When it comes to discussion in regard to the physics and/or mathematics, I will easily contend it's not my strong suit. However, I can more than hold my own in the biology; Les W did you have any example of this " largely incorrect " biology? I am also curious how you have come to define this " largely incorrect " bio?
Newton was wrong about a lot of things, more bullshit
Did my post fly over your head or I am reading yours wrong/your post flying over my head?
I have a couple things to add that might help shape these exchanges.
1. Math, simply put, is not REAL. It is an abstraction for the purpose of description, like a map DESCRIBES geographical territory (and does a pretty good job of it). HOWEVER, the MAP is NOT the territory. As far as we've come, and far we have, we do not yet have maths (read:language) expressive enough to adequately describe the physical world. Science is an ITERATIVE process, and just like past civilizations that have come and gone, WE may not be around when NEW MATHS are developed that DO describe existence.
Also, because math is only a tool just like a map is tool for navigation, this is a good analogue to keep in mind when referring to maths. Why? Because like the maps, they are proximal in their application but accurate only unto itself. Meaning, in a dynamic setting maths are only good for the period in which it's solution(s) applies to the phenomenon of that period. Outside of that, the math is useless unless an accurate description of change for all related phenomenon can be achieved. Also, physicist and mathematicians are really different animals.
2. It might be worth one's while IF you're invested in the IDEA of a DESIGNER to look up a little something called EMERGENT BEHAVIOR. Many of the observations folks make that compels them to 'see' god, comes from this very phenomenon.
2 cents,
JG
RR,
See what I mean (@ Bolded)? ^^^. There's A LOT going on, where gaps in understanding lead to gross measurements. Obviously math us highly useful.
You will NEVER get ANY physicist or mathematician to disagree with me on the inadequacies of our maths, as it pertains to extents to which we can measure things. I love math, and agree that the maths we have to date are the best 'languages' we have at describing physical reality. So no argument there.
But we do not possess enough mathematical 'vocabulary' to answer the biggest or most complex questions . . . nor are we familiar will all measurable elements within a system that need to be included in a model. We're just not there yet. Ax around. . . perhaps your Professor friend from City College. But keep up the good fight, it's all good. 'Cause IF we had the PROPER compendium of maths and a combined understanding of related phenomena, MAN!!!, do you know how far ahead we'd be from where we are?
JG
I have a couple things to add that might help shape these exchanges.
1. Math, simply put, is not REAL. It is an abstraction for the purpose of description, like a map DESCRIBES geographical territory (and does a pretty good job of it). HOWEVER, the MAP is NOT the territory. As far as we've come, and far we have, we do not yet have maths (read:language) expressive enough to adequately describe the physical world. Science is an ITERATIVE process, and just like past civilizations that have come and gone, WE may not be around when NEW MATHS are developed that DO describe existence.
Also, because math is only a tool just like a map is tool for navigation, this is a good analogue to keep in mind when referring to maths. Why? Because like the maps, they are proximal in their application but accurate only unto itself. Meaning, in a dynamic setting maths are only good for the period in which it's solution(s) applies to the phenomenon of that period. Outside of that, the math is useless unless an accurate description of change for all related phenomenon can be achieved. Also, physicist and mathematicians are really different animals.
2. It might be worth one's while IF you're invested in the IDEA of a DESIGNER to look up a little something called EMERGENT BEHAVIOR. Many of the observations folks make that compels them to 'see' god, comes from this very phenomenon.
2 cents,
JG
I get where you are coming from with the math I use to feel the same way, but their is no math formula for emotion, fear, love and hate. You can make a formula that says I have a 50% chance of taking my truck to work over my bike today but it cant prove that I will take my truck. Just like relgion cant show me the importance of e=mc^2.
Thats why 1000s of years ago people new so much about the stars and medicine is, because it was incorperated into religion and sprituality. They were all one. Thats why things like the pyrimids can not be understood by scientist. Also thats why things like Hawkings radiation cant or wont be understood by relgious people.
Compared to the knowledge Dogma tribe and the Myans, we are in the stone ages. I guess it all got lost when scientist and preist started getting egos.
We live in a period where they put new kidneys in a cat and he played in the NBA. He would have been dead as fuck in any KNOWN ancient culture. Now that is some amazing shit. If these ancients new anything about medicine, do you know how populated the earth would be now? Look at the advancements made in the last couple hundred years and the population increase and lifespan increase.
We are not in the stone age compared to any KNOWN people in the past. We do know that these KNOWN people at a life expectancy of about 30 from birth. If they had such superior knowledge, the first thing they would have fixed was that.
It's a lot easier to look up at the sky and map shit out than it is to come up with medical knowledge. I'd rather be tasked with looking up at the sky than having to attempt a heart transplant.
Cats don't even appreciate their own time period.We live in a period where they put new kidneys in a cat and he played in the NBA. He would have been dead as fuck in any KNOWN ancient culture. Now that is some amazing shit.
. Humans spent thousands of years forming physics equations. We are not just coming to an age to where they can be tested.
Interesting times and the next few decades should see tranformative progress in applied science because of the increasingly cheap access to powerful supercomputers that are seeing unprecedented compounded growth in processing power.
c/s
Ancients did not have the technology we have today. So in essence they had to use what worked for them at the time. They had to learn quicker because death came early for them.
Their lack of medical knowledge would hamper their scientific knowledge. If half your population dies before 16, how many great minds are lost?
Or even better we can create artificial intelligence that will be able to solve what we can not solve about the universe. How interesting would that be? I am more inclined to believe that artificial intelligence will be the front runner for the ultimate physicist and mathematician.

