Krauss embarrasses WLC

[cerad]

I could give you many predictions including the skin effect of electricity, the particle/wave duality of the photon, and a dark energy max of ~74% a min of ~61% and a median value of about 68%... But you would have no idea why. First we'd have to start with the definition of "The God" before the beginning of all creation: Infinite, eternal, living, and composed of real substance. A "One" beside whom there is no other...

I'm not concerned about why nor am I concerned about some non-testable definition of a god. And quite frankly, predicting things that science has already discovered is not overly impressive. I'd just like an actual prediction or two.

This takes on very specific, predictive shape relationships.
How would you like to proceed?

How about predicting the mass of the Higgs Bosun particle with an accuracy of say .1%? When the LHC is reactivated at full power there is a good chance they will be able to refine the value of it's mass.

You have mentioned holograms in several of your posts. Can you point us to any holograms predictions you made before science started to investigate them? If not, Craig Hogan, director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, is about to try to measure the quantum jitter of space itself. It would be very impressive indeed if you could predict the jitter in advance.

Or if you want something a bit more challenging, predict a few specific characteristics of whatever it is that generates dark energy.

And again, I don't really care how you arrive at your predictions. Just want a few concrete measurable numbers.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I'm not concerned about why nor am I concerned about some non-testable definition of a god. And quite frankly, predicting things that science has already discovered is not overly impressive. I'd just like an actual prediction or two.

How about predicting the mass of the Higgs Bosun particle with an accuracy of say .1%? When the LHC is reactivated at full power there is a good chance they will be able to refine the value of it's mass.

You have mentioned holograms in several of your posts. Can you point us to any holograms predictions you made before science started to investigate them? If not, Craig Hogan, director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, is about to try to measure the quantum jitter of space itself. It would be very impressive indeed if you could predict the jitter in advance.

Or if you want something a bit more challenging, predict a few specific characteristics of whatever it is that generates dark energy.

And again, I don't really care how you arrive at your predictions. Just want a few concrete measurable numbers.

Individual measurements are arbitrary. I am talking about the anatomy of the whole.

You are not interested in how it fits all current data? That it predicts the CMB asymmetry, the 3 families of matter (and anti-matter), resolves the big bang "matter asymmetry" problem, predicts about a 1/5 matter/dark matter ratio and poly galactic homogeneous rotation as a Coriolis effect?

I would expect the jitter to travel on a star-tetrahedral vector equilibrium. I expect it to be an interference pattern of 5 mobile supra-strings within a 6th still string with further modulation. That requires you knowing the shape flows between equal sized universes in an FCC sphere stack.

The dark energy expansive constant is the result of the arrangement of infinite universes as a "traveling" FCC sphere stack. (Currently using the ABC etc arrangement Each universe (sphere) is of equal size and not expanding after an initial rapid inflation as an entire infinite plane of spheres is super-cavitated at once and the super-cavitation keeps traveling "downwards" creating more planes of spheres.

In a close packing of sphere, they take up approx. 74% of the total space. This is right in line with the first prediction of dark energy. I find there are further bends of space-time within the universal sphere that pattern for 6 different arrangements of matter. We are within one of these space-time bends separated from the others by wave form membranes, supra-stings in the shape of a torus or doughnut. They travel in one direction like a ringing river, this is the reason for the CMB temp asymmetry.

After accounting for being 1/6 less than the total universe and balancing the pressure between with the creation of matter, I arrive at about a 68% expansive constant. Current refined estimates of dark energy hover around 67.5%.

Our ring of space-time is being expanded slowly by the gravitational pull of what is at the center of the universe and what is still outside of it.

The reason dark energy is a constant is because our universe is part of a metaversal sphere stack that becomes the boundary conditions for each universe. They are the same for each and every universe.

The universes above us are further along in time. The universes below are behind us in time. The infinite universes on our same plane occupy the same instant of time in another space. All possibilities are accounted for.

My measurements are from the outside-in as shape quantization's of an infinite, not from the inside out as arbitrary measurements among parts. They are fundamentally different directions and modes of logical navigation. I use the one that proceeds in the same direction of time as the universe is created.

It is all 3d spatial and readily apprehendable by the human mind as a holographic image. If you have a visual/engineering mind it should be a piece of cake to grok.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Prediction of the Great Contraction theory and the Supra-Symmetric Holotropic Metaverse model:

As our space-time bend inflated as a ring, I predict a non-radial distribution of galaxies as a diffuse cloud. No central point of expansion obeservable.

