OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 25, 2014, 04:47:03 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: UPDATE 1-Particles found to break speed of light  (Read 3039 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« on: September 22, 2011, 10:01:03 PM »

Quote
"GENEVA, Sept 22 (Reuters) - An international team of scientists said on Thursday they had recorded sub-atomic particles travelling faster than light -- a finding that could overturn one of Einstein's long-accepted fundamental laws of the universe."

We'll see how this plays out.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2011, 10:01:21 PM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 5,812



« Reply #1 on: September 22, 2011, 10:11:00 PM »

Einstein wrong?  Heresy!
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,661


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #2 on: September 22, 2011, 10:24:59 PM »

Vroom!

 Shocked

My head hurts thinking about this.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 01:47:59 PM »

DUH! All you need is a deuterium and anti-deuterium reaction using a dylithium crystal as a medium which, when sent through specially designed nacelles will form a sub-space field around the vessel in question, allowing faster-than-light-travel. Couple this with a strong inertial dampening field and there you go. Simple  angel

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Ebor
Vanyar
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,358



« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 02:12:13 PM »

This is really cool!  Even if it doesn't lead to Warp Factor 10
Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 02:31:24 PM »

This is really cool!  Even if it doesn't lead to Warp Factor 10
you need Borg transwarp for that...oh man..Im a geek.......

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 02:35:46 PM »

You mean the universe is not as mechanistic as once thought? Shocking!  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2011, 02:54:06 PM »

i always knew that E=mc2 stuff was for the birds...  Roll Eyes
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2011, 03:09:19 PM »

That together with the possible confirmation of phase-space may bring some inspiring news for space travel. Smiley

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2011, 03:25:19 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

So we assumed we were smart enough to conceive of the speed of light by our own silly definitions, and now logically our definitions have expanded with our technology, and surely these current understandings will only change as well in the future.  The problem is that too many scientists today are ideologues about their science, they take it as Gospel truth as the Gospels, and then they are surprised when by their own curious methods they make new discoveries, as if the the fundamental premise of science to begin with wasn't experimentation to learn knew understandings and new perspectives.  To limit one scientific understanding as dogma is to prevent the next discovery and therefore a contradiction to the true ethos of science, but hey, let em have their fun, it only costs a few billion dollars Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,482


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2011, 03:37:02 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

So we assumed we were smart enough to conceive of the speed of light by our own silly definitions, and now logically our definitions have expanded with our technology, and surely these current understandings will only change as well in the future.  The problem is that too many scientists today are ideologues about their science, they take it as Gospel truth as the Gospels, and then they are surprised when by their own curious methods they make new discoveries, as if the the fundamental premise of science to begin with wasn't experimentation to learn knew understandings and new perspectives.  To limit one scientific understanding as dogma is to prevent the next discovery and therefore a contradiction to the true ethos of science, but hey, let em have their fun, it only costs a few billion dollars Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Wow! Shocked Is somebody having a bad day today?
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #11 on: September 23, 2011, 03:52:32 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

So we assumed we were smart enough to conceive of the speed of light by our own silly definitions, and now logically our definitions have expanded with our technology, and surely these current understandings will only change as well in the future.  The problem is that too many scientists today are ideologues about their science, they take it as Gospel truth as the Gospels, and then they are surprised when by their own curious methods they make new discoveries, as if the the fundamental premise of science to begin with wasn't experimentation to learn knew understandings and new perspectives.  To limit one scientific understanding as dogma is to prevent the next discovery and therefore a contradiction to the true ethos of science, but hey, let em have their fun, it only costs a few billion dollars Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Wow! Shocked Is somebody having a bad day today?

