Oh, look. A homeopath explains physics to us all.
I'm sorry. Did I break your brain?
Here's a non-homeopathic cure. It takes an hour of Lawrence Krauss to counter 8 minutes of that kind of lunacy, I'm afraid.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
• Quick link to the latest endless thread
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
For the kinds of small animals we are talking about, we can assume one generation per year, so it seems that it would take less than half a million years to evolve a good camera eye.
Richard Dawkins
Recent Posts
- Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
- A contemptible pseudoscientific scam
- KKMS, always quick to defend the fools
- The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- You've all forgotten about the Molly awards, haven't you?
- Skepticon II
- Did you get a copy of The Origin from Ray Comfort?
- I get email
- If I were called Rusty Thomas, I might overcompensate a bit, too
- Ray has a change in plans
A Taste of Pharyngula
Recent Comments
- strange gods before me, OM on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- Samantha on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- Pygmy Loris on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- strange gods before me, OM on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- Mooloo on The problem of the oblivious white male atheist
- John Morales on I get email
- a lurker on Escape from the planet of the cursed undead heart of the vengeful bride of the son of the thread that will not die!
- chuckgoecke on Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
- Gabby on Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
- Maggie Moo on Friday Cephalopod: Squink!
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- November 2001
Blogroll
Other Information
« !(rich && insane) && (god==0) | Main | What took him so long? »
Physics!
Category: Kooks • Science
Posted on: October 26, 2009 7:24 PM, by PZ Myers
Find more posts in: 
Physical Science
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/123317
Sign in or register with TypePad. Sign up with Movable Type.
Comments
Posted by: Biology Blogger | October 26, 2009 7:34 PM
The woman speaking in the first video sounds like Mr. Mackey from South Park. "So you know what H20 is..okay.... you know who Einstein is, right?..okay..".
Posted by: clamboy | October 26, 2009 7:35 PM
Fizzix iz phun!
Posted by: rawnaeris
|
October 26, 2009 7:40 PM
I only made it 2:44 before she made my head hurt. Does she even realize she's talking nonsense? And now for the second video...
Posted by: Goheels | October 26, 2009 7:42 PM
Oh
My
Dog
I got to 1:55 when she said "so you can cross out the mass and you get E = the speed of light squared." and I thought "well, this can't get much worse." Then she said that "Stephen Hawkings brought us the string theory." and I stopped the video.
Posted by: MAJeff, OM
|
October 26, 2009 7:43 PM
"Doctor" of what, exactly?
Posted by: Quietmarc
|
October 26, 2009 7:43 PM
I think I made it to minute 4, when God sent us Steven Hawkings. I was especially impressed with how she said that "scientists didn't fall into that camp." Because reality is subjective and a matter of opinion, obviously. Too bad scientists are too closed minded to realise that matter doesn't exist (or something).
Also, does she think that string theory is somehow related to guitars or something? How else would the fact that we have ears come into play?
(first post, but I've been lurking for months. Hi everyone)
Posted by: ice9 | October 26, 2009 7:43 PM
"Infantesimal". Right.
ice9
Posted by: cafeeine
|
October 26, 2009 7:44 PM
Oh my... She actually managed to bungle multiplication before she even got to the physics. Impressive.
Posted by: DJM | October 26, 2009 7:44 PM
Krauss was my physics prof in undergrad at Case.
Anyways, there is some lunacy going on in LA, perhaps more than usual, being promoted by our friends at the Discovery Institute.
http://www.americanfreedomalliance.org/microsite/darwindebates/index.htm
Posted by: Henry | October 26, 2009 7:45 PM
I think I am now dumber for having heard this
Posted by: James F | October 26, 2009 7:46 PM
The basic challenge of science advocacy in a nutshell.
Posted by: cafeeine
|
October 26, 2009 7:47 PM
That's it Myers. I'm sending you my painkiller bill. Ow my poor cerebrum...
Posted by: bc23.5
|
October 26, 2009 7:47 PM
L.K. is fun to listen to. I watched this on saturday, and enjoyed every second.
Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 26, 2009 7:48 PM
Isn't debunking fun? If this weren't on YouTube, I might have to let my students have a go at tearing it apart.
Wonky sign in, again...
Posted by: Uncephalized | October 26, 2009 7:48 PM
Holy crap that hurt my brain.
Because there's a lot of space in matter, mass is negligible? Stephen Hawking(s) came up with string theory? Our ears can hear fundamental particles? Disease is "not mass" but is a wrong energy state? WTF does that even mean?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 26, 2009 7:48 PM
The stupid, it burns us.
Posted by: Puxapuak
|
October 26, 2009 7:48 PM
Ouch... my sides hurt
Posted by: Ewan R | October 26, 2009 7:48 PM
So homeopathy is equivalent to bombing your neighbour for his dog pooping in your yard? Right?
That doesnt sound like a good thing.
Posted by: Uncephalized | October 26, 2009 7:52 PM
Not to mention that she (obviously) draws the wring conclusions about mass. c^2 is the proportionality constant between mass and energy, and it's a big number--so a tiny amount of matter has a proportionately huge amount of embodied energy. It means the mass is more important, not less.
These people are fucking nuts.
OMG "DIABEETUS"! She's walrus-guy in disguise!
Posted by: Cody | October 26, 2009 7:53 PM
This was the video that spawned the original Feynman Chaser. Since then, I've created a youtube channel for similar purposes called, appropriately enough, Feynman Chaser.
Posted by: BigHeathenMike | October 26, 2009 7:54 PM
So we're all "plant, animal, or mineral"? Jesus christ, that chick is painful to listen to. I bet she's "not religious, just spiritual" too.
That made my brain want to punch my eyeballs in the face.
Posted by: JimboJambo | October 26, 2009 7:58 PM
How do I retransform my energy state back into the previous better state it was in before I watched that?
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 26, 2009 7:59 PM
Damnation, PZ! That first video boggled my brains -- and may have made me cross-eyed as well... I'm having a hard time typing this. I'll have to recover before I can listen to Lawrence Krauss.
I do like the idea of homeopathic bombs to throw at my neighbor's dogs when they poop in my yard.
God, in His wisdom, should have done a better job with Hawkings' body.
God, in His wisdom, should have a done a better job with Dr. Werner's brain.
Posted by: James F | October 26, 2009 8:00 PM
DJM #9:
Nov. 30: Donald Prothero and Michael Shermer vs. DI hacks Stephen Meyer and Richard Sternberg? Talk about wrestling with a pig....
Posted by: JimboJambo | October 26, 2009 8:00 PM
How do I retransform my energy state back into the previous better state it was in before I watched that?
Posted by: Sastra
|
October 26, 2009 8:01 PM
The part that always interests me is how the pseudoscientists deal with the fact that professional scientists -- experts in the field -- do not consider their scientific explanations to be accurate.
In my experience, they usually begin by insisting that their interpretation is standard. There's nothing controversial here, no, not at all. It's accepted science. Then they admit that there are some "skeptics" out there, who aren't ready for what is now turning into the consensus. Under further questioning, however, it seems that we're really dealing with Brave Maverick Scientists. These heroes of the people are going against the overwhelming odds of a bullying majority to work on the cutting edge of the scientific field. If you stick it out, and keep asking, they eventually reveal that science itself is a dogmatic bully, and that we need to go beyond science -- and into the world of miracle, faith, spirituality, and an open mind. These are truths that can never be proven to the scientists, but can be experienced by those humble and willing to think outside the materialist box.
