eh

The whole idea of a net energy zero universe is interesting, but doesn't do much to it's ontological status. For one, the total amount of energy is not zero, but the net charge is. How in the world one decides a universe with zero net energy does not exist, is beyond me. Energy is not some fundemental substance (or aether) that makes up the universe.

As well, just because the net charge of the is zero, does not mean the mathematical value of such a universe is equivalent to a universe that does not exist. Is that volume of the universe zero? No. Is the amount of curvature (not an overall average) zero? Nope. So no, the mathematical value of the universe is not same you would give to a non-existent universe. Such an argumment is quite silly.

eh

In another thread, you said if we find out there is life after death, we shouldn't abandon the findings of modern science, which I presume includes physics. But that is exactlty what Pearson has done, throwing away special relativity, GR, modern cosmology, etc. in favor of a silly aether theory that does not explain anything. Of course I use the word "theory" very losely, as his blue sky conjecture is not scientific. That is, it does not offer to explain the available evidence, and makes no real predictions. Someone on the net sent me his so called predictions for quantum gravity. Pure nonsense.

Pearson is not a physicist, and it shows. Take a look at his website and you'll find misrepresentations of cosmological theories, and strawman attacks on the same theories. Does it sound familiar? Ronald Pearson is the New Age equivalent of a young earth creationist. If you want to consider the possibility of life after death without throwing away modern science, stay the hell away from crackpots like this.

emotional

William Crookes a pseudoscientist (when he investigates mediums). Pearson a crackpot. RIIIIIIIGHT! Name-call anyone you don't agree with, materialists!

eh, I'm afraid I'll simply have to ignore you (and kindred posters who stoop to such practices). Your remarks are of no merit whatsoever as far as I'm concerned. I'll walk guided by my own light, using my own judgement as to who is a crackpot and who is a serious scientist.

Jesse

emotional, how is Ronald Pearson's willingness to throw out virtually all of modern physics for the sake of his pet theory any different than a young earth creationist's willingness to throw out all of modern geology, biology, cosmology, etc.? Don't successful scientific theories generally expand upon previous successful theories rather than throwing everything out and trying to start from the ground up?

emotional

All right, I give up. Debating here is totally fruitless. And hazardous to my health as well.

Jesse

If anyone else is curious, here's a paper where Pearson introduces his new grand unified theory of physics, all apparently in words without a single new equation:

http://www.cfpf.org.uk/articles/rdp/blackholes.html

Here, he claims to expose simple flaw in relativity which apparently every physicist since Einstein has somehow failed to notice:

Of course, he does not offer any quantitative examples where the relativity of mass would somehow lead different observers to make contradictory physical predictions--it's all handwaving.

Unbeliever

Well, I just meant virtual particles that would not immediately be annihilated, since they wouldn't come into contact with their virtual partner, so they would last at least a little longer than such particles normally would, perhaps long enough to be considered "real" particles. Does this make any sense?

eh

Yes, the website above should give let anyone know why title of "crackpot" is well earned. It's funny how non physicists have so much insight that physicists seem to be lacking. I suppose that is similar to how creationists can see how blatently absurd evolution is, while biologists cannot. Maybe scientists drink different water than everybody else?

Marduk

it looks like there is more than one universe that doesn't exist.


http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?col...A5809EC5880000

Answerer

I guess so. I think virtual particles will only become 'real' if we observed them or through some collisions with other 'real' particles.