I would also expect our measure of the bend of space-time to be ever so slightly negatively curved or "saddle shape". The is the shape of a section of the inside middle of a torus.

As the Existence before the universe was a infinite, borderless ocean of space filling primal matter, I would expect all mathematical attempts to compress it into a theoretical finite singularity, of infinitesimal or whatever finite size, to breakdown into nonsense.

 

[Chesterton]

...doughnut.

...cake...

Mmm, doughnut...cake... [insert Homer .jpg]

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Further details on quantum jitter prediction: The 5 mobile universal strings are 4 horizontals in two nested pairs within a "5th" (previous) surrounding vertical string like a pillar torus that spirals through the middle of the 4 horizontal ring tori and wraps back up around them.

I would expect this to pattern a plasma crystal of inert dust in zero-G to "self compose" by quantum "cymatic" vibratory action into a vertical spiral structure with horizontal rungs much like DNA.

See vid @ 4.03 for evidence from the ISS. Copacetic Funky Plasma Crystal Study | Anacephalaeosis

 

[cerad]

Individual measurements are arbitrary. I am talking about the anatomy of the whole.
...
After accounting for being 1/6 less than the total universe and balancing the pressure between with the creation of matter, I arrive at about a 68% expansive constant. Current refined estimates of dark energy hover around 67.5%.
...
It is all 3d spatial and readily apprehendable by the human mind as a holographic image. If you have a visual/engineering mind it should be a piece of cake to grok.

I happen to be an engineer with what I think is an engineering mind but I have to admit that I am struggling to understand your basic concepts.

You say that individual measurements are arbitrary and then say the expansive constant is 68%. Of what use is this arbitrary number?

Further details on quantum jitter prediction: The 5 mobile universal strings are 4 horizontals in two nested pairs within a "5th" (previous) surrounding vertical string like a pillar torus that spirals through the middle of the 4 horizontal ring tori and wraps back up around them.

I would expect this to pattern a plasma crystal of inert dust in zero-G to "self compose" by quantum "cymatic" vibratory action into a vertical spiral structure with horizontal rungs much like DNA.

So your prediction of quantum jitter is?

 

[bhsmte]

Which is why I would rather debate Caroll.

So are most of those guys in the debates, certainly Krauss. What I think of myself is as nothing, clearly navigating and conveying the territory within me and all around me is everything. I am just a reflection suspended between many inner and outer membranes...and I am learning to have fun.

Not unlike most scientists, Krauss is not a good debater.

Being a good debater requires one to be able to spin the evidence, not really reciting the facts and explaining them. Not unlike a good trial lawyer, that can convince a jury, when the evidence is not on their side.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The concept of God arises in the human mind in his wildly various forms, not because of some inherent "TRUTH" that needs to be explained by the "God Variable", but rather because of a LACK OF UNDERSTANDING of a suite of events.

Well, psychology has a pretty good handle on why we as a species are predisposed to believe in deities. It is to do with the so-called Theory of Mind, which is basically the way the human mind has evolved to function in a highly social animal with sophisticated verbal communication.

Jesse Bering gives a brief outline here (although he's written a whole book on the subject which I can recommend as a very good read):

We are programmed to believe in a god | Jesse Bering | Comment is free | theguardian.com

Basically we are all predisposed to think this way. When one sees the thing exposed it explains an enormous amount.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Krauss points out that science has explained away thousands of gods throughout history so therefore no god is real. I think that's a bit of a stretch.

You misunderstood his point there.
That point being that there's nothing special about any particular religion. All of them make roughly the same type of claims (but all are mutually exclusive). At best, only one of them is correct. But since they all make the same types of claims, it's more likely that all of them are wrong.

Throughout history, almost every time science came up with a demonstrable / verifiable explanation of a phenomena, it displaced / disproved the god to which that phenomena was attributed.

The tides of the oceans are not ruled by Poseidon.
Lightning is not caused by Jupiter or Zeus.
Thunder is not caused by Thor.
Humans were not created from clay and ribs by Jawhe.
Etc.

Not a single time throughout history, has a god-explanation turned out to be correct or confirmed by science. Every single problem attributed to the supernatural, which was put under the microscope by science in the history of the world, has been explained through logical natural means. At not point in history did the supernatural explanation prevail. Ever.

More then that even, when we walk through history and look at the things that are attributed to gods/the supernatural, we always and consistently find that the gods there "live" at the frontier of knowledge during those days.

