Physics: Post your doubts here!

[studyingrobot457]

something for physic's students to enjoy

I sometimes wonder, do really people don't know the basics (special relativity, general relativity , quantum mechanics and superposition, string theory, etc)

 

[teachyourself]

I sometimes wonder, do really people don't know the basics (special relativity, general relativity , quantum mechanics and superposition, string theory, etc)

yes and these are not 'basics' when you really delve into the detail and work with these theories, for many students even after clearing their A-levels thought experiments are a big problem, due to the excessive focus on academic questions
reading about a theory in the O' levels, A' levels, popular science books and Wikipedia is one thing and then studying it in an undergrad and graduate program is another, then also comes in the difference of using observations to understand the results and connecting them to the theory versus just thinking about a theory and doing the math, this being the difference between theoretical physicists and experimental astrophysicists
https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology
https://physics.stanford.edu/research/theoretical-astrophysics-and-cosmology
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-d...cist-astrophysicist-and-theoretical-physicist
if it was so easy and basic then quantum mechanics and general relativity would have been reconciled long time ago, it is precisely because it is NOT easy that astrophysicists have not been able to understand quantum mechanics completely and the information paradox remains an unsolved issue
there is one attempt in this paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921v1.pdf

 

[studyingrobot457]

yes and these are not 'basics' when you really delve into the detail and work with these theories, for many students even after clearing their A-levels thought experiments are a big problem, due to the excessive focus on academic questions
reading about a theory in the O' levels, A' levels, popular science books and Wikipedia is one thing and then studying it in an undergrad and graduate program is another, then also comes in the difference of using observations to understand the results and connecting them to the theory versus just thinking about a theory and doing the math, this being the difference between theoretical physicists and experimental astrophysicists
https://physics.stanford.edu/research/experimental-observational-astrophysics-and-cosmology
https://physics.stanford.edu/research/theoretical-astrophysics-and-cosmology
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-d...cist-astrophysicist-and-theoretical-physicist
if it was so easy and basic then quantum mechanics and general relativity would have been reconciled long time ago, it is precisely because it is NOT easy that astrophysicists have not been able to understand quantum mechanics completely and the information paradox remains an unsolved issue
there is one attempt in this paper
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1601.00921v1.pdf

You think we are given these at high school education, you have to be mistaken, I mean if you don't know about time dilation, Schrödinger equation, and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, then what you know about physics, kinematics?

 

[studyingrobot457]

and when did I talk about experimental astrophysics, please keep things correlated

 

[teachyourself]

firstly i am glad that at-least someone your age is interested in science for the sake of understanding it rather than just grades or the awful rote memorisation, hopefully you will become a great scientist one day

You think we are given these at high school education, you have to be mistaken

precisely my point this is not a part of high school education, even if it were, it would be superficial at best, so if people do not know about this stuff it is completely okay for them not to know about

I mean if you don't know about time dilation, Schrödinger equation, and Heisenberg uncertainty principle, then what you know about physics, kinematics?

1.knowing, 2.understanding and 3.applying are three very different things, you will understand that when you will reach the graduate level of any of the natural or pure sciences

so for your question

...then what you know about physics, kinematics?

the answer is that students know only a few formulas and a few ideas and facts that they have to memorize, the very reason why students end up hating science

science and history as subjects are not about rote memorisation facts but about questioning and understanding the natural phenomenon as far as science goes; and for history it is to understand how our ideas have changed and we can improve/change as far as public policy, intellectual development and our values go

while you might have an interest in trying to understand the more complex theories of science, many other students very much like you are discouraged to do so specially by teachers and parents with the claim "focus on your studies" which is actually harmful, which is why musing over the idea "I sometimes wonder, do really people don't know the basics" does not help, if you know more help others get to know more

the appropriate way to study the sciences is to break down the biggest questions into the basic concepts (which is i think what you are doing), so that you can go backwards from the complex theories to the most basic ones, which can also be chronological to some extent, more importantly it shows the purpose of science that being finding out about

 

