Jump to content

Kartazion

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    368
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Kartazion last won the day on September 16

Kartazion had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Kartazion

  • Rank
    Atom

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://www.kartazion.com

Profile Information

  • Location
    France
  • Favorite Area of Science
    Quantum Mechanics

Recent Profile Visitors

2092 profile views
  1. Yes. So why make a weird analogy when we already have appropriate terms? You should have started there. Yes, you simply try to embed gibberish in a mathematical formula. But I'm more used to talk about elementary particles or fields that candy and people to explain how the universe works. That's why. Stupid or ridiculous does not mean impossible.
  2. @zapatos @joigus @Phi for All I don't know what you're talking about. Apparently the rhetoric you allude to, and that you thought you saw, is completely absurd and does not hold up. Look, I reiterate with a simple definition in bold: These are your words which are stupid. It's a total ineptitude to ask that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe.
  3. All right. I can continue then. These are your words. It's a total ineptitude to say that the science can prove the existence of 17 balls of jello, each with the mind of a baby, but whose mutual communication results into a common mega intelligence that rules our universe. It's because you said it yourself: I do not know why this commentary has disappeared from the thread. But is still present on your profile.
  4. Ridiculous as a metaphor. The world that runs the universe I'm talking about is not a world made of candy and people. Don't tell me that extraterrestrials would be at the origin of the Big Bang. But no official announcement from that side I imagine.
  5. If you read between the lines you see that God can also exist. To say that 'invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe', is ambiguous. This description does not say that it/he does not exist. Why ? Quantum physics is not it? Mysterious? The theory of everything should be able to answer: - Yes, we can prove it. How? - No, we can't prove it. Why? I think it is a delicate and embarrassing question that I asked there, because if we had the answer, it would be impossible to reveal to the general public. No? I now understand why no one is answering correctly. Kartazion
  6. I do not understand. Because if this force is detected, how would you be if it is intelligent? ____________________ @joigus @zapatos I prefer summarized like this: How Stephen Hawking could prove that God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe? This is what I want to understand. How and on what basis can science define whether we have a creator or not? If Hawking can explain it by The Grand Design, then others can. But how?
  7. To my surprise science could never explain how the universe works if it is governed by some underlying intelligence. That would be misunderstanding the 'everything'. Where are the limits of everything? Technological only? Science should be able to determine whether the functioning of the universe is random or governed by an intelligent force that rules our universe. Reference: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123416-hijack-from-theory-of-everything/ https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/123339-source-of-all
  8. Normally I shouldn't answer because it's off topic. But like swanson or Phi will soon sanction me...let's go. Scientifically speaking it is yes or no. Do you want the real and the false at the same time? Are you alluding to quantum superposition or what? I am no longer responding to the off-topic message.
  9. We can't. We have to open a new thread. I'm going to do one called "Can science prove the existence of an intelligent world that rules our universe?" bis...
  10. Example: God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design Is It Anyway? by John C Lennox Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford
  11. You did not specify if the 'enable' is technological or not. I don't really agree. I am going to give you my opinion. It would be for example, in a one in two chance, to find the proof of the existence of a creator. Humanity will be profoundly changed. I really agree.
  12. I believe the conversion rate is 1kHz per volt. To check. Wavelength and frequency of light are closely related. The higher the frequency, the shorter the wavelength. IOW frequency and wavelength have both direct and inverse relationships.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.