{"id":331,"date":"2007-03-05T12:51:07","date_gmt":"2007-03-05T12:51:07","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/scientopia.org\/blogs\/goodmath\/2007\/03\/05\/mathematical-proof-that-god-spoke-creation-if-you-buy-his-book\/"},"modified":"2007-03-05T12:51:07","modified_gmt":"2007-03-05T12:51:07","slug":"mathematical-proof-that-god-spoke-creation-if-you-buy-his-book","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/2007\/03\/05\/mathematical-proof-that-god-spoke-creation-if-you-buy-his-book\/","title":{"rendered":"Mathematical proof that God Spoke Creation (if you buy his book)"},"content":{"rendered":"

One of my fellow SBers, Kevin over at Dr. Joan Bushwell’s Chimpanzee Refuge<\/a> wrote a scathing article reviewing an incredibly bad anti-evolution blog<\/a>. There’s no way that I can compete with Kevin’s writing on the topic – you should really check it out for a great example of just how to take a moronic creationist, and reduce him to a whimpering puddle of protoplasm.<\/a><\/p>\n

But while looking at the site that Kevin shredded, I can across a link to another<\/em> really, really bad site, and this one is clearly in my<\/em> territory:
\nScience Proves Creation<\/a>, a site set up by an individual named “Samuel J. Hunt”. Mr. Hunt claims to have developed mathematical proof<\/em> that the universe was created by Gods words.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The site is basically an on-line informercial for a book that Mr. Hunt wrote called “Episteme Scientia: The Law of All Things”, which purportedly contains mathematical proof<\/em> that God created the universe by speaking<\/em> into the void. As an informercial site, it obviously withholds much of the content of Mr. Hunts arguments – as is all too typical of these types of shucksters<\/a>, they won’t actually show you their arguments unless you pass them a few bucks<\/a>. And of course, if you don’t<\/em> throw them some money for a copy of their book, then they’ll respond to all criticisms by saying “But I answered that in my book!”<\/a>. But still, I can’t resist mocking this kind
\nof stuff, even if I know what the response from the twit is going to be.<\/p>\n

Here’s the first couple of paragraphs from the introduction to his informercial<\/a> (with some formatting cleanups to make it readable when quoted here):<\/p>\n

\n

\tMy name is Samuel J Hunt and here is what my paper shows:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. There is a mathematical relationship between all matter and frequency, (this is just basic physics, but the conversions and equations –very simple–are in my proof –and taught in every classroom around the world, and confirmed by dozens and dozens of experiments).<\/li>\n
  2. There is a mathematical relationship between all frequency and sound (this is proven in acoustics and music theory –as well as in physics, and is proven by the experiment of sonoluminescence).<\/li>\n
  3. (A+B=C) Therefore there is a mathematical relationship between all matter and sound. this is elaborated in my paper. This proves that matter can not only be manipulated by sound — melting ice, breaking glass, boiling water, manipulating DNA —but that matter can be spoken into existence by going from sound to light to matter. A couple of clarifications: the substance that was “in the beginning” in verse 2, that God spoke to, was DESCRIBED to be water. But that does not mean it was H20. There are many water-like substances that are not H20. Take ZPE for instance:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    \n“Sound can travel through space, because space is not the total vacuum it’s often made out to be. Atoms of gas give the universe a ubiquitous (present everywhere at once–omniscient?) atmosphere of sorts, albeit a very thin one. Sound, unlike light, travels by compressing medium. Space, though not as efficient, can also serve as a medium.” —Sounds in Space: Silencing Misconceptions. Robert Roy Britt, 23 Sept., 2003.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \t“The mysterious nature of the vacuum [is] revealed by Quantum Electrodynamics. It is not an empty nothing, but contains randomly fluctuating magnetic fields…with an infinite zero-point energy.” –Stephen Barret, University of Oxford; Nature, March 22, 1990, p.280\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    \n“Zero-Point Energy, often referred to as ‘aether’ or ‘the energy of space’, is an energy field that spans the entire universe. Contrary to our current limitations in measurement, this universal field exists everywhere in the universe, radiates in every direction with equal pressure, and has no vibration. Radiation implies vibration, but this is not necessarily so. Like the depths of the ocean, and object at the bottom receives the pressure from all the water above it. This ‘fluid pressure’ is equal in all directions, and is why we haven’t noticed its effects before the advent of Quantum Mechanics. The universal ZPE field is like the surface of an absolutely still pond. It has no movement. It is all one surface. However, when something moves through the surface of the water, it disrupts the surface creating waves.” —The Dangers of ZPE, Dr. Jay Garrett, CEO, Garrett Technologies\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

    Beautiful crap, huh? “There is a mathematical relationship between all matter and frequency”. What does that mean? Is he talking about the wave\/particle duality, where each particle can also be a wave with a particular frequency? Or is he talking about something like sound? Or what? From the rest of his gibberish, I think that he’s being deliberately vague. What’s the mathematical relationship? Oh, he’s not going to tell us here. No, to find out what the relationship is, guess what we have to do? Buy his book! Until we do that, he’s going to stay hopelessly vague, and just claim that there’s math to support him.<\/p>\n

    “There is a mathematical relationship between all frequency and sound”. A truly stunning piece of gibberish, that. It’s worse than wrong – it’s nonsensical. What is “frequency”? It’s a measure of the rate of recurring phenomenon like a wave<\/em>. What’s the relationship between 60\/second and sound? Well, if the 60\/second is a measure of the rate of a repeating compression wave through air, it sounds almost like a B flat. If it’s the rate of cycle of an alternating electrical current, then it’s relationship to sound is… umm… well, he won’t tell us that unless… you know. (Actually, I can answer this one. If you do a lousy job setting up a sound system, you can wind up with a ground loop, which will produce a 60hz hum in the speakers as an artifact of the