[teachyourself]

and when did I talk about experimental astrophysics, please keep things correlated

actually it is correlated because one area of this field deals with the concepts and mathematical models and the other uses observations and experiments to test those mathematical models and theories, without understanding the effort required to develop the theories you mention as "basic" you will not be prepared for the hard work required at the undergrad and graduate level, the theories you mentioned are NOT basic by any means you will only understand that when you enter the field or are at graduate level, most students simply cannot cope with the mathematics required and drop out

so to demonstrate the amount of time/effort required
one example for Einstein to find e=mc2 and then test it
http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html (there are better links)
another example Einstein theorized Gravitational Waves (not Gravity Waves) and after 40 years of consistent work the Gravitational Waves were detected using the LIGO
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
https://www.theguardian.com/science...on-gives-hints-on-dark-matter-and-black-holes

so when you look at the theories you mentioned in an in-depth then the mathematics and the observation required to confirm the mathematics becomes VERY challenging, so calling these theories as "basic" is incorrect these are advanced theories that is why even at the A-levels the syllabus requires you to just skim through it at best, to understand the true complexity of these theories you need to understand the math required
https://www.quora.com/What-kinds-of-math-do-you-use-majoring-in-astrophysics
if you still find these theories as basic and can do the mathematics in your mind the way Stephen Hawking does it, then you should attempt working on a side project and hand it over to universities when applying

one more thing to note is that some graduate student programs (in top unis graduate means Phd because of the assumptions that an MSc student in the natural and pure sciences will try for a Phd) require a foreign language
http://math.mit.edu/academics/grad/timeline/language.php

 

[studyingrobot457]

actually it is correlated because one area of this field deals with the concepts and mathematical models and the other uses observations and experiments to test those mathematical models and theories, without understanding the effort required to develop the theories you mention as "basic" you will not be prepared for the hard work required at the undergrad and graduate level, the theories you mentioned are NOT basic by any means you will only understand that when you enter the field or are at graduate level, most students simply cannot cope with the mathematics required and drop out

so to demonstrate the amount of time/effort required
one example for Einstein to find e=mc2 and then test it
http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html (there are better links)
another example Einstein theorized Gravitational Waves (not Gravity Waves) and after 40 years of consistent work the Gravitational Waves were detected using the LIGO
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211
https://www.theguardian.com/science...on-gives-hints-on-dark-matter-and-black-holes

so when you look at the theories you mentioned in an in-depth then the mathematics and the observation required to confirm the mathematics becomes VERY challenging, so calling these theories as "basic" is incorrect these are advanced theories that is why even at the A-levels the syllabus requires you to just skim through it at best, to understand the true complexity of these theories you need to understand the math required
https://www.quora.com/What-kinds-of-math-do-you-use-majoring-in-astrophysics
if you still find these theories as basic and can do the mathematics in your mind the way Stephen Hawking does it, then you should attempt working on a side project and hand it over to universities when applying

one more thing to note is that some graduate student programs (in top unis graduate means Phd because of the assumptions that an MSc student in the natural and pure sciences will try for a Phd) require a foreign language
http://math.mit.edu/academics/grad/timeline/language.php

let me point out, understanding a theory and discovering one are completely two different things, understanding requires you to have the idea/concept clear in the mind, where as discovering requires a lot of effort/time etc,+ am not saying that I consider discovering basics, although I discovered a math formula, and I already have shown it to our senior high school teacher, so in both cases, I understand and discovered some math

If you are interested, PM me to know

 

[teachyourself]

let me point out, understanding a theory and discovering one are completely two different things, understanding requires you to have the idea/concept clear in the mind, where as discovering requires a lot of effort/time etc,+ am not saying that I consider discovering basics, although I discovered a math formula, and I already have shown it to our senior high school teacher, so in both cases, I understand and discovered some math

If you are interested, PM me to know

i never said understanding an existing theory and discovering a new one are the same, i said that the theories you mentioned are NOT basic as you said, anyone who understands the math behind them knows this

however, whatever you will discover will be based upon the existing theories without having understood existing theories down to the last minute detail coming up with a something that adds to the theories, contradicts them or even if completely new will be incorrect, so they are related (not the same but related), also discovering math would be in the area of pure math in which the aim is that somewhere down the line someone will use the math you discovered whereas trying to solve a problem in astrophysics is different

as for the message you quoted, the purpose of that message was to show you that experimental astrophysics IS related to the theories you mentioned because it is used to provide the evidence for those theories

so there are two topics you are mixing up a bit:-
1.Relation of Experimental Astrophysics to the theories you mentioned
2.Understanding an existing theory and coming up with a new one
the separation between the two above being that you can come up with a new theory at any time no problem, theoretical physicist try to do that everyday, however, when trying to provide evidence for your theory Experimental Astrophysics becomes necessary

as for any math you have discovered make sure the person has a Phd and that the person is reliable before they start claiming it is their own

 

[studyingrobot457]

a

i never said understanding an existing theory and discovering a new one are the same, i said that the theories you mentioned are NOT basic as you said, anyone who understands the math behind them knows this

however, whatever you will discover will be based upon the existing theories without having understood existing theories down to the last minute detail coming up with a something that adds to the theories, contradicts them or even if completely new will be incorrect, so they are related (not the same but related), also discovering math would be in the area of pure math in which the aim is that somewhere down the line someone will use the math you discovered whereas trying to solve a problem in astrophysics is different

as for the message you quoted, the purpose of that message was to show you that experimental astrophysics IS related to the theories you mentioned because it is used to provide the evidence for those theories

so there are two topics you are mixing up a bit:-
1.Relation of Experimental Astrophysics to the theories you mentioned
2.Understanding an existing theory and coming up with a new one
the separation between the two above being that you can come up with a new theory at any time no problem, theoretical physicist try to do that everyday, however, when trying to provide evidence for your theory Experimental Astrophysics becomes necessary

as for any math you have discovered make sure the person has a Phd and that the person is reliable before they start claiming it is their own

are you reliable?

 

[teachyourself]

a

are you reliable?

not enough math skill nor do i know anyone with enough skill, academics has not been my area nor will be

 

[studyingrobot457]

not enough math skill nor do i know anyone with enough skill, academics has not been my area nor will be

so what is your 'specialisation'

 

[teachyourself]

so what is your 'specialisation'

none, i decided against specializing in any field when i was quite young because i realized then that whatever i thought i would like to do might not end up being what i thought it was, the reality is VERY different from what your parents or teachers tell you, most people hate their jobs

it is very rare for people to end up in fields they like or will like for the next 20 or 30years specially if their understanding of themselves is limited and their perception of career realities is off, in most jobs (non science) the learning curve is flat - if working in a marketing firm or a bank is steep learning for you then you are in trouble because all trends show AI replacing mundane jobs

even people who dream of becoming scientists end up realizing that there is a lot of daily drudgery and failure and a lack of funding for their research that they thought there would be imagine spending 15 to 40 years to solve a problem or find some evidence

i decided to just learn whatever i could and which ever skill i could get my hands on to make a living, i am not nor will i be one of those on the frontiers of science who will make a difference, the areas for that are Astrophysics, Genetic Engineering, AI, Robotics and Big Data

 

[studyingrobot457]

none, i decided against specializing in any field when i was quite young because i realized then that whatever i thought i would like to do might not end up being what i thought it was, the reality is VERY different from what your parents or teachers tell you, most people hate their jobs

it is very rare for people to end up in fields they like or will like for the next 20 or 30years specially if their understanding of themselves is limited and their perception of career realities is off, in most jobs (non science) the learning curve is flat - if working in a marketing firm or a bank is steep learning for you then you are in trouble because all trends show AI replacing mundane jobs

even people who dream of becoming scientists end up realizing that there is a lot of daily drudgery and failure and a lack of funding for their research that they thought there would be imagine spending 15 to 40 years to solve a problem or find some evidence

i decided to just learn whatever i could and which ever skill i could get my hands on to make a living, i am not nor will i be one of those on the frontiers of science who will make a difference, the areas for that are Astrophysics, Genetic Engineering, AI, Robotics and Big Data

So I can see that you want a life with no fails, hard work to achieve high standards, and you then talk about science, you are learning all those things from youtube and criticise people for it (i 've seen your posts, old man)really you are having a very weird life approach, I am not here for changing you, I am here to regret of whom I thought is an educated person for a reality of being a normal failure in life

This is my evidence on why I will not believe your ideas.