Ptolomy came up with geocentrism. His model couldn't explain the motion of the planets (cause it placed the earth at the center instead of the sun). His response to this "problem"? Gods-dun-it.

Isaac Newton didn't succeed in calculating how the orbits of the planet could remain stable (as the gravity of each of the planets influences the other planets - it's a very complex calculation). His answer to this "problem"? God-dun-it.

Gods and the supernatural are consistently used to plug the gaps of human knowledge throughout history.

This is why theists tend to oppose science or "hardcore scientific thinking". Because they know very well that what science has this side effect of pushing back gods and the supernatural into smaller and smaller pockets of scientific ignorance. As science plugs the gaps in knowledge, gods and the supernatural become obsolete.

We used to "require" gods to explain bad weather.
We used to "require" gods to explain solar/planetary formation.
We used to "require" gods to explain the diversity of life.
We used to "require" gods to explain the tides.
We used to "require" gods to explain volcano's.


But we don't anymore.

So a question we need to ask ourselves out of intellectual honesty, is why would we hold on to religions at all? Isn't it time for the human species to move on from such arguments from ignorance?

 

[Aureus]

I could defeat most of Steve Caroll's arguments with a predictive model of universal fine tuning beginning with God.

I suggest you start engaging in public debates. Write a book, build up a name, earn a fortune in the process and then rake Caroll over the coals in a grand recorded debate.

 

[Chesterton]

The tides of the oceans are not ruled by Poseidon.

But Poseidon may still be needed for inventing the gravity which rules the tides.

This "argument from lack of need" or whatever you might call it, which all the top atheists use, needs to be put to rest. It makes as much sense as saying "we've discovered that onions come from the grocery store, so there's no need for farmers". I'm not saying you have to throw the argument away, you can keep it, but you need to put it away in a closet somewhere and save it for the day if/when science has a theory of everything and can explain the four fundamental forces. Depending on the explanation, the argument may or may not have some substance then.

 

[Michael]

You misunderstood his point there.
That point being that there's nothing special about any particular religion. All of them make roughly the same type of claims (but all are mutually exclusive). At best, only one of them is correct. But since they all make the same types of claims, it's more likely that all of them are wrong.

How is "science" any different, particularly with respect to astronomy?

Deferent and epicycle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Scientific theories" about how we got here have also been shown to be wrong too. So what? Does that mean *all* of science is wrong, or that it's untrustworthy every single time?

Throughout history, almost every time science came up with a demonstrable / verifiable explanation of a phenomena, it displaced / disproved the god to which that phenomena was attributed.

It also likely replaced and disproved previous "scientific' claims about the universe we live in. Again, does that negate *all* of science as well as *all* of religion?

The tides of the oceans are not ruled by Poseidon.

No, according to so called 'Science", apparently everything in the universe is "ruled/controlled" by no less that four invisible supernatural forces of nature that *never* show up on Earth. Do you think that mess of a belief system is *not* going to get replaced sooner or later?

His basic premise goes something to the effect of

Since "science" keeps shown to be wrong over and over and over again, it can't be trusted *ever*. It's a bogus argument from beginning to end. Keep in mind that his personal belief system about how we got here includes a "net zero" energy universe, and four supernatural invisible friends. He's hardly the poster child for empirical physics.

 

[Loudmouth]

This "argument from lack of need" or whatever you might call it, which all the top atheists use, needs to be put to rest. It makes as much sense as saying "we've discovered that onions come from the grocery store, so there's no need for farmers".

We have evidence for farmers, so that is not a valid comparison. We have evidence that farmers are needed for specific observations, such as a whole field onions growing in nice little neat rows.

We have no observations that have a verified supernatural explanation. Not one. We don't have to say that whooping cough is caused by bacteria . . and Leprechauns. The bacteria are a sufficient explanation, and there is no evidence for Leprechauns.

I'm not saying you have to throw the argument away, you can keep it, but you need to put it away in a closet somewhere and save it for the day if/when science has a theory of everything and can explain the four fundamental forces. Depending on the explanation, the argument may or may not have some substance then.

That would be an argument from ignorance. "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it".

 

[Chesterton]

We have evidence for farmers, so that is not a valid comparison. We have evidence that farmers are needed for specific observations, such as a whole field onions growing in nice little neat rows.

