GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

What Religion is Book?

POSTED BY: LUKASAURUS
UPDATED: Sunday, July 11, 2004 04:06
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 10657
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:28 AM

LUKASAURUS


First off, just want to say straight up, that I really don't want any bashing or arguments :) Just a discussion based on the show. For the record, I'm a Christian.

From the episodes I've seen, Book appears to be a Hybrid of Roman Catholicism and Baptist beliefs. In Our Mrs Reynolds, he is seen to be giving some sort of "last rites" to the dead men, a Roman Catholic tradition, but in other episodes, namely, Jaynestown, he speaks with River about faith changing a person, not works or things like that, and doesn't appear to be very ritualistic.. this leads me to believe he is of a protestant denomination.. likely Baptist. However, he did go to an abbey, and never married (although, he never says he isn't allowed to Marry.. just that he didn't.. Paul the apostle chose not to as well)

Anyway, discuss :)


There is a special level of hell reserved for people who talk in the theatre ;)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:39 AM

STATIC


I'm thinking for the purposes of the show and the notion of a 'conglomerated' future where MANY cultural things have all meshed together. . .

The religion that Book follows is a mish/mash of several Christian denominations, to include Catholicism, Episcopal and Protestant. This is probably also an effort on JW's part to avoid rocking a boat he doesn't need to rock. . .or it could very well be that the nuances of the religion are not important and he doesn't want us to 'over focus' on THAT aspect instead of just simply noting. . ."Okay. . .Book. . .man of some sort of cloth. Got it."

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:07 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


I believe Static has the right of it. Book is not of any one religion, but rather the result of what appears to be several religions blended together.

I think Joss did this to further emphasize that the future the show takes place in is a melting pot of cultures.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:52 AM

ZEKE023


Not too many protestant religions have monks, or celebate priests at all. Truth be told, I've never heard of a non-apostolic religion that has monks. If I had to choose, I would say Anglican/Episcopal or Catholic.

However, that being said - I agree with STATIC. We're probably not supposed to tear this apart and analyze it. He's a christian, and that's all that's really important (he may even have the "shady past" that most Christian saints are known for before they turn to a life of spirituality).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:02 AM

DELIA


Quote:

Originally posted by zeke023:
Not too many protestant religions have monks, or celebate priests at all. Truth be told, I've never heard of a non-apostolic religion that has monks.



Aren't there Buddist monks?

I grew up Catholic, and Book doesn't strike me as being especially Catholic (of course, that may be because most of my priests were old white men who didn't have to worry about their hair killing their brains). But I agree with the general impression everyone else seemed to get of some kind of Christian, not necessarily one we've got now. Religions evolve and change, new denominations appear and die out all the time. It makes sense that a religion from 500 years in the future wouldn't look exactly like one we have now.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 3:48 AM

LUKASAURUS


Yeah, I agree.. I think we are just meant to say.. okay, Book, man of faith.. voice of reason, conscience of the firefly. However, it would be interesting to know more about the religion(s) in the FF universe, as well as some of the cults and sects.

There is a special level of hell reserved for people who talk in the theatre ;)

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:08 AM

KNIBBLET


I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Perhaps there are religions built around stoneworks, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrical work and maybe even painting.

I think I'll go say 10 "Hail Kilz" and go to bed early. I've got a wax and buff on the morrow.


** For all the uptight folk out there, I'm kidding. Take another prozac.**

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:57 AM

BROWNCOAT1

May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.


Quote:

Originally posted by Knibblet:
I believe that Book is the representative of some sort of faith built around the construction trades. He said in "Heart of Gold" that he'd been following the teachings of a carpenter.

Perhaps there are religions built around stoneworks, bricklaying, plastering, plumbing, electrical work and maybe even painting.

I think I'll go say 10 "Hail Kilz" and go to bed early. I've got a wax and buff on the morrow.


** For all the uptight folk out there, I'm kidding. Take another prozac.**

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."




LOL @ Knibs!



Leave it to Knibs to make us laugh about religion.

"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one."


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 5:16 AM

HKCAVALIER


Catholic all the way! You have to realize that after Vatican 19 in 2437 things get a little interesting...

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:56 AM

RANGER


Well, it is clearly a mixture. Heavy Catholic elements (Monastic brotherhood, Celebit, dressing to make his status clear to others), but in one of the comentaries someone says that Joss had to force Ron (who is a Budist) to take the character in a more American Protestant direction (heavy reliance on the word). Then there are the eastern elements (meditation is refered to rather than prayer in Arial).

Perhapse Book is a member of a secret sect of Warrior Protestant Monks, a combination of Templars and Shou Lin(sp) with an Evangelical philosophy?

Traveller, if you go to Sparta, tell them you have seen us lying here as the Law commands.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:33 AM

EMBERS


Well 500 years ago the Vatican was a world power involved in all kinds of political plots and Luther was just getting published...

so 500 FROM NOW it would be hard to say what Christianity will look like; I think Joss is wise to keep it vague and not let any one group 'own' Book (because they may be disappointed when they learn more about his past!). I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 8:56 AM

THEFOP


Religion DOES tend to change over time. Look at how much the Catholic church has changed in the past 500 years. Think how much it might change in the NEXT 500.

Though, incidentally, there are Anglican monks, and i think some of other denominations as well/

once the snow got so deep you almost couldn't hear margaret atwood

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:11 AM

ZELDA


I think we're definitely looking at Christian mishmash. They've done some really nice, subtle things with how religion is transformed, the funniest of which is Saffron's sexually-suggestive quotations from the Bible, and Mal's response: "Whoa. Good Bible"

Hilarious? Yes. But also gives the idea that there are several "Bibles" in existence at that time. There's actually a lot of stuff in that episode - like Book looking up the locals' marriage rituals in Simon's encyclopedia - that points to religous growth & fragmentation that must have accompanied the settlers out across many planets.

"Whoa. Good Bible." I love that line!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:34 AM

LTNOWIS


I agree that he's a Christian mix. Possibly formed when Chinese Christians settle new planets and mix in some Buddhist elements, like the meditation.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:34 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Zelda:
...that points to religous growth & fragmentation that must have accompanied the settlers out across many planets.


Good point! When settlers went out to the rim not all would have a preacher from what ever religion.

The religion would then continue from the memories of the settlers and/or what they wanted to put in there. Which (as we all know) wouldn't be all that reliable and probably contradictory, sick, twisted and/or with various levels of restrictive lifestyles. Plus, imagine what a few hundred years of telephone would do! After all, look at the range we have here now and we're living right beside eachother!