 

[teachyourself]

So I can see that you want a life with no fails

there is no such thing, everyone fails or makes a mistake at some point, some more than others, then either people improve and do not repeat that mistake or they don't learn from their mistakes, sometimes you do everything correct but something you simply didn't know could happen ends up happening so the mistake is repeated, the unknown unknowns, some people like to call the first mistakes/failures as human errors and the repetition of those errors as mistakes

hard work to achieve high standards

this is very relative everyone has their own aims and targets, there is no absolute in this

hard work to achieve high standards, and you then talk about science, .

high standards can be any field not just science in-spite of the fact that ultimately all progress is rooted in scientific endeavors

you are learning all those things from youtube and criticise people for it

specify "all those things", learning from youtube videos is not bad at all assuming it is backed by research, the yooutube videos i have criticized are the ones that are a collection of selected clips or are not backed by research, ideally i prefer books but there are graduate level courses on youtube as well, so it depends upon the videos and sharing easy to understand videos with others is again not a bad thing students have enough study workload as it is, if they want more detail they can search for that, additionally i use whatever free resources are available, i have posted plenty of links to research papers/articles as well

've seen your posts, old man)really you are having a very weird life approach, I am not here for changing you

the life approach would depend upon one's aims i was taught in a culture where either you were 'born' for the sciences/maths or you weren't the idea of truly developing a student did not exist, simply if a student made a mistake that student was an idiot until that student stopped becoming an idiot even if that student was 10 years old, so in such an environment most students end up trying to just get through and make it work for themselves, hence, many people from my generation are in careers they really hate but have no other choice because they cannot switch careers without taking a significant pay-cut and depriving their families

so my aim is to point out (you should know this if you have read my posts of the past 3 years or so) to students that school (at an level) teaches you very little and that the real world (career and otherwise) is very different and so they need to learn to think for themselves and make their own way by questioning everything and improving their reasoning skills, particularly by being able to point the fine details so that issues and the relevant analyses do not get mixed up
i also aim to point out how students can avoid being totally demolarized the way my generation was i have done this in a few threads but in two threads:-
1.smart vs intelligent
2.what top students do differently
I have done this specifically, i have pointed out to some research backed resources that can help students become independent in terms of learning and academic performance

I am here to regret of whom I thought is an educated person for a reality of being a normal failure in life

i never claimed to be anything, i just read and acquire as much information i possibly can
the term an "educated person" is too vague there are many fields a person can learn about to varying degrees, there are no restrictions in this

additionally i simply do not have the resources (financial or time) to go back and do my undergraduate/graduate studies again nor would gain me anything or anyone else for that matter as my aims are not academic, my parents weren't exactly rich to finance top level education even if i would have had the grades hence i did whatever worked for me, so now to further my learning it is the books, research papers, videos (lectures or otherwise) and discussions with people in different fields that i can get my hands on, and to make sure that the generations after me are exposed to information mine simply did not have, so that the future generations do not grow old and say "i wish someone had told me this when i was 15 or 19 or 20"

you belong to the generation that has been raised with the idea of education being a fundamental right (that might be so about education) but that fundamental right costs a LOT of money and earning that money is exhausting, the day you start working 16 to 20 hour-days you will understand

failure would depend upon one's aims, one person's success could be someone else's failure i guess, however if you look at the aim of improving the human condition then the vast majority of the people in this regard are failures no matter how much money they have, even if they pay money to distribute medicine, food,etc to the poor, fact remains that "no scientists, no medicine"

This is my evidence on why I will not believe your ideas.

you are NOT supposed to believe my ideas, you not supposed to believe any one's ideas, i have said this several times

you are supposed to follow evidence and then use your reason to come to YOUR OWN conclusions, however, if your conclusions contradict the evidence then you must back up your conclusions with your evidence

 

[studyingrobot457]

there is no such thing, everyone fails or makes a mistake at some point, some more than others, then either people improve and do not repeat that mistake or they don't learn from their mistakes, sometimes you do everything correct but something you simply didn't know could happen ends up happening so the mistake is repeated, the unknown unknowns, some people like to call the first mistakes/failures as human errors and the repetition of those errors as mistakes



this is very relative everyone has their own aims and targets, there is no absolute in this



high standards can be any field not just science in-spite of the fact that ultimately all progress is rooted in scientific endeavors



specify "all those things", learning from youtube videos is not bad at all assuming it is backed by research, the yooutube videos i have criticized are the ones that are a collection of selected clips or are not backed by research, ideally i prefer books but there are graduate level courses on youtube as well, so it depends upon the videos and sharing easy to understand videos with others is again not a bad thing students have enough study workload as it is, if they want more detail they can search for that, additionally i use whatever free resources are available, i have posted plenty of links to research papers/articles as well



the life approach would depend upon one's aims i was taught in a culture where either you were 'born' for the sciences/maths or you weren't the idea of truly developing a student did not exist, simply if a student made a mistake that student was an idiot until that student stopped becoming an idiot even if that student was 10 years old, so in such an environment most students end up trying to just get through and make it work for themselves, hence, many people from my generation are in careers they really hate but have no other choice because they cannot switch careers without taking a significant pay-cut and depriving their families

