than the few moments of my observation?

if change in space (delta k) times time t = zero, as your assumption states, then space must equal zero. That, or the change in k is zero.

To restate your equation

Delta Space = 0 divided by Time...which equals 0

Space = (0/t)/Delta....which equals 0

Delta t = 0/k... which equals 0

t = (0/k)/Delta...which equals 0...

Need I go on? Your simple math does not make sense.

 

[james blunt]

People struggle to envision what nothingness looks like so I am going to help you envision this .

Imagine you are in the center of an infinite size block of clear glass , it is not dark or light

 

[james blunt]

an observation of one individual over a period of a few minutes does not demonstrate anything. Thought experiments are one way to begin to untangle what we observe.

What I observe in a few moments where I am standing does not say ANYTHING of note about whether space is a property of an infinite void, is or is not destructible or createable, is or is not connected to or independent of time. It does not even say that what I observe has any correspondence to reality at all.

As for aging, it is a statement of change over time. How do you show that space does not change over time, especially if the time period in which the change takes place is many orders of magnitude larger than the few moments of my observation?

if change in space (delta k) times time t = zero, as your assumption states, then space must equal zero. That, or the change in k is zero.

To restate your equation

Delta Space = 0 divided by Time...which equals 0

Space = (0/t)/Delta....which equals 0

Delta t = 0/k... which equals 0

t = (0/k)/Delta...which equals 0...

Need I go on? Your simple math does not make sense.

0 is the constant all maths uses , it makes sense .
Think about that , its absolute

i.e 10 mph relative to 0 mph

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Field matter and atomic matter occupy space , things move relative to other things , space is the stationary reference frame that doesn't move .
Space has no mechanism other than storage space for storing occupancy of atomic matter and field matter .

See ?

Want a demonstration of how space moves? How it bends? Take a bowling ball, hold it three feet above your foot, and let go. the ball falls onto your foot because space is bent, moving...that is, there is a change in space, a Delta k, over time; the time it takes the bowling ball to roll down the spatial gradient to your foot.

 

[james blunt]

Want a demonstration of how space moves? How it bends? Take a bowling ball, hold it three feet above your foot, and let go. the ball falls onto your foot because space is bent, moving...that is, there is a change in space, a Delta k, over time; the time it takes the bowling ball to roll down the spatial gradient to your foot.

You're making the classic mistake ! The spatial field bends relative to absolute space , space time curvature , Delta k = 0 is constant

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

0 is the constant all maths uses , it makes sense .
Think about that , its absolute

i.e 10 mph relative to 0 mph

10 mph is relative to two coordinates in time and space...that's why we call it space-time, because you have to designate one point as the observer and another as the observed. Otherwise, there are no grounds for measuring distance or time.

Yes, zero is used in math, but it is not the only constant used in math. Nor is it absolute. Nor is it used the same way in all mathematics.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

You're making the classic mistake ! The spatial field bends relative to absolute space , space time curvature , Delta k = 0 is constant

So, as I showed above, space, time and change are all equal to zero, regardless of their measured values...which have to be measured in relation to something else that exists...which under relativity, is the position of the observer...the difference (delta) between point A and point B in space are equal to 0/time, because 0 divided by anything equals zero.

nonsense.

 

[james blunt]

10 mph is relative to two coordinates in time and space...that's why we call it space-time, because you have to designate one point as the observer and another as the observed. Otherwise, there are no grounds for measuring distance or time.

Yes, zero is used in math, but it is not the only constant used in math. Nor is it absolute. Nor is it used the same way in all mathematics.

That may be so but 0 is the delta constant of space and things change relative to 0k .

Moving on , in reference Dirac , particles popping into and out of existence spontaneous in a space where everything is absolute , no energy , no time , no force , no pressure . I can only explain this as ZPP (zero point pressure ) and a miracle .

Do you have any thoughts on this before I move onto Alpha and Beta wave functions of self annihilating mono pole opposites , electric charges ?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

you might as well move on...you haven't demonstrated that your basic assumptions are true or meaningful...and I'm assuming that however you define the terms alpha and beta waves, self-annihilating, monopole, etc, will be just as confident but without basis...

I think that your 'theory' comes down to this:

I can only explain this as ZPP (zero point pressure ) and a miracle .

That is, an argument from incredulity...
YOU can't explain it...therefore, MIRACLE...

 

[SalixIncendium]

You couldn't give the person a break? What do you care if the OP is engaging in idle speculation and trying to connect ideas?

Reading your responses, they seem harsh and not particularly content-rich. I've been on other philosophy forums before and dismissing people out of hand is not the norm.

Um... @james blunt is the OP.

 

[Dlaw]

Um... @james blunt is the OP.

My mistake

 

[Audie]

An "amateur scientist?" LOLOLOL. Studying science as a hobby is great, but calling yourself a "scientist" if you don't even have a science degree is just laughable.

A lot of very good work has been done by amateurs, a lot
of idiocy has came from people with marvy degrees.