Pictures of the new Sanatana Dharma(Hindusim)

[RealityCheck]

How can an object have mass without momentum, and how can an object have momentum without mass?

This is stupid.

You know, this is the same question that high-school physics students ask once they get past basic Newtonian mechanics and move on to E-M and QM theories.

Those that can grasp the math, can understand how physics works, will understand that the newtonian definition of momentum (which is the one you gave) is inadequate and only applicable to matter.

Those that can't grasp the math, can't understand the physical universe beyond simple Newtonian mechanics, will be stuck as you are in an antiquated definition.

Sorry we can't help you. We've tried. You simply are being obstinate in refusing to a) go read a physics book, b) go take a physics class, c) do anything to expand your understanding of the physical universe.

 

[arunma]

I noticed the following comment by Srev:

Flaw #2)And how can light have energy? E=mc^2

If there is no mass, energy will also be zero.

Apparently he thinks that uttering the words "E = mc²" somehow constitutes a proper scientific argument. Sorry, but the equation isn't even complete. Here's what he should have been using:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Oops, looks like this explains why "E = mc²" is not an argument that photons have mass (but then, how arrogant of the facts to trample on the Vedas!). Let this be a lesson that getting your scientific education on Google, and acting as though you've acquired expert knowledge, only leads to folly.

 

[srev2004]

You know, this is the same question that high-school physics students ask once they get past basic Newtonian mechanics and move on to E-M and QM theories.

Those that can grasp the math, can understand how physics works, will understand that the newtonian definition of momentum (which is the one you gave) is inadequate and only applicable to matter.

Those that can't grasp the math, can't understand the physical universe beyond simple Newtonian mechanics, will be stuck as you are in an antiquated definition.

Sorry we can't help you. We've tried. You simply are being obstinate in refusing to a) go read a physics book, b) go take a physics class, c) do anything to expand your understanding of the physical universe.

So your saying western physics @ the mechanics level is flawed? Thanks for proving my point. Also thanks for proving my point that western physics contradicts each other. This is what I've been trying to prove all along. You have my humblest thanks.

I noticed the following comment by Srev:



Apparently he thinks that uttering the words "E = mc²" somehow constitutes a proper scientific argument. Sorry, but the equation isn't even complete. Here's what he should have been using:

E² = (pc)² + (mc²)²

Oops, looks like this explains why "E = mc²" is not an argument that photons have mass (but then, how arrogant of the facts to trample on the Vedas!). Let this be a lesson that getting your scientific education on Google, and acting as though you've acquired expert knowledge, only leads to folly.

I know this equation, it means even if mass is zero, there is momentum. Equations are only applicable if the theory is true. I'm not arguing whether or not I know how to punch in numbers, I am arguing that the theory itself is bogus. I think light has mass and it is possible to go faster than light. Because something that doesn't have mass should have infinite energy, and light has finite energy. This is a simple experiment, with the right lab equiptment, even u can do it.

Get a glass box in a dark room, weigh it. Then trap some light in the glass box and weight it again. Tell me the difference.

 

[RealityCheck]

I know this equation, it means even if mass is zero, there is momentum. Equations are only applicable if the theory is true. I'm not arguing whether or not I know how to punch in numbers, I am arguing that the theory itself is bogus. I think light has mass and it is possible to go faster than light. Because something that doesn't have mass should have infinite energy, and light has finite energy. This is a simple experiment, with the right lab equiptment, even u can do it.

Get a glass box in a dark room, weigh it. Then trap some light in the glass box and weight it again. Tell me the difference.

You can "think" whatever you like - but in SCIENCE, you don't simply get to make an assertion and pass it off as true. If you'd like, you can formulate a hypothesis that says "Light has measurable mass," you can devise experiments that will demonstrate that light has mass, and have your work peer-reviewed.

But I can tell you right now, your work will get ripped to shreds. Your experiment, as devised, has so many obvious flaws that even an 8th grade student could tell you what's wrong with it.

A) How do you propose to "trap" light? What's the method for catching and holding light inside a container? Do you mean to shine light into it and then close the lid really fast before the light can escape?

B) What instruments will you be using to detect the mass of light? Since your contention is that light has mass on the order of 1e10-48 grams, what do you propose to use to detect such incredibly small masses? This is even smaller than an electron mass, you realize, and you can't "weigh" electrons on a bathroom scale.

