ray, comfort, atheism, atheist, quantum, physics, liar, stupid,
If I have taught you anything in my time blogging, I hope it is this: when you see a claim that seems extraordinary, you should investigate it. Obama's bust to be added to Mount Rushmore immediately led me to discover that a large bust of Obama has been traveling the country, and will end up at a park near Mount Rushmore, for example.
Another good example of this is Ray Comfort's latest post, which reveals nothing but Ray's inherent dishonesty:
"[Ray wrote] 'If you think that's bad, try this: there are crazies out there that truly believe that women are related to primates, and those primates came from nothing.' "All women, and all men, are primates by biological definition. Acceptance of this biological definition is not evidence of mental instability, thus your accusation that such individuals are 'crazy' is wholly unfounded. Who, specifically, holds a belief that primates emerged from 'nothing'? Please identify specific individuals, and cite statements from these individuals." Dimensio
He asked:
1. "It is now becoming clear that everything can -- and probably did -- come from nothing." Robert A. J. Matthews, physicist, Ashton University, England
I found the article. Matthews was talking about the habit things have of appearing out of nowhere at the quantum level, which is a well established phenomenon.
New theoretical work on the nature of matter suggests we may now have to regard even ourselves to be manifestations of the quantum vacuum.
All atoms are made up of electrons plus a far more massive central nucleus, made up of clusters of particles called quarks. It seems obvious that the mass of the nucleus must be the sum total of the masses of its quarks – but that reckons without the effect of the quantum vacuum. It turns out that the quarks account for only a tiny fraction of the total mass of a nucleus. By far the bulk comes from the subatomic “glue” that binds its quarks together. And this glue takes the form of vacuum particles flitting in and out of existence.
2. "Space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." Cornell University "Ask an Astronomer."
Typical of Ray, I had to supply the link. Here's what Karen Masters, whose name Ray didn't even bother to post, had to say:
We can define the universe as everything there is, so in that case there is nothing outside of it. We also say that space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it.
Another definition for the universe is the observable universe - which is the part of it that we can technically see. We cannot know what is outside of that (since we can't observe it), but we think that physics works the same everywhere and so we think that it should be very similar to the observable universe. We actually think that the universe might be infinite in extent, and so goes on forever, even though we can only see a finite part of it.
We can speculate in meta-physics or in religion about what was before the Big Bang, but again, we cannot use science to tell anything about it as physics as we understand it breaks down at that point.
3. "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " Scienceline.org
What existed before the Big Bang?
Armed with string theory, Kaku and others speculate that before our Big Bang, there were simply more universes. “Our universe could have either popped into existence or collided with another universe,” he says. Imagine a bubble bath where each bubble represents a universe. In this multiversal tub that existed before our Big Bang—and still exists today—universe bubbles are colliding, popping, budding new bubbles, expanding and contracting. If this scenario really exists, “Big Bangs happen all the time,” says Kaku.
Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku says it also may have sprung from nothing: a completely empty eleven dimensional universe with no spin, no charge and no energy. This seemingly tranquil nothingness universe was actually unstable and some physicists believe that a fluctuation in the vacuum caused our universe to pinch off from its empty existence without time and space to a universe that was large enough to expand. Like a bubble in a bath, our universe had to grow instantaneously in order to survive and escape the collapsing fate of small bubbles.
This “quantum leap” involved four of the dimensions of the empty universe, which now frame the universe we live in. Expanding suddenly, this event sparked the Big Bang and caused the further expansion which created matter and continues to push the galaxies apart today. Meanwhile, the seven remaining dimensions shrunk to an almost inconceivable size, much smaller than an atom.
4. "Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific." Paul Davies, physicist, Arizona State University
Yet another treatise on the oddities of quantum physics that Ray clearly does not understand:
Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos, and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.
A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.
The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.
It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural event.