I think that this would account for the fact that Book had to reference an encyclopedia and no-one knew that Mal was married, etc.

I would think that Book follows a desendant of Christianity. But, as was said before, Joss did say he had to get Ron to be more Protestant.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:40 AM

MANIACNUMBERONE


Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 10:43 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave


Quote:

Originally posted by Browncoat1:
Leave it to Knibs to make us laugh about religion.

Amen brothah! She's a hoot, isn't she?

I have access to the family tree of Religions, which opens up all manner of ideas about which Christian religion Book could have been a part of.

On Babylon 5, Stephen Franklin was a "Foundationist." The Lurker's Guide says that the Foundation apparently borrows customs and beliefs from various cultures, perhaps in the belief that no one people has all the right spiritual answers. During an episode called "Walkabout" Franklin went walking around the station in the hopes that he would "find himself." In Australian aboriginal cultures, a "walkabout" is a ritual in which a young man goes on a solitary journey through the wilderness in an attempt to learn more about his own character and strength.

Sounds a bit like what's going on with our favorite preacher man, doesn't it?

Incidentally, Episcopalian is Protestant - in the US, anyway. It stems from the Anglican, which stems from the Reformation.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:01 AM

MELEAUX


When Book says he follows the teachings of a carpenter I jumped to the conclusion that he meant Jesus as it is understood that Jesus was a carpenter prior to his ministry and crucifixation. Also, I am pretty sure that Saffron was totally blowing smoke when she quoted the bible. Its NOT in the King James and I'll bet not in any other versions now or ever. It was just a hot story to bother Mal...and it worked.

She understands, she doesn't comprehend

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:34 AM

CHANNAIN

i DO aim to misbehave


Well, there is a big old book loaded with rules of conduct in the OT. I forget which one at the moment. She may have found it there and rearranged the words to the Really New Living Translation.

Knib was kidding, Meleaux - she caught the reference. She was just pulling a Succatash.

We have art so as not to die of truth ~ Neitzsche
http://www.mnartists.org/artistHome.do?rid=7922

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:38 AM

THOREAU


My opinion on this comes from two things.

1) the comment Book makes about having following a carpenter. Seems too obvious and casual a Jesus reference to be a red herring.

2) the hair, and the line he started to say about 'all members of my order...'

I don't like this idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if his faith is based on the a combination of the teachings of Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein. Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.

This also fits perfectly with River going through his Bible and making corrections. Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things" and River's a good a fictional character as any to do so.

t

Jayne: "These are stone killers, little man. They ain't cuddly like me."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:17 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law.


Not true, at least for physicists... mostly, there all the string theorists . In the Physics, community they believe in what can be proven first theoretically, second experimentally. And if only the first, it is considered highly suspect.

Basically, physicists go with whatever works now until it is proven wrong or needs fine tuning. Then the next best thing is used. It's been that way for a long time. Religions on the other hand will hold onto what they think is right pretty much no matter what, based on faith.

Please note that my comparison goes only so far as to try to explain that these are mutually exclusive areas. I'd also like to say that neither is necessarily wrong as they both attempt to explain different things for the most part.
Physics: How do things work? What are they made of fundamentally? etc.
Religion: Where do we come from? How should I behave? etc.

I really don't think that one should lump all "scientists" into one pile.


Quote:

Originally posted by thoreau:
Someday someone has to finally stand up and say "hey, Einstein was wrong about a few things"...


They have. Look up the EPR paradox. The question isn't totally answered yet, but, people have basically decided that it isn't really a paradox at all. That it's just some of that really messed up quantum stuff.


I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my

One other note, the physicists know that Einstein was wrong many times over, but, the general public does not. They still think he's a hero. I think we stumbled on a problem here

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:10 PM

BADGERSHAT


A few words from The Hat--

1) I think Book's religion HAS to be a form of Christianity, simply because of the Bible (River goes through it, speaking about some of the Bible stories--Noah's Ark, etc). Also, the carpenter reference is too casual, I agree, to be a red herring.

That being said, i don't think it's a form of Christianity that exists now, much like Christianity NOW isn't the way it was 1000 years ago, and so on backward.

2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)

3) There's no guarantee here that "Firefly" even really follows our own reality. Christianity might have developed differently in this world. The carpenter's name might have been Juan, or Bob, or Esmerelda for all we know... similar, but differing in details.

I like to think that Joss created this entire world, and as such, he's sort of a carpenter... maybe he's the reference?

Or, then again, maybe I don't have the slightest idea what the hell I'm talking about...

--The Hat

***************************
"I like smackin 'em"--Jayne

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:20 PM

SUCCATASH


Quote:

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.

That's certainly debatable, although I don't want to debate it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 1:50 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by BadgersHat:
2) The general PERCEPTION of science and scientists is, find an answer that you like, and stick to it until death. Whether this is true or not, it's the perception, and I tend to agree partially. It seems that many people of science tend to hate looking for new answers that would possibly thwart their own theories and accomplishments. My opinion, not necessarily correct (much like my spelling)


I have found that the general publics perception of science is pretty much what you say. Unfortunately, it couldn't be further from the truth.

The fact is that people in science are continually looking for these new answers or verifications of what they think. Since everyone wants there personal theory to be true it takes alot to convince people that yours is true. Thus the community has developed it's own BS detector by its very nature.

Basically, if it is accepted as true for now it has already gone through alot of rigorous checking, most of the time. There are exceptions, after all we are human. But those exceptions are found out later and then taken back.

Of course, anyone working in any field wants there theory to be it or at least work. But, when someone comes along and proves it wrong they just suck it up and move on. Doesn't mean they are happy about it though.

I think that this perception is just a very telling sign that we as a society have not educated ourselves to the point that we know anything about what goes on in the scientific community. Sure people learn some stuff in high school but that EPR paradox I mentioned is well... old. Meaning 1935 with subsequent work in 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_paradox

That stuff this old isn't at least known by someone in any circle of friends, IMHO, is proof of out poor education now adays with regard to science. Which, of course, leads to this misinformation, etc.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:01 PM

ZOID


SigmaNunki wrote:

Quote:

I checked out all this Physics stuff with my wife (who happens to have her Ph.d. in Theoretical Physics and is working on things similar to the EPR paradox) and she says I'm not talking out of my (posterior?)


So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist? Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of complementary particle pairs violates the speed of light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster than the information 'light cone' of the cause can travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and subsequent experimentation proved it.

Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the tachyon. String theory, or some variant thereof is the most promising route to resolving the mutual exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until someone can devise a working theory of quantum gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities -- neither theory can be thought of as complete or correct.

Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 2:56 PM

HAPLO721


I can guarantee you that Book is not a Mormon.

Early: You ever been raped, Kaylee?
Kaylee: You know, it's funny you should mention that... ever heard of the Fox network?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:40 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Since this is starting to pass my understanding of physics I sent an email to the wife and I present this slightly edited reply.


First off, I am pleased to see that someone is interested in how scientists think and work and the validity of there work. Too many people have blind faith in what scientists say either/or are completely dismissive.


Well, information cannot travel faster but you can have velocities faster than the speed of light.

There are alternatives to string theory, namely loop quantum gravity. Both have pros and cons. Funny thing is that only string theorists themselves claim that string theory is the most promising approach and the journalists seem to love it.

As for glaring inconsistencies. They don't hang onto them. It's all they got. But, they continue to work to fix them.

zoid:
> So, she's a hardline Copenhagenist?

Not at all. Just because I'm working on related stuff, it does not mean that I agree with what they say. If I did, what reason would I have to do more research?

zoid:
> Einstein-Podolski-Rosen said quantum entanglement of
> complementary particle pairs violates the speed of
> light, meaning that an effect can be caused faster
> than the information 'light cone' of the cause can
> travel. This leads to the paradox of effect preceding
> cause in the 'classical' universe. Bell's Theorem and
> subsequent experimentation proved it.

There is no such thing as complementary particle pairs. They do not violate the speed of light (what is that suppose to mean?). But the meaning is right. The light cone does not travel. Bell's theorem and subsequent experiments proved, in their regime of applicability, that quantum theory is correct (I hope that is what you meant). But today, the problem with information being spread faster than light is not considered the problem anymore. It is a very serious problem, and some people are working on how to define the "paradox" exactly, if there is one, and how it could be resolved. On the other hand, there are many physicists who don't care as they consider this philosophy.


> Still, wish her luck for me finding the postulated
> graviton, let alone Einstein's guide wave or the
> tachyon.

EPR and related problems have nothing to do with the graviton. The guide wave was "invented" by Bohm, not Einstein. The tachyon is from a completely different area of physics. I would appreciate if you would not make sarcastic remarks on other peoples work. In fact you don't even know what exactly I'm working on never mind being in a position to evaluate said work.

> String theory, or some variant thereof is the
> most promising route to resolving the mutual
> exclusion of Relativity and quantum theory. Until
> someone can devise a working theory of quantum
> gravity -- which thus far only returns infinities --
> neither theory can be thought of as complete or
> correct.

As I said above, only string theorists believe that their theory is the only way, and there are alternatives. They do *not* only return infinities, in fact, there is a lot of progress, but there are indeed problems with infinities. And of course neither theory can be thought of as complete (it cannot be, refer to Goedel) or correct, since this is science, which always tries to improve, and not religion, which sticks to a fixed system of truths.

The whole point of science is to improve on someone else's work and thus by definition we can never achieve a perfect theory. This typically makes the people doing the work very humble as they are very aware of the limitations of what they create.


> Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto
> their faith in their theories, even though there are
> glaring inconsistencies?

Yes, and that is exactly the reason why science has made so much progress in the past decades. People who believed in the beauty of their theories have contributed a lot (e.g. Dirac). The crucial point is to know how long you should believe in your theory and when you should give it up. There have been many examples in the history of physics in which experiments contradicted the predictions of a theory, but the theorists believed that it should be true because it "looked" right. And then the experiments turned out to be wrong. I agree that there are too many scientist who do not care about the very foundations of what they are doing. But the good ones do. And they are aware of these inconsistencies and try to improve their/our knowledge. The problem is that you cannot explain this "yes, but ..." attitude to 95 percent of the people in this world. They want a yes/no, a black or white answer. And that's why most journalists (not the good ones) write as if scientists in general were just blind believers.

I would be interested where you got your opinion from.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 4:50 PM

TJACK


As long as we're on religion now...
Last week,some friends and I were at dinner, talking about Easter when I said. "That's when Christ comes out of his tomb,and if he sees his shadow there'll be six more weeks of winter."
when they got done laughing they told me I was going to hell for that one.

Don't blame me, I'm just the new guy.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:06 PM

ZOID


SigmaNunki:

Please thank your wife for her candid reply. Assure her that it was never my intent to make "sarcastic remarks" about her work, and have no clue where she would've gotten such an idea. My understanding of the current state of research into producing a graviton is that it's a dim prospect at best, even though quantum mechanics requires it as a force carrier of gravity; and which "force" it cannot adequately explain otherwise. That is -- speaking as plainly as I can -- quantum mechanics cannot currently explain gravity, an effect every human is familiar with, without the postulated graviton or introducing 'normalization' into equations to avoid returning infinities (any number divided by zero returns an infinity).

On the other hand, quantum mechanics is very good at explaining the world of the very small. It is so good in fact, that were it wrong, computers wouldn't work, nor cell phones, nor a thousand other devices of modern life that we take for granted. Relativity is as inept at describing the very small, as QM is at describing anything except the very small.

My understanding is that a "particle pair" is one whose constituent particles are "entangled": if one has spin 'X' the other has spin 'Y'. As weird as it may sound to the layman (myself), these particle pairs can and have been produced in the laboratory. According to quantum theory, since these particles are irrevocably tied, knowing the state of one particle leads to 100% certainty of the state of the other.

The problem is that Neils Bohr's 'Copenhagenist' QM assures us that there is no state until a measurement is taken. Taken to extremes, there is no particle, only the particle's wave function. There is only a probability that the particle will be found to be in one specific state or the range of other possible states. So, according to EPR (as I -- the layman -- understand it) if we capture one of the paired particles without measuring it (ala Schroedinger's cat), while allowing its entangled 'twin' to travel halfway to the other side of the universe; then measure the captured particle's spin, the probability waves of both particles collapse simultaneously, even though they are separated by billions of light years. That is: Particle A1's wave function collapses, fixing it's spin (or other 'complementary' attribute) as 'X'; this collapse somehow simultaneously 'informs' the other particle A2 and it's spin becomes 'Y' even though its light cone (which doesn't travel, no, it propagates, but why be so picky?) of information cannot 'travel' faster than light.
Einstein was arguing that the individual particles were not probabilistic after all -- as QM insisted -- but were in fact in fixed states all along ("God does not play dice with the universe").

