tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post7788812139402861476..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: Helicase Animation and Why the Genetic Code EvolvedUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger83125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-39866189133760954762013-06-23T11:44:53.049-07:002013-06-23T11:44:53.049-07:00Oops, random quantum event made me type "Forc...Oops, random quantum event made me type "Force of attraction between proton and neutron" it should be "between proton and electron"Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-81949246706568130122013-06-23T11:37:30.301-07:002013-06-23T11:37:30.301-07:00Ian
"Turok sounds like a good Vulcan name :-...Ian<br /><br />"Turok sounds like a good Vulcan name :-) "<br /><br />Son ama gun, totally. Good catch, even my inner clown didn't think of that. Now next time I watch him online I'll think he's a Vulcan agent :)<br /><br /><br />I agree (and I think everybody here) that the best way for science to work is for one person to promote his ideas and another to criticize them.<br />It's good to read ideas from both sides, theist and atheist scientists, do some logical thinking and make up your mind.<br />When we are studying the nature of our reality it's easy to get stuck on philosophical points, ad hominems, prosaic exercises,etc... but I try to filter that out.<br /><br />I asked my sensei what am I going to study after I get to 20 years of practicing with him. He said:"Basics, Eugen, basics!"<br /><br />Here is a small illustration of what are we dealing with, what forces are involved at the basics of our reality.<br /><br />If hydrogen atom is blown up to 1 meter diameter beach ball you still wouldn't be able to see either proton or electron. Force of attraction between proton and neutron would be 230N, same force between like charges but repulsive. To get a feel what that force is lift something about 23kg heavy.<br />What's going on at basic level is simply fascinating.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-4939499346529958552013-06-22T16:25:37.553-07:002013-06-22T16:25:37.553-07:00Elijah2012 June 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM
"Krauss...<i><b>Elijah2012</b> June 20, 2013 at 9:11 AM<br /><br />"Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information."<br /><br />heaping and I do mean HEAPING pounds of garbage and nonsense. Krauss knows absolutely nothing outside of physics that operate in this universe and its space.</i><br /><br />And neither he nor anyone else has claimed otherwise. His ideas are based entirely on what we currently know <i>He's</i> not the one that believes the whole thing was created on a whim by some all-knowing, all-powerful Creator who, by definition, had no reason to create anything at all. <br /><br /><i>the appeal to the creation of space is quintessential metaphysiccs. You are merely granting a measure of omniscience to your high priest</i><br /><br /><i>You're</i> the one who believes in omniscient beings, not me or Krauss.<br /> <br /><i>"If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an inappropriate and/or incompetent authority."<br /><br />Only in your metaphysics believing mind is Krauss a competent authority on physics operating outside of space and time. this is the silliness of your emperor with the new clothes gambit that both you and him try to sell. </i><br /><br />He's trying to sell a book and the explanation it sets out. He's free to do so. Nobody is saying you have to buy it.<br /><br />And as I said before, Krauss is not claiming to know anything about the physics that operate outside our Universe. He does, however, know quite a bit about the physics that operate <i>within</i> our Universe - certainly a lot more than you or I - and <i>that</i> makes him a competent authority and appealing to him <i>not</i> a fallacy.<br /><br /><i>The fact that you swallow and defend this purely religious concept while mocking religions for relating far less grand claims of miracles proves in spades that your position is rooted and grounded in faith sans any evidence.</i><br /><br />So you accept that faith - including yours - is belief in something without any evidence or in spite of the evidence? <br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><i>"You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss."<br /><br />Sorry. Cats out the bag and you can thank Krauss and his atheistiv bias for exposing the metaphysics atheist are quite willing to accept. There is no difference between all of those and your blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance theology. <br /><br />You genuflect just like one would to a priest when Krauss proposes himself clear out of all known physics which ARE rooted in space to claim nothing created space.</i><br /><br />Sorry, but beating hard on a strawman doesn't make it any less a strawman. Kraus isn't claiming metaphysical knowledge nor are his ideas based on it, just on what we know now. If you don't like his ideas, fine. Nobody says you have to. If you feel threatened by them in some way, which is what the vehemence of your response suggests, then maybe it's because your own faith is more fragile than you care to admit.<br /><br /><i>The only thing that separates the atheist from the theist now is that the atheists believes in laws operating in the absence of space and time without intelligence and theists believe a law with nothing else would imply an intelligence.</i><br /><br />There's obviously a profound mystery about where the laws or the order or the regularities we observe in this Universe came from. Atheists don't believe in laws operating in the absence of space and time any more than theists. The notion is absurd.<br /><br />The difference between theists and atheists is that the latter don't find the concept of a Creator <i>useful</i>. It doesn't tell us anything about how or why it happened - the very things you're asking of science - and, in some formulations, the notion of the Creator or God is itself incoherent.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-46074304503199761322013-06-22T15:34:44.316-07:002013-06-22T15:34:44.316-07:00Eugen June 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM
[...]
