Plenty of proponents of Evolution may not believe in a god, but that's not from within the framework of the Theory of Evolution it self, nor does it predict that there is no god. The problem isn't the notion of a god existing, but that god created all clades of life as they are.
So what would be a good name for the type of "creationism" that I described and defined? It seems like the word "creationism" it self implies this more general definition while "Intelligent Design" implies the more specific belief that Christian Creationists propose. Though I do understand that...
In other words, proponents of Intelligent Design can't propose what a non-designed phenomenon ought to be like. Or they're indirectly proposing that non-designed things simply can't exist for some unfounded reason.
Creationism, the notion that the universe was created by some higher being, doesn't necessarily go against the Theory of Evolution. What goes against Evolution is Intelligent Design. The idea that all of the specific features of various life forms were intentionally designed as they are, rather...
I see two sides to this argument which have to do with defining what a Theory of Everything really is.
One way to see it is a theory that explains all of physics and unifies all [current] theories of physics. Another way is that the ToE simply explains everything, and probably unifies all...
Followers of various religions and superstitions nitpick at scientific facts and findings that support their closed-minded world view while ignoring scientific facts that go against it. Does that count?
Our brains receive signals from the environment through our five senses. That's interaction. The brain is also self-interacting because the neurons interact with each other.
Our brains control every aspect of our body, so to say that our bodies interact but our brains don't is rather nonsensical.
That's probably what should be addressed is in this discussion is the issue with infinity coming up in the math. As the wiki page suggests, the infinity characteristics may only be a feature of the mathematics and not an actual physical feature. I found this page that breaks the issue down even...
Honestly my points have been quite simple and specific.
1. Frequency equates to energy flux, power (work per unit time), and density. It does NOT equate to total energy.
2. Extracting zero-point energy relies on quantum fluctuations (waiting for the surge in power to happen).
If you want to...
I do hope you don't ignore this critically important post, Hockycowboy. At the very least, see if you understand what is said here.
It should also be noted that ERV patterns in the genome independently show the same phylogeny (form the same cladograms) as the fossil record, embryology and...
I've already read about Dr. Mead. I know what he did.
No. It determines power, energy flux and energy density, not total energy.
Think of a gamma ray (high frequency) hitting an object for 1 nanosecond vs radiowaves (low frequency) hitting an object for a billion years. Which object receives...
i.e. relying on quantum fluctuations, which is out of our control.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
"Turning again to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle one finds that the lifetime of a given zero-point photon, viewed as a wave, corresponds to an average distance traveled of only a...
Zero-Point Energy is still the ground state of a quantum mechanical system. It's the reason things can't be cooled down to absolute zero as all quantum mechanical systems have an intrinsic non-zero ground state.
Frequency doesn't necessarily equate to total energy either...
"Might as well consider it infinite."
Uhh... no! A finite number is a finite number no matter how large it is. 1e+94 grams of energy is finite and isn't enough to achieve light speed. Also, why is that site measuring energy in grams and not joules?!
The problem with zero-point energy is, it...
I already agreed that this is theoretically possible. Warp Drive would be a sort of bypass of the cosmic speed limit, but it's not true FTL travel, technically speaking. Rather, the distance ahead of the ship, effectively, is being shortened. For a distant observer, it would appear FTL, but it...
At the end of the day, this needs to be experimentally verified. A bunch of math on it's own doesn't prove anything. Experiments > math, and there's no current experiments or observations that show that light speed is attainable.
Math is used to describe things and predict things. But it...
All science is science. There's no dinosaur science (except for science about actual dinosaurs) or advanced post-modern science. There's just science.
Zero Point Energy doesn't provide infinite energy. Infinitesimal wavelength doesn't equate to infinite energy.
Pumping enough energy into a...
The thing is though, we know mass can't accelerate pass the speed of light. It's experimentally verified in all particle accelerators around the world. No matter how much energy we put into propelling something in a given direction, we can't get it to light speed. It's like saying that one day...