My opinions are my own. I do not read periodicals, except occasionally Scientific American. In addition to sci-fi (which authors generally avoid QM because it's stranger than any fiction), I also read general science novels, 'dumbed down' to my level. Some of these, related to physics, include:

"The Elegant Universe" - Brian Greene
"The Meaning of Relativity" - Albert Einstein
"God's Equation" - Amir Aczel
"Quantum Reality" - Nick Herbert
"The End of Time" - Julian Barbour
"The Dancing Wu Li Masters" - Gary Zukav
"A Brief History of Time" - Stephen Hawking
Michio Kaku's "Hyperspace" and "Introduction to Superstrings and M-Theory" (which I think I've got loaned out to someone, since it's not on the shelf)

Again, please thank your wife for her responses. If she gets more time, and wouldn't mind, I would appreciate any illumination on the current state of her research (no equations, please) in as plain English as she can manage.

If, on the other hand, she has come to the belief that I'm a moron (or journalist?), I'll understand and labor on in my present state of ignorance, taking the word of the authors I've mentioned, as I am able to comprehend them...


Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:30 PM

SIGMANUNKI


As currently we don't live in the same city and it being late, email is the only option for contacting her. I'll pass it on and post the reply when I get one.

Until then.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:57 PM

KERNELM


Quote:

Originally posted by thoreau:
Our scientific community is already bordering on the stupidity of organized religion (no flame intended, and in case it isn't obvious I'm talking about the way scientists of today believe in earlier scientists theories as if they were holy law. I'm not making a reference to scientology) so I can easily see the mixture eventually developing.


And you're basing this on what exactly?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 7:18 PM

KERNELM


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Still, amazing isn't it that scientists do hold onto their faith in their theories, even though there are glaring inconsistencies?


Amazing, isn't it, that scientists test and refine their theories? If scientists really just wanted to hold onto their "faith" they simply wouldn't conduct experiments. You work with a theory that works, until you get evidence that it's wrong, and then you try to refine that theory if possible or throw it out and start anew if necessary. That's (part of) the scientific process.

It's well known there's problems with aspects of relativity, QM, etc. I don't see anybody (not actual scientists anyway) saying "No no no no no, Einstein is right, he'll always be right. I won't listen to the evidence, I can't hear you." People are working hard every day trying to come up with new theories and experiments to test those theories. Don't you think there's lots of scientists who'd love to be able to say they one-upped Einstein?

There really aren't _any_ set in stone theories in science (something many "evolution is just a theory" types don't understand). The closest you're going to get is some classes of mathematical theorems, but even there you'll get debates on the validity of certain axioms. (And yes, most of modern mathematics is based on "faith" in certain axioms. But we certainly don't pretend it's the only possible way for things to work, and there's branches of mathematics that explore the consequences of altering those axioms.)

Sure, you'll always have bad apples, people who hang on to outdated theories for whatever reason, outright frauds, etc. But in the end, truth will out.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:03 PM

MANIACNUMBERONE


I like Channain's "pulling a Succatash"

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:23 PM

STATIC


NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!

You buncha goobers. . .is OBVIOUS!!!!


Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .

The small but fervently devout faith that Joss Whedon's best creation, "Firefly", will be put on Sunday Nights at 8:00PM between "The Simpsons" and "Family Guy"

==================================================
"Wash. . .we got some local color happening. A grand entrance would not go amiss."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:10 AM

KNIBBLET


Quote:

Originally posted by Static:
Book is a Seventh-Day Whedonist. . .



With a Catholic/Jewish mother and a Lutheran father, I always saw myself as a Hindu: Believing that every face of God is just another face of the same God. If you believe in any god, than you believe in the same god as everyone else.

Now, I'm embracing the Seventh-Day Whedonists.

"Just keep walkin, preacher man."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:11 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Here is her response. If she doesn't get back to you in acouple of weeks send me a message through,

http://www.fireflyfans.net/showprofile.asp?un=SigmaNunki

and I'll remind her.


Zoid,
I will be happy to reply to you when my time allows, which will probably not be before next week. I like talking to interested laymen, because it forces me to word science in a comprehensible way and to take a different point of view. But to do this in an appropriate way requires some time and some thinking.

Best regards, the wife.

----
"If you truly love the memory, you must set it free()!" -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 12:30 PM

ZOID


SigmaNunki and honorable spouse,

Thank you very much. I am truly looking forward to any elucidation she may provide for those of us who frequent FFFn, and who are interested in actual science as well.

Please post in a new thread -- since I think we're getting somewhat outside "What religion is Book?" by this point. A thread title including "quantum mechanics", perhaps? Also, please feel free to repost any of my statements she wishes to address specifically; along with her comments, corrections and criticisms of any misleading or mistaken statements I may be making.

On the other hand, if she wishes to start afresh with what details of her own work she can freely divulge (some stuff is classified), those would be equally welcome and appreciated.

For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It is critically acclaimed, and its explanations are highly approachable to the layperson. Sort of tying this back into Book's religion: I guarantee you'll find the governing concepts of quantum and n-dimensional physics stranger than the most fantastic religious mythology you've ever heard. Just remember, as strange as it sounds, it describes something fundamentally true about our universe and 'reality', otherwise you'd not be reading this on your computer (because there'd be no computers, or magnetic resonance imaging, or...). And for those who are familiar with Ancient Greek philosophy and Far Eastern religions, you will see obvious parallels between those and QM. For a deeper comparison between QM and Eastern religions, read also the excellent, aforementioned "Dancing Wu Li Masters".

See ya' around the 'H-Bar'...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, April 15, 2004 12:45 PM

MILESLONG


Quote:

Originally posted by embers:
I still believe that Book only joined 'the Abby' a few years ago...after having been an important man in the Govt/Military/Corporate power structure...



I have to agree with this. The facts regarding his skill with firearms lend not only to that, but suggest a small possibility that he isn't dedicated to one faith for the people that he ministers to, very like an Army Chaplin who has a faith of his (or her) own, but should set aside conversion dogma to better care for the people he is responsible for.

Good Thread

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 6:26 AM

HEB


Quote:


For everyone else, I highly recommend "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. ]



Great book!

Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 11:25 AM

ZOID


Heb wrote:

Quote:

Have you read 'the fabric of the cosmos' by Brian Greene yet?

Nope. I was at Border's today (in fact I just got back) hopeful of finding something else by Dr. Greene; however, they had nothing of his. Instead, I seriously considered David Bohm's Thought as a System, but purchased Ian Stewart's Flatterland: Like Flatland, Only More So, based more or less on its 2001 publishing date, compared to Thought's 1990. Next buying cycle, perhaps...