Not at all, I was going for a bit more facetious than bitter, but like in text messaging, the emotion of tone of voice doesn't get conveyed as well across the digital bits of 1s and 0s Wink

I love science, I just think scientists are cute how stuck in their assumptions they are, and then when things like this happen, new discoveries, it really shakes them up, but all for nothing really.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #12 on: September 23, 2011, 04:59:34 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, having contributed extensively to its criticism of modernity while exploring the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method and emphasizing the idea of bringing science back into the Aristotlean framework of traditional ontological realism.
Identifying with Alfred North Whitehead's criticism of Scientism's "bifurcationism" and "physical reductionism", i.e., the belief that, first, the qualitative properties of the objects of perception (the "corporeal objects") are ultimately distinct from the their respective quantitative properties (the "physical objects" studied by the different sciences); and second, that the physical objects are "in fact" all there is, meaning the corporeal objects are reduced to their physical counterparts, Smith examines critically in his work Cosmos and Transcendence (1984) the Cartesian roots of modern physical sciences.
Proceeding from his critique of Scientism, in his The Quantum Enigma (1995) Smith poses the questions of whether the scientific method is actually dependent on the Scientistic philosophy and, if it isn't, whether linking it to other philosophical frameworks would provide better solutions to the way we interpret physical phenomena. Demonstrating that in no case either the scientific method or its results depend upon or require adhering to a scientistic metaphysics, he answers in the positive to the first question, with the end result that it's possible to link the scientific method to any underlying metaphysics, or to none at all. Working then into the second question, he proposes linking the scientific method, thus the modern sciences, to a non-bifurcationist, non-reductionist metaphysics in the form of a modified thomistic ontology, showing how such a move can provide a positive outcome by solving the apparent incoherences perceived in Quantum Mechanics' phenomena.
According to Smith, such an interpretation of quantum mechanics allows for the usage of the hylomorphic concepts of act and potential to properly understand Quantum superpositions. For example, instead of considering that a photon is simultaneously a wave and a particle, or a particle in two distinct position, and other counterintuitive constructs, one would consider that the photon (or any other "physical object") at first doesn't exist "in act", but only "in potency", i.e., as "matter" in the hylomorphic meaning of the word, having the potential of becoming a wave, or a particle, or of being here or there etc. Whether one of these outcomes will happen to this undifferentiated matter is dependent on the determination imposed upon it by the macroscopic "corporeal object" that provides to it its actualization. A photon, thus, would be no more strange for having many potentials than, say, an individual who has the "superimposed" potentials of learning French and/or Spanish and/or Greek, all the while reading and/or walking and/or stretching his arms etc. And a further consequence of such an interpretation would be a corporeal and its related physical objects aren't dichotomized or reduced one to the other anymore, but quite the opposite, they all together constitute a whole of which different aspects are dealt with depending on perspective.
Smith's understanding of the relationship between corporeal and physical objects extend to his interpretation of biology, where he has become an opponent of Darwinian evolution, as the fundamental element in a species would be its form, not its causal history, which evolutionists favor. This leads him to be a supporter of the intelligent design movement, even though the hylomorphic approach itself isn't widely adopted by the mainstream intelligent designers, who also favor causal history, even though differently from evolutionists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 05:01:06 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #13 on: September 23, 2011, 05:37:07 PM »

i always knew that E=mc2 stuff was for the birds...  Roll Eyes
You know, it is quite possible that while Einstein provides for very good predictions in that which we can currently observe and test, there may be laws higher than those of Einstein which govern when Einsteinian physics apply and do not apply.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,132


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2011, 05:37:07 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

So we assumed we were smart enough to conceive of the speed of light by our own silly definitions, and now logically our definitions have expanded with our technology, and surely these current understandings will only change as well in the future.  The problem is that too many scientists today are ideologues about their science, they take it as Gospel truth as the Gospels, and then they are surprised when by their own curious methods they make new discoveries, as if the the fundamental premise of science to begin with wasn't experimentation to learn knew understandings and new perspectives.  To limit one scientific understanding as dogma is to prevent the next discovery and therefore a contradiction to the true ethos of science, but hey, let em have their fun, it only costs a few billion dollars Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Wow! Shocked Is somebody having a bad day today?

