|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Proposed Proof That The Origin of The Universe Cannot Be Scientifically Explained | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
If Prof. Hawking should try to defy logic in practical matters,- drive for example his wheelchair across M25 full of heavy traffic, he would be crashed to death. Just like any one else. That is a fond idea many people got that as long as you say that this is science you can talk any nonsense and get away with it.
So, Prof. Hawking should learn elementary arithmetic and logic. A claim that the whole of existence can possibly spontaneously arise from nothing is like an attempt to multiply zero by zero. Quadrillions to the quadrillionth power of quackademics like the professor can repeat the operation an indefinitely great number of times. The result will be the same old zero every single time any of the luminaries may try.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Sorry, all that is just your irrelevant opinion. There is no such things as deep or shallow physics and cosmology. Some propositions are rational and some are contradictions in terms. The professor's statement is of the second variety. Sorry. The venerable professor has got no immunity from scrutiny. He's found to be talking egregious nonsense often enough. There is no need for deep maths to understand that nothing is zero by definition and if it is any other value then the value represents something and when there is something, there is something else necessarily by which that something is defined and known. A whole lot of it. Otherwise the feline speaks lovely French which like maths is a language that can be very well translated in other languages. Gibberish in the original translates into gibberish only. In any language. Sorry again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, anything that is labelled or sounds as spiritual, religious, new age or alternative has no much credibility with the modern ape to begin with so is no contender as its main current supplier of mass superstition and nonsense. The demand for absurd ideas to believe in is as great as ever and as ever the nonsense to be believed must be known to have come from a credible and reputable source and only the label "scientific" can nowadays satisfy that customer requirement. If it was the Catholic Church, hippies or scientologists spreading the beliefs in black holes, dark energy, time travel etc., the beliefs would have been but minor and marginal. Yet since the nonsense is known to come from the trusted and venerated science these examples of ludicrous superstition are major and global with those holding them as dear gospel found in any country in the modern world.
Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Yes, the cat reads French so he had the pleasure of reading the abb's tales in the original. The same goes for Alexander Friedman - the other inventor of the spacetime creation metric. Russian is no secret to the feline.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
What is your point with this list, sub? Do you get your belief supply from anything on the list? I bet not, I bet you look elsewhere. But that was exactly my point. These suppliers are not credible enough for you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Are you pulling the cat's leg, Sub? All those on your list have to compete with each other and with science in the free belief supply market. The quackademic establishment does not have to as it is subsidized into priesthood everywhere. It is voted to be subsidised by a majority of apes in every state. Therefore the contemporary ape trusts only what is labelled science to be its main nonsense supplier. If Mr. Hawking and Mr. Hartle had to compete with the astrologists and chiropractics for credibility with the ape, would they be able to live comfortably just off crapping at the mouths about universes popping out of null-sets? Of course not. They would have to get another job, or learn some arithmetic and stuff.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Let the nurse listen to Inadequate talk, Disentangled. The poor bugger is raving about the probabilities of the existence to exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Don't use wrong assumptions, Nuke. Identical would be the two of them occupying the same location all the while. Pauli might not like this so your assumption is irrational. Different location means different relation to all the rest of the Universe. Hence different timing of decay.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Inadequate, your tirade against the cat is all very well but you still confuse the nurse with all your randomness and probabilities talk. He is asking what do you mean exactly by fully caused and fully undetermined? What is the difference between an effect that is perfectly determined and the one that is perfectly not? He is a very considerate nurse so is asking you whether or not you would love your undetermined quantum world be given a separate bed in a separated ward from the ordinary fully determined one. Should the random fellow be placed in a padded room?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You don't get it, Nuke. The cat does not steal your personal arrow of time, silly. No way. You can keep it for personal use. Just don't project it on the universe. That's all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
They cheat on you Godmameat. They only pretend that the relation is between physical entities in both cases claiming that on the ordinary scale the objects behave deterministically, or classically as they name it in their jargon, while asserting that the tiny stuff all the determined objects are composed of behaves in an allegedly acausal, probabilistic fashion or what have you for a stupid name.
Don't be fooled by the quacks. Look at the facts. On the classic level objects interact and are strictly determined by the mutual interactions. On the quantum level though the quacks see no objects at all. The objects under their consideration are way to small to be seen individually. What they deal with is only the macro-scale shadow effects. The putatively undetermined objects are pure numbers and those numbers are as strictly determined by their mutual interactions as the full-size objects you deal with every day. That is, when they don't fiddle with the numbers to force data to fit some curves or to straighten some curves to match the data which is what they do half of the time.Bottom line is: iron necessity reigns throughout on any scale. The rest is all fairy tales the quacks are peddling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3996 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
It does not matter what you call it. Ghost or stone, it resists you and that is all that matters. They confuse what they can or cannot determine which is an irrelevant opinion with what puts painful limits to them so exists.
To exist is to have surrounding limits. That's all determined means. The Universe does not exist in this sense, it's a collective idea of all that exists so no cause is applicable to that concept.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024