I really enjoy reading sci-fi (in fact, it is the only fiction I read) but I also enjoy reading popular treatments of scientific study, by reputable and pedigreed authors. Some of my favorites in both genres are listed in posts above. I forgot to mention -- and would be remiss not to correct the oversight -- Fritjof Capra's excellent The Tao of Physics, which likewise provides a strong correlation between QM and Eastern religio-ideology.

My fellow Browncoats have many differing opinions on "science as a religion". My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession. While it's true that scientists will stress that no theory can ever be ultimately considered complete (Gödel), and that they are constantly updating, refining and even reorganizing theories and models, there are nevertheless basic, fundamental and underlying assumptions that they are 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic, not holistic or even (gulp!) mystical. Faith in science, itself, is the religion of the scientist. And it's a faith predicated upon assumptions that are every bit as convoluted and contradictory as the wildest deistic religion you've ever heard of.

Occam's Razor cuts both ways...

I personally believe that God created the universe and gave Humankind an intellect equal to the comprehension of its (fractally deep) mysteries. To seek the truth of our physical existence is to pursue God's highest goal for our minds, especially since such pursuit leads invariably to a Spiritual conclusion -- or at least an undeniably metaphysical one (see again, Gödel), that is perhaps infinitely more complex than "And God said, 'Let there be light,' and there was light"...

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River? I thought she was a sweet girl. Of course, we were all sure she was crazy, too."

- Inara Reynolds, Secretary of Ecumenical Affairs
from A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 2:37 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
My opinion is that scientists -- those who engage in observation and discovery of God's handiwork -- do have a religious belief, a faith that underlies their profession.


I will say this, you are completely wrong here. If they did they would not trust the math to describe things, but, would construct as they saw fit. We will discuss this further when the wife has created what I call "the starter doc" in a more appropriate thread.

Religion, not true. This is your misconception. I'll now go over what you think you know about that light-cone, which is wrong.

Here's the deal. I will deal with only 1d space. On a xy-graph you can think of the x-axis as space and the y-axis as time, thus creating a space-time diagram. It must be noted now that such things are typically only used for pedagogical purposes.

By default we start at the origin. If someone was to go at the speed of light they would travel along a 45 degree line in this graph. The cone does not travel as you suggest. It merely marks a boundary of where a particle can exist at that certain point in time (moving along the y-axis). That mark on the graph is just some representation of where that particle is within the confines of space-time.

But, when I say "go at the speed of light", that is both right and wrong. Because the theory only states that one cannot accelerate beyond the speed of light. The theory doesn't specify anything other than that. So, if someone found away to move without accelerating, then that would be beyond the scope of this theory. Things are a touch more complicated than that, but, we'd need calculus and.few years of study to really understand it.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
... 1) describing something real, 2) that this reality is manipulable, and 3) that the universe itself is ultimately mechanistic...


3 is just plain wrong. No-one beyond Newton would believe this.
2 is trivial. ie I can pick up my remote control
1 is the basis for all scientific study. But, doesn't exclude the possibility of other things, like you claim.



I'd just like to throw this out there before people start believing what you have said further up - with regards to physics - is true. I can't have misinformation spread when I have the power to stop it.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 3:26 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Just to state it before you post a reply. Sorry for the tone. My mood... isn't good right now. I'd fix my last post, but, I haven't the time. Again, sorry.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 6:02 PM

ZOID



SigmaNunki, at al:

First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.

Second, for the sake of brevity, and because I've already stated my case above and cited reference materials from which I've drawn my conclusions, I will simply let my statements stand. I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. I am a layman; but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis. I have read extensively the considered opinions of experts in the field. They warn -- as I warn you now -- that our spoken language cannot fully describe these concepts; only in mathematics can these be properly comprehended. Even so, if Capra, Einstein, Greene and the others I have cited have seen fit to put these ideas into words, who can say they were intrinsically wrong to do so? Certainly, I would not deign to argue their qualifications or motivations.

If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?

When I say that science is a system of beliefs, or at least that it engages in metaphysical investigations, please don't mistake my meaning. I am not anti-scientific. As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect. I do not expect to lift a piece of sod and find "Made by God" written on the substrate beneath it. Our universe is a riddle, an enigma designed so that our Intellect must necessarily question it, must necessarily dig ever deeper only to find increasingly more depth. And what may ultimately lie at the furthest depth we can reach without the energy of another Big Bang?

From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :
Quote:

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.

That's what I meant by implying that 'real', 'mechanistic' and 'manipulable' were fallacious concepts. At reality's ultimate level -- as Art and Philosophy have long held -- we are all "shadows and dust", and there is nothing solid from which The Matrix's spoon might be made.

This is right and good. I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics. Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...

Here are some final few thoughts:

How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?

How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist? I'm talking about Einstein versus Bohr, EPR versus the entire QM school, Bohm's response and John Bell's rewrite.

There are several other intriguing arguments, which I don't have the temerity to open, that have all been posed by scientists, not theologians. Scientists challenge the beliefs of other scientists. Both sides have math and models and observation to support their theories. There are different 'schools' within the physical science community, and these schools of thought can oppose each other with as much vehemence as any Catholic v. Protestant or Christian v. Muslim ideological disagreement (although typically without the physical violence prevalent in today's world).

My final recommendation: Don't take my word for it. Don't take SigmaNunki's word for it. Read a book on it. I've listed several critically acclaimed references -- generally considered to be virtuous and seminal works by the scientific community -- choose one and read it. If you find a particular topic in that book interesting, go to the references in the back of that book and note whom the author cited. Read that book. In short, don't take one book, or one opinion, as Biblical. After you've gotten some differing opinions under your belt, make up your own mind as to what it all means, and what the implications are.

Science is a great tool for discovering and describing the world; but it is not the world, itself, any more than a picture of a flower is a flower. No one should stand on some sense of intellectual superiority and attempt to usurp your right to make your own well-considered conclusions, simply by implying that you're not qualified to think things through for yourself. That's thuggery. Would Einstein have written and published popular discussions of the implications of his theories if he'd held that low opinion of the common man's intelligence?

I love to debate. I consider it a sport. But argument without evidence isn't an argument, it's just contradiction. Reminds me of a Monty Python bit... ("No, it doesn't!")