Who is th...<i><b>Eugen</b> June 19, 2013 at 8:05 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /> Who is the best to criticize Krauss than his colleague cosmologist Neil Turok, man who worked with Hawking and Penrose at Cambridge. He's now at Perimeter Institute not too far from where I live and luckily for me giving free public lectures.<br /><br />In his book The Universe Within (pg.246,247) Turok seriously disagrees with Kraus's ideas. He says Krauss "misrepresented physics" , made "technical gaffe",has "shallow argument", is "disconnecting science from society". He goes on and disagrees with Dawkins' afterword in Krauss's book.</i><br /><br />Turok sounds like a good Vulcan name :-) so I'm instinctively sympathetic.<br /><br />More seriously, it's good that he disagrees with Krauss. That's part of how science works. One scientist comes up with a tentative solution to a really difficult problem. Everyone else pounces on it and tries to tear it to pieces. If it survives then maybe you're on to something. If it doesn't, you're still better off because at least you've eliminated one explanation as wrong, which is something you didn't know before. <br /><br />And maybe, just maybe, the whole furball over the first explanation might cause a lightbulb to click on in the mind of another researcher who puts together an alternative explanation for the others to get their teeth into. So it goes on.<br /><br />The problem seems to be that the non-scientific audience, particularly the believers, thinks that scientists are talking about the same sort of Absolute Truths™ that religions deal in. But that's not what science does. It works with tentative explanations - hypotheses and theories - and observations. Even facts in science are only observations that, as Gould put it, are "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent."<br /><br />When a scientist like Krauss publishes a book explaining how the Universe <i>might</i> have arisen from nothing, he is not writing scripture. His word is not gospel. All he's doing is offering a <i>tentative</i> and <i>speculative</i> explanation. Nobody <i>has</i> to believe it on pain of excommunication. It could be wrong but it's still worth looking at.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24659452887500209742013-06-20T09:11:44.392-07:002013-06-20T09:11:44.392-07:00"Krauss's hypothesis is based in the phys..."Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information."<br /><br />heaping and I do mean HEAPING pounds of garbage and nonsense. Krauss knows absolutely nothing outside of physics that operate in this universe and its space. the appeal to the creation of space is quintessential metaphysiccs. You are merely granting a measure of omniscience to your high priest <br /><br />"If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an inappropriate and/or incompetent authority."<br /><br />Only in your metaphysics believing mind is Krauss a competent authority on physics operating outside of space and time. this is the silliness of your emperor with the new clothes gambit that both you and him try to sell. The fact that you swallow and defend this purely religious concept while mocking religions for relating far less grand claims of miracles proves in spades that your position is rooted and grounded in faith sans any evidence.<br /><br />Sicence tells us nothing outside of entities and properties that operate within space. It is blithering ignorance to claim knowledge outside and time and space. What test could ever be done to give us such evidence? How do you propose we isolate existing space from the equation to propose ANY kind of experiment. Go ahead we await<br /><br />Propose one.<br /><br />"You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss."<br /><br />Sorry. Cats out the bag and you can thank Krauss and his atheistiv bias for exposing the metaphysics atheist are quite willing to accept. There is no difference between all of those and your blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance theology. You genuflect just like one would to a priest when Krauss proposes himself clear out of all known physics which ARE rooted in space to claim nothing created space.<br /><br />Its gibberish and it doesn't matter that you will not accept it as gibberish the rest of the world has and will easily see it for what it is.<br /><br />Its essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority for your blue fairy everything out of nothing faith.<br /><br />The only thing that separates the atheist from the theist now is that the atheists believes in laws operating in the absence of space and time without intelligence and theists believe a law with nothing else would imply an intelligence.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-74774888580389996222013-06-19T20:05:05.662-07:002013-06-19T20:05:05.662-07:00Ian,