We have no observations that have a verified supernatural explanation. Not one. We don't have to say that whooping cough is caused by bacteria . . and Leprechauns. The bacteria are a sufficient explanation, and there is no evidence for Leprechauns.

You're just repeating the error. What causes the bacteria? Then what causes that? You have to go all the way down if you're going to use it as an argument against God. If you make the claim that there's nothing beyond the natural universe, the burden is on you to explain the natural universe to show how it's on its own needing nothing beyond it.

That would be an argument from ignorance. "I don't know" is not the same as "God did it".

No, it would then be an argument from knowledge.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I happen to be an engineer with what I think is an engineering mind but I have to admit that I am struggling to understand your basic concepts.

You say that individual measurements are arbitrary and then say the expansive constant is 68%. Of what use is this arbitrary number?


So your prediction of quantum jitter is?

Basic concept: The universe is one of infinite, stable, cavitated void bubbles out of a saturated matter space that has no border.


Borrowing from the balloon example of cosmic expansion: There are 2 ways to achieve the inflation of the balloon surface; either by adding pressure to the inside (big bang) or to lower the pressure outside (great contraction) Either way causes the exact same motion of the balloon surface. As a resident on the membrane how could you tell the difference?

What I am explaining is the cavitation model which is all about the equalization of shape flows in very simple Newtonian equal/opposite reaction. The base unit of measure is infinity. It is a perfect prismation of inherent spatial and energetic qualities that describe the entire spectrum of universal particle and phenomenon by shape, parts and mode of interaction.

So I cannot tell you the "mass" of a photon (what is the unit of measure?), but I can tell you why it has whole spin, two polarized states, particle/wave duality and rectilinear travel. It my model, the universal shape flow that governs electromagnetism is exactly that: a shape flow, therefor nearly mass-less. I would expect the photon to travel in whole packets.


It is like I am trying to explain to you the entire concert of human anatomy but you want the measure of a single cell. Not really important.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

Not unlike most scientists, Krauss is not a good debater.

Being a good debater requires one to be able to spin the evidence, not really reciting the facts and explaining them. Not unlike a good trial lawyer, that can convince a jury, when the evidence is not on their side.

He's good enough for me. Specifically his vast knowledge of science and mathematics, and his propensity to river dance over the eggshells of people beliefs. It would be great practice!

Excellent point regarding good debate as it is set up for seeking mass consensus of the audience. I will keep that firmly in mind. On the other hand, the savvy of the audience will immediately spot any emotional manipulation and it may work to the diametric opposite with these individuals. These are the individuals I am more interested in, not mass consensus.

But anyone who disregards group dynamics often get hanged by them...

Trial lawyer....I'll keep that in mind!

 

[bhsmte]

He's good enough for me. Specifically his vast knowledge of science and mathematics, and his propensity to river dance over the eggshells of people beliefs. It would be great practice!

Excellent point regarding good debate as it is set up for seeking mass consensus of the audience. I will keep that firmly in mind. On the other hand, the savvy of the audience will immediately spot any emotional manipulation and it may work to the diametric opposite with these individuals. These are the individuals I am more interested in, not mass consensus.

But anyone who disregards group dynamics often get hanged by them...

Trial lawyer....I'll keep that in mind!

I may have missed this, but could you tell me again what your science credentials are? Education, etc..

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I suggest you start engaging in public debates. Write a book, build up a name, earn a fortune in the process and then rake Caroll over the coals in a grand recorded debate.

Social resources are extremely limited where I live and so is my time. I run a small tree company for work and a small child at home. Online in limited packets is all the time I can currently spare. Certainly a best selling book would go a long way to changing things. Looks like I'll have to start writing at night!

A fortune would be grand, so I could finally stop wasting my time chasing after money and concentrate on the work.

As far as raking any scientist over the coals....my goal is to beat them in a run for the money, then give them the better shoes I have to run in.

My model will affirm both science and God with no division between. The steps God takes to create and sustain a universe are completely logical, very simple, and whole by specific qualitative measures of wholeness.

The scientist will learn to make the shift from explosive outward action regarding the beginning singularity state, to implosive inwards action. From external particle mentality to internal wave mentality. It's really not that big of a shift.

 

[Michael]

I may have missed this, but could you tell me again what your science credentials are? Education, etc..

What are Krauss's religious credentials again?

 

[bhsmte]

What are Krauss's religious credentials again?

What are anyone's religious credentials?

They would include, knowing a lot about a 2000 year old book and personal experiences.