The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
.jpg)
Cogzie, I think this one is most appropriate for you!
| Quote | Quote
Now, the brighter bulbs in the evolutionistic community are aware of the differences in spin statistics between fermions and bosons. Bosons must be symmetric under Schrödinger wave function operations*, while fermions must be antisymmetric under similar operation.
Brighter bulbs don't conflate the language of science. Schrodinger's Wave Equation is not an Operator. When you use made up terms like "Schrödinger wave function operations" it seems like you don't know what you're talking about. It's more like how a child repeats words that he heard his parents use but doesn't quite understand yet.
|
Well, in the words of Roger Penrose,
| Quote | | According to this procedure, (second quantization) try to pretend that the wavefunction Psi (Greek in the original) of some partice itself becomes an 'operator' 1 |
You are sort of correct here, but still confused. In the creation and anhilation operators to which I was referring the wavefunction does become an operator on itself. This is why I said "Wave function operaton", as opposed to "Wave function operator." Of course, evolutionists evade the implications of Creation, because, according to their ontology, it doesn't exist.
| Quote | Quote
This is a very abstract concept described in terms of statistics, and like complex specified information, tends to be misunderstood or denied by evolutionists because their amoral ontology teaches them only material objects are part of objective reality.
Misunderstood, denied? By whom? Who do you think theorized spin, afterall? I can make baseless claims, too. Creationists eat babies. Hitler was a geo-centrist.
Quote
The non-material character of spin statistics and moral imperatives alike can not be adjusted to their demands for “evidence,” but, like Jesus, I shall not let the cup I have been given pass from me.
Did Jesus tell you about the "non-material character of spin statistics"? If not, I'd love to hear your source. And what are these non-material characteristics? I don't remember the spin of fundamental particles being in the Bible.
|
Well, by your own words in your next paragraph you tacitly admit spin can not be seen or touched, and is hence outside the purview of evolutionistic ontology. As far as your inquiry concerning whther Jesus gave me the answer to these questions, the answer is a qualified yes. All knowledge claims ultimately depend upon presuppositions, and only Biblical presuppositions can ground authentic knowledge. Your sacastic remarks concerning Hitler and cannibalism provide unintended insight into the epistemological void that is evolutionism. You certainly can claim that Hitler was a geocentrist, or that Creationists eat babies, and they are baseless, just like all claims that begin with presuppositions contrary to the Bible's, such as the one that humans evolved from monkeys in Africa. Without the solid rock of the Bible, all claims are merely based on the shifting sands of human opinion. Read the works of Cornelius Van Til for more insight.
| Quote |
Because of its BEC properties, it can slow down the speed of light.
Why does it have to be a BEC to do this? Window glass slows down light, too.
|
Well, some BEC's, like quintessence, are far more effective. You can read this paper for more details. The equations governing the velocity of light in quintessence are similar. They will be coming shortly.
1--Penrose, Roger. 2005. New York. Alfred A. Knopf. The Road to Reality. p. 657
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