Then they start over at the beginning again, the next time they try to explain how science supports them. And they don't think they're doing anything wrong, or contradicting themselves. The mean person with the questions was doing something wrong, and making them defend themselves well beyond the point where anyone should have to defend themselves. It's persecution.
We all do science our own way. It's our right.
Posted by: Ol'Greg
|
October 26, 2009 8:13 PM
I tuned out for a while. Damned ADD. But then I woke up and she said "So if we're all energy then energy has a *vibration* to it" and I was like... does she mean a frequency? Wait Hawking (s) who is stephen hawkingS anyway and when did anyone ever say he came up with string theory? Then my brain leaked out of my nose.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 26, 2009 8:14 PM
Argh. Scary. I won't watch the first video.
Posted by: «bønez_brigade»
|
October 26, 2009 8:19 PM
Break my brain? No that "suckussed" my brain, or whatever that term was that she used whilst pounding her hand at ~5m46s.
Posted by: Chris | October 26, 2009 8:21 PM
She had me at vibrating like plants, minerals, or animals.
Posted by: MarcusA | October 26, 2009 8:22 PM
That lady spewing the nonsense --Dr. Charlene Werner-- is an optometrist. Shame on her.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 26, 2009 8:23 PM
And if we call John Frum on our radios, the cargo will come!
Posted by: defective robot
|
October 26, 2009 8:26 PM
So if you get rid of all of the spaces between atoms, you can shrink the universe down to the size of a bowling ball. Oh wait, excuse me, down to the mass of a bowling ball. What the hell is her degree in? Honey I Shrunk the Kids-ology?
Posted by: xenolith
|
October 26, 2009 8:27 PM
Stephen Hawkings!
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM
|
October 26, 2009 8:28 PM
Strongily, wrongily,
Brain-robbing homeo,
Lectures on physics, and
Gets it all wrong.
Ignorance multiplied
Homeopathically:
Logic diluted, to
Make it more strong.
I had a nice glass of wine to last me the evening... the first video had me self-medicating by one minute in, and my wine is chugged. Considering the expired percocets as well. Damn, that is some exponential stupidity.
Posted by: Beltaine | October 26, 2009 8:29 PM
I am now very tempted to go to one of these lectures, just to correct some of the smaller misconceptions...
Like the difference between mass and volume, which she doesn't seem to understand.
But homeopathy does work, in a sense...it's called the placebo effect.
Posted by: willbxtn | October 26, 2009 8:31 PM
She almost sounds like one of those highly spun business-speak people - you know, the "blue-sky thinking " types.
I would have loved to have been in that room. No, scrap that, I would have loved to have been in that room with Simon Singh. =P
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 26, 2009 8:33 PM
Alcohol. Do not dilute to homeopathic concentrations.
Posted by: Jo | October 26, 2009 8:36 PM
My brain just imploded. Really. Sweet Jesus, that was horrible.
Posted by: Christopher Petroni | October 26, 2009 8:37 PM
Good crap.
Not Bozeman!
I hope this didn't happen at MSU. I will have lost some love for my alma mater.
Posted by: JackC
|
October 26, 2009 8:38 PM
Homeo(ido)pathics to 2:58 for me - I am now listening to Krauss for therapy.
JC
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 26, 2009 8:41 PM
One thing that kind of amuses me, in a black-comedy way, is how my brain refuses to give up when confronted with the likes of Dr. Werner. No matter how much anti-reason Werner spouts, my brain never ceases in the effort to parse her sentences, never stops trying to understand whatever it is she is getting at. After taking all the blows to reason, my brain finally limps back to its corner of the ring muttering WTF, but *still* rerunning the Werner anti-reason as if it could straighten that twisted logic out if only given enough time and effort.
It makes me wonder if some religions succeed because the human brain will not stop trying to make sense out of nonsense.
Posted by: David | October 26, 2009 8:45 PM
10 seconds of Lawrence Krauss to sum it all up:
Posted by: ABM | October 26, 2009 8:47 PM
Sad. She uses science words... and to someone whose science knowledge comes from the typical American high school and watching Hollywood movies, it probably sounds like science. At about 4:10 she veers totally off the rails though, even compared to the idiot gibberings that lead up to that point. Though I'm curious where she's going with this "homeopathic bomb" business... It has very "men who stare at goats" implications.
Posted by: JohnSchiap | October 26, 2009 8:49 PM
Her webpage at her "practice" ups the ante even more:
http://www.aimmd.com/page.php/about/werner
Caution: Those who suffered from overload from her video probably should not click that link. She makes even less sense when she writes.
Posted by: Quinno | October 26, 2009 8:49 PM
I'd have loved to hear the part about the energy vibrations, but I tried twice - I can't make it that far.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | October 26, 2009 8:50 PM
Lynna writes:
After taking all the blows to reason, my brain finally limps back to its corner of the ring muttering WTF, but *still* rerunning the Werner anti-reason as if it could straighten that twisted logic out if only given enough time and effort.
I think there's something to what you're saying. I've seen fairly rational people succumb to "increased doubt" after being hammered across the frontal lobes by hour-long rants of conspiracy theorist stupidity. Simply because the whackjob is so confident that they're right and the victim sits there running all the possibilities through their mind trying to see if any of them make sense. Eventually, you reach this critical mass of confusion after which you might experience a sort of forced shift of viewpoint.
That might also explain catholicism.
Posted by: Zeno
|
October 26, 2009 8:51 PM
I heard words. They sounded like English. Sort of. The part about blowing up dogs sounded provocative, but it was perhaps the only thing I thought I understood. That's when she said homeopathy is "the bomb".
Otherwise, it was like the adults talking on a "Peanuts" special: Wah, wah, wah, wah! (Except I'm reluctant to call the fake doctor an adult, because that implies a maturity that seemed entirely lacking in her reasoning.)
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | October 26, 2009 8:53 PM
Nutbag sez,
See?
This is how you know that you're on the verge of a scientific revolution: when two people make the amazing discovery of the merging point of something that's been discussed many times before with something that has been watered down such that it loses its efficacy.
Posted by: Rich | October 26, 2009 8:53 PM
Wooooah, I was following her (I use the word following very, very, loosely here) up until she started talking about how we've transformed our energy state. "We can use sound, we can use light, we can use homeopathy!" And I could use a drink after that one.
Posted by: Jarf | October 26, 2009 9:00 PM
I think we can all learn something from her logic. You know chemistry, right? Well, it has something called density, which is mass divided by volume. Well, she's really small compared to this big old universe, so we can cross out mass and set her volume to zero, making her INFINITELY DENSE! Works out just fine when I use it.
Posted by: jimbear | October 26, 2009 9:01 PM
First a Comment:
OW OW OW OW, my brain exploded.
Secondly, has this person successfully reproduced?? Stupid like this should be painful or at least cause sterility.
Posted by: maxamillion
|
October 26, 2009 9:02 PM
Is Charlene(LOL) talking to children or what?
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 9:03 PM
17:25
Posted by: Glenn Davey | October 26, 2009 9:05 PM
AOhhhh NOOO.
She's saying words and sentences but it's not computing!
AHAHahdhahjkhighuhg it hurts
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 26, 2009 9:05 PM
I think the annoying woo-woman may be using some Creationist Math here.
Ignore this bit if you don't want to read the calculations:
I read (in a Real physics book) that if you took out all the empty space between&inside atoms, you would fit the whole human race in one sugar cube. Earth is over a trillion times more massive than the human race, and the sun, a less-massive-than-average star, is 332,946 times more massive than earth. There are at least a billion billion stars in the universe. Ignoring dark matter, that's at least 332,946 billion billion trillion sugar cubes. There are 1 million cubic centimeters in 1 cubic meter. If a sugar cure is about 1 cubic cm, then...
ANSWER:The amount of mass in the universe, packed way tight, is at least 332946 trillion trillion cubic meters. (Of course, now that I've done all that math, I remember the existence of Neutron Stars, star-sized things having the density of an atomic nucleus.)
What can I say? Owning the homeopath with math is a good way of helping my brain heal from that video.
Source for data:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/DanielTouger.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_mass
Posted by: mas528
|
October 26, 2009 9:08 PM
PZ stated in the OP.
In the computer database field there is actually a name for that phenomenon.
I think it was 1987 when Christopher J. Date the "Principle of Incoherence" which states:
I'd dearly love for every paper correcting these woo merchants would start by stating Date's Incoherence.
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
October 26, 2009 9:09 PM
Why is everyone focusing on that first stupid (comic relief?) video as opposed to marvelling at how good that second video is?
In one hour Krauss packs a mighty punch! They should make a TV series out of all the Richard Dawkins Foundation videos.
Posted by: Greg | October 26, 2009 9:10 PM
less than 2 minutes - arghh, my head hurts !!!
Posted by: turnipthebeets
|
October 26, 2009 9:20 PM
Have you the read FAQs on her website? look at this piffle!
Q: What factors should I consider when looking for complementary or alternative care?
A: Choosing the best type of care can be confusing in today’s healthcare climate. Patients should beware of any practitioners or facilities that:
* Present themselves as having medical degrees or credentials that are not accurate. A licensed medical doctor is the most qualified person to offer diagnosis or give medical advice, including the interpretation of lab test results.
* Insist on being the only practitioner involved in care and refuse to keep other practitioners apprised.
* Claim to have a cure for cancer or other conditions or encourage the patient to stop all other treatments.
* Claim to have all the answers or to be the only one with answers.
* Encourages the patient to rely only on herbs, vitamins, or minerals for the treatment of serious medical conditions.
* Uses therapies that lack research and scientific merit
Immediately after warning people against people who use therapies that lack research and scientific merit, the site goes on to list the benefits of IV Vitamin C drips
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 9:22 PM
23:42
Posted by: Bending Buddha | October 26, 2009 9:22 PM
"God sent us Stephen Hawking" - HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Posted by: Scooty Puff, Jr. | October 26, 2009 9:22 PM
If 'm' is very close to zero, then E is also very close to zero. Basic arithmetic fail, crazy lady!
Posted by: Snoof | October 26, 2009 9:23 PM
The only relief I experienced is when I stopped watching that video. It's like a hammer applied to the forebrain - it feels wonderful when it stops.Posted by: Dr. I. Needtob Athe | October 26, 2009 9:32 PM
She reminds me of Professor Irwin Corey, the comedian who used to explain that heat makes things expand and cold makes things contract, and that's why the days are longer in Summer. She could have written some great material for him.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 9:33 PM
26:29
Now I know why he wanted to title this lecture "why we're all fucked":
here comes the "big crunch"!
Posted by: Last Hussar | October 26, 2009 9:34 PM
There was one glaring accuracy right at the start: this was indeed a HOMEOPATHIC lecture. Most lectures the more you hear, the more you uunderstand. This one worked better when diluted. It would have been at it's most powerful if she had said 'Hi' and left it at that.
She actually reminded of the knight (I think Sir Bevedere) from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
"What do we do with witches- we burn them. What else burns? Wood. So witches burn because they are made out of wood. What else does wood do- it floats. What else floats? A duck. Therefore if she is lighter than a duck she must be a witch."
Posted by: Sylvia G. | October 26, 2009 9:40 PM
I check these posts every once in a while and enjoy and respect Dawkins, PZ, and the like. What do you fine intelligent folk think of Nassim Haramein?
Posted by: Roy | October 26, 2009 9:41 PM
Yeah... I got to "Stephen Hawkings brought us the string theory." like a few people.
Thanks to Last Hussar for putting my brain back together.
"Very small rocks!"
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 9:41 PM
34:00
ha ha!
LOL!
Posted by: Glenn Davey | October 26, 2009 9:43 PM
I'm really enjoying listening to Laurence Krauss. I don't understand all of it, but it's beautiful to just bathe in the method and attitude of science. Really.
Posted by: John | October 26, 2009 9:45 PM
She actually said "Steven Hawkings"... LOL
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 26, 2009 9:47 PM
All power and glory to Krauss. He was up to the task of repairing the damage done by Werner.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 26, 2009 9:49 PM
After watching broken that brain pieces million on floor.
Dying now. . . .
Posted by: ian | October 26, 2009 9:54 PM
wow. just fucken wow. she broke my brain by the one minute mark but i continued watching for another minute. it hurts. it hurts so bad.
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | October 26, 2009 9:57 PM
Sylvia G.
Interestingly stupid.
Posted by: NewEnglandBob
|
October 26, 2009 9:59 PM
BWAHAHAHAHA
Is there anyone as stupid as that woman?
I haven't laughed that hard in years!!!
I am still VIBRATING.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 26, 2009 10:00 PM
He's about .3 Time Cube.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 10:05 PM
49:50
LOL! The summary of string theory:
Posted by: Somnolent Aphid | October 26, 2009 10:05 PM
ouch
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 26, 2009 10:08 PM
I didn't watch the second video. How could it possibly take an hour to demolish this hocum? Anybody who actually passed their high school science or math courses would surely have stated laughing early and loudly during this lecture. I may be speculating but I'd give even money that everybody in that audience has "healing" crystals somewhere on their person.
Posted by: flyonthewall | October 26, 2009 10:15 PM
I vibrate using a spinster9000. would that be a plant, mineral or animal.
Posted by: Lynna
|
October 26, 2009 10:15 PM
@51
LOL. Oh, yeah, excellent use of chemistry, logic, and fucking poetry.
Posted by: GQ Phillips | October 26, 2009 10:16 PM
So according to this homeopathic postulation you can change energy from one form to another (by disease?) and with homeopothy return it to it's original state (wellness?).
So with homeopathy you should be able to do the same with a candle.
Light your candle to produce heat, light, buckminsterfullerene and CO2 and then with homeopathy change it back to an earlier form ie an unburnt candle.
Brilliant!
Posted by: madamX | October 26, 2009 10:17 PM
I think this woman's words just took a shit on my brain, somebody hand me an energy bomb
Posted by: Steve_C | October 26, 2009 10:20 PM
Peter. Read this sentence again.
"Here's a non-homeopathic cure. It takes an hour of Lawrence Krauss to counter 8 minutes of that kind of lunacy, I'm afraid."
PZ is saying it takes an hour of good science to cleanse the mind of the nonsense that preceded it. Krauss did not address the homeopath at all.
Posted by: jolly wahlstrom | October 26, 2009 10:26 PM
I didn't realize that homeopaths don't believe in the germ theory of disease, it's all vibrations.