Not at all, I was going for a bit more facetious than bitter, but like in text messaging, the emotion of tone of voice doesn't get conveyed as well across the digital bits of 1s and 0s Wink

I love science, I just think scientists are cute how stuck in their assumptions they are, and then when things like this happen, new discoveries, it really shakes them up, but all for nothing really.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
This is true. Many scientists were not at all pleased when big bang cosmology began to gain traction.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
celticfan1888
Production Operator - Chemtrusion
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholicism
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of America
Posts: 3,026



« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2011, 05:37:07 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

Thanks, I am kinda cute.

It's called a clock. Or do you still use sundials?  Wink
Logged

Forgive my sins.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2011, 07:09:52 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

Thanks, I am kinda cute.

It's called a clock. Or do you still use sundials?  Wink
Sundials are too primitive for me, I prefer to watch the shadows precede and recede along side the walls of astronomically aligned pyramids, like the ancients Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2011, 08:57:30 PM »

Quote
How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  
Just a telescope, a timepiece, and the moons of Jupiter in the right place (first measurement, fairly accurate, was in the 17th century)
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 09:03:47 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,343



« Reply #18 on: September 23, 2011, 10:27:24 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Scientists are so cute.  So how did they clock the supra-light speed of this sub atomic particle? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  How did they clock the speed of light in the first place? Oh right, with their man-made technology.  Sounds like a classic case of anthropomorphism to me Wink

So we assumed we were smart enough to conceive of the speed of light by our own silly definitions, and now logically our definitions have expanded with our technology, and surely these current understandings will only change as well in the future.  The problem is that too many scientists today are ideologues about their science, they take it as Gospel truth as the Gospels, and then they are surprised when by their own curious methods they make new discoveries, as if the the fundamental premise of science to begin with wasn't experimentation to learn knew understandings and new perspectives.  To limit one scientific understanding as dogma is to prevent the next discovery and therefore a contradiction to the true ethos of science, but hey, let em have their fun, it only costs a few billion dollars Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Wow! Shocked Is somebody having a bad day today?

And full of it.

You do realize that what you just wrote was a great and sophomoric tearing apart of Christianity if you replace a couple words?

If he were being ironic, it would awesome. But fatuous? Too bad.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2011, 10:28:22 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #19 on: September 24, 2011, 12:58:59 AM »

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #20 on: September 24, 2011, 02:01:45 PM »

That together with the possible confirmation of phase-space may bring some inspiring news for space travel. Smiley

