You may ask "Which Universe Am I In?"

[Procrustes Stretched]

True. They're good scientists. Penrose's tiling theory was brilliant. So e

I'm usually puzzled by people who misunderstand what physicists actually do. Even when those same people, after watching videos or reading the words where physicists explain it all -- how they approach things. I guess it's the very human habit of hearing what people want to hear rather than actually listening.

 

[scruffy]

Mitochondria are flinging their DNA into our brain cells, study shows

As direct descendants of ancient bacteria, mitochondria have always been a little alien. Now a study shows that mitochondria are possibly even stranger than we thought.

phys.org

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes. 4 years ago, but I'm still refining it. It is written in Java.

The images are stunning, nice work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But it doesn’t establish its actual value OR the lack of it.

If your meaning is that we don't know which explanation is correct, I agree.

But your analogy is poor, in that not all explanations are possible. Unlike the random guesses in your analogy.

The ones we have aren't just guesses. They are derived from the properties and laws of our universe.

The magical nonsense? It doesn't undergo this rigor. Which is also the reason it can't be ruled out. Ever. Kind of a sign of utter nonsense.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yep!

A good layman's book is "A Universe From Nothing".

That's what I mean by pop-science:

As far as explaining how the big bang arose from a dense state of energy and matter, that explanation has been on the books for a while.

Just to be clear, is your idea of "nothing" exemplified by "a dense state of energy and matter"?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

We don't know. But we have more than one plausible explanation.

I even pointed you to one such book.

You're being very silly now.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

False. That's what i am trying to tell you.

What you're telling us is that you believe Lawrence Krauss, you really should be more careful, trusting people just because the say what you want to hear is a recipe for personal catastrophe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That's what I mean by pop-science:

No it isn't.

By calling it pop science, you mean to disparage an idea as unserious and not well-founded. Do you think you are the first to try this?

So because he put out a layman's book after years of constructing self consistent mathematical theory, it's "pop science"?

Uh... okay... post another youtube video of your pop science, haha. All the pop science, without any of the pesky research or published articles.

I don't think you're thinking things through. You're reacting. And it's causing you to make silly errors.

Just to be clear, is your idea of "nothing" exemplified by "a dense state of energy and matter"?

Obviously not. I even explicitly made that distinction in my posting.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're being very silly now.

Facts often seem silly to those encountering them for the first time.

Imagine the first guy to learn that quantum tunneling is a fact.

It's a fact that we have more than one self consistent explanation for the beginning of our local universe.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

No it isn't.

By callimg it pop science, you mean to disparage an idea.

Yes, disparaging a nonsense is what every sensible person should be able to do.

So because he put out a layman's book after years of constructing self consistent mathematocal theory, it's "pop science"?

Uh... okay... post another youtube video of your pop science, haha.

Lennox is exposing nonsense, you should listen to what he has to say.

Obviously not. I even explicitly made that distinction in my posting.

Then why call something that isn't nothing, nothing?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

At least find someone credible, you do know that Krauss has been repeatedly accused of perversion? He's a dingabt, a loudmouth.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, disparaging a nonsense is what every sensible person should be able to do.

And arguing why it is nonsense would be next.

You cannot and will not do this.

So your empty appeals to emotion remain just that.

Lennox is exposing nonsense, you should listen to what he has to say.

I'm not watching a video you didn't watch and don't understand. I don't play that troll game.

Then why call something that isn't nothing, nothing?

I didn't. And that concludes today's interrogation. Now you make your own points all by yourself.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At least find someone credible, you do know that Krauss has been repeatedly accused of perversion? He's a dingabt, a loudmouth.

And now a specious ad hominem.

Honest, informed individuals don't have to resort to these ad hominems and appeals to emotion.

And rational, educated peope are not compelled by them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And now a specious ad hominem.

Yes, i agree this is irrelevant with respect to his scientific claims, I'm not assessing the veracity of his scientific claims here, I'm alerting you to the fact he's a pervert, he's not just a "scientist".

Honest, informed individuals don't have to resort to these ad hominems and appeals to emotion.

And rational, educated people are not compelled by them.

But it does beg the question can we trust the man's word...

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Fort Fun Indiana
Just to be clear, is your idea of "nothing" exemplified by "a dense state of energy and matter"?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm alerting you to the fact he's a pervert, he's not just a "scientist".

No you're not. You're engaging in specious ad hominem for emotional effect. And it would have stood, had I not knocked it down.

But it does beg the question can we trust the man's word...

A mistake I often see religious folks make.

Nobody has to take his word for anything. That's what the years of constructing mathematical theory were about. He first went to the scientific community and told them to have at it.
Years later he put out a layman's book.

Those who are steeped in the culture of magical religious nonsense often have a hard time grasping the rigorous process in the scientific world, as it is completely absent from religious circles.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Nobody has to take his word for anything.

You believe his book FFS!

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You believe his book FFS!

I believe he and a revolving team of research partners constructed a self consistent physical theory that allows for a universe from nothing.

Because they did. And you don't have to just take his word for that

You again make a mistake common to religious people. These leaps of faith are the norm for you, so you often mistake things for them that are not leaps of faith.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

I believe he and a revolving team of research partners constructed a self consistent physical theory that allows for a universe from nothing.

Because they did. And you don't have to just take his word for that

You again make a mistake common to religious people. These leaps of faith are the norm for you, so you often mistake things for them that are not leaps of faith.

Then you've been hoodwinked. There is no "theory" that explains how an absence of space, time, matter, energy and laws, can transition into the presence of space, time, matter, energy and laws - nothing religious about this.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then you've been hoodwinked. There is no "theory" that explains how an absence of space, time, matter, energy and laws, can transition into the presence of space, time, matter, energy and laws - nothing religious about this.

It's very odd for an informed person to watch you blindly and reflexively.insist something does not exist, when it in fact does exist.

It's an odd display. I think maybe you are too used to debating transient religious nonsense, where these shamanistic and authoritative declarations actually carry weight.