when I as a layman criticize Krauss it is n...Ian,<br /> when I as a layman criticize Krauss it is not just pulled out of thin air. Criticism is produced after reading experts in the field and some own logical thinking. Still I'm at the base of the totem pole of science so my criticism doesn't mean much.<br />Coincidence is I was reading an interesting book by a cosmologist. Who is the best to criticize Krauss than his colleague cosmologist Neil Turok, man who worked with Hawking and Penrose at Cambridge. He's now at Perimeter Institute not too far from where I live and luckily for me giving free public lectures.<br /> In his book The Universe Within (pg.246,247) Turok seriously disagrees with Kraus's ideas. He says Krauss "misrepresented physics" , made "technical gaffe",has "shallow argument", is "disconnecting science from society". He goes on and disagrees with Dawkins' afterword in Krauss's book.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-8640478547575779482013-06-19T17:51:02.206-07:002013-06-19T17:51:02.206-07:00Elijah2012 June 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Sped I under...<i><b>Elijah2012</b> June 16, 2013 at 5:30 PM<br /><br />Sped I understand completely what krauss has said . I just don't buy and neither does the general public your gambit of the emperor with the new clothes which you tirelessly seek to employ.</i><br /><br />Krauss is putting forward a hypothesis about how, according to quantum theory, the Universe could have popped into existence from nothing. Whether you and the general public believe it or not doesn't matter. All that matters is does it work? Is it possible? Does it take us another step along the road to understanding why there is something rather than nothing?<br /><br /><i>We know that Krauss expertise as a physicist ends at the known universe and space like all of us while you try to perpetuate the utter fraud that<br /><br />"scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field, <br />"<br />have the ability to go beyond the universe they can observe and make proclamations as silly as nothing creating both time and space.</i><br /><br />Krauss's hypothesis is based in the physics that we already know. It may be weird but there's no appeal to occult or supernatural information.<br /><br /><i>This is your religious faith in the blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance. Its also essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority.</i><br /><br />If you know fallacies you will know that, in this case, the fallacy lies in appealing to an <i>inappropriate</i> and/or <i>incompetent</i> authority. <br /><br />Krauss is a theoretical physicist and cosmologist which, in this case, very definitely makes him appropriate and competent. There is no fallacy.<br /><br /><i>As long as neither you nor Krauss can give me a test for how nothing creates time and space or for that matter how quantum laws exist prior and therefore without space you have earned and earned well the title of proponents of the gibberish supreme.</i><br /><br />Fine. You're entitled to your opinion.<br /><br /><i>Krauss may function as your high priest but no onr else need bow to his metaphysics theology and metaphysics it most certain is.</i><br /><br />You're the one who needs priests and devils and gods and theology, not me - or Krauss.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-72072950068747456942013-06-19T09:31:25.383-07:002013-06-19T09:31:25.383-07:00"Again, if nothing isn't nothing anymore ..."Again, if nothing isn't nothing anymore then he's not saying that virtual particles pop out of nothing in the sense you're implying. <br /><br />That was, and still is, my original point."<br /><br />Scott see my above response to Vel. You are both in the same boat. Krauss goes beyond the empty spaceon many ocassions<br /><br />"Krause- in fact there are other versions of nothing and in fact, you can imagine no space and no time, which of course I think is a better version of non-being and non-existence. But if we apply the laws of quantum mechanics to gravity, then in that theory, even space itself can pop into existence, spontaneously - space and time, where there were NO TIME AND SPACE before"<br />http://ttbook.org/book/transcript/transcript-lawrence-krauss-marcelo-gleiser-something-nothing<br /><br />eh can't be bothered quoting the multitude of references on such an obvious and so boring point. Google it and get an education on your own<br /><br />https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=krauss+%22nothing%22+%22even+space%22&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggestElijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32900794312491059302013-06-19T09:19:02.153-07:002013-06-19T09:19:02.153-07:00There goes that inability to think your way out of...There goes that inability to think your way out of a wet paper bag we all know and love.<br /><br />Since I must spell it out for you<br /><br />If nothing creates SPACE as Krauss has stated more than once then nothing precedes space and therefore "nothing" cannot be just empty space.<br /><br /> Lets face it outside of that one quote you do not know squat what Krauss has said and your inability to think through this issue is obvious.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40403749910561522092013-06-18T11:56:33.163-07:002013-06-18T11:56:33.163-07:00Elijah,
Krauss has made it crystal clear what he m...<b>Elijah,<br />Krauss has made it crystal clear what he means by nothing by including space and time among its creations.</b><br /><br />And that would be empty space.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-61445756897985687322013-06-18T06:35:19.741-07:002013-06-18T06:35:19.741-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-14523039923606205522013-06-17T13:40:27.843-07:002013-06-17T13:40:27.843-07:00Elijah2012: No nit. You are a nit that needs educa...Elijah2012: No nit. You are a nit that needs educating because You said this<br /><br />Scott: Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"<br /><br />Elijah2012: That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing. and has done media interviews and videos stating the same <br /><br />The video I posted was a clip from the very same video you referenced. To quote from the same clip.<br /> <br /><i>"<b>Nothing isn't nothing any more in physics.</b> because of the laws of quantum mechanics and special relatively, on extremely small scales, nothing is really a boiling bubbling brew of virtual particles popping in and out of existence on a time scale so short, you can't seem them."</i><br /><br />Shortly after he displays a slide titled "Empty space is not Empty!", and says...<br /><br /><i>"… Most of the mass of the proton comes not from the quarks of a proton, but from the empty space between the quarks. These fields, popping in and out of existence, produce about 90% of the mass of a proton. And since protons and neutrons are the dominate stuff in your body, empty space is responsible for 90% of your mass. "</i><br /><br />Again, if nothing isn't nothing anymore then he's not saying that virtual particles pop out of nothing in the sense you're implying. <br /><br />That was, and still is, my original point.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11193595678064010528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-91364912365166389552013-06-17T10:32:15.293-07:002013-06-17T10:32:15.293-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-26479252109123440992013-06-17T06:26:48.580-07:002013-06-17T06:26:48.580-07:00"You are a never ending source of amusement, ..."You are a never ending source of amusement, I am not arguing that Krauss is correct, just you are wrong about what he considers as nothing, which is empty space."<br /><br />ROFL the pleasure is all mine Vel. Reading you is an adventure in hilarity. Krauss has made it crystal clear what he means by nothing by including space and time among its creations. Did you miss that being stated numerous times? lol. Your confusion on what I said is your own doing<br /><br />You are trying too hard. If you let reading come more natural you will improve.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-28092534519086922822013-06-16T21:29:08.224-07:002013-06-16T21:29:08.224-07:00Elijah,
. Krauss can massage it anyway he sees fit...<b>Elijah,<br />. Krauss can massage it anyway he sees fit but when you propose that space and time came from nothing along with everything else you are at nothing by anyones definition and he has not a single test result to prove his assertions.</b><br /><br />"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"<br /><br />Elijah<br />"When Krauss has a whole book <br />That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing<br />and has done media interviews and videos stating the same"<br /><br />You are a never ending source of amusement, I am not arguing that Krauss is correct, just you are wrong about what he considers as nothing, which is empty space. So apparently you are the nit that needs educating<br />velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-30737223262151359582013-06-16T17:44:10.635-07:002013-06-16T17:44:10.635-07:00"Krauss
"some philosophers and many the..."Krauss<br /><br />"some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” <br /><br />Sounds closer to <br /><br />"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING""<br /><br />vel to you any thing will sound close or far to suit yourself given your intellectual dishonest proclivity. Krauss can massage it anyway he sees fit but when you propose that space and time came from nothing along with everything else you are at nothing by anyones definition and he has not a single test result to prove his assertions.<br /><br />You can all use the standard atheist prop that the objecters do not understand but if you informed yourselves even a wit more than rhetoric you would read some very notable scientists themselves dissent to Krauss' garbage.<br /><br />will you educate yourselves? odds are against it. when have you ever beyond your own perspective. That is only something you require of others never yourselvesElijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-1788172472446624482013-06-16T17:42:26.837-07:002013-06-16T17:42:26.837-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-57399623010677016182013-06-16T17:30:40.836-07:002013-06-16T17:30:40.836-07:00Sped I understand completely what krauss has said ...Sped I understand completely what krauss has said . I just don't buy and neither does the general public your gambit of the emperor with the new clothes which you tirelessly seek to employ. We know that Krauss expertise as a physicist ends at the known universe and space like all of us while you try to perpetuate the utter fraud that<br /><br />"scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field, <br />"<br />have the ability to go beyond the universe they can observe and make proclamations as silly as nothing creating both time and space.<br /><br />This is your religious faith in the blue fairy of everything out nothing by chance. Its also essentially and obviously a logically fallacious appeal to authority.<br /><br />As long as neither you nor Krauss can give me a test for how nothing creates time and space or for that matter how quantum laws exist prior and therefore without space you have earned and earned well the title of proponents of the gibberish supreme.<br /><br />Krauss may function as your high priest but no onr else need bow to his metaphysics theology and metaphysics it most certain is.<br /><br />Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45419053149502903912013-06-16T17:09:39.270-07:002013-06-16T17:09:39.270-07:00Marcus and Velikovsky
Links look interesting, tha...Marcus and Velikovsky<br /><br />Links look interesting, thanks. I'll read them tomorrow.Eugenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15513772766225981430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-62238691534885262762013-06-16T11:44:49.329-07:002013-06-16T11:44:49.329-07:00Elijah2012 June 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM
[...]