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 7:13 PM

JASONZZZ


Zoid:

Having taken 4 years of University college physics, scores of comparative religions classes, anthropology classes, and studied in philosophy on my own. I offer an supporting viewpoint in a metaphysical sense. From human being's viewpoint, all Religions, in all of its ultimate glory seeks to explain nature, to in some way allow us to control nature - eventhough its thru some intermediary, and to explain why human's exist.

Science ultimately is a system of believes that allows people to do these very same things. Science comforts us in allowing us to believe that we have a beginning from the Big Bang theory (much debated within the scientific community - especially as of late), to the EM theory that allows us to build wondrous things as microwaves and cell phones, TV, satellites, etc., , to the now almost classical STR without which we can't geocache thru the use of GPS. But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.

Today, we don't have the equation, everytime we add something to it or find something new that upsets the current approximations, there is a new fury of studies to find out what new model, what new particle to plug in that can help with the new equation.

I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.

And neither am I saying that science don't work - the proof is right in front of my eyes - literally. But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.

Every single tribe has their own explanation on why they came to be, why do all of these *weird* things around me happen, and what can I do about the rain that isn't coming? We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 8:28 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
First, I will state that it is not now, nor has it ever been, my intention to upset anyone with metaphysical discussion.


Actually all the question "Is the universe real" is, is a metaphysical discussion. It has no place in science. But, scientists will routinely engage in these discussions. It gives them a chance to see the bounds of what has been done. But, this is all philosophy which I don't care to discuss and is beyond the scope of the discussion.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not a mathematician; I am not a physicist. ... but I am not just blowing hot air without any basis.


No, you are not one of them. You do not live in there field nor do you interact with them. So then, how can I see anything but hot air when you talk about how they think. You have heard from the mouth of the dog that science is not a religion. Yet you stick to that way of thinking for some unknown reason.

Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
If we can agree on nothing else, surely we can agree that if we convince one person to delve more deeply into this issue, then our 'argument' has had a beneficial effect?


Yes. But, only to a certain degree. One must understand for there to be a benefit. Reading pop books doesn't do it. You must actually learn it.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
I am not anti-scientific.


Never said you were.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
As I stated before, I believe God created the universe, and that His creation is perfect...


God does not belong in a scientific discussion. That is theology or philosophy.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
From http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html :
Quote:

University of London physicist David Bohm, for example, believes Aspect's findings imply that objective reality does not exist(emphasis mine), that despite its apparent solidity the universe is at heart a phantasm, a gigantic and splendidly detailed hologram.



This is a perfect example of philosophy. Just because a scientist says it, doesn't make it science.

It must also be mentioned that there are many other schools of thought as well. And they all disagree with each other to one degree or another. It is also all philosophy. I'll only talk about the science.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
I, personally, am gratified that the predictions of the early 1900's -- that we would soon have answered all the important questions of the physical world -- were stood so utterly on their ear by the successive revolutions of Relativity, then Quantum Mechanics.


Me too. I love when someones arrogance ends up like that. Hmmm, I hope that isn't a self fulfilling prophesy


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Yes, we can hold a remote in our hand, we can get t-boned on our motorcycle and shatter our leg and wrist. These feel distinctly real. But at the quantum level, not one single atom can be said to definitively exist, except as a mist of probability. There is no spoon...


There is no current connection between QM and GR (in fact they contradict each other), therefore one should not make such assumptions. I think we can both say that stranger things have happened.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
How mutable is our reality when physicists routinely refer to "quantum strangeness" or "weirdness" in the normal conduct of their business?


Neither of us knows what is actually meant by these terms in context of the physicists work, so, I don't think that that question can be answered by either of us.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
How divided are scientific schools of thought when the greatest minds of modern times can engage in heated debates over how the universe actually works, what the universe actually does, or whether the universe had to create conscious observers, because without them the universe wouldn't exist?


All this means is that we don't understand. When we don't understand we make conjectures and discuss them. This will always lead to heated debates and of course new discovery. It says nothing about what our universe actually is.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
...and these schools of thought can oppose each other with as much vehemence as any Catholic v. Protestant or Christian v. Muslim ideological disagreement (although typically without the physical violence prevalent in today's world).


Just because there is similarities between two things doesn't mean they are related. By your argument here, every field everywhere would be a religion. All that you have described is human behaviour.

And my history book has scores of violence throughout history (not just today, quite frankly I find todays society far more civil, though going backwards.) when it comes to religion. I don't know where you got that idea.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
My final recommendation: Don't take my word for it. Don't take SigmaNunki's word for it. Read a book on it. I've listed several critically acclaimed references -- generally considered to be virtuous and seminal works by the scientific community -- choose one and read it. If you find a particular topic in that book interesting, go to the references in the back of that book and note whom the author cited. Read that book. In short, don't take one book, or one opinion, as Biblical. After you've gotten some differing opinions under your belt, make up your own mind as to what it all means, and what the implications are.


The books that you have posted are nothing but popular science. They do nothing to teach what is actually going on. Here are a couple that will teach you:

GR:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0198596863/qid=108243611
2/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0993404-5570265?v=glance&s=books

This book is a good starter. It is where I learned my Relativity stuff from. The wife doesn't really like it, but, I do. Found it fairly readable in fact.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0716703440/qid=108243620
3/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-0993404-5570265?v=glance&s=books

Many consider this one to be "the bible". Of course those people have there Ph.d. so I'd take that as it'd be good for grad level studies.

QM:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0131244051/qid%3D1082436
646/sr%3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-0993404-5570265?v=glance&s=books

This is the book that my university uses for its 4th year QM class. If someones has the need, I can post a better QM book (although it is grad level). Just can't remember the author right now.

Quantum Feild Theory:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195076524/qid%3D1082439109/sr%
3D11-1/ref%3Dsr%5F11%5F1/103-0993404-5570265

Kaku is consider one of the best when it comes to education. His books are all highly regarded. Beware though, this book is for the grad student.

Math Phys:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0471044091/qid=108243672
1/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-0993404-5570265?v=glance&s=books

This book has the pre-requisite of first year calculus. It should take about a year for someone to work though it. Many consider it with high regard. One should have a relativity high mathematically literacy before engaging in physics in general. This book is a good way to get that.

Consult you local university physics department for other recommended books that will actually teach you something. Also, if you go, you should ask if you could pop by from time to time to ask questions. Physicists tend to be friendly so they'll probably say yes, unless you pester them to much. Then they'll just refer you to someone else

You might also note that most of the books there are grad level. I didn't do this to pull some kind of intellectual superiority crap. It's just that the field is that complicated. You have to have a lot of knowledge to even begin to truly understand.