Posted by: mattb | October 26, 2009 10:27 PM
Thanks for the video. At first it was hard for me to understand, but as soon as I realized H2O was like something you can drink I started catching on. I have to admit I was skeptical about homeopathy but the bomb metaphor really helped. I was encouraged to hear that "squeaky knee" can be cured because my doctor hasn't been able to do jack shit for my squeaky knee. I am hoping that if I can take enough energy from some of the vibrating stuff around here, like my dog Poochie, that I can condense some of this energy matter into a bomb and explode it against my knee and cure it.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 26, 2009 10:27 PM
Steve_C
yes he did! at about 1:03:19 he tells a story about Richard Feinman who used to go up to people all the time and say: "you won't believe what happened to me today... [having taken a homeopathic remedy]... absolutely nothing!"
Posted by: Pareidolius | October 26, 2009 10:28 PM
This woman has made me go all stabby. Stabby beyond repair. I'm changing my name to Uncle Stabby. Headdesk^23.
Posted by: Steve_C | October 26, 2009 10:29 PM
Hahaha. Thanks Copernicus. I hadn't gotten that far yet.
Posted by: ozman
|
October 26, 2009 10:32 PM
For those of you who can't get enough of Dr. Werner, you can see her demonstrate her optometry skillz here:
http://www.healingtheeye.com/sep2007.html#werner_talk
Favorite quote: "Your body has 60 trillion eyeballs."
Posted by: Peter G.
|
October 26, 2009 10:33 PM
I'll take your word for it Steve_C. However cleansing shouldn't be necessary should it? A thirty fold diluted trace of skepticism should prevent this shit from actually impinging on the normal human brain should it not?
Posted by: nastasie
|
October 26, 2009 10:33 PM
That Lawrence Krauss lecture is one of the best I've ever seen on the intertubes. Funny, eloquent and clear-minded, full of joyous enthusiasm for scientific investigation. It gave me an intellectual boner. I only wish he'd had more time. I'm going to watch it again one of these days.
As for the first video, judging from the general reaction, no thanks. I have a lot of research to do before I go to bed, I don't need a brain asplosion right now.
Posted by: Roy | October 26, 2009 10:39 PM
OK! Finished the Krauss talk.
Yes, you're right, PZ. I feel better now. Phew.
Posted by: darkl1ght3r | October 26, 2009 10:43 PM
So why exactly is a chemistry background necessary to understand that tripe? I think one would need a degree in PullingStuffOutOfMyAssOlogy to make sense of it, really. What a joke.
Yes, Krauss, peace be upon him.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | October 26, 2009 10:46 PM
Flyonthewall #82
made from mineral, lubricated by plants, imagining animal...
Posted by: howdy-lentils
|
October 26, 2009 11:11 PM
The scary thing is, she thinks she knows what she's talking about. She's ignorant of her own ignorance.
Posted by: RamblinDude
|
October 26, 2009 11:13 PM
Second video—terrific!
A lot of questions have been answered since I last read cosmology books. Great stuff.
Posted by: ESPness | October 26, 2009 11:38 PM
3:15 then I had to stop.
You have to remember there are probably 20 people in the room just lapping this shit up.
/depressed
Posted by: arensb
|
October 26, 2009 11:43 PM
Krauss's talk was a delight to listen to. (Just wanted to say something positive, for a change.)
David @ #43:
That bit bugged me a bit, because religious people also love mystery. The difference is that scientists love mystery the way I love crosswords and sudoku and logic puzzles: they're there to be solved. A book of solved crossword puzzles is boring.
Religious mysteries, on the other hand, apparently exist to be admired, not solved. So now I'm imagining the pope with his Sunday paper, thinking "`Thin Man's dog', 4 letters. My, what a beautifully constructed clue. I'm so glad I don't know the answer, because that would take all the wonder out of this puzzle."
Posted by: glenister_m
|
October 26, 2009 11:44 PM
This reminds me of postmodern writing, where they go on and on using all kinds of buzzwords, saying nothing. Unfortunately she is too obvious in her use of them that it is obviously garbage. I'm curious if anyone in the audience picked up on her b.s. or just thought it sounded plausible.
Posted by: A. Noyd
|
October 26, 2009 11:52 PM
Speaking of homeopathy and bad science, I was browsing books at the bookstore a few hours ago and one of the books on their "recommended" shelf was this: 13 Things that Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time by Michael Brooks. The last chapter is about homeopathy and how the author thinks it works despite science saying it shouldn't. To make it worse, that chapter comes right after a one about the placebo effect. He's also got chapters on cold fusion and how both sex and death are problematic for evolution. I haven't read it myself, but from the Amazon reviews (and the fact he's covering homeopathy at all), it sounds like he fabricates many of his mysteries by taking cranks and quacks a bit too seriously. Sad.
Posted by: arensb
|
October 26, 2009 11:56 PM
Krauss's talk was a delight to listen to. (Just wanted to say something positive, for a change.)
David @ #43:
That bit bugged me a bit, because religious people also love mystery. The difference is that scientists love mystery the way I love crosswords and sudoku and logic puzzles: they're there to be solved. A book of solved crossword puzzles is boring.
Religious mysteries, on the other hand, apparently exist to be admired, not solved. So now I'm imagining the pope with his Sunday paper, thinking "`Thin Man's dog', 4 letters. My, what a beautifully constructed clue. I'm so glad I don't know the answer, because that would take all the wonder out of this puzzle."
Posted by: James F | October 27, 2009 12:05 AM
Take it away, Robyn Hitchcock:
Cross-legged on the bed she gazed across the town
Her shadow climbed the wall until the sun went down
She bought a china pug it lay there on the bed
And in the paper bag she could just see its head
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
And in an adoring pose he shriveled up and died
Until his bones were stems upon the grass they dried
And made an alphabet of white upon the green
And it was beautiful and some would say obscene
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
And in the demon's hat discolored flowers grew
And they had fleshy stems and fleshy petals too
To slither is divine to multifoliate
She just lost her watch she couldn't concentrate
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
She was vibrating
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 27, 2009 12:15 AM
Krauss' explanation about how scientists will see the universe in a hundred billion years is mind-blowing. I realized wishy-washy agnostics don't know what unknowable really means, or how to properly use that word.
Posted by: jimmiraybob | October 27, 2009 12:35 AM
@25 JimboJambo - How do I retransform my energy state back into the previous better state it was in before I watched that?
I believe you start with a poop bomb.....and then x out your mass.
[aside] Silly Einstein, using mass. Sheesh. [/aside]
Posted by: DeanFromBC | October 27, 2009 12:52 AM
Don't worry about exploding your brain. Take the first video for what it is: comic gold. This lady is clueless, and too easy to laugh at.
The Krauss video was brilliant. I was mesmerized for the entire hour.
Posted by: cm | October 27, 2009 12:56 AM
"If I wanted to make a bomb, and I took all these chemicals, and I encased it in a, uh, uh, encased it in a, you know, a bomb, and tonight my neighbor let's his dog poop in my yard, literally..."
This is how all faculty meetings should start.
Posted by: Greg | October 27, 2009 1:10 AM
Jaw dropping.
I had no idea.
Posted by: ryk
|
October 27, 2009 1:24 AM
jaysis...
latecomer to this discussion, but I literally did a face-palm when she displayed her stunning grasp of mathematics.
