We Live In An Electrical Simulation

[Divide]

Quoting sentence fragments is far less persuasive than you think it is.

Who ever heard of a narrow minded scientist? I thought it was scientists job to discover new truths. You don't do that by being narrow minded.

 

[Hans Blaster]

His first evidence is that words exist?

Yikes, good grief. What nonsense.

Then noticing that something exists: therefore God?

Really?

And the human genome is the longest word in the world? That’s ridiculous.

The height of ignorance.

Then he just goes on about fine tuning? Arguments from incredulity?

(Sorry Lennox. Not all physicists think "fine tuning" is that remarkable, or even present.)


Lennox is insufferable. One of the most arrogant apologists out there. His arguments are the same as used by the weakest of YouTube apologists and with only a thin veneer of "erudition" to smooth them over.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Who ever heard of a narrow minded scientist? I thought it was scientists job to discover new truths. You don't do that by being narrow minded.

You weren't trying to explain "new truths". You were using a short phrase as a cudgel in an argument. I remain unimpressed with your rhetoric.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Chuck Missler is no heretic.

I don't really care. I'm not in your religion, so I don't care who gets labeled as a heretic or not.

The article that Chuck refrenced in the video is from Scientific American June 2005 and that was wrotten by two scientist guys. A blurb:

/"The constants are a tantalizing mystery. Every equation of physics is filled with them, and they seem so prosaic that people tend to forget how unaccountable their values are. Their origin is bound up with some of the grandest questions of modern science, from the unification of physics to the expansion of the universe. They may be the superficial shadow of a structure larger and more complex than the three-dimensional universe we witness around us. Determining whether constants are truly constant is only the first step on a path that leads to a deeper and wider appreciation of that ultimate vista.../(Scientific American June 2005)

Inconstant Constants

Do the inner workings of nature change with time?

www.scientificamerican.com

There's a lot of talk about string theory in that article. String theory has contributed nothing useful to physics in 40 years. At this point it's mostly just an annoyance now.

The variation of physical constants discussed in the SciAm article is at best very small and very slow. A review of the more recent literature (this is a nearly 20 year old SciAm article based on 20-year-old scientific results), shows that there has been no definitive measurement of change and the error bars remain consistent with no change at all.

Are these guys heretics also?!

Physics isn't a religion. It doesn't have "heretics".

There's even stuff to play with in the article for our Math Whiz. So...Psuedo Science? Really?

The electric universe is pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with tiny variations in the physical constants.

Has Hans been published in Scentific American?

And why would that matter? SciAm is not the primary literature. It is a popular science publication for the masses.

This is real science, not something I made up. Or Chuck Missler! You have no clue.

Real *old* science. Just because some preacher talked about it in a talk to the OathKeepers long ago doesn't make it useful. It just demonstrates he is grasping for scientific support (such as it is) for his religious worldview. It's to bad

 

[sjastro]

Chuck Missler is no heretic. The article that Chuck refrenced in the video is from Scientific American June 2005 and that was wrotten by two scientist guys. A blurb:

/"The constants are a tantalizing mystery. Every equation of physics is filled with them, and they seem so prosaic that people tend to forget how unaccountable their values are. Their origin is bound up with some of the grandest questions of modern science, from the unification of physics to the expansion of the universe. They may be the superficial shadow of a structure larger and more complex than the three-dimensional universe we witness around us. Determining whether constants are truly constant is only the first step on a path that leads to a deeper and wider appreciation of that ultimate vista.../(Scientific American June 2005)

Inconstant Constants

Do the inner workings of nature change with time?

www.scientificamerican.com

Are these guys heretics also?!

There's even stuff to play with in the article for our Math Whiz. So...Psuedo Science? Really? Has Hans been published in Scentific American? This is real science, not something I made up. Or Chuck Missler! You have no clue.

Congratulations you have single handedly destroyed Missler's video by showing he has contradicted himself by referring to the Scientific American article.
From the article;

Variation in α of a few parts per million should have a completely negligible effect on the expansion of the universe. That is because electromagnetism is much weaker than gravity on cosmic scales.

In the video Missler states around the 17 minute mark onwards astronomers and mathematicians apparently don’t know the electromagnetic force is 10³⁶X greater than gravity and is therefore the dominant force in the universe including at cosmic scales.

What Missler doesn't know is astronomers, mathematicians and the authors of the Scientific American article do know is the range of the electromagnetic force is limited for the reasons given in an earlier post in this thread.

