Comments for The Red Notebook http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com The Friends of Charles Darwin blog Sat, 03 Dec 2011 00:32:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on Two triumphant predictions for science by George Beccaloni http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110711/comment-page-1/#comment-4684 George Beccaloni Sat, 03 Dec 2011 00:32:41 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2657#comment-4684 Hmm, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point! Thanks for adding my comment! Hmm, I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point!

Thanks for adding my comment!

]]> Comment on Two triumphant predictions for science by Richard Carter FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110711/comment-page-1/#comment-4678 Richard Carter FCD Fri, 02 Dec 2011 10:19:01 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2657#comment-4678 How very interesting. I think Wallace does tend to get a fair share of the credit these days. This doesn't, of course, mean that he gets an equal share! How very interesting.

I think Wallace does tend to get a fair share of the credit these days. This doesn’t, of course, mean that he gets an equal share!

]]> Comment on Two triumphant predictions for science by George Beccaloni http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110711/comment-page-1/#comment-4677 George Beccaloni Thu, 01 Dec 2011 23:29:28 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2657#comment-4677 Interestingly the subspecies "praedicta" was intended to honor Alfred Russel Wallace's prediction about the moth NOT Darwin's! As usual Wallace doesn't get his fair share of the credit! See my article about this moth here: http://wallacefund.info/darwin-and-wallaces-predictions-come-true-0 Interestingly the subspecies “praedicta” was intended to honor Alfred Russel Wallace’s prediction about the moth NOT Darwin’s! As usual Wallace doesn’t get his fair share of the credit! See my article about this moth here: http://wallacefund.info/darwin-and-wallaces-predictions-come-true-0

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by fern http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4670 fern Mon, 28 Nov 2011 01:17:46 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4670 You people are all dogmatic idiots. Of course there are multiverses, it's basically been proven. It's not the 70's anymore, condolences, you lost. Now grow up and accept the truth. You people are all dogmatic idiots. Of course there are multiverses, it’s basically been proven. It’s not the 70′s anymore, condolences, you lost. Now grow up and accept the truth.

]]> Comment on Animal magnetism by Richard Carter FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/08/20080831/comment-page-1/#comment-4647 Richard Carter FCD Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:36:25 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2008/08/31/#comment-4647 Three years after this post was written, Nature News published and update, "The mystery of the magnetic cows": http://www.nature.com/news/the-mystery-of-the-magnetic-cows-1.9350 Three years after this post was written, Nature News published and update, “The mystery of the magnetic cows”:
http://www.nature.com/news/the-mystery-of-the-magnetic-cows-1.9350

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by Udaybhanu Chitrakar http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4624 Udaybhanu Chitrakar Fri, 21 Oct 2011 12:47:11 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4624 Recently I have read in a blog post that some quantum theorists say that space cannot exist at the most fundamental level. If what these theorists are saying is indeed correct, then this gives us another strong reason to assert that multiverse theory must be false. This is because if this theory is true, then there will be pre-existing space at the fundamental level within which all the universes of the multiverse will be placed. Only if our universe is the sole universe, then there will be no space outside our universe, in which case it will be in the real sense of the word a "spaceless" universe, and in that case only we can say that there will be no space at the fundamental level. Recently I have read in a blog post that some quantum theorists say that space cannot exist at the most fundamental level. If what these theorists are saying is indeed correct, then this gives us another strong reason to assert that multiverse theory must be false. This is because if this theory is true, then there will be pre-existing space at the fundamental level within which all the universes of the multiverse will be placed. Only if our universe is the sole universe, then there will be no space outside our universe, in which case it will be in the real sense of the word a “spaceless” universe, and in that case only we can say that there will be no space at the fundamental level.

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by Richard Carter FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4615 Richard Carter FCD Fri, 14 Oct 2011 06:27:31 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4615 Well, my point exactly! Well, my point exactly!

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by Udaybhanu Chitrakar http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4614 Udaybhanu Chitrakar Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:31:58 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4614 If total energy of the universe is zero, then it can be shown that multiverse theory cannot be true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true. Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation. If total energy of the universe is zero, then it can be shown that multiverse theory cannot be true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.

]]> Comment on The Dead Zoo by Dorie http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/11/20071112/comment-page-1/#comment-4612 Dorie Wed, 12 Oct 2011 00:46:17 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/11/12/#comment-4612 I hope to get to see this anticipated exhibit. Sounds fascinating- the kind of collection that is so rare that you want to cry. I hope to get to see this anticipated exhibit. Sounds fascinating- the kind of collection
that is so rare that you want to cry.

]]> Comment on Hello, Bosnia and Herzegovina! by KEMO http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/09/20110924/comment-page-1/#comment-4575 KEMO Mon, 26 Sep 2011 06:21:26 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2667#comment-4575 THANKS RICHARD, LOOKING FORWARD... SINCERELY, NGO ECO CENTER "CHARLES DARWIN" 51250 NOVI VINODOLSKI P.O.Box 34 CROATIA, AND TJENTISTE, NP "SUTJESKA", BOSNIA&HERZEGOVINA THANKS RICHARD,

LOOKING FORWARD…

SINCERELY,

NGO ECO CENTER “CHARLES DARWIN”
51250 NOVI VINODOLSKI P.O.Box 34
CROATIA, AND TJENTISTE, NP “SUTJESKA”, BOSNIA&HERZEGOVINA

]]> Comment on Video: Peter Greenaway’s ‘Darwin’ by Ruth Brompton-Charlesworth http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110718/comment-page-1/#comment-4386 Ruth Brompton-Charlesworth Sat, 06 Aug 2011 07:09:50 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2660#comment-4386 I hadn't seen this Greenaway film before, many many thanks for putting it on your site. It was wonderful, aesthetically stunning and philosophically interesting. An excellent mix of art and science. I hadn’t seen this Greenaway film before, many many thanks for putting it on your site. It was wonderful, aesthetically stunning and philosophically interesting. An excellent mix of art and science.

]]> Comment on Hypothesis well and truly falsified! by Snail No. 3 – Life's Grandeur http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/06/20070618/comment-page-1/#comment-4383 Snail No. 3 – Life's Grandeur Fri, 05 Aug 2011 08:59:20 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/06/18/#comment-4383 [...] in the garden—and that was a very sorry affair. A year and a half later, I finally found a decent-sized snail in our [...] [...] in the garden—and that was a very sorry affair. A year and a half later, I finally found a decent-sized snail in our [...]

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by Richard Carter FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4129 Richard Carter FCD Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:34:02 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4129 I am with you on multiverses and string theory, and am a huge Eels fan. Personally, I don't have a problem with saying that the universe must be tuned in such a way that life is possible, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about it. But a lot of physicists don't like that, apparently. I studied physics at university, before string theory caught on. And to think I thought quantum dynamics was weird! 10<sup>500</sup> universes! <em>Really?!</em> New Scientist has a very irritating habit of asking you to renew your subscription several months before it expires. I still have no intention of renewing. I am with you on multiverses and string theory, and am a huge Eels fan. Personally, I don’t have a problem with saying that the universe must be tuned in such a way that life is possible, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about it. But a lot of physicists don’t like that, apparently.

I studied physics at university, before string theory caught on. And to think I thought quantum dynamics was weird! 10500 universes! Really?!

New Scientist has a very irritating habit of asking you to renew your subscription several months before it expires. I still have no intention of renewing.

]]> Comment on Putting the multiverse into perspective? by PeterT http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110723/comment-page-1/#comment-4128 PeterT Mon, 25 Jul 2011 15:21:10 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2664#comment-4128 It got me thinking — didn’t you give up your subscription to NS! The grains of sand thing seems to be a staple of people trying to get big numbers across but it’s fairly meaningless as you say. I’m also not convinced that multiverses are the most likely explanation for “fine tuning” either. The fact that our Universe is favourable to life is curious but, if the Universe hadn’t been so, no one would ever had the chance to ponder the opposite! I must have missed the announcement that String theory has been crowned our best attempt yet at a theory of everything. So far, as I understand it, it’s predicting nothing that can be tested and that is not the way progress is usually made (Einstein just had frame dragging confirmed a cool 93 years after he predicted it). Until and if we ever can understand the constraints upon the formation of a new Universe we can’t really say how improbable this one is; if you’ve ever assembled Ikea furniture you know that there are lots of ways of doing it – but only one that hangs together :*) I like multiverses, it’s a fun thought and I also like the music of The Eels but no need to get carried away. P.S. I’m assuming your NS subscription is tailing off :*) It got me thinking — didn’t you give up your subscription to NS!

The grains of sand thing seems to be a staple of people trying to get big numbers across but it’s fairly meaningless as you say.

I’m also not convinced that multiverses are the most likely explanation for “fine tuning” either. The fact that our Universe is favourable to life is curious but, if the Universe hadn’t been so, no one would ever had the chance to ponder the opposite!

I must have missed the announcement that String theory has been crowned our best attempt yet at a theory of everything. So far, as I understand it, it’s predicting nothing that can be tested and that is not the way progress is usually made (Einstein just had frame dragging confirmed a cool 93 years after he predicted it). Until and if we ever can understand the constraints upon the formation of a new Universe we can’t really say how improbable this one is; if you’ve ever assembled Ikea furniture you know that there are lots of ways of doing it – but only one that hangs together :*)

I like multiverses, it’s a fun thought and I also like the music of The Eels but no need to get carried away.

P.S. I’m assuming your NS subscription is tailing off :*)

]]> Comment on Wow! moment by Joe D http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110712/comment-page-1/#comment-3999 Joe D Sat, 23 Jul 2011 10:04:25 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2661#comment-3999 Gosh. And it does it so very quickly, too. ;) Gosh. And it does it so very quickly, too.

;)

]]> Comment on Wow! moment by Richard Carter FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110712/comment-page-1/#comment-3993 Richard Carter FCD Sat, 23 Jul 2011 08:02:45 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2661#comment-3993 Michael, try <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6ls0ifyfMA" rel="nofollow">this YouTube video</a> instead. Not as good as the BBC video, but you get the general idea. Michael, try this YouTube video instead. Not as good as the BBC video, but you get the general idea.

]]> Comment on Wow! moment by Mark Edon http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110712/comment-page-1/#comment-3989 Mark Edon Sat, 23 Jul 2011 07:10:23 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2661#comment-3989 Wow indeed, although my dog can do that and he only has three legs ;-) Wow indeed, although my dog can do that and he only has three legs ;-)

]]> Comment on Wow! moment by Michael D. Barton, FCD http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/07/20110712/comment-page-1/#comment-3966 Michael D. Barton, FCD Fri, 22 Jul 2011 21:42:33 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2661#comment-3966 Not available in my area!! Not available in my area!!

]]> Comment on Voting with my feet by Yewtree http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2011/06/20110623/comment-page-1/#comment-3558 Yewtree Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:58:07 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/?p=2639#comment-3558 I remember it well, and remember thinking at the time that it would make any creationist who saw it very happy (and that they would not trouble to read the article), and that it was not really an accurate reflection of the article, which was about the way viruses transport genes across the different branches of the tree of life, but whilst this information modifies evolution by natural selection, it does not negate it. I remember it well, and remember thinking at the time that it would make any creationist who saw it very happy (and that they would not trouble to read the article), and that it was not really an accurate reflection of the article, which was about the way viruses transport genes across the different branches of the tree of life, but whilst this information modifies evolution by natural selection, it does not negate it.

]]> Comment on The death of a daughter by Yewtree http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/04/20070423/comment-page-1/#comment-3556 Yewtree Sun, 17 Jul 2011 21:16:32 +0000 http://blog.friendsofdarwin.com/2007/04/23/#comment-3556 I am sure I remember a documentary about Darwin that said that the death of Annie was what finished off his belief in God, though he had been having doubts for some time before that. I am just watching the film <em>Creation</em> on BBC iPlayer, and found the portrayal of Emma a bit too orthodox, considering that she was a Unitarian (though of course Unitarianism was different then to what it's like now), so I decided to Google for background information, and stumbled on your blog. I am sure I remember a documentary about Darwin that said that the death of Annie was what finished off his belief in God, though he had been having doubts for some time before that.

I am just watching the film Creation on BBC iPlayer, and found the portrayal of Emma a bit too orthodox, considering that she was a Unitarian (though of course Unitarianism was different then to what it’s like now), so I decided to Google for background information, and stumbled on your blog.

]]>