C) You're going to use a GLASS box? Won't that defeat the purpose of "trapping" the light? You do know that light readily passes through glass, or did you not learn that in your "extensive science classes"?

C'mon. Up to this point I've been going on the assumption that you are genuine, but do you really know THAT little about physics to suggest you can somehow trap light in a glass box, and then weigh it on a scale? I'm beginning to think you're just pulling our collective leg and are nothing more than a troll.

 

[arunma]

So your saying western physics @ the mechanics level is flawed? Thanks for proving my point. Also thanks for proving my point that western physics contradicts each other. This is what I've been trying to prove all along. You have my humblest thanks.

Apparently you also need to learn how to sharpen your reading comprehension skills, because she said nothing of the sort. Your Vedic "science" is worthless here. Heck, it's worthless in any accredited Indian institution of higher learning.

I know this equation, it means even if mass is zero, there is momentum.

I seriously doubt that you did. If so, you wouldn't be parroting "E = mc²" so often.

Equations are only applicable if the theory is true. I'm not arguing whether or not I know how to punch in numbers, I am arguing that the theory itself is bogus. I think light has mass and it is possible to go faster than light.

You also think that ancient Indians had airplanes because a cartoon says so. In other words: you have a lot of crazy opinions. Fortuantely science is no respecter of opinions. Either justify your opinions, or they're worthless.

Because something that doesn't have mass should have infinite energy, and light has finite energy.

Another false statement. While I wouldn't do this to you, you should be careful before someone starts collective Srevisms.

This is a simple experiment, with the right lab equiptment, even u can do it.

Get a glass box in a dark room, weigh it. Then trap some light in the glass box and weight it again. Tell me the difference.

Oh my goodness, do you even want me to start listing the reasons why this is the second most foolish comment you've uttered thus far? According to your made-up number, a photon has a mass of 10^-48 grams. So a mole of photons would have 10^-25 grams. So according to Vedic science, your experiment wouldn't even have detectable results!

Of course in the real (i.e. non-Vedic) world, mirrors have a non-zero transmission coefficient, meaning that the light would immediately be absorbed by the box. Sorry, but your explanation fails, as do your Vedas.

And I take it back, you're tempting even me to start collecting Srevisms.

 

[jwu]

Equations are only applicable if the theory is true.

No...many of them stand and fall on their own merit, independent from the theory to which they belong. A completely wrong theory can use some equations which are identical to those of what is "true" and then the equations are correct but the theory is bogus.

Anyway, what equations are there about this repulsive force which you suggest there is? I've asked for one specific example in a previous post - can you show me such an equation?

This is a simple experiment, with the right lab equiptment, even u can do it.

Get a glass box in a dark room, weigh it. Then trap some light in the glass box and weight it again. Tell me the difference.

Why don't you do it? After all, the proponents of a theory have the burden of evidence.

However; are you aware that mirrors aren't perfectly reflective and air isn't perfectly translucent either? Any photons in such a box will be absorbed long before one can get a measurement.

 

[RealityCheck]

So your saying western physics @ the mechanics level is flawed? Thanks for proving my point. Also thanks for proving my point that western physics contradicts each other. This is what I've been trying to prove all along. You have my humblest thanks.

Nope. I'm saying that Newtonian mechanics is:

- A system and theory devised over 300 years ago, prior to any knowledge of electro-magnetic theory, nuclear theory, quantum mechanical theory, etc. We've learned a lot since then.

- A model that, despite our advanced knowledge in this day and age, and despite knowing that it does not model accurately the interaction of objects below the atomic level, still provides an excellent and accurate model of how large objects interact. And they don't even have to be that large - they can be on the order of a dust grain, a protein chain... You can, if you really feel masochistic about it, attempt to model the interaction of two dust grains using complete quantum field theory, but why bother? You get equally useful and accurate results using classical mechanics.


You also need to note that classical mechanics and gravitational theory say nothing about the nature of matter. They only describe how objects interact with each other - how mass attracts mass and at what rate/strength. You want to get into the nature of matter, and why it works as it does... you have to get into such fields as String Theory or M-Theory, which address the fundamental nature of mass and energy. And the universe as a whole, as a consequence.