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21128241.700-beyond-spacetime-welcome-to-phase-space.html
According to the article, different observers would construct different spacetimes since physics is supposed to take place (according to them) in phase space. But this would destroy the Lorentz symmetry between the two observers and thus contradicts fundamental principles of physics.  And as well, Lorentz invariance has been shown to hold experimentally to great accuracy. I don't see their experiment or tests which confirm their theory to be valid.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #21 on: September 24, 2011, 02:08:20 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, having contributed extensively to its criticism of modernity while exploring the philosophical underpinnings of the scientific method and emphasizing the idea of bringing science back into the Aristotlean framework of traditional ontological realism.
Identifying with Alfred North Whitehead's criticism of Scientism's "bifurcationism" and "physical reductionism", i.e., the belief that, first, the qualitative properties of the objects of perception (the "corporeal objects") are ultimately distinct from the their respective quantitative properties (the "physical objects" studied by the different sciences); and second, that the physical objects are "in fact" all there is, meaning the corporeal objects are reduced to their physical counterparts, Smith examines critically in his work Cosmos and Transcendence (1984) the Cartesian roots of modern physical sciences.
Proceeding from his critique of Scientism, in his The Quantum Enigma (1995) Smith poses the questions of whether the scientific method is actually dependent on the Scientistic philosophy and, if it isn't, whether linking it to other philosophical frameworks would provide better solutions to the way we interpret physical phenomena. Demonstrating that in no case either the scientific method or its results depend upon or require adhering to a scientistic metaphysics, he answers in the positive to the first question, with the end result that it's possible to link the scientific method to any underlying metaphysics, or to none at all. Working then into the second question, he proposes linking the scientific method, thus the modern sciences, to a non-bifurcationist, non-reductionist metaphysics in the form of a modified thomistic ontology, showing how such a move can provide a positive outcome by solving the apparent incoherences perceived in Quantum Mechanics' phenomena.
According to Smith, such an interpretation of quantum mechanics allows for the usage of the hylomorphic concepts of act and potential to properly understand Quantum superpositions. For example, instead of considering that a photon is simultaneously a wave and a particle, or a particle in two distinct position, and other counterintuitive constructs, one would consider that the photon (or any other "physical object") at first doesn't exist "in act", but only "in potency", i.e., as "matter" in the hylomorphic meaning of the word, having the potential of becoming a wave, or a particle, or of being here or there etc. Whether one of these outcomes will happen to this undifferentiated matter is dependent on the determination imposed upon it by the macroscopic "corporeal object" that provides to it its actualization. A photon, thus, would be no more strange for having many potentials than, say, an individual who has the "superimposed" potentials of learning French and/or Spanish and/or Greek, all the while reading and/or walking and/or stretching his arms etc. And a further consequence of such an interpretation would be a corporeal and its related physical objects aren't dichotomized or reduced one to the other anymore, but quite the opposite, they all together constitute a whole of which different aspects are dealt with depending on perspective.
Smith's understanding of the relationship between corporeal and physical objects extend to his interpretation of biology, where he has become an opponent of Darwinian evolution, as the fundamental element in a species would be its form, not its causal history, which evolutionists favor. This leads him to be a supporter of the intelligent design movement, even though the hylomorphic approach itself isn't widely adopted by the mainstream intelligent designers, who also favor causal history, even though differently from evolutionists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
So an Orthodox Christian is interested in a system which links the scientific method to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas?
Logged
W.A.Mozart
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Eschaton
Posts: 485


Lazare, veni foras!


« Reply #22 on: September 24, 2011, 02:15:55 PM »

something that travels the speed of light has reached its destination befor it started travelling  Grin
Logged

completely new, especially not yet used
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #23 on: September 24, 2011, 02:16:02 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith
....

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
So an Orthodox Christian is interested in a system which links the scientific method to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas?
If you're referring to Smith,  I believe he is Catholic (Roman).
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #24 on: September 24, 2011, 02:23:45 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith
....

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
So an Orthodox Christian is interested in a system which links the scientific method to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas?
If you're referring to Smith,  I believe he is Catholic (Roman).
Right. And an Orthodox Christian poster here is interested in his system (system of Wolfgang Smith) which links the scientific method to the philosophy of the Catholic scholasticism or thomism.
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2011, 02:28:00 PM »

The particles supposedly broke the speed of light by 60 nanoseconds which is an extremely small amount and possibly due to experimental error, even though they are claiming 6 sigma accuracy.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,269


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #26 on: September 24, 2011, 02:35:32 PM »

The particles supposedly broke the speed of light by 60 nanoseconds which is an extremely small amount and possibly due to experimental error, even though they are claiming 6 sigma accuracy.

Question is, what happens if they do it again?  Can this be reproduced, and if so, will it bring forth the same results for accuracy.  One of the questions that this may answer is perhaps there were particles in the Big Bang that moved so fast away from other particles, even faster than light.  It can also explain black holes better.  This is the excitement about this study.  But obviously, before the excitement, it would be nice to confirm the results by reproducing it and challenging it.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #27 on: September 24, 2011, 02:42:51 PM »

One of the questions that this may answer is perhaps there were particles in the Big Bang that moved so fast away from other particles, even faster than light. 
Space can expand faster than the speed of light. See:
http://www.history.com/shows/the-universe/videos/faster-than-light-expansion#faster-than-light-expansion
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,661


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #28 on: September 24, 2011, 02:48:36 PM »

Does this mean we'll have the teleporters like they did in Star Trek?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
W.A.Mozart
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Eschaton
Posts: 485


Lazare, veni foras!