Right away, I thought to myself that 'the hell with physics, this is a basic highschool math error. er, basic middleschool math error. er, make that gradeschool math error...
though, now in retrospect, I'm not entirely sure whether she just doesn't understand the difference twixt multiplication and addition (x+0=x; x*0=0) or 1 and 0 (x*0=0; x*1=1)
either way, how in the hell did she graduate highschool, let alone mcats and med school? or is that a strictly homeopathic optometry degree that she is claiming?
Posted by: ElitistB
|
October 27, 2009 1:37 AM
Okay, for the 8 minute video, I got to where she started talking about "compressing so there is no space between the mass".
I turned it off there. I could not procede.
Posted by: abys | October 27, 2009 1:46 AM
Man, I only managed to stay conscious enough to get a C in my college algebra class and I was able to see how incredibly wrong her 'math' is.
That's amazing.
Posted by: Abber | October 27, 2009 1:49 AM
Let's concentrate on educating the younger generation, because there's no way of educating people like this homeopath, who are so deeply mis-educated that they are a lost cause. I made it through the whole 8 minutes of her video... and my brain may never forgive me.
Posted by: Arlo | October 27, 2009 1:56 AM
How can she even operate a toaster for fucks sake.
Best thing I learned: "The definition of disease is not mass".
Posted by: Amit Joshi | October 27, 2009 2:03 AM
Hey, you guys are all too negative! I, for one, loved the new word: "infantesimal".
Just about sums it up, I think!
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
October 27, 2009 2:10 AM
Woah! Comedy gold! Just at the end where she talks about the dude with the squeeky knee and the "Diabeteeees"
After a few weeks of 'treatment':
"... his sugar cravings stopped..."
Because you've been feeding him sugar pills! HEEELLLOOOO!?
Oh, yeah, and everything else she said was wrong as well - but not as funny.
Posted by: Grant N
|
October 27, 2009 2:30 AM
Well, I got as far as calicarbonica and had to call it quits, because of this.
Then, because of the need for something wet to douse the conflagration, I reached for a glass of water, but damn, I just had to remember this.
Plainly, homeo'pathetic' theories rely entirely too much on 'too many holes in the bucket' thinking. It ain't only their H2O that's too diluted. Damn grey matter on the floor is slippery stuff. Oh, there's a little left on her shoulder I think.
Posted by: selfification | October 27, 2009 2:49 AM
Damn it.. that hurt... I'm totally sending you a bill for aspirin.
Posted by: Grant N
|
October 27, 2009 2:54 AM
And another thing...
What possibly could be the homeopathic prescription when you are dying of thirst?
Posted by: Laura R | October 27, 2009 3:11 AM
I really enjoyed the second video. Krauss managed to be extremely entertaining and clear about his topic. Thanks for posting!
The first one, well.....
Posted by: Christoph K
|
October 27, 2009 3:54 AM
I just dumbed down watching the first video.
Posted by: Janet Holmes | October 27, 2009 3:58 AM
Holy fuck ...
Who's responsible for this woman's 'education'? Who perpetrated her complete lack of understanding of everything? How did this happen? What does the word 'education' even mean if someone can graduate college in this condition of confusion and ignorance? It's truly appalling, and terrifying.
Posted by: Bee | October 27, 2009 4:44 AM
This. Is. So. Bad.
Posted by: Joe Cracker | October 27, 2009 4:52 AM
OH MY DOG! HOMEOPATHY! WTF!
Please, look elsewhere for some interesting videos:
http://www.q2cfestival.com/schedule
Posted by: DaveL
|
October 27, 2009 5:52 AM
Actually, when she crosses out mass, she's setting it to one, not zero.
One pound mass? One kilogram? One ton?
No. Just one. Thereby yielding energy in units of speed squared.
Posted by: Porco Dio
|
October 27, 2009 6:07 AM
about 130 comments too late Porco Dio arrives to say
doooooooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnnttttttttttttttttt
watch that video
Posted by: Jack
|
October 27, 2009 6:10 AM
To all those experiencing cerebral meltdown from the first video: please do watch the Krauss talk. It was my favourite at the AAI convention (apart from PZ's, obviously. *Cough*) and is wonderful, free-ranging, mind-stretching stuff.
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 27, 2009 6:11 AM
One of the things that I notice when I read books by real scientists is how they make clear the degree of support for a hypothesis or theory they are explaining. They will say things like ""ost scientists {in the field} think this is the correct explanation but there are some who think another explanation is better."
I recently re-read Dawkins' "The Ancestors' Tale" and he was always saying that the evidence suggests such is the case, but the evidence is far from conclusive and he could well be wrong.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
October 27, 2009 6:15 AM
Ah, this must be homeopathic intelligence - an infinitesimally small amount of logic and understanding is incredibly potent if you dilute it many times in a medium of confused and erroneous thought, then potentise it using the banal gibberish of new-age pseudoscience.
Waiter?! This homeopathic soup tastes a little watery...
Posted by: Atheist Chaplain | October 27, 2009 6:15 AM
Her name isn't "Storm" by the way, and did she have dinner with Tim Minchin recently??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WidsgIt3lfw
Posted by: Pinkydead
|
October 27, 2009 6:22 AM
I always wondered what happened when you replied to those spam e-mails offering online doctorates.
Hmmm, now I know.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 27, 2009 6:38 AM
arensb #101/#104
damn skippy... are we talking about birth or screen? LOL!
Posted by: Matt Penfold
|
October 27, 2009 6:40 AM
I have to say I am very impressed with all of you have managed to get beyond the first minute of that first video. I tried but had to stop before I suffered irreversible brain damage. You are clearly made of stronger stuff than me.
Posted by: Gary Shavit | October 27, 2009 7:01 AM
Absolutely superb.
Posted by: Roger
|
October 27, 2009 7:08 AM
Science: "Dr." Werner iz doin it rong.
Posted by: Bater1
|
October 27, 2009 7:22 AM
I wonder if there can be a sort of threshold for ignorance and stupidity beyond which terrible things may occur?
Do you imagine that if her talk is then followed by, say, a discussion on Evolution by Ray Comfort, then a critical mass of ignorance could be reached that would explode and end the universe?
When trying to calculate the above please remember that the universe is just energy and that string theory is in your ear, if you have any questions feel free to consult Stephan HawkinS (which God gave us to complete Hahnemann’s work).
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
October 27, 2009 7:28 AM
you naysayers think you're so smart... she says "Stephen Hawkings" because she's invoking the Many-Worlds Interpretation! do ya get it now???
also, I don't hear anyone giving props for her icily Herman-Kahnish view of the problem of dog poop. bias, anyone?
Posted by: puseaus | October 27, 2009 7:37 AM
She must be the lady from Microsoft, in charge of their advanced operating systems program (next version). Her definition of disease is a clue, and the next time you try to log on to your computer, you may have to negotiate with her.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 27, 2009 7:47 AM
Who?
Posted by: Orac
|
October 27, 2009 7:51 AM
OMG!
That's Your Friday Dose of Woo-worthy in its, well, woo-ness.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 27, 2009 7:54 AM
Woomeister.Posted by: Mike | October 27, 2009 7:56 AM
And if I was to have this woman killed I would be the criminal? Oh it hurts sooooo much to hear this crap.
Posted by: daniel | October 27, 2009 8:09 AM
So glad to see the Krauss lecture up here, one of the best hours I've spent recently was listening to him. Someone pipe him into every school, hell, every church.
