The Watchmaker Revisited

[godnotgod]

I dismiss you and the misuse of the video.

Of course you do, and that's because you haven't a leg to stand on.

 

[godnotgod]

As to this Tong, you are harping on about.

Note the words you used, “theoretical physicist”.

I don’t accept anything from theoretical physicists until they have empirical and verifiable evidences to back up their proposed models.

Theoretical physics are only “proposed” scientific theory. Theoretical physics only provide conceptual and mathematical solutions, so it is not real-world solutions (verifiable evidences).

Their models don’t become actual scientific theories until their proposed explanations are backed by empirical evidences.

Theoretical physics relied only on maths (hence proof), not on being testable evidences.

If you cannot repeatedly and rigorously test a hypothesis, then it isn’t a scientific theory.

Tong is just one of many theoretical physicists, putting their proposed models are only providing abstract and conceptual solutions, but none of these proposals are scientific theories.

Steven Hawking is a theoretical physicist too. And while he is a genius with maths, a lot of his models remained untestable.

WATCH THE VIDEO! Then come back here and say what you did above. Tong talks about things we actually KNOW, from a scientific POV. You're just rambling on in your head about what you only THINK to be the case.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course you do, and that's because you haven't a leg to stand on.

No legs necessary. Like @Polymath257, @gnostic and myself we have legitimate science, which you lack the basic knowledge.

 

[gnostic]

WATCH THE VIDEO! Then come back here and say what you did above. Tong talks about things we actually KNOW, from a scientific POV. You're just rambling on in your head about what you only THINK to be the case.

No, I am not rambling.

There are many theoretical physicists out there, not just Tong. Many of them only provide possible conceptual models that may or may not be true.

And the only way to truly ascertain whether it is actually true or false, is to provide methodology of testing their models.

Theoretical physics only provide conceptual and mathematical explanations, so the proposal for solutions are abstract and conceptual in nature.

But if you cannot test it, repeatedly and rigorously, then without the evidences, the models are not scientific.

Do you even understand what theoretical mean?

Theoretical is only concern with hypothetical numbers and equations, with no practical applications.

I am not saying that we ignored theoretical physicists, but I find it silly to trust what they say or what they write, without evidences to back up their models.

 

[godnotgod]

No, because anyone can make YouTube videos, and there are loads of pseudoscientific rubbish.

Any idiot can expressed their biased opinions in front of the camera, and many who do post up their videos, don’t necessary have the qualifications and experiences in science, on the subjects they are talking about.

YouTube videos don’t decide what is or isn’t science.

I don’t watch much YouTube videos because of these biased idiots. And when I do watch the little that I do, is to punch holes RF members’ arguments, who rely too heavily on YouTube as authority.

Here is a brief bio of that YouTube Idiot and famous PseudoScientist, David Tong:

David Tong (physicist)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Tong is a professor of theoretical physics at DAMTP in Cambridge, a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge,[1] and joint recipient of the 2008 Adams Prize.[2] He is an Adjunct Professor at the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR).[3]

His most-cited paper, "DBI in the sky", provides a possible observational test of one mechanism for inflation in the very early universe.

He is also well known amongst the students for his very enthusiastic lecturing and comprehensive lecture notes for courses he has taught at the University of Cambridge (most notably the ones on quantum field theory).[4]

Works

• "Quantum Vortex Strings: A Review",
• Alishahiha, Mohsen; Silverstein, Eva; Tong, David (2004). "DBI in the sky: Non-Gaussianity from inflation with a speed limit". Physical Review D. 70 (12). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.123505.
• Sakai, Norisuke; Tong, David (2005). "Monopoles, Vortices, Domain Walls and D-Branes: The Rules of Interaction". High Energy Physics – Theory. 2005 (03): 019–019. doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/03/019.
• "An Open-Closed String Duality in Field Theory?", Continuous Advances in QCD 2006, Editors M. Peloso, M. Shifman, World Scientific, 2007, ISBN 978-981-270-552-5

*****

The particular pseudoscientific idiotic lecture on this YouTube video is given at the prestigious Royal Institution in England:

The Royal Institution of Great Britain (often abbreviated as the Royal Institution or Ri) is an organisation devoted to scientific education and research, based in London. It was founded in 1799 by the leading British scientists of the age including Henry Cavendish and its first president, George Finch, the 9th Earl of Winchilsea,[1] for diffusing the knowledge, and facilitating the general introduction, of useful mechanical inventions and improvements; and for teaching, by courses of philosophical lectures and experiments, the application of science to the common purposes of life.[2]


