The Greens have had a pretty good run in the House since the election, but Russel Norman undid most of the good work yesterday by trying to politicise the deaths of New Zealand soldiers in Afghanistan. The sneaky way he went about it does him and the Greens no credit whatsoever.
If Norman had genuinely wanted to pay tribute to the service of the three soldiers and the sacrifice they have made, he would have joined other party leaders (apart from Peters) in speaking to the Notice of Motion moved by the PM. But no; he wanted a second bite. Not his finest hour.
I had a wee lesson in political grace recently, and was reminded why it’s not a good idea to jump in with a half cocked political jibe based on misconceptions.
Darien Fenton posted at Red Alert on the migrant worker issue, and I had a dig based on “worker good, employer bad” assumptions. I was gracefully and fairly called out on this.
And Darien offered a good explanation of ver view on business:
Just so you know, I always defend good employers and businesses. We need them. That was one point in my post – much of the contact I’ve had has been from small business who are concerned that they can’t compete with employers who break the law. They were supporting the comments I have made in the media and asking me to keep at it.
It ended up being one of the better exchanges I’ve had with an MP (including a couple of emails).
Yes, there is no doubt New Zealand needs employers. Society might be a bit strange without them.
I think we will still be debating employer/employee rights in a 100 years time given the inherent imbalance of power.
I’ve only had a couple of bad employers, 90% have been great. From my experience, the problems often occur in middle management, where people have been promoted and power has gone to their heads. Far less issues with senior management and business owners.
Education Minister Hekia Parata would not comment, but associate minister John Banks said the ministry had received a lot of correspondence, including complaints about public funding of faith-based education.
He would not comment on the trust’s charter plans.
There is a potential issue if John Banks’ religious and (non) scientitific beliefs flavour his approach to charter schools and faith based education.
Big Green Machine – GE makes $21 billion a year on “clean energy”
GE — A clean energy revenue machine
GE is so large that its annual revenue ($150 billion) is greater than New Zealand’s gross domestic product ($140.43 billion). But GE stands to profit in solving man-man global warming, whereas New Zealand will just pay.
In 2011 GE generated $21 billion in “clean energy revenue”. (GE Annual Report 2011, p 3).
GE boast that their “technology helps deliver a quarter of the world’s electricity”. “We are one of the largest clean energy companies in the world” (page 18) “GE wind turbines, among the most widely used in the world, will soon power the largest wind farm in the U.S ”
Not just a whitegoods company any more.
In other words, they are one of the largest companies in the world which makes profits that depend on a climate of fear. How much would their wind turbines be worth if western governments pulled the pins on all the subsidies?
Here’s how much:
“Manufacturers of turbines and other components will shed an estimated 10,000 workers in the U.S. this year in anticipation of a slowdown in orders, says the AWEA. If Congress doesn’t extend the production tax credit, that figure will hit 37,000 next year—about half the industry’s workforce. The incentive, first offered in 1992, grants owners of wind farms a credit equal to 2.2¢ per kilowatt-hour for electricity produced over a 10-year period. Extending the break for just one more year would cost $4.1 billion in forgone tax revenue over a decade,…” [Businessweek, June 7th 2012]
I believe Jon Banks’ views and influence on education policy are dangerous, especially given the importance of science and technology in building a future economy.
I also believe charter schools do not have a mandate: They were not in ACT’s pre-election education policy (just some teacher bashing and stuff about ‘choice’); He wants them in South Auckland and East Christchurch, not exactly an ACT stronghold; and his personal religious views are no mixed into the policy debate.
Why didn’t National offer him something like Minister for Auckland, Associate Minister of Transport, or Associate Minister of Police? I believe he could make a positive contribution in a different portfolio.
HANNIDA:….. I understand that the purpose of Charter Schools is to teach the 20% illiterates to read and write. It is not anticipated that many will be thwarted from becoming astronauts and brain surgeons. If they also come to appreciate and live by the ten commandments then that is a bonus.
Teaching creationism is to either knowingly lie or unknowingly teach a falsehood. Either way – whomever teaching it shouldn’t be in the position to teach. They are either liars or, respectfully, too uneducated to be teachers.
The Contrarian- “Creationism in school is an affront to education and borders on child abuse.”
“whomever teaching it shouldn’t be in the position to teach. They are either liars or, respectfully, too uneducated to be teachers.”
Who is it that is hurling out abuse again? Oh surprise. It is the atheists.So much for liberals and atheists being the reasonable people in any debate.
Read “The Contrarian’s” comment again. It wasn’t abuse….all he was doing was pointing out that teachers should have a grounding in fact as opposed to magic or voodoo. How would you feel as a parent if you were forced to have your child brainwashed with flat earth theories or naked tribal superstition?
Facts & science Monday to Friday…..Sundays are for the sky pixies.
“lol god forbid kids learn some morals and maybe some faith.”
So teaching the world was created 6000 years ago in 6 days by an uncreated creator teaches morals? Learning something that every scientific discpline has proven false is good for ones moral development?
@ Pete George – Banks DID make it abundantly clear that his views on creation were his own personal beliefs, and that he was not trying to force them on anyone, especially via his role as Associate Minister of Education. Of course, those who don’t like Banks or don’t like religion have chosen to ignore that part.
Here’s the actual interview, courtesy of Rhema host Pat Brittenden:
But even after a sound sleep, we do not resile from our criticism of Russel Norman for a callous attempt to politicise the deaths of three brave young New Zealanders, before their bodies had even left Afghanistan on their journey to their final resting place. There is a time and a place for everything, and yesterday was neither the time nor the place.
The lives of NZ soldiers are continuously on the line as long as they remain in Afghanistan. If one is of the view that no more of them should have to sacrifice their lives for what is arguably a futile effort and a mere gesture to our geopolitical superiors, then it is important that debate be undertaken immediately on the issue. To delay debate is to negate the legitimacy of simply holding the view that withdrawal should commence as soon as possible. While I’m ambivalent on what the government should do at this very point in time, it is nevertheless arguable that no more soldiers lives should be sacrificed in this campaign on our behalf for a campaign where voices on all sides question the long-term benefits of this campaign.
Debate is not disrespectful: it is the defining feature of our democracy and way of life. It should not be cast aside on the specious pretense that it is not the right time. Now is the best time. If their lives are to remain on the line then our leaders should have the courtesy to debate the issue and if following such a debate it is concluded that they should remain then so be it. But they should not remain, and have their lives put at risk, simply because Parliament is unwilling to turn its mind to the question. Nor should their lives remain at risk simply because the government wishes to avoid the appearance of public disquiet.
Whatever one thinks about our responsibilities to our friends and allies, military soldiers represent the people of this country and their elected representatives should at the very least be able to consider if those soldiers should be brought home. Respect for their lives is demonstrated by robust debate and full and ongoing consideration of the merits of their continued service in a foreign country. In my view the best tribute soldiers can receive is the continued dedication of MPs to ensuring no wrong decisions are undertaken for mere lack of consideration. No respect is demonstrated by restraining those voices which speak of behalf of people who are increasingly uncomfortable with these soldiers sacrificing their lives on our behalf.
@dime – that’s not the point, and I really don’t care, but you must admit that whatever your personal morals are they wouldn’t pass muster by any of the god-botherers standards. Just made me laugh, given the context of the discussion…
Given that the God fearing tout religious beliefs as having a ‘positive’ influence over the way a person sees & interacts with the world how can you be so certain that Mr Banks’ can treat his ministerial tasks in a totally secular manner?
Following an earlier discussion I’ve found my sons’ Year 13History NCEA Level3 Study Guide.2007,ESA Publications.
on war and race relations
“The Revisionist Interpretation.
More recently,a number of historians(such as Alan Ward and most prominently James Belich in the New Zealand Wars 1986) have challenged and overturned the traditional interpretation.They have shown that much of this view put forward by the dominant culture in New Zealand was false or mistaken”.
“The Later 19th Century
Marginalisation of Maori
Maori were marginalised in the developing Pakeha society,that is,they were kept on the fringes of society,and excluded from real economic and political power,even for themselves.
*Maori population and culture appeared bound for extinction,so could be ignored by Pakeha
*Maori economic independence was destroyed by Pakeha confiscations and land purchases
*On the whole,Maori were excluded from “mainstream” Pakeha settler society and government.”
The tenor of the “history” as taught follows the black man good,white man bad theme.
If anyone is worried about false hoods in education and child abuse re creationism I’d suggest there is a larger problem in the history department.
No mainstream Christian denomination subscribes to literal creationism ,so I don’t see what the fuss is about. Other than to provide the usual suspects with a platform for their tedious anti Christian opinions.
Bible study can provide a useful background to education and western philosophy/history. It’s part of our everyday discourse and history.
I love creationism and I think it is all true. I must admit I wasn’t interested in this question as a new Christian. Then for some reason, probably divine intervention, I started reading a book by Ken Ham called “Evolution the Lie”. I thought he was a bit over the top to be honest. But anyway I read for the next six months everything I could on both sides of the fence. Now this is true. So don’t call me a liar (Courage wolf or whoever).
I read stuff by Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins and other books by evolutionists. I also read creation science and intelligent design materials. My conclusion is that evolution has not occurred. I often now ask people this question. Give me one good example, one well proven example of evolution? Something becoming something else. Something attaining new information and becoming a difference species. Something really different that would show the whole molecules to man idea is true.
It is difficult to do. There are very few even plausible examples of evolution in action. So I think evolution is not true.
On the other hand the notion that the universe requires an intelligent designer is very plausible. All around us we see design, we see life, we see complexity. The idea that this is all a product of an intelligent mind is very plausible. Indeed the idea that somehow it all randomly came into being is very difficult to prove.
So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.
“So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.”
Why would we teach something known to be false against something scientifically valid?
“Give me one good example, one well proven example of evolution? Something becoming something else. Something attaining new information and becoming a difference species. Something really different that would show the whole molecules to man idea is true.”
Evolution has occurred hundreds of times in the lab and in nature. The fossil record beautifully shows evolution as does genetics
Debate is not disrespectful: it is the defining feature of our democracy and way of life. It should not be cast aside on the specious pretense that it is not the right time. Now is the best time.
If their lives are to remain on the line then our leaders should have the courtesy to debate the issue and if following such a debate it is concluded that they should remain then so be it. But they should not remain, and have their lives put at risk, simply because Parliament is unwilling to turn its mind to the question.
This was fairly well covered in parliament yesterday, by Key and with Shearer in apparent agreement.
So I think creationism should be taught in schools. Evolution and creation. That would give young minds something to chew on.
Or perhaps a course in Comparative Creation Stories: Iroquois
Long before the world was created there was an island, floating in the sky, upon which the Sky People lived. They lived quietly and happily. No one ever died or was born or experienced sadness. However one day one of the Sky Women realized she was going to give birth to twins….
There was a time when everything was still. All the spirits of the earth were asleep – or almost all. The great Father of All Spirits was the only one awake. Gently he awoke the Sun Mother. As she opened her eyes a warm ray of light spread out towards the sleeping earth. The Father of All Spirits said to the Sun Mother, “Mother, I have work for you. Go down to the Earth and awake the sleeping spirits. Give them forms.”
People did not always live on the surface of the earth. At one time people and animals lived underneath the earth with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. In this place people and animals lived together peacefully. They understood each other. No one ever wanted for anything and it was always light even though there wasn’t any sun. During this time of bliss Kaang began to plan the wonders he would put in the world above.
First Kaang created a wondrous tree, with branches stretching over the entire country. At the base of the tree he dug a hole that reached all the way down into the world where the people and animals lived. After he had finished furnishing the world as he pleased he led the first man up the hole.
In the beginning there was an empty darkness. The only thing in this void was Nyx, a bird with black wings. With the wind she laid a golden egg and for ages she sat upon this egg. Finally life began to stir in the egg and out of it rose Eros, the god of love. One half of the shell rose into the air and became the sky and the other became the Earth. Eros named the sky Uranus and the Earth he named Gaia. Then Eros made them fall in love.
Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.
There would be certainly be a lot for young minds to chew on their, particularly if the advocates of each were in the classroom together.
Funnily enough none of those Creationist theories are used by scientists to develop new GE-based drugs.
Just to play Devil’s advocate, ignoring the separation of church/state issues, etc…
Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? If they end up studying biology or geology at a tertiary level, they’ll soon be put right. Even if they don’t, they’ll probably catch up. And if they don’t catch up, what’s the harm? An accountant who believes in creationism is not exactly professionally hamstrung by it.
I know of one Christian school that has had to start a class on evolution because some kids go onto medical school where it’s the basis of some theories. But other than that, you pick up the basics from the mass media and the sneers of your peers.
The contrarian – “Evolution has occurred hundreds of times in the lab and in nature. The fossil record beautifully shows evolution as does genetics”
Well not really my friend. The fossil record for example doesn’t show evolution beautifully at all. In fact Stephen Jay Gould, an ardent atheist if there ever was one, used to despair of the fossil record. He said the gaps in the fossil record were the trade secret of evolutionary theory. He proposed that maybe evolution acts really really quickly in short bursts at certain times. He just didn’t see the Darwinian idea of slow and gradual change in the fossil record of all. You can look up his theory – “punctuated equilibrium”. Long periods of equilibrium with nothing much happening, punctuated by sudden bursts of change.
Indeed the Cambrian explosion in the fossil record is very consistent with six days of creation. If God created all of the lifeforms in six days then you would expect to see in the fossil record the basic forms just appear. Like they do. Even Time magazine had a famous cover article on this a few years ago.
Anyway God is real. He created the universe. We are all have to account to him on judgement day. Jesus is coming back. Get ready people.
Yup James, the fools will tie themselves in knots to support the stupidity of their biblical inerrancy
Funny story, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy was so named so as to get a response like that from people who don’t believe in it. It’s called a shibboleth. The actual doctrine is much more subtle than the title suggests.
Creationism always starts with the deceit that evolution means something other than what scientists mean.
Darwin described a process of descent with modification. Nowever, creationists require new features to appear de novo. Evolution is the change in gene-frequency changes in populations due to selection, drift (and some other processes). You want to refute evolution, start with that. Not some creationist parody. Changes in gene frequency are easy to identify- and the advances in molecular biology mean we can highlight the exact gene changes in some cases.
Evolution occurs at a molecular level, and because genes are highly conserved (unlike fossils which are rarely preserved), we have very good records of evolution occurring. Gene duplications are a common way for Kolmogorov information to increase. We have both experimental and empircal evidence confirming this.
There is no magic species barrier. We have replicated the speciation of various organisms (e.g. Helianthus anomalus) in labs.
The denial of evolution is an irrational act because it an observable natural phenomen. There is no honest way to refute this fact.
I know of one Christian school that has had to start a class on evolution because some kids go onto medical school where it’s the basis of some theories. But other than that, you pick up the basics from the mass media and the sneers of your peers.
There might be some resentment at their teachers for having misled them, but then the same thing happens to people who discover socialism after being taught capitalist economics throughout the state-funded high schools.
I never cease to be amused by totalitarian fundamentalist atheists who want to replace freedom of religion with freedom from religion.
Funny thing is, none of these idiots can tell you how the world and the universe began. Hell they can’t even measure historic global temperatures accurately or predict the weather from one week to the next. They labour under the delusion that all Christians take every word in the Bible literally.
I’m reminded of them whenever I sit in the pews alongside a devout, eminent and respected Professor of Physics and an equally intelligent Emeritus Professor of Chemistry.
I can’t believe that creationists still try the Cambrian explosion argument…
Molecular phylogenies have repeatedly shown that Cambrian life forms originated in pre-Cambrian eras. We have pre-Cambrian rocks in Australia, Namibia and Russia that show animal life originated tens-of-millions of years before the ‘Cambrian explosion’.
The open and empty landcapes of the Camrian, and the associated rises in sea-oxygen levels accounts for much of the proliferation of new life. Likewise the explosion properly is a metaphor for the diversity of animals that occurred, not its speed. That still took 50-80my to play out.
…that suggests the intent is to place the belief on a pedestal above science. That’s harmful.
What they are saying is that we take observable, testable science and place it in a framework where God is our first assumption, as opposed to taking observable, testable science and placing it in a framework where our first assumption is that there is only nature and nothing outside the universe.
What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of non-religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to believe in God.
I can’t believe that creationists still try the Cambrian explosion argument…
I think Scott is operating off an out-of-date version of “How to argue against Evolution”, the latest revision seems to be based on “Science can’t show how life began”, Miller-Urey being proof that actually it’s impossible without god, and therefore Evolution never happened (or something).
Taking observable, testable science and putting into a framework where god is the first assumption is begging the question for a start. Secondly it adds no explanatory power. Thirdly it puts it into an un-testable and un-falsifiable framework which isn’t science.
“God did it” as a first assumption is not nor can ever be scientific.
“What is disturbing is the increasing tendency of religious people to misunderstand what it actually means to do science.”
Seriously, can no one explain how religious people misunderstand what it actually means to do science? I’m not after an explanation of how you think creationists aren’t doing science. I’m wanting to know how I misunderstand.
“Seriously, can no one explain how religious people misunderstand what it actually means to do science?”
Taking observable, testable science and putting into a framework where god is the first assumption is begging the question for a start. Secondly it adds no explanatory power. Thirdly it puts it into an un-testable and un-falsifiable framework which isn’t science.
“Well, if you can tell me what changed to cause an eternally-existent particle to explode, that’d be a good start.”
That’s isn’t what happened so that isn’t a good start.
“God did everything” is a starting point, “God did nothing” is the extrapolated end-point when you see godless explanations for so much of the world around you.
The only logically tenable place for god to influence the process is prior to the “big bang”, setting the balance of gravity and electomagnetic forces to allow the universe to function etc. Of course, one is still left with the problem of where an unimaginably powerful and complex being came from in the first place…
Evolution is absolutely the only explanation on the table for how we came to have complex life from simple origins, ID/Creationism requires the pre-existence of fantastically greater levels of complexity.
“Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? ”
You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense? You really think there is that much spare time in the curriculum? How do you “teach” falsehoods? And why would you?
Or to put it another way, why do we never see the headline “Creationist Institute Finds a Cure for Cancer”.
The rigorous quest to understand evolutionary mechanisms has on the other hand, resulted in millions of lives being saved. The predicted insulin catastrophe (rising human populations & diabetes rates was starting to outstrip insulin production form slaughtered animals) was averted basically becase we figured out to manufacture medical insulin with bacteria.
“On the other hand, evolutionary ideas have been a positive hindrance to science. Evolutionary ideas about the development of our posture led to back treatments that worsened patients’ problems. Evolutionary ideas led to 198 human organs’ being labelled vestigial. Now, all are known to be useful or even essential. In the same way, evolutionists label large areas of DNA as junk, thus greatly hindering investigation of what it actually does. “
That’s a complete and despicable lie. It’s also a gross mispresentation. Vestigial has never meant not having a function. Similarly biologists (not evolutionists) have been working on what functions different non-coding sections of DNA has for decades.
Science takes wrong turnings occasionally, not exactly big news is it? How many people died because people believed that bad smells (“miasma”) caused disease, before we cottoned on to the idea of “germs”?
June 1, 2012
In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins
Highly religious Americans most likely to believe in creationism
by Frank NewportPRINCETON, NJ — Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.
Why does it matter that almost half the country rejects the overwhelming evidence of evolution, with or without the hand of God? After all, Americans are famously ignorant of many things—like where Iran is or when World War II took place—and we are still here. One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview. Think what the world would have to be like for evolution to be false. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics. And yet this massive concatenation of lies and delusion is so full of obvious holes that a pastor with a Bible-college degree or a homeschooling parent with no degree at all can see right through it. A flute discovered in southern Germany is 43,000 years old? Not bloody likely. It’s probably some old bone left over from an ancient barbecue. To celebrate its fifth anniversary, the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky, has installed a holographic exhibit of Lucy, the famous proto-human fossil, showing how she was really just a few-thousand-year-old ape after all.
Settle down people. Of course high income people use trusts and a pile of rorts to avoid paying their tax. It really pisses me off that people on not much more than the minimum wage sometimes pay more tax than millionaires.
One reason is that rejecting evolution expresses more than an inability to think critically; it relies on a fundamentally paranoid worldview…. Almost every scientist on earth would have to be engaged in a fraud so complex and extensive it involved every field from archaeology, paleontology, geology and genetics to biology, chemistry and physics.
As someone above said “Science takes wrong turnings occasionally, not exactly big news is it?”
Indeed, the quote acusing other people of paranoia is pretty ironic when it theorises a conspiracy theory.
At the basic level of existence space itself is a quantum field of probability. The very fabric of existence is a quantum field (sometimes called the Higgs field) in which particles, known as virtual particles, are continually being created and destroyed. The universe was born from this field and under went a rapid phase of inflation.
“Not really, we understand the physics of it and the uncertainty of quantum mechanics.”
Actually, I was referring to the way you walked right into this prediction:
” How do the opponents of theism establish their negative case against the Christian faith? Almost all attack four foundational principles of knowing:-
i. Law of Non-Contradiction
ii. Law of Causality
iii. Basic Reliability of Sense Perception
iv. Analogical Use of Language”
I disagree, Banks is Associate Minister of Education. In this portfolio, he is trying to implement a charter schools policy that would make it much easier for religious fringe groups to run schools using public money.
I don’t like the idea of this – I think there should be less of a focus on religion in schools and more of a focus on science and technology.
I saw Dr. Krauss’s public lecture on this very same topic about 3 months ago at University of Auckland.
Personally, I wasn’t convinced about his argument that if one waits long enough (ie, in billions of years), the the nothingness will produce quantum foam then therefore pop into existence the all the matter & energy that made up the whole universe.
His argument is no different to biblical creation. Their differences is that biblical creation started about 6,000 years ago, while the big-bang creation occurred more than 10 billions ago.
What Dr. Krauss is saying is that you don’t need a cause for an effect to take place. Any scientist who believes that effects can materialize with no causes, then he/she is fact is not engaged in scientific debates but religious debates, because it is exactly the kinds of debates that religious proponents are engaged in. You see the similarity here?
Weihana @ 10.36am. As usual, another thoughtful and well considered opinion from you.
And of course there is no right or wrong answer (to the questions you pose) because it depends on one’s stance on the issue. Which is why, I assume, you believe Russel Norman has the right to call for a snap debate. And that is fine, as an MP, Russel Norman has that right. So be it.
Personally I’m with Keeping Stock on this issue. In my mind it is a matter of timing. To call for such a debate on the same day as the House had paid its respects does seem inappropriate to me. By way of a hypothetcial example, what if there had been some building renovations at Parliament and a ceiling collapsed a couple of days ago killing some parliamentary employees. The House then pays its respects and then a couple of hours later an opposition politician calls for an urgent debate on the deaths of the employees and the situation they were working in. Does the opposition politican have the right to call for a snap debate? Yes (sure). But would it be appropriate? Especially as all the facts need to be gathered and assessed? And families are still very much grieving and funerals have yet to be held? Personally I don’t think it would be appropriate at that point in time. There will always be another day for playing the blame game.
Which is another bug bear. How many debates on Afghanistan does the opposition parties want? There have been debates in the past, so why another one – what’s so different this time? The deaths? Since when do the Greens actually care about the lives of soldiers (or for that matter, the lives of Bamyan civilians who will face increased threats once the NZ’ers depart)?
The other thing is, Russel Norman has had many opportunities via Foreign Affairs Select committee meetings to ask these operational questions he posed yesterday. And what would his point be anyway? Have the Greens ever called for increased and better protection for NZ soldiers when on deployment? Ever? Of course not, they simply want NZ to withdrawal. So why Russel’s false insincerity now? I think KS’s commentary on his blog sums up Russel Norman rather well.
What a lot of the creationist type nonsense does highlight is the incredibly poor understanding of basic science.
Mate of mine is a creationist and we spent many an hour after squash where I enjoyed poking fun at his arguments. He started bringing “scientific” documents and evidence etc. Of interest they had to actually start their own publishing companies to get the crap published and not a scientifically peer reviewed paper in sight. Poor bugger – he still believes.
There is no need for a 1st cause btw – it can just be – nothing wrong with that in physics. Even Aquinas admitted the 1st cause argument was no evidence of god’s existence.
Creationism requires all of astronomy to be pretty much b*****s.
Evolution as a principle is so interwoven in to the biological sciences that to remove it would render great swathes of theory unworkable – ask an evolutionary biologist.
There is no evidence of a god (or gods depending your faith) and there is an awful lot of evidence pointing out creationism is barmy.
maybe there was no big bang after all, more like a big thaw and a slow melt.
“Think of the early universe as being like a liquid,” Melbourne University theoretical physics researcher James Quach said.
“Then as the universe cools, it ‘crystalises’.
“The reason we use the water analogy is water is without form.
“In the beginning there wasn’t even space, space did not exist because there was no form.”
Their research rests on a school of thought that has emerged recently to suggest space is made of indivisible building blocks, such as atoms, that can be thought of as similar to pixels that make up images on a computer screen.
Mr Quach said the standing model for the origins of the universe, the big bang, needed to be rewritten.
He hoped experimentalists would be able to find evidence to support the theory put forward by the Melbourne team of researchers, that would replace it.
And that’s the beauty of science, it is always prepared to evaluate the evidence, look for new ideas and test them. Contrast that with religion which cannot, by its very nature, question itself and change in the light of new information.
scrubone (1,271) Says:
August 22nd, 2012 at 12:04 pm
You mean apart from the fact it’s nonsense?
Yes. Give us the real-life consequences of people being taught creationism. I’m happy to sit here and let you know if your theories on the results tally with an actual experience if you really wish.
Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.
Myriad examples of people substituting prayer for medical care.
Beaver Valley, Pennsylvania
Died (untreated Wilm’s tumor)
Justin’s parents belonged to Faith Tabernacle. They withheld medical care for his abdominal tumor until grew larger than a volleyball. Caught early, this type of tumor is curable 90% of the time.
shmael Berger Belebbas
Died at birth (stuck in birth canal)
Complications during birth can be dealt with, provided medical practitioners are present. Unfortunately Ishmael’s parents belonged to the Church of the First Born, which believes in prayer instead of medicine.
Michael David Boehmer
Age: 4 days
Lake City, Florida
March 15, 1990
Michael suffered a hemorrhage, and lost at least a quarter of his blood. His parents put cotton in his nose and prayed for him. The medical examiner later said he had a 90% survival chance if he had just been given a Vitamin K shot.
The medical examiner said that her life could have been saved with medical help, but her parents claimed their religious beliefs prevented that.
In every case, their parenst believed in creationism, along with a whole host of other religious stupidity.
I didn’t read all the comments before I made my comment. But it does highlight the absurdity of the physics of effects with no causes, which is no difference to religious believers. God had no cause but it had an effect in the creation.
This absurdity in Physics originated because mathematics has taken over and philosophy has been shafted long time ago. Physics should be guided by philosophy first and not mathematics. When mathematics guides physics then one ends up with contradictions and that’s exactly what Dr. Krauss’s has ended up with. He is convinced that we (universe) just popped into existence from nothing. It means we had no causes. It is a contradiction.
The mistake that physicists made is they treat space as some kind of rarefied object. Space is nothing. It is not an object, but just a concept. Einstein himself fell into this trap as well. He regarded space & time as objects (that it can curve), but they’re really not objects at all. They’re tool of cognition only, because they don’t exist. Can someone tell me what curve 2 minutes look like? How about curve 3 milli-seconds? Can you all see how stupid the idea of rarefying space & time as some kind of material object? This is the mistake that physicists made long time ago, and there is no such effort to correct this mistake. Rarefying space & time leads to equation that predicts time-traveling, which is nonsense.
Here is a philosophical argument about the absurdity in rarefying space & time by physicists as some kind of object. Its a mistake and its wrong to view space & time as objects.
Gosh, GD really has taken a turn for the better today, with theology and evolution expanding to philosophy and physics.
So on that note may I humbly add the following link to a review in Slate by Ron Rosenbaum, of a book called Why Does the World Exist?., by Jim Holt.
Holt had a lot of fun with the String Theorists some years ago and apparently has not lost his touch: Rosenbaum has high praise for the book:
Holt is just the man for the something/nothing detective story because he is one of those rare individuals who can speak three distinctive languages fluently: the advanced mathematical language of the quantum cosmologist, the sometimes-indecipherable language of post-modal philosophy and theology, and, oh, right, the third language: English. In fact he can write it with extraordinary subtlety. His prose is both suspenseful—his subtitle is “An Existential Detective Story”—and stringent in an exemplary way.
But what tickled my fancy was that it naturally delves into the small war that broke out over Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing, The “war” began with a review of the book in the NYT by David Albert. As Rosenbaum puts it, the review was … let’s say, unsparing about Krauss’ claim that he had proven how the universe came into being from nothing—well, from Krauss’ definition of nothing, which as we shall see redefines nothing so that it is not nothing at all., and he quotes from the review:
Where, for starters, are the laws of quantum mechanics themselves supposed to have come from? Krauss is more or less upfront, as it turns out, about not having a clue about that. He acknowledges (albeit in a parenthesis, and just a few pages before the end of the book) that everything he has been talking about simply takes the basic principles of quantum mechanics for granted.
And as the quantum vacuum—and its fields—that Krauss claims is the nothing from which something emerged, Albert points out that the laws Krauss relies on have “nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.
As you can imagine, this did not go down well with Mr Krauss! I’m sure the religious people reading, who are regularly informed of their low IQ’s by scientits, this will be highly amused at Rosenbaum’s comment:
Staying classy in an interview in the Atlantic, Krauss called Albert “a moronic philosopher”
Mr Albert is a quantum physicist and professor of the philosophy of science at Columbia and the author of Quantum Mechanics and Experience.
Laughs aside, the whole “something from nothing” debate is worth talking about. Another of those damned philosophers also had a crack at Krauss in the NYT here:
While Krauss could appeal to philosophy to strengthen his case against ‘something cannot come from nothing,’ he opens himself to philosophical criticism by simply assuming that scientific experiment is, as he puts it, the ‘ultimate arbiter of truth’ about the world. The success of science gives us every reason to continue to pursue its experimental method in search of further truths. But science itself is incapable of establishing that all truths about the world are discoverable by its methods.
Precisely because science deals with only what can be known, direct or indirectly, by sense experience, it cannot answer the question of whether there is anything—for example, consciousness, morality, beauty or God — that is not entirely knowable by sense experience. To show that there is nothing beyond sense experience, we would need philosophical arguments, not scientific experiments.
Krauss may well be right that philosophers should leave questions about the nature of the world to scientists. But, without philosophy, his claim can only be a matter of faith, not knowledge.
Space is not nothing. You have completely misunderstood Krauss. He is saying that nothign isn’t in fact nothing anymore. Nothing has weight, “nothing” accounts for 73% of the universe. Virtual particles are being created all the time, from space. And they have been measured.
TheContrarian… Space is not nothing. You have completely misunderstood Krauss. He is saying that nothign isn’t in fact nothing anymore.
I understood perfectly of how physicists argue their theories. It is littered with wordsmithing and ambiguity. I did ask Dr. Krauss at the end of his lecture (not question time but when he was packing his stuff at the podium ready to leave) two questions one after the other:
#1) if quantum foam laws were there in space prior to the big bang, then surely the laws of physics did pre-exist prior to the big bang.
#2) if the laws of physics was born at the big bang.
He answered #1) by saying yes, that quantum foam pre-existed, but then he contradicted himself in #2) when he said that all known laws of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) were born the instant the big bang started. Can someone spot his contradiction here? He talked as if pre-existing quantum foam prior to the big bang is not really part of quantum mechanics (QM) which QM itself was born at the instant of the big bang. Dr Krauss was obfuscating & evasive in aswering my questions. He then jumped to answer another person’s question but didn’t quite answer my followup 3rd question.
He took a dig at String Theorists, but String theorists specialize in the business of scientific speculations which is no difference to what Dr. Krauss is doing. How ironic.
Well I obviously can’t comment on your personal discussion with Krauss as I wasn’t there however the creation of a particle from quantum foam, the creation of “mass” requires gravity to exist as gravity is a consequence of mass.
So then this statement is neither ignorant nor trolling:
Ah, I think we may be on different wavelengths.
You are thining of fundamentals I think. Yes, fundamentals don’nt change. But how those fundamentals are understood can improve (or degenerate) over time and because the world changes we must change how they are applied.
@ Rick Rowling in fact the placebo effect is so strong (even in studies where the people taking the placebo are told “this is a placebo”) that it goes a long way to explain the perserverence of “alternate” medicines as well as religious “cures”, because in fact, if you believe there is a chance you will become better.
He answered #1) by saying yes, that quantum foam pre-existed, but then he contradicted himself in #2) when he said that all known laws of physics (quantum mechanics & general relativity) were born the instant the big bang started.
That may not be a contradiction. Quantum foam could have pre-existed but the particular set of laws of physics we have may have been created by our big bang.
Who’s to say whether different times and places have had different laws created?
Rick/KiwiGreg – - I’m aware of that, but prayer does help. I’m sure things like meditation and positive thought programmes could also help. Happiness/laughter also helps, so a comedian may be as effective as a charlatan.
TheContrarian, I don’t support the God creation nor support non-causal physics theories. I’m an objectivist, where causality rule supreme. The physical universe must be causal or otherwise, we’re just here as illusion if the universe is non-causal. Modern Physics is basically non-causal, and I have a problem with that, just look no further than Quantum Mechanics itself, which is a non-causal theory. Things occurs with no causes at all. A nuclei can decay by emitting particles. What causes those particles to be emitted? QM says that nothing caused them to be emitted because the process is probabilistic (no causes). So, God creationist proponents argue on similar reasoninigs via non-causality.
What’s in it for you Contrarian? Why are you so hell bent on proving the non existence of God? I’m not a church goer but I am amazed at the number of people in NZ that believe they need to turn the entire world into atheists.
I haven’t read the entire thread as you’ve mostly made it unreadable.
The church versus the heathens debate has been done to death on this site for mine.
@ theContrarian You would have more success (and more chance of them understanding you) arguing with a rock. In fact it’s so stupid I’m going with troll.
@ redeye I’m guessing he just cant let the lie stand. No one cares if scrubone believes in fairies. It’s when he starts saying his fairy tales are fact (and not just any fact, “scientific” fact, so long as he defines what “scientific” means).
TheContrarian… Nuclear decay is pretty well understood
Mathematically Yes! Physicality No!
If you say that it has been physically well understood then how do you explain the wave function collapsed as shown in lovely animation of the : Double Slit Experiment
Nuclear decay observation conforms exactly to the prediction of the quantum wave-equation as described in the experiment above. Note the physical explanation in the video. Wave function collapsed is instantaneous, which implies zero time lapse where causes & effects happens simultaneously. For existence to exist, causes MUST precede the effects therefore there must be a non-zero time-lapsed observed.
It would be more enlightening, and no doubt help to continue tom’s mood, if the thread returned to the discussion on nothing and how the nothing can be something, and yet nothing, and how that nothing that is actually something can create the universe as we know it.
No, the universe is not strange. Physicists thoughts of how the physical universe operates is strange. That’s the issue right there,mathematics has overtaken physics. There’s nothing wrong with the use of mathematics in physics, what’s wrong is that every solution equation that physics theories produced is treated by physicists as some kind of physical observable that has yet to be discovered.
Do you believe in time traveling? Solution to GR (general relativity) predicts that time-traveling is possible? This is absurd and must be dismissed straight away, no ifs no buts. It violates causality, period.
Some of the mathematical artifacts in physics are somehow treated as real. This is where philosophy should come in. It can root out mathematical artifacts that imply non-causality. But No, physicists take every solution equation that they come up with as a result of solving QM or GR as real.
How about tachyon particle? Is this one of the physics’ mathematical artifact or is it real? Tachyon has complex number mass. Can you explain to me what does an object with a complex number mass look like? Lets’ say, that there is an orange with a mass of 100*I grams (‘I’ is the square root of -1) and another orange with a real mass of 100 grams? Can you explain the physicality of the 2 oranges? One with complex mass number and the other one with real mass number? Don’t you think that such concept as complex mass is ridiculous? Such concept was discovered purely on mathematical physics.
Ryan Sproull: Purely functionally, what’s the harm of kids being taught creationism? If they end up studying biology or geology at a tertiary level, they’ll soon be put right. Even if they don’t, they’ll probably catch up. And if they don’t catch up, what’s the harm? An accountant who believes in creationism is not exactly professionally hamstrung by it.
The problem is that you sometimes end up with biologists with degrees who still believe in creationism.
Consider for example, the debate over genetic engineering. There are lots of groups trying to shut this down. They have “experts” who assure them, incorrectly as it happens, that their beliefs have scientific backing. It turns out that many of those “experts” are creationists. So creationism can lead to projects being shut down, and job losses.
Here is a theory called TEW (Theory of Elementary Waves) that was proposed in the late 1990s which is claimed to have corrected the mistake made by the founders of Quantum Mechanics (Neil Bohr, et al) early on when they first developed the theory. TEW is claimed to have combined Quantum Mechanics (QM) and Special Relativity (SR) as one and the same theory. All the ghost-particle and God-like non-causal behavior of objects in the theory of QM and SR is explained by TEW in a causal and local manner. Ghost & non-causal behavior as Wave function collapse (being at 2 places at once), Complementarity, Uncertainty Principle, etc,…, in QM and SR is out the window. The theory posited a new postulation that made QM and SR become causal theories rather than ghost-like or non-causal theories as they are now in mainstream physics.
Watch the series of 18 video presentations at JPL (year 2000) by the Physicist (Dr Lewis Little) who developed TEW. Here is part 1, but you can find Part 2, Part 3, …, on that same link as well. The prediction of TEW is basically the same as current QM and SR, where their mathematics are almost the same, however Lewis Little added another postulation then changed the direction of wave-equation in QM in the opposite direction, then all the hokum God-like behavior in QM disappears. An example is the which particle goes thru 2 holes at once in the Double-Slit experiment (according to QM) that I linked to above in my previous comment. TEW says that the particle never went thru the 2 holes at once (non-causal behavior). The single particle only went thru one of the holes but not both at the same time.
TEW has been attached by other physicists, but its a good start to Physics whether TEW is correct or not, that some other sane Physicists are attempting to restore causality to Physics which have been thrown out in the last 100 years.
Dr. Little: A theory which results in absurd conclusions is false. Reality doesn’t make mistakes; only physicists do.
A theory that says that a material particle can be at 2 places at once (ie, QM), is really absurd.
Note that there hasn’t been any publication to critique Dr. Little’s work in the physics literature since his paper first came out but from the author’s website, he says that he’s got some recent publications that he has just submitted in some physics journal for publications. This meant that he has probably overcome some of the shortfall of his TEW theory.
That “female” buys “her” suits at Munns in Wellington. Suggest you take “her” somewhere that you won’t be recognised and take a raincoat for “her” to wear. In the circs, don’t expect a night of flamboyant funky chicken rhythms and manoevres..
You’re making a bunch of statements that basically are untrue e.g. Relativity (yes I did it) can potentially have a mathematical solution of allowing time travel if and only if you allow conditions that never occur. This is generally accepted. Tachyons are thought experiments and no evidence they exist. Current theories say they don’t. Imaginary mass is exactly that. There is no contradiction in QM as the observer affects reality thus you confuse the wave particle duality with newtonian type effects. The particle that is detected had an unknown position until it was detected. These are mutually exclusive. The behaviour at the quantum and also nuclear levels does not match each other or the classical newtonian mechanical model.
How physicists think of the world accepts that what we observe at the macro level and the way the world behaves is very different at different levels of scale. We don’t make the mistake of applying what we see every day e.g. newtonian mechanics. Theoretical physicists make up stuff with maths and then the rest of the physicists do experiments to show what actually happens. We also recognise that picture is definitely incomplete.
I tend to agree with the statement that it is a stange world is actually true. Special relativity tells us that you become shorter in the direction of travel, heavier and time slows down. That is exceedingly strange when we base the majority of our understanding of the world on what we seeevery day. How can something get shorter, heavier etc ? It seems incomprehensible at 1st sight.
I don’t see what is wrong with Munns, formal and casual menswear all in one place
That’s simply because you’re a Marxist. Just because you pinkos are so much more intelligent than everyone else, it doesn’t follow that you dress better. That’s why you like libraries where you can do all your clever reading and dark cafes where you can drink your Shardonneh and talk up the revolution. If you’re honest with yourself, you’ll actually acknowledge that you have no style and are embarassed to be seen in the daylight. This is the reason that Mao, Stalin and Castro ran with the austere uniform couture. It shut down the style debate under penalty of death.
This whole thread has been an 8 hour waste of space
You aren’t into interesting stuff? Perhaps Shortland St or Coro St is on tonight. That might be more to your taste.
slijmbal… There is no contradiction in QM as the observer affects reality
Observer doesn’t affect reality. Are you day dreaming or what. Reality is objective whether we are here to do quantum measurement or not. That’s the whole point of my argument here.
slijmbal… thus you confuse the wave particle duality with newtonian type effects.
No, I don’t confuse wave-particle duality with Newtonian particle trajectory. Wave-particle duality has never been proven. Show me where it has been proven?
slijmbal… The particle that is detected had an unknown position until it was detected.
So, you buy into the concept that the particle went thru 2 holes simultaneously? But this has never ever been detected at the slit holes.
slijmbal… These are mutually exclusive.
That’s what the math says and not what the experimental observation has confirmed. Do you know the difference?
slijmbal… The behaviour at the quantum and also nuclear levels does not match each other or the classical newtonian mechanical model.
Redundant, we already know that. It doesn’t change the fact that at quantum level, it is littered with nonsense. Remember that : Reality doesn’t make mistakes; only physicists do. Reality is absolute, no argument about it.
Have you watched Dr. Little’s presentation at JPL in the link above? I suggest you watch it, not because it is the correct theory, but because it highlighted the absurdity of Modern Physics.
Slijmbal… How physicists think of the world accepts that what we observe at the macro level and the way the world behaves is very different at different levels of scale
Nope, that’s a cop out. Objective reality cannot be contradictive at quantum level but non-contradictive at newtonian level. A cut & paste from here.
A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don’t exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you’re mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.
If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.
Or perhaps you think that physical laws is just playing mind games with humans whenever we do quantum measurement? How about checking your premises?
Slijmbal… Special relativity tells us that you become shorter in the direction of travel, heavier and time slows down.
Observation is correct. The physical processes is absurd. What makes you think that all of a sudden you move across the room (wherever you are), all objects in the whole universe shrink & expand relative to you? Do you really believe that it is the physical processes that are taking place? See, Dr. Little’s explanation where he explained the physical processes that are involved. There is nothing physically shrink or expand in the universe relative to you once you start running across the room, it is only the appearance of your measurement that make it so. Mathematically (the shrinking & expanding), but the claimed physical processes is wrong. Again, see Dr. Little’s explanation.
Granted I don’t understand TEW particularly well but as someone who does know QM fairly well it does have a lot of interesting research to back it up. I’d through my lot in with Hawking, Feynman, Krauss et al. over ‘random kiwiblog guy’ any day.
I will take a couple of your various statements – I find it interesting that you pretty much disagree with most of the agreed theory.
Special relativity – there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous. We manage to accelerate electrons to relavatistic speeds – they show all the behaviours of increased mass. They require greater magnetic fields to keep them in a circlular path as their mass increases for instance. The clocks they used with space travel around the earth also show the expected differences in time. Physicists have looked for reasons to disprove relativity for quite a while now – and still not disproved it.
You seem to translate the fact thay we don’t have any universal theory of everything to mean that the theories that best match reality as we understand it at different levels of scale are contradictory. They are not – newtonian mechanics is an accurate simplification of relativistic theories at low speed for instance. QM by definition does not work at macro levels. Ditto nuclear forces they do not have effects outside of the atomic world as they fall off to nothing by definition.
The fact that something has both the properties of a particle and wave you are not accepting by applying a particle model – it has both. Quantum tunnelling does not match any form of classical mechanics for instance – it is observable – are you saying it doens’t happen?
QM does not say it went through 2 slits – that’s what is taught to school kids by teachers with no proper understanding and referring back to newtonian and therefore a familiar physical model – as you appear to do.
There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative – in that both Einstein and our quantum mechanical mates are right. There are repeatable models but they all require interaction to measure. The uncertainty principle (never disproved) means 2 of us will measure the same thing differently. Lots of evidence to confirm this difference in measurement.
Despite what you say QM, Nuclear, Electromagnetic (includes GR) are not contradictive they are our best models for current behaviour at different levels of scales. I think we’re missing something in the total picture by definition and was not a great fan of nuclear physics when I studied it – it felt ptolemaic.
You keep stating about reality – there is no reality – physics is about predictive models – if you have a model that is most accurately predictive then that is the best current model.
While I remember – you do actually need space because without it there would be no distance – so of course it exists.
“there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous. We manage to accelerate electrons to relavatistic speeds”
” The clocks they used with space travel around the earth also show the expected differences in time.”
Not only that but GPS satellites have system in place to make up for the time difference caused by relativity.
” Quantum tunnelling does not match any form of classical mechanics for instance – it is observable – are you saying it doens’t happen?”
Without quantum tunnelling many of our electronic products wouldn’t work.
“There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative – in that both Einstein and our quantum mechanical mates are right. There are repeatable models but they all require interaction to measure. The uncertainty principle (never disproved) means 2 of us will measure the same thing differently. Lots of evidence to confirm this difference in measurement.”
I agree with Dime, what a fucking shambles. Trolls, nutbars, religious nutbars, timewasters, civil servants, teachers, wow they all had a go.
I think I will have tomorrow off work and go find a top class hooker. There has to be more going on than today’s shit on Kiwiblog.
Where are the haters and wreckers who attack John Key and National? Run out of material leftie pond dwellers?
@slijmbal, Special relativity – there are so many proofs of this it’s ludicrous.
There is no proof for TEW yet but it predicts that same outcome as relativity. The difference here is that TEW has a physical basis in its formulation, while relativity didn’t. Einstein took the constancy of speed of light as a basic fact with no physical basis at all. The equations of SR can be derived from the postulation of TEW. I suggest you watch the lecture series on TEW that by Dr. Little before you comment.
Let me ask you a very simple question before I continue on, because it is you who have a high school understanding of physics that need to be corrected.
You said… There is NO OBJECTIVE reality it is all subjective and relative
Hehe, that’s laughable. A little kid can see that such notion is absurd. Is everything around you an illusion? Is your computer objectively real or its existence is dependent on whenever someone is doing quantum measurement somewhere. That’s exactly what you’ve just said. Remember that inanimate object don’t assess reality subjectively, its only humans. So, you’re one of those who thinks that the Universe didn’t exist until humans arrived and started doing quantum measurement therefore reality then pops into existence? See the debate between Einstein & Bohr on this very topic. The moon is not up there until someone observes?
A young woman who had been married for several years was growing more and more frustrated at her husband’s lack of interest in sex. She wondered about ways to add some pizzazz to their sexual relationship, and finally decided to purchase some crotchless underwear she had seen in a novelty shop.
One evening when she was feeling particularly desirous and he was, as usual, watching television, she took a shower, freshened up, and donned her crotchless undies and a slinky negligee. She then strolled between her husband and the television and suggestively tossed one leg up on his chair arm. “Want some of this?” she purred.
“Are you kidding?”, he replied, “Look what it did to those panties.”
High school physics – thanks for that – I see you’re getting personal rather than doing the argument. I have a physics degree from Oxford. I did the equivalent academically at NZ bursary of being one of the top couple in the country. I was give the option of studying physics or maths at said university.
after general physics I specialised in theoretical, atomic and nuclear physics. I did not take that any further as I disliked the tremendously pottical nature of academia. I was offered lots of posts.
Frankly you keep repeating the same mistake – you keep applying macro observed activities to other scales of physics. This is an absurdity if you have any real understanding of physics above 2ndary school level. I never said it’s all an illusion that’s your (what I believe to be deliberately) mis-interpretation of what I am saying. I am saying that at the QM level – when it’s measured the measurement has an effect – you cannot even see an object without bouncing some light off it for instance – that light has an effect on the object being measured – this is pretty basic physics.
I looked up and read TEW some time ago and did the courtesy of re-reading various pro- and anti- posts regarding it tonight. It is a theory that with modification may yet turn out to be true – however, it is currently a side channel that is seen as having HUGE holes in terms of what it predicts. and being unlikely to be a viable theory. It has a lot of defects and its defects outweigh the minor contradictions in current theory it appears to address. I will be the 1st to apologise if he proves the rest of us wrong but it is not showing such signals.
“Moon is not there until someone observes” – well done you took a QM argument and took it into the macro environment once again thus proving your complete lack of understanding of QM vs Newtonian level physics.
Not sure how to ask this without it being seen as potentially insulting but are you a mathematician with a view of physics?
Consider that there is experimental confirmations behind many QM predictions including entanglement as well as relativistic predictions including time dilation. We are also on the verge on Quantum Computing. These are not just theories but real life practical applications
Yes, begging the question sums it up. It’s almost as if Scrubone is trying to steer you into saying something quite specific about science or the scientific method so that s/he can dump a standard pre-written set of apologetics in your lap. But it’s late, and I may be just being too cynical. Night all.
I did my Physics doctorate in photonics/opto-electronic under Prof. John Harvey at Physics Dept at Auckland University, so I’m well versed in quantum electronics and solid state physics. I took a a post-doc position at NTT, Japan (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone Corporation) but it was cut short after 5 months, when I had to come back here because my late dad’s cancer deteriorated slowly. I would have gone back to complete my 2 year contract at NTT had I just came back for a funeral. And what the hell have you done with you QM degree? Have you designed any electronic gadgets using your QM knowledge? If so, then what sort of devices? You get to know the theory better when you apply it, like those of use who have worked in the electronics industry.
Slijmball… you keep applying macro observed activities to other scales of physics
Ha! Nonsense. At what scale is the macro becomes cut-off from micro? Feynman came up with QED to explain how this transition is accomplished, but it doesn’t change the fact that micro & macro is a human invention (not physical reality itself). Imagine if humans were the size of an atomic nucleus? Would you still be arguing about macro versus micro? Its arbitrary, isn’t it? So, what’s the cut-off scale again? You wouldn’t know would you? There a is push now to increase the size of objects from micro into a reasonable macro size in BEC (Bose–Einstein condensate) type laser so they can conduct the double-slit experiment and see if it still holds. Currently it still holds. If you know the cut-off point of the transition between macro & micro then I suggest you make contact with researchers who are developing BEC laser and offer your advise on what size are those BEC super-atoms are ought to be.
Slijmball… I am saying that at the QM level – when it’s measured the measurement has an effect – you cannot even see an object without bouncing some light off it for instance – that light has an effect on the object being measured
That’s redundant statement and you offered nothing new. I said that physical reality is objective and not subjective and you don’t need quantum physics, string theory, relativity or TEW to prove it. It is a basic philosophical principle that underpins existence. Do electronics or sub-atomic particles in the quantum scale have definite identities ? QM says No. They exist is a mixture of states until being measured by a conscious observer. Any object that lacks identity can’t exist. To exist, then object must have particular identities at all time. If objects don’t have identities then they can’t exist, pure and simple. This is the reason that one has to rule out the existence of God because such entity has no particular identities. Its proponents claim that God is everywhere at once (ie, no particular identity). Does this sound similar to QM that where particles are everywhere with a certain probability and that can only materialize whenever someone does some measurements? So, religious followers and QM followers believe the same philosophy of no identities and non-causality are’nt they?
Slijmball… well done you took a QM argument and took it into the macro environment once again thus proving your complete lack of understanding of QM vs Newtonian level physics.
That’s Einstein argument and not mine. The fact still remain. What is the cutoff point when QM stops and Newtonian starts? As I said above, you don’t know and neither the blind faith followers of QM & SR.
Slijmball… mathematician with a view of physics?
I have explained my background above.
Now, I’m not critiquing QM and SR as useless. What I’m critiquing is the lack of causality, which is the basis of existence. Any theory that can reproduce predictions of QM and SR but causal, then that theory is closer to reality.
I’m not a physicist or nuclear scientist but I know something: You look around yourself and you see that there is ‘stuff’ in existence. Physical ‘stuff’ like trees, animals, planets, stars etc.
This physical ‘stuff’ is highly organised and developed in many ways which cries out the question ‘Where did it all come from?’
My limited understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is that the natural state of matter tends to go from a higher energy level to a lower energy level with the balance being know as entropy (unusable background energy)
This remains in effect unless an outside force inputs more energy into the state of matter.
I see this in that you buy a new car. Within 5 years it has a few dings and bashes , the motor gives problems, and it has to go to a mechanic to get fixed up. (Input of energy)
This tends to point to the fact that at some point the Universe and everything we know was at one point at a higher state of energy than it is currently. This in itself points to a beginning point as presumably matter could not keep increasing to higher energy levels infinitely.
So this means at some point reality/universe/physical dimension began. Prior to this nothing existed and then everything existed.
It doesn’t matter what long scientific words/theories are quoted, any satisfactory explanation must account for this beginning point.
As far as I’m concerned there are only 2 possible explanations:
1 The physical universe came from nothing, was birthed by nothing, all complex life forms came about by nothing, there was no cause – it just happened.
2 The physical universe was a direct result of a creative act by a Being who exists outside the Physical dimension and caused the physical dimension to come into being.
As to the origins of this Being, well the only answer possible is the one He gave himself that He is ‘eternal’ and has always existed.
Now I don’t claim to believe God created the Universe because of cunning creationist science – I believe in Him as I refuse to accept that all of the complexity of our World and Universe came about from nothing.
Now no Scientist can prove God created the Universe or not and neither can they prove that nothing created the Universe or not.
For anyone to state otherwise – they are deluding themselves.
Both concepts are statements of faith – either believe that God or nothing created the Universe.
In some respects you could say that God and ‘nothing’ are synonymous.
For me its a nobrainer – what I see in the diversity and complexity of this world points only to one thing the act of an intelligent designer.
The main difficulty for a lot of folks is if you accept that God exists then you have to ask the next question: How does He expect us to live – what are his ‘rules’. This is the biggest issue really – without God there are no rules apart from what society decides to make up = equals a salved conscience.
I stated my question about mathematician as trying not to play the man – but I see you did it with my application of degree
macro vs micro – all physics is an approximation – but the boundaries are surpisingly small
it is pretty obvious nuclear forces from the sub atomic particals in your body don’t affect the sun according to current theory – well they do but the effects are unmeasurable. You are argueing angels on a pin.
“That’s an einstein argument not mine” – but you used it, by definition stood behind it and just admitted it’s wrong by your response
your bollocks about god and QM makes me think you are on drugs – you keep on seeing QM at a particle level – it is not – it is a quantum level
Keep to real science son – be nice to me and I’ll give you your arse back in the morning
fyi – I see no arguments in physics supporting the existence of god
TheContrarian… Consider that there is experimental confirmations behind many QM predictions including entanglement as well as relativistic predictions including time dilation.
I think that you and Slijmball missed my argument. QM predictions are correct (facts are facts – its undeniable) in terms of verifiable observations, SR are correct again in terms of verifiable observations, what is at dispute here is the physical fundamental formulations & interpretations. As Feynman challenged the Physics community that if anyone could come up with a theory that can explain (ie, predict) the observations in the double-slit experiment (epitome of QM) then the standard QM theory is ought to be replaced by that theory. There has been many attempts in the past with many theories being proposed but TEW is the closest one that’s non-contradictive to date. It may not be robust at the moment but all theories started out like that. Solid-state physics wasn’t born at the same time as QM. QM was widen to study many phenomena in this new area over the last 50 years or so, therefore QM is very successful in its application in solid-state physics and quantum electronics.
You guys haven’t answered my question that put to you above in my previous post.
Do I physically shrink or expand relative to some speeding objects in the faraway galaxies? You know that there are billions of high speed moving objects in the universe. Imagine (hypothetically) that there is an alien with his radars and measuring instruments in that moving object who’s trying to measure how tall Falafulu on planet earth. Do you think once that the alien with his measuring device who is moving on a very fast speed thinks that I’m either shrinking or getting taller relative to him simply because he is moving? If his measurements concluded that I’m shriking, then what you guys (my fellow earth residents) think? Do I really shrink physically in accordance with the conclusion reached by the alien based on his measuring device/s in that faraway planet/galaxy/moving-object that he/she’s in? C’mon its absurd, isn’t it? I’m not physically shirking nor expanding relative to some speeding observer in a faraway planet or galaxy. My height here on earth stays the same, however my appearance to the the faraway speeding observer is in accord with Special Relativity (no disagreement there). It does make sense, doesn’t it? That’s exactly what TEW is saying. The equations of SR is correct, but not the physicality. These are 2 different things.
Correct mathematics is not the same thing as correct physical interpretations. The problems in modern physics is that they take mathematical solutions and interpret it directly as somehow the true underlying mechanism of physical reality.
Quite often some people can outsmart themselves. (in the old days this was called stepping on your own prick)
i see one correspondant tonight makes the point that there are,” billions of high speed moving objects in the universe.”
how very profound.
And of course this correspondant believes that this is his trump card that proves his argument is right.
Now, suppose that this phenomena is shown to someone who had never seen the effect of refraction in his/her entire life and has no knowledge of the property of light when it travels thru water (or liquid), because the effect of the medium in slowing down the speed of the light wave, which makes any half submerged object in a glass of water appear physically bent. This person will think when he/she sees such phenomena for the first time that the object is really physically bent but for those of us who have seen it and understood of what it is know that the half submerged object is not really physically bent at all. It is the slowing of light wave speed in the water as first observed by Snell ( Snell’s law) that caused the appearance to be bent, but physically the object does not bend at all. Observation (or any instruments that one uses to measure & estimate the full length of the half submerged object) agrees with Snell’s equation/law, while the true physical reality says that the object is not really bent.
Its the same phenomena in modern physics. All the non-causal physical observables agreed with the prediction of the equations. However the real physical interpretation has to be dismissed simply because it violates causality.
Bereal, have you got any argument to make? If you can’t understand a post here then fucking skip the post and don’t read it. My post wasn’t intended for you to read, because it is obvious that you have no fucking clue. My post was intended for TheContrarian and Slijmball who I have been debating on this thread. I do skip the posts of others if their messages relate to some fields that I don’t know or familiar with. So, don’t fucking come back with a stupid comment after this post. Stick to topics that you can debate on, because my posts weren’t targeted for you.
When you move, your measuring devices tell you that other objects are shrinking & expanding (depending on your motion’s direction) relative to you. Consider 2 different moving persons who happen to home-in their measuring devices on the same 3rd person? Say person-1 is moving towards person-3 and person-2 is moving away from person-3. In special relativity person-1 and person-2 will end up with different measurement of person-3. One concludes that person-3 is shrinking and the other one concludes that person-3 is expanding? The question to ask, is if person-3 is indeed physically shrinking or expanding? TEW said it is neither, the size of person-3 stays the same, it is the appearance that is change (which is compatible with SR equation’s prediction).
I found out that TEW stands for total Extreme wrestling or perhaps and more importantly to our God Steve Tew who is the currently CEO of the New Zealand Rugby Union and has been a member of the NZRFU since 2001. My eyes are still suffering from the Doppler effect or was that doppleganger…as for meat heat you need a degree from Fahrenheit Uni,bloody Kelvinists.
“Hamnida (464) Says:
August 22nd, 2012 at 9:03 am
I’ve only had a couple of bad employers, 90% have been great. From my experience, the problems often occur in middle management, where people have been promoted and power has gone to their heads. Far less issues with senior management and business owners.”
Promotion from the ranks based on competence at that level doesn’t result in good management unless the person is given and understands management training.
jims_whare (271) Says:
August 22nd, 2012 at 9:27 pm
Yep I don’t believe the something comes from nothing rubbish either, it’s just not logical.
An aha moment came for me during biology in class, we were covering the rainforest and it became apparent that it was a lifetimes study for some people as each layer height of the forest was it’s own ecosystem and literally one person could spend their academic life studying just one layer.
I caught a glimpse of the complexity of the whole world which has grown into an appreciation of the marvelous place we inhabit.
It’s all a wonder from the deepest nano molecule in our bodies to the supernovas in space.
Those people who really know just their tiny bit of it are blessed.