Posted by: Chester Burton Brown | October 27, 2009 8:11 AM
Dollars to doughnuts, this lady believes in The Secret (and if you don't know what I'm referring to, consider yourself lucky).
CBB
Posted by: Josiah | October 27, 2009 8:11 AM
OK... i cant do it. I saw people saying they stopped at x point. I thought "i can handle it". But alas I am weak, I only made it to about 4 minutes before I had to turn it off.
Posted by: Jaketoadie | October 27, 2009 8:34 AM
OW OW OW OW OW OW OW
thats just rude PZ, putting this sort of thing up so that my brain can melt before it gets going in the morning...
Posted by: Blondin
|
October 27, 2009 8:36 AM
I think Lawrence should watch Dr Werner's video for tips on how to dumb down a lecture ...
I liked the poop bomb best.
Posted by: Bater1
|
October 27, 2009 8:49 AM
Ok, I DID IT!! I watched the whole thing.
For those of you interested, here is how you do it – the key is NOT to try and take the whole “lecture” at once, that is far too dangerous and may cause severe dementia and madness, you need to split your viewing experience into several manageable segments - I recommend at least 3 or 4 segments, take at least an hour between each segment and perform some brain stimulating activity during that time (I read Dawkins “The greatest show on earth” but you can find many alternatives) also make sure you drink enough water and mentally brace yourself for the challenge of the next segment.
I have to admit the part with the dog poo and bomb nearly got me, but I made it through.
Posted by: mcbender
|
October 27, 2009 8:52 AM
Thankfully, I got here late enough to read all the warnings before watching the first video, so I just skipped straight to Krauss. He's always great to listen to.
Posted by: Col | October 27, 2009 8:56 AM
Bogus claim after bogus claim after bogus claim! I am in the UK by the way so I can hardly wait for the libel suit. Bring it on!
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 27, 2009 9:02 AM
re Cuttlefish #35
HOW DOES HE DO IT?
64 minutes after PZ posts Cuttlefish is posting yet another brilliant piece. Does he think in rhyme? The man is a genius. The Cole Porter of the Web.
It MUST have been asked before (and answered), but I've missed it - is there a "Collected Works of Cuttlefish" available? If not, why not?
I even read threads in which I have no particular interest just in case he's contributed another gem.
Posted by: ollie | October 27, 2009 9:03 AM
Listening to the first video killed many of my brain cells; they shrieked in agony.
By the way, these are the sort of presentations that keep me from missing the UU church; this is exactly the sort of nonsense that many of our members take seriously.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space
|
October 27, 2009 9:19 AM
Oh Ouch! That woman definitely vibrates with plants! Or maybe rocks. And the amazing thing is that she really seems to believe she knows what the hell she's talking about. One has to wonder if she read this quackery in a book somewhere and had some sort of reading comprehension problem or if she was making it up as she went along.
I made it through the whole thing. It was a little like watching a train wreck.
Posted by: Flea
|
October 27, 2009 9:20 AM
Thanks PZ! My jaws are aching... this is the biggest laugh I've had in years!!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
October 27, 2009 9:28 AM
Yes, he has a volume available. If his moniker has his link active, click on that, and IIRC, the link to the book is somewhere on the right side of his home page. It is available in hard copy or as a .pdf download.Posted by: uksceptic | October 27, 2009 9:39 AM
I got to about 5 mins and then got too pissed off. I just found out my football club (Southend United) faces administration I don't need to listen to this fucking idiot bang on about shit she hasn't got a clue about to a bunch of gullible cretins.
I may go watch some Tim Minchin videos to cheer me up, see if that works.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 27, 2009 9:47 AM
The phrase "fractally wrong" comes to mind.
Posted by: Jonas | October 27, 2009 9:54 AM
Well by point: 2min 16 Sec :
That's Steven Hawkin, not Steven Hawkins
She Twice stated Energy equals Mass times the Speed of light, then corrected herself with E=M*C^2.
Finally, if the Mass is set to zero, the Energy is Zero,
--> 0 = 0 * X where X is any number, real or complex.
Posted by: Keelyn | October 27, 2009 10:07 AM
Wow. Gee, thanks, Charlene. That was incredibly ...ummm ...what's the word I want here (I'm feeling a little - squeeky) ...oh, I know - MIND-BOOGLING. I have to wonder just how many people this ignorant, stupid bitch has killed with her bullshit.
Posted by: Jerome | October 27, 2009 10:12 AM
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick.
She's kinda cute, too bad she bone jarringly stupid/dishonest.
I watched the Krauss talk yesterday at lunch. Good stuff.
Posted by: Mobius | October 27, 2009 10:42 AM
OMG...the stupid is strong with this one.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
October 27, 2009 10:49 AM
Jonas, it's Hawking, not Hawkin, Hawkins, or Hawkings.
Posted by: Richard Eis | October 27, 2009 11:25 AM
Krauss was a delight. After reading some of the comments, i didn't dare play Dr. Werner in mortal fear for my brain.
Posted by: Revyloution | October 27, 2009 12:29 PM
James F wins with :
''It takes an hour of Lawrence Krauss to counter 8 minutes of that kind of lunacy, I'm afraid.'
The basic challenge of science advocacy in a nutshell."
That sums up my feelings perfectly. I couldnt make it past 4 minutes of the loon, but I was sucked in for the entire hour, four minutes and 52 seconds.
Posted by: back off science | October 27, 2009 12:32 PM
Even I'm struggling on this one. Now I know you're not going to like this, but what if you think of homeopaths as placebo givers who prescribe much better placebos when they believe what they are prescribing is backed up by science. If they say its a placebo, the efficacy of the placebo decreases. So if that were the case, even the most rational person would have to swallow this crap(so long as propper scientists judged where the placebo worked and where it didn't.)
The problem is that the utter bollocks of this kind of jibber jabber (and perhaps vested interests of drug companies) stops the right experiments from taking place to test the full efficacy of placebos prescribed by lifetime placebo prescribers. A double blind obviously doesn't work to do that.
If a witch doctor was able to cure people, and was kept from harming people, it would be rational to allow them to carry on.
Oh god, "I have a couple of theories..."
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 27, 2009 12:32 PM
NerdofRedhead #156
Thanks, I'll save the pleasure of reading it all for when I have the time, but a brief glance shows me that Cuttlefish's work here is just a tiny portion of his output. Wow.
Posted by: Dancaban | October 27, 2009 12:47 PM
When looking for info on the good doctor I came across this phrase "Singularity of Stupid". Anyone better that?
Posted by: Fred | October 27, 2009 1:00 PM
What can I say? I'd let her make me breakfast...maybe a vegan omelet?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 27, 2009 1:08 PM
Whoa.
I believe you are greatly over estimating the efficacy of placebos and existence of conspiracies.
and still
whoa
After testing the witch doctors methods to determine that they actually were "curing" people and that what they were doing was safe to some measurable level.
Once it's determined to work it's no longer witch doctor cure it's... medicine.
Not sure why that was included.
Posted by: Nebula99
|
October 27, 2009 1:25 PM
The Krauss talk was beautiful! Especially as he killed the deistic argument from existence in an elegant way. Also, Dawkins' misspelling about the LHC was hilarious.
Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | October 27, 2009 1:45 PM
I've emailed PZ alerting him to this, and requested "Paryngulation", but on the likelihood of him being too busy to read it, I'm linking to it here too.
