String Theory Co-Founder: Sub-Atomic Particles Are Evidence the Universe Was Created

[jeager106]

I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HUMANS DIE!
BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND I CAN PROVE IT!


THEY ROT!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. AND STINK!
NOTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD STINKS LIKE ROTTING HUMAN!

There ya have it.

 

[viole]

I posted the video because I didn't want to be rude by saying that you didn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about.

Yoo posted the video because you have no clue of what you are talking about, I am afraid. You cannot even tell me at what point in the video it says that relativity
is violated.

It is common practice among people who ignore a certain subject, but somehow believe they can debate it.

They google, google, google until they find something that contains a sentence that makes their point (in this case, you did not even manage that), no matter, how out of context or how useless. And since there is mile high of crap out there on the Internet when it comes to modern science, particularly QM, chances are they pick a crappy site. Because they still have no clue. Obviously.

So, I can show you that relativity is not violated at all (as everybody should know, since it is still orthodoxy). I promise I do not delegate my explanations to some yuotube video

But, in order to do that, I need to know your level, in order to adapt my explanation accordingly. Do you know something like density matrixes, at least?
They are very important in giving a quantitative measure of entanglement, and whether local statistical information can really be affected non-locally (spoiler: it can't). There is even a theorem about that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Etritonakin]

I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN HUMANS DIE!
BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF A DOUBT AND I CAN PROVE IT!


THEY ROT!
EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. AND STINK!
NOTHING ELSE IN THE WORLD STINKS LIKE ROTTING HUMAN!

There ya have it.

When they cast their bread upon the waters, they will find it again after many days.



That requires that another re-member them -but another does.

The same that originated them.

The fact that we exist in the first place is far more wonderful and complicated than potentially existing again.

All of the work has been done -it is just a matter of replicating it -but it should be acknowledged that our existence required work.

 

[Etritonakin]

Yoo posted the video because you have no clue of what you are talking about, I am afraid. You cannot even tell me at what point in the video it says that relativity
is violated.

It is common practice among people who ignore a certain subject, but somehow believe they can debate it.

They google, google, google until they find something that contains a sentence that makes their point (in this case, you did not even manage that), no matter, how out of context or how useless. And since there is mile high of crap out there on the Internet when it comes to modern science, particularly QM, chances are they pick a crappy site. Because they still have no clue. Obviously.

So, I can show you that relativity is not violated at all (as everybody should know, since it is still orthodoxy). I promise I do not delegate my explanations to some yuotube video

But, in order to do that, I need to know your level, in order to adapt my explanation accordingly. Do you know something like density matrixes, at least?
They are very important in giving a quantitative measure of entanglement, and whether local statistical information can really be affected non-locally (spoiler: it can't). There is even a theorem about that.

Ciao

- viole

I like what you said about the energy of the universe being zero -or whatever you actually said.

As I read that, I considered the universe as a circuit.

A circuit is essentially a balance -zero -caused to be an imbalance -less and more than zero -a potential -moving back toward zero potential.
The path back to zero need not be direct -but can be of any configuration.

For our universe to exist, something must have been able to move positive and negative from zero.

For our universe -and ourselves -to continue to exist, perhaps the original balance must eternally be avoided.

For an original imbalance of the original balance to exist, something must have existed to oppose the original imbalance -or increasingly maintain it it on either side of the equation.......

Lost my train of thought...... but I was also wondering... if God is "one"..... and nothing can truly be created or destroyed -added or subtracted...

then infinity would be an infinite subdivision of "one".

 

[Zosimus]

I will simplify. Photons are in a quantum state which prove all exeriments for QM. However at the same time the photon is the standard in which experiments show general relativity exists.

According to theory all the mass that a photon would have is in the form of energy.

The gravitational attraction as described above is due to a photon warping spacetime.

Okay, here's my generalized answer.

Imagine that I have a theory about evaporation. My theory works perfectly except when humidity levels are 100 percent. In fact, studies show that even at 99 percent humidity, my theory works quite badly. When you mention this to me I say, "But my theory is about water and humidity levels are water, the standard in which experiments show that my theory exists."

How would you respond to me?

 

[Zosimus]

No, you made a mathematical claim but provided no math to back it up. You claimed we have a better chance of finding a randomly assembled watch than a cell, but you don't even give us the percentage, or even your variables that allowed you to reach this conclusion.