 

[LadyGarnetRose]

Lets start from the begining...

yep, they don't work in a place without oxygen. They won't work in a place without an atmosphere. They won't work if the density of the air being combusted is significantly higher or lower.

They won't work in certain temperatures.... So yes I'm saying our science only applies to our Earth.

Western physics is wrong, wrong, wrong...

The moon isn't our Earth, and has no atmosphere, and as a result no oxygen.

Yet we've gone back and forth to the moon more than once and the engines had no problem lifting off of the moon's surface.

And lets not even get into when the Space Shuttle has to exit orbit.

Those engines have stored liquid and solid propellants. Among them is oxygen. Are you trying to say you can burn fossil fuels without oxygen?

So, now you are saying combustion can occur, just as long as it's a propellant (which gasoline is).

Fossil Fuels, can burn without oxygen, as has been mentioned previously.

And actually, with the correct equipment, you can make fire underwater that doesn't consume the oxygen from the water.

It's called self oxidating. It's also how they weld things in space and underwater.

So, again to put it simply. Our science works off our planet. In fact, it just might work outside our solar system and into interstellar space.

Voyager is still working having been launched in 1977 and is in the heliosheath (the outer most edge of the solar system, think of it like a border between our solar system and the rest of the galaxy, or possibily another solarsystem) and should reach the heliopause in about 2015, and it has enough energy to continue to operate until 2020...so we just might go interstellar...on a probe launched in 1977.

 

[srev2004]

one at a time folks. The experiment I mentioned above has been accomplished. And lights adds to the mass of a glass box. The glass box has reflective mirrors. Ever heard of a reflective mirror????

#2 Strepulsion has been discovered and the technologies involved with it are going through the patent office, so of course they won't reveal any equations until they get a patented product up.

#3 The definition of momentum is mass in motion. Since photon doesn't have mass it won't have momentum. Either change the damn naming convention or don't say western physics doesn't contradict itself.

#4 Don't say vedic science is silly. It offers an alternate method to doing everything from simple calculations to string theory.

Everything from adding subtracting, multiplying to defining forces as electromagnetic waves can be done via vedic science. As there are a lot more translations and more and more documents are getting decrypted.

the reason behind einsten's theory being false is it treats time as a physical property. Any physics which treats time as a scalar is wrong, because it is based upon units which are a concept only in our minds. Where as units of mass and other things aren't. Time is a human creation.

 

[arunma]

one at a time folks. The experiment I mentioned above has been accomplished. And lights adds to the mass of a glass box. The glass box has reflective mirrors. Ever heard of a reflective mirror????

The experiment you described is a joke. And like most of what you say, the above statement is also not correct. If this experiment is feasable, cite the paper. I'll go look it up in Physical Review, Astro-Ph, or anywhere else it's available.

#2 Strepulsion has been discovered and the technologies involved with it are going through the patent office, so of course they won't reveal any equations until they get a patented product up.

Yeah right. And ancient Indians had cartoon airplanes.

You know how I know you're lying? When scientists make new discoveries, they don't patent the science. You can't patent science (nor would any career-minded scientist want to), only technology. If this strepulsion were legitimate science, then its discoverers would publish papers on the effect without delay.

I'll ask you again: how do your Hindu gods feel about you lying for them?

#3 The definition of momentum is mass in motion. Since photon doesn't have mass it won't have momentum.

That's not the definition of momentum. Your conclusion is false.

Either change the damn naming convention or don't say western physics doesn't contradict itself.

No, scientific conventions aren't going to change to make Hindus happy. Western physics is the only physics there is. You can either play by the rules of Western physics, or you can't play at all. Your Vedas are no good here, and they haven't an iota of scientific information contained in their pages.

#4 Don't say vedic science is silly. It offers an alternate method to doing everything from simple calculations to string theory.

Vedic "science" is silly. Not only that, but it's a deception. It is rooted and founded in lies. Vedic "science" couldn't tell you how to add two and two, much less string theory. It is utterly worthless, and it's a waste of time.

Everything from adding subtracting, multiplying to defining forces as electromagnetic waves can be done via vedic science. As there are a lot more translations and more and more documents are getting decrypted.

