Ask a physicist anything.

[AV1611VET]

Which is cheaper?

Taking one person to the movies twice --- or two people to the movies once?

 

[Thistlethorn]

Which is cheaper?

Taking one person to the movies twice --- or two people to the movies once?

Two people to the movies once. You pay for three tickets as opposed to four (your own ticket twice).

 

[AV1611VET]

Two people to the movies once. You pay for three tickets as opposed to four (your own ticket twice).

Yup ---

And you win the board game:

 

[Michael]

String theory posits extra dimensions. The existence of these extra dimensions is therefore supported by whatever evidence supports string theory.

In other words - "None".

Ah, the old "It's not a religion, it's a relationship!" chestnut. Haven't heard that one in a while...

You evidently missed my point. The concept of a creator transcends a single religion and it's common to virtually all human cultures.

Which is neither disputed nor relevant.

Woah! Why isn't that cross culture experience of a creator "relevant" from your perspective? I'm certainly not the only human being who experiences the presence of God in their lives.

Do you have any evidence that God exists? I could cite endless books on fairies, but that hardly evidences their existence.

How many cultures even have a word for 'faeries'? How many human beings have claimed to experience one personally?

Near death experiences hardly qualify as evidence. The brain is dying, and you want to trust that it can still accurately record information? Talk about faith...

Actually there are numerous examples of people relating very accurate information of what occurred in the room during the NDE and even events that occurred nowhere near the body. The Lancet study cites one example of a comatose man who later knew exactly where to locate his missing false teeth. How did he know where to find them?

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

How come NDE's occur three to four times more frequently that atheism occurs in any given society and happen to atheist as well?

There's a reason why eye-witness accounts aren't used in science. They're unreliable, inconsistent, void of detail, and easily manipulated. The human mind is a wonderful thing, but it's far too good at making things up.

Actually an eye witness account can and frequently does lead to a conviction in a court of law. "Observation" is pretty much the cornerstone of "science" so evidently humans can and do make accurate observations as well as make mistakes. That's the beauty of being able to replicate an experiment.

Such as?

I just listed several things that might be considered "evidence" of God whereas you listed absolutely nothing that supports string theory.

The intriguing thing here is the fact you don't apply your need for empirical support equally or fairly. In the case of string theory, you evidently ignore it's early failures in particle physics theory and you require no physical justification for string theory. On the other hand you *insist* on seeing empirical evidence of God. Why the double standard? Either you should reject them both for the same reason, or accept them both for the same reason. Why treat string theory any differently than a theory about God?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In other words - "None".

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

You evidently missed my point. The concept of a creator transcends a single religion and it's common to virtually all human cultures.

Woah! Why isn't that cross culture experience of a creator "relevant" from your perspective? I'm certainly not the only human being who experiences the presence of God in their lives.

You're not the only human who thinks they've experience a deity in their life, I'll grant you that. But so what? Reality isn't dictated by the beliefs of the masses. Once upon a time, everyone thought the planets orbited the Earth. Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth and life were spoken into existence a few millennia ago.

How many cultures even have a word for 'faeries'? How many human beings have claimed to experience one personally?

A great many.

Actually there are numerous examples of people relating very accurate information of what occurred in the room during the NDE and even events that occurred nowhere near the body. The Lancet study cites one example of a comatose man who later knew exactly where to locate his missing false teeth. How did he know where to find them?

It's not unheard of for people to process sensory information while comatose. If he were brain dead and still knew where his false teeth were, I'd be more interested.

The Lancet: Near-death experience in survivors of cardiac arrest

How come NDE's occur three to four times more frequently that atheism occurs in any given society and happen to atheist as well?

How come cancer happens three to four times more frequently than atheism, and happens to atheists as well?
The obvious answer is that the two phenomena are unrelated. Atheists experience NDEs for the same reason theists do: their brains are dying.

Actually an eye witness account can and frequently does lead to a conviction in a court of law. "Observation" is pretty much the cornerstone of "science" so evidently humans can and do make accurate observations as well as make mistakes. That's the beauty of being able to replicate an experiment.

The beauty of being able to replicate an experiment is so you don't have to rely on eye-witness testimony: you can go out and do it yourself. And science is hardly established in a court of law.

I just listed several things that might be considered "evidence" of God whereas you listed absolutely nothing that supports string theory.

You made an appeal to popularity (everyone believes it, so it must be true), nothing more.

The intriguing thing here is the fact you don't apply your need for empirical support equally or fairly. In the case of string theory, you evidently ignore it's early failures in particle physics theory and you require no physical justification for string theory. On the other hand you *insist* on seeing empirical evidence of God. Why the double standard? Either you should reject them both for the same reason, or accept them both for the same reason. Why treat string theory any differently than a theory about God?

