1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Cross-Scientific Pattern Rekognition

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Native, Jun 28, 2022.

  1. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +596
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    The OP subject here is all about POSITIVILY reconnecting scientific dots.

    ABSTRACT:
    Modern science is highly specialized into lots of branches to dig deep into everything. In this historic and present process, it seems to me that a former overall natural knowledge of interconnections are philosophically, theoretically, and cosmologically lost.

    AN OPENING DISCUSSION EXAMPLE:
    1) Newton´s simple idea of gravity has the Earth to pull everything to the ground.
    2) In the Earth´s atmosphere, we have about 5 quadrillion tons weight of air, constantly ascending and descending in thermal and atmospheric pressures systems, thus completely neglecting Newtons constant attractive terrestrial law.

    In the standing cosmology, all focus is on gravity itself and no focus on atmospheric or aerodynamic conditions - and when pointing on contradictive gravitational issues, one is constantly meeting conventional theoretical perceptions and arguments, without dealing with opposite patterns of motions.

    What can be discerned and concluded from the laws and dynamic patterns of these two scientific branches? What are the differences and what are there of eventual similarities? Can there even be conventional interpretative conflations or confusions between these two branches?

    WHAT OTHER CROS-SCIENTIFIC BRANCH COMPARISONS COULD YOU SUGGEST?

    I would for instants suggest:
    1) Chemical Nucleus Binding and Cosmic Formation?
    2) Gravitational Formation and Electromagnetic Formation?

    Others? Give your suggestions.

    Enjoy
    Regards
    Native
     
  2. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,537
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    None
    Is the earth "pulling everything to the ground" with gravity, or does all mass have a gravitational force that is proportional to the accumulated mass, such that the earth and all upon it mutually pull upon each other.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  3. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,582
    Ratings:
    +11,207
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    As I understand it, the latter.

    As to the mass of 'air' defying gravity, it's not really. It's just that the energy forms that are pushing it away from the Earth are circumstantially stronger that the Earth's gravity is pulling it toward the ground. As that circumstantial energy is released (expressed) the air mass then succumbs to gravity's pull, again.

    Regarding the relationship between these phenomenal systems, I think the complexity is endless. It seems the more we think we understand a given phenomenological system, the more complex it turns out to be, and the less we actually know about it. Is it possible that phenomenological complexity is infinite? Maybe so. Is it possible that we will someday finally come to grasp the ultimate source phenomenological system? Maybe. In the meantime, the more we look, the more we see. And the more complex and interrelated it all becomes.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  4. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,377
    Ratings:
    +805
    It's far more complex than this. If something is infinitely far from earth then for all practical purposes it is being pulled to the ground with the exact same force that it is pulling earth to it. Of course this assumes that there is such a thing as infinity and that gravity operates at such a "distance". For more practical purposes things are attracted to the center of gravity of the earth but if they move toward it then they'll always hit the ground first and the earth will run into them. For finer work then all the mass of the earth is attracting all the mass of the object which means that nearby mountains will be pulling sideways as it nears and the object will cause the earth to rotate as the mountain falls toward the object. All things in reality affect all other things in reality. All experiment applies to every observation and the most important experiments haven't even been invented yet.

    So far as anyone knows everything is pulling on every other thing. It's entirely possible that gravity is quantum so the oceans aren't affected by the tides imparted by grasshopper on the fourth planet of some tiny sun in a distant galaxy.

    The only thing in reality that is simple is human understanding of it. We use reductionistic science and believe we know everything.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +596
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Personally I think it´s way more complicated because of standard explanations based on gravity - which nobody really can explain by what dynamic means it should work, and therefore makes speculative and simplified assumptions.

    IMHO:
    I have the electromagnetic force to bind atoms and molecules to form everything, even galaxies, stars, and planets. This double helical running E&M force provides rotations to everything and a secondary centrifugal force provides all orbital motions when a star or a planet is formed.

    As observed by the galactic rotation curves, the orbital motions doesn´t confirm Newtons "universal laws of celestial motions" and the galactic formation in the Milky Way bear clearly evidence of having been formed "inside out", hence the overall motion is an expansive one where all stars obits the center simultaneously, which again suggest NO central force is holding the stars in galaxies. (Which was why "dark matter" was invented simply to patch Newtons gravitational ideas and to fit the already made mathematical calculations as well)

    This Newtonian idea of "a central holding force" is obviously contradicted and nevertheless and falsely projected out in all other cosmic situations. And it even question the very orbital ideas in the Solar System as well, as this is an full integrated part of the galactic rotation and formation. If NOT being revised and discarded, we have two theories of orbital motions in the same closed local galactic system, This is HIGHLY unscientific and cannot continue if all this shall be logically understood.