How, in good conscience, do you lie about your religion? I could never say that the earth is 6,000 years old, knowing full well that it isn't true. Do your versions of the Hindu gods even value honesty?

the reason behind einsten's theory being false is it treats time as a physical property. Any physics which treats time as a scalar is wrong, because it is based upon units which are a concept only in our minds. Where as units of mass and other things aren't. Time is a human creation.

Tell me the difference between a covarient tensor and a contravarient tensor, and then you get to talk about whether time should be treated as a scalar or a vector. Of course if you can do that, you wouldn't be complaining about or mathematical treatment of time. "Waiting on your reply." (not really, if it contains as much truth as your previous statements).

 

[jwu]

The experiment I mentioned above has been accomplished.

Where can we read up on this, and what were the exact results? What difference in weigth was measured?

The glass box has reflective mirrors. Ever heard of a reflective mirror????

They don't reflect all the light, just like 99.9%. This means that in a box of 1 meter edge length light will be reflected 300,000,000 times per second.
As a consequence, after a second only 0.999^300,000,000 of the light will be left, the rest has been absorbed. That is roughly 2.9*10^-1304 i.e. not a single photon should be left.
And this does not even take into account that the air in the box isn't perfectly translucent either. How much light do you think will be left after travenling through hundreds thousands of miles of air?

#2 Strepulsion has been discovered and the technologies involved with it are going through the patent office, so of course they won't reveal any equations until they get a patented product up.

Didn't you say that they publish in Journals? Journals are public. So all they have is "we have discovered it, trust us - even though we won't show you any actual research".

By the way - getting from a few equations to a technological product is a far way, one can reveal the equations without endangering the product.

#4 Don't say vedic science is silly. It offers an alternate method to doing everything from simple calculations to string theory.

Everything from adding subtracting, multiplying to defining forces as electromagnetic waves can be done via vedic science. As there are a lot more translations and more and more documents are getting decrypted.

Then just show us how. Otherwise what you're telling us isn't any better than me claiming that i found the key to all the secrets of the universe but that i cannot tell you about the details and that you just have to trust me. Would you believe me if i told you such a thing? Probably not. So why should i believe you?

the reason behind einsten's theory being false is it treats time as a physical property. Any physics which treats time as a scalar is wrong, because it is based upon units which are a concept only in our minds. Where as units of mass and other things aren't. Time is a human creation.

I don't see the problem. We perceive the universe with our minds, so a theory which explains it in the same terms that our mind uses seems to be quite useful. There may be more to it, but for our intents and purposes that is exactly what we want.

 

[srev2004]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]According to Vedic physics, space inside our universe is multidimensional. There are 64 main dimensions and each dimension is further divided into many sub-dimensions. Since the inhabitants of earth can only perceive three dimensions, their senses have no access to many other realms of universal reality. Therefore, we are unable to perceive many other planets and their inhabitants. Furthermore, there are other planets which we can perceive but at the same time we cannot see their inhabitants.

Some points revealed in Vedic Physics.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]The concept of an expanding universe can also be found in the Bhagavatam. According to the Bhagavatam, the universe expands in two ways:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] In the beginning of the formation of the universe, it is enveloped by an eight-fold shell. Each layer of this shell is 10 times thicker then the previous one. Thus, due to the expansion of the universal shell, the universe apparently becomes inflated. This process takes many thousands of years.

Later on, during the expansion of the planetary systems inside the universal globe, countless planets are spread throughout the universe. After the planets are spread all over the universe and occupy their respective places the expansion stops. Then after some time, the universe shrinks and collapses, and then again it expands and recollapses. This process continues to happen again and again.
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Thus, according to the Bhagavatam, the universe is not expanding unlimitedly but only up to some limits because the universe has its boundaries. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Actually, in Hubble’s expanding universe model the distance figures are not direct, accurate measurements of how far away galaxies are. Rather, they are derived indirectly from the apparent brightness of the galaxies. Thus the expanding universe model has two potential defects: First, the brightness and dimness of celestial bodies could quite possibly be caused by something other than how far away they are, and thus the distance figures derived from them could be imperfect. Second, it is possible that the red shift might not be connected to velocity.