« Reply #29 on: September 24, 2011, 04:26:20 PM »

see u yesterday





and of course


Logged

completely new, especially not yet used
W.A.Mozart
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox christian
Jurisdiction: Eschaton
Posts: 485


Lazare, veni foras!


« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2011, 04:28:21 PM »

and now the real stuff

http://static.arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897.pdf


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFz3fJMJ-yA&feature=player_embedded
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 04:28:47 PM by W.A.Mozart » Logged

completely new, especially not yet used
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2011, 04:38:32 PM »

Does this mean we'll have the teleporters like they did in Star Trek?

Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Jetavan
Most Humble Servant of Pan-Vespuccian and Holocenic Hominids
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Christic
Jurisdiction: Dixie
Posts: 6,285


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2011, 04:47:39 PM »

A cast of thousands....
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2011, 05:12:38 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith
....

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
So an Orthodox Christian is interested in a system which links the scientific method to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas?
If you're referring to Smith,  I believe he is Catholic (Roman).
Right. And an Orthodox Christian poster here is interested in his system (system of Wolfgang Smith) which links the scientific method to the philosophy of the Catholic scholasticism or thomism.

Wolfgang Smith is also a Perenialist of the school of Guenon and Schuon - which I believe were both a bit '"nutty". But I don't stereotype anyone. Not even Aquinas. His philosophy is very good. It is when it is used as theology that the problems start. Pretty much like a car. I repudiate the concept that one can use a Porsche to go to Mars (which is what people try to do with philosophy regarding theology sometimes), but no-one can deny that a Porsche is a very good car itself.

I like Aquinas and Thomism as a philosophy. But precisely because I like it as philosophy that I wouldn't dogmatize about it as it were theology.

Said that, I do believe that a return to classic philosophy would do much good to the philosophy of Science - a very first good step Wolfgang has taken, but I wonder how many with his competence are able to follow and further develop.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2011, 05:15:43 PM »

Aquinas, Saint Thomas Aquinas... Aristotle was his model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57m0XiRgBA
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2011, 05:49:10 PM »

For those so inclined, I recommend Wolfgang Smith refreshing assessment of philosophy of science in these books:

The Quantum Enigma (I'm still reading it)
http://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Enigma-Finding-Hidden-Key/dp/089385042X

Science & Myth (not read yet)
http://www.amazon.com/Science-Myth-What-Never-Told/dp/1597310972/ref=pd_sim_b2


Here is a summary of his philosophy in Wikipedia:

Quote
Philosophy

Smith is a member of the Traditionalist School of Metaphysics, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Smith
....

And an article online

The plague of scientistic belief
http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/HPR/April%25202000/belief.html&date=2008-04-27
So an Orthodox Christian is interested in a system which links the scientific method to the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas?
If you're referring to Smith,  I believe he is Catholic (Roman).
Right. And an Orthodox Christian poster here is interested in his system (system of Wolfgang Smith) which links the scientific method to the philosophy of the Catholic scholasticism or thomism.

Wolfgang Smith is also a Perenialist of the school of Guenon and Schuon - which I believe were both a bit '"nutty". But I don't stereotype anyone. Not even Aquinas. His philosophy is very good. It is when it is used as theology that the problems start. Pretty much like a car. I repudiate the concept that one can use a Porsche to go to Mars (which is what people try to do with philosophy regarding theology sometimes), but no-one can deny that a Porsche is a very good car itself.

I like Aquinas and Thomism as a philosophy. But precisely because I like it as philosophy that I wouldn't dogmatize about it as it were theology.