If these ancients new anything about medicine, do you know how populated the earth would be now? Look at the advancements made in the last couple hundred years and the population increase and lifespan increase.
We are not in the stone age compared to any KNOWN people in the past. We do know that these KNOWN people at a life expectancy of about 30 from birth. If they had such superior knowledge, the first thing they would have fixed was that.
It's a lot easier to look up at the sky and map shit out than it is to come up with medical knowledge. I'd rather be tasked with looking up at the sky than having to attempt a heart transplant.
Cats don't even appreciate their own time period.We live in a period where they put new kidneys in a cat and he played in the NBA. He would have been dead as fuck in any KNOWN ancient culture. Now that is some amazing shit.
Biology is actually one of my strongest sciences as well... Those statements weren't to be grandiose declarative statements or meant to derail the thread... I don't want to argue science or religion... imo It always comes back to belief... the scientist when discovered to be wrong argues that it is merely a study.... and the church when discovered to be wrong argues that god works in mysterious ways... both have their use and will swear they unilaterally corner the market on truth... but both require leaps of faith...
c/s
Ancients did not have the technology we have today. So in essence they had to use what worked for them at the time. They had to learn quicker because death came early for them.
But no matter how fast of computer you can create or how big of a satellite telescope you can put in orbit, the same problem exist, how do you get all this stuff from nothing then there is the messy problem of trying to make heads and tails out of dealing with the infinitesimal and the infinite..
Yea I know that im not saying it was common knowledge. Its was not accessable to everyone. Even today that knowledge is not accessible to everyone. Their is people in certain parts of the world still dying because of lack of medicine. We are in the computer age and I bet 99% of the population cant tell you the difference between Java and Java Script, but in the future everyone will be looked at as the people who started the computer age not just the guys who actually started it. Every class has one teacher and many students. So you cant say because people were dying from desease that culture had no medical knowledge. Didnt African slaves introduce Europeans to vacines.
I do apprecciate my own time period. The point I was tring to make is that relgion and science together allowed people to make bigger gains in knowledge than just using one. I think some were down the line, the two were seperated.
its fun to speculate on shit like that, but real talk humans only know so much about space. this is one of those things it'll take Earth science another 1000 years to even be halfway correct about.
The God force is the force that created all of this shit, the big bang, matter, electrons, gravity, DNA..... etc.....
c/s
Ancients did not have the technology we have today. So in essence they had to use what worked for them at the time. They had to learn quicker because death came early for them.
really, we dont have some of the technology they had!
they were building structures that were within 1/4 of an inch to be perfect
90 degree angles, aligning with stars out in the distant universe, that modern
science cant even do. egyptians were doing surgery also.
In which case doesn't it come down to "reproducibility"?
Example #1: If someone prays for money:
1) If they get it, God delivered on said prays if not God didn't want to for some strange reason
Example #2
1) Tebow prays to God he wins the football game against his opponent. His opponent prays he wins against tebow
Example #3
1) Someone prays their son doesn't get in an accident and he does(God had his reason). Someone else prays their son doesn't get in an accident and he doesn't (God delivered on prayer)
Well gotdammit which is it? You may knock science all you or others want, but you can't argue with it reproducibility. I find it highly hypocritical of so many that mock science but yet embellish everyday by its methods and thinking.
On behalf of myself and others that spend hours in the lab "reproducing" science to allow you mutherfuckers to have an internet and so many other things...FUCK YOU!