History
Throughout its history,[3] the Institution has supported public engagement with science through a programme of lectures, many of which continue today. The most famous of these are the annual Royal Institution Christmas Lectures, founded by Michael Faraday. The Royal Institution was founded as the result of a proposal by the American-born Bavarian Count Rumford for the "formation by Subscription, in the Metropolis of the British Empire, of a Public Institution for diffusing the Knowledge and facilitating the general Introduction of useful Mechanical Inventions and Improvements, and for the teaching by courses of Philosophical Lectures and Experiments, the application of Science to the Common Purposes of Life"[4].

Thus the Institution has had an instrumental role in the advancement of science since its founding. Notable scientists who have worked there include Sir Humphry Davy (who discovered sodium and potassium), Michael Faraday, James Dewar, Sir William Henry Bragg and Sir William Lawrence Bragg (who jointly won the Nobel prize for their work on x-ray diffraction), Max Perutz, John Kendrew, Antony Hewish, and George Porter.

The Royal Institution Lecture Theatre. Here Michael Faraday first demonstrated electromagnetism
In the 19th century, Faraday[5] carried out much of the research which laid the groundwork for the practical exploitation of electricity at the Royal Institution. In total fifteen scientists attached to the Royal Institution have won Nobel Prizes. Ten chemical elements including sodium were discovered there; the electric generator was devised at the Institution, and much of the early work on the atomic structure of crystals was carried out within it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Institution

WATCH THE VIDEO, and then you can remove foot from mouth.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, I am not rambling.

There are many theoretical physicists out there, not just Tong. Many of them only provide possible conceptual models that may or may not be true.

And the only way to truly ascertain whether it is actually true or false, is to provide methodology of testing their models.

Theoretical physics only provide conceptual and mathematical explanations, so the proposal for solutions are abstract and conceptual in nature.

But if you cannot test it, repeatedly and rigorously, then without the evidences, the models are not scientific.

Do you even understand what theoretical mean?

Theoretical is only concern with hypothetical numbers and equations, with no practical applications.

I am not saying that we ignored theoretical physicists, but I find it silly to trust what they say or what they write, without evidences to back up their models.

I believe there is a growing amount of experimental support combined with math models to support the science of the Quantum World. The Hadron Collider is providing increasing results to support Quantum Mechanics,

 

[godnotgod]

No legs necessary. Like @Polymath257, @gnostic and myself we have legitimate science, which you lack the basic knowledge.

As I pointed out, sir, I also have scientific background. You cling to yours for security and authority; I do not.

But I have been referring not to what I know or do not know due to science education or not, but to David Tong, a theoretical physicist at Cambridge, who tells us in the video that there are no such things as 'particles'; that such 'particles' are in reality 'energy bundles' resulting from fluctuations in the Quantum field. This is my point, which is that what we call 'material reality' is an illusion; an appearance, and that we mistake form for 'things'.

Tong goes on to state that the Quantum vacuum is 'absolutely nothing'. You know: nada, zilch, nussing, out of which Everything emerges as the result of energy fluctuations. At this point, no one understands how this happens or why, except those who understand it from a mystical POV. And no one can explain that the Quantum vacuum is absolutely nothing in terms of a mathematical formula. A million dollar prize goes to anyone who can solve this mystery.

If you have no legs, you can borrow mine that you might get a glimpse. Just put your baggage aside first.

 

[godnotgod]

Do you even understand what theoretical mean?
.

Do you even understand that a scientific theory is not the same as a theory used in common usage? Scientific theories carry much more weight than a layman's 'theory'. You know. Like The Theory of Evolution, or The Theory of Gravity, etc. It means that, no matter what new evidence you throw at it, it continues to be viable.

 

[gnostic]

Do you even understand that a scientific theory is not the same as a theory used in common usage? Scientific theories carry much more weight than a layman's 'theory'.

Yes, I know the differences. I have been telling creationists the differences for years.

You know. Like The Theory of Evolution, or The Theory of Gravity, etc. It means that, no matter what new evidence you throw at it, it continues to be viable.

You are partly wrong here.

The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are all about the evidences.

With evolution, it started with Darwin’s Natural Selection, but since his death, more evidences have been found, not just verifying Darwin’s works, but also corrected any mistakes he made.

And in the 20th century, new mechanisms have been discovered, explained and verified (evidences), especially Mutation and Genetic Drift. None of these new mechanisms replaced Natural Selection, but as alternatives.

As to gravity, while Newton’s theory are still valid and applicable, eg mechanical engineering, civil engineering, etc, but the theory is insufficient to explain gravity in deep space. A problem that Einstein worked on with General Relativity.

So both gravity and evolution expanded from their original premises.

 

[godnotgod]

You know you are making it worse, don’t you?

You are turning Buddhism, zen and yoga into a sham.

You are doing exactly what theistic creationists do when they attempt to twist science and their scriptures/teachings into one.

You are attempting to twist your version of Buddhism, to force it to fit with science, as if they are the one and the same, but when you have people who disagree with you, you tried a different tactics (moving the goalpost) that science is “limited”, and your mysticism is better at attaining direct knowledge BS.

You saying you are “I’m not making thing up”, but that what people see when they read your replies.

The whole “union with the universe” and “one with the universe” is nothing more than distortion of your abilities, meditation or no meditation. It just more BS.

Am I to understand that you think yourself separate from the Universe?

 

[godnotgod]

Yes, I know the differences. I have been telling creationists the differences for years.



You are partly wrong here.

The theory of gravity and the theory of evolution are all about the evidences.

With evolution, it started with Darwin’s Natural Selection, but since his death, more evidences have been found, not just verifying Darwin’s works, but also corrected any mistakes he made.

And in the 20th century, new mechanisms have been discovered, explained and verified (evidences), especially Mutation and Genetic Drift. None of these new mechanisms replaced Natural Selection, but as alternatives.

As to gravity, while Newton’s theory are still valid and applicable, eg mechanical engineering, civil engineering, etc, but the theory is insufficient to explain gravity in deep space. A problem that Einstein worked on with General Relativity.

So both gravity and evolution expanded from their original premises.

As I keep telling you, which you choose to ignorantly ignore: WATCH THE VIDEO before you judge Tong's presentation as being nothing more than thin air.

 

[shunyadragon]

As I pointed out, sir, I also have scientific background. You cling to yours for security and authority; I do not.

Your posts do not reflect a scientific background, as witnessed by failure to understand basic concepts.

I have watched the video and you have shamelessly misrepresented Tong and the video with selective interpretation to justify your own agenda.

 

[Audie]

Your posts do not reflect a scientific background, as witnessed by failure to understand basic concepts.

Is that a shout out to all of our creationist friends?

 

[shunyadragon]

Is that a shout out to all of our creationist friends?

To a certain extent yes,

 

[Audie]

To a certain extent yes,

Addressed to an individual, perhaps, but is it not
applicable to all?

 

[Revoltingest]

What are you assuming there is a problem with assumption? There’s nothing wrong with assumption as long as you recognise it for what it is and the reasons you’ve made it in the first place.

There's an additional step...
Test the assumption.
If it passes, it's useful.
If it fails, it's wrong.
If it's not testable, then it's neither.

 

[gnostic]

As I keep telling you, which you choose to ignorantly ignore: WATCH THE VIDEO before you judge Tong's presentation as being nothing more than thin air.

I am not arguing about Tong in that post you quoted from me, but about you not understanding evidences, required to verify a scientific theory.

Watching the video is pointless if you don’t even understand the basic concept of science...especially if you are selectively misrepresenting Tong’s presentation.

 

[BilliardsBall]

The laws, theories and hypothesis that form the foundation in science only point to the knowledge of science of our physical existence. In science there is no evidence of 'absolutely nothing.'

There is nothing in science that points to 'ex nihilo.' In fact the question whether our physical existence is eternal or infinite, or temporal and finite remains an unanswered question in science and likely unanswerable. There is not any objective verifiable evidence either way.



No I never said this.



The Quantum World is the nature of our physical existence at the Plank level micro world, which does not follow the Theories and Laws of the macro world. Gravity of the marcro world does not function at the Plank level of the Quantum World.



Quantum Mechanics is indifferent to whether our partiular universe is eternal or not. The evidence indicates that the Quantum Mechanics world may be eternal and/or infinite. There are several current models that are possible eternal such as: the Multiverse, cyclic universe, and Black Hole Model.

There is a good model for a cyclic universe which has no problem with thermodynamics.:

From: https://www.edge.org/conversation/paul_steinhardt-the-cyclic-universe-paul-steinhardt

THE CYCLIC UNIVERSE: PAUL STEINHARDT

I am theoretical cosmologist, so I am addressing the issue from that point of view. If you were to ask most cosmologists to give a summary of where we stand right now in the field, they would tell you that we live in a very special period in human history where, thanks to a whole host of advances in technology, we can suddenly view the very distant and very early universe in ways that we haven't been able to do ever before. For example, we can get a snapshot of what the universe looked like in its infancy, when the first atoms were forming. We can get a snapshot of what the universe looked like in its adolescence, when the first stars and galaxies were forming. And we are now getting a full detail, three-dimensional image of what the local universe looks like today. When you put together this different information, which we're getting for the first time in human history, you obtain a very tight series of constraints on any model of cosmic evolution. If you go back to the different theories of cosmic evolution in the early 1990's, the data we've gathered in the last decade has eliminated all of them—save one, a model that you might think of today as the consensus model. This model involves a combination of the Big Bang model as developed in the 1920s, '30s, and '40s; the Inflationary Theory, which Alan Guth proposed in the 1980s; and a recent amendment that I will discuss shortly. This consensus theory matches the observations we have of the universe today in exquisite detail. For this reason, many cosmologists conclude that we have finally determined the basic cosmic history of the universe.

more to read in the site.

Okay--I certainly appreciate your detailed response and your desire to put this in lay terms I can follow. I'm aware it's an exciting, dynamic time in cosmology and physics.

But I know you can respect the existential crisis one sometimes experiences asking why everything has always been here (matter/energy). I believe Genesis teaches creatio ex nihilo but I don't believe this is conflicting with BB expansion theory.

Thanks.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I think you mean “conservation”, not “conversation”.



As I said to you earlier (last reply), I cannot say if the conservation being “eternal” is true or false, because we currently don’t know enough about BEFORE the Planck Epoch started, which was also the start of the expansion.

Even the Planck Epoch and half-a-dozen of epochs that followed, are still hypothetical, and cannot be verifiably and directly observed. The universe before the Recombination Epoch was opaque, acting like the event horizon of the black hole, where nothing can be seen pre-Recombination epoch.

(Note, that the Recombination Epoch started about 377,000 years after the start of the Big Bang.)

The earliest observable things that we can directly detect and measure is the CMBR (Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation). The photon were emitted when the electrons finally bonded with the earliest elements, turning ionised hydrogen and ionised helium into electrically neutral and stable atoms, thereby causing the universe to become transparent, during the Recombination Epoch.

Before Recombination Epoch, the universe was opaque, because atoms (ionised) were ionised, make it impossible for light or photon impossible to travel freely, because the light emitted was quickly re-absorbed with the ionised elements. Photon cannot successfully decouple while matters were ionised.

My whole point of bringing up that while the universe was opaque, we do not know how much of the 1st law of thermodynamics still applied in the earlier epochs before the Recombination Epoch. And we certainly don’t know much before the Planck Epoch.

So I don’t know if the conservations (of energy and of mass) apply in these circumstances, so I don’t know if conservations are eternal or not.

When I wrote my last reply to you, I was merely putting hypothetical scenario.

If energy and mass are eternal and eternally conserved, then your creation myth of god creating anything and everything is moot.

The emphasis on the word “if”. The “if” is hypothetical position, which have the potential of being “true” or “false”...or the 3rd possible outcome, “undetermined”.

If mass and energy are eternally conserved, then god didn’t do anything, eg “creating”.

PS, i don’t think you understand that energy and mass are both characteristics or properties of matters. Energy don’t exist without mass and matter.

I do understand. If I may ask a personal, not science question, if mass/energy are eternally conserved, how do you personally respond to the internal existential question, "How come everything was always here?"

Thanks!

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay--I certainly appreciate your detailed response and your desire to put this in lay terms I can follow. I'm aware it's an exciting, dynamic time in cosmology and physics.

But I know you can respect the existential crisis one sometimes experiences asking why everything has always been here (matter/energy). I believe Genesis teaches creatio ex nihilo but I don't believe this is conflicting with BB expansion theory.

Thanks.

The problem with this is that from the scientific perspective none of the various BB models (theories?) propose an absolute beginning. This remains a philosophical/theological assumption. Actually the videos presented by Tong describe the reasons why we do not know beyond the few Planck moments.after the hypothetical beginning. Beyond this at present the different math models are possible explanations of the origins of our universe and all possible universes.