Go re...<i><b>Elijah2012</b> June 15, 2013 at 4:24 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Go read up on Krauss and stop being among the rank of the uneducated. Krauss HAS claimed that nothing created time and space as well. Have we ever stripped out space and found nothing? Can we? You are as bumbling on this as Scott.</i><br /><br />As I understand it, Krauss, like others, has hypothesized that the Universe could have emerged from "nothing" much like the virtual particles in a quantum vacuum.<br /><br />He does admit, however, to not making it clear that by "nothing" he's referring to the physical concept of a perfect vacuum <i>not</i> the philosophical ideal of nothing.<br /><br />And, no, as far as I'm aware, a perfect vacuum has not been created in the laboratory and there are theoretical reasons why it may not be possible.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><i>oh spare me your rhetoric of condescension crap. I am very well aware of quantun foam and virtual particles and they do not happen in the abscence of space. You are totally confused </i><br /><br />No one is suggesting that they do occur in the absence of space but perhaps it's what makes space space.<br /><br />And if you are well aware of virtual particles and quantum foam then you can explain where those particles come from when they pop into existence and where they go when they pop out again.<br /><br />As for condescension, it's what happens when armchair critics, who have read maybe a few popular science books and papers on a subject and never been in a laboratory in their life, feel able to treat scientists, who have spent their entire working lives studying and researching in a given field, as if they have no idea what they're talking about.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><i>LOL where in all of science is spacetime considered nothing? Or fields? Like most atheists you show a level of idiocy on the definition of nothing. You merely attempt to redefine the meaning</i><br /><br />No, but we admit there has been confusion created by an imprecise usage of "nothing". <br /><br /><i>Seriously go learn something more than the cliff notes on a topic before claiming I don't understand when you like Scott are wholly unaware of what physicist like Krauss actually have stated</i><br /><br />I think you're aware some of what Krauss has said and written. You don't seem to be aware of all of it and I'm not sure you understand itAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-17352802662598670922013-06-16T11:13:40.395-07:002013-06-16T11:13:40.395-07:00Eugen,
You might check this out
http://www.firstt...Eugen,<br /><br />You might check this out<br />http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/05/not-understanding-nothing<br /><br />Feser is always interestingvelikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-2960624795973042682013-06-16T08:37:32.307-07:002013-06-16T08:37:32.307-07:00Elijah,
( Book) That states everything including ...<b>Elijah,<br /> ( Book) That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing<br /><br />and has done media interviews and videos stating the same</b><br /><br />Um,maybe but <br /><br />Krauss<br /><br />"some philosophers and many theologians define and redefine ‘nothing’ as not being any of the versions of nothing that scientists currently describe,” and that “now, I am told by religious critics that I cannot refer to empty space as ‘nothing,’ but rather as a ‘quantum vacuum,’ to distinguish it from the philosopher’s or theologian’s idealized ‘nothing,’ ” <br /><br />Sounds closer to <br /><br />"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"velikovskyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01825529912160289226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-37319480136617097992013-06-16T05:35:49.846-07:002013-06-16T05:35:49.846-07:00"So, this isn't a video of Krauss saying ..."So, this isn't a video of Krauss saying Empty space is not empty?<br /><br />And I'm a nitwit that needs educating?"<br /><br />No nit. You are a nit that needs educating because You said this<br /><br />"Except, physicist say vertical particles pop into existence from empty space, NOT NOTHING"<br /><br />When Krauss has a whole book <br />http://www.amazon.com/Universe-Nothing-There-Something-Rather/dp/1451624468<br /><br />That states everything including virtual particle pop out of nothing<br /><br />and has done media interviews and videos stating the same<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIoElijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-67769195165208998772013-06-15T22:30:27.869-07:002013-06-15T22:30:27.869-07:00""This is not your father's Universe...""This is not your father's Universe."<br /><br />Good point, Universe seems weirder with every new thing discovered."<br /><br />I don't know about it not being our father's universe. depends on the father. IF you go back far enough to the time before we thought we had reality figured out with science those father's would be far less amazed by Quantum physics. The double slit experiment for example would not surprise them at all. They would see reality adjusting to observation/ measurement as a theological confirmation of the universe being made with intelligence in mind. Entanglement also would not phase them. <br /><br />A great deal of our 20th and 21st century intuition is radically different that theirs was. A lot of what we call weird is just a violation of physical material causality that those father's ultimately never believed in Elijah2012https://www.blogger.com/profile/02729894330690030276noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-52637791304853808072013-06-15T22:10:28.226-07:002013-06-15T22:10:28.226-07:00Your post about gibberish a few articles back was ...Your post about gibberish a few articles back was an 'A-HA' for me Elijah, thank you for that. :) I know it seems pretty simple but I found it profound.Marcushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05905104887549850614noreply@blogger.com