so my aim is to point out (you should know this if you have read my posts of the past 3 years or so) to students that school (at an level) teaches you very little and that the real world (career and otherwise) is very different and so they need to learn to think for themselves and make their own way by questioning everything and improving their reasoning skills, particularly by being able to point the fine details so that issues and the relevant analyses do not get mixed up
i also aim to point out how students can avoid being totally demolarized the way my generation was i have done this in a few threads but in two threads:-
1.smart vs intelligent
2.what top students do differently
I have done this specifically, i have pointed out to some research backed resources that can help students become independent in terms of learning and academic performance



i never claimed to be anything, i just read and acquire as much information i possibly can
the term an "educated person" is too vague there are many fields a person can learn about to varying degrees, there are no restrictions in this

additionally i simply do not have the resources (financial or time) to go back and do my undergraduate/graduate studies again nor would gain me anything or anyone else for that matter as my aims are not academic, my parents weren't exactly rich to finance top level education even if i would have had the grades hence i did whatever worked for me, so now to further my learning it is the books, research papers, videos (lectures or otherwise) and discussions with people in different fields that i can get my hands on, and to make sure that the generations after me are exposed to information mine simply did not have, so that the future generations do not grow old and say "i wish someone had told me this when i was 15 or 19 or 20"

you belong to the generation that has been raised with the idea of education being a fundamental right (that might be so about education) but that fundamental right costs a LOT of money and earning that money is exhausting, the day you start working 16 to 20 hour-days you will understand

failure would depend upon one's aims, one person's success could be someone else's failure i guess, however if you look at the aim of improving the human condition then the vast majority of the people in this regard are failures no matter how much money they have, even if they pay money to distribute medicine, food,etc to the poor, fact remains that "no scientists, no medicine"



you are NOT supposed to believe my ideas, you not supposed to believe any one's ideas, i have said this several times

you are supposed to follow evidence and then use your reason to come to YOUR OWN conclusions, however, if your conclusions contradict the evidence then you must back up your conclusions with your evidence

You might be right for yourself, this is a thing I will not discuss any more

"you are supposed to follow evidence and then use your reason to come to your own conclusion "

in your apostasy thread, it was very clear that you are an atheist/agonistic, other members tried to debate, and you started talking about science etc, but what you are not realising, that your conclusion of not believing in existence in god has no evidence, if you believe in the slightest that a universe can be created from nothing out of nowhere then your logic is similar to that of a 5 year old, anyhow I am not here to guide you it is your wish, but just an advice, evidence is not a thing you need to see or hear or been cited by students to believe, evidence can be in the slightest of slightest logic

 

[teachyourself]

it was very clear that you are an atheist/agonistic, other members tried to debate, and you started talking about science etc,

the science was claimed to be in the quran so i pointed out why it is wrong - you can check the relevant thread for that "For Science Students", as far as the natural phenomenon of creation goes it is a scientific matter in the area of astrophysics so that discussion was based upon that

, but what you are not realising, that your conclusion of not believing in existence in god has no evidence

yes when someone makes a claim they have to provide evidence for it so for those who believe there is a god they must provide evidence but no one has, there is even a $5million reward for it
same goes for those who claim there is no god, they also have no evidence for their claim
so it is best to wait for the evidence

if you believe in the slightest that a universe can be created from nothing out of nowhere then your logic is similar to that of a 5 year old,

it is not logic it is something based upon evidence, the evidence of reality determines the basis of logic, if you can contradict that evidence with your research go ahead no one stopping you

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/

evidence is not a thing you need to see or hear or been cited by students to believe

this is simply wrong
you say this to a scientist you will lose all credibility as being a rational person, because you will be heading back to the classical sciences as recommended by plato and this goes against the scientific method
below is the definition of evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

evidence can be in the slightest of slightest logic

wrong again, this is the classical sciences approach, when you do this you end up with stuff like "things stop moving because they get tired" aristotle said this, aristotle also said "heavier things fall faster" and it was when Galileo pointed out that it was wrong via the Leaning tower experiment and the acceleration experiment using an inclined plane
i hope now you can see the problem of "evidence of logic"

and as for your mathematics discovery you can contact Pervez Hoodboy
http://eacpe.org/content/uploads/2014/02/PH-CV-2013.pdf
he is very reliable, he will be able to guide you well enough