(4) Electromagnetic forces are “10³⁶" times greater than gravitational forces, doesn’t take into consideration is that electromagnetic forces are screened by a mechanism known as Debye shielding.
The visible matter in the universe in the intergalactic medium is composed of plasma at a number density of 1 nₑ(m⁻³) which screens the electromagnetic force and greatly reduces its range force down to around 10⁵ m which is insignificant at cosmological scales.

Apart from the glaring contradiction is the sheer nonsense to think the article in anyway supports creationism.

 

[Divide]

I don't really care. I'm not in your religion, so I don't care who gets labeled as a heretic or not.

There's a lot of talk about string theory in that article. String theory has contributed nothing useful to physics in 40 years. At this point it's mostly just an annoyance now.

The variation of physical constants discussed in the SciAm article is at best very small and very slow. A review of the more recent literature (this is a nearly 20 year old SciAm article based on 20-year-old scientific results), shows that there has been no definitive measurement of change and the error bars remain consistent with no change at all.


Physics isn't a religion. It doesn't have "heretics".

The electric universe is pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with tiny variations in the physical constants.

And why would that matter? SciAm is not the primary literature. It is a popular science publication for the masses.

Real *old* science. Just because some preacher talked about it in a talk to the OathKeepers long ago doesn't make it useful. It just demonstrates he is grasping for scientific support (such as it is) for his religious worldview. It's to bad

I know you're not the one who called him a liar and heretic. But I sort of was talking to all of you nay sayers about that.. For awhile there I thought you was a cut above those other guys because sometimes you make reasonable statements. But since you have clearly joined the camp of the trolls it shouldn't matter if I reply once for all.

 

[Divide]

The electric universe is pseudoscience. It has nothing to do with tiny variations in the physical constants.

How would you even know? You appaently do not have the knowledge to refute the science put forward scientiffically, or else you scientist would have.

Why are you more like a troll and less like a scientist? That's not very professional, Professor. Are you like that to your collegues also?

I think you're retired, divorced and used to be in it. So you sit alone and lash out towards science since they prolly screwed you on your way out. Oh and God, for some reason you seem angry at God. Not very much fun to talk to.

 

[Hans Blaster]

How would you even know?

I've read electric universe materials. I've watched their videos. It's all bunk.

You appaently do not have the knowledge to refute the science put forward scientiffically, or else you scientist would have.

(I'm assuming you left the "s" off scientists.) Oh I do. It's a matter of time. Debunking nonsense take time and the hard-core believers rarely change their mind anyway. The most you can do is warn off the curious.

There are numerous debunks of various aspects of the electric universe on the web including many threads on this site. I believe a couple of them are linked in this very thread. (Scroll backward for the posts of @sjastro

Most scientists put pseudo-science on "ignore". They're not fully wrong, but some of it festers because of claims like the one you made in the form "well if the evidence is against it why don't the scientists prove it". (I'm sure that's some sort of fallacy.)

Why are you more like a troll and less like a scientist?

[why-not-both.gif]

That's not very professional, Professor.

I'm not paid to post here.

I was curt, abrupt, and dismissive of electric universe. I was not trolling. (To get away with that here, you need a badge.)

Are you like that to your collegues also?

It depends. If a colleague put forth the electric universe I would first ask if they were pulling my leg, but if they insisted on it, well. I would admonish them for falling for such obvious garbage and insert a few choice expletives and comments on their reasoning skills. (Face it, it would be well deserved.)

I think you're retired, divorced and used to be in it.

Wrong on all three counts. I'm still fully active in physics and I've never been married.

So you sit alone and lash out towards science since they prolly screwed you on your way out.

It is pseudoscience that I despise because it damages the thing that I love -- actual science. You should really stop this psycho analysis. You are getting it all wrong.

Oh and God, for some reason you seem angry at God. Not very much fun to talk to.

Your god doesn't interest me. I am not angry at the non-existent. (The Church on the other hand...)

 

[JohnEmmett]

Your god doesn't interest me. I am not angry at the non-existent. (The Church on the other hand...)

As if you said to your parents they do not exist

 

[Divide]

Your god doesn't interest me. I am not angry at the non-existent. (The Church on the other hand...)

So what are you mad at the church for? Is that why your here? I've often wondered why do Atheists like to hang out on the Christian boards? Taking out some anger on the Christians are you? Is it because we speak the truth? Here's a truth for you right out of the Bible:

Romans 1:20
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:.../KJV

So according to this scripture, you speak untruths when you say that you do not believe in God. So you do know the truth, wayyy down inside of you.

