Origin Of Unification Principle. - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

God & Science Forum Message
Forums:	Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

Origin Of Unification Principle.

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Alexander on January 18, 2002 02:24:16 UTC

Harvey, you wrote in a thread below:
Alex,

I noticed you ignored the other principles, but no matter, you didn't demonstate that unification is a mathematical outcome. Mathematicians also use the principle of unification. The concept is that there is some means by which to tie two or more concepts such as that they reduce to one fundamental concept. It is framework by which to consider problems, it is not a theorem in mathematics (if it is, I would like to know the theorem).

Warm regards, Harv

I disagree. Common origin of seemingly different phenomena (say, electricity, magnetizm and light all mathematically originate from electric charge)is the reason we call them (electricity, magnetizm, light, radiowaves, gamma rays, etc) unified.

Follow Ups:

There's a difference between a principle and a theory - harvey1 - January 18, 2002 - 17:06 UTC
- Why God? - ymateen - January 19, 2002 - 15:09 UTC
  - error: .. in all discussions..... (nt) - ymateen - January 19, 2002 - 15:11 UTC
    - God matters - yanniru - January 19, 2002 - 16:51 UTC
  - Why God? Why not? - alexander - January 19, 2002 - 18:26 UTC
  - Because I say so (smile) - harvey1 - January 19, 2002 - 20:18 UTC
- "Why" is an ultimately self-serving concept. - luis_hamburgh - January 19, 2002 - 17:05 UTC
  - But, it is a useful one - harvey1 - January 19, 2002 - 20:35 UTC
    - Let's name a principle - luis_hamburgh - January 20, 2002 - 15:22 UTC
      - Thanks for that reference - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:55 UTC
        
        Correction - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 19:56 UTC
        
        Origin of universal order. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 20:54 UTC
        
        A good paper that discusses this issue - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 22:00 UTC
        
        Left=right, sure, and up=down, okay, but what=us? - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:33 UTC
        
        Luis, you are a little too selfish. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 17:52 UTC
        
        Alex, again you are making my point. Slow down & read it again. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:21 UTC
        
        psychology of math - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:10 UTC
        
        Rain check. - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:25 UTC
        
        Thanks(nt) - yanniru - January 28, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
        
        Condensed soup - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:23 UTC
        
        re: Our condensed differences - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 18:11 UTC
        
        if we do not know a thing, it is better to define it - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:24 UTC
        
        re: black holes - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 15:42 UTC
        
        Celestine Prophecy - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:30 UTC
        
        Synchronicity - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 16:16 UTC
        
        A good example of circularity - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:34 UTC
        
        That doesn't make any sense to me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 01:32 UTC
        
        I do not understand - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 14:42 UTC
        
        You can never reach infinity via a finite process - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 15:29 UTC
        
        Give me a week - yanniru - January 26, 2002 - 14:32 UTC
        
        By the way, does evolution of BH multiverse produce - alexander - January 27, 2002 - 01:24 UTC
        
        Still an open question in string theory - yanniru - January 27, 2002 - 18:49 UTC
- Thus,unification (of,say,light and magnet)is mathematical result - alexander - January 19, 2002 - 18:42 UTC
  - Well, then... - harvey1 - January 19, 2002 - 19:53 UTC
    - No, I do not oppose it. As long as both mathematically related. - alexander - January 19, 2002 - 20:04 UTC
      - Then why do you object to a divine order? - harvey1 - January 19, 2002 - 20:38 UTC
        
        You're both theists. n/t - luis_hamburgh - January 20, 2002 - 15:26 UTC
        
        Theist accepts that God moves things without proof. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:38 UTC
        
        Acknowledge Godel's Theorem, or remain a theist! - luis_hamburgh - January 21, 2002 - 17:39 UTC
        
        Luis, looks like you are unaware og Goedel theorem. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:00 UTC
        
        Penrose on Godel - yanniru - January 22, 2002 - 15:59 UTC
        
        Where is it? - harvey1 - January 22, 2002 - 21:33 UTC
        
        Penrose's interpretation - yanniru - January 23, 2002 - 15:34 UTC
        
        The first paragraph of Godel's paper - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 00:37 UTC
        
        Must be careful - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 02:12 UTC
        
        something different than being derived - yanniru - January 25, 2002 - 15:05 UTC
        
        Don't rely on me - harvey1 - January 25, 2002 - 16:24 UTC
        
        Alex, how is you know Godel better than him? - luis_hamburgh - January 28, 2002 - 01:29 UTC
        
        No, I do not object any principle. As long as it exists. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 20:56 UTC
        
        Can't be - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 21:12 UTC
        
        Interactions, interactions. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
        
        But - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 21:28 UTC
        
        I do not see any problem here. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 21:48 UTC
        
        I'm talking about a much bigger role for a unification principle - harvey1 - January 20, 2002 - 22:05 UTC
        
        I do not object-it is all math.No special arrangement for life - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:22 UTC
        
        As for different fundamental constants - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 04:42 UTC
        
        Alex: Math universe depends on NON-equivalence - dolphin - January 21, 2002 - 07:34 UTC
        
        Alan, no god(s) nor their acts were observed. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 17:38 UTC
        
        "Explains" is a merry-go-round - dolphin - January 22, 2002 - 09:27 UTC
        
        Hey Alan - aurino - January 22, 2002 - 14:56 UTC
        
        Thank you, Aurino. But Google didn't find it! - dolphin - January 27, 2002 - 03:55 UTC
        
        No antropic principle needed. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:08 UTC
        
        So, is this how you construe science? - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 18:18 UTC
        
        Harvey, those "papers" are not even worth their paper. - alexander - January 21, 2002 - 18:34 UTC
        
        Bulk - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
        
        s/b bunk (nt) - harvey1 - January 21, 2002 - 21:22 UTC
        
        I am just more open minded. - alexander - January 23, 2002 - 00:00 UTC
        
        Let's define open-mindedness - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:27 UTC
        
        Alex, let's define open-mindedness - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:30 UTC
        
        Oops, see the top where I reposted this. (nt) - harvey1 - January 23, 2002 - 00:32 UTC

Additional Information

About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy

Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins