In response to Rick's
critique of the Krauss interview on his book, "A Universe From Nothing,”
Rosemary
Lyndall Wemm says:
The trouble with astrophysics summaries that has
been dumbed down for non-expert consumption is that the average reader is too
ignorant of the subject matter to understand the complexities. Whatever makes
the author believe that musicians have what it takes?
The underlying problem is that the common meaning of "nothing" is not consistent with the scientific version of "nothing". This is further complicated by the fact that many scientists will assert that there is actually no such thing as "nothing". An infinitely small singularity could probably be defined as "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle". The average person is no closer to understanding this than they have of understanding the concept of double figure dimensions.
Thanks for the comment
and for your courage to use your real name. It is the nature of an absurd
theory that it doesn’t take any special training to see that the “emperor wears
no clothes.” Such theories, the BBT and relativity, with their explosions out
of nothing and 4 dimensions make no sense at all to the person in the street. Promoters
of such silly theories ask us commoners to have “faith,” in the same way we were
asked in parochial school. I asked Rick to address the Krauss book and
interview. I think he did a pretty good job of it even though he is not an
astrophysicist by training. Unlike Krauss, however, he is well trained in “The
Ten Assumptions of Science.” He knows that the opposite of the indeterministic
assumption of creation (an obvious darling of the BBT) is the Fifth Assumption
of Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can neither be
created nor destroyed). You either believe in the First Law of Thermodynamics
or you don’t, despite Hawking’s plea that even the laws of the universe were
created when it exploded out of nothing, or a “singularity” as naïve mathematicians
say. Rick prefers the Fifth Assumption of Science, as I do and is one of the
best supporters of UD and Infinite Universe Theory.
As is evident in the
Krauss interview, mainstream scientists, who tend to be aether deniers, are
confused over the idea of nothing. They say they have discovered the origin of
the universe from nothing, but they realize that their concept of nothing needs
some adjustment. Being indeterminists crawling out from under the idealization
of the nothing that cannot possibly exist in reality, they must see this nothing
as something, either the result of “quantum fluctuations,” Higgs bosons, or
“pure energy construed as matterless motion” (see the Fourth Assumption of
Science). Rick and the rest of us in PSI are always amused when avowed atheists
like Krauss become famous for attacking creation while holding to that
assumption at the same time.
Rosemary, you say that “An infinitely small singularity could probably [my italics] be defined as "infinitely small
space/time/energy/potential particle". The average person
is no closer to understanding this than they have of understanding the concept
of double figure dimensions.
You are definitely
right about that. An "infinitely
small space/time/energy/potential particle" and “double figure dimensions” make no sense at all. Anyone who thinks
they know either of those is definitely confused. Looks like indeterminism is
being spoken here. Univironmental determinists consider space to be matter,
time to be the motion of matter, energy to be a calculation, and potential
particles to be nonsense. We common, nonauthoritarian folks have a zillion hours of experience with 3-dimensional objects. The high priests of regressive
physics have zero hours of experience with their imagined extra-Euclidean “objects.”
Rick and I know when we are being bamboozled. Even Steven
Colbert, one of the smartest folks in television, has the guts to display a
bit of skepticism over such chicanery.
Rosemary, you certainly
must have just a little bit of doubt about the “creation of the universe out of
nothing.” We encourage you to read TSW and UCT to find out what the infinite
universe is really about.
Posts
1 comment:
Wemm says:
"The underlying problem is that the common meaning of "nothing" is not consistent with the scientific version of "nothing".
Science doesn't have to be a foreign language. The meaning of "nothing" is: no thing - the total absence of matter and consequentially of motion or energy. If that isn't what scientists mean, they shouldn't use the word.
... This is further complicated by the fact that many scientists will assert that there is actually no such thing as "nothing".
The source of the confusion may have started with "anti-matter" as a label for forms of matter with complementary charge and spin. Both the electron and positron have mass and one matters as much as the other. You can probably blame the nomenclature on William Hicks' "negative matter" of the 1880s.
Most scientists have no problem coining words, but physicists seem immune. Perhaps they like to be as confusing as possible, to demonstrate their pre-eminent wisdom ... because they continue using invalid concepts.
Richard Feynman has to explain that "annihilation" as a consequence of colliding an electron and positron doesn't really mean "annihiliation". Matter is simply converted from particles to another form of matter (Gamma Rays), not utterly destroyed.
... An infinitely small singularity could probably be defined as "infinitely small space/time/energy/potential particle".
There is no scientific evidence whatever for anything of the sort. It's simply an error in logic.
Astronomers demonstrated that most visible stars are moving away from each other. Astrophysicists simply assumed that this was evidence of an "expansion of the universe" and then turned the calculated star motion formula upside down, resulting in an infinite regression to ... something weird. Since the mathematical formula implied that there was nothing else, the remainder was universally singular: a "singularity". The error was simple: you can't take a partial, end-state mathematical extrapolation and convert it to an interpolated law of ultimate origins. The problem is that the math error itself becomes suitable "evidence", rather than observation or experiment.
The hazard is that physicists who are atheists think this irrational and grammatically false set of theories give them a good argument that God is "superfluous". If something can collide with "anti-something", or something and "anti-somethings" can come from nothing, or a temporal extrapolation can warrant an infinite regression ... then who needs a Creator God?
Krauss and others are trying to convert Genesis into a purely scientific statement of fact. It won't work. Not because they use intentionally confusing terminology, but because it's totally irrational.
As Glenn properly points out, this proposition is totally contrary to all scientific observations that confirm the conservation of matter and the motions of matter ... everywhere and always. There was no "origin" of the universe: it always existed.
Post a Comment