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/10/michael-le-page-features-edito.html
Posted by: back off science | October 27, 2009 2:54 PM
Come on Rev. BigDumbChimp, there's no need to be a meaney. That stuff sticks in my throat too, I'm just suggesting that there's a way of seeing it that's more complicated.
For scientists, the facts are the meat, but of homeopaths they're the froth, they don't matter at all.
Wanting them to be drug purveyors at the same time as saying their pills don't contain anything except sugar is really pointless.
We all know it's much more about the personal relationship between the homeopath and their patient and we all know they can't say that.
So its all fine as long as they don't claim to be able to cure cancer or mend broken bones and stick to the smaller/lower level stuff like viruses and skin conditions.
Where they overstep the mark, they are rightly criticised, but not for their claims about what they are doing, but for their failure to improve someone's health.
Posted by: Dahan
|
October 27, 2009 2:57 PM
Made it to where she said something about strings vibrating in our ears or some other crap. A little over three minutes.
That was just aweful beyond words.
Posted by: Die Anyway
|
October 27, 2009 2:58 PM
Ok, I got to the part where God gave us Stephen Hawking to replace Hahnemann and had to stop. I'm pretty sure Mr. Hawking would not appreciate the comparison and it was enough to convince me to go no further. I'll have to watch the sciency one later this evening.
Eat well, stay fit, Die Anyway
Posted by: Christopher M | October 27, 2009 3:10 PM
Homeopathy does work! You simply take the tiniest bit of the truth and dilute it with increasingly larger quantities of falsehood and eventually it becomes so potent that it alters the actual perception of reality for those who are willing to drink that particular homeopathic cool-aid.
Posted by: hunter | October 27, 2009 3:42 PM
OMG i understand most of this! lolol
Posted by: dunDer | October 27, 2009 3:43 PM
I know Einstein. He's the one who said that the human stupidity is infinite and this pretty lady is a proof of that.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 27, 2009 3:56 PM
So its all fine as long as they don't claim to be able to cure cancer or mend broken bones and stick to the smaller/lower level stuff like viruses and skin conditions.
Unfortunately, some of them do make those claims and people get hurt.
The virus thing reminds me, though. So homeopaths apparently don't believe in the germ theory of disease, but rather that illness is caused by energy levels being out of whack? How, then, do they explain the correlation of presence of certain microbes with certain illnesses? Or the effectiveness of antibiotics and vaccines? Or do I just not understand the premise of homeopathy any better than they understand physics, string theory, or 2nd grade math?
Posted by: KevinC | October 27, 2009 4:00 PM
I find it interesting how most people here are latching onto the first video (SIWOTI! SIWOTI!) and basically ignoring the second one, which contains all sorts of fascinating and meaty things to discuss.
Hint to PZ: Next time you post such a cool science video, don't make it a chaser to some whackaloonery brain-wreck. :)
One of the things that fascinated me was Krauss's discussion of the properties of "empty" space. That is, space with all the particles and radiation removed. Said "empty" space would still contain most of the mass of the Universe. IIRC, he said that 70% of the mass of a proton is not the quarks that make up the proton, but the space between the quarks.
Said empty space can also spawn whole new universes (which have a total energy of 0, as does our own). And if we were to see such a thing happening, from the inside it would look like an expanding Universe--from the outside, it would look like a collapsing black hole. Which made me think of Smolin's cosmic natural selection hypothesis.
I also found it pretty mind-blowing how a civilization originating in the Milky Way a certain number of gigayears from now will look out and find a pre-Hubble cosmos. The Milky Way alone, within an endlessly vast emptiness. No cosmic microwave background, no receding galaxies. No way, scientifically, to arrive at the Big Bang theory.
I imagine far, far-future astronomers having some kind of melancholy celebration, watching as the last neighboring galaxy fades from the sky.*
*That may be some very long process of gradual Hubble redshifting to nothing though, not the sort of thing intelligent beings could observe on a human-like timescale.
Posted by: stptrck75 | October 27, 2009 4:04 PM
How she spoke to her audience is how clergy and various invited speakers speak to religious audiences. I've sat through many of these types of talks in my younger, more naive (brainwashed) days.
A person hailed as an "expert" within the religious world is almost certainly a non-expert, and at best a fringe-observer/self-appointed (internet degree...) "expert" in the real world.
Religion, at its core, is resolutely anti-reality.
This appeals to many people because it is an escape from the depressing nature of their lives. A widely accepted escape at that too.
Posted by: Rrr | October 27, 2009 4:07 PM
The correlation is strong in this one. Do not dilute. Multiply by unity.
Posted by: eddie
|
October 27, 2009 4:14 PM
I wish I had more hands, this is so facepalm-tastic.
And I'm only halfway through the first vid.
Posted by: kopd
|
October 27, 2009 4:33 PM
I would like to add my voice to the choir of others encouraging everybody to watch the second video when you can find the time. Split it up into multiple sessions if you have to. It is not garbage like the first, it is a wonderfully informative and insightful view into cosmology with a dash of QM, all done very eloquently and with humor. It is well worth the time.
Thank you.
Posted by: Jay Laudig | October 27, 2009 4:47 PM
If you could gather all the wrong in her speech into a ball, it would be bigger than the universe. Truth.
Posted by: Sam Meyerson | October 27, 2009 6:28 PM
Great talk by Krauss. The crazy lady was a riot! I want to invite her to give a seminar.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 27, 2009 6:37 PM
Just watched Krauss a second time- gotta re-post my favorite excerpts:
17:25
23:42
34:00
49:50
The summary of string theory:
Posted by: Dan | October 27, 2009 6:47 PM
Amazingly, I managed to watch the entire "Dr." Werner video. (What is she supposedly a doctor OF, exactly?) For about the first four minutes it's hard to tell where she's even going with this extended tangent. It doesn't seem like she has a theory, or an argument, or even a point of any kind; it's more like she's just throwing a bunch of basic scientific terms in a blender and hoping something good comes out.
I need to go rustle up some dinner now, but I'm going to have to come back and watch that second video at some point to cleanse my brain of the first. Wow...
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
October 27, 2009 7:12 PM
Actually it's Stephen Hawking.
Posted by: bcbwilla | October 27, 2009 9:08 PM
So let's see here:
E=mc^2
m can be approximated to zero, so now we have:
E=0c^2
and that simplifies to
E=0
I get it! I do!
Posted by: rodrigo | October 27, 2009 11:56 PM
It is interesting to note that she and Lawrence actually agree on the fact that most of the matter that composes us does not come from the elementary building blocks known as quarks, but instead, from the gluon fields inside protons and neutrons.
Of course she is not very precise, but I can see from where she got her reasoning.
Posted by: Otto | October 28, 2009 12:43 AM
I had to watch some Donna Eden after that just to relax.
Posted by: Dennis Brooks | October 28, 2009 12:58 AM
Hello Dr Myers,
I’m sending a brief news release regarding Earth's magnetic field that you can use on your blog. You may take more information from the website if you like. Please consider using it. You can also find images on my website.
Dennis
-------------------------------------------------
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Dennis Brooks
Email: dennisbroo@gmail.com
Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Produced By An External Dynamo System, Not An Internal Dynamo.
Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo within the planet.