We are learning things from termites and their building techniques.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040922073338.htm
The KNOWN ancient world is overhyped. And I bet you wouldn't want an ancient Egyptian performing an emergency appendectomy on you. If childhood wasn't safe, how safe would post-op recovery be? That is if they could pull off the operation.
I dont pretend to know what or who God is nor do I make up stories on God based on some agenda I may or may not have.. Instead I refer to God as the ultimate force of the universe or above, the force, power or energy that created something (all this stuff) from nothing....... When did it happen? Was it a trillion years prior to the big bang? Was it a trillion universes prior to the big bang, I dont know, but as long as we are dealing with a physical universe there had to be a beginning as well as a ending, and what ever is responsible for that had to have a force greater than any force known to mankind, something I call the God force....you've posted some insightful stuff. but god force, come on
man, is it "god" or science. what is god to you? why do you continue
to use that word knowing its intent in the world & on the world.
As far as the ancintients their knowledge of mathmatics is just mind blowing.. I mean for them to come up with the fibernachi sequence, Phi and Pi, and so on is just mind blowing... Plus the whole flower of life and Metatron's Cube, as well as advanced Fractal Geometry is like...
But then again they dealt with mathematics in terms of its spiritual aspects, similar to music, and the way crystals, atoms and DNA are formulated.
Its a deep subject that warrants its own thread...
Something I promise to create when I have a lot of free time on my hands.
Gotta believe something came from nothing in order to understand the big bang. There is no answer, but your own scientific opinion.

You know how they say that an electron is a particle and a wave
I believe that EVERYTHING is a wave
There is no such thing as a particle
and you, my friend, are on the right track!If these ancients new anything about medicine, do you know how populated the earth would be now? Look at the advancements made in the last couple hundred years and the population increase and lifespan increase.
Dumbass.
We are not in the stone age compared to any KNOWN people in the past. We do know that these KNOWN people at a life expectancy of about 30 from birth. If they had such superior knowledge, the first thing they would have fixed was that.
It's a lot easier to look up at the sky and map shit out than it is to come up with medical knowledge. I'd rather be tasked with looking up at the sky than having to attempt a heart transplant.
Cats don't even appreciate their own time period. We live in a period where they put new kidneys in a cat and he played in the NBA. He would have been dead as fuck in any KNOWN ancient culture. Now that is some amazing shit.
Dude I said the ancients were wiz at mathematics, and you bring up medicine.![]()
Is this all the same to you?
could you explain what you mean?all i know is when i figured out there were different levels to space, time, and the universe in general, i stopped questioning shit like that.

what is the relevance of this video clip??<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/Jh8uZUzuRhk?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

and if one, after careful rational thought and research, finds the Big Bang Theory (BBT) to be seriously flawed and muddled with contradicting concepts, and completely naive. Then what?so what is the alternate idea? And how does something NOT come from nothing?
To answer the OP's question.... I DON'T KNOW.
That doesn't mean it's true, it just means you may have a calling to be a phycisist and try to figure it out.
My first guess is antimatter, but I don't understand that what really means. It's obviously beyond the understanding of many. You have some research to do instead of deciding that phycisists have never pondered the same question.
I found this:
Space and time were created in the Big Bang. At the beginning of the universe, the space was completely filled with matter. The matter was originally very hot and very dense and then expanded and cooled to eventually produce the stars and galaxies we see in the universe today.
and if one, after careful rational thought and research, finds the Big Bang Theory (BBT) to be seriously flawed and muddled with contradicting concepts, and completely naive. Then what?
oh, and anyone about to say that Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is "evidence" supporting the BBT ... think first before you post that shit.![]()
Sure the NATURAL sciences can reproduce results of rudimentary experiments and fundamental concepts...
most of which any intelligent person can observe and deduce with some effort...
Tell me, What rudimentary and or fundamental results does RELIGION reproduce that any intelligent person can observe and deduce?
when it comes to cutting edge science and reproducing results in complex multi-level systems (as in macro and micro complexities) the reproductive argument is shaky... hell I can usually point out errors in the experimental process (poor control, poor reasoning in conclusion) so let's not get absurd here and pretend science is this strict measure of standards and a monolithic pure and ethical practice...
I will submit to you that almost every "cutting edge science" in its infancy was "shaky" at best. Which in it self is part of the beauty of the discipline that we dare towards "cutting-edge" anything!
much like religion it relies on the ethic and capabilities of the human(s) practicing it to be effective as it is designed to be... I hope I didn't lose you....
Sure....
Is science and religion the same? Nope... apples and Oranges but they are both FRUIT... imo people act like science is steak and religion is wheatgrass lol
Curious, Just about everyone without even trying can list some of the things the discipline of science has provided the world! Tell me what meaningful anything has the "FRUIT" of religion provided the world it wouldn't have had without it?
My Retort
Example 1:
Someone develops a statistical algorithm and/or computer model to predict volatility in the stock market (or any complex system)... they invest money with it then lose the money ... "science" blames unseen market forces, statistical anomalies and/or fluctuations
Example 2:
Based on lifetime performance data, weather, field conditions, etc Tim Tebow's coach calculates how many points are needed to beat their next opponent, with the same tools that opponent's coach calculates how many points they must prevent to beat Tim Tebow
Example 3:
Someone is told they have terminal cancer and have 6 months to live 10 years later they are still alive and well... someone goes in for a minor procedure and dies... "science" blames the hospital staff and doctor
Same illusion of infallibility I-M-O