science vs religion?

[Repox]

The problem is that you added two and two and got not four, but three.
You did not propose a theory. Besides, the sort of cosmology you propose is unsuited to science because it is not falsifiable.
Of course not, no one is a smart as you are.
Of course not, no one is a smart as you are. I'm starting to see a pattern though.
A virtual particle is not a particle. It is a disturbance in a field. An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that has the properties of a chemical element. OK so far?
Time is thought to have started at the Big Bang.

I don't need anything from you so that is no loss.
That's why, when it comes to cosmology, I prefer Ambiplasma as described by Alfven and Klein. Do you dispute their model? BTW: Name calling is not allowed here.

A lot has been concluded simple because I refuse to back down. There has been a lot of distortion. There have been those who have treated my statement as a formal theory, which I clearly stated it was not. So, they attack with false assumptions. Then, there are those who claim I didn't present mathematical models, or a research design. As a famous writer said, "A lot to do about nothing."
I wrote the statement in the context of the discussion. However, I have given it a lot of thought. I think it is plausible, but difficult.

Inasmuch as I committed no error, theoretical or methodological, I have nothing to correct or apologize for. Moreover, because I have expert knowledge about academic theories, I have not made an error. Oh, that is terrible. I am suppose to confess to an error or errors. Sorry, it won't happen. All of you may continue with shortsighted critiques, but it is a waste of time.

 

[Repox]

The problem is that you added two and two and got not four, but three.
You did not propose a theory. Besides, the sort of cosmology you propose is unsuited to science because it is not falsifiable.
Of course not, no one is a smart as you are.
Of course not, no one is a smart as you are. I'm starting to see a pattern though.
A virtual particle is not a particle. It is a disturbance in a field. An atom is the smallest constituent unit of ordinary matter that has the properties of a chemical element. OK so far?
Time is thought to have started at the Big Bang.

I don't need anything from you so that is no loss.
That's why, when it comes to cosmology, I prefer Ambiplasma as described by Alfven and Klein. Do you dispute their model? BTW: Name calling is not allowed here.

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"

 

[Sapiens]

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"

You keep doubling down and getting it wrong. It's time to deal with you, clearly, once and for all. The reality is that you know just enough scientific jargon to pretend you have something to say, but the reality is that you don't know enough to get over the hump.

Let's reread what you wrote:

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"​

Here is what someone who actually knows what they are talking about, Theoretical Physicist Matt Strassler (undergraduate degree from Princeton, Ph.D. from Stanford, postdoc at Rutgers University, long-term member at the Institute for Advanced Study, faculty member at University of Pennsylvania and the University of Washington, before becoming a full professor at Rutgers University. In 2007 elected as a member of the American Physical Society, etc.).

What does Dr. Strassler say?

Virtual Particles: What are they?

The best way to approach this concept, I believe, is to forget you ever saw the word “particle” in the term. A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.
​

Again, what you said:

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"​

... and what Dr. Strassler said?

A virtual particle is not a particle at all. It refers precisely to a disturbance in a field that is not a particle. A particle is a nice, regular ripple in a field, one that can travel smoothly and effortlessly through space, like a clear tone of a bell moving through the air. A “virtual particle”, generally, is a disturbance in a field that will never be found on its own, but instead is something that is caused by the presence of other particles, often of other fields.​

Again, what you said:

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"​

... and what I said:

"A virtual particle is not a particle."
​

Here you go folks:

​

 

[Polymath257]

As a famous writer said, "A lot to do about nothing."
.

Priceless.

 

[ChristineM]

A lot has been concluded simple because I refuse to back down. There has been a lot of distortion. There have been those who have treated my statement as a formal theory, which I clearly stated it was not. So, they attack with false assumptions. Then, there are those who claim I didn't present mathematical models, or a research design. As a famous writer said, "A lot to do about nothing."
I wrote the statement in the context of the discussion. However, I have given it a lot of thought. I think it is plausible, but difficult.

Inasmuch as I committed no error, theoretical or methodological, I have nothing to correct or apologize for. Moreover, because I have expert knowledge about academic theories, I have not made an error. Oh, that is terrible. I am suppose to confess to an error or errors. Sorry, it won't happen. All of you may continue with shortsighted critiques, but it is a waste of time.

You refuse to educate yourself, glad you admit it, eventually its called incredulous intransigence.

You stated only after the fast (edit: fact);and it being pointed out by several other people.