One can get the basics of it down with undergrad studies, but, one can only get a very vague ideas of what things are through pop books. Nothing is concrete that way.

Just ideas are dangerous here because they are like remembering what a face exactly looks like. It will change over time without that persons knowledge. And it is never accurate. Plus it is easy to misunderstand these complicated things.

Where as an equation is just an equation. If one cannot remember it and how it is used exactly then it is wrong, the result will be wrong, and that is clear. In fact I've had some... interesting results when I forgot just one little tiny thing. It becomes *very* apparent in the end.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
No one should stand on some sense of intellectual superiority and attempt to usurp your right to make your own well-considered conclusions, simply by implying that you're not qualified to think things through for yourself. That's thuggery. Would Einstein have written and published popular discussions of the implications of his theories if he'd held that low opinion of the common man's intelligence?


I have no doubt that you have spend a lot of time considering these matters. But in the end you have come to at least one wrong conclusion. All I have done is proved you wrong. The first book under GR will say the same thing as me. If you are insulted then so be it. If you think that is thuggery then so be it. It doesn't make it so.

And no, you are not qualified to make such judgments on what scientists think because you are not part of there community. No, you are not qualified to make judgments on there work because you have not made an attempt at learning what is really going on (ie going to university in physics, picking up a text book and working through it, etc). These are just the facts.

I would not go up to an architect and start talking to him about his field and what I thought about it if I only read a couple of pop books on the topic because I would be ignorant of there culture. I would be ignorant of how they design things. I would not have any real basis for any opinions.

I do have a friend who is an arcitect and have learned may things about it. But, I still can't say anything about the field in general because I haven't put in the years and I don't know the people. It's just a fact.

Basically, when it comes to things that I don't know I try to read as technical books as I can handle. I ask questions to those in that field. I listen and learn. It's all any of us can do.

You have come in with your preconceived notions about science in general and have not listened to what my wife or I has had to say on the topic. You have stuck to your own opinions despite us saying that they aren't true.

You have also been proved wrong and try to belittle that by saying that I am stepping all over your right to come to a conclusion. This is wrong. What I am doing is exercising my right to point out that your conclusion is clearly wrong.

What it does say is that in this particular case you are wrong. And I have not done this by "simply by implying that you're not qualified to think things through for yourself." I have done this through scientific fact. You now have the link to the book where I got my info. Go and check it out. I think that you will find everything in order.

So then, who is more qualified to talk about science, you or my wife. I chose my wife as she lives it every day. I also know that you are wrong as I have had some university level education in physics and have been a summer research student in the physics department.

Sorry, but, your "science is a religion" opinion isn't true. Fact contradicts it. Something you seem to be in denial of.

Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
But argument without evidence isn't an argument, it's just contradiction.


If you imply that I haven't provided an argument then I'd like to know what bringing in a real physicist is. I'd also like to know how you come to the conclusion that pop books are a valid defense in the face of real education?

At any rate, you now have my book list, and surely you have a university nearby with a physics department in it. If you don't want to use any books that I've suggested then go to the university and get a list from them. It's the only way true understanding is attained.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 8:47 PM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.


Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.


Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.


Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.


True, for some people.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 9:52 PM

ZOID



SigmaNunki:

Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.

As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference.

As to your assertion that you have disproved that science is a belief system (you specified 'religion', I said 'belief system')... I am not satisfied that you have. In fact, your tenor would appear to indicate a deep emotional attachment to your belief that science is not a belief system.

There's more, but why bother? As far as your self-cited self-quote about airports is concerned: If I catch you in mine, I'll have you cavity searched. Really. I may not have a degree in abnormal psychology, but you don't have to make too many references to mental instability in an airport these days to get a 'finger wave'... Don't worry though, the marshals are gentle enough, as long as you don't provoke 'em by insulting their intelligence.

Good luck with that, and in all your future endeavors!

Farewell,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"River and me was best friends, back then. I named my first-born daughter after her. 'Course, you can't swing a dead cat 'round here on I-Day without hittin' a River..."

- Kaywinnit Tam, wife and mother of 6, A Child Shall Lead Them: A History of the Second War of Independence Wilkins, Richard

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, April 19, 2004 11:16 PM

RAVENDAVE


Quote:

Originally posted by ManiacNumberOne:
Have we ruled out Book being a Mormon? They're Christian.



No, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) are NOT Christian. They call themselves Christians because Jesus Christ is a part of their religion, but they have re-defined too many terms to be included in the religious designation "Christianity".

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:20 AM

SIGMANUNKI


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
Thank you for your candid reply. I trust that it meets with your grudging approval that I continue to live in my house, even though I am not a trained architect. Although I know it may distress you, I did read some good popular books on automobiles and -- although I couldn't build one myself -- feel I made an informed decision when I purchased my current car. According to your argument, I am either/both too stupid or not classically trained enough to reside and drive based strictly upon the recommendations of my architect and a good mechanic.


You miss my point entirely. If you have read books on automobiles, by my argument, you can't make any judgment on how they conduct themselves, how engines are manufactured or how there research is done, etc. Nothing more. You are making a direct comparison between something that is applied and something that is theoretical. In greatly different fields as well. You are comparing apples and oranges here. Yours is a moot point.

And if you're going to listen to someone that is describing physics from about a century ago, then you can live in the past. Things have changed since then you know. Even some of what Einstein did has been corrected and people have said some is wrong. And not all has been proven, frame dragging for instance.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
The logical conclusion of your argument is that either everyone must become university-trained physicists, or else they must not worry their pretty heads with deep subjects they could not possibly hope to understand. Most of us, in the 'real' world, have jobs and lives; but we still crave some understanding of the world around us.


No, the logical conclusion is that people shouldn't make judgments about people in a field they don't know anything about. As I said before I know things about architecture, but, I won't even think to question an architect as I realize that (s)he knows far more than me there. I don't have the basis for any opinion of how they conduct themselves or there work.

You know nothing about the physicists that do the work. You know nothing about how they conduct themselves. This is clear. Yet you persist in saying you know and still cling to you obviously flawed beliefs.

It is also clear, by my example above, that your understanding of the subject is flawed as well. This isn't a comment on you. But, one of a couple of things is happening here:
1) You didn't understand what you read.
2) You didn't understand what you read because the book didn't describe it properly.
3) You understood at one point but that understanding has become corrupted over time. Human memory is flawed.

