Cosmology Physics

Rob Sheldon on who gets credit for science discoveries and insight and why

Spread the love

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG I just put another pot on.

Noting that some have been making great claims for Einstein’s theory of general relativity (greater, perhaps, than the ones he himself would have made), like “The reward for harnessing Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity is nothing less than the key to understanding the universe, the origin of time, and the evolution of all the stars and galaxies in the cosmos”:

General relativity (GR) is no more the key to the origin of time than Newtonian Mechanics or Thermodynamics. It reminds me of a paper by historian of science Stephen Brush, who taught at UMd when I was in grad school. Brush noted that the “Bose-Einstein” condensation was Bose’s work, Einstein merely translated it into German for the Zietschrift fur Physik when the Royal Society rejected the paper. So why does Einstein get the credit? Brush called it “The Matthew Effect”, citing Matt 25:29, and it now has its own Wikipedia page. In Jesus’ parable, the rich ruler comes back from his journey and takes away the 1 talent and gives it to the man with 5 talents. “To those who have, will more be given”.

This is true in my area of space physics, where the name “Alfven” is attributed to things Hannes Alfven knew nothing about–and in his own lifetime, asked why they were named for him. I think the theorist who is promoting it, hopes that a famous name will lend credence to his ideas, even if they aren’t named for him.

And that is certainly true of cosmology. Very little of the era of “precision” cosmology is actually precise. What it amounts to, is the fitting of arbitrary polynomials to the data more and more precisely. The polynomials, on the other hand, are pulled out of a hat and attributed to Einstein when in fact, he would likely have disowned these metaphysically messy objects. It is time for “critical probing” indeed.

Pos-Darwinista kindly paases the raw sugar down the table and writes to say that Stephen Brush’s papers are here.

See also: The Science Fictions series at your fingertips (cosmology) for obstacles to any such probing.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

32 Replies to “Rob Sheldon on who gets credit for science discoveries and insight and why

  1. 1

    The Stephen Brush archive was a gold mine. I found the first reference to Matthew Effect in a 1978 Paper. I also found that SB had sparred with Henry Morris and campaigned to keep Creationism out of schools.

    When I met him, he was researching a paper on Hannes Alfven, and evidently completed several papers, trying to figure out why the man kept making successful predictions, but without acceptance by the community. Science, evidently, doesn’t always reward the ones who are right–sometimes politics are more important, which in this case, was Sidney Chapman.

    But then, most curiously, I found a 2000 publication in which he claimed:
    “The new “Intelligent Design” theory is a “soft” Creationism — it makes no testable statements, in contrast to Young Earth Creationism which makes many testable statements, all of which have been tested and refuted. Both versions, along with postmodern skepticism about the validity of scientific knowledge, undermine public support for science.”

    Not surprisingly, Brush was not a Kuhnian, but where did he get his false information on ID? Two publications in 2003, 2004 with the NCSE are the probable cause. Even historians of science, evidently, can be misled about history. Perhaps we should start the field of “History of Science Historians” to set the record straight.

  2. 2
    Mapou says:

    Hero worship seems to be ingrained in the psyche of the human species. This is the main reason, IMO, that progress in physics and computer science has come to a standstill. Physics has a rather crowded pantheon of gods and demigods with Einstein and Feynman at the top. Computer science, by contrast, seems to have just one almighty god at the top of their pantheon, Alan Turing. Charles Babbage and John Von Neumann are a distant second, even though they contributed more to modern computer science than anyone else. Physics is handicapped by its mistaken belief in nonsensical concepts like physical space and time, and continuity. Computer science, OTOH, is paralyzed by their belief in the algorithm as the basis of computing. It is depressing. Both fields are worshipping false gods who have led them astray. Now they are lost in a lost world of their own making.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    as to ‘time’ and the origin thereof, I learned more from this following quote as to the ‘hierarchy of time’, and from whence time ‘originated’, than I did from anywhere else:

    ‘In the ‘spirit world,,, instantly, there was no sense of time. See, everything on earth is related to time. You got up this morning, you are going to go to bed tonight. Something is new, it will get old. Something is born, it’s going to die. Everything on the physical plane is relative to time, but everything in the spiritual plane is relative to eternity. Instantly I was in total consciousness and awareness of eternity, and you and I as we live in this earth cannot even comprehend it, because everything that we have here is filled within the veil of the temporal life. In the spirit life that is more real than anything else and it is awesome. Eternity as a concept is awesome. There is no such thing as time. I knew that whatever happened was going to go on and on.’
    In The Presence Of Almighty God – The NDE of Mickey Robinson – video

    That there actually is a higher ‘eternal’ dimension of time above this one, (from whence this temporal time originated), is verified by special relativity (and general relativity).

    “I’ve just developed a new theory of eternity.”
    Albert Einstein – The Einstein Factor – Reader’s Digest – 2005

    Albert Einstein – Special Relativity – Insight Into Eternity – ‘thought experiment’ video

    Some may think that time, as we understand it, coming to a complete stop at the speed of light is pure science fiction, but, as incredible as it sounds, Einstein’s infamous thought experiment has many lines of evidence now supporting it.

    Velocity time dilation tests

    “Recent experiments have confirmed, to within one part in one hundred million billion (10^17), that the speed of light does not change when an observer is in motion.”
    Douglas Ell – “Counting To God” – pg. 41 – 2014

    “The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass.”
    Richard Swenson – More Than Meets The Eye, Chpt. 12

    This following confirmation of time dilation is my favorite since they have actually caught time dilation on film
    (of note: light travels approx. 1 foot in a nanosecond (billionth of a second) whilst the camera used in the experiment takes a trillion pictures a second):

    Amazing — light filmed at 1,000,000,000,000 Frames/Second! – video (so fast that at 9:00 Minute mark of video the time dilation effect of relativity is caught on film)

    This higher dimension, ‘eternal’, inference for the time framework of light is also warranted, by logic, because light is not ‘frozen within time’, i.e. light appears to move to us in our temporal framework of time, yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. The only way this is possible is if light is indeed of a higher dimensional value of time than our temporal time is otherwise light would simply be ‘frozen in time’ to our temporal frame of reference. Another line of evidence that supports the inference that ‘tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday’, at the ‘eternal’ speed of light, is visualizing what would happen if a hypothetical observer were to approach the speed of light. Please note, at the 3:22 minute mark of the following video, when the 3-Dimensional world ‘folds and collapses’ into a tunnel shape as a ‘hypothetical’ observer moves towards the ‘higher dimension’ of the speed of light, (Of note: This following video was made by two Australian University Physics Professors with a supercomputer.).

    Approaching The Speed Of Light – Optical Effects – video

    ,,,hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, yet, and this is a very big ‘yet’ to take note of; this ‘timeless’ travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework of time i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our temporal perspective. Yet, in quantum teleportation of information, the ‘time not passing’, i.e. ‘eternal’, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but is also ‘instantaneously’ achieved in our temporal framework.

    Special Relativity and Quantum Entanglement Reflect Some Characteristics Of God – video

    That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of quantum information is instantaneous to both the temporal framework and the ‘eternal’ speed of light framework, not just the speed of light framework. Information entanglement/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us in this temporal framework.

    Most importantly, Quantum entanglement shows us that ‘pure transcendent information’ is indeed real and the framework in which ‘It’ resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned).

    Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory – 29 October 2012
    Excerpt: “Our result gives weight to the idea that quantum correlations somehow arise from outside spacetime, in the sense that no story in space and time can describe them,”

    LIVING IN A QUANTUM WORLD – Vlatko Vedral – 2011
    Excerpt: Thus, the fact that quantum mechanics applies on all scales forces us to confront the theory’s deepest mysteries. We cannot simply write them off as mere details that matter only on the very smallest scales. For instance, space and time are two of the most fundamental classical concepts, but according to quantum mechanics they are secondary. The entanglements are primary. They interconnect quantum systems without reference to space and time. If there were a dividing line between the quantum and the classical worlds, we could use the space and time of the classical world to provide a framework for describing quantum processes. But without such a dividing line—and, indeed, without a truly classical world—we lose this framework. We must explain space and time (4D space-time) as somehow emerging from fundamentally spaceless and timeless physics.

    i.e. Logic also dictates ‘a decision’ must have been made, by the ‘transcendent, eternal, infinite information’ from the primary timeless (eternal) reality ‘It’ inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality in which time flows. In other words, God is a personal agent!

    “An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality”
    Akiane Kramarik – Child Prodigy –

    Supplemental note:

    Dr. Quantum in Flatland – 3D in a 2D world – video

  4. 4
    Acartia_bogart says:

    The main problem is the publish or perish attitude of modern academia. It has resulted in professors taking on as many grad students as they can and then taking most of the credit for their work.

  5. 5
    Mapou says:

    BA77, time does not pass for anybody. Why? Because the sentence is self-referential. This is the reason that nothing moves in Einstein’s spacetime, something I’m sure you are aware of.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, not that you will take it, but a word of advice. When confronted with a puzzle, denial that the puzzle exists is not the best option. Investigation as to why a puzzle is as it is is a better option.

  7. 7
    Vishnu says:

    BA77 reference to Looking beyond space and time to cope with quantum theory

    The writer of that article is a bit deficient in his/her handle of the matter…

    First, it could be arranged in advance. The second option is that it could be synchronised by some signal sent between the particles.

    Third, it could be the result of the particles are connected in a way more fundamental than spacetime, like say, via an algorithmic processor.

    However, conventional tests of Bell inequalities can never completely kill hope of a common sense story involving signals that don’t flout the principles of relativity… Trying to explain quantum “spooky action at a distance” using any kind of signal pits Einstein’s relativity against our concept of a smooth spacetime.

    The writer assumes that the “signals” are sent thru space-time. They are not. The effect is instantaneous. There is no information traveling through space-time. Thus no violation of Einstein’s relativity. It all makes sense in a virtual reality where whatever generating space-time transcends space-time.

    Experiments have already shown that if you want to invoke signals to explain things, the signals would have to be travelling faster than light — more than 10,000 times the speed of light, in fact.

    Apparently, they haven’t caught on to the virtual reality concept yet. Too much of what is going on with quantum entanglement all but proves that a transcendent reality exists that is making instantaneous connections (from our perspective) between the objects within space-time.

    I predict they won’t find anything.

  8. 8
    Mapou says:


    Mapou, not that you will take it, but a word of advice. When confronted with a puzzle, denial that the puzzle exists is not the best option. Investigation as to why a puzzle is as it is is a better option.

    You’re absolutely right. Your advice is worthless to me but it would do you a world of good. Based on experience, I’m sure I’m wasting my time with just another a doctrinarian. See you around, amigo.

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    Vishnu @7:

    The writer assumes that the “signals” are sent thru space-time. They are not. The effect is instantaneous. There is no information traveling through space-time. Thus no violation of Einstein’s relativity. It all makes sense in a virtual reality where whatever generating space-time transcends space-time.

    You right. Spacetime is a perceptual illusion because nothing can move in it, not particles, not information, nothing. Space (distance), too, is an illusion because it leads to an infinite regress. Einstein did not understand this. This is why he could never understand his so-called ‘spooky action at a distance’. As Gottfried Leibniz once put it, “space is nothing else but an order of the existence of things, observed as existing together; and therefore the fiction of a material universe, moving forward in an empty space cannot be admitted.”

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, no hard feelings buddy. I just think you miss some very important subtleties with your brash proclamations as to how you think reality is constructed. For instance, in your rush yesterday to declare that infinity did not exist and only the finite was real, because of the logical contradictions inherent in a infinity of material objects,,,

    William Lane Craig – Hilbert’s Hotel – The Absurdity Of An Infinite Regress Of ‘Things’ – video

    Time Cannot Be Infinite Into The Past – video

    The dissolution of today – graph – May 21, 2014
    Scenario A shows the actual situation of the arrow of time, running from left to right, from today to the future. If this arrow is infinite then we would have no last day.
    To scenario A we apply a shift according to a leftward vector of infinite length to get scenario B suggested by Carroll. Of course the arrow of time continues to run from left to right, but the shift produces a “little” problem: the “no last day” becomes “no today!”. Simply in Carroll’s wonderland the present disappears, and with the present ourselves disappear. 🙁 Please give us back the Creator!)

    Excerpt: Physics is all about predicting the future from the past, but inflation seems to sabotage this: when we try to predict the probability that something particular will happen, inflation always gives the same useless answer: infinity divided by infinity. The problem is that whatever experiment you make, inflation predicts that there will be infinitely many copies of you far away in our infinite space, obtaining each physically possible outcome, and despite years of tooth-grinding in the cosmology community, no consensus has emerged on how to extract sensible answers from these infinities. So strictly speaking, we physicists are no longer able to predict anything at all!

    This means that today’s best theories similarly need a major shakeup, by retiring an incorrect assumption. Which one? Here’s my prime suspect: infinity.

    (actually the ‘theory’ that needs to be retired is the materialistic theory of inflation, which led to the epistemological failure in the first place)

    Inflation theory was proposed to solve two fine-tuning problems of the initial conditions of the early universe known as the “flatness problem”[1] and the “horizon problem”[2].

    Sean Carroll channels Giordano Bruno – Robert Sheldon – November 2011
    Excerpt: ‘In fact, on Lakatos’ analysis, both String Theory and Inflation are clearly “degenerate science programs”.’,,,

    ,, Mapou, In your rush to declare that infinity does not exist and only the finite exist, because of the preceding absurdities inherent in a infinite number of finite ‘material things’, you missed the very important subtlety that infinite information can easily exist with no such inherent contradictions, such as the contradictions that are forced on those positing an infinite number material objects (instead of a transcendent Creator).

    Chaitin reflects on Cantor’s work in the area of infinite mathematical information in the following video:

    Georg Cantor – The Mathematics Of Infinity – video

    As you can somewhat see from the preceding video, Mathematical information is transcendent of spacetime mass-energy, thus the logical contradictions that are inherent to infinite material objects simply do not apply to infinite mathematical objects. Berlinski reflects a bit on the relationship here:

    An Interview with David Berlinski – Jonathan Witt
    Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time ….
    Interviewer:… Come again(?) …
    Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects.

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Pi is a very good example of a infinite number that interacts with the universe,

    ,,,the universe is found to actually be a circular sphere

    Picture of CMBR

    The Known Universe by AMNH – video – (please note the ‘centrality’ of the Earth in ‘sphere’ of the universe at the 3:36 minute mark in the video)

    Proverbs 8:26-27
    While as yet He had not made the earth or the fields, or the primeval dust of the world. When He prepared the heavens, I was there, when He drew a circle on the face of the deep,

    Job 26:10
    He has inscribed a circle on the face of the waters at the boundary between light and darkness.

    It is interesting to note how precise the ’roundness’ of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is:

    Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe – Main result
    Excerpt: The microwave background is very homogeneous in temperature (the relative variations from the mean, which presently is still 2.7 kelvins, are only of the order of 5×10?5.)

    Besides being ’round’, the universe is also found to be ‘flat’:

    “The Universe today is actually very close to the most unlikely state of all, absolute flatness. And that means it must have been born in an even flatter state, as Dicke and Peebles, two of the Princeton astronomers involved in the discovery of the 3 K background radiation, pointed out in 1979. Finding the Universe in a state of even approximate flatness today is even less likely than finding a perfectly sharpened pencil balancing on its point for millions of years, for, as Dicke and Peebles pointed out, any deviation of the Universe from flatness in the Big Bang would have grown, and grown markedly, as the Universe expanded and aged. Like the pencil balanced on its point and given the tiniest nudges, the Universe soon shifts away from perfect flatness.”
    ~ John Gribbin, In Search of the Big Bang

    Job 38:4-5
    “Where were you when I laid the earth’s foundation?
    Tell me, if you understand.
    Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know!
    Who stretched a measuring line across it?

    And what do we get if we divide a circle by its circumference? The infinite number of pi! Thus Mapou, for me, this is very strong evidence that God is infinite in knowledge and power so as to bring into existence, from his transcendent Dimension, a universe that is built on a infinite framework of pi.

    Supplemental notes:

    This following website, and video, has the complete working out of the math of Pi and e in the Bible, in the Hebrew and Greek languages respectively, for Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1:

    Fascinating Bible code – Pi and natural log – video

  12. 12
    Robert Byers says:

    I have only paid attention to sciency thjings since I got interested in creationism in my early thirties. I’m now in my late 40.s
    Yet I do note how there was constant contention on who gets credit for the bit discoveries and inventions.
    In dfact posters here say confidently about the computer credit. Yet i found it was not babbage and others but a few yanks. in fact they tried to get a patent on the living computer of today they were so sure it was their idea.
    Anyways it should be the winners are listened to more if intellectual competence matters in subjects they apply themselves too.
    I don’t see why hawkings, bless him and heal him, is claimed to be a great scientist . I see no great patent.
    I do find there are motivations other then careful consideration of giving credit where its due.
    Its amzing how they fight about it all.

  13. 13
    Axel says:

    mapou, I think my confusion, yesterday, was due to my failure to distinguish between the possibility of a hypothetical, physical/material infinity and an immaterial infinity.

    I have a suspicion some of BA77’s assertions, above, may be related to this in some way.

    I also believe that Einstein could not understand ‘spooky action at a distance’, because he could not/would not countenance the divine mind as the matrix of all Creation, so that nothing would have to travel faster than the speed of light.

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    axel as to:

    ‘to distinguish between the possibility of a hypothetical, physical/material infinity and an immaterial infinity.

    I have a suspicion some of BA77?s assertions, above, may be related to this in some way.’

    That is no suspicion, but is exactly the distinction I was trying to convey. ,,, You put it all in one simple phrase and I, perhaps, used overkill.

  15. 15
    Acartia_bogart says:


    I don’t see why hawkings, bless him and heal him, is claimed to be a great scientist . I see no great patent.

    And what patents did Galileo, Newton and Einstein hold?

  16. 16
    Vishnu says:

    BA77 to Mapou: Mapou, In your rush to declare that infinity does not exist…

    I would say infinity is nonsensical within space-time for the reason Mapou gives: it leads to contradiction. Someting cannot be finite and infinitesimal at the same time. Which is why physicists have to “normalize” things to eliminate the infinities that crop up. They have to eliminate them because infinities are nonsense.

    I would agree with Mapou that infinity does not exist. But I go beyond what Mapou is saying. Infinity pertains to quantification. The transcendent reality is not subject to quantification. It is neither finite nor infinite. It is something other. Something unimaginable by human reason. That’s why I think people have an impossible time getting their heads around it including physicists and philosophers. You can’t get your head around nonsense.

    Ask yourself: when you look up at the sky and ‘perceive’ the color blue in your consciousness, is your conscious state of blueness finite or infinite? It almost seems a silly question, doesn’t it. Infinity pertains to quantity. Your conscious state of blueness has nothing to do either a finite quantity nor an infinite quantity. It is outside the scope of quantity altogether. It is part of a reality that is (cue the music for effect) … something other.

  17. 17
    bornagain77 says:

    Vishnu, I agree with Mapou too, material infinity does not exist. But I disagree with you when you say the ‘transcendent reality,,, is neither finite nor infinite’. The logical contradictions inherent for infinity in the material realm simply do not apply to infinity in the immaterial realm. And I hold infinity to be a necessary quality of the transcendent reality which brought this material reality into being.

    I’ll spare boring you with links,,

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    You folks are trying to create some kind of religious difference between the material and the immaterial but you are mistaken. The two are complementary opposites and, as you know, opposites are of the same nature. I did not use some kind of material or physical logic to arrive at my conclusion re infinity. Logic is an immaterial/spiritual thing.

    Vishnu writes:

    I would say infinity is nonsensical within space-time for the reason Mapou gives: it leads to contradiction. Someting cannot be finite and infinitesimal at the same time. Which is why physicists have to “normalize” things to eliminate the infinities that crop up. They have to eliminate them because infinities are nonsense.

    Actually, physicists only pay lip service to the principle that infinities should be avoided like the plague. The physics community is a political community of crackpots. They accept Einstein’s physics even though it is laden with infinities. Einstein’s physics is based on continuity (infinitely smooth fields, surfaces, etc.) which assumes the existence of infinitesimals. Stephen Hawkings himself, is the supreme infinity crackpot because his black holes are the epitome of infinity usage in physics. But then again, what should we expect from someone who believes in the possibility of time travel, multiple universes and other Star-Trek voodoo physics? The situation in physics would be laughable if it weren’t so pathetic.

    And this is the problem I have with BA77 continually reciting modern crackpot science to buttress his religious agenda.

  19. 19
    Vishnu says:

    BA77: I hold infinity to be a necessary quality of the transcendent reality which brought this material reality into being.

    Infinity is not a “quality”, it’s a quantification.

    I am very interested in this: did you carefully consider what I asked about your conscious state of blueness? When your consciousness is in that state, does it have a finite or infinite quantification?

  20. 20
    Vishnu says:

    Mapou: Actually, physicists only pay lip service to the principle that infinities should be avoided like the plague. The physics community is a political community of crackpots. They accept Einstein’s physics even though it is laden with infinities. Einstein’s physics is based on continuity (infinitely smooth fields, surfaces, etc.) which assumes the existence of infinitesimals.

    I don’t think I would go quite that far. There are lots of physicists who would have no trouble abandoning Einstein. In fact, a lot of them believe that whatever unifies all of QM with both Relativities will have to be something that ultimately overthrows them both. The M-theory guys are attempting that, etc.

  21. 21
    Axel says:

    ‘And I hold infinity to be a necessary quality of the transcendent reality which brought this material reality into being.’ – BA77

    Spot on, imho, BA77. However, I believe Vishnu has too narrow an understanding of ‘infinity’, its being, in my book, a virtual synonym for ‘transcendence’. It sounds crazy, but I think the association of the word, ‘infinity’ with its root, ‘finitude’ is unfortunate!

    To say its like a perfectly due comparison between apples and oranges would not begin to convey the gulf between the measurable, and a formless, intellectual realm, in relation to which only neuroscientist ‘nut-jobs’ could envisage the possibiity of measurement in any shape or form.

    ‘Infinity’, like ‘transcendence’, signifies the absence of bounds; as the Merriam Webster online dictionary puts it: ‘Going beyond the limits of ordinary experience.’ Although that can be construed as a vast understatement.

    I think the fact that the antonym of ‘finitude’ is not ‘infinitude’, but ‘infinity’, indicates this, since, to what could the quality of ‘infinitude’ be applied but itself, ‘infinity’? There bain’t be no adjective for yon. Or to put it the other way round, as M-WO indicates, there are only ‘NEAR antonyms’ for the word, ‘transcendence’.

  22. 22
    Axel says:

    Quantification in relation to infinity is a ‘red herring’, Vishnu; ‘infinity’ is as undifferentiated as ‘transcendence’; they epistemologically coinhere. You seem to be ‘splitting hairs’ on a bald man’s head!

  23. 23
    Axel says:

    mapou, doesn’t BA77 always cite research findings backed up by the mathematics of quantum physics?

  24. 24
    bornagain77 says:

    Axel @ 21, excellent rebuttal!

    Mapou, I agree that it is easy for people to get sidetracked with ‘crackpot’ ideas from not only Relativity but also Quantum Mechanics. But in defense of those ‘crackpot’ theories, their predictions, for both GR and QM, are verified to something like 14 decimal places by experiment. Thus, though you may not like the ‘crackpot’ interpretations that many people draw from these theories, (through their misinterpretation of what infinity actually represents or whatever), until you can come up with a better theory to replace it/them, a theory that has near the level of accuracy as those two do, you are simply barking up the wrong tree.

    The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science – May 5, 2011
    Excerpt: So, which of the two (general relativity or QED) is The Most Precisely Tested Theory in the History of Science?
    It’s a little tough to quantify a title like that, but I think relativity can claim to have tested the smallest effects. Things like the aluminum ion clock experiments showing shifts in the rate of a clock set moving at a few m/s, or raised by a foot, measure relativistic shifts of a few parts in 10^16. That is, if one clock ticks 10,000,000,000,000,000 times, the other ticks 9,999,999,999,999,999 times. That’s an impressively tiny effect, but the measured value is in good agreement with the predictions of relativity.
    In the end, though, I have to give the nod to QED, because while the absolute effects in relativity may be smaller, the precision of the measurements in QED is more impressive. Experimental tests of relativity measure tiny shifts, but to only a few decimal places. Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:
    g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)
    Depending on how you want to count it, that’s either 11 or 14 digits of precision (the value you would expect without QED is exactly 1, so in some sense, the shift really starts with the first non-zero decimal place), which is just incredible. And QED correctly predicts all those decimal places (at least to within the measurement uncertainty, given by the two digits in parentheses at the end of that).

  25. 25
    Mapou says:


    The accuracy of a theory is not an indication of its correctness. Ptolemaic epicycles could be made as accurate as any theory of planetary motion. And yet, it’s complete crackpot nonsense. Unless a theory explains the why of phenomena, any interpretation that is derived from it is likely to be false.

    You speak of physical theories as being accurate in their predictions. This may be true in a narrow sense only. Relativity assumes a changeless universe, something we know to be false. It is the ultimate Ptolemaic theory.

    Quantum physicists have no idea why particle decay is probabilistic. Nobody knows what causes gravity or why entanglement is possible. Heck, physicists have no clue as to what causes simple inertial motion! Is it any wonder that their models allow for absurd nonsense like cats that are both dead and alive at the same time. Multiple universes and time travel are more examples of voodoo ideas that emerged from modern physics. It’s truly pathetic. The ignorance of the physics community is legendary and in-your-face.

    So your use of quantum mechanics to support your religious doctrine leaves a lot to be desired, IMO

  26. 26
    bornagain77 says:

    Mapou, you simply have nothing to replace the theory(s) of physics with save for your scoffing. I agree some of your incredulousness is well deserved, but you are throwing the baby out with the bath water. You reference that ‘Ptolemaic epicycles could be made as accurate as any theory of planetary motion’ but fail to mention that that theory was replaced by better theory that explained the observational data much better, i.e. heliocentrism. You have nothing of the sort to offer to replace the theories save for your scoffing. Good luck with all that, but my hunch is that

    ‘you ain’t goin to make it with anyone anyhow carrying pictures of chairman Moa’
    John Lennon – Revolution

    As to your examples of ‘voodoo’ science springing forth from modern physics, I note that most of your examples, particularly multiple universes and time travel, are examples that sprang forth from materialistic presuppositions and incomplete understanding, and did not arise from Theistic presuppositions.

    Moreover, when one separates the wheat from the chaff in all this infinity business, a reconciliation of ‘infinities’ between GR and QM becomes clear.

    Excerpt: The biggest challenge to today’s physicists is how to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics. However, these two pillars of modern science were bound to be incompatible. “The universe of general relativity is a smooth rubber sheet. It is continuous and flowing, never sharp, never pointy. Quantum mechanics, on the other hand, describes a jerky and discontinuous universe. What the two theories have in common – and what they clash over – is zero.”,, “The infinite zero of a black hole — mass crammed into zero space, curving space infinitely — punches a hole in the smooth rubber sheet. The equations of general relativity cannot deal with the sharpness of zero. In a black hole, space and time are meaningless.”,, “Quantum mechanics has a similar problem, a problem related to the zero-point energy. The laws of quantum mechanics treat particles such as the electron as points; that is, they take up no space at all. The electron is a zero-dimensional object,,, According to the rules of quantum mechanics, the zero-dimensional electron has infinite mass and infinite charge.

    Quantum Mechanics and Relativity – The Collapse Of Physics? – video

    The End Of Christianity – Finding a Good God in an Evil World – Pg.31
    William Dembski PhD. Mathematics
    Excerpt: “In mathematics there are two ways to go to infinity. One is to grow large without measure. The other is to form a fraction in which the denominator goes to zero. The Cross is a path of humility in which the infinite God becomes finite and then contracts to zero, only to resurrect and thereby unite a finite humanity within a newfound infinity.”

    Godel, who proved through the ‘logic of infinity’ that you cannot have a mathematical ‘Theory of Everything’, without allowing God to bring ‘completeness’ to the ‘Theory of Everything’, also had this to say:

    The God of the Mathematicians – Goldman
    Excerpt: As Gödel told Hao Wang, “Einstein’s religion [was] more abstract, like Spinoza and Indian philosophy. Spinoza’s god is less than a person; mine is more than a person; because God can play the role of a person.”
    Kurt Gödel – (Gödel is considered one of the greatest logicians who ever existed)

    And if we allow that God can ‘play the role of a person’, as one of the greatest logicians who ever existed held was possible, then a reconciliation between GR and QM readily pops out for us:

    The Center Of The Universe Is Life – General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Entropy and The Shroud Of Turin – video

    it is interesting to point out a subtle nuance on the Shroud of Turin. Namely that Gravity was overcome in the resurrection event of Christ:

    Particle Radiation from the Body – July 2012 – M. Antonacci, A. C. Lind
    Excerpt: The Shroud’s frontal and dorsal body images are encoded with the same amount of intensity, independent of any pressure or weight from the body. The bottom part of the cloth (containing the dorsal image) would have born all the weight of the man’s supine body, yet the dorsal image is not encoded with a greater amount of intensity than the frontal image. Radiation coming from the body would not only explain this feature, but also the left/right and light/dark reversals found on the cloth’s frontal and dorsal body images.

    A Quantum Hologram of Christ’s Resurrection? by Chuck Missler
    Excerpt: “You can read the science of the Shroud, such as total lack of gravity, lack of entropy (without gravitational collapse), no time, no space—it conforms to no known law of physics.” The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically. Dame Piczek created a one-fourth size sculpture of the man in the Shroud. When viewed from the side, it appears as if the man is suspended in mid air (see graphic, below), indicating that the image defies previously accepted science. The phenomenon of the image brings us to a true event horizon, a moment when all of the laws of physics change drastically.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    and as would be expected if General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (QED) were truly unified in the resurrection of Christ from death, the image on the shroud is found to be formed by a quantum process. The image was not formed by a ‘classical’ process:

    The absorbed energy in the Shroud body image formation appears as contributed by discrete values – Giovanni Fazio, Giuseppe Mandaglio – 2008
    Excerpt: This result means that the optical density distribution,, can not be attributed at the absorbed energy described in the framework of the classical physics model. It is, in fact, necessary to hypothesize a absorption by discrete values of the energy where the ‘quantum’ is equal to the one necessary to yellow one fibril.

    “It is not a continuum or spherical-front radiation that made the image, as visible or UV light. It is not the X-ray radiation that obeys the one over R squared law that we are so accustomed to in medicine. It is more unique. It is suggested that the image was formed when a high-energy particle struck the fiber and released radiation within the fiber at a speed greater that the local speed of light. Since the fiber acts as a light pipe, this energy moved out through the fiber until it encountered an optical discontinuity, then it slowed to the local speed of light and dispersed. The fact that the pixels don’t fluoresce suggests that the conversion to their now brittle dehydrated state occurred instantly and completely so no partial products remain to be activated by the ultraviolet light. This suggests a quantum event where a finite amount of energy transferred abruptly. The fact that there are images front and back suggests the radiating particles were released along the gravity vector. The radiation pressure may also help explain why the blood was “lifted cleanly” from the body as it transformed to a resurrected state.”
    Kevin Moran – optical engineer

    Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural – December 2011
    Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists.
    However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax.
    Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic.
    “The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin,” they said.
    And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: “This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date.”

    Verse and Music:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

    Natalie Grant – Alive (Resurrection music video)
    Lyric “Death has lost and Love has won!”

  28. 28
    Mapou says:

    BA77, you don’t know that I have nothing to replace current theories. This is a lame ad-hominem argument that is irrelevant even if it were true. The existence of a replacement theory has nothing to do with whether or not an establshed theory is a correct model of reality. You write about my scoffing as if it were a bad thing but then you engage in same. This is my last reply to your illogical comments. Have fun.

  29. 29
    Axel says:

    Considering mapou ended his previous post with ‘IMO’, I thought you might have been a bit more sourly truculent – no bad thing in due measure, imo – than necessary, BA77.

    You actually seem to be rather hurting each other to no useful effect, when you should resign yourselves to arguing in complete futility or, as Elisha ordered the sons of the prophets, to holding your peace! (Elisha was very truculent wasn’t he?! Or maybe alternating.

    Elijah: ‘You tarry here a while I go further on to Jericho (or some such),
    Elisha: ‘I will not tarry here! (or words to that effect.)

    I love the brutal simplicity of so much of the dialogue in the Bible, especially the O.T.

    But, as I was saying………………….. I’ve forgotten now.

  30. 30
    Axel says:

    This looks promising. Is the Catholic church beginning to fight back? On the other hand, the title of the award, the ‘Carl Sagan Medal for “outstanding communication by an active planetary scientist”‘ is not without a highly humorous dimension, particularly in the light of Bro Consolmagno’s stricture:

    ‘But too many religious people only see “TV scientists” who are about as accurate a representation of science as “TV preachers” are about real religious believers. They need to see that real science is not the realm of atheists or narrow, egotistical fools.’

  31. 31
  32. 32
    Robert Byers says:

    Acartia bogart.
    the patent word makes the point of a definable and even important contribution.
    So those guys have patents and thats why they are remembered. Hawkings has no patent or none above the common lot who engage in science stuff.
    In short WHY is he presented as a great or good scientist?
    what did he patent that will be remembered?
    I see nothing but no malice or unkindness to him. I just sese he was selected as a celebrity scientist back in the 60’s for seeming to have discovered things that matter. Yet they were trivial things.
    this happens a lot now and i suspect in the past.

Leave a Reply