5. "Assuming the universe came from nothing, it is empty to begin with . . . Only by the constant action of an agent outside the universe, such as God, could a state of nothingness be maintained. The fact that we have something is just what we would expect if there is no God." Victor J. Stenger, atheist, Prof. Physics, University of Hawaii. Author of, God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist
I can find that quote on Ray's blog, and other Ray related websites, but I can't find it anywhere else, including numerous site devoted to Stenger. This, and the ellipses, make me very suspicious. Oh, and "atheist" is not a title, any more than "Jew" or "Christian" are titles. Unless you are in the habit of introducing people as "Mr. ibn la Ahad, Muslim", don't use "atheist" that way.
6. "Few people are aware of the fact that many modern physicists claim that things --perhaps even the entire universe -- can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. Creation ex nihilo -- Without God (1997), Atheist, Mark I. Vuletic
Would you like to see what the very next sentence is? This document is an attempt to compile quotes that explain how all of this is supposed to work.
followed by: Eventually, I would like to write an article assessing the value of quantum vacuum fluctuations as a means of producing universes, but for the time being, I will just let the scientists speak for themselves and leave evaluation to the reader.
Again, proof that Ray doesn't understand that quantum physics is a very different thing from the world we interact with every day. Yes, in our world "everything from nothing" seems like a ridiculous proposition. In the world of quantum physics it's business as usual.
7. "To understand these facts we have to turn to science. Where did they all come from, and how did they get so darned outrageous? Well, it all started with nothing." --"Fifty Outrageous Animal Facts," Animal Planet
Animal Planet? srsly?
8. To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine "Physics & Math/Cosmology"
I'm surprised Ray didn't include the name of this article: Guth's Grand Guess, by
Brad Lemley.
Start, Guth says, by imagining nothing, a pure vacuum. Be careful. Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck.
To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something. Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system. It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now.
9.* "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002
From the exact same article as No. 8. Clever, Ray, but you're talking about quotes by the same person in the same article.
And what about the conservation of energy? According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the energy of a gravitational field is negative. The energy of matter, however, is positive. So the entire universe-creation scenario could unfold without breaking conservation-of-energy laws. The positive energy of all matter in the universe could be precisely counterbalanced by the negative energy of all the gravity in the universe.
This also is more than theory. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing.
"It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally," says Guth, leaning, if possible, even farther forward.
None of those quotes means what Ray thinks they do. You and I understand that Ray is, essentially, a liar. I don't truly believe he is stupid enough to put up those quotes without reading the paragraphs they are in, or the ones immediately preceding and following them. However, for all that Ray clearly doesn't understand quantum physics, he does understand his audience. They don't care what the truth is, as long as their faith is confirmed for them. And if that means quote mining or outright lying on Ray's part, they don't care.
*originally, this post had 10 quotes in it, but two of them were exactly the same. i guess someone pointed it out to Ray and he fixed it.
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
The Educated, Ignorant Scums
bible, god, subatomic, quarks, gluons, protons, physics, bible, jesus,
The Real Big Bang by MC1171611 is a great example of the"I don't understand it, therefore you're an idiot" thinking that is so popular with fundys and wingnuts.
The stupid little sect of "educated" idiots in this country that believes in evolution you know, scientists and other people with PhDs. They're just drooling morons. who know things. will doubtlessly think the title denotes an overbearing, fantastical account of an event that can't be proven yeah, it does, keep reading and of which there is no evidence, but that's not the case at all. In fact, I'm just going to post some Scripture and run those little scums i just want to convert now, don't you? off right now: there's no sense in having an idiot involved in an intelligent, spiritual conversation. wait, why are you here, again? It would be like involving a centipede or a spinach plant in a physics discussion. or you in a physics discussion, as you so ably prove later.
Cool, huh? meh. This is speaking about the last days, after the Tribulation and the Millennium. ah, apocalypse freaks. they're so much fun. In this time, Jesus has just ruled and reigned for 1,000 glorious years, but the Devil is released for a short time and hell again breaks loose. The armies of the world rise up against the LORD and are crushed into tiny, tiny pieces. stop and think about this for a moment. jesus hisownveryself has ruled the world, in person, for 1,000 years, but people decide to defect to satan anyway? knowing damn well who's going to win that one? why? the only thing i can think of is that life under jesus' rule is so horrible that people will take any chance at all to get themselves damned to hell instead. At that time, God really busts this place up. sigh. Let's get a little context on this occurrence. what an interesting use of the word "context".