    When a planet is formed and it has an atmosphere, the factual weight of this asserts a pressure on the planet, on the Earth a 10 kg pressure on every square centimeter. This pressure is also conventionally interpreted to be held in place by Newtons gravity, even if it changes thermally and via high- and low pressures. I think this interpretation is wrong and confused by Newton to be his Earth gravity pull.

    Newton was correct in calculating the planetary motions (except Mercury) but he didn´t know WHY these motion takes place. These correct calculations is taken as a solid evidence for all his laws, but in fact, Newton could have got the planetary motions from several thousands years empirical knowledge in several ancient cultures, which didn´t knew anything of a gravity pull from the Earth.

    Regarding the very celestial planetary motions, I think it has to be taken in account that space isn´t empty, but assert a drag resistance effect according to each planetary sizes and orbital velocities. This resistance drag asserts an overall PRESSURE on the planets which easily can be confused for Newtons gravity pull from the Earth, together with its about 5 quadrillion tons weight of air/atmosphere.

    Well this is my quick alternate take on several cosmological issues which IMO should be seriously considered.
     
  6. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +596
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Well if so, the numerous firm and concrete statements of "gravity holding the atmosphere on the Earth" is logically false. If gravity cannot hold the atmospheric weight content close to the ground, its assumed force will be even weaker higher above the Earth´s surface.

    IMO it rather could be the Earth´s magnetosphere which does this holding job.
     
    #6 Native, Jun 29, 2022
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2022
  7. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,582
    Ratings:
    +11,207
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    There are other forces besides gravity. When they compete, sometimes gravity is overcome. As far as I know Newton never stated that gravity is immutable.
     
  8. Yerda

    Yerda Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    9,389
    Ratings:
    +2,215
    Religion:
    Nothing in particular
    Any two bodies always pull each other with the same magnitude of force. At infinity the force is zero.

    The gravitational force of the Earth on a hydrogen atom has the same strength as the force of the hydrogen atom on the Earth.

    All of science is permeated with unanswered questions and the literature is rife with discussion of what we don't know. We have entire academic fields devoted to discussing the philosophical limits of what science can and can't tell us.

    The gravitational models work and predict exactly what we observe.
     
  9. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +596
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    That may be right - but this isn´t exactly the impression one get by reading or debating this concept with later University educated astrophysicists and cosmologists and laymen.
     
  10. Native

    Native Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,267
    Ratings:
    +596
    Religion:
    Natural Perceptions
    Native said:
    Well if so, the numerous firm and concrete statements of "gravity holding the atmosphere on the Earth" is logically false.
    I sort of have to correct you in this.

    As nobody can explain scientifically by what dynamic means "gravity" should work, all calculations and observations is interpreted biasedly to fit the prime gravity assumption.

    If asking "gravity questions" the proponents of this conviction only get "gravity answers" - and continuously forget and ignore that this gravity is unexplainable in the first hand.

    The factual result is that the (unexplainable gravity) model observations only confirms the prime unexplainable assumption.

    And the falseness of this biased assumption approach, is scientifically confirmed by the discovery of the galactic rotation curve, which left Newtons gravitational assumption of celestial motions to be universally false.
     
  11. PureX

    PureX Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2006
    Messages:
    21,582
    Ratings:
    +11,207
    Religion:
    Philosophical Taoist/Christian
    They seem to be keenly aware of the plethora of forces that shape existence as we know it. And that they interact and compete with each other in many and complex ways. After all, it's part of their job, and their life's work.

    The people I encounter that tend to make absolute statements like that are the science 'zealots' that think science is the modern equivalent of "God".
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Messages:
    4,785
    Ratings:
    +3,081
    Religion:
    None
    Which is more likely; Every one of those people is wrong about a fundamental concept in physics or you are mistaken in your understanding of what they say? :cool:
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  13. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,377
    Ratings:
    +805
    It approaches zero but I believe the magnitude of the force would be undefined. But if infinity exists and gravity can go that far then the force would be acting from a point.