 

[teachyourself]

studyingrobot457

for your mathematics, check the MIT Open Course Ware link
https://www.xtremepapers.com/community/threads/compilations-of-career-threads.46288/#post-987832

 

[studyingrobot457]

the science was claimed to be in the quran so i pointed out why it is wrong - you can check the relevant thread for that "For Science Students", as far as the natural phenomenon of creation goes it is a scientific matter in the area of astrophysics so that discussion was based upon that


yes when someone makes a claim they have to provide evidence for it so for those who believe there is a god they must provide evidence but no one has, there is even a $5million reward for it
same goes for those who claim there is no god, they also have no evidence for their claim
so it is best to wait for the evidence


it is not logic it is something based upon evidence, the evidence of reality determines the basis of logic, if you can contradict that evidence with your research go ahead no one stopping you

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
https://www.nature.com/articles/nat...&tracking_referrer=www.scientificamerican.com
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-the-casimir-effec/


this is simply wrong
you say this to a scientist you will lose all credibility as being a rational person, because you will be heading back to the classical sciences as recommended by plato and this goes against the scientific method
below is the definition of evidence
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.


wrong again, this is the classical sciences approach, when you do this you end up with stuff like "things stop moving because they get tired" aristotle said this, aristotle also said "heavier things fall faster" and it was when Galileo pointed out that it was wrong via the Leaning tower experiment and the acceleration experiment using an inclined plane
i hope now you can see the problem of "evidence of logic"

and as for your mathematics discovery you can contact Pervez Hoodboy
http://eacpe.org/content/uploads/2014/02/PH-CV-2013.pdf
he is very reliable, he will be able to guide you well enough

I can easily disprove your long and complicated debate with a question, can you prove your brain existence, what makes you sure you are a human, no one dissected you yet, you will tell because logically I look like others, so you need logic to provide evidence, if what you claim as an evidence is illogical, it is no longer an evidence,it is not a matter of I see so I believe

and can you tell me what are the scientific mistakes of the Quran, now don't tell the sun is setting in murky water (read the whole story about that ) or that semen comes from between the ribs (it didn't say semen in the verse )

still you didn't answer my question " you believe nothing for something, this is not an evidence at all, one more thing , why do you believe scientists, aren't they humans, couldn't they possibly lie, have you ever seen cells in real life, what if microscopes has special lenses that make an effect of cellularity, why do you believe that cosmos will accelerate, has you measured velocities and time, why are they so easy t believe, what is your evidence, I can say very frankly may be they are lying, still you can't tell me I am wrong since there is no evidence that they arent faking everything, " see If I go with your same token here is what i get, logic isnot based on evidence, evidnece need to be logical to current phenomena to be evidence, and qurnanic afterlife etc, are a form of metaphysical world that you cant observe,

 

[teachyourself]

can you prove your brain existence,

similar questions have been asked and asnwered, simple the evidence of a brain can be done via MRI Scans, PET scans, CAT scans, SPECT scans

what makes you sure you are a human, no one dissected you yet, you will tell because logically I look like others, so you need logic to provide evidence, if what you claim as an evidence is illogical, it is no longer an evidence,it is not a matter of I see so I believe

blood tests and medical check ups

and me can you tell what are the scientific mistakes of the Quran, now don't tell the sun is setting in murky water (read the whole story about that ) or that semen comes from between the ribs (it didn't say semen in the verse )

read the thread For Science Students, enough mistakes have been pointed out and in anycase there is no science in the quran since it does not use the scientific method, it says things vaguely just like any other religious text, since religion was one of human beings attempts to explain the causes of natural phenomenon

still you didn't answer my question " you believe nothing for something, this is not an evidence at all,

yes a vaccum is physically nothing yet it has some level of energy, virtual particles come in and out of existence, these results leads to the idea that when t=0 there had to be nothing, so a universe came out of nothing

if you do not accept the scientific evidence go ahead disprove their findings, I gave you the link to the research paper as evidence, if you do not want to accept it then it is simply not my problem

one more thing , why do you believe scientists, aren't they humans, couldn't they possibly lie,

ofcourse they could and their have been cases where scientists have been wrong, those scientists that refused to accept facts held themselves back, Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos has many examples for that, and scientists get fame by proving each other wrong plus there is the peer-review process that makes mistakes more and more difficult as further research is being done