skipping some random stuff to get to the money shot:
2 Pet. 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Wow. Obviously, if you believe that God wrote this Book and that it's infallible and perfect, let's just assume no on those two then you have no choice but to believe that the whole universe ("heavens") is going to be destroyed at the atomic level! um, really? and why? and where is heaven, anyway? keep in mind, 2,000 years ago, "the elements" did not refer to the periodic table, it referred to air, earth, fire and water. those were the elements. ancient literature in context understanding fail. Don't agree? Then I'm sure there's a "The Bible is so nice" or "What Version do you like" blog out there for ya or you could just stick where you are, i've got cookies!; enjoy. This is about believing the Bible, so you aren't going to fit in too well if you don't believe it. fuck you and your "educated" opinions. my opinions are the only ones that matter!
2 Pet. 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,"Dissolved" is a good word to describe it; isn't it awesome how flawless the Book is? Hallelujah, we serve an AWESOME GOD!! apparently, MCwhatever really likes the world "dissolved". really. a lot.
Many scientists agree that the particles of atoms, electrons, neutrons and protons, are in turn made up of particles called "quarks." 2 Pet. 3:12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat?There's that "dissolved" phrase again. Let me address the scientific significance of this real fast. oh, do, please this is neither a serious, nor an insurmountable problem for science. in fact, it's a "problem" with a solution already worked out: gluons. According to physics dogma, protons, found in the nucleus of the atom, are primarily built of particles called quarks, along with particles called gluons that bind the quarks together. No god necessary, unless we want to rename gluons jesus. i'm voting against that. Well, I would like to propose that the Bible holds the answer to this question. you can propose anything you want, it doesn't necessarily make sense. In fact, I already provided the answer, though you might not have caught it. Let me provide it again. you proposed that ignorance of subatomic physics is an answer unto itself.
2 Pet. 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.Now is that cool or what? Sure, think about the ramifications of that statement. I don't much dwell on the things that science can't measure, explain or reason away: if God says it, I believe it. ignorance being its own reward. It makes life so much simpler, and you wind up being right way more often. if you define "right" as "whatever my opinion happens to be at the moment", then yes, i suppose you would be right, well, always.wish i'd thought of that one before i went out and researched and learned things. woulda saved me a lot of time.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Ray Comfort Misunderstands Quantum Physics
So do I, but at least I acknowledge the fact that I am almost entirely ignorant of quantum physics.
Ray is back to his "atheists believe everything comes from nothing" shtick, which I was bored with one minute after the first time I saw it, but this time he has . . . dumdum dAH . . . quotes!
An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it's an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.
A house is an entirely different thing from the universe, Ray. If the stars in the sky came stamped with brand names, I'd feel a little differently about things. (All hail the mighty Kraft!)
Here's the thing, Ray, what scares you to the core excites me. Religion provides an answer to everything: God did it. That's it, we're done now. To me, that's a reason to eat a bullet. I love the unknown. I love the fact that there are new things to learn, new things to discover. I wake up every morning with the hope that today I will learn something new, meet someone different, see something different. Yeah!
See, that's the difference between religion and science. In religion, it's not okay to say, "I don't know." In science, that's the name of the game. "I don't know, but let's find out." So, when scientists say, "I don't know what came before the big bang, maybe nothing, maybe something," they're just being scientists. They don't have the intellectually lazy position of "God did it" to fall back on, so they have to think up theories and experiments and measure data. Unfortunately, it's a whole lot easier to prove that abstinence only doesn't work than it is to prove what came before the big bang.
Scientists at Cornel University believe and teach the simple, that nothing created everything. They say, " . . . space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/) Ray, I couldn't find this quote on this site. I did click on the link for the "Big Bang" and didn't find it there, either. Lie much?
"To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine “Physics & Math / Cosmology” http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover (his ugly linkage, not mine.) actually, on the subatomic level, nothing is something. on the subatomic level, particles literally do pop out of nowhere. it's bizarre, it completely bypasses the law of conservation of mass, but it happens all the time.
Scienceline.org said, "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002 in other words, some scientists say "something out of nothing", some do not, and this has nothing to do with atheists. and, I bet the scientists can show their work.
