Korg Forums

I don't agree, he's trying to appear completely open-minded but uses subtle wordings that support his own views, which to me comes across as creationism. He uses a few instances of "common sense" wordings that misrepresent scientific understanding. See my above statement on the evolution fallacy (or his variation of it).

EDIT:
Which is why, I assume, xmlguy wanted to check how well respected dr. Schroeder is in the scientific community that he pretends to represent. The answer is, unsurprisingly; not very.

Hmmm... I see what your saying but his view really is totally insignificant in my opinion.

If you just listen to the points that are made of how mazing say... Anti-Matter and Matter exploding can turn into a person writing a beautiful song.... well... that's the point behind the video I guess.

The viewer needs to make the realisations themselves to the existence of everything around them.

The mere fact that after an explosion which brought into existence our universe, and me and you talking to each other about it is amazing.

Regards
Sharp.

One way I judge any video like you posted is to listen for specific assertions or subjects based on my own areas of expertise, from extensive study and experience in those areas, to use as a sort of measuring stick for areas that are presented that are outside of my own expertise.

For example, I previously read Consumer Reports avidly and I used to follow their recommendations and hold it in high regard, until they started publishing their recommendations on computer hardware, which was an area in which I have much expertise. I don't have much expertise evaluating all the different models of cars, washing machines, vacuum cleaners that they seemed to rate, so I thought I could rely on them. The problem is that many of their computer recommendations were terrible in my opinion, and they used very poor criteria to judge the gear, so I had to reconsider my faith in their recommendations for other things, even though I hadn't become any more of an expert in vacuum cleaners than I previously had. Another problems was that I think they were giving their honest assessment of the computer hardware, so I don't think they were being intentionally wrong or misleading, but I think they chose testers and evaluators who were poor judges of the factors that are most important for evaluating computers for their readers. It's been so long that I forget the specifics about why they gave such poor recommendations. The point was that I trusted them for reliable information in many areas, but that trust wasn't well founded when they started giving unreliable information in an area in which I'm an expert.

So if someone watches that video, but doesn't have any study in the areas of physics, evolutionary biology, cosmology, human development, etc. that are being discussed, it may seem all well and good, and that person may have no specific reason to question the credibility of the person in the video. But if another person watches that video and find even one element to be wrong or misleading for an area of their own expertise, then the entire credibility of the video and its maker become very relevant so that the view can better assess the overall credibility based on their claimed education, experience, publications, and peer reviewed articles.

As another example, if I said that the R3 can't do a sawtooth wave on OSC1, I think you would have the legitimate right to question anything else I claimed, as well as my experience and background with the R3. If I did say that, you have an opportunity to question me on it, and if I don't respond or I reaffirm my claim, my credibility would be worthless. But if I said "oops, I meant to say that it CAN do a sawtooth wave", then the error could be attributed to a mistake of some kind on my part. But do you have the ability to question the author of that video and get fully explained answers to any errors? The link I posted show that many rebuttals to his books have been posted for years without any response by the author.

Sharp, I can understand what you mean when you say the person watching the video has to form his own opinion. But the problem (to me, and xmlguy I think) is that you assume that Schroeder is giving a good representation of scientific understanding at this point in time, on which you can then base your opinion. But he's not, at all. Which begs the question; what are his motives. I think it's pretty clear he's a creationist.

I do appreciate how amazing it is that we're sitting here talking about it after a "big bang" a mere 10 billion years ago or so
EDIT: eh, you're Irish, right? Then it would be milliard, not billion?

SanderXpander wrote:Sharp, I can understand what you mean when you say the person watching the video has to form his own opinion. But the problem (to me, and xmlguy I think) is that you assume that Schroeder is giving a good representation of scientific understanding at this point in time, on which you can then base your opinion. But he's not, at all. Which begs the question; what are his motives. I think it's pretty clear he's a creationist.

I do appreciate how amazing it is that we're sitting here talking about it after a "big bang" a mere 10 billion years ago or so
EDIT: eh, you're Irish, right? Then it would be milliard, not billion?

I definitely agree with you SanderXpander. The video reminds me of the movie called "What the (Bleep) Do We Know?" which was a whole (bleep) load of pseudoscientific psychobabel wrapped around a wacko mystical cult with a hidden evangelistic agenda. I don't walk out on many movies, but I was irate and actually got a refund at the box office for being completely misled about what the film was about. It was like a sureal out-of-body experience where everyone is throwing around scientific terms where every word was completely different than the well-known meaning. I'm sure that there are enough people who are duly impressed when they hear words like "quantum" and they get all googly and warm inside to emit positive auras of "energy" due to their perceived enlightenment, but I'm not one of them. My stomach turns when I hear these wackos commiting word rape by having their way with them however they please without consent.

My observation was here is a guy not of the normal Church going Creationist theory preachers sifting through information trying to understand a few things that are wrong he mentioned and put it all together with his knowledge that Life was aware and present in the beginning of time, the most difficult concept in physics for most with a degree. “You were there” is a statement I’d love to hear the experts understand in relationship to consciousness and our association with Energy and Time. His goal it seems is to show how consciousness creates matter since the other side of the debate says everything came out of “nothing” and can’t come close to saying how or even building a filter out of “nothing”. He mentions some really interesting stuff, points out some bad science, and makes a few quotes I had not heard before. I don’t think he considers himself an expert, just a guy searching that found the answer and wants to understand to explain the ship that got him from there to here.

X-Trade said and I added:
“Sharp, I think you (or I) are mistaken about the 'big bang'.

At least when I was last learning about it, the general consensus is that you can't even ask what happened 'before' the big bang, because the big bang didn't just bring matter into an empty universe - there was no universe. That means no space nor time, nor any of the rules of physics we take for granted today. Without a concept of time, there is no 'before', and no causality."

JFH^^ Yes! No time..no before, no after. It’s not “middle C” at the top of the Circle yet. But the “object of ingredient of substance” to create time was there, AND it had rest mass weight (it creates its own scalar field and represents a true inertial frame of reference and most important of all a “unit” to base measurements on. You can’t ask how big it is yet or how big a pound or a ton is… it has no size and we need time to give it a size big or small. But “sense” has weight that represents energy and it will start to oscillate (not getting technical as to why) as we see it doing and you can measure it’s energy by how long it takes to complete an oscillation cycle and say one cycle =E to establish time and use it as a unit of measurement.

However there are some inherent accuracy problems with doing this (time keeps getting longer as a ruler) and this is why music theory is the most important base theory in all of in physics and should be taught first: basic tuning and the comma is something very important we must deal with before we get to play.

Although this increase in time was calculated by Pythagoras in music scales, is later mentioned in the Bible by John, and observed and measured in far greater detail later in physics @ 60 seconds per 1000 years (but it has to be 53.3+ sec per 1000 yr., the distance light travels in 3.2 sec per year) and is called the asymmetry of the weak force. (clock cycles based on the speed of light in the strong force run faster than the clock “pendulum” in the weak force creating it) Its critically important cause and function however has not been detected by mainstream physics and is not even mentioned in physics books. They see “something” equal to the transmission in a car connecting the weak force to the strong force but ignore it as a peculiarity. This means an explosion in understanding data to create knowledge past parrot talk is on its way and is here (X) now in fact. This “sense” weight is quantum “CPU” gravity in the weak force Mass oscillation cycle and is separate from “outside total measured strong force gravity (gravity for “software” use) and the laws of physics are about to show themselves as a natural process of measured space and simple octave formation. Life folds itself and spins in phase with the photon to do it. My time is up so have to go……John^^

All thoughts and statements are of contradiction. I say up, and I have also said down because up is the opposite of down. I said I was leaving but look what happened…I forgot I wrote this below;-). Basic logic dictates you could not have “nothing” unless you had “something” (the observer) to create the concept of nothing. This beginning thought process and proper phase in time, on/off, is the key to understanding the beginning and physics (and music) or music (and physics). I know I am now, and now you know you are. My instance of “now” is after yours, and yours is after mine because the “observer” Mass is moving forward in time. 1(E) + 1(E) cannot equal 2 E’s. Energy cannot decrease or increases. So 1+1=2 is wrong. 1x1=2 is correct if x = time and then we add time together as 2 “nows”. We need to look at both sides of the coin and stop arguing which side is real and which side it is on. Both side are real, both sides are opposite and conflicting, but you can only “see” one at a time. There is no Dark Matter, just an extended moment arm of force relative to the observer in space relative to E, and there are two simple equations out of the basic summery of formulas that show it when converted into spacetime for measurement. They are contradicting views, but both proven correct since Ohm’s created them…and got ridiculed for doing so I might add.

Now can I please have one cent for every dollar budgeted to be spent looking for Dark Matter in the future if I can prove that? Think of the money saved. Well this time I am leaving, I’m cooking a snipe from the last hunt for dinner and I don’t want it to burn….. I’m sure some of you have been on a snipe hunt before. How big is a snipe? It’s Boy Scoot classified information……but generally the more kids that pee in their pants out looking for them at night the bigger they are…… when they learn there was nothing to be scared of they learn to conquer their fear. However there are some inherent problems with this approach of conquering fear. It doesn’t work on rattle snakes for very long. ^^

Thus the big bang was an inevitability. It effectively brings a state of equilibrium to a vacuum of absolute nothing on the finest level of detail.


Even the name 'big bang' is misleading in the traditional sense. It wasn't a 'explosion' like you or I know caused by some reaction. Of course nothing is to say that there aren't levels beyond our own that somehow 'caused' (in a very loose sense of the word) our universe to come into existence. But its not a conventional explosion. It only seems like an explosion because the entire universe expands from that single point of incredibly high energy. So it is an 'explosion' in the sense of that it is expanding rapidly, but not in the 'bomb' sense.

JFH^^ It’s the first fold, the first quantum tunnel hole in space and it had to break a hole and that had to hurt…be glad you forgot about it. Next cycle period to “off” (and experience of “on” ) twice as long. It’s getting better all the time. The goal in Life is to avoid pain for a reason.^^

Importantly, even at the point of the big bang (let alone before), there was no matter, only energy. Energy later condensed into matter (E=MC^2 tells us the relationship between energy and matter-mass).

JFH^^ That’s what I thought till the UFT showed the error….time moves energy (observer) to speed of light and creates infinite mass particle and the cycle starts over to make another particle. This is how it looks in the strong force where we measure acceleration in the process of doing it. But you need rest mass weight to start the cycle and that takes Mass in the weak force (constant rate relative to wf) where Mass is found in the anti-particle state of particle formation (space filled with energy created relative to time as Mass exits the space created…reversing particle charge and spin does not create “anti-matter”. There is no mass in the strong force under the definition used where imaginary time (and therefore imaginary space) is needed to support the concept of real time). Energy needs two sides and that takes time to create the second side, and time needs Mass to get the clock ticking. But it can be a difficult concept to separate and there are many frames of reference to sit on talking about it…this is where the correct phase of time the photon obeys comes in for the final “say”.^^

Anyway, the problem is that the concept of 'no space or time nor any other rules of physics' is completely alien to us and very difficult to explain or comprehend. Most if not all of our experiences are rooted in the physical world we are in today. So to understand, those 'constants' and rules in our head have to become 'variable'. Like in computer programming, you have to leave the program itself in order to understand that at one point there was no code, and then the code was written by someone.

So yes, you can say "nothing existed before the big bang. But that would be an understatement.

And SanderXpander (also quite logically) said:

“Also, why does there have to be a "reason" for existence? Reasons are a human thing, embedded in the way our brain works.”

Sharp summed it up and said:

“It's the person watching the video that forms the view on this subject. He's just stating the obvious and what people already know.”

JFH^^ I found his self awareness and connection to Life excellent and took a few notes (reference to missing matter, etc) I want to cover later…jezzz it’s already 4 o’clock now I have to go….