Just because you believe it doesn't make it true, and this "not too late" doesn't scare or bother many people. I see the idea of some human-looking god who is going to judge us to eternal bliss or eternal damnation is less likely than eternal oblivion. We have absolutely no proof or evidence of this, it doesn't make sense when you consider all of the factors and variables, there are issues when you ask questions of those who came before Christ and those who never heard of him, and Christians themselves do not even have a consensus on what exactly happens after we die. But it's a reasonable assumption that when we die, we die. It's easier to state that life is only a dream, because we can even confuse a dream for reality, and our life ending is much like a dream ending.

The smallest known viroid contains 246 nucleobases. There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue. However, we're going to do a math calculation that supposes that:

1. The exact right number of nucleobases exists in some hypothetical primordial soup.
2. These nucleobases are going to actually unite to form a chain of some sort.
3. If the first nucleobase pair is correct, its corresponding match will automatically fall into place.

With these assumptions, what are the chances that the smallest possible viroid could self-assemble? The answer is 4^123 or about 1.13 x 10^74

What are the chances that a watch could self-assemble?

It takes 115 pieces to make a common watch. Assuming that all the pieces are magically available and that they are going to unite to make a watch of some sort, what's the chance that they will self-assemble? The answer is 115! or about 2.59 x 10^114 times more difficult for a watch to self-assemble than for a viroid to self-assemble (given the assumptions in question).

Obviously, cells are more complicated than are viroids.

 

[Zosimus]

Yoo posted the video because you have no clue of what you are talking about, I am afraid. You cannot even tell me at what point in the video it says that relativity
is violated.

It is common practice among people who ignore a certain subject, but somehow believe they can debate it.

They google, google, google until they find something that contains a sentence that makes their point (in this case, you did not even manage that), no matter, how out of context or how useless. And since there is mile high of crap out there on the Internet when it comes to modern science, particularly QM, chances are they pick a crappy site. Because they still have no clue. Obviously.

So, I can show you that relativity is not violated at all (as everybody should know, since it is still orthodoxy). I promise I do not delegate my explanations to some yuotube video

But, in order to do that, I need to know your level, in order to adapt my explanation accordingly. Do you know something like density matrixes, at least?

You claimed that quantum entanglement can be explained by simply having a blue ball in one box and a red ball in another and having both boxes opened at some point during the trip. This is a laughably simple comparison. However, I must admit that the first time the concept was explained to me, I thought that it might be possible for two people to demonstrate quantum entanglement by having a secret number between 1 and 360 dictating how they would respond in all cases. However, then I saw http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet-1.18255 and realized that my secret variable theory was gasping its dying breath.

This is not surprising. I'm a pretty smart guy. In fact, I may be the smartest guy around (though I doubt it). But no one is smarter than 1,000 people put together. Other people already thought of my clever idea and have tested to determine whether it could be ruled out.

The current best theory is that the two photons communicate somehow at a speed that exceeds 10,000 times the speed of light. Sorry, Einstein.

They are very important in giving a quantitative measure of entanglement, and whether local statistical information can really be affected non-locally (spoiler: it can't). There is even a theorem about that.

Ciao

- viole

This latest experiment compared individual entangled particles and detected them individually. Thus, we are not talking about "statistical information," which is what is often measured since most of the entangled particles in earlier experiments could not be detected and thus experimenters had to assume that the sampled particles were statistically representative of the unmeasured particles.

See also
Quantum Entanglement Experiment Proves 'Non-Locality' For First Time.

Accordingly, I consider your claim that "statistically information [cannot] really be affected non-locally" dubious.

 

[jeager106]

Here is a simple explanation of evolution.
Life sprang into existence from pond scum just like the encyclopedia sprang
from an explosion in a print shop.
One wonders how many print shops exploding it would take to produce
a dictionary?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue.

nucleobases and nucleobase analogs (structurally similar to the 5 found in life on earth) have been detected in meteorites for more than 50 years, and are unlikely to be contamination. (http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html and http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar...oids/meteorites-deliver-nucleobases-to-earth/ ) These simple molecules, along with amino acids, sugars, alcohols, and a large number of other organic compounds form naturally under lots of different conditions, and have been detected in both meteorites and interstellar clouds. The ease with which they are formed under a variety of laboratory and natural conditions suggest that there would have been lots of these molecules on Earth and elsewhere in the early solar system.

The odds of such compounds getting together to form life in a chemically rich, energy rich liquid environment are not anywhere near as low as you present. The answer is simple: viroids and other life forms did NOT spontaneously self-assemble, but were built up from simpler arrangements of molecules.