Said that, I do believe that a return to classic philosophy would do much good to the philosophy of Science - a very first good step Wolfgang has taken, but I wonder how many with his competence are able to follow and further develop.
Steven Weinberg considers philosophy of science to be nothing more than a pleasing gloss on the discoveries of science and says that it doesn't provide any help to scientists about how to do their work in science or scientific discovery. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf
Logged
stanley123
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic
Posts: 3,809


« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2011, 05:57:03 PM »

Aquinas, Saint Thomas Aquinas... Aristotle was his model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m57m0XiRgBA
Yes!!
 I like it.  Beautiful.
Now for some celebration of the large hadron collider and CERN:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1L2xODZSI4
And of course for the Higgs particle:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVJb4Oid4as&feature=related
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2011, 07:35:05 PM »

Steven Weinberg considers philosophy of science to be nothing more than a pleasing gloss on the discoveries of science and says that it doesn't provide any help to scientists about how to do their work in science or scientific discovery. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

Well, that is what Wolfgang defends. His approach is that the scientific method does not depend on any philosophy of science in particular. It is, after all, just a method. A philosophy of science has to stand on its own as philosophy and not claim any particular relationship with the method itself.

In a sense, he proposes the positive side of what Sokal did in the 90s. Sokal showed that scientific facts were abused by many in humanities, which is true. Wolfgang, from his own perspective, proposes another philosophical paradigm to understand science. He also defends that this new paradigm can prove less confusing than the current one. I have not read the whole book yet, so I will not try to explain what is still half understood in my mind, but he may be right. It would not change any scientific theory per se, but it would change the "so what" that goes with every theory.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2011, 07:45:39 PM »

"Nothing in the history of science is ever simple. Although after Einstein
there was no place in serious physics research for the old naive mechanical
worldview, some elements of this view were retained in the physics of the first
half of the twentieth century. "

Here Weinberg is complete agreement with what I have already read from Wolfgang.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2011, 07:46:35 PM »

Steven Weinberg considers philosophy of science to be nothing more than a pleasing gloss on the discoveries of science and says that it doesn't provide any help to scientists about how to do their work in science or scientific discovery. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

Well, that is what Wolfgang defends. His approach is that the scientific method does not depend on any philosophy of science in particular. It is, after all, just a method. A philosophy of science has to stand on its own as philosophy and not claim any particular relationship with the method itself.

In a sense, he proposes the positive side of what Sokal did in the 90s. Sokal showed that scientific facts were abused by many in humanities, which is true. Wolfgang, from his own perspective, proposes another philosophical paradigm to understand science. He also defends that this new paradigm can prove less confusing than the current one. I have not read the whole book yet, so I will not try to explain what is still half understood in my mind, but he may be right. It would not change any scientific theory per se, but it would change the "so what" that goes with every theory.
Philosophers of science deny there is a single scientific method. Paul Feyerebend claimed the whole concept of a scientific method collapses on close inspection. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm I'll not defend the latter, but it's hard to argue against the former. Has anyone here read Kuhn's account of the First Scientific Revolution? Stanley Jaki?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 07:53:16 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2011, 08:11:24 PM »

Steven Weinberg considers philosophy of science to be nothing more than a pleasing gloss on the discoveries of science and says that it doesn't provide any help to scientists about how to do their work in science or scientific discovery. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

Well, that is what Wolfgang defends. His approach is that the scientific method does not depend on any philosophy of science in particular. It is, after all, just a method. A philosophy of science has to stand on its own as philosophy and not claim any particular relationship with the method itself.