Go to www.PullThePlugOnAtheism.com and watch a short video clip from Animal Planet, when did animal planet become an expert on atheism or theoretical physics? is this a different animal planet, other than the one which shows cute animals 24/7? which also tells us that scientists believe that nothing made everything. why not show a video of an actual scientist saying that nothing made everything? If you are an atheist you deny the initial Cause, so you are stuck with the intellectual embarrassment of believing that nothing made everything, and you do it hiding behind the skirts of science. Ray, you believe in the intellectual embarrasment that is Young Earth Creationism. Stones, glass houses, ringing any bells? The Bible is so right when it says "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'". Oh, well, a bible quote, I'm sold.
Ray is back to his "atheists believe everything comes from nothing" shtick, which I was bored with one minute after the first time I saw it, but this time he has . . . dumdum dAH . . . quotes!
An atheist is someone who believes that nothing made everything. He will of course deny that because it's an intellectual embarrassment, but if I say that I don’t believe that a builder built my house, then I am left with the insanity of believing that nothing built it. It just happened.
A house is an entirely different thing from the universe, Ray. If the stars in the sky came stamped with brand names, I'd feel a little differently about things. (All hail the mighty Kraft!)
Here's the thing, Ray, what scares you to the core excites me. Religion provides an answer to everything: God did it. That's it, we're done now. To me, that's a reason to eat a bullet. I love the unknown. I love the fact that there are new things to learn, new things to discover. I wake up every morning with the hope that today I will learn something new, meet someone different, see something different. Yeah!
See, that's the difference between religion and science. In religion, it's not okay to say, "I don't know." In science, that's the name of the game. "I don't know, but let's find out." So, when scientists say, "I don't know what came before the big bang, maybe nothing, maybe something," they're just being scientists. They don't have the intellectually lazy position of "God did it" to fall back on, so they have to think up theories and experiments and measure data. Unfortunately, it's a whole lot easier to prove that abstinence only doesn't work than it is to prove what came before the big bang.
Scientists at Cornel University believe and teach the simple, that nothing created everything. They say, " . . . space and time both started at the Big Bang and therefore there was nothing before it." (http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/) Ray, I couldn't find this quote on this site. I did click on the link for the "Big Bang" and didn't find it there, either. Lie much?
"To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something." Discover Magazine “Physics & Math / Cosmology” http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover (his ugly linkage, not mine.) actually, on the subatomic level, nothing is something. on the subatomic level, particles literally do pop out of nowhere. it's bizarre, it completely bypasses the law of conservation of mass, but it happens all the time.
Scienceline.org said, "Some physicists believe our universe was created by colliding with another, but Kaku [a theoretical physicist at City University of New York] says it also may have sprung from nothing . . . " "It is rather fantastic to realize that the laws of physics can describe how everything was created in a random quantum fluctuation out of nothing, and how over the course of 15 billion years, matter could organize in such complex ways that we have human beings sitting here, talking, doing things intentionally." (Alan Harvey Guth theoretical physicist and cosmologist). Discover Magazine, April 1, 2002 in other words, some scientists say "something out of nothing", some do not, and this has nothing to do with atheists. and, I bet the scientists can show their work.
Go to www.PullThePlugOnAtheism.com and watch a short video clip from Animal Planet, when did animal planet become an expert on atheism or theoretical physics? is this a different animal planet, other than the one which shows cute animals 24/7? which also tells us that scientists believe that nothing made everything. why not show a video of an actual scientist saying that nothing made everything? If you are an atheist you deny the initial Cause, so you are stuck with the intellectual embarrassment of believing that nothing made everything, and you do it hiding behind the skirts of science. Ray, you believe in the intellectual embarrasment that is Young Earth Creationism. Stones, glass houses, ringing any bells? The Bible is so right when it says "The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'". Oh, well, a bible quote, I'm sold.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Literalism Makes You Stupid
Yes, the Earth does indeed rotate (about every 24 hours!) and revolves around the sun (about every 365.25 days!). Why am I pointing this out? fixedearth.com is why.