If there are nucleobases floating around in a sample of water that contains many other organic compounds, what are the odds that they will spontaneously form simple links with other molecules? Quite high, actually. As time passes and energy flows through the sample, and more compounds are formed, what are the odds that bigger and bigger molecules will form? Again, quite likely. And so on, making larger and more complex chemicals...

And all it takes is once (even if it is still unlikely), when there are lots of these larger molecules available, for all the most primitive forms of everything necessary for a cell to come together, for something to start acting like life, to become living. Once that happens once, you have life...

Developed through small incremental steps, not some miracle of everything having to instantly assemble in just the right way to function. Of course that is unlikely; but incremental development makes it much more likely, even very likely, given that all of the complex chemicals of life (DNA, proteins, cell membranes, etc.) are actually made up of simpler structures that are quite common (sugars, fats, alcohols, acids, bases, etc.).

 

[viole]

You claimed that quantum entanglement can be explained by simply having a blue ball in one box and a red ball in another and having both boxes opened at some point during the trip. This is a laughably simple comparison. However, I must admit that the first time the concept was explained to me, I thought that it might be possible for two people to demonstrate quantum entanglement by having a secret number between 1 and 360 dictating how they would respond in all cases. However, then I saw http://www.nature.com/news/quantum-spookiness-passes-toughest-test-yet-1.18255 and realized that my secret variable theory was gasping its dying breath.

This is not surprising. I'm a pretty smart guy. In fact, I may be the smartest guy around (though I doubt it). But no one is smarter than 1,000 people put together. Other people already thought of my clever idea and have tested to determine whether it could be ruled out.

The current best theory is that the two photons communicate somehow at a speed that exceeds 10,000 times the speed of light. Sorry, Einstein.

Then you should read further, if you were really so smart. Actually, you should not if you knew that already. One of the first reference on the articles you posted: http://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435. And this is taken from it:

'Although the two camps disagree on whether Bell experiments imply faster-than-light causal influences, neither think that these experiments allow faster-than-light communication. Faster-than-light communication has never been observed.'

So, what about your claim that photons communicate at 10,000 times the speed of light? Did you just make it up?

Ciao

- viole

 

[First Baseman]

I found a watch the other day. I wonder how many millions of years it took for all the parts to just randomly come together?

 

[Zosimus]

nucleobases and nucleobase analogs (structurally similar to the 5 found in life on earth) have been detected in meteorites for more than 50 years, and are unlikely to be contamination. (http://www.space.com/12569-meteorites-dna-building-blocks-discovery.html and http://www.astrobio.net/topic/solar...oids/meteorites-deliver-nucleobases-to-earth/ ) These simple molecules, along with amino acids, sugars, alcohols, and a large number of other organic compounds form naturally under lots of different conditions, and have been detected in both meteorites and interstellar clouds. The ease with which they are formed under a variety of laboratory and natural conditions suggest that there would have been lots of these molecules on Earth and elsewhere in the early solar system.

Dubious. Yes, some organic molecules have been found in meteorites found in Antarctica, but not the nucleobases needed to form life, and in concentrations of several parts per billion.

The odds of such compounds getting together to form life in a chemically rich, energy rich liquid environment are not anywhere near as low as you present. The answer is simple: viroids and other life forms did NOT spontaneously self-assemble, but were built up from simpler arrangements of molecules.

Assumes facts not in evidence.

If there are nucleobases floating around in a sample of water that contains many other organic compounds, what are the odds that they will spontaneously form simple links with other molecules? Quite high, actually. As time passes and energy flows through the sample, and more compounds are formed, what are the odds that bigger and bigger molecules will form? Again, quite likely. And so on, making larger and more complex chemicals...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

And all it takes is once (even if it is still unlikely), when there are lots of these larger molecules available, for all the most primitive forms of everything necessary for a cell to come together, for something to start acting like life, to become living. Once that happens once, you have life...

Assumes facts not in evidence.

Developed through small incremental steps, not some miracle of everything having to instantly assemble in just the right way to function. Of course that is unlikely; but incremental development makes it much more likely, even very likely, given that all of the complex chemicals of life (DNA, proteins, cell membranes, etc.) are actually made up of simpler structures that are quite common (sugars, fats, alcohols, acids, bases, etc.).

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[Zosimus]

Then you should read further, if you were really so smart. Actually, you should not if you knew that already. One of the first reference on the articles you posted: http://www.nature.com/news/physics-bell-s-theorem-still-reverberates-1.15435. And this is taken from it:

'Although the two camps disagree on whether Bell experiments imply faster-than-light causal influences, neither think that these experiments allow faster-than-light communication. Faster-than-light communication has never been observed.'

