A new reader to the blog read my article on the Kalam cosmological argument, and he decided to try it out on youtube here. He presented the argument PERFECTLY, and then he got some responses. He asked me to comment, so I will below. But I want you guys to comment, too! (UPDATE: Comment in this post – I don’t recommend commenting in YouTube discussions)

Anyway, here’s the page. (I didn’t watch the video)

And here’s his initial presentation of the argument:

1 Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe requires a cause

The cause for the universe (time, space, matter, etc) must be something entirely different (outside the realm of time, space, and matter) since a thing cannot be the cause of itself.

Now I’ll reply to his opponents, but you can reply too in the comments, because he’s reading this post, and we should all try to offer him our thoughts. At the end, I recommend some additional resources, all free online, to help everyone understand the details of this fine argument.

Responses to the Kalam argument

Here’s the first reply:

Just because we don’t know the cause yet doesn’t mean it’s not something scientific. I’m not saying it is, I’m just saying it’s possible.

By “scientific”, I am thinking that this challenger is hoping for a material cause, but the problem is that the origin of the universe is the origin of all space and matter – so no “scientific” cause is possible. So it is not possible that the origin of the universe was caused by something “scientific”, because it’s an absolute origin of all matter, and the physical laws that govern matter, as well. Tell him that there is only one kind of non-material entity capable of causing effects and that is a mind.

Here’s another reply:

What if the universe always existed? We don’t know that it has started to exist, we just know that it exists and that it has existed for very long. So it is possible that it has always existed. So that doesn’t prove anything.

I would ask this person why they hate science so much to deny the good data about the measurements of red-shift in light from distant galaxies, the helium-hydrogen abundance measurements, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the second law of thermodynamics, the star formation cycle, etc. As them what is wrong with science, and why must they push their religion (naturalism) on science?

Here’s another reply:

The same principle can apply to god as well, so this argument doesn’t prove or disprove either it is just pointless.

My response is that the cause of the universe causes the beginning of time as well, and so therefore the cause exists necessarily, outside of time. Things that exist outside of time are eternal, they don’t not exist at time t1 and then begin to exist at time t2. The cause of time’s beginning cannot come into being itself, because there is no t1 and t2 before time is created.

Here’s another reply:

uhm .. no, there is no definition of god like that and even if it is it’s invalid, why ? well mostly because apart from a book “The Bible” there is no real proof he existed, no one has seen him and I’ll wager that no one ever will, henceforth you cannot define something that you really know nothing about, something that might not even exist, it’s like saying that bigfoot is a mammal. you can’t prove that either since you haven’t seen it and don’t even know if it exists

Notice that onlinesid produced an argument for the existence of God, and now this guy is bringing in the Bible (red herring), no proof (red herring), why can’t I see God (red herring), no one knows anything about God (red herring and self-refuting), and bigfoot (red herring). This person is clearly brain-damaged and not one of the things he write is worth a response. Note: I am being mean, but you can’t be mean when you reply to him, you have to tell them to stay focused on your argument and deny premise 1 or premise 2.

And here’s another:

You assume that the universe began to exist.

We currently don’t know if it did or not; the present hypothesis is expansion from a single point that is infinitely small.

You also assume that the cause of the universe doesn’t have a cause. You need to account for the cause of the cause, and the cause of that cause, ad infinitum.

And on “God being outside of” reality, then he shouldn’t be able to affect reality in any observable way. God is untestable.

Again, tell him he is a science-hating flat-earther and ask which of the empirical evidences for the Big Bang he denies. We need to get off of his speculations and evasions and ask him to deny a premise or to deny some scientific data. As soon as he does, ask him for peer-reviewed data that refutes the scientific observations. The cause of the universe doesn’t have a cause because it is outside of time and doesn’t begin to exist. The premise is that only things that begin to exist require a cause. Regarding God not being able to cause effects, you should say that God is a mind and causes effects in time subsequent to creation the same way that humans cause effects using their wills on their bodies.

Here’s another:

It’s called the “Big Bang” hypothesis. Even simple Wikipedia will besufficient for an understanding of it. Or videos on Youtube, if you are that lazy and/or ignorant.

The “evidence” for it is background electromagnetic radiation and the appearance that the universe is expanding. Among other things

The “mind” we perceive is the function of electrochemical impulses between our brain cells. We classify it as a “mind”. And as a physical system of reality, it is affected by physical reality..

Again ask him what is his scientific evidence that the universe is eternal, and ask him what is wrong with your scientific evidence showing that it isn’t eternal. You must make him make a claim and supply evidence for his claim. You need to buy a book called “God and the Astronomers” by agnostic Robert Jastrow and read it. It explains all the discoveries that led to the Big Bang, but get the second edition. Also, if he thinks that mind is biologically determined, then you need to explain that biological determinism makes rationality impossible, since all of our outputs are determined by inputs and DNA programming that has the goal of reproducing, not finding truth.

More challenges:

…The beginning of the universe need not be “God”. Could have been made by a pencil. Or could have always been, like a trigonomic function, repeating and diverging into two dimensions.

I think our boy is beginning to wear him down. He now thinks a pencil caused the entire physical universe to appear out of nothing. But the problem is that a pencil is made of matter and cannot have caused the beginning of all matter. But do go on and make him identify what he thinks the cause is. It can’t be in time, it can’t be matter.

More:

And the theist-point-of-view actually can in no way prove God because there are many OTHER ways it could have happened. A pencil could have been the original cause of the big-bang, or it could repeat like a trig function, eternally epanding, collapsing, expanding in another
dimension, etc.

He’s raising the oscillating model, which is falsified theoretically and observationally. In 1998, the discovery of the year was that the universe would expand forever. The oscillating model also faces theoretical problems with the “bounce” mechanism. Sid, if you still can, try your best in physics class, and take astronomy and physics in university, along with philosophy and logic. It will help you to have more fun in these debates and you’ll know more details.

More:

I did not say that the physical realm is all there is. (Thought there could be two realms, or more.) BUT asuming that an entity exists outside the physical realm and created this universe from that dimension IS illogical.

Ask him for a logical argument that proves that God cannot create matter out of nothing. These assertions need to be backed up with deductive arguments, with premises supported by scientific observations. You can’t just throw around that word “illogical”. It sounds like he is just saying “I don’t like it”. Make sure that you ask him for peer-reviewed papers for anything he says about science, and formal arguments for anything he says is “illogical”.

This time he argues quatum mechanics:

Small particles of matter, at least as I understand it, CAN be “created” from energy. The only real “trouble” is the creation of energy, which “god made it” faces the problem of “what made god?”…

If he wants to argue quantum mechanics, you need to remind him that virtual particles can only appear in a quantum vaccuum, which exists in space. It is not nothing. Also, virtual particles are not as massive as a universe, and those virtual particles only stay in existence for a fraction of a second. So this is not a good analogy for the origin of the entire physical universe.

