Note: this topic is from . Thanks BenLurkin.
|
Posted on 09/14/2017 11:41:53 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Lol the best part is the “north wind”.... in space!
“You are right, until a quantum entity such as an electron or proton is observed it exists only within a probability wave.”
Well, that’s one interpretation. The math works well to view the waves as “probability waves” but it doesn’t make much sense empirically. It makes more sense if the waves are just actual waves, and the “probability” is simply something inherent to the nature of matter being in a wave state.
Einstein got it backwards. Matter doesn’t distort space, matter IS a distortion in space. Energy is equivalent to matter so it is also a distortion in space, just at a much lower amplitude.
We’re getting a little closer to agreement, possibly. Having a general idea about what something is might seem very different depending on level of expertise, and whether the concept of origin is included.
Underlying all discussions of origin—in the biggest picture of all big pictures—is the question of first premise. That is, the first premise of naturalism vs the opposing view.
The naturalist can do little more than admit to being completely in the dark when asked to give an account of nature’s origin.
Sounds like I can learn from you.
How can we know it’s more accurate to state “matter is a distortion in space” than “matter distorts space”?
“How can we know it’s more accurate to state “matter is a distortion in space” than “matter distorts space”?”
Both statements are basically equivalent when it comes to describing a certain set of observations (gravity bending light, or relativistic effects near massive objects, for example), but saying “matter distorts space”, while explaining those observations, leaves us with more questions, such as “how does matter distort space?”, which is a question that isn’t easily answered.
If instead we look at matter as the actual distortion in space instead of something causing the distortion, it leads to different questions, ones that we can actually answer. For example, we would instead ask “why is space distorted such that it appears to us as matter?” and that question can be easily answered... space is distorted because it is a wave medium and the manner in which it is distorted is governed by the same wave mechanics that govern all wave mediums.
I was hoping for more than fanciful speculation.
The problem here is that those interpreting scientific literature and scientists themselves—and in fact many across academia—often believe the falsehood that man’s language can create or reinvent reality when its capacities are limited to describing discovered reality.
Annulus = fancy word for a donut.
Note: this topic is from . Thanks BenLurkin.
|
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
