A test for true "Atheism?"

[Dennis Tate]

And still no link...

OK..I will send you several in a private message... they go to another discussion forum.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Yup, he's a wannabe not a theoretical physicist.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Yup, he's a wannabe not a theoretical physicist.

He certainly got me asking a bunch of all new questions though.

If your a person who does not have a clue about Quantum Mechnics then you should probably take 10 minutes and google it to just understand the basics of what we know to be able to participate in this topic.

Now there are a few schools of thought as far as what allows Quantum Patricle/Wave Duality.

I am thinking that....and let's just use for now how a Photon exists at every point of position along and within it's own wave form or Wave Packet.

I believe it is because there are infinite Photons sharing the Space-Time within the Wave Packet from EVERY SINGLE DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATE OF REALITY FROM WITHI OUR SINGLE UNIVERSAL BASELINE GROUP.

What does anyone else think....if hopefully anyone can think at this level?

AboveAlpha

....

Well.....in every Hadron there exists a specific number of Quarks that exists between a numerical minimum and maximum and these quarks can exist numerically at these minimums and maximums and any quantity in between but never more or less.

Thus the Quarks in Hadrons are BLINKING IN AND OUT OF UNIVERSAL EXISTENCE.....but only at or between the minimum and maximum.

This leads us to think that there is Quark Transfer occurring between Hadrons existing exactly as they exist in this Universal State but as well in Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality.

Thus there are infinte numbers of you and me and everyone else.

AboveAlpha

....

Wgabrie.

Imagine....as I have asked you to imagine before but in a slightly different way.....that OUR UNIVERSE....and all the Particle/Wave Forms in it....which comprise a total of about 5% of the Universe.....as well as Dark Energy and Dark Matter.....which comprise the other 95% of the Universe.....are percentages that ARE TOTALLY MISCALCULATED AND UNREALISTIC!!!

Why?

Because those who are calculating these Percentages do not yet have either the DATA OR KNOWLEDGE to understand that for a PROPER PERCENTAGE CALCULATION to be achieved....we have to understand that OUR UNIVERSE....IS NOT JUST ONE UNIVERSE....as INFINITE IN NUMBER OTHER DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY ARE BLEEDING INTO TO EACH OTHER AND BLEEDING INTO OUR UNIVERSAL REALITY AS WELL AS OUR UNIVERSAL REALITY PARTIALLY BLEEDING INTO ALL THE OTHERS AS WELL!!!

This is the ONLY current REALITY MODEL that can explain our UNIVERSAL REALITY being a part of a MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM....as well it explains all aspects of QUANTUM MECHNANICS......as well....it explains PARTICLE/WAVE DUALITY.....as well...it expalains.....GRAVITY, DARK MATTER AND DARK ENERGY....as well...it explains.....ACTUAL PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN AND ARE EMPLOTED BY THE FBI, CIA AND NSA as PSYCHICS AND REMOTE VIEWERS!!!

Such a MODEL....explains why DARK ENERGY IS CAUSING AN EVER INCLEASING AND EXPANDING ACCELERATION CURVE AS ALL GALAXIES IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE SPEEDING AWAY FROM EACH OTHER AT AN EVER INCREASING VELOCITY.

AboveAlpha

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh, thanks for those quotes.
I didn't previously notice the third one when I read the links you provided.
He's not only not a "truly impressive Theoretical Physicist" he's also an utter loon.

 

[DaveC426913]

...ALL GALAXIES IN OUR UNIVERSE ARE SPEEDING AWAY FROM EACH OTHER AT AN EVER INCREASING VELOCITY.

Well, except our closest neighbor - which is heading toward us - and will collide with us in a few million years...

But what do scientists care about accuracy...

 

[sideshowbob]

If you call yourself a true Atheist....

Would that be the No True Atheist fallacy?

Iwas going through a philosophical crisis at that time when I found out that my mentor Evangelist Garner Ted Armstrong had been terribly INCORRECT....

Yikes. Was he still aroud in the 90's? I thought he had been discredited off the face of the earth long before that.

I had been an Atheist from around eight years of age until thirteen (1972 to 1973)....

I think that's too early to be an atheist. At that age you should have been deciding what your favorite color of M&M was.

 

[James R]

He's not only not a "truly impressive Theoretical Physicist" he's also an utter loon.

The red flags should really start going up as soon as somebody sees a plethora of ALL CAPS. Because, as we all know, all TRUE information is more RELIABLE when it is SHOUTED!

 

[Dennis Tate]

The red flags should really start going up as soon as somebody sees a plethora of ALL CAPS. Because, as we all know, all TRUE information is more RELIABLE when it is SHOUTED!

In his defence....
he lives in Israel and is Jewish.....
so he may well have somewhat more than his fair share of chutzpah!

 

[Dennis Tate]

Would that be the No True Atheist fallacy?


Yikes. Was he still aroud in the 90's? I thought he had been discredited off the face of the earth long before that.


I think that's too early to be an atheist. At that age you should have been deciding what your favorite color of M&M was.

Good point about that being a bit young for true "Atheism" but....
I did convince a number of deeply religious young elementary school friends of mine to swing over to my Atheistic view of the world.....
from what they had been taught in church?!?!

 

[Dennis Tate]

Oh, thanks for those quotes.
I didn't previously notice the third one when I read the links you provided.
He's not only not a "truly impressive Theoretical Physicist" he's also an utter loon.

Any attempt to simplify and explain M-Theory will tend to have that effect on even the most well prepared audience......

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/...e states that,shaped by our human limitations.

Audience members filed out of Sanders Theatre shaking their heads after yesterday's third and last lecture by renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

"I got completely lost," said Rabbi Benjamin E. Scolnic who had traveled from Connecticut to hear the lecture.

Scolnic, along with his nine-year-old son and roughly 700 others, had just heard Hawking present his theories on cosmology and the shape of the universe.

After his first lecture, which was meant for the general public, Hawking concentrated on the more specific, targeting a knowledgeable audience in the second and third lectures.

Hawking first articulated the conundrum of cosmology, explaining that it is merely a "pseudo-science" because it has no predictive power. Based on current observations, cosmology uses equations to extrapolate back into the past.

and.....

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

M-theory suffers from the same flaws that string theories did. First is the problem of empirical accessibility. Membranes, like strings, are supposedly very, very tiny—as small compared with a proton as a proton is compared with the solar system. This is the so-called Planck scale, 10^–33 centimeters. Gaining the kind of experimental confirmation of membranes or strings that we have for, say, quarks would require a particle accelerator 1,000 light-years around, scaling up from our current technology. Our entire solar system is only one light-day around, and the Large Hadron Collider, the world's most powerful accelerator, is 27 kilometers in circumference.

Hawking recognized long ago that a final theory—because it would probably involve particles at the Planck scale—might never be experimentally confirmable. "It is not likely that we shall have accelerators powerful enough" to test a unified theory "within the foreseeable future—or indeed, ever," he said in his 1980 speech at Cambridge. He nonetheless hoped that in lieu of empirical evidence physicists would discover a theory so logically inevitable that it excluded all alternatives.

Quite the opposite has happened. M-theory, theorists now realize, comes in an almost infinite number of versions, which "predict" an almost infinite number of possible universes. Critics call this the "Alice's restaurant problem," a reference to the refrain of the old Arlo Guthrie folk song: "You can get anything you want at Alice's restaurant." Of course, a theory that predicts everything really doesn't predict anything, and hence isn't a theory at all. Proponents, including Hawking, have tried to turn this bug into a feature, proclaiming that all the universes "predicted" by M-theory actually exist. "Our universe seems to be one of many," Hawking and Mlodinow assert

 

[Dywyddyr]

Any attempt to simplify and explain M-Theory will tend to have that effect on even the most well prepared audience......

Agreed.
It doesn't change the fact that he's a loon.

 

[river]

Audience members filed out of Sanders Theatre shaking their heads after yesterday's third and last lecture by renowned theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking.

"I got completely lost," said Rabbi Benjamin E. Scolnic who had traveled from Connecticut to hear the lecture.

Scolnic, along with his nine-year-old son and roughly 700 others, had just heard Hawking present his theories on cosmology and the shape of the universe.

After his first lecture, which was meant for the general public, Hawking concentrated on the more specific, targeting a knowledgeable audience in the second and third lectures.

Hawking first articulated the conundrum of cosmology, explaining that it is merely a "pseudo-science" because it has no predictive power. Based on current observations, cosmology uses equations to extrapolate back into the past.

Now what ?

 

[Dennis Tate]

Now what ?

If you decide to read the rest of the article it does a good job of explaining why the audience was somewhat shocked by what Dr. Stephen Hawking tossed out to them.

This blog does a great job of both explaining how difficult it would be to actually test String Theory.....
but it also does a good job of explaining the logic of why there could have been many universes go through a process before the Big Bang event of 13.8 billion or so years ago.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

 

[Dennis Tate]

Now what ?

If you have taken the challenge from the first post and the poll I assume that
what will happen with you will to at least some degree correlate with what I experienced beginning around 1990. I was led to answer after answer after answer to questions that had been troubling me for years or even decades..... but I was also led to some whole new questions that I hadn't really faced before. In retrospect.... the whole thing was kind of awesome!

 

[Write4U]

In retrospect.... the whole thing was kind of awesome

Well yes, StarWars is also awesome, but its fantasy.

Unless we can definitively establish how this Universe began, it is kinda meaningless in speculation about how many universe could have begun. For all intents and purposes this Universe and how it must have begun is the only way we can possibly begin to understand anything about how other universe could have begun.

 

[Dennis Tate]

Well yes, StarWars is also awesome, but its fantasy.

Unless we can definitively establish how this Universe began, it is kinda meaningless in speculation about how many universe could have begun. For all intents and purposes this Universe and how it must have begun is the only way we can possibly begin to understand anything about how other universe could have begun.

While he was alive.....
I suspect that Dr. Hawking might have been rather offended by my suspicions that Dr. Hawking might.....
be something of a "closet Evolutionary Theist" after reading "Stephen Hawking's Universe" but........
at this time I suspect that he is kind of glad that some of us feel that he set us up for something that could turn out to be significant years, decades and even centuries in the future.


https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...ew-theory-of-everything-is-the-same-old-crap/

(John Horgan) :

Why do we find ourselves in this particular universe rather than in one with, say, no gravity or only two dimensions, or a Bizarro world in which Glenn Beck is a left-wing rather than right-wing nut? To answer this question, Hawking invokes the anthropic principle, a phrase coined by physicist Brandon Carter in the 1970s. The anthropic principle comes in two versions. The weak anthropic principle, or WAP, holds merely that any cosmic observer will observe conditions, at least locally, that make the observer's existence possible. The strong version, SAP, says that the universe must be constructed so as to make observers possible.

The anthropic principle has always struck me as so dumb that I can't understand why anyone takes it seriously. It's cosmology's version of creationism. WAP is tautological and SAP is teleological. The physicist Tony Rothman, with whom I worked at Scientific American in the 1990s, liked to say that the anthropic principle in any form is completely ridiculous and hence should be called CRAP.

In his 1980 speech in Cambridge Hawking mentioned the anthropic principle—which he paraphrased as "Things are as they are because we are"—as a possible explanation for the fact that our cosmos seems to be fine-tuned for our existence. But he added that "one cannot help feeling that there is some deeper explanation."

Like millions of other people I admire Hawking's brilliance, wit, courage and imagination. His prophecy of the end of physics inspired me to write The End of Science (which he called "garbage"). Hawking also played a central role in one of the highlights of my career. It dates back to the summer of 1990, when I attended a symposium in a remote Swedish resort on "The Birth and Early Evolution of Our Universe." The meeting was attended by 30 of the world's most prominent cosmologists, including Hawking.

Toward the end of the meeting, everyone piled into a bus and drove to a nearby village to hear a concert in a Lutheran church. When the scientists entered the church, it was already packed. The orchestra, a motley assortment of blond-haired youths and wizened, bald elders clutching violins, clarinets and other instruments, was seated at the front of the church. Their neighbors jammed the balconies and seats at the rear of the building.

The scientists filed down the center aisle to pews reserved for them at the front of the church. Hawking led the way in his motorized wheelchair. The townspeople started to clap, tentatively at first, then passionately. These religious folk seemed to be encouraging the scientists, and especially Hawking, in their quest to solve the riddle of existence.

 

[Write4U]

I'd say that if it takes 4.7 billion years for an organism to become acclimated to local conditions, the environment is not fine tuned to its existence. It would be more like the organism is fine tuned to existing conditions.

I am again reminded that there are organisms (extremophiles) that would die if exposed to conditions in which humans thrive.

It appears then that the universe offers evolutionary opportunity to a wide range of life from iceworms ( which melt unless frozen)

On Suiattle Glacier, (photo at left and above) on the south side of Glacier Peak, the recorded mean density was ~2600 ice worms per square meter in 2002. With an area of 2.7 square kilometers, this represents somewhat over 7 BILLION ice worms on this glacier! This is more than the earth’s entire human population on just one glacier. Good thing they do not use many natural resources each. Even higher densities have been observed on Sholes, Ptarmigan and Ice Worm Glacier. The total population of ice worms must be decreasing as North Cascade glaciers continue to retreat rapidly and even disappear in some cases.

https://glaciers.nichols.edu/iceworm/

to extremophile microorganisms

Here we report for the first time evidence of life existing with these hot springs using a combination of morphological and molecular analyses. Ultra-small structures are shown to be entombed within mineral deposits, which are identified as members of the Order Nanohaloarchaea. The results from this study suggest the microorganisms can survive, and potential live, within this extreme environment, which has implications for understanding the limits of habitability on Earth and on (early) Mars.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44440-8

And potentially in many places in the universe

As Hazen observes there is most likely not a single origin of life but that life can emerge in many forms in many ways in many places. Dense molecular clouds in deep space already produce organic molecules (Lou Allamandola, NASA). All that life requires to emerge is some fundamental but abundant chemistry, large spaces, and lots of time. Life is not precious, it is abundant throughout the universe. Humans, remarkable as they may be, are but one expression of living organisms, and certainly not alone as can be observed by the incredible variety of life on earth alone.

There seems to be no limit to the appearance of life in some form even in the most inhospitable conditions. There is not fine tuning of the universe for life, life seems to fine tune itself to universal conditions. I believe it's called evolution.

 

[Dennis Tate]

I'd say that if it takes 4.7 billion years for an organism to become acclimated to local conditions, the environment is not fine tuned to its existence. It would be more like the organism is fine tuned to existing conditions.

I am again reminded that there are organisms (extremophiles) that would die if exposed to conditions in which humans thrive.

It appears then that the universe offers evolutionary opportunity to a wide range of life from iceworms ( which melt unless frozen) https://glaciers.nichols.edu/iceworm/

to extremophile microorganisms
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-44440-8

And potentially in many places in the universe

As Hazen observes there is most likely not a single origin of life but that life can emerge in many forms in many ways in many places. Dense molecular clouds in deep space already produce organic molecules (Lou Allamandola, NASA). All that life requires to emerge is some fundamental but abundant chemistry, large spaces, and lots of time. Life is not precious, it is abundant throughout the universe. Humans, remarkable as they may be, are but one expression of living organisms, and certainly not alone as can be observed by the incredible variety of life on earth alone.

There seems to be no limit to the appearance of life in some form even in the most inhospitable conditions. There is not fine tuning of the universe for life, life seems to fine tune itself to universal conditions. I believe it's called evolution.

Wow!!!!!!!!

Just wow!!!!!!!!!

If I remember correctly, I think it was Chaim Henry Tejman M. D. who mentioned some sort of life forms in the deep ocean that live near vents where volcanic lava is going into the deep ocean?!

 

[Write4U]

There is so much to learn from the concept that life has gradually adapted to the universe than the other way around, except to say that the fundamental properties of the universe made it "necessary" that abiogenesis should evolve from purely chemical interactions over the total timespan of the universe.
It started with the formation of three fundamental energy quanta emerging from the chaotic cosmic plasma soup.

Early Universe 'Soup' Cooked Up in Weird Plasma Blobs

For the first split second after

the Big Bang, the universe was nothing but an extremely hot "soup" of quarks and gluons — subatomic particles that would become the building blocks of protons and neutrons. Now, 13.8 billion years later, scientists have re-created this primordial soup in a laboratory.

"Our experimental result has brought us much closer to answering the question of what is the smallest amount of early universe matter that can exist," Jamie Nagle, a physicist at the University of Colorado Boulder who participated in the study, said in a statement.

These short-lived droplets of quark-gluon plasma reached temperatures of trillions of degrees Celsius. Researchers think that studying this type of matter "could help theorists better understand how the universe's original quark-gluon plasma cooled over milliseconds, giving birth to the first atoms in existence," UC Boulder officials said.
The results of this study were published Dec. 10 in the journal Nature Physics.

...more. Take a little time exploring this websiteWatch the videos ! This is truly awesome stuff!

https://www.space.com/42729-quark-gluon-plasma-blobs.html#

 

[Write4U]

How a Supervolcano Made the Cenozoic’s Coolest Fossils