About Us

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?

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.

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.

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.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Bankruptcy Of The "Intellectual" Left	pyjamarama	Audio Opinions	0	April 9th 04 02:27 PM
John Kerry's Trail of Treachery	pyjamarama	Audio Opinions	0	April 8th 04 12:06 PM
Pyjamamama	Sandman	Audio Opinions	14	December 16th 03 04:44 AM
Richman's ethical lapses	Michael McKelvy	Audio Opinions	9	December 12th 03 08:16 AM
O.T. Grocery clerks strike	Michael Mckelvy	Audio Opinions	338	November 14th 03 07:32 PM

Menu

About Us