Yes, there actually are people, apparently capable of using computers, who believe that the Earth is fixed completely still and the sun rotates around us. I know, I thought Copernicus solved that problem, I dunno, at least 500 years ago, but . . . I'll give it a shot.
Furthermore: there was a meeting of Communist Scientists in London in 1931 which was when Gamow was at Cambridge--and the year he was called back to be Master of Research at Leningrad U. The following samples from those pages bear heavily on this entire web page effort... Note these statements from Communist (i.e., atheist) "scientists" at that London Conference:
George Gamow was was a Russian Empire-born theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He discovered alpha decay via quantum tunneling and worked on radioactive decay of the atomic nucleus, star formation, stellar nucleosynthesis, big bang nucleosynthesis, nucleocosmogenesis and genetics.
Sounds like a smart guy, right? WRONG! He was Russian. Russian! Russians are Commies and Commies are ATHEISTS!!! And, Gamow was an atheist and a physicist. Physicists are atheists. Physics hates Jesus! Physics killed Jesus! (You can apply this sort of six-degrees-of seperation logic to anything. Try it yourself. 10 bonus points to the first person that proves that Jesus killed Jesus in less than three steps.)
I can't find anything on a conference in 1931, but if it was anything like modern day physics conferences, it only would have been interesting to the people (physicists) attending it. The rest of us would drop dead of boredom within the first hour. (After which the physicists would don black robes and upside-down crucifixes and sacrifice babies and puppies to satan.)
What is up with the quotes around scientists? Is he trying to say the people at the conference were not scientists? If so, then anything further is pointless, because it would be what notscientists said about cosmology. Oh wait, I get it. They're really . . . I got nothin'.
Modern physics rejects absolute inertia." 28 ["Why?! Because modern [i.e., atheist Communist] physics must insure for all times that the Earth moves. All Communists are atheists who must believe in evolution. The Bible's stationary Earth teaching must forever be forbidden by "physics"!]
Actually, if you google absolute inertia in quotes, you get a lot of incomprehensible scientific articles that use the phrase. Apparently, scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! don't mind the concept at all. The concept that scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! need to ensure (he means "ensure", "insure" is what insurance companies do) that for all times the earth moves is ridiculous and indicative of the literalist view of scientists and science.
You see, the Biblical Literalist (NOT JEWS!) sees everything through the lens of his belief. Anything and everything is subject to this view: the Earth's rotation, Janet Jackson's nipple, a PB&J sandwich. Everything. Therefore, Biblits assume that everyone else does likewise, including scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! do the same, only with science.
SCIENCE is NOT A RELIGION. Science has nothing to do with religion at all. Science is a method of evaluating the world around you- the actual world, not the unseen world that is religion's province- and learning from and about it. Religion gives us heaven and hell (not proveable); science gives us cars and penecillin and airplanes and computers (hey, you're proving that computers work right now.)
Therefore, while this fixedearth jackass apparently needs you and me to believe with all our hearts that what is immediately obvious to the casual observer is not true, science needs you to believe nothing. Computers work whether you believe in them or not.
"The teaching of the self-movement of matter received its full development in the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engles, and Lenin."29 [Does that sound like "physical science" to you?]
I'm not sure what the self-movement of matter is. Which makes this hard to respond to. Early Russian communists did try to impose some really wierd non-science science, but it didn't work out, people starved and they gave up on it. Self-movement of matter . . . hmmm. . . maybe he is referring to atoms? Oh, and "physics" is not short for physical science. And, physics was around way before Marx, Engles and Lenin. Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was not a communist.
The mathematisation of physics...is continually growing and physics is becoming more and more dependent upon the fate of mathematics."31 And that was over 75 years ago!
Did math become satanic at some meeting that I missed? In which case, the above statement, which contains a measurement of time using numbers (75 years) is evil. Counting things is evil. (So, how many children do you have? I can't tell you that, for counting is an affront to God. ASS 3:15) Beyond that, physics and mathematics have always been inextricably linked. Having taken a physics class in high school, I can tell you that the only way to describe physics is through math. Physics did not become mathematized(tm) 75 years ago. Physics has always used the language of mathematics.