Red faced yet? Response will be some continuing obnoxiousness I'm sure.

John 15:18
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.../KJV

Ok now wer're getting somewhere. You are angry at God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So what are you mad at the church for?

I hate the way The Church teaches its members that it alone has the path to salvation.
I hate the way The Church tries to force itself on civil society.
I hate the way The Church keeps power internally only to the elites and annoited leaders, and
I especially hate the way The Church used the congregation's deference to shelter sexual predators around the world.

(But that's not why I left. I left because I did not believe. Then I realized how truly awful they were.)

Is that why your here?

I already told you. I am at CF for the pseudoscience take-downs. Especially that electric universe fantasy.

I've often wondered why do Atheists like to hang out on the Christian boards?

I hang out on a science, politics, and current events discussion board run by Christians that also has a whole bunch of sections I've never even tried reading. (None of which I can participate in.) Those parts don't interest me in the slightest. I do like the smaller nature of this site and broad discussions over some of the larger venues or more focused ones. CF is the weird place where I am forced to make a selection about my religious preference. I chose to be honest in my total non-belief. What I get for that choice is Christians making assumptions about me and attacking me for my non-belief when it is completely unrelated to the topic of the thread or post.

Taking out some anger on the Christians are you? Is it because we speak the truth? Here's a truth for you right out of the Bible:

[Snip] I don't do bible, and definitely not that poor translation.

Ok now wer're getting somewhere. You are angry at God.

Stop with the psychoanalysis, your just dodging the questions on the electric universe fraud. (And it would be odd to be angry at what one does not believe exists.)

 

[Divide]

I already told you. I am at CF for the pseudoscience take-downs. Especially that electric universe fantasy.

So you're just here to be a troublemaker. And you refuse to academically refute anything, makes sense.

So why would a scientist spend his off time insulting Chritians and their faith? Busniess must be slow for you. Nothing more than a troll who is not worth talking to.

 

[Divide]

just dodging the questions

You seem to be good at that.

 

[Hans Blaster]

So you're just here to be a troublemaker. And you refuse to academically refute anything, makes sense.

So why would a scientist spend his off time insulting Chritians and their faith? Busniess must be slow for you. Nothing more than a troll who is not worth talking to.

I don't insult your faith, I just don't care about it. It means nothing to me.

Do you want to discuss the claims of the electric simulation thing or do you even understand it?

 

[Divide]

I don't insult your faith, I just don't care about it. It means nothing to me.

Do you want to discuss the claims of the electric simulation thing or do you even understand it?

Haha, that's funny. A little while ago you said it was too involved and you dont want to do it.

I believe that...if you really didn't care about my faith, you wouldn't be so obnoxious. You're angry and are admittedly here to cause trouble for Christians. That's pretty lame buddy. I'm starting to doubt that you are a real scientist. From your words.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Haha, that's funny. A little while ago you said it was too involved and you dont want to do it.

I believe that...if you really didn't care about my faith, you wouldn't be so obnoxious. You're angry and are admittedly here to cause trouble for Christians. That's pretty lame buddy. I'm starting to doubt that you are a real scientist. From your words.

We're done until you want to post something scientific. On this thread that would be related to the electric universe/simulation notion of the thread title.

 

[Divide]

We're done until you want to post something scientific. On this thread that would be related to the electric universe/simulation notion of the thread title.

Ditto buddy. Did I not say that to you already? Lol.

 

[Divide]

We're done until you want to post something scientific.

Wow, does that mean you will leave the thread and take your whining somewhere else? So my christian viewpoints are sprinkled with Biblical knowledge, which you refuse. So...thank you for going away. You said that stuff don't interst you? Stand behind that if you want to.

One down maybe 3 to go, lol.

Oh, God Bless you brother and give you wisdom and understanding! Lol!

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm going to try rebooting this thread.

It's already been proven now that we live in an electrial smulatton.

Hardly. Now where is the evidence if it is true?

 

[sjastro]

One down maybe 3 to go, lol.

You are a silly little man with a big chip on your shoulder with your personal attacks on individuals whose only fault is to be more educated and knowledgeable on the science than you can ever possibly hope to be.

Since you want to justify your prejudices with Biblical quotes here is an appropriate one.

Proverbs 15:14
14 The discerning heart seeks knowledge, but the mouth of a fool feeds on folly.