I see this as a universe that in its entirety, is like a liquid. Nothing can separate from the liquid ln the way that happens during a 'splash' in water. There is no 'outside' of the universe. But space is dynamic and individual — universeness
Jiddu was a BS artist in pursuit of a free lunch in my opinion, sorry Tom, sorry sis! — universeness
I think he was a flim-flam man who was clever enough to earn an easy living. — universeness
I also still am currently most convinced by the idea that our Macro 3D space could be due to something akin to or exactly like string vibrations in > 3 dimensions. Phenomena like Gravity and time etc would result purely as a consequence of subatomic interactions in a similar way to wind or weather phenomena being a consequence of interactions rather than a separate fundamental force — universeness
Noooooooooooo! You will never be allowed to do that. Your scientific musing will always be related to your dalliances with theism — universeness
Anyway, how about pair production — universeness
You repeatedly have made the mistake to see fields as disturbances of space — Hillary
Virtual particles are also a mathematical tool. It is mere projection to suggest that that which is virtual become real. I think I will call that 'the Pinocchio fallacy.' Explain the detail of how something 'virtual' can become 'real.' Energy turning into mass for example is not virtual becoming real as the energy involved was already real.Creation means turning a virtual particle real and annihilation means turning real to virtual. — Hillary
There is a great deal of info on quora and physics stack exchange regarding electron repulsion/collision/interaction. I was tempted to copy and paste some of it but it would have taken up too much space. Almost none of the examples agree with your claim that no emission or absorption of photons is involved. I have much more confidence in the experimental physicists who comment on such sites than I have in you.Two electrons interact by coupling to omnipresent virtual photons. There is no emission, no absorption. All particles are conserved. — Hillary
Are you serious here — Hillary
Okay. Space. You say it's caused by vibrating strings. What makes them vibrate? — Hillary
Hey! Got my first follower on Quora! Entered a question and 16 answers yesterday. Thanks to you, brother Uni! — Hillary
Doesn't worry me what people think about him. I think of him these days as a talented performance artist and his private life was bad. — Tom Storm
What I found was that the people involved were as wracked with anxiety, flaws and substance issues as any other group. So far from providing consolation or peace, most of the folk were ambitious, status obsessed and very poor advertisements for the contemplative life. Doesn't mean the beliefs are untrue, just that I see little point in them — Tom Storm
How would talking with a mystic change your physics, and how do you know it's not for the good? I think Bohm learns more about physics from talking to the mystic than from talking to you and listen to your view on physics, which is rather shallow, if you don't mind me saying — Hillary
Not what I suggested. Space IS one big field of potential. disturbances/excitations — universeness
Virtual particles are also a mathematical tool. It is mere projection to suggest that that which is virtual become real. I think I will call that 'the Pinocchio fallacy.' Explain the detail of how something 'virtual' can become 'real.' Energy turning into mass for example is not virtual becoming real as the energy involved was already real. — universeness
If I advocate for humans to become an interplanetary species with increased lifespan options then I think it would be more progressive towards such goals to promote science and scientists that regress or hinder such goals by allowing BS from mystics to have airspace. — universeness
Your welcome, although I don't know why you are thanking me for your own postings on Quora. — universeness
That's what they tell you and you parrot it. — Hillary
But you nevef can forbid people to talk woowoo BS — Hillary
That's because I am more convinced by my understanding of their physics than yours. — universeness
I am glad you at least admit it's BS — universeness
I don't mind if foolish people insist on remaining foolish. — universeness
Because if you didn't offer the posting I wouldn't have posted myself! M il Guercio. My pseudo on quora — Hillary
That's because you don't understand QFT properly and just parrot what the "expert" says. Can't you see what they do? Apparently not. I suggest you study QFT properly first, before continuing. You don't seem to get it! — Hillary
Science is BS just the same. But you won't admit it — Hillary
If all your gods have mothers and they had mothers are you not back to infinite regress again.My dear mother of god... — Hillary
I thought you said you had been on these sites many times and had been banned many times — universeness
If all your gods have mothers and they had mothers are you not back to infinite regress again.
Which god is your chosen first cause? — universeness
Yes. On stack exchange, physics forum and one national here — Hillary
Not one is a first cause cause. Jesus brother Uni I get a bit tired of having to defend myself. If your intention is to unmask the theist, go try it at someone else. You cant unmask me because I wear no mask! — Hillary
You have tried to but I still see no rationale which you claim connects your physics to your polytheism — universeness
My name is not M... — Hillary
The gods life eternally. No first reason necessary. Eternal intelligence itself is reason. My serial big bang is inspired by the divine longing to watch eternally to their creation. The torus vision I saw in that divine dream — Hillary
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.