[/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]We go about our daily lives understanding almost nothing of the world we live in. Where does the universe come from, and where is it going? How and why did it begin? Did the universe have a beginning, and if so, what happened before then? What is the nature of the universe? Will it come to an end, and if so, how? What really happens during the very early or late stages of the universe? Does the universe in fact have a beginning or an end, and if so, what are they like? What is our place in the universe and where did we come from? Why is the universe the way it is? Why should there be a universe? Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Does it bring about its own existence? On the other hand, does it need a Creator, and, if so, does He have any other effect on the universe? Moreover, who created Him? These questions are of interest to us all.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Before the twentieth century scientists generally accepted that either the universe had existed forever in an unchanging state or that it had been created at a definable time in the past more or less the way it exists today. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]As experimental and theoretical evidence mounted, it became increasingly clear that the universe must have had a beginning in time. In 1970, Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawking showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe must have a beginning and an end. This showed that the general relativity theory is an incomplete theory: it cannot tell us how the universe began, because it predicted that all physical theories, including itself, break down at the beginning of the universe. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]It is confirmed in the Bhagavatam that the universe has a beginning and an end. In contrast to modern theories, the Bhagavatam describes in detail how the universe started. It also agrees with the prediction of the general theory of relativity that all physical laws break down at the beginning of the universe. This phenomenon takes place at the beginning of the universe because matter is transformed from an unmanifest condition to a manifest condition. Matter in a manifest condition is governed by the physical laws of nature but matter in an unmanifest condition does not obey any physical laws. Matter in an unmanifest condition is nonphysical and cannot be perceived by the physical sense organs or any apparatus. Therefore, it cannot be described in terms of physical laws. Moreover, physical laws do not exist at this time. So instead of saying that at the beginning of the universe all physical laws break down, it is more accurate to say that at the beginning of the universe physical laws do not exist. Naturally we cannot say or figure out anything about the initial state of the universe. It is something like the production of the first computer. Before the first computer was made, its functioning principles did not exist. However, the idea of the first computer and its functioning principles must have existed in the mind of the designer before its production. So the computer existed in the mind of the designer in a subtle form. Similarly before the beginning of the universe, the blueprint for the universe already existed in the mind of the Creator but at this stage it belonged to a nonphysical realm. That is why the initial stage of the universe is governed by the nonphysical laws of nature and it is these nonphysical laws we need to figure out. We can find them in the scriptures. [/FONT]



[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]

[/FONT]

 

[srev2004]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]It is remarkable that the Bhagavatam solves this seeming controversy. According to the Bhagavatam, matter is eternal and the universe is created. Actually these two facts do not contradict each other. Matter exists in two conditions: [/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]1. manifest condition;
2. unmanifest condition. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]When matter is transformed to a manifest condition the universe is created and when the universe is annihilated matter is retransformed into its unmanifest condition. Thus matter is eternal and the universe is created.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]For resolving the ultimate origin question, the God hypothesis could be the most reasonable. And if someone objects that there is no actual evidence for His existence, it would be like saying that because black holes cannot be observed directly there could be no signs of their existence. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]If we try to answer the origin of life question and analyze the processes that culminated in life, we can clearly see design and intelligence implied in these processes. We can also see the link between the origin of life and the ultimate origin question. Some scientists claim that matter has self-organizing tendencies which are originated life. But such theories do not answer the ultimate origin question. If matter has self-organizing tendencies, we are still left with two questions:
[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]1. How did matter come to have these tendencies?
2. How did matter equipped with these tendencies come into being? [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]There is another popular view that the universe has such an inner capability that life will inevitably arise. For this view we can also ask these similar questions:[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT]When we talk on the phenomena of self-organization we are actually touching the metaphysical element of scientific theories. There is no physics without a metaphysical basis. We can say that self-organization is the connecting point between theory and meta-theory. The result of closer inspection reveals that the trivial scientific concept of matter must be sacrificed. In nuclear physics, it has been sacrificed for a long time.
Could God exist in the concepts of science? The answer is, Yes.
In the evolutional field theory, matter can carry ideas. Similarly, matter could be a vehicle for spirit. This is no longer in contradiction with the broader scientific concept of matter. When matter is pregnant with ideas from the beginning, it could also carry God.