By Dennis Brooks, Image By NASA
New Theory: (Excerpt) Earth’s magnetic field is not produced by an internal dynamo. The magnetic field and the planet are parts of a complex dynamo system surrounding the planet. The system includes the planet, the magnetic field, radiation belts, and ring current. The same is true of the other planets. Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune, and Uranus are visible components of otherwise invisible planetary dynamo systems, which are all housed within a magnetosphere. According to this new theory, there is no internal dynamo within the planet itself. Planet Earth does not have a unique way of producing its magnetic field. Nor do the other planets. Each magnetic field of each planet is produced in exactly the same way, by its planetary dynamo system. Visit the researcher’s website to learn more. Read more at
http://sites.google.com/site/earthsmagneticfield/
Posted by: Jeanette Garcia | October 28, 2009 1:28 AM
Krauss video was fascinating. Yes, the mystery, that's what makes the journey worth it. I watched it in two parts. I felt strangely energized afterwards.
The homeopathic lady in the first video turned into background noise after the first minute. Woow woow. Unfortunately I have so many friends who are sucked in by this kind of phony baloney science. They so want it to be true.
Every visit here is a learning experience, and some good laughs.
Posted by: Andyo
|
October 28, 2009 3:08 AM
Copernicus, #187
The string theory comic's source is from the amazing-est internet comic in the whole world, xkcd.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
October 28, 2009 3:10 AM
#193,
Also, maybe, the Dynamo is indeed on the outside, but we are all living on the inside *tatataaaa*, making it look as though... you do the math.
Posted by: Copernicus | October 28, 2009 6:20 AM
Thanks Andyo...!
Posted by: Sgt Skepper | October 28, 2009 11:03 AM
But seriously that first video actually broke my brain... ow!
Posted by: Michell | October 28, 2009 2:31 PM
She is an eye doctor, specifically an optometrist. (link was in comment #45)
Posted by: Easy Cheesy | October 28, 2009 7:30 PM
But, she's hot and tries to use big words so I'm convinced. I would like to implant my homeopathic energy into her infinitesimal mass.
Posted by: Eric Alderman | October 29, 2009 1:26 AM
How did this lady get the credentials to be called Dr? I can't find anything anywhere, except she is a "Developmental Optometrist."
Posted by: JupiterIsBig | October 29, 2009 8:15 AM
LOL Ha Ha Ha !
I love it;
Category Kooks>Science
and some Kook posts his theory on Plaetary Dynamism !
That's so Post-Modern ! I'm not game to follow the link for fear my computer will explode. But then I guess it happens all the time, eh PZ ?
Now seriously, I like #166 description of Homeopathy. I think that's it, the placebo effect works more effectively if the care-giver is believed. Just like the bandaid on my child's knee. Whatever it takes to get the sick one to believe. I think another part of it is that getting attention from someone else helps, too - massage or a hug can be just as effective.
Now I have to make time to watch the second video and avoid watching the first for the rest of my life.
Posted by: Jón | October 29, 2009 9:30 AM
If I may quote Adam Sandler:
No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
Posted by: Whitney | October 29, 2009 1:43 PM
"Disease is merely energy, and all we've done is transformed our energy into a different state. So we should be able to transform our state to a previous, better state."
Even starting with her bizarre premise, that does not logically follow at all. Does being able to burn a piece of paper necessarily mean that you can put it back together?
Posted by: kopd | October 29, 2009 2:06 PM
I had the opportunity last night to receive an overview of string theory from a physicist. Not once did he mention hearing the strings vibrate. He also never mentioned Hawking's name. It was great timing, really, getting to hear an educated person discuss science after hearing how mangled it can get by people who think they are smarter than they really are. He did have a neat anecdote to share. He told of a conference he attended in the late 60's where someone was discussing string theory. He said to the guy next to him that it sounded pretty crazy. The guy said, "yeah it does, but they said the same about Heisenberg." :-)
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | October 30, 2009 9:53 PM
back off science | October 27, 2009 2:54 PM
I have read your link and have concluded where your misperception lies.
You are under the impression that science follows a storyline much in the same way religion follows a storyline, the philosophical purpose for science is the acquisition of reality thru knowledge, any deviation from the strictest sense of the scientific method leads to imagination, speculation, and if allowed to progress further leads to delusion.
While Imagination can be a benefit in the construction of hypothesis, if left unchecked or untested and continues along this path will not be successful in producing positive results.While following the most current understanding of the science we possess leads to functioning within reality.We know not where our knowledge leads but that the path will be the most concrete form of reality that can be expected. Does that help?
In science you can come up with the correct answer, yet it may be the wrong question.You must first find the correct question to progress...then the correct answer will follow.
Imagination helps to pose the correct question.In this regard imagination is more important than knowledge but you must test, test,test and confirm. Religion does not lend itself to this process and is there by unequivocal.
I am neither atheist nor theist, to me (personally)the question is irrelevant.
Posted by: Evan Keele | November 1, 2009 8:24 AM
Oh my god... she broke the physics. She broke ALL the science. And the stupid burns.
Posted by: Richard Reddy | November 2, 2009 9:39 PM
I think, therefore I stink...
The stinking mind rides again!
Would all these things be true if I were not a physicist?
Probably not.
Posted by: SQB
|
November 5, 2009 1:30 PM
The power of stupidity was so great that it made The Cuttlefish write prose. That is bad indeed.Posted by: Siv Siv | November 7, 2009 1:12 AM
I was tempted to stop watching when she asked if everyone knew what H20 is.
Then Einstein.
Then she started using math...let me rephrase, she started making numbers and equations do whatever she wanted them too.
She's heard all these buzz words, (string theory, e=mc^2, the mass fits in a bowling ball) But it's fairly obvious she tuned out after hearing those words. She's a doctor? Like one of those self proclaimed doctors from those Extenze commercials?
I'm not that bright, but when i see someone this stupid, well it's certainly an ego boost.
Posted by: Stephen Wilson | November 11, 2009 2:57 PM
Like Krauss, I am an athiest with no qualms whatsoever. But I think that he really badly misjudges why believers are horrified by a god-less universe, and in so doing, jeopardises the rational side of the debate.
He poo-poohs their "fairy stories" and argues that the scientific explanation is "far more remarkable" and more "poetic". Elsewhere he has appealed to the beauty of supernovae and the like as an antedote to religious delight (e.g. New Scientist 04 June 2008).
I agree with all that, but this version of spirituality is a strawman; attacking it is pointless.
Instead, what the religious really desire is meaning. They want the universe to be underpinned by a grand plan; they want there to be a point.
Tragically, the modern scientific view is that there is no point. It was Darwin who demolished teleology -- the misguided search for ultimate reason. Evolution shows that tremendous complexity arises from totally unconscious forces with no grand plan (which is why, as much as some would prefer it to be otherwise, science and religion really are not compatible). And cosmology might one day show how all matter and energy arise spontaneously.
Krauss and Dawkins won't convert many to athiesm by showing science to be more exciting or aesthetically satisfying than religion. We athiests will only ever prevail if humanity can be taken beyond its longing for meaning.
I like the meme that the widespread and wrong intuition that there is a god is probably just our hard wired pattern recognition sub-systems working overtime. Like most common optical illusions.
Posted by: Stephen Wilson | November 11, 2009 3:13 PM
As mentioned, the intuition that there is a god probably arises from our hard-wired pattern recognition sub-systems working overtime, akin to most common optical illusions.
That is, God is no more than a very fancy Necker cube.