Now: why should I 'believe' those "wise" scientists who based their
thinking on imaginary explanations of phenomena partly observed by
insufficient instrumentation and background knowledge? I esteem their
wisdom and in college had to learn 'them' for exams, but later on, a
'freeer' thinking turned away from 'everything being created ex nihilo'.
Ex WHAT? here comes agnosticism.
All those 'scientific' data are consequences of theories/metatheories and
the level of experienced proportionalities at the time of 'that' thinking.
Compare earlier theorizing with later corrections and the credibility of
oldies is lost.
The 'many' PRACTICAL results quoted usually are ALMOST OK, mishaps occur
and we assign a certain probability to the application of the (meta?)
 theories. There was successful navigation in the 'Flat Earth' times as
well.
JM



On Fri, Oct 4, 2013 at 12:57 PM, sadovnik socratus <is.socra...@gmail.com>wrote:

>  Vacuum and  Entropy. ******
>
> #****
>
> Today everybody knows that  the Universe had a beginning from  'Big Bang'.
> ****
>
> Alternative question:****
>
> Can the Universe begin to exist from Absolute Vacuum Zero: T=0K?****
>
> ==..****
>
> We have two opinions about vacuum: ****
>
> 1
> The most fundamental question facing 21st century physics will be:
> What is the vacuum? As quantum mechanics teaches us, with
> its zero point energy this vacuum is not empty and the word
> vacuum is a gross misnomer!
> / Prof. Friedwardt Winterberg /****
>
> 2****
>
> Why do physicists refuse to take vacuum as a fundament of Universe?
> Book : ‘Dreams of a final theory’ by Steven Weinberg. Page 138.
> ‘ It is true . . . there is such a thing as absolute zero; we cannot
> reach temperatures below absolute zero not because we are not
> sufficiently clever but because temperatures below absolute zero
> simple have no meaning.’
> / Steven Weinberg. The Nobel Prize in Physics 1979 /****
>
> ==.****
>
> We need to understand what 'nothing' / vacuum is.****
>
> Paul Dirac wrote:
> " The problem of the exact description of vacuum, in my opinion,
> is the basic problem now before physics. Really, if you can't correctly
> describe the vacuum, how it is possible to expect a correct description
> of something more complex? "****
>
> =.****
>
> Today everybody knows that  the Universe had a beginning from  'Big Bang'.
> ****
>
>  As result of 'Big Bang' the temperature in universe is now T=2,7 . . . .*
> ***
>
> .. . .and this T=2,7 every second goes down to  . . . T=0K.****
>
> When the universe reach the T=0K  we will be all died. . . . .****
>
>  . . . .  but thanks to the ENTROPY, it will not allow this death.****
>
> ===…****
>
> Socratus****
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to