 

[srev2004]

1. [FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica][FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]
2. Abdullah Al-Mamun Al-Suhrawardy, The Sayings of Muhammad, London, 1905, p.29.
3. Ibid., p. 49.
4. Copithorne W. L., The Lamp, “The Worlds of Wallace Pratt,” Fall, 1971.
5. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, p. 130.
6. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. 14.
7. Mir Valiuddin, Love of God. Delhi, 1968, p. 74.
8. Airavata Dasa, Srila Prabhupada on Christianity, Department of Interfaith Communications, Mayapur, 1997, p. 57.
9. The Book of the Beginning of the Creation, vol. IV page 283, part 54, chapter IV, number 421.
10. Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, New York, William Morrow, 1988, p. 384.
11. Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, New York, Bantam, 1985, p. 146.
12. Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution From Space, 1981, p. 130.
13. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, 1976, p. 14.
14. Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, New York, William Morrow, 1988, pp. 358-359.
15. Heinz Pagels, Perfect Symmetry, New York, Bantam, 1985, p. 365.
16. God and Carl Sagan: Is the Cosmos Big Enough for Them?, U.S. Catholic, May 1981, p. 20.
17. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, London, Penguin, 1968, p. 460.
18. Paul Davies, The Cosmic Blueprint, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1988, p. 203.
19. Freeman Dyson, Infinite in All Directions, New York, Harper and Row, 1988, pp. 296-298.
20. Michio Kaku, Hyperspace: A Scientific Odyssey Through Parallel Universes, Time Warps, and the 10th Dimension, New York, NY, Oxford University Press, 1994, from the Preface.
21. Ibid., p. 45-46.
22. Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, trans. Sonja Bargmann, New York, Dell Publishing Company, 1973, p. 255.
23. Max Planck, Where is Science Going? trans. With biographical note by James Murphy, New York, W.W. Norton, 1977, p. 168.
24. Werner Heisenberg, Across the Frontiers, trans. Peter Heath, San Francisco, Harper and Row, 1974, p. 213.
25. Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, New York, Bantam, 1988, p.175.
26. Quoted in Timothy Ferris, Coming of Age in the Milky Way, New York, William Morrow, 1988, p. 177.
27. Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers, New York, W.W. Norton, 1978, p. 15.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    [/FONT][/FONT]

 

[srev2004]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]First conclusion: When our subject of study is such a vast phenomenon as the universe, we should humbly admit our limitations in understanding and describing this subject. It will be very useful to remember the famous statement of Sir Isaac Newton in this regard. Considering his own relationship with the sum total of all knowledge, Sir Isaac Newton described himself as, “a little boy, playing on the seashore and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, while the great ocean of truth lay undiscovered all about me.”[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Any sincere seeker of truth must admit at least one day that he is just a little boy on the shore of the great ocean of undiscovered truth. Realizing and accepting this fact, should we use any available information to help us better understand the subject matter under scrutiny? Of course we should! [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Second conclusion: If we are studying Cosmology and there are cosmological descriptions in the scriptures, should we use them to widen our understanding? Definitely, we should! It is natural for an intelligent researcher to go through all available sources of knowledge, especially if it is knowledge spoken by great sages and men of wisdom.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]However, we do hear some voices of objection. So what are these objections? “Scriptural descriptions are all mythology. They are not scientific. They are thoughts of the primitive cave man on the dawn of human civilization. It is belief, not science!” they say. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Although these objections are very common, let us now hear from the greatest authorities of modern science! Our question is: “Can scriptural knowledge help us in modern scientific research work?” [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Albert Einstein: “Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. … This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”21 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Max Planck: “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”22 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Werner Heisenberg: “In the history of science, ever since the famous trial of Galileo, it has repeatedly been claimed that scientific truth cannot be reconciled with the religious interpretation of the world. Although I am now convinced that scientific truth is unassailable in its own field, I have never found it possible to dismiss the content of religious thinking as simply part of an outmoded phase in the consciousness of mankind, a part we shall have to give up from now on. Thus in the course of my life I have repeatedly been compelled to ponder on the relationship of these two regions of thought, for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”23 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Stephen Hawking: “Up to now, most scientists have been too occupied with the development of new theories that describe what the universe is to ask the question why. … If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason – for then we would know the mind of God.”24 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]As illustrated by the statements quoted here the pioneers of quantum physics like Planck and Heisenberg saw no conflict between the scientific enterprise and a religious view of reality. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Albert Einstein once said, “I want to know how God created this world. … I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”25 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Where can we find how God created the world? How can we know His thoughts? The answer is clear: “From scriptures!” [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Astrophysicist Robert Jastrow begins God and the Astronomers, his celebrated survey of modern cosmology, with a remarkable observation: “For the scientist, who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”26 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]This is exactly what is happening! As described earlier, while presenting different modern scientific concepts on the universe, we can see that many ideas of modern scientists have already been described in the scriptures, sometimes in very unusual ways. Often the terms used in the scriptures are foreign to modern readers, so create confusion and disbelief. Moreover, scriptural texts have hidden meanings, which require additional explanations from expert scholars who know the field. In addition, scriptures often describe the higher spiritual realities, which are beyond our daily material experiences. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Dr. Stephen Hawking arrived to the similar conclusion: “The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started – it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a Creator.” [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Thus, a fact that stands forth very clearly is that scriptural knowledge can definitely help us to further progress in the field of modern scientific knowledge. [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Third conclusion: We can clearly see how modern scientific ideas on the universe are coming closer and closer towards the scriptural descriptions on creation.

