Monday, May 11, 2009

Clinical Insanity: The Saga Continues

The Day The Universe Froze: New Model For Dark Energy.

ScienceDaily (May 11, 2009) — Imagine a time when the entire universe froze. According to a new model for dark energy, that is essentially what happened about 11.5 billion years ago, when the universe was a quarter of the size it is today.
Evidence? Who needs evidence?


Anaconda said...


You are right.

This is fanciful imagination posing as science.

And this kind of make-believe gets published.


Because it attempts to explain so-called "dark" energy and keep "modern" astronomy from being falsified.

Anything goes when it fits into their paradigm.

Even if it is complete garbage.

Quantum_Flux said...

Insanity always precedes spiritual enlightenment.

Anaconda said...

From the ScienceDaily article:

"But the discovery of quantum mechanics changed this view. According to quantum theory, empty space is filled with pairs of "virtual” particles that spontaneously pop into and out of existence too quickly to be detected."

Using probability as a substitute for actual observation is one thing, but the above is fanciful.

These things are hard -- you have to swallow them in order to be part of the "community" -- you know, your time in the barrel.

But it has nothing to do with Science.

What is it?

Creationism at the sub-atomic level. There is no other way to describe it.

So-called "virtual” particles meet so-called "big bang" -- you were made for each other.

CREATIONISM -- "something out of nothing", wrapped in swaddling non-sense posing as rationalism using the fig leaf of mathematics.

Where have we seen this before?

oh yeah, "modern" astronomy.

Now you know why even though General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are incompatible, there is a "I got your back" attitude in each camp for the other.

What is an intellectually honest mathematician to do?

-- Go in the barrel for his turn?

-- Be a lone wolf?

Let's face it, it's easier to pass through the eye of a needle than be an intellectually honest Quantum Mechanics or "modern" astronomy acolyte.

Quantum_Flux said...

Yeah, how would you model what is happening at the sub-atomic scale without introducing the idea of virtual particles Anaconda?

OilIsMastery said...


Let's face it (reality I mean) and be honest: we don't know what's going on at the subatomic scale.

"I am a materialist with a difference. The difference is that I realize that I have barely begun to understand what matter is. I know as much about matter as a person knows about mathematics when he just has learned how to count." -- Edward Teller, physicist, 1990

Quantum_Flux said...

We certainly don't need to know exactly what is going on in the subatomic scale in order to model it. The pictures and animations are there just to help people understand the math, that's all, it's the qualitative aspects of understanding. Who better to explain these kinds of things?

Feynman on Electricity, Feynman on Magnets, Feynman on Rubber Bands, Feynman on Atoms, Feynman on Numbers 1, Feynman on Numbers 2

Pleroma said...

OIM, you might mention in your Teller attribution that he was an essential contributor to the development of the atomic bomb.