Further study

You did well, you just need to be meaner in demanding that he bear his share of the burdern of proof. Ask him why you should accept his speculations and assertions, where are his arguments, where is his scientific evidence.

I think that this book would be a good one along with God and the Astronomers, second edition. But read this paper, too, and every William Lane Craig debate you can get your hands on, especially the one with physicist Victor Stenger (video, audio), the follow-up lecture at UC Boulder where Stenger is in the audience, and the second Craig-Dacey debate. When you’re done with that, listen to this lecture and this lecture (I know it’s similar to the first one, but tough!) and this lecture and this lecture. And study more physics if you’re still in school!

God meant for us to enjoy ourselves arguing in his universe. Jesus cured the paralytic to provide evidence for his claims. Similarly, we can use the evidence of nature miracles that science is just now discovering to get the same effect as though we could perform miracles. But we need to understand philosophy and physics down to the details.

It was around this time last year when I magically became an avid reader. This transformation was out of the blue since I had never shown the slightest bit of interest in reading in the past neither academically nor for pleasure.

In fact, I can’t remember completing more than a handful of books cover-to-cover, and even those were for school and I was forced to read them. I own A Tale of Two Cites, glanced over The Great Gatsby, began reading Seabiscuit and actually read Catcher in the Rye but only because my Great American Writers class junior of high school literally hinged on me reading the entire book.

As sad and pathetic as it may seem before last New Years I simply didn’t enjoy reading anything longer than a magazine article. However, unexpectedly and incredibly I of all the sudden found a passion for reading when our Head Coach at Dartmouth gave me a copy of Rebound Rules: The Art of Success 2.0 by Rick Pitino (the current Head Men’s Basketball Coach at the University of Louisville) for the holidays.

One afternoon during the College’s winter break last year I was feeling antsy at the office and decided, as I often did, to go upstairs to the Fitness Center and exercise on the elliptical. However, I had been becoming increasingly bored with watching ESPN in the middle of the day so I decided to give reading my new book a shot.

Like a jolt of lightening I was mesmerized as I read a few chapters before tearing myself away to get ready for practice. After practice that evening I once again returned to the gym solely to read more of the book. Within a week I was done and had moved onto a biography of John Wooden (the former Head Men’s Basketball Coach at UCLA).

At the same time I began reading a book on the history of Art and immediately found myself flying through both simultaneously. I then moved into different types of literature reading Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History of Time, Anthony Bourdain’s The Bobby Gold Stories: A Novel and George Orwell’s Animal Farm establishing a practice of reading any book no matter what genre.

At the same time I developed two ways of discovering which books to read next; a) someone would recommend a book for me to read and provided me with a copy or b) by searching through the discounted shelves and racks at book stores for interesting authors and topics.

By far the person that has recommended the most books for me to read is my friend Jeff (and yes we share more than a love for eating). Every time I see him I give him back a few books that I’ve finished and he in turns hands me a few new ones. He’s given me books from a variety of subjects ranging from economics, pop culture; even poker and I’ve read every word.

Other friends and family have given me books to read as well, and I’ll get to them all eventually because I rarely go a day without reading. This is primarily due to the fact that the only time I read is when I am engaging in cardiovascular exercise. Whether I’m on the elliptical or the stationary bike I hardly watch television anymore at the gym, and instead of numbing my mind by watching ESPN I stimulate it by reading.

Out of nowhere I have seemingly become addicted to reading and the way it excites my mind and imagination. Furthermore, I have come to realize that the sense of accomplishment that accompanies completing a book is truly awesome and one that I now crave.

I’ve felt that sense of fulfillment 34 times in the past 11+ months, and with just under two weeks left in 2009 I feel confident that I’ll get at least one more chance before New Years since I am currently steaming rolling my way through Inherit the Wind.

For a guy who never had the faintest interest in reading for pleasure in the past it is amazing to me that I am now so addicted to reading. I guess you never know when you are going to grow into certain habits and learn to enjoy things you never thought you would.

In the end it may have taken me a lot longer than most people to develop a love and excitement for reading but I have caught the bug nonetheless, and thanks to my friends and family particularly Jeff, I don’t think I’ll be running out of books to read any time soon.

As a result of a conversation on another blog I was motivated to Google for the following scientific hypothesis:

The “popping into being” idea is that the probability of a universe popping into being is not (quite) zero, therefore it’s gonna happen.

Its One Of Hawking’s

Hawking explains the “popping into being” theory in “Stephen Hawking Says Universe Created From Nothing” (2007)

It’s an entertaining read. The theory is based on work done by:

Richard Feynman a brilliant physicist at the California Institute of Technology. He proposed that a system got from a state A, to a state B, by every possible path or history.

Each path or history, has a certain amplitude or intensity, and the probability of the system going from A to B, is given by adding up the amplitudes for each path. There will be a history in which the moon is made of blue cheese, but the amplitude is low

Come Again ?

So non-existence is posited merely as a state which can be moved freely from or to and this movement is achieved by traversing all possible paths, including the one in which Invisble Pink Unicorns tap dance on tables at the Restaurant at the End of the Universe. You are expected to take this seriously, even once you swallow the concept of non-existence as a valid state.

Non-existence as a state is a logical contradiction. Its like asking where you want the immovable object put.

Hawking goes on:

The picture Jim Hartle and I developed, of the spontaneous quantum creation of the universe, would be a bit like the formation of bubbles of steam in boiling water.

The idea is that the most probable histories of the universe, would be like the surfaces of the bubbles. Many small bubbles would appear, and then disappear again. These would correspond to mini universes that would expand, but would collapse again while still of microscopic size. They are possible alternative universes, but they are not of much interest since they do not last long

As I understand this, Hawking is talking about the expansion of the Universe fom a singularity. Which seems to me that Hawking wants to have his Invisible Pink Unicorn and eat it too. If the Universe is non-existent, where did the singularity come from ?

Perhaps I misunderstand the article. I am happy to be corrected.

Science. Yairs. *Cough*

So there you have “popping into being”. As might be expected from an untestable and highly entertaining idea from the realms of pure creativity it is full of preposterous nonsense and downright contradiction.

But because this fairy story is labelled “Science” many swallow it without bothering to read the fine print. And for many on the Left, or fanatical atheists like Stepehn Hawking and Richard Dawkins, anything that ejects God from the room is axiomatically justified.

Wow classic hit and spot on….Clearly gleaning from hip hop today!

To22 created something nearly perfect. A continuous ring, delicately proportioned, beautifully polished and seemingly flawless. There is only one tiny imperfection. A speck, no larger than a piece of dust. At a glance, it is barely noticeable. Upon close examination, it appears intentional and more clearly defined. It is a model of the known universe. Inspired by the writing of Stephen Hawking and loosely based on the anthropic theory to22 puts our daily pursuits into perspective and reminds us that we are always a part of something bigger.

Carl Sagan – ‘A Glorious Dawn’ ft Stephen Hawking

John Boswell is running “The Symphony of Science“, a musical project designed to deliver scientific knowledge and philosophy in musical form. Three music videos combine original music with samples of appearances by Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, Richard Feynman, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and Michio Kaku.

My own musical tribute to two great men of science. Carl Sagan and his cosmologist companion Stephen Hawking present: A Glorious Dawn – Cosmos remixed. Almost all samples and footage taken from Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and Stephen Hawking’s Universe series.

RIP Dr. Sagan, you will be missed!!

This song is now out on 7″ vinyl through Jack White and friends at Third Man Records! Check it out here:

Listen to other tracks available, Our Place in the Cosmos and ‘We Are All Connected’

Ironing out a few chaotic glitches; (Dec. 5, 2009)

              Philosophers have been babbling for many thousand years whether the universe is chaotic or very structured so that rational and logical thinking can untangle its laws and comprehend nature’s behaviors and phenomena.

              Plato wrote that the world is comprehensible.  The world looked like a structured work of art built on mathematical logical precision. Why? Plato was found of symmetry, geometry, numbers, and he was impressed by the ordered tonality of musical cord instruments.  Leibnitz in the 18^th century explained “In what manner God created the universe it must be in the most regular and ordered structure.  Leibnitz claimed that God selected the simplest in hypotheses that generated the richest varieties of phenomena.”  A strong impetus that the universe is comprehensible started with the “positivist philosophers and scientists” of the 20^th century who were convinced that the laws of natures can be discovered by rational mind.

            Einstein followed suit and wrote “God does not play dice.  To rationally comprehend a phenomenon we must reduce, by a logical process, the propositions (or axioms) to apparently known evidence that reason cannot touch.” The pronouncement of Einstein “The eternally incomprehensible universe is its comprehensibility” can be interpreted in many ways. The first interpretation is “what is most incomprehensible in the universe is that it can be comprehensible but we must refrain from revoking its sacral complexity and uncertainty”.  The second interpretation is “If we are still thinking that the universe is not comprehensible then may be it is so, as much as we want to think that we may understand it; thus, the universe will remain incomprehensible (and we should not prematurely declare the “end of science”).

            The mathematician Herman Weyl developed the notion: “The assertion that nature is regulated by strict laws is void unless we affirm that it is related by simple mathematical laws.  The more we delve in the reduction process to the bare fundamental propositions the more facts are explained with exactitude.”  It is this philosophy of an ordered and symmetrical world that drove Mendeleyev to classifying the chemical elements; Murry Gell-Mann used “group theory” to predicting the existence of quarks.

            A few scientists went even further; they claimed that the universe evolved in such a way to permit the emergence of the rational thinking man.  Scientists enunciated many principles such as “the principle of least time” that Fermat used to deduce the laws of refraction and reflection of light; Richard Feynman discoursed on the “principle of least actions”; we have the “principle of least energy consumed”, the “principle of computational equivalence”, the “principle of entropy” or the level of uncertainty in a chaotic environment.

            Stephen Hawking popularized the idea of the “Theory of Everything TOE” a theory based on a few simple and non redundant rules that govern the universe.  Stephen Wolfran thinks that the TOE can be found by a thorough systematic computer search: The universe complexity is finite and the most seemingly complex phenomena (for example cognitive functions) emerge from simple rules.

            Before we offer the opposite view that universe is intrinsically chaotic let us define what is a theory.  Gregory Chaitin explained that “a theory is a computer program designed to account for observed facts by computation”.  (Warning to all mathematicians!  If you want your theory to be published by peer reviewers then you might have to attach an “elegant” or the shortest computer program in bits that describes your theory)

            Kurt Gödel and Alain Turing demonstrated what is called “incompletude” in mathematics or the ultimate uncertainty of mathematical foundations.  There are innumerable “true” propositions or conjectures that can never be demonstrated.  For example, it is impossible to account for the results of elementary arithmetic such as addition or multiplication by the deductive processes of its basic axioms.  Thus, many more axioms and unresolved conjectures have to be added in order to explain correctly many mathematical results.  Turing demonstrated mathematically that there is no algorithm that can “know” if a program will ever stop or not.  The consequence in mathematics is this: no set of axioms will ever permit to deduce if a program will ever stop or not. Actually, there exist many numbers that cannot be computed.  There are mathematical facts that are logically irreducible and incomprehensive.

            Quantum mechanics proclaimed that, on the micro level, the universe is chaotic: there is impossibility of simultaneously locating a particle, its direction, and determining its velocity.  We are computing probabilities of occurrences.  John von Neumann wrote: “Theoretical physics does not explain natural phenomena: it classifies phenomena and tries to link or relate the classes.”

            Acquiring knowledge was intuitively understood as a tool to improving human dignity by increasing quality of life; thus, erasing as many dangerous superstitions that bogged down spiritual and moral life of man.  Ironically, the trend captured a negative life of its own in the last century.  The subconscious goal for learning was to frustrate fanatic religiosity that proclaimed that God is the sole creator and controller of our life, its quality, and its destiny.  With our gained power in knowledge we may thus destroy our survival by our own volition; we can commit earth suicide regardless of what God wishes.  So far, we have been extremely successful beyond all expectations.  We can destroy all living creatures and plants by activating a single H-Bomb or whether we act now or desist from finding resolution to the predicaments of climate changes.

            I have impressions.  First, what the mathematicians and scientists are doing is not discovering the truth or the real processes but to condense complexity into simple propositions so that an individual may think that he is able to comprehend the complexities of the world.  Second, nature is complex; man is more complex; social interactions are far more complex.  No mathematical equations or simple laws will ever help an individual to comprehend the thousands of interactions among the thousands of variability.  Third, we need to focus on the rare events; it has been proven that the rare events (for example, occurrences at the tails of probability functions) are the most catastrophic simply because very few are the researchers interested in investigating them; scientists are cozy with those well structured behaviors that answer collective behaviors.

            My fourth impression is that I am a genius without realizing it.  Unfortunately Kurt Gödel is the prime kill joy; he would have mock me on the ground that he mathematically demonstrated that any sentence I write is a lie.  How would I dare write anything?

Chequen esta onda que es la pura neta del universo, en palabras/bocas/maquinitas de dos de las mentes más ACÁ de los últimos años, uno de ellos ya fiambre, convertido ya en polvo de estrellas potencial.

The only, and I mean ONLY, good thing to come out of this weekend’s football action was seeing Tebow get denied a shot at another National Championship. Of course, while many (including myself) don’t think he’s got much of a future in the NFL (other than maybe as a practice squad fullback), he does seem to show potential to become the next Rich Little, as that was an incredible impression he did of Adam Morrison after the game. Somebody please tell him THERE’S NO CRYING IN FOOTBALL!

The Cowboys obviously caused the bulk of my football angst this weekend. But before criticizing those who are responsible for keeping the annual December swoon in effect, let me first make a point of complimenting Tony Romo on his excellent performance. Yeah, he overthrew Roy late in the 4th when he was wide open for a desperately-needed touchdown, but that was one of the very, very few bad throws he made on a day when he made A LOT of throws. There’s plenty of blame to go around this week, but I’d better not hear ANY of it directed at Romo. Criticize him in front of me at your own risk.

One other undeserving target of criticism after yesterday’s game is the extremely unlikely scapegoat named Mat McBriar. After Nick “Shankappotamus” Folk sliced a routine 42-yard field goal attempt worse than a Judge Smails tee shot, he immediately looked at McBriar and threw up his hands like it was totally McBriar’s fault. Replays CLEARLY showed the snap and hold were both perfect, so Folk has nobody to blame but himself. You’d think that would be pretty obvious to everyone, but even Wade Phillips claimed during his post-game press conference that there was a problem with the snap and hold. But that’s not the only bad play for which McBriar is unfairly taking the blame, You’d think a 59-yard punt at a key time in the game would be great, even if it did end up being returned for a touchdown due to dozens of missed tackles and weak matador impressions by the inept Cowboys punt coverage unit. But Special Teams Coach Joe DeCamillis did not see fit to blame his horrible coverage unit for that return. Instead, he blamed McBRIAR FOR NOT PUNTING CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE SIDELINE!!! I guess he has a point, since if McBriar had just shanked his punt like Folk shanked that field goal attempt, there’s no way Hixon would have run it back. UN. EFFING. BELIEVABLE!!!

After seeing their performances against a cornered Packers squad and a desperate Giants team, it has become quite obvious to me that the Cowboys simply do not respond well to the adversity of others.

Returning to the college ranks, I still can’t believe Nebraska let that game slip away. Texas did not deserve to win that game whatsoever. The Cornhusker QB is probably the worst I’ve ever seen. Seriously, you could pretty much have put Stephen Hawking under center for Nebraska and they win that game. Have fun getting throttled by the Crimson Tide, Longhorns!

As for the BCS, everyone knows it’s a joke, yet somehow the punch line gets more ridiculous each year. Congratulations for going undefeated TCU and Boise State! As a reward HAVE FUN SITTING AT THE KIDS TABLE!!! I mean, can you BELIEVE THAT?!? The BCS is flat-out running scared. They simply could not risk having four undefeated teams remaining at the end of bowl season, so they rigged the system to guarantee that won’t happen. The BCS makes the Mafia look like the Boy Scouts of America. What a corrupt, seedy and vile organization!

Eighteen months ago I went to the Royal Society’s awards evening to acknowledge the best popular science books. On the shortlist was The Sun Kings by Stuart Clark. He didn’t win, but Stuart was definitely the most fashionably dressed finalist present. We chatted for a while and he made his book sound absolutely  fascinating. I left resolving to read it straightaway, but one thing led to another and, only recently, did it reach the top of my (very long) reading list.

Sadly, nowadays I have very liittle time for casual reading – everything has a purpose. Happily, DAMTP (the famous Department of Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge where Stephen Hawking is based and where I occasionally went as an undergraduate) hosts a brilliant online popular maths magazine called +Plus. It’s full of zillions (to use a very mathematical number) of interesting articles, one of which is now written by me. When they wanted me to write a book review for them, I remembered my conversation with Stuart and asked if I could stretch the definition of mathematics just a little to include The Sun Kings.

The story is set around a giant solar flare observed in 1859, telling how the science of astrophysics grew out of observational astronomy. In today’s world where everything seems to be so short-term or temporary, it’s incredible to read of people making observations for decades and then their data being passed on to those who came after them to add to and make sense of.

It’s important because our island Earth isn’t as isolated as we might think – the Sun has a major influence on what happens here. Our home star goes through an eleven year cycle of magnetic activity that is currently building towards a maximum (between 2011 and 2013). On the downside, satellites are likely to be damaged and our mobile phones might stop working some of the time. On the plus front, there should be more beautiful auroras, like in the banner at the top of this blog.

With Johnny Mackintosh: Star Blaze not coming out until January, it’s well worth putting The Sun Kings on your Christmas list and taking a look at +Plus, to give you a picture of just how interesting maths can really be.

Stephen Hawking and Carl Sagan teamed up and did a song together, well wonder no more! Symphony of Science is now selling for $6 a 7″ recorded of just such a thing. I just got mine! Now I need to figure out if I should play it or just stare admiringly at it.

watch out,

I’ve read today about the LHC (The large Hadron Collider) and apparently it went off-line today due to a power failure. This was not due this time to a baguette brandishing bird, but due in part to a faulty power line.

I felt I wanted to write something because reading through the literature over at the LHC’s site, and writing as a lay person, I’m still not entirely convinced about its safety.

You scientists may laugh at my expense which is fine, I was reading through the blurb over at the LHC’s site where there’s a hell of a lot of ‘theoretical’s’ statements dotted about the page. Now I’m not going to blast Stephen Hawking and his theory of ‘Hawking Radiation’, he of course is in a far better position than me to speculate about the laws of the universe, but surely even Steve cannot say that the LHC is totally safe.

Stephen could easily pick up a Nobel prize if some of this ‘theory’ proves true, which of course would be great, not just for him but for science and for humanity, but if he is wrong, I wouldn’t want to be in Switzerland for my holidays.

Scientists must of course conduct experiments in order to prove their theories, but is the LHC really safe?

Intrigued about the notion of being gobbled up by a microscopic black hole, or sucked into a dimensional portal I read the LSAG report which you can also download from the LHC’s site.

Here are some of the things which are written in a way, which to me is quite telling:

‘We study the possible production at the LHC of hypothetical objects such as vacuum bubbles, magnetic monopoles, microscopic black holes and strangelets, and find no associated risks.’

‘Any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by Hawking radiation before they reach the detector walls.’

OK, how can a hypothetical object pose no risk, if it’s hypothetical. If it is a hypothetical object the scientists are saying it might not exist at all. In which case some of their theories are wrong, in which case that makes me more worried. If these objects do exist, scientists have not seen them before, which begs the question how would they know how they would react.

OK I’ll give the scientists credit where credits due -  If they make a calculated  guess based on laws they already know are true, based on previous experimentation other things should follow suit/fit like jigsaw piece, but what happens lets say for instance if they have overlooked something, like some other law that is yet to be explained. If something has yet to be seen by science close up in an experiment like the LHC as an example, how can they say they find ‘no associated risks’, it’s daft of course they wouldn’t expect to find any risks that’s because they haven’t produced these things before.

The next quote from the report is referring to microscopic black holes which states, ‘that any microscopic black holes produced at the LHC are expected to decay by Hawking Radiation before they reach the detector walls’. -  It’s a very casual quote that one, but what would happen if it didn’t decay, would those particles vanish/ hit the wall/destroy the earth – Would those particles still be safe? – The ‘theory’ says everything would be safe.

Here is another quote from the beginning of the report.

‘The stability of astronomical bodies constrains strongly the possible rate of accretion by any such microscopic black holes, so that they present no conceivable danger.’ – So if it doesn’t happen in space in large bodies such as stars with large mass it won’t happen on earth, unless of course there is something we don’t know about, like some God condition which states ‘that if you mess with my laws, I’m going to mess with you, bwahh ha ha!’?

I like the way the say ‘they present no conceivable danger’ – To me that sounds like they are not ruling it out entirely.

This is from the end of the report:

‘We have considered all the proposed speculative scenarios for new particles and states of matter that currently raise safety issues. Since our methodology is based on empirical reasoning based on experimental observations, it would be applicable to other exotic phenomena that might raise concerns in the future.’ – Now this is fine, it sounds like the scientists and theorists are saying that they know so much stuff that if something they have not seen before appears then that ‘exotic matter’ would be perfectly safe, how can they really know, their own writing states that they think they know, but not that they do know, of course its a silly thing to say, no scientist in his right mind would say something is 100% certain unless of course they could prove it within good reason or until a better theory comes along.

And this is the crux of the issue for me, as I see no compelling evidence to say within a 100% certainty that the LHC is safe.

Of course the scientist in me says ‘well they must know what they’re doing, they have studied cosmic rays and if those cosmic rays are anything to go by, well were all sung as a bug aren’t we? -’ and for the gamble of not only humanity but the earth and possibly the universe itself, I sure as hell hope they’re right, but I also think humanity has still a lot to learn, it would be the biggest mistake to think we know everything there is to know about everything, even within our own current understanding – And that is what worries me the most.

Free agents,

Has the whirling vortex of philosophical thought and chaotic strings of verse reached a maddeningly deafening level as of yet?  Do these words ring true to those who happen upon them?

Does one believe in the potentiality and possibility of every imaginable thing? Does one believe in an onion-layered universe, whose “dimensions,” or membranes, if one will, overlap ad infinitum through a myriad of conceived and unconeived realities?

Is there more than one universe – is it set up like that, so that it will never end, but continue on in similar, parallel paths?  Are we safe?

One only knows.

That’s it for now.

Truly yours,

Rice Cutgrass

Yakın bir zamanda, kanallar arasında gezinirken bir televizyon kanalında Taşkın Tuna adlı yüksek fizik mühendisiyle olan bir tartışma programını izlemiştim. İslami çevrelerin yakından tanıdığı bu adamı ilk defa bu programda görmüş oldum. 10 üzeri -34′ün sıfırdan küçük olduğunu zanneden bir sunucuya bir şeyler anlatmaya çalışıyordu. Sonra sunucuya bir email geldi, bir seyirci ailesinin o gün yine aptalca bir diziyi izlemek zorunda olduğunu ve programı sadece aralarda takip edebildiğini söyledi. Sunucu da “işte ülkemizin geldiği hal” değerlendirmeleri yaptı. Bu vurucu değerlendirmeler sonucunda izlediğim “Geniş Aile” dizisinden biraz feragat edip, bu programı seyrettim.

İslam dünyasında bir gelenek vardır, Allah’ın varlığına kanıt olarak evrenin mükemmelliği, canlılar ve evren arasındaki ahenk sunulur. Bundan dolayı İslam’ın bilimle çelişmediği, tam aksine bilimi teşvik eden bir din olduğu hep iddia edilmiştir. Taşkın Tuna da o programda bunu yapıyordu ancak bu varolan davranışın da ötesine geçip, sık sık başkalarının da yaptığı gibi, bilimin İslam’ı haklı çıkardığını iddia ediyordu. Harun Yahya’nın da birçok kitabında bu vurgulanır. Birçok bilimsel veri için böyle davranışlar sergilense de özellikle Big Bang teorisi, İslamcı bilim fikirlerinin ayyuka çıkmasına neden olmuştur. O kadar ki Harun Yahya’yı okuyan Stephen Hawking’i müslüman olmuş biri zannedebilir. Ömer Çelakıl gibi tarihte de ortaya çıkan bazı kişiler ise Kur’an’ın içindeki verilerden bilimsel bazı sayılara ulaştıklarını iddia ediyorlar. Bu sayıların ve metodolojilerin yanlışlığı bir tarafa, bu yazının konusu bunlardan ziyade evrim teorisine sırt çeviren islam dünyasının neden Big Bang teorisini sahiplendiğini irdelemektir.

Felsefede evrenin mükemmelliğinden bir tanrı fikrine ulaşmaya kozmolojik kanıt deniyor. Ancak Big Bang’e kadar kozmolojik kanıt, kuru ve bir tarafı eksik bir söylem olarak islamcıların dilindeydi. Big Bang’le beraber bu kanıtlar onlar için anlam kazandı. Big Bang adeta İslamcıların ve tüm diğer tek tanrılı dinlerin bilim karşısında kazandığı zafer gibi lanse edilir hale geldi. Bunun nedeni, Big Bang’den önce materyalistlerin “Durağan Hal Teorisi-Steady State Theory” ve “Evrim Teorisi” ile dinlerin artık yıkıldığını iddia etmeleri olabilir. Durağan Hal Teorisi, evrenin ve maddenin her zaman varolduğunu, sonradan varolmadığını savunan bir teoridir. Big Bang ise maddenin ve zamanın sonradan varolduğunu, evrenin bir başlangıcının olduğunu iddia eder ve dinler tarafından sahiplenilmesi kaçınılmazdı. Bilim adamlarının Big Bang’in doğruluğu konusunda ikna eden iki büyük buluş gerçekleşti. Bunlar ölçümlenebilen kanıtlardı. Birincisi evrenin genişlediği olgusudur. Bing Bang teorisine göre evren sonsuz küçüklükte ve yoğun enerjili bir noktanın genişlemesiyle oluşmuştur ve bu genişleme devam etmelidir. Hubble teleskopundan elde edilen veriler, galaksilerin birbirinden uzaklaştığını, evrenin genişlediğini ortaya koymuştur. Bir diğer keşif te patlamadan sonra enerji artığının tüm evrende homojen olarak bulunması gerekliliği fikrinin doğrulanmasıdır. Tüm evrende homojen olarak dağılmış radyasyonun(kozmik arkaplan ışıması) ölçülmesiyle Big Bang’in temelleri atılmıştır diyebiliriz. Bugün bilim dünyasında azınlık olarak Big Bang karşıtı teoriler görülebilir ancak bilimcilerin genel eğilimi Big Bang’in tartışmasız olduğu yönündedir. Modern kozmoloji ve modern fizik, maddenin ve kuvvetlerin oluşumunu araştırırken Big Bang’i artık tartışmaz, olmuş gibi kabul eder. Büyük parçacık hızlandırıcılarındaki deneylerin de amacı, evrenin ilk evrelerinde maddenin ve kuvvetlerin nasıl oluştuğunu ortaya çıkarmaktır.

Big Bang nasıl fizikçiler arasında en kabul edilebilir kuramsa biyologlar arasında da evrim teorisi aynı özellikte bir kuram. Birinin kabul edilip diğerinin kabul edilmemesi sadece Türkiye’deki üniversitelerde görebileceğimiz bir acayiplik. Diyebilirsiniz ki Amerika’da da evrim teorisine karşı çıkan büyük bir kitle var. Doğru, ancak bu Amerikan bilim çevreleri için değil Amerikan halkı için doğru bir değerlendirme. Televizyonlarda rastlayabileceğiniz 12 Eylül’ün hediyesi olan bazı biyoloji profesörleri “Evrim teorisi yanlıştır, bu da benim düşüncem, her fikre saygılı olmalıyız” gibi şeyler söyleyebiliyorlar. Söz konusu bilimse yöntem demokrasi ya da fikirlerin özgürce söylenebilmesi değildir kanımca. Bilimde tartışma ve demokrasi elbette vardır ancak kanıtlarınız olduğu sürece. Bilimde kanıtları olmadan yapılan atıp tutmalara karşı asla demokrasi ya da fikir özgürlüğü yoktur, son derece katı bir şekilde reddedilirler. Bilimin ilerlemesi için yegane koşullardan biri olan bu yöntemi de kimsenin “fikir özgürlüğüne” indirgeyip tartışmaya hakkı yoktur.

Big Bang kuramı bana kalırsa evrim kadar kesin olmayan bir kuramdır. Elbette teorilerin kesinliğini tartışmak bize düşmez ancak şöyle biraz araştırınca bile bilim dünyasının evrim ve evrim mekanizmaları üzerinde daha çok uzlaşmışken, Big Bang üzerinde daha çok itilafa uğradığını görebiliriz. Bu teknik olarak modern fiziğin kolayca deneylenebilir olmamasından ve oldukça soyut olmasından kaynaklanan bir sonuçtur. Big Bang’in olmadığını iddia eden fizikçiler de bunu evrim karşıtlarından daha mantıklı dayanaklarla sunarlar ve alanlarında ihtisas sahibi kişilerdir. Öyleki bunlardan Hannes Alfvén, Arno Allan Penzias ve Robert Woodrow Wilson nobel fizik ödülü sahibi kişilerdir. Oysa evrim konusunun popüler ve siyasi tartışmaları da ateşleyebilecek olmasından ötürü, alanında başarısız bilim adamları ve halktan hemen hemen herkes konuya müdahil olmaktadır.

Big Bang gerçekten tek tanrılı dinlerin kanıtı olabilir mi? Öncelikle inancın kozmolojik kanıtlara ve bu gibi maddi dayanaklara bel bağlamasının artık gerilerde kalması gerektiğini düşünüyorum. Bugün bilim inancı ne reddeder ne de kanıtlar. İnanç artık bireylerin kendi felsefi sorunlarının cevabı olması gerekir, bilime bel bağlayan bir inanç, bugün Big Bang’le sevinirken yarın başka bir kuramı sırf inançları uğruna reddedebilir. Bilim ve dinler belki ortak sorulara cevap arıyorlar ancak metodolojilerinin ve verdikleri cevapların aynı olmadığı kesin. Big Bang teorisi, evrenin yoğun enerjili bir noktanın genişlemesiyle oluştuğunu anlatınca din çevreleri herşeyin yoktan varolduğunun bilimsel olarak kanıtlandığını söylediler. Bilimse yoktan varoluş yerine burada bir enerji dönüşümünden bahseder. Yoğun enerjili nokta kütleli bir evrene dönüşmüştür. Bu noktanın öncesiyle ilgili çeşitli spekülasyonlar var. Döngüsel Big Bang’lerin ve Big Crunch’ların(büyük çökme) gerçekleştiği evren, ya da Bing Bang’lerle oluşan evrenler gibi. Ancak bunlar spekülasyondan öte birşey değil. “Big Bang tek tanrılı dinlerin kanıtı olabilir mi?” sorusunun cevabı şudur;dinler için kanıt aramak yanlış bir iştir. Big Bang, insanoğlunun evrenin oluşumuna dair verdiği en deneysel ama spekülatif tarafları da olan bir teoridir. Teori belki kabaca dinleri kanıtlıyor gibi görünür ama detaylara inildikçe aksi sonuçlar çıkabilir. Bu nedenle inanlar bilimsel teorilerden medet ummayı bırakmalıdır.

Geniş Aile’yi izlemek mi Taşkın Tuna’yı izlemek mi daha kazançlıydı?Taşkın Tuna tasavvuf ve din konusunda da birşeyler söyledi. Bol bol arapça kelimeler kullandı. Big Bang sonrası fiziğin işi dedi öncesi ise İslamiyet’in. Stephen Hawking, Steven Weinberg gibi fizikçilerin kitaplarından alıntılar yaptı.Onların yazdıklarını anlattı uzun uzun. Aynı kitapları okumuş olan ben, bir yüksek fizik mühendisinin “10 üzeri -38 sn ile 10 üzeri -34 saniye arasında elma gibi olan evrenin dünya gibi genişlemesi için ışık hızını geçen bir genişlemeye sahip olması gerekir ki Einstein’a göre ışık hızını geçemezsiniz” diyen bir izleyice gayet teknik ve bilgilendirici bir cevap vermesini beklerdim, soruyu geçiştirmesini değil. Keşke Taşkın Tuna gibileri ne kadar samimi olurlarsa olsunlar, kendi alanlarında yeterince uzman olup, kendi alanları dışında bu bilgiyi kullanabilecek seviyeye gelseler. O zaman neden Geniş Aile’yi bırakıp Taşkın Tuna’yı izlemeyi seçmeyelim?

By Kevin Craner     kevinfcraner@yahoo.co.uk

Maclaren’s “umbrella fold” pushchairs are under scrutiny after the company recalled the buggies in the US and announced it was offering owners free hinge covers to protect little fingers from being caught in the hinges…

—www.guardian.co.uk, November 10, 2009

     If you were to see my mouth right now, you’d say, “Hey Walter Whiffet, you’re either very shocked or sucking on a large invisible courgette.  Well I’m not sucking on a large courgette, a small marrow, or even pretending to suck on a vegetable, okay.  I’m, like, REALLY shocked.  For the record, I’m also not sucking on an invisible bratwurst, but not because I’m meat phobic—just super shocked.  You see, I’ve just heard about Maclaren’s umbrella-fold pushchair.  You won’t believe this, but it turns out that if you let your kid wedge his tiny fingers in the large metal hinge and then collapse the pushchair onto your kid’s hand, the large metal hinge may actually hurt your kid.  That’s right; you did read that correctly: crushing your kid’s delicate fingers in a large metal chopping device tends to hurt.  Why didn’t Maclaren point out this non-obvious fact sooner? 

     What’s that Maclaren?  You thought that your average citizen would realise that a small hand + a heavy-duty crushing device = hospital visit?  Yeah right!  We can’t all be science geeks like that Hawking fella, who talks with an electronic voice and sits in his adult pushchair all day—probably because thinking about complex science stuff makes him “leg lazy.”  Oh, and to clarify, I’m also not sucking on an invisible giant’s thumb to help him sleep.  Like I said, I’m just shocked, and I’m definitely not giant-thumb phobic.

     Let’s be realistic: when you’re collapsing a pushchair, who’s got the time to look both left AND right to check whether little Jimmy’s fingers are trapped?  Sure, maybe a time-machine guy or someone who‘s always late for appointments, but they’re about it.  Come on—next you’ll be telling us that when we’re driving we should be paying attention 100% of the time.  I mean, get real.  Seriously.  Like, get out of here.  And by the way, don’t think that I do have a giant-thumb phobia and was trying to cover it up by emphasising that I don’t.  I do hope I’ve made that clear.  I’m shocked; that’s all.

     When you first learn that crushing your kid’s fingers may actually hurt, your first reaction is “Crushing Denial.”  You may find yourself saying things such as, “But I thought that little Jimmy was a walnut.”  How arrogant of Maclaren to think that we’re smart enough to distinguish between a human being and fruit with an edible kernel.  Talk about totally whacked. 

     Next comes “Denial Recognition,” often accompanied by a deep hatred of walnuts, or anything that reminds you of a walnut.  During this stage stay away from anyone called Mr. Walnut, pygmies who keep getting accidentally sat on and then shout, “Ooh, big man, you’re crushing me like a walnut,” and any accountant whose head is trapped in a giant vice.  Your hatred may also spill over to anything that starts off sounding sort of like walnut, such as someone saying, “Hey, pass me that Walrus” or “Let’s all go to Wal-Mart.”  Don’t be surprised if you get the urge to collapse a pushchair on a Wal-Mart employee—I mean, that’s normal anyway.  And let’s just assume, for argument’s sake, that the employee is twenty-foot tall and has a disgusting giant thumb.

     Be prepared for “Denial Denial,” later followed by “Denial-Denial Denial,” and then “Denial-To-The-Power-Of-Six Denial.”  You’ll probably find that all that denial is causing your head to hurt, although this may be because it’s repeatedly being hit by an angry pigmy.  If so, stop sitting on him.  Also be aware that your house probably stinks of walrus. 

     Finally you’ll experience “Crushing Acceptance”— that is, provided you don’t get stuck in a phase called “Walrus-Stench Denial.”  Once you‘ve conquered stench denial, there are many ways to forget about the stench, and only some of them involve a large mallet and a repulsive giant thumb.  Okay, most of them do.   And just assume that by “most” I mean “all.”  Now if that’s not shocking then I don’t know what is.

 (NOTE: It turns out that I was wrong.  What I thought was shock was, indeed, a large courgette stuffed in my mouth.  Ignore everything I said.  Misinterpreted shock is a symptom of Giant-Thumb-Phobia Denial.)

© Copyright by author. No unauthorized reproduction or redistribution is allowed.

How does a GI avoid a terrorist attack? He get’s a discharge. Not very funny is it? In spite of an increasingly disengaged President who would rather read about himself in GQ magazine and throw mega shindigs for Hollywood moguls in the White House, America faces a very real and escalating threat of domestic Islamic terrorism on every front. Who was it that said this guy is Jimmy Carter dumb? He was wrong. BHO makes Jimmy Carter’s four year in the Oval Office seem like a visit with Stephen Hawking.

There are several fundamental problems, both in the White House and with American policy in general, in this time of war. The first, and perhaps foremost, is our failure to understand the enemy. I began to address this bizarre anomaly in “What Part of ‘Infidel’ Don’t You Understand?” on November 7, 2009, right after Nidal Malik Hasan’s attack on Fort Hood.

To understand Islamic extremism is to throw every vestige of political correctness out the window and start over. Sarah Palin was dead on the money, when she said that we have to profile Muslims. A handy example is rock-singer-turned-imam Cat Stevens who during the 1989 Salmon Rushdie affair called for the death of the Satanic Verses author. Prior to that time Stevens was the poster boy for the civility of Islam. Right.

To be, for lack of a better word, an “orthodox” Muslim is not, in and of itself, extreme. Many Muslims wear those goofy getups, the women in burkas and so forth—only 723 years, two months and three days weirder than a Christian wearing a Rush Limbaugh tie—but certainly no crime. This is America; we can dress as we please. But the PC insanity ends there. One step further and our lives are at risk, and I don’t give a rip what the Arab American Institute thinks.

None of this would be quite so alarming had it not surfaced in the first 48 hours after Fort Hood, that this infestation of Deranged Liberal Syndrome has percolated into the upper echelons of our military. In the aftermath at Hood, Army general George Casey rushed to announce, “Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength.” Leading to the question: Who should be in the loony bin, the general or Hasan.

Diversity is anything but a strength; it is three-alarm-nutcase lunacy. Understand this: These 7th century throwbacks are at war with everything not Muslim. In India they are at war with Sikhs and Hindus, in the Philippines and Indonesia they blow up Buddhists; everyone knows they have vowed Israel’s destruction—Muslim extremists are even at war with each other.

And they are and have been at war with the U.S. long before our leaders acknowledged it. You won’t find this in your college history books. In 1981, the Ayatollah Khomeini declared war on the U.S. and nobody listened. I had to scavenge the Internet to find one mention of it. That fatwa has not been lifted.

Some will tell you that Khomeini was Shi’a, not Sunni, as is Osama bin Laden. When he’s holding an AK-47 or wearing a backpack stuffed with plastique there is not a dime’s worth of difference to those he targets. Our war is with Extremist Islam, and we must recognize them before we can kill them.

Sharia is alive and thriving right here in the United States. If we don’t wake up and begin profiling it, look for neighborhood Wal-Marts to be next.

Hey kids,

This is perhaps the nerdiest thing I’ve seen all day, but I love it.

I wish I could autotune everything I say,
-frankie

70 adults answered our questionnaire at the Otley Science Fair last Saturday. All ages (though mostly 26 – 50) and roughly equal numbers of men and women.

We wanted to find out more about people’s science education, what they are interested in, and how they like to find out about science.

So what did we find? Well, most people said they last studied science in a formal way more than 20 years ago. Despite this, people seemed quite well informed – just over half said they knew a fair amount or a lot about science. But the rest felt they knew only a bit or the basics.

Most people said they learned about science in various ways. Lots (52) said ‘at science festivals and events’ – no surprise there, as we were at a science festival. 45 said science museums, and 45 said TV. 36 said books, and 35 websites. I won’t go through the whole list, though 24 people said they learned about science from their children or grandchildren.

The science issues of most concern to the people in Otley were global warming and renewable sources of energy, followed by eliminating incurable diseases. We asked people, ‘if science could solve one problem, which problem would you choose?’ and the same concerns came up again, with 28 people naming global warming/renewable energy, and seven illness and disease. Solving ageing, population and poverty were named a few times, and then there was a long list of ideas each proposed by one person only. Several of these related to the environment but there was also getting rid of death, helping people to live their dreams, finding life on other planets, removing greed, stopping the world from ending and more …. lots of ideas to keep scientists busy for a long time to come.

The next question was surprisingly difficult. Can you name a famous living scientist. Most people were blank at first, but 58 said yes (though three then came up with someone dead). Stephen Hawking was named most often (24 people) with  Robert Winston and Otley-based scientist (and S Factor member) Marty Jopson coming equal second, each named by five people. A total of  15 male scientists were named, and just three women: Susan Greenfield, Emily Cummins and Lisa Lilley.

Nearly everyone said they wanted to learn more about science and, very helpfully for us, a lot of people told us how best to make science interesting. Making it interactive, fun, experimental and practical appealed to lots of people. Making it relevant to current social and political issues was also important.  ’Everything it wasn’t at school,’ said one person.

The questionnaire gave us lots of useful information to help us plan and present the S Factor activities over the coming months. We’ll run it online and at other activities to see what others have to say.

By Columnist Harry Trunckles

The other day, I was talking to my wife Anna about that no good asshole she left me for and she said “He’s light years beyond you Harry, don’t even compare yourself to him!”

I just slapped her face right there. First of all, anyone who thinks that light years are a unit of measurement for how poor of a husband I am clearly doesn’t understand the basics of physics. Light years describe how time is relative to light. This is similar to using “dog years” to describe your beloved pet’s rapid decrepidation. And a light year is roughly the length of time it takes for the universe to begin and then end. Kind of a useless measurement for us humans in my opinion.

Particle Physicists (More like particle suckacists! Zing!) have debated about the nature of light for the last few years. Is it a particle or is it a wave? Since this question isn’t being hotly debated by wave physicists, I am going to assume that the particle physicists are a bunch of biased bastards. There has actually been a number of rigorous studies done to determine this. Some indicated it was a wave. Some indicated it was a particle. The lazy conclusion they came to was that light was both a particle AND a wave. Ok, before you call them all idiots for arriving at such a counterintuitive notion, let me tell you about how they found this out. You’ll laugh even harder.

Anyway, let me go into the detail of this horrible Freudian-projected nightmare. The scientist would tell you that if you have a photon entering two slits, then it could theoretically interfere with itself if you do not observe it. If you do observe it, then the photon will not interfere with itself. This is all just some bullshit fantasy that if your wife doesn’t observe you having sex with two other women, it’s okay, since there’s some kind of penile (represented by photons) interference. Jeez scientists, grow up!

Its so patently obvious that this is the Freudian expression of the scientist’s desire for an adulterous threesome. One in which his penis interferes with itself. Guess what science guys, I tried that excuse, but my wife still won’t return my calls. Kind of punches a hole in your logic, don’t you think?

Back in the day, scientists wanted to know if there was this luminiferous ether that light travelled through. They never found the luminiferous ether! No shit, you particle dumbassicists! Didn’t you read Genesis chapter 1? God spoke and He bespoke light. Clearly light is supernatural in origin. You dipshiticists. However, to be fair, science was right about there needing to be a medium for light to travel through. You see, sound can’t travel in a vacuum. And since light is composed of God Voice Particles (GVP), any over-arching theory of cosmology has to include something like deity air (not some stupid ether!) for the sound particles to travel through.

My colleagues, occasionally secular godless science can be right. One thing physicists got right was when they said that at the speed of light (you know, 9,999 miles per hour), time does not pass, so light experiences no aging just like God. So clearly light could have only originated from God. My goodness, what do these jerks at MIT do all day not to realize that ageless particles prove their own origin – their own origin being that of God!

Speaking of time coming to a stop, there’s this stupid theory called Relativation Theory (you’d think it would be about relatives or something) that says that time slows down as you approach the speed of light. Let me tell you, I tried driving really fast in my car, and not only did time not slow down, but it actually seemed to pass faster as it didn’t take as long to get to my work. I was 20 minutes early! Wow, who came up with such a terrible theory?

Another claim by physicists is that light can’t escape a black hole. How absurd! Being the natural skeptic that I am, I went into my backyard where there are plenty of holes. I tossed a mirror down one and shone my flashlight into the hole. The beam of photons bounced right back out. Maybe the scientist that came up with this theory fell down a crevasse as a kid or was just really scared of the dark. Seems like astronomy might be a bad field to work in for you guys.

Light is actually not as complex as people think it is. The mainstream opinion is that humans only percieve a limited spectrum of light known as the “visible” and that there is also “Infrared”, “Ultraviolet,” “Radio,” “X-Rays,” and a bunch of other satanic beams of light rays. The truth is that scientists saw their funding drying up after they discovered Red through Purple and went ahead and made up some new kinds of light.

Let me conclude on this note. A particle physicist once asked me if a cat in some box was dead or alive due to some quantum mechanical mumbo jumbo aptly named Schumaker’s Cat. What a stupid question. I kill my neighbor’s cats routinely by boxing them up and tossing them into a river. So I’m fairly certain that most of the time when a cat is in a box, it is dead. Especially after I run it over with my Ford truck! In the interest of testing this ridiculous claim, I took the litter of kittens my neighbor was trying to find a home for and put them all in a box. Well, big disappointment. They took a whole day and a half to die, and no matter how many times I observed them they never came back to life.

Do you really want to believe a bunch of eggheads who are afraid of the dark, like to cheat on their wives, think cats can come back to life literally, and ask you stupid riddles about dead cats?