"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 11:23 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 2:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: .net
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/7/2004 12:02 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/6/2004 3:30 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: t
"S888Wheel" wrote in message
...
From: "Michael McKelvy"
Date: 6/3/2004 8:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:
nk.net
Some time ago I was given much grief for positing the idea
that
the
Universe
could never have not existed, (an idea that seems fairly
obvious
to
me).
Given grief? You were simply filled in on current scientific
thought
on
the
subject.
Then current scientific thought stated the impossible could be
true,
that
nothing could be the cause of something. That's bad science and
I
chose
to
disbelive it. I still do.
Do you have any idea how funny your post is? Thank goodness we
have
you
to
police theoretical physicists all over the world. Those guys are
just
fools if
they don't see things your way. Amazing.
I strongly suspect that I'm not the only one who sees it the way I
do.
I don't doubt that. Do you really want to brag about being one of
the
many
people ignorant about cutting edge physics though? Do you think
reality
is
subject to popularity polls?
I take some pride in not buying onto flawed thinking. Nothing can not be
the cause of something.
You have no idea how funny it sounds that anybody could actually
believe
there could have been a time where "nothing" existed.
No, I do. I have been down the road of explaining current thoughts
in
theoretical physics many times. Quantum mechanics and reletivity
both
often get
belly laughs when first described. Some people get it eventually and
some
don't. Bob did a very nice job of explaining the pitfalls of
reliance
on
practical intuition. It worked fine when we were hunter/gatherers.
It
betrays
us when we look deeper than we can see with the human eye.
It's still better than bad math
If you find any problems with the math in theoretical physics please
bring
it
to the attention of the mathemeticians and/or theoretical physicists
who
are
engaging in said bad math. I really doubt you are in any position to
analyse
the math in question. It certainly is way beyond my one year of college
calculus.
I don't claim to be qualified in that area. The idea that nothing could
erupt into something is flawed.
Prove it. Cite empirical evidence and through the use of logic prove your
assertion.
or math that starts from a flawed premise.
The only premises that are used are derived directly from empirical
evidence.
If you have new evidence to present to the world of theoretical physics
then do
so. The only faulty premise I see so far is yours. It is based on your
gut
feelings. In physics that is quite worthless.
No, it's based on understanding that nothing is nothing, zero, zip zilch,
nada. It is not a kind of something, it is NOTHING. It can't cause
anything.
Obviously you are completely out of touch with current events in physics.
Look
up "virtual particles" and then get back to me with your bogus assertion
which
flies in the face of empirical evidence.
Now, now, you know you can't prove a negative.
As I stated in the beginning of the thread, I wasn't offering up this
article as PROOF of anything other than the issue is not settled as
you
would have us believe.
Please try to get my position on the subject right before you try to
represent
it. My position is that it is not settled at all. That was your
position
that
it was settled by you and your gut feelings.
Sometimes even the majority can be wrong.
They often are. On this thread it is simply you who is wrong.
So much for the jury being out.
The jury is out on the origins of the universe.
There is no origin, it's been there forever. It can't be othrewise.
It came back a long time ago on
your assertion that it is an irrefutable fact that it has always been
there.
That jury ruled against you on the grounds that your assertion is not
supported
by any empirical evidence. Please try to keep track of the subject.
The subject is trying to prove their was a time when the universe could have
not existed.