tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post3051428955574801151..comments2024-01-03T15:34:49.620+00:00Comments on Ian Wardell: Philosophical Thoughts: Changing the definitions of words does not prove anythingIan Wardellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-9099638158071314552015-05-23T23:31:30.597+01:002015-05-23T23:31:30.597+01:00You know itsfunny, I tried to exprss this with set...You know itsfunny, I tried to exprss this with sets, I said imagine you have two sets of objects, and you move all the objects from one set into the other. Then you have a null set, and thats exactly what you do when you make a vacuum by removing molecules, make a null set. So I wrote this:<br /><br />"If one removes all the molecules of air from a jar, a vacuum remains. In this case, the vacuum refers to the absence of atoms. The vacuum is defined by absence of something which could be there, in other words, it is defined by a null set. This has been very important in physics, because a vacuum is an abstract concept which never really exists. However by assuming a null set, one can simplify calculations of electromagnetic and subatomic particle movement in the void, by removing various unnecessary calculations~~as they are nulled by the absence of air."<br /><br />this made physicists very annoyed. A number wrote to me a vacuum is not a null set because it stll contains as you say em waves etc. It seemed to me they didnt actually understand their own maths, because what I was saying was, the *molecules* had been removed making a null set of *molecules.* But I learned a long time ago, dont argue with someone who thinks they understands physics better than you do, because if they don't, you'll never win. ernestmhttp://yofiel.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-68261125761765631072012-03-27T18:32:34.318+01:002012-03-27T18:32:34.318+01:00You are right, Ian. Krauss' "nothing&quo...You are right, Ian. Krauss' "nothing" is defined as follows: a zero point vacuum configuration of quantum relativistic fields. He discusses in his book how those vacuum fields MIGHT spontaneously produce the universe we have come to know and love. However, he never even comes close to addressing why there are zero point vacuum configurations of quantum relativistic fields to begin with! His title is a gimmick.floatideashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14688286199657998109noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-29405304115504593452012-03-06T21:39:49.724+00:002012-03-06T21:39:49.724+00:00You're right Ian. Lawrence confuses the concep...You're right Ian. Lawrence confuses the concepts of nothingness and emptiness: the emptiness is not nothingness, but something, a field of virtual particles. Maybe the universe emerged from this field, but from which emerged the field and the physical laws that govern it? At the moment be taken as a primitive fact, without further explanation, which prevents it from having an explanation for everything. So not really answered the question why is there something instead of nothing. Science will always have to take something as primitive fact.<br>Look here:<br>http://subversivethinking.blogspot.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-59943416943334397442012-02-17T17:50:14.631+00:002012-02-17T17:50:14.631+00:00I am very aware that Krauss misuses the word nothi...I am very aware that Krauss misuses the word nothing.<br><br>You cannot show that nothing is something, any more than you can show that the meaning of any other word is other than how it is defined.<br><br>He would be required to demonstrate that the concept of absolute nothingness is logically, or at least metaphysically, impossible.<br><br>Regarding "Endless Universe" I am not interested in ill-founded speculations by theoretical physicists. And that includes the alleged existence of "dark energy".<br><br>This communication is at an end.Ianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-59571732117091454682012-02-17T17:17:24.282+00:002012-02-17T17:17:24.282+00:00You seem to misunderstand. What we call "noth...You seem to misunderstand. What we call "nothing" is not really nothing. This is what Krauss was attempting to show you. So the nothingness in question is not nothing in how you interpret it. Get it?<br><br>Now, the question you ask why is that so. It simple is. It is a brute fact. Krauss first shows you why there is no such thing as nothing by showing you that nothing is in fact "something". Then he shows you that this "nothing" is unstable and will always produce something.<br><br>The reason I recommend that you read Endless Universe is that Neil Turok does have an explanation that to me is more satisfying then Krauss. He theorizes that the universe is engaged in an eternal cycle of expansion and contraction: There have been many Big Bangs, and there will be many more.<br><br>The only real assumption that has to be made in the cyclic model is that dark energy can and does decay. When this happens the expansion will eventually start to slow down and ultimately contract. Within the cyclic theory, the energy associated with the force of attraction between these two membranes is responsible, in part, for the dark energy. <br><br>Inflation cannot account for dark energy at all.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-11433175631531262582012-02-17T17:00:52.598+00:002012-02-17T17:00:52.598+00:00It's not the philosophers definition of the wo...It's not the philosophers definition of the word, it's what nothing means!<br><br>Yes there is something rather than nothing. The question is why? If Krauss doesn't address this point then the title of his book is inappropriate.<br><br>"Endless Universe" is another book by a theoretical physicist. It's not clear to me why you think I would be interested in reading it.Ianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05999029760897196102noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8392804955786463612.post-6484534361803533782012-02-17T16:52:11.374+00:002012-02-17T16:52:11.374+00:00Read "Endless Universe" by Neil Turok. B...Read "Endless Universe" by Neil Turok. <br><br>BTW, what Krauss was attempting to show was there is no such thing as "nothing" in the sense you are thinking. Even if you remove space and time, and all matter including every atom in the universe you would have a quantum field where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. So the "nothingness" you are trying to comprehend in the philosopher's definition of the word simply does not exist.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com