Fourth conclusion: Gradually it is becoming obvious that the concept of God is necessary for modern science. An increasing number of modern scientists are admitting that the concept of God must be introduced into modern science for further progress. Otherwise, the modern scientists will find themselves in an insurmountable deadlock.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Fifth conclusion: Still another very important conclusion is that modern scientific knowledge has allowed us to understand certain texts of the scriptures which otherwise would be very difficult to interpret. Many scriptural texts are given in code form and they are meant for sages of past and elevated spiritual scientists. People of the present time find it difficult to understand scriptural descriptions. Some well-established scientific discoveries can help us relate to the scriptural explanations.[/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Sixth conclusion: Thus, the last conclusion is that to understand the universe thoroughly we must very carefully study both scriptures and modern scientific books. If modern scientists really want to help humanity in understanding the secretes of the universe they must come together with the scholars who are experts in scriptures and analyze the mysteries of the cosmic manifestation.[/FONT]

 

[srev2004]

Your beloved Einstein and Planck also had no trouble mixing religion and science. So what is wrong with me doing so?

 

[Vainglorious]

srev2004

Perhaps you missed the question but you have yet to comment on the bogus award those "strepulsion" nuts claim they have been awarded.

Why is your source so dishonest? If we can't trust them about such a simple matter why do you give them the time of day about other issues?

 

[Vainglorious]

Your beloved Einstein and Planck also had no trouble mixing religion and science. So what is wrong with me doing so?

Because they knew there was a differance between the two and didn't try to pass one off as the other.

 

[srev2004]

Because they knew there was a differance between the two and didn't try to pass one off as the other.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Albert Einstein: “Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality or intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order. … This firm belief, a belief bound up with deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God.”21 [/FONT]
[FONT=Trebuchet MS, Arial, Helvetica]Max Planck: “There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”22 [/FONT]

 

[RealityCheck]

Planck also didn't put much credence in his own theory on the quantum nature of matter, because he didn't think it reflected reality and felt that it inherently violated the concept of a perfect universe. Turns out he was wrong, and that the universe really did work the way he modeled it.

Einstein, for his part, disagreed with the fundamental nature of quantum mechanics and believed it couldn't possibly reflect reality, because it violated his beliefs of a deterministic universe and a supreme deity that was in control of all. Turns out, of course, that QM really does reflect and model reality quite well, and Einstein was wrong.

When you let your beliefs about how the universe should be get in the way, you've exited science and entered religion. Planck was wrong. Religion and science originally had their roots in the same studies, but that was millenia ago (even centuries ago), when it was believed that scientific study could reveal the secrets of the mystical and magical. But as science developed and diverged from religion, which remained undeveloped and stagnant, science formalized itself into a separate discipline that studied the natural phenomena of the world and the universe, rather than the pursuit of the supernatural. This divergence also formalized the concept that personal beliefs and agendas had no place in scientific study, and this is why so often scientists will jump on other scientists whenever they do let personal beliefs, politics, religion, etc. cloud their reasoning and judgment and results.