Comments on: No Need for Religion to Appreciate the Wonders of the Universe

By: Sam

Sam — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 08:23:58 +0000

Hi Henry,
I got a reaction from you did I not?
I am quite happy to try a simple expanation of gravity here to show that for all practical purposes scientists can explain rather than only describe most natural phenomena.
This wont be an ultimate explanation; as in the big bang theory of the universe, even one who accepts that all matter was contained within a microscopic speck a nanosecond before, can still ask where that matter originated from in the very beginning.
We must accept that there a limits to our knowledge, and probably for man there always will be. I don’t believe that we need religion to explain to us this ultimate knowledge.
Quantum theory and even intuitive knowledge indicates that basic units of matter, be they atoms are smaller particles if you wish, are bound together by forces. They must be, or a diamond for instance would disintegrate with the slightest disturbance. One type of attractive force within and between bodies is a weak force we have named gravitation. We don’t need to consider the other forces at the moment.
Newtons law which is acceptable for all but very precise measurements not only provides a formula for calculating a gravitational force between two bodies but its simplicity also enables us to understand the logic behind it, and it makes perfect sense, based on observations of the solar system for instance.

By: Henry Herzog

Henry Herzog — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:57:49 +0000

PS if it wasn’t for climate change I wouldn’t be interested in climate change, just like i am not interested in immunology.

By: Henry Herzog

Henry Herzog — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:51:20 +0000

Frosh, you got me there. But I prefer to dabble in physics and so on. I am no expert on climate science, but you are right, in theory models should be able to also let us what happened in the past, but I do not think, given the current “climate”, the stuff that is of concern is more to do with the future than the past. I have a reasonable degree of faith in those scientists who I reckon have tested their models on the past to be able now to predict the future, just like metreologists do,( I mean why would they be making up such stories). They tell us if it’s going to rain or not but who cares if their interpolations have it that it rained 2 hundred years ago, if you know what I mean.

By: frosh

frosh — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 03:35:57 +0000

Henry, You wrote: "But even with global warming first observations are made on how the climate is changing and by appling some known science some modelling is carried out to predict future events. " My concern with these models is that I have not seen it demonstrated that they accurately 'predict' the past. If they can predict the future, they ought to be able to predict the past. Unless I am mistaken, these models would not have predicted the Roman warming period, nor the recent Little Ice Age etc.

By: Henry Herzog

Henry Herzog — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 02:23:37 +0000

Thanks for that frosh,

But even with global warming first observations are made on how the climate is changing and by appling some known science some modelling is carried out to predict future events.

Now it does appear that Sam is a bit confused here; I mean how he gets the notion that science is about descibing things and not explaining sounding like science verses religion is somewhat twisted.

Now look here Sam, yes indeed there are laws of nature and us humans try to work them out. We indeed first form hypothesis, test them and maybe form theories. Lets, indeed, take Newton for example. When hit on the head by the apple he realized there was this force which caused the apple to fall and this force was gravity. He also observed the Moon going around the Earth and realized it was the same force that caused that motion. Newton’s genius allowed him to formulate the equations of universal gravity which is the inverse square law. But Sam, it does not explain how gravity works or what gravity is. It only descibes it, get it? Then Albert Einstein, I am sure you heard of him, came along and realized that gravity and acceleration are the same thing and that gravity effects space and time. He improved on Newton’s laws with his theory of General Relativity. But again his equations do not explain gravity.

Now physicists are trying to get a quantum theory on gravity, but still it wont explain gravity. just descibe it

Sam, it’s obvious your education in science is lacking somewhat so may I suggest you have a read of James Jeans book Physics and Philosophy, and if you can’t get your hands on thatone, try something else, there are heaps about.

Best of luck and enjoy the journey

And don’t make disparaging remarks about other peoples knowledge of science without knowing them, if you don’t mind.

By: Sam

Sam — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:23:43 +0000

Henry
You have said you are an engineer yet seem to to be a bit shaky on on how scientific method works. Seems a bit strange to me! To say that science only describes how things work but not explain how they work sounds a bit like the religion versus science debate of the post renaissance historical period.
In simple terms the first step is: a hypothesis is made that describes and proposes a reason for natural phenomena, such as Newton’s laws of motion. If science could do no more to progress the hypothesis then maybe you would be right.
The next step is the formation of a theory via the proper design of a test or experiment to prove or disprove the original hypothesis using the correct methodology scientifically. This needs to be done a considerable number of times by different experimenters.
When a theory has been in use for a considerable time and the results are consistent and reproducible then that scientific explanation becomes a law of science, such as gravity.
How can this not be a proper explanation once the physics and maths behind the law are understood by the individual who is inquiring?

By: frosh

frosh — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:09:55 +0000

Hi Henry,

I wasn’t referring to the age of the Earth, but to the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

I wasn’t having a lend of you either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis

By: Henry Herzog

Henry Herzog — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 03:26:51 +0000

Hi frosh
I must admit, but I know nothing of the null hypothesis, I don’t even know what it means, unless you are having a bit of a lend of me. I mean, how can you have a null hypothesis. But I thought science is about drawing from observations real hyposthesis and then testing them hypothesis and so on.

Science is not about explaining how things work, rather describing how things work. You describe gravity with mathematical models which explain nothing. The hypothesis is in the form of equations, which are tested and the ones that best descibe the phenomena are used until better ones are formulated, and so on.

In regard to my suggestion about the age of the universe I was only having a bit of a joke, I hope you understand.

By: Chaim

Chaim — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:47:46 +0000

For those who are interested in “fixing” Torah to meet Science…

http://www.zootorah.com/books/challenge.html#contents

By: Chaim

Chaim — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 10:58:41 +0000

Henry you are so easily riled and driven to sputtering and nonsense..

Just kidding… I am just having fun. I thought the video was hilarious.

And actually according to Kabbala/Chassidus the world is being created from nothingness every instant.