So, what about your claim that photons communicate at 10,000 times the speed of light? Did you just make it up?

Ciao

- viole

http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/quantum-weirdnes-wins-again-entangl-2008-08-13/
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...n-acts-at-10000-times-the-speed-of-light.html
http://www.isciencetimes.com/articl...ree-way-quantum-communication-light-speed.htm
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...stance-at-least-10000-times-faster-than-light
http://www.listland.com/top-10-cool...e-10000-times-faster-than-the-speed-of-light/

pwned

 

[Ouroboros]

There are 4 possible nucleobases.

No. 5 possible. (You probably forgot uracil)

Or rather 5 existing in nature. Not sure it's not possible to have other nucleobases that could work in similar ways. It's only 5 that's used in our biosphere.

These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue.

I think they found A and G in some meteorite few years ago.

Besides, a viroid isn't living tissue. So to say that nucleobases only exists in living tissue isn't correct.

 

[Zosimus]

No. 5 possible. (You probably forgot uracil)

No, I excluded thymine because it doesn't occur in viroids.

Besides, a viroid isn't living tissue. So to say that nucleobases only exists in living tissue isn't correct.

This is debatable. People also debate whether viruses are alive. I made several generous assumptions in my mathematical computations.

 

[Ouroboros]

No, I excluded thymine because it doesn't occur in viroids.

Ah. You weren't clear on that.

This is debatable. People also debate whether viruses are alive. I made several generous assumptions in my mathematical computations.

Isn't tissue a collection of cells forming a wall? What about blood cells? They don't have nucleobases? And viroids are only found in tissue? Do you have any link to an article about this, because it sounds very, very strange to me.

This has nothing to do with if viruses are alive or not, but what rather what constitutes tissue. Here's one definition of tissue (took it from Wikipedia, and I think it's close to what I think of what tissue is): "A tissue is an ensemble of similar cells from the same origin that together carry out a specific function."

So it does sound to me that you're saying that the 4 nucleobases of viroids can only be found in the ensemble of viroids and nowhere else.

Well, hate to break it to you, but those 4 nucleobases exist in bacteria, human, plants, animals, and all other living organisms besides viroids.

Besides, NASA have made nucleobases artificially in lab for the purpose to show how they can form in space (since they've found several of them in asteroids in the past): http://www.space.com/29057-life-building-blocks-created-nasa-lab.html

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The smallest known viroid contains 246 nucleobases. There are 4 possible nucleobases. These nucleobases have never been found in nature outside of living tissue. However, we're going to do a math calculation that supposes that:

1. The exact right number of nucleobases exists in some hypothetical primordial soup.
2. These nucleobases are going to actually unite to form a chain of some sort.
3. If the first nucleobase pair is correct, its corresponding match will automatically fall into place.

With these assumptions, what are the chances that the smallest possible viroid could self-assemble? The answer is 4^123 or about 1.13 x 10^74

What are the chances that a watch could self-assemble?

It takes 115 pieces to make a common watch. Assuming that all the pieces are magically available and that they are going to unite to make a watch of some sort, what's the chance that they will self-assemble? The answer is 115! or about 2.59 x 10^114 times more difficult for a watch to self-assemble than for a viroid to self-assemble (given the assumptions in question).

Obviously, cells are more complicated than are viroids.

Obviously, your math is wrong because there is no chance for a watch to self-assemble. The chance of it happening isn't 115, but 0.

 

[atanu]

You don't agree God of Spinoza is a form of dual-aspect pantheistic God?

Dual aspect monism is more Panentheism than pantheism, as I understand.

 

[McBell]

Here is a simple explanation of evolution.
Life sprang into existence from pond scum just like the encyclopedia sprang
from an explosion in a print shop.
One wonders how many print shops exploding it would take to produce
a dictionary?

except you have not explained evolution in your post.
You explained abiogenesis.

 

[Ouroboros]

Dual aspect monism is more Panentheism than pantheism, as I understand.

Agree. It is. Few understand what panentheism is, so it's usually easier to just address it with the more common pantheism. Panentheism is just pantheism with a little extra twist to it. Everything (pan) is after all something that would include all -en- as well.

Pan-en-theism is basically putting the universe that we live in as the "all" or "pan", and -en- addressed what lies beyond the universe or pan. But, if all is really everything, then whatever exists beyond and outside our universe would also be part of that all or pan.

So in my view, panentheism is a form of pantheism. It's just an extra categorization to make it a bit more specific. Just like when we talk about Earth being a sphere. It isn't. It is an oblate spheorid, i.e. a form of "sphere".