It's become too complicated. You need more than just pop books. You need math. That idea that you can just understand things is so Newton. The world doesn't make that kind of sense anymore.

Many Physicists say that physics is a humbling discipline. It is the fact that physics pretty much makes you think you are stupid on a daily basis. If you think you understand it, you don't and physics will show you that shortly. The subject is quite fleeting. And that's the experts talking about there field of specialty.

So, how do you think that you can pretend to understand such thinks with no background. As I have said, people can get and idea about physics from those pop books, but, they must understand that they are just ideas. It isn't true understanding.

I do encourage that though. People don't nearly know enough about the world around them. They just must accept the limitations stated above.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
As far as your references are concerned, I stopped after the first. I trust others will take up your challenge, to the extent they have any interest in this conversation in the first place (which I sincerely doubt). Personally, I prefer Einstein's description of his own theory, in his own words -- which you denigrated as 'pop' -- to the in-depth mathematical dissertation in that reference.


Ideas are fleeting. You need the math to understand. Again, it's not a century ago.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
As to your assertion that you have disproved that science is a belief system (you specified 'religion', I said 'belief system')... I am not satisfied that you have. In fact, your tenor would appear to indicate a deep emotional attachment to your belief that science is not a belief system.


The "emotion" that you see if frustration that you fail to see logic. You fail to listen to those who are in the field.

You have perhaps watched some interviews, read some pop books and perhaps a show or two. You have taken these things and come to a conclusion that you don't have the knowledge and understanding to come to. Yet when someone comes along and states that your conclusion is exactly wrong you lash out, throw up you walls and deny, deny, deny.

So, Zoid, stick to that one reference that lets you stick to you flawed beliefs. I trust that anyone reading this is going to see them for what they are.


Quote:

Originally posted by zoid:
If I catch you in mine, I'll have you cavity searched. Really. I may not have a degree in abnormal psychology, but you don't have to make too many references to mental instability in an airport these days to get a 'finger wave'... Don't worry though, the marshals are gentle enough, as long as you don't provoke 'em by insulting their intelligence.


This just tells me what kind of person you really are.

And I'd like to know when I insulted your intelligence. Sure I have been gruff these past few posts. But, if you can't take someone proving that your understanding of a subject is flawed, then that's your problem, not mine.

----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, April 20, 2004 6:22 AM

JASONZZZ


Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But all of it are based on theories and models and believes in one thing - there is a grand mathematical equation that will work everything out. The entire equation balanced that will ultimately explain everything.


Going to disagree with you here. Math is all we have right now to describe things. If something better comes along then they'll use that. Currently TOE would be described by math, but, what about the future? Scientists will use what is the best way to describe what they need to describe. Nothing less. Plus our math, IMHO, is too immature to describe such a thing. Too much more needs to be done. I don't think that we are even close to the point where we should be discussing the possibility of TOE.

Wasn't it Steven Hawkins that said about 10 years ago that in 20 years we'll have TOE. But, now he says 50 years. Hmmm, which is it Steven. (These numbers have been approximated from my memory. Actual magnitude may vary.)




Not going to disagree with anything here.

The big thing is Science and Physics are by its own definition - the study of nature and how it behaves. I don't know how you can dispute that. The fact is also that studies such as Science and Physics are very much rooted in Metaphysics: from Pythagoras, Aristotle, to Plato, Copernicus, Newton (Sorry if I skipped a few, but you get the idea). Even the present day study of mathematics is rooted in Pythagoras's math cult. From the very beginning, every human society has had their own concept of explaining what things are, why nature is, and each of them were also absolutely convinced that not only do they have the answers or they have the correct answers, but the answers to absolutely everything (only if they can find that last equation). Pythagoras had his "all is numbers", Plato attempted to explain how everything derives from one. The purpose of physics today are all rooted in exactly the same goal - to define a simple single grand theory that explains everything - 20 years ago the GUT, today the TOE.



Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
I think someone else here said it best, I don't think we are capable of understanding the grandest truth - whatever it maybe. Our brain just isn't build to comprehend or process that type of information or models.


Conjecture, no-one knows if we can or can't. Lets let time tell.


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
But then again, to the village people in a pre-scientific age tribe, the rain chant dance worked just as well in bringing rain, the medicine man's charms worked pretty darn good in curing the sicknesses, and praying to the furtility gods worked well enough.


Umm, bit of a difference there. The village people are waving there sticks in the air. We are making rocket fuel and watching it burn. Someone can wave there stick in the air and most of the time it does nothing, but, rocket fuel will always burn.




There are plenty of natural phenonmenon that neither science nor physics can attempt to explain. Yet the natural properties continues to work.

The fact is, the "stick in the air" might not work for a non-believer. But to the tribal people, whose system of beliefs has concluded that "stick in the air" in an exact precise (perhaps even mathematical way) does in fact - work. And I am sure there would be plenty of prevailing theories within that system of beliefs on why the "stick in the air" fails sometimes - "you didn't wave it exactly like so" , "you hooked instead of swoosh", "you must have ate something yesterday that displeased the natural balance"...

The study of science or physics is not exact either, it's always been "exact enough". Look at something simple as calculating artillery trajectory, classical physics is taught with parabolic paths when it is at best an approximation. And yet, even with our perfect and exact understanding of nature and the universe, there are times when our technology (based in our science and physics) fail and we can't exactly properly explain it (much like the "stick in the air" ). Oh, we have plenty of theories on why our "stick in the air" fails sometimes too - "the refining process was inadequate", "the temperature variation was shifting much too quickly", "you know sometimes the engines just conks out"... Something as simple as a combustible engine have failure modes that even a modern trained physicists can't explain.

Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


Quote:

Originally posted by Jasonzzz:
We are not much different in the need to explain things around us. Makes us feel like we have a purpose, that we are in control of nature, that we were put here to do something.


True, for some people.




So, you don't have a need to explain things around you? why things work, why things don't work? how do they work?

The goal of the study of physics *is* the study of the properties of nature, why things work the way they do. I suppose it doesn't have to be your goal - some people just do things because they are doing them - and that's fine too, prolly.

I don't refute that modern man should study physics and know what it is - after all, it is the present day theory to explaining the natural world (religions aside, strictly speaking from a science viewpoint)

I would suggest that you could study the lineage of the field of science and physics, and that will give you a good perspective of the things that you are studying.

Quote:

Originally posted by SigmaNunki:


----
"An airport gives a good cross section of the mentally unstable, doesn't it." -Me
"Also, I can kill you with my brain." -River





NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL