Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:A particle is matter. In a probability wave there is a smear of energy. So what difference does it make if I say:-
1. a particle came into existence or became a particle
2. matter came into existence or became matter?
They all mean the same thing. It's correct!

Wrong. Here, read this and, at the end, you'll be just a bit less ignorant.

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article ... -of-fields

If you really want to laugh then consider when a point of nothing exploded all the matter in the universe came into existence. That is the theory of the big bang.

No, it's some story you made up, that has little to no resemblance to what cosmologists actually hypothesize.

It's very funny how you rely on some mutated version of quantum mechanics to support your woo, then with the next breath mock quantum mechanics as nonsense when it seems to contradict your woo.

If you listened to his lecture you will have found that while he says that particles are field, which is how we think of them in quantum field theory, throughout his lecture he refers to them as particles and from time to time says "remember they are fields". This is not a physics forum and my reference to them as particles and not fields is hardly out of place. Besides it is not as if calling a localized object "false". It is just that it is not as precise as referring to it in mathematical terms. We can't see anything on the quantum level. The descriptions we used, eg fields, is the way we can best explain the data.

As to my reference of "particles come into existence", he uses this same terminology when he was talking about smashing particles into particles in the Hadron Collider he talks about "brings new vibrations into existence in other fields".

It appears you are trying to be pedantic.

I haven't made up any story. Here short video in which theoretical physicist Laurence Krauss (well respected physicist) talks about A Universe from Nothing.

The classical cosmological model of the universe talks about it start at time equals 0. If we extrapolate back to time 0 we get a universe with all spatial dimensions of size at zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.

I have never said quantum physics is nonsense. You seem to confuse my interpretations of quantum theory with criticisms that you imagine.

Rumraket wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If you really want to laugh then consider when a point of nothing exploded all the matter in the universe came into existence. That is the theory of the big bang.

No it isn't. The big bang theory doesn't say anything about nothing, or a "point of nothing" or anything exploding. It merely says the cosmos used to be smaller and has been expanding for a long time.

Praise for A Universe from Nothing.
"Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void-a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History.

http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781 ... Ap_T8P8HAQ

on low price at the moment.

kyrani99 wrote:

Rumraket wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:If you really want to laugh then consider when a point of nothing exploded all the matter in the universe came into existence. That is the theory of the big bang.

No it isn't. The big bang theory doesn't say anything about nothing, or a "point of nothing" or anything exploding. It merely says the cosmos used to be smaller and has been expanding for a long time.

Praise for A Universe from Nothing.
"Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void-a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History.

http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781 ... Ap_T8P8HAQ

on low price at the moment.

A universe fromnothing is not a book about the classic big bang model. Its a book about a particular theory of quantum fluctuations of time and energy.

kyrani99 wrote:If you listened to his lecture you will have found that while he says that particles are field, which is how we think of them in quantum field theory, throughout his lecture he refers to them as particles and from time to time says "remember they are fields". This is not a physics forum and my reference to them as particles and not fields is hardly out of place. Besides it is not as if calling a localized object "false". It is just that it is not as precise as referring to it in mathematical terms. We can't see anything on the quantum level. The descriptions we used, eg fields, is the way we can best explain the data.

As to my reference of "particles come into existence", he uses this same terminology when he was talking about smashing particles into particles in the Hadron Collider he talks about "brings new vibrations into existence in other fields".

It appears you are trying to be pedantic.

I haven't made up any story. Here short video in which theoretical physicist Laurence Krauss (well respected physicist) talks about A Universe from Nothing.

The classical cosmological model of the universe talks about it start at time equals 0. If we extrapolate back to time 0 we get a universe with all spatial dimensions of size at zero, infinite density, infinite temperature, and infinite space-time curvature.

I have never said quantum physics is nonsense. You seem to confuse my interpretations of quantum theory with criticisms that you imagine.

Blah, blah, ,blah. Do you really think you can teach me, or anyone else here, a single thing about quantum mechanics? Newsflash: You can't.

All the your logorrheic digressions above have nothing to do with my criticism, which is that you incorrectly claimed that "mass comes into existence" only once an "observation" has been made. The existence of mass does not require the collapse of the wave function by an "observation".

kyrani99 wrote:Praise for A Universe from Nothing.
"Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void-a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History.

http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781 ... Ap_T8P8HAQ

on low price at the moment.

So why are you citing this? Are you now retracting the statement you made just a few posts ago?

If you really want to laugh then consider when a point of nothing exploded all the matter in the universe came into existence.

It's seems we have another one of your ever-changing car crash stories here.

Shrunk wrote:

Blah, blah, ,blah. Do you really think you can teach me, or anyone else here, a single thing about quantum mechanics? Newsflash: You can't.

All the your logorrheic digressions above have nothing to do with my criticism, which is that you incorrectly claimed that "mass comes into existence" only once an "observation" has been made. The existence of mass does not require the collapse of the wave function by an "observation".

Who said I am trying to teach you anything? Lighteningflash:I am simply defending what I said.
What you want to believe is of no interest and the physics is off topic anyway.

I am going to go back to looking for the evidence about cancer and the discredit the view that spontaneous mutations is the answer as well as giving my case for why Lenski has not shown evolution, which will take me some time.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:Praise for A Universe from Nothing.
"Nothing is not nothing. Nothing is something. That's how a cosmos can be spawned from the void-a profound idea conveyed in A Universe From Nothing that unsettles some yet enlightens others. Meanwhile, it's just another day on the job for physicist Lawrence Krauss."
-Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist, American Museum of Natural History.

http://www.bookdepository.com/book/9781 ... Ap_T8P8HAQ

on low price at the moment.

So why are you citing this? Are you now retracting the statement you made just a few posts ago?

Nothing is not nothing in the everyday use of the word "nothing". But I differ from the mainstream physicists as to what nothing is.

I agree that there is energy but they don't have a universal definition of energy. Everyone has their own equations that work for them in their particular branch of physics. My definition includes a resonance between a state of something being known by a Universal Observer outside of the physical reality and the state of that something being unknown, ie the state of the Void. This nothingness is NON-PHYSICAL but it gives rise to energy, which is physical. This is what I was trying to say earlier, maybe in another thread about information selected and deselected.

In my theory I set forth a case for a resonance frequency between the two states, which gives rise to energy (dare I risk saying energy comes into being/ existence). That selection /deselection resonance is only possible due to a Universal Consciousness of the Universal Observer. This is other than the consciousness of sentient beings, a super-condition that allows for the discrete and individual consciousness of sentient beings. And all consciousness is outside of the physical universe.

kyrani99 wrote:If you really want to laugh then consider when a point of nothing exploded all the matter in the universe came into existence.

Shrunk wrote:It's seems we have another one of your ever-changing car crash stories here.

I don't agree with the big bang theory so I said it tongue in cheek . I believe in a steady state universe. You interpreted my ideas as non-local consciousness of the new agers. That is NOT what I am about. The new agers basically see one condition and the consciousness that they are talking about is still within the physical universe.

I believe that the Universe did come into being when the Universal Observer upheld the ideas/selection of information in The MInd but it came about as it is and not as an explosion. I think the red-shift they see is due to some not yet understood aspect of spacetime and not due to any motion of galaxies moving away from one another.

kyrani99 wrote:Nothing is not nothing in the everyday use of the word "nothing". But I differ from the mainstream physicists as to what nothing is.

I'm sure these mainstream physicists are really, really worried that you disagree with them.

So what's the difference between your nothing and 'mainstream physics nothing' then, kyrani?

I believe in a steady state universe.

Good for you. Take a seat next to those who still believe in phlogiston theory, the four elements, the emission theory of vision, and the luminiforous ether.

BlackBart wrote:So what's the difference between your nothing and 'mainstream physics nothing' then, kyrani?

And, please, show your math.

Anyone not thinking of Anne Elk right now?

Ahem

Shrunk wrote:

BlackBart wrote:So what's the difference between your nothing and 'mainstream physics nothing' then, kyrani?

And, please, show your math.

mainstream physics nothingness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy

I am not going to give my math.

kyrani99 wrote:I am not going to give my math.

Oh, dear. kyrani99 was fibbing again.

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I am not going to give my math.

Oh, dear. kyrani99 was fibbing again.

This comment (re- won't give us her unfinished, unpublished work equals fibbing )explains something the Grand Wizard of the DSM had said in a talk he gave on over diagnosis, which puzzled me.

Here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuCwVnzSjWA
At 10mins (just 1min duration) Dr Allen Frances says a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span. I couldn't understand that until this post! These kids were labelled as ADD and most drugged, rather than being recognized as less mature. This constituted a tripling of ADD in just 10 years! A case of X = Y and never mind the detail. Not only are psychiatrists pseudo-scientific, they lack objectivity altogether.

a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

This part in no way supports this part

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span.

Any evidence they didn't account for age? Or are you just assuming they mustn't have because you don't understand how they could have? Have you seen the study at all? Not just people talking about it but the actual thing itself?

kyrani99 wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:I am not going to give my math.

Oh, dear. kyrani99 was fibbing again.

This comment (re- won't give us her unfinished, unpublished work equals fibbing )...

That's right. There's nothing stopping you from giving us some of the mathematics to support your "theory". If it exists. If it doesn't exist, of course, then it is obvious why you won't give it to us. And it also means you were lying when you said it does exist.

DarthHelmet86 wrote:

a Canadian study of a very large number of children, found the strongest predictors of whether a child had Attention Defecit Disorder (ADD) or not, was their birthday!

This part in no way supports this part

They considered attention spans but never took into account the fact that children, who were younger and thus less mature, would naturally have a lower attention span.

Any evidence they didn't account for age? Or are you just assuming they mustn't have because you don't understand how they could have? Have you seen the study at all? Not just people talking about it but the actual thing itself?

You'll have to ask Allen Frances. He is the one saying so. I looked extensively for the study but couldn't find it. Maybe it is one of the 50% that they don't publish to make their coin have two heads.