    There are unknowns here and semantics. But my only point is that the farther away you are the more that it acts as a point.

    Yes. Scientists are usually very aware of what they don't know and often understand the limitations of what they do know. But the typical believer in science does not understand. This is WHY I call them believers instead of scientists, amateurs, or students. To a great many people Science is the new religion and Peers are its Priests.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,537
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    None
    One of the fundamental feature of the Sciences is its acceptance that we as individual observers and investigators of the world around us are both flawed and fallible. As a result, no scientific endeavor can trust the report of a single individual, rather, any report of any individual must be tested and corroborated by multiple individuals. The greater the corroboration, the greater our confidence in the reported phenomenon.

    Your comments do not correspond to humanities collective understanding of this topic to date. Further, you restrict yourself to discussing gravity and orbital mechanics from the perspective of our (humanities) 18th century understanding of these issues. Humanity has moved well beyond Sir Isaac Newton's understanding. Why do you restrict your scientific discourse to an 18th century understanding? My only recommendation would be to apprise yourself of the current scientific understanding of these issue. Doing so may resolve many of your questions.
     
  15. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,377
    Ratings:
    +805
    I hate disagreeing with you since you're always pretty much right but...

    Science is not a team sport. Yes, everyone's standing on the shoulders of giants but every individual scientist has his own unique interpretations and models. Every Peers might be wrong but someone else might be right. Agreement does not lend "accuracy" to a theory or hypothesis. Reality doesn't exist through committee or voting.

    Ultimately we will all be shown to be wrong about everything anyway, though if we live to see it we won't change our minds because science changes one funeral at a time.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  16. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,537
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    None
    Are you saying we never come to any consensus? Do we not have a better predictive understanding of the world than our ancestors did 3,000 years ago? Our understanding is limited by the limits of our perspective, and this perspective grows incrementally over time.

    Is our understanding incomplete? Of course it is, but this does not mean we are not making progress. The classic mechanics of Newton was an incomplete explanation of what we are observing, but what we are observing hasn't changed. Newton adequately described relationships between large mass bodies up to a certain magnitude and at speeds under the speed of light. It was not wrong, just not the whole story.

    When Gregor Mendel observed apparent rules of heredity, he did not understand the mechanism that accounted for those rules, but it did not mean that he was wrong to suggest them. He was getting a foothold on the problem, a problem that we have incredibly much more understanding of given our discovery of DNA and its function in biological systems.

    We are not wrong about everything as you seem to insist, we are simply limited in our understanding, with some things well understood and defined and other thing quite fuzzy and not understood. The trend, however, is continual progress towards solving problems and building up that body of knowledge that is well understood and defined.

    It is not agreement that is sought, it is corroboration. If someone pulls out an explanation from thin air and others simply agree with it, it would not constitute a scientific standard of intersubjective corroboration. The corroboration that would be required would be through repeated testing of a reported phenomenon by multiple investigators. If, through that process, the hypothesis or theory has not been contradicted or falsified, it would be said to be corroborated. This is the standard that is sought.
     
  17. cladking

    cladking Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2018
    Messages:
    3,377
    Ratings:
    +805
    I'm saying consensus is irrelevant. Indeed, the closer to 100% that we get the more likely we are to be wrong. If 60% of experts believe one thing and 40% something else then go with the majority. When they all agree, then look for a problem because either the question is too simple or it is affected by their premises.

    Of course we do for those categories of things we know. But few important questions and no questions depending on the nature of consciousness can be answered today. You're better off asking a shaman whether to marry Nicole or Violet.

    NO. I have to disagree. The perspective is expanding but is still highly limited and mostly unidirectional. Most science is still highly reductive.

    I believe we will always be wrong about everything but we'll always get closer and closer to the truth.

    You'll know we are right about something when someone can accurately predict the shape of a cloud in twenty minutes. Or predict which sparrow will fall from the sky next.

    We understand some thing reasonably well but only because we don't need to understand everything about any process or event to make it work for us. Animals use tools and ancient people used counterweights with out much knowledge of gravity. What do you need to know except weight and distance from the fulcrum?

    Corroboration is irrelevant. This isn't to say there is no reason for peer review merely that Peer review is not part of the scientific method and the fact that peers agree is irrelevant to the accuracy of anything. If someone designs a poor experiment anyone can point out its flaws and even a child might see the king has no clothes. I have no problem with peers, the problem is Peers. The problem is believers think that Peers know everything and when there is consensus there is Truth. This wasn't even true back before science was bought and paid for as it is today.


    We are mostly saying the same thing but from different perspectives. I am sympathetic to almost everything you say but my perspective is somewhat different. This is caused largely by experience (I believe) and by the fact I am now more a metaphysician than a scientist and I have two distinct metaphysics; modern and ancient science.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
  18. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,537
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    None
    IMO

    Your folksy advise is not totally off the mark if we limit it to those areas that are on the edge of our understanding. There is nothing wrong with strong skepticism in such cases. And in knowledge acquisition, we must always be open to the possibility that new information, new discoveries will alter our understanding of how the world works. But that is only the explanation. The world itself will work the way it always has and as we expect.

    I find, however, that many of your posts advocate for an unreasonable level of skepticism in the scientific process on the whole.

    Excellent! A bold admission that we do know some things. :)

    If all your *important* questions are things like, "How exactly did the universe begin, and if it began, what was before?", are hardly the most important questions. Such questions are beyond our current ability to answer with any satisfaction and we may never be able to completely answer such questions. The only option, therefore, is to make peace with not being able to know and leave it at that. There are many more pressing day-to-day problems that we can set our minds to and attempt to solve.

    As to consciousness, I do not see it as being nearly as elusive as you seem to imply. In fact, compared to our historical philosophical understanding of consciousness, I think we have come a long way in our understanding. Is it still immensely complex and not fully understood? Of course, but we are much more knowledgeable now than we have ever been.

    Again, you really agree with me here, but for some personal reason or bias you are unwilling to give science credit where credit is due. I wonder why that is.

    Here we are saying the exact same thing, only you color degrees of confidence as uniformly wrong. Again, not an accurate representation of what is happening. It is great to see acknowledgement that progress is being made and we are getting closer to the truth. :)

    Not going to happen and is unnecessary. The cosmos is not fully deterministic in the way you suggest. In complex systems in that are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, very small variations in initial conditions result in dramatically different outcomes over time. Our climate is driven by the randomly varying output of solar radiation. The element of randomness means that the exactness of prediction that you expect can never be achieved. The most one can do is develop probabilities of what will occur which will become more inaccurate the further one projects into the future.

    Is your goal to pick an unachievable standard by which to measure science so that you may always hold it up as falling short? To what purpose? Does science having value challenge something you wish to shelter from science, or the scientific process?

    Another great admission. Thank you. We don't *need* to understand things, we *want* to understand things. We could go through life as the rest of the living world, relying solely on our biology and instinctual behavior to survive the elements, disease, injury, inter and intra species competition. Is that your preference? If not, if you see advantage to our ability to reason, to extrapolate from our experiences and learn to mitigate and solve the risks and threats of the natural world, why limit such knowledge acquisition? Why discontinue this process? I can only conclude that the progress of science challenges something that you wish to shelter from this process.

    Softening your stance, becoming more reasoned, reasonable.

    Many of your criticisms I have heard from you here and in other threads are valid to a degree. Scientists are human after all, and like the rest of us are flawed and fallible. That is why I say that scientific principles and standards mitigate this fallibility, they do not eliminate it.

    This mitigation process works and you have acknowledge that it does. We are making progress. We simply have to be patient and accept the fact that there are a whole lot of very difficult questions that will never get answered in our lifetime. All we can do is focus on the problems we can make progress on.

    And I agree that we are essentially saying the same thing, and both acknowledging that science isn't perfect but that it works and is making progress.

    I think our main difference is that you may have beliefs that you want to keep separate from the scientific process, scientific inquiry. Doing that shields those beliefs and leaves them fully vulnerable to all our flaws and fallibility.
     
  19. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    9,118
    Ratings:
    +526
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Basic advice to a human who uses a question.

    Machines don't exist so nor does science.

    A human exists realises. Natural.
    Earth exists it too is natural.

    We don't need your egotist stories it's a bad human behaviour.

    Invention should never disturb natural is a humans intelligence quote.

    Human first.
     
  20. MikeF

    MikeF Proponent of RAEism
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2020
    Messages:
    1,537
    Ratings:
    +871
    Religion:
    None
    Hmmm. Really? I disagree.
     
Loading...