What's fascinating is that, though I have not once espoused a belief in string theory, you insist that, in fact, I do. You seem to have gotten it in your head that I treat the existence of God any differently than I do the veracity of string theory. Why?

 

[Michael]

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

Well, not exactly. You sort of danced around the fact that you have no empirical support for the idea. Even still you seem to have no trouble accepting string theory as the "best we've got" at understanding the process whereas you reject the concept of God for that very same lack of empirical support.

You're not the only human who thinks they've experience a deity in their life, I'll grant you that. But so what?

So what makes your personal subjective life experience any move valid or relevant than my own or anyone else? Just because you personally have not experienced the presence of God, what makes you think your experience is more valid than anyone else? Just because you may personally have never seen a kangaroo in real life, does that mean nobody that has claimed to see one is telling the truth?

Reality isn't dictated by the beliefs of the masses. Once upon a time, everyone thought the planets orbited the Earth. Once upon a time, everyone thought the Earth and life were spoken into existence a few millennia ago.

So what makes string theory valid (best we've got) and God theory not valid?

It's not unheard of for people to process sensory information while comatose. If he were brain dead and still knew where his false teeth were, I'd be more interested.

That's sort of a handwavy answer if you ask me. They guy was comatose and remained that way throughout the process according the nurse so he could not have seen where his false teeth went.

How come cancer happens three to four times more frequently than atheism, and happens to atheists as well?
The obvious answer is that the two phenomena are unrelated. Atheists experience NDEs for the same reason theists do: their brains are dying.

Why isn't the experience simply "random"? Why do even atheists report meeting God at their physical death? What makes your "interpretation" of these events any more relevant or useful than say Carl Jung or other folks that have a professional background in psychology and have actually experienced an NDE?

Carl Jung - near-death experiences

The beauty of being able to replicate an experiment is so you don't have to rely on eye-witness testimony: you can go out and do it yourself. And science is hardly established in a court of law.

Yet you can't replicate anything related to string theory because strings don't do anything to anything in real experiments. Even still you do not reject that particular theory over a lack of empirical support yet you do reject God over the very same issue. Care to explain?

You made an appeal to popularity (everyone believes it, so it must be true), nothing more.

And you did something different with DE or DM or inflation or string theory?

What's fascinating is that, though I have not once espoused a belief in string theory, you insist that, in fact, I do. You seem to have gotten it in your head that I treat the existence of God any differently than I do the veracity of string theory. Why?

Here was your quote:

It might, though string theory is too speculative for my taste. That said, it's the best we've got at understanding what's going on out there.

How is string theory any "better" than "God did it" in any empirical way? How can it be the "best we've got" when there is no physical evidence of any sort for extra dimensions?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

So what makes your personal subjective life experience any move valid or relevant than my own or anyone else? Just because you personally have not experienced the presence of God, what makes you think your experience is more valid than anyone else?

Nothing whatsoever. Did I lead you to believe otherwise?

Just because you may personally have never seen a kangaroo in real life, does that mean nobody that has claimed to see one is telling the truth?

Of course not: the claim is evaluated on its own merits, not on the amount of people who claim it. And, for the record, I have seen a kangaroo in real life.

So what makes string theory valid (best we've got) and God theory not valid?

Who said that the 'God theory' isn't valid?

That's sort of a handwavy answer if you ask me. They guy was comatose and remained that way throughout the process according the nurse so he could not have seen where his false teeth went.

The point is that, despite his being comatose, he is not totally oblivious to what's going on around him. Without all the facts, I can only speculate as to how he knew where his false teeth were.

Moreover, how do I know that such an event even happened? You could have heard a popular, though apocryphal, legend, or you could even by lying outright. A single anecdote void of any pertinent detail is not the most compelling of cases.

Why isn't the experience simply "random"? Why do even atheists report meeting God at their physical death?

Because 'God' is a ubiquitous concept in our society. Even atheists are aware of the concept of God.

What makes your "interpretation" of these events any more relevant or useful than say Carl Jung or other folks that have a professional background in psychology and have actually experienced an NDE?

Nothing whatsoever. You asked me for my opinion, and I gave it to you.

Yet you can't replicate anything related to string theory because strings don't do anything to anything in real experiments. Even still you do not reject that particular theory over a lack of empirical support yet you do reject God over the very same issue. Care to explain?

Who said I don't reject the theory?

And you did something different with DE or DM or inflation or string theory?

Yes. I never said "Lots of people believe it, so it must be true". I spoke of the theory itself, not its support.