No assumptions, no attacks, you made statement and you attacked any who queried them.

But you claimed a mathematical and statistical proposal, it never occurred, yes much ado about nothing sums it up very well.

Except you told untruth, and used as hominem, hyperbole and name calling to defend your deception.

Expert knowledge??? Now that funny, i don't care who you are.

 

[ChristineM]

I can't stand the error, you say, "A virtual particle is not a particle." Well, contact all of those scientists and editors of scientific journals and tell them they are in error. It is called a "virtual particle!"

You ignorance of quantum mechanics is not in question

 

[Desert Snake]

Science itself is limited, that is the real problem here. Trying to disprove religion with science is very problematic.

 

[Polymath257]

Do you know the difference between a virtual particle and an atom?

A virtual particle is an off-shell propagator in a Feynman diagram.

An atom is a smallest representative of a chemical element. Atoms are made of a nucleus consisting of protons, neutrons and the attending gluons, which is orbited by electrons. Generalizations can allow muons as orbiting particles and more exotic hadrons in the nucleus.

How is time related to the universe and the big bang?

Time is one of the coordinates of spacetime. The dynamics of spacetime are described by General Relativity, which, when applied to the universe as a whole, predicts an expanding space component.This is known as the Big Bang model. Typically, time is limited to only existing *after* the Big Bang singularity.

Your turn:
Do you know the difference between a neutron and a neutrino?
How about the difference between an electron and a muon?

 

[Sapiens]

Your ignorance of quantum mechanics is not in question

Neither is his ignorance of Shakespeare.

 

[ChristineM]

Neither is his ignorance of Shakespeare.

He seems quite fond of ignorance

And incredulity

 

[Sapiens]

He seems quite fond of ignorance

And incredulity

Indeed! I also note a complete lack of response since my post #443.

 

[Sapiens]

Science itself is limited, that is the real problem here. Trying to disprove religion with science is very problematic.

Who says science is very limited? It is as reasonable (likely more reasonable) to say that there is no supernatural. At this time religion can be disproved by science by examining the required natural effects of religious claims (e.g., no Flood, no Exodus, etc.).

 

[ChristineM]

Indeed! I also note a complete lack of response since my post #443.

I didn't take note of when he stopped responding to me, was after he got uptight, frustrated he wasn't being taken seriously and began throwing ad hom, hyperbole and personal insults. His none response also is a manifestation of ignorance.

By his usual track record polymath is next.

 

[ChristineM]

Science itself is limited, that is the real problem here. Trying to disprove religion with science is very problematic.

Science is limited by the human mind which, by the actions of science is learning, expanding and pushing the boundaries of that mind. Why would science want to disprove religion? It has more important quests to persue. The thing is, if religion can prove itself then you be really on to something.

In science, there are no universal truths, just views of the world that have yet to be shown to be false.”
Brian Cox

 

[james bond]

But, assuming that a supernatural God exists without empirical evidence spits in the face of science. Remember, science is nothing more than the use of the scientific method to arrive at greater understanding of the physical universe. So, where would God even fit into it?

>>But, assuming that a supernatural God exists without empirical evidence spits in the face of science.<<

Not if one is a creation scientist. Again, a little faith goes a long way.

Don't get me wrong. After God, then we go by science. Anything to do with man, then we use science.

 

[james bond]

This is not what I asked for. I am asking for an explanation or claim from Hawking himself.

Well, all of these are claims from Hawking. The man is all over the internet and media. I follow him on youtube and through a few of his books such as A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time.

 

[leibowde84]

>>But, assuming that a supernatural God exists without empirical evidence spits in the face of science.<<

Not if one is a creation scientist. Again, a little faith goes a long way.

Don't get me wrong. After God, then we go by science. Anything to do with man, then we use science.

But, science does not speak to anything but this, physical reality. So, why would science even consider God positively or negatively. God just seems irrelevant.

 

[leibowde84]

Well, all of these are claims from Hawking. The man is all over the internet and media. I follow him on youtube and through a few of his books such as A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time.

I've read both of those, and he never makes the claims you say he does in them. That is why I'm asking for a specific source where Hawking makes the claim himself.

 

[`mud]

Science...the discovery and proof of the invisible, but existing entities.
Religion...the belief in non-existing illusions, instead of real entities.
No more is needed to be said !

 

[`mud]

And everyone else quits ?????