have you ever seen cells in real life, what if microscopes has special lenses that make an effect of cellularity,

then prove this “effect of cellularity” and publish a research paper

if cells didn’t exist almost all of medical science would be wrong

why do you believe that cosmos will accelerate, has you measured velocities and time, why are they so easy t believe, what is your evidence, I can say very frankly may be they are lying, still you can't tell me I am wrong since there is no evidence that they arent faking everything,

there is evidence because it is based upon the basics of physics and the number of technologies that would not be in existence if they were lying is too great, the camera, x-rays, pet scans, GPS, radio and other types of signals, none would be there, you want to deny all of science okay sure, no one is stopping you

" see If I go with your same token here is what i get, logic isnot based on evidence

I clearly stated “evidence forms the basis of logic” (so i do not know how you came to the conclusion that ) for example the theory of relativity stated time is relative (this goes against common sense because people generally think the opposite) and if relativity was rejected then GPS technology would not have been developed and neutrinos would have been faster than light

evidnece need to be logical to current phenomena to be evidence,

the words “logical to current phenomena” are wrong they have a different implication than “consistent” and no evidence does not need to be consistent with old evidence otherwise no new findings would be made, theory of relativity as an example, also the work on telomerase and telomeres that has resulted in anti aging ended up reversing previous understanding of increased telomerase being linked to increased cancer

and qurnanic afterlife etc, are a form of metaphysical world that you cant observe,

this has been discussed in other threads as well

metaphysical here is the incorrect word, the existence of heaven, angels are supernatural NOT metaphysical

if you cannot observe it and detect in any way then it does not exist, the burden of proof lies with the person who claims that the supernatural does exist, if you cannot prove it then no one accepts it

metaphysics and ontological arguments have no evidence if you still want to use them, that is why the study of physics science has lead to more progress than the study of metaphysics (philosophy)

 

[studyingrobot457]

similar questions have been asked and asnwered, simple the evidence of a brain can be done via MRI Scans, PET scans, CAT scans, SPECT scans




blood tests and medical check ups




read the thread For Science Students, enough mistakes have been pointed out and in anycase there is no science in the quran since it does not use the scientific method, it says things vaguely just like any other religious text, since religion was one of human beings attempts to explain the causes of natural phenomenon



yes a vaccum is physically nothing yet it has some level of energy, virtual particles come in and out of existence, these results leads to the idea that when t=0 there had to be nothing, so a universe came out of nothing

if you do not accept the scientific evidence go ahead disprove their findings, I gave you the link to the research paper as evidence, if you do not want to accept it then it is simply not my problem




ofcourse they could and their have been cases where scientists have been wrong, those scientists that refused to accept facts held themselves back, Carl Sagan’s book Cosmos has many examples for that, and scientists get fame by proving each other wrong plus there is the peer-review process that makes mistakes more and more difficult as further research is being done





then prove this “effect of cellularity” and publish a research paper

if cells didn’t exist almost all of medical science would be wrong






there is evidence because it is based upon the basics of physics and the number of technologies that would not be in existence if they were lying is too great, the camera, x-rays, pet scans, GPS, radio and other types of signals, none would be there, you want to deny all of science okay sure, no one is stopping you



I clearly stated “evidence forms the basis of logic” (so i do not know how you came to the conclusion that ) for example the theory of relativity stated time is relative (this goes against common sense because people generally think the opposite) and if relativity was rejected then GPS technology would not have been developed and neutrinos would have been faster than light

the words “logical to current phenomena” are wrong they have a different implication than “consistent” and no evidence does not need to be consistent with old evidence otherwise no new findings would be made, theory of relativity as an example, also the work on telomerase and telomeres that has resulted in anti aging ended up reversing previous understanding of increased telomerase being linked to increased cancer

this has been discussed in other threads as well

metaphysical here is the incorrect word, the existence of heaven, angels are supernatural NOT metaphysical

if you cannot observe it and detect in any way then it does not exist, the burden of proof lies with the person who claims that the supernatural does exist, if you cannot prove it then no one accepts it

metaphysics and ontological arguments have no evidence if you still want to use them, that is why the study of physics science has lead to more progress than the study of metaphysics (philosophy)

Still this proves nothing, this si, not an n evidence, this can all be a fabrication of bunch of people callling themselves 'scientists'