Here was your quote:

It might, though string theory is too speculative for my taste. That said, it's the best we've got at understanding what's going on out there.

How is string theory any "better" than "God did it" in any empirical way? How can it be the "best we've got" when there is no physical evidence of any sort for extra dimensions?

Because the lack of physical evidence for one particular aspect of the theory does not change the fact that, compared to the alternatives, it is the best we've got. I never said it was any good, or that it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, or that it made testable predictions, or that it was supported by the scientific consensus, or even that I subscribed to it myself. All I said was that it is the best we've got. You seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist over something I didn't even say.

 

[Laetetia]

Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death 0_0

 

[laconicstudent]

Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death 0_0

No it isn't. Scientific evidence is peer-reviewed, not a .org of a webpage that would have an obvious bias.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientific evidence for survival of consciousness after death 0_0

I'm disinclined to trust testimony from a site called 'www.near-death.com'. A clinical, double-blind study published in a peer-reviewed journal would be much better.

After all, we can all find websites where people espouse this or that. I've seen websites that 'prove' that mathematics is fundamentally wrong, or that Obama is a Muslim Kenyan, or that the British Monarchy are reptilian aliens.

 

[Laetetia]

There are studies being done,
Scientists Study Out-of-Body Experiences - ABC News
BBC - Today
Some results are noted here,
Near-death experiences are real and we have the proof, say scientists
So the possibility can't be ruled out.

 

[Michael]

Because the lack of physical evidence for one particular aspect of the theory does not change the fact that, compared to the alternatives, it is the best we've got. I never said it was any good, or that it was proven beyond all reasonable doubt, or that it made testable predictions, or that it was supported by the scientific consensus, or even that I subscribed to it myself. All I said was that it is the best we've got. You seem to have gotten your knickers in a twist over something I didn't even say.

Hmmm, somehow we're still talking past one another. Let me try it this way.

Your very same set of statements could just as equally apply to "God theory". Compared to the alternatives, it is the 'best we have' to work with. It might not be valid, but it does explain NDE's. It does explain why human beings throughout recorded history report having a "relationship" with "God". It goes a long way to explaining why only 4% of the planet considers themselves to be an "atheist" and why the planet as a whole is overwhelmingly theistic and always has been.

Compared to the alternatives, "God theory" is the best "science" has to offer. It may lack empirical support, but what theory of creation does not lack empirical support?

 

[Michael]

FYI, that paper on NDE's that I cited was published in the Lancet, a respected scientific journal.

 

[AV1611VET]

At Absolute Zero --- (0K) --- do the electrons still orbit the nucleus?

 

[Cabal]

At Absolute Zero --- (0K) --- do the electrons still orbit the nucleus?

You can't reach absolute zero. And electrons don't really orbit the nucleus either, if they were they'd be bleeding energy in the form of EM radiation.

Uncertainty principle won't allow it. No vibration or motion would mean an exact knowledge of position and momentum. This is why all quantum mechanical systems have a nonzero zero-point energy term, and it's also why electrons don't collide with the nucleus.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't reach absolute zero. And electrons don't really orbit the nucleus either, if they were they'd be bleeding energy in the form of EM radiation.

Uncertainty principle won't allow it. No vibration or motion would mean an exact knowledge of position and momentum. This is why all quantum mechanical systems have a nonzero zero-point energy term, and it's also why electrons don't collide with the nucleus.

There went my respect for electrons.

 

[Jazmyn]

The answer to my last one was you can't take a pic. with a wooden leg, well done AV!
Sorry, I ain't got a clue where Alberquerque is.

My next one...Bwahahahahahah!
This one requires a little insider knowledge,

A detective arrives on the scene of a death. A man was sitting slumped in a chair with a pencil clenched in one hand, and a bottle of half drunk cyanide in the other. In front of him on a desk was a suicide letter. After taking one look at the body the detective knew for a fact that the man was murdered. How?

 

[AV1611VET]

The answer to my last one was you can't take a pic. with a wooden leg, well done AV!

Thank you, Jazmyn!

A detective arrives on the scene of a death. A man was sitting slumped in a chair with a pencil clenched in one hand, and a bottle of half drunk cyanide in the other. In front of him on a desk was a suicide letter. After taking one look at the body the detective knew for a fact that the man was murdered. How?

This is a guess, but wouldn't death by cyanide poisoning entail the man going into convulsions?

 

[Cabal]

There went my respect for electrons.

Don't worry, they appreciate being negative.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't worry, they appreciate being negative.

--- good one!

They don't get any respect though.

Aren't they written as going from positive to negative on blueprints as a matter of tradition?