In a sense, he proposes the positive side of what Sokal did in the 90s. Sokal showed that scientific facts were abused by many in humanities, which is true. Wolfgang, from his own perspective, proposes another philosophical paradigm to understand science. He also defends that this new paradigm can prove less confusing than the current one. I have not read the whole book yet, so I will not try to explain what is still half understood in my mind, but he may be right. It would not change any scientific theory per se, but it would change the "so what" that goes with every theory.
Philosophers of science deny there is a single scientific method. Paul Feyerebend claimed the whole concept of a scientific method collapses on close inspection. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm I'll not defend the latter, but it's hard to argue against the former. Has anyone here read Kuhn's account of the First Scientific Revolution? Stanley Jaki?

Kuhn yes, Jaki not. Well, I think the method thing depends on how broadly one defines method. Obviously there are several methodologies, but the one way of discovering things is still, basically, socratic dialetic investigation. When you apply it to different fields it must take different forms, but they are just different species of the same beast.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,172


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2011, 08:13:10 PM »

I think its silly. We all think we're sooooooooooo smart and that we (as a whole of course) got it all figured out. Fools.....


PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,250


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2011, 08:13:31 PM »

Steven Weinberg considers philosophy of science to be nothing more than a pleasing gloss on the discoveries of science and says that it doesn't provide any help to scientists about how to do their work in science or scientific discovery. See:
http://depts.washington.edu/ssnet/Weinberg_SSN_1_14.pdf

Well, that is what Wolfgang defends. His approach is that the scientific method does not depend on any philosophy of science in particular. It is, after all, just a method. A philosophy of science has to stand on its own as philosophy and not claim any particular relationship with the method itself.

In a sense, he proposes the positive side of what Sokal did in the 90s. Sokal showed that scientific facts were abused by many in humanities, which is true. Wolfgang, from his own perspective, proposes another philosophical paradigm to understand science. He also defends that this new paradigm can prove less confusing than the current one. I have not read the whole book yet, so I will not try to explain what is still half understood in my mind, but he may be right. It would not change any scientific theory per se, but it would change the "so what" that goes with every theory.
Philosophers of science deny there is a single scientific method. Paul Feyerebend claimed the whole concept of a scientific method collapses on close inspection. http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/feyerabe.htm I'll not defend the latter, but it's hard to argue against the former. Has anyone here read Kuhn's account of the First Scientific Revolution? Stanley Jaki?

Kuhn yes, Jaki not. Well, I think the method thing depends on how broadly one defines method. Obviously there are several methodologies, but the one way of discovering things is still, basically, socratic dialetic investigation. When you apply it to different fields it must take different forms, but they are just different species of the same beast.
Socrates was a scientist?
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 08:14:59 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,272



« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2011, 09:02:23 PM »

Scientist may be the wrong word, but consider how some of the ancient Greek philosophers approached claims about knowledge/truth: 1) observations and conclusions are suspect until (through repetition) tests can be done to demonstrate their validity; 2) the more testing that can be done, the more sure we can be that something is so; nonetheless, 3) all ideas, no matter how sure we are of them, are only held tentatively and are open to further examination and modification.
Logged

Optimist: Throw enough ideas at the wall and one is bound to stick.
Pessimist: Throw enough poo at the wall and the room is bound to stink.
Realist: You don't really need to throw things at walls to solve problems.
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,827



WWW
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2011, 09:15:25 PM »

Quote
Kuhn yes, Jaki not. Well, I think the method thing depends on how broadly one defines method. Obviously there are several methodologies, but the one way of discovering things is still, basically, socratic dialetic investigation. When you apply it to different fields it must take different forms, but they are just different species of the same beast.
Socrates was a scientist?

Yes, of wisdomlogy. Wink

Anyway, Socrates investigative dialetic works universally because that's how the human mind discovers things. Socrates used it to investigate himself, Aristotle to investigate biology (and did an excellent work for the time). He did not create a theory, he described how the human mind works. Whenever you see sound thinking that actually discovers things, it is Socratic, not because Socrates made it, but because he was the first to describe it. That, of course, does not apply to some pseudo-scientific philosophies some people (even scientists) have.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 72 queries.