This special mathematics--the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus, the theory of characteristic numbers--has for the greater part been created by the physicists themselves, for ordinary mathematics is unable to satisfy the requirements of present day physics"32 [Who says "No inertia allowed"? Physicists.]
Ummm . . . so the fact that physics, a specialized branch of science, uses mathematics in a specialized way, means . . . what, exactly? And is math good or evil? Good if you restrict yourself to counting and possibly multiplication, bad if you use it to describe the path of a thrown baseball? *pulls out a bible, rereads genesis* nope, there are still only 10 commandmants.
This is the definition of "tensor" in physics: Many mathematical structures informally called 'tensors' are actually tensor fields—a tensor-valued function defined on a geometric or topological space. This use of the term is analogous to vector fields such as electromagnetic fields, but with the 'tensor' defined so that it is invariant under a change of coordinates. Differential equations posed in terms of tensor quantities are basic to modern mathematical physics, so that tensor fields are usually defined on differentiable manifolds. I didn't understand that at all, so I can guarantee that this asshole didn't.
the matrix calculus: In mathematics, matrix calculus is a specialized notation for doing multivariable calculus, especially over spaces of matrices, where it defines the matrix derivative. This notation is well-suited to describing systems of differential equations, and taking derivatives of matrix-valued functions with respect to matrix variables. This notation is commonly used in statistics and engineering, while the tensor index notation is preferred in physics. So physicists don't even use "the" matrix calculus. Does that make it evil or good?
[Step right up and witness the Politically Correct Science that has made the Earth move with a clever mathematical model when all known phenomena is readily explained by a stationary Earth Model!] You're going to have to show your work on that one, buddy.
To overcome the crisis in present-day mathematics, to reconstruct it along socialist lines, patient and persistent work is necessary Again, show your work. What crisis in mathematics? Can you even picture a crisis in mathematics? One of the things I always hated about math is that there is only ever one answer to a question in math. That's it. One answer. How does that lend itself to crises?
So, now we have established the a literal reading of every word in the bible makes people stupid. and paranoid.
Yes, there actually are people, apparently capable of using computers, who believe that the Earth is fixed completely still and the sun rotates around us. I know, I thought Copernicus solved that problem, I dunno, at least 500 years ago, but . . . I'll give it a shot.
Furthermore: there was a meeting of Communist Scientists in London in 1931 which was when Gamow was at Cambridge--and the year he was called back to be Master of Research at Leningrad U. The following samples from those pages bear heavily on this entire web page effort... Note these statements from Communist (i.e., atheist) "scientists" at that London Conference:
George Gamow was was a Russian Empire-born theoretical physicist and cosmologist. He discovered alpha decay via quantum tunneling and worked on radioactive decay of the atomic nucleus, star formation, stellar nucleosynthesis, big bang nucleosynthesis, nucleocosmogenesis and genetics.
Sounds like a smart guy, right? WRONG! He was Russian. Russian! Russians are Commies and Commies are ATHEISTS!!! And, Gamow was an atheist and a physicist. Physicists are atheists. Physics hates Jesus! Physics killed Jesus! (You can apply this sort of six-degrees-of seperation logic to anything. Try it yourself. 10 bonus points to the first person that proves that Jesus killed Jesus in less than three steps.)
I can't find anything on a conference in 1931, but if it was anything like modern day physics conferences, it only would have been interesting to the people (physicists) attending it. The rest of us would drop dead of boredom within the first hour. (After which the physicists would don black robes and upside-down crucifixes and sacrifice babies and puppies to satan.)
What is up with the quotes around scientists? Is he trying to say the people at the conference were not scientists? If so, then anything further is pointless, because it would be what notscientists said about cosmology. Oh wait, I get it. They're really . . . I got nothin'.
Modern physics rejects absolute inertia." 28 ["Why?! Because modern [i.e., atheist Communist] physics must insure for all times that the Earth moves. All Communists are atheists who must believe in evolution. The Bible's stationary Earth teaching must forever be forbidden by "physics"!]
Actually, if you google absolute inertia in quotes, you get a lot of incomprehensible scientific articles that use the phrase. Apparently, scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! don't mind the concept at all. The concept that scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! need to ensure (he means "ensure", "insure" is what insurance companies do) that for all times the earth moves is ridiculous and indicative of the literalist view of scientists and science.
You see, the Biblical Literalist (NOT JEWS!) sees everything through the lens of his belief. Anything and everything is subject to this view: the Earth's rotation, Janet Jackson's nipple, a PB&J sandwich. Everything. Therefore, Biblits assume that everyone else does likewise, including scientists/communists/atheists/JEWS! do the same, only with science.
SCIENCE is NOT A RELIGION. Science has nothing to do with religion at all. Science is a method of evaluating the world around you- the actual world, not the unseen world that is religion's province- and learning from and about it. Religion gives us heaven and hell (not proveable); science gives us cars and penecillin and airplanes and computers (hey, you're proving that computers work right now.)
Therefore, while this fixedearth jackass apparently needs you and me to believe with all our hearts that what is immediately obvious to the casual observer is not true, science needs you to believe nothing. Computers work whether you believe in them or not.
"The teaching of the self-movement of matter received its full development in the dialectical materialism of Marx, Engles, and Lenin."29 [Does that sound like "physical science" to you?]
I'm not sure what the self-movement of matter is. Which makes this hard to respond to. Early Russian communists did try to impose some really wierd non-science science, but it didn't work out, people starved and they gave up on it. Self-movement of matter . . . hmmm. . . maybe he is referring to atoms? Oh, and "physics" is not short for physical science. And, physics was around way before Marx, Engles and Lenin. Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) was not a communist.
The mathematisation of physics...is continually growing and physics is becoming more and more dependent upon the fate of mathematics."31 And that was over 75 years ago!
Did math become satanic at some meeting that I missed? In which case, the above statement, which contains a measurement of time using numbers (75 years) is evil. Counting things is evil. (So, how many children do you have? I can't tell you that, for counting is an affront to God. ASS 3:15) Beyond that, physics and mathematics have always been inextricably linked. Having taken a physics class in high school, I can tell you that the only way to describe physics is through math. Physics did not become mathematized(tm) 75 years ago. Physics has always used the language of mathematics.
This special mathematics--the tensor analysis, the matrix calculus, the theory of characteristic numbers--has for the greater part been created by the physicists themselves, for ordinary mathematics is unable to satisfy the requirements of present day physics"32 [Who says "No inertia allowed"? Physicists.]
Ummm . . . so the fact that physics, a specialized branch of science, uses mathematics in a specialized way, means . . . what, exactly? And is math good or evil? Good if you restrict yourself to counting and possibly multiplication, bad if you use it to describe the path of a thrown baseball? *pulls out a bible, rereads genesis* nope, there are still only 10 commandmants.
This is the definition of "tensor" in physics: Many mathematical structures informally called 'tensors' are actually tensor fields—a tensor-valued function defined on a geometric or topological space. This use of the term is analogous to vector fields such as electromagnetic fields, but with the 'tensor' defined so that it is invariant under a change of coordinates. Differential equations posed in terms of tensor quantities are basic to modern mathematical physics, so that tensor fields are usually defined on differentiable manifolds. I didn't understand that at all, so I can guarantee that this asshole didn't.
the matrix calculus: In mathematics, matrix calculus is a specialized notation for doing multivariable calculus, especially over spaces of matrices, where it defines the matrix derivative. This notation is well-suited to describing systems of differential equations, and taking derivatives of matrix-valued functions with respect to matrix variables. This notation is commonly used in statistics and engineering, while the tensor index notation is preferred in physics. So physicists don't even use "the" matrix calculus. Does that make it evil or good?
[Step right up and witness the Politically Correct Science that has made the Earth move with a clever mathematical model when all known phenomena is readily explained by a stationary Earth Model!] You're going to have to show your work on that one, buddy.
To overcome the crisis in present-day mathematics, to reconstruct it along socialist lines, patient and persistent work is necessary Again, show your work. What crisis in mathematics? Can you even picture a crisis in mathematics? One of the things I always hated about math is that there is only ever one answer to a question in math. That's it. One answer. How does that lend itself to crises?
So, now we have established the a literal reading of every word in the bible makes people stupid. and paranoid.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
