Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 10
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by riley
How does it not exist without space and distance?



I am assuming the double negative there was purposely done, so the question is: How does time exist with space and distance. I think we already agreed that time and space coexist in the physical dimension, as to why, I do not know...


Gravity causes this bend [more specifically in light]. Spacetime distortion does not immediately mean that one can completly 'disapear'.. it just means it can be influenced.


Agreed



The '4th dimension' does not mean 'another rhelm'.. it is merely one dimension [as in side] of Einstein's formula and a discription of the physical..


How do you define realm?

The existance of fourth dimensional matter is a necessary condition for any bend in spacetime to happen. It is not solely a side, it must have mass for any force to actually make two objects advance towards each other. A theoretical side, cannot give force, it is hard to explain maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can enlighten us.



now I imagine the inside of a blackhole would be very distorted.. but again there is still distance within it; therefore there is time.. one can't exist without the other.


Agreed
, time in the blackhole is going at such a rate that it is almost nonexistant to us human beings. The form that blackholes currently take is only their very beginning, it would take eons to see their final form because of the progression of time; to us they are frozen at birth.




We are discussing ID; the idea that there was an intelligence that created the universe. The whole concept of 'god' is personifying this intelligence. For this 'intelligence' to have decided to have created the universe.. it would have had to of existed somewhere and sometime as this action of creation required premeditation


The designing of the universe did not take any premeditation as it was in the birth of the universe that time was created. Spatial dimensions were also created at the beginning fo the universe.



and self awareness enough to want to 'recreate' it's surroundings.


Recreate what? No sorroundings were existant....



Now.. I do not dismiss the possibilty of astral beings existing but they cannot exist nowhere.. be it this rhelm or another they'd still require a somewhere to reside.


Agreed



Afterthought.. I guess I should brief you on my own 'creation' belief.. it's basically that our universe is one inside a multiuniverse cluster and blackholes are it's 'veins' that connect them all.. when one becomes too condenced that is when it causes a 'big bang'.


How was this multiuniverse created (if it was created at all)?



[edit on 11/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]




posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
The theory of general relativity has something to say about other dimensions. It holds as a postulate the existance of a fourth dimension, from where the gravity gets its force from the space time continuum.


Well, ok, I guess I wasn't clear. What I meant is that it has nothing to say about what it's like within those dimensions. For example, your statement that the 4th dimension is timeless. How does general relativity imply this?

That said, I seriously doubt anyone on this board (myself included) can tackle the math behind general relativity. The best we can probably hope for is to understand the gist of it.

In a nutshell, it says "matter tells spacetime how to curve, and curved space tells matter how to move"(John Wheeler, Princeton University and the University of Texas at Austin)


Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
If Einstein's interpretation of gravity is correct, the vibration of atoms at the 4th dimensional level is faster than the speed of light.


How can there be vibration if it's timeless? I'm just a layman, so maybe you're right. Do you have a reference for the idea that general relativity involves faster than light vibration in the 4th dimension, and that the 4th dimension is thus timeless?

I read an analogy that might help. Imagine a plane flying over the landscape. The shadow of the plane apears to zig and zag across the landscape even though the plane itself is not accelerating. If there really are more dimensions, then the world humans observe could be nothing but a projection of the higher dimensional universe onto 4d spacetime. "bumps" in spacetime related to matter result in the appearance of acceleration in our 4d projection even though motion is uniform (no acceleration from gravity) in the full dimensional perspective.

If this perspective is true, it would imply that our own existence is somewhat of an illusion. The entire known universe would basically be a shadow.

Unfortunately for us, shadows don't jump off the ground into a higher dimensional world when they die.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
How does general relativity imply this?


I'm sorry, you're right general relativity does not imply that atoms vibrating at a higher frequency than the speed of light are in the fourth dimension. It is the theory of special relativity that states this.


How can there be vibration if it's timeless?


The strings do not need time to vibrate, as the vibrations themselves are happening in the present, and not over a period of time. It's kind of hard to understand, although it's part of the super string theory. It is not really that the strings are moving in order to create the vibrations, rather it is the tension within them that creates them.


Do you have a reference for the idea that general relativity involves faster than light vibration in the 4th dimension, and that the 4th dimension is thus timeless?


No, although I do have reference involving the theory of special relativity if you're curious.

The theory holds that:

-The speed of light is the fastest achievable speed in the universe, thus anything with a speed higher than this transcends the third dimension, and enters the timeless fourth dimension.



I read an analogy that might help.


It didn't
, I just don't completely understand what you're trying to get across with it.


[edit on 11/10/2005 by AkashicWanderer]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
No, although I do have reference involving the theory of special relativity if you're curious.

The theory holds that:

-The speed of light is the fastest achievable speed in the universe, thus anything with a speed higher than this transcends the third dimension, and enters the timeless fourth dimension.


Um, I don't know where you're getting this information from, but I'm pretty sure it's not coming from anyone who understands special relativity.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
All this talk about the physics of the Universe is absolutely 100% pointless. If God exists, he exists outside of the Universe and is therefore not bound by any of the rules that he himself created.

If he doesn't exist it remains impossible to disprove him and meaningless to use the Physics of the finite universe to try and disprove what many claim is an infinite God.

But to be fair, I haven't bothered reading much of it, so I'm probably jumping the gun here..



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
All this talk about the physics of the Universe is absolutely 100% pointless. If God exists, he exists outside of the Universe and is therefore not bound by any of the rules that he himself created.


Agreed



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
No, although I do have reference involving the theory of special relativity if you're curious.

The theory holds that:

-The speed of light is the fastest achievable speed in the universe, thus anything with a speed higher than this transcends the third dimension, and enters the timeless fourth dimension.


Um, I don't know where you're getting this information from, but I'm pretty sure it's not coming from anyone who understands special relativity.


Would you mind pointing me to the source of information you used to create your opinion of my misunderstanding of the theory?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
No, although I do have reference involving the theory of special relativity if you're curious.

The theory holds that:

-The speed of light is the fastest achievable speed in the universe, thus anything with a speed higher than this transcends the third dimension, and enters the timeless fourth dimension.

...

Would you mind pointing me to the source of information you used to create your opinion of my misunderstanding of the theory?


Rather than me trying to guess how you arrived at the conclusion in bold, why don't you start at special relativity and explain it?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Rather than me trying to guess how you arrived at the conclusion in bold, why don't you start at special relativity and explain it?


All I can do is repeat what I have posted earlier.

The theory of special relativity states that the fastest speed attainable in the universe is the speed of light.

The string theory states that once an object surpasses the speed of light it is no longer "in" the universe, it has gone into a different dimension.

Anyways back to topic, the real thing that we should be discussing here is:

Does E=mc2 prove that nothing can exist outside the physical dimension

I think it does not, while riley does. We should be focusing on that ^^.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Anyways back to topic, the real thing that we should be discussing here is:

Does E=mc2 prove that nothing can exist outside the physical dimension

I think it does not, while riley does. We should be focusing on that ^^.


I agree that e=mc^2 does not prove the inconsistency of existence outside the natural universe. That's proven through linguistic analysis, not physics.

Anything that can be observed, or inferred from observation is part of the natural, including extra dimensions if we figure out how to prove them through inferrence from observations we can make. To speak of something outside nature makes no sense, since by definition it is unobservable and can not be inferred from observation. So there is no basis from which to postulate it, nor can we even speak about it without referring to it as if it were natural.

The real question is whether things like consciousness, qualia, personal experiences, or visions are somehow not possibly mundane.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:11 PM
link   
If the Los Rios Community College System. (which serves the public through a dozen colleges in the Sacramento, Stockton, and Medesto area) can list Witch Craft and Wiccan in their course catalog...then why not Intelligent Design?



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well, I haven't chimed in on this subject because I have yet to really figure out what is meant by "Intelligent Design".

Someone please inform me what this means.

Are the "Pushers" of "Intelligent design" saying that there has been evolution and all species have evolved one way or another with the help of GOD? OR is this just a covert way of saying GOD plumped Adam and Eve and there we were? In other words is this being pushed just as a mask for Creationism?

If it is what I said that the species evolved with the help of GOD then the only problem I see with it is the use of GOD within the realm of the "state". Something I greatly frown on.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
ID basically says that yes there is evolution occuring. The thing is that evolution is occuring as planned by some intelligence weather it be god or alien or what not.
Look at it this way, there was an intelligence "out there". It created life and set it's course for the future development of the species.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
To be honest, I think it's a bad idea to teach Intelligent Design in schools. It would just severely confuse the students. Also how are you meant to write a syllabus for Intelligent Design since it is completely theoretical and there is not even any observable evidence of it occuring?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in God, but I also believe in evolution - I do not feel that the two are mutually exclusive concepts.

It must be noted however that both ID and Darwin's evolution are theories, neither one has been proven and until a theory is proven to be true, arguments over which one is valid can not be made with certainty...



posted on Oct, 13 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Simon_the_byron
It must be noted however that both ID and Darwin's evolution are theories, neither one has been proven and until a theory is proven to be true, arguments over which one is valid can not be made with certainty...


The bolded part is the part the teachers should stress.

The school system is teaching kids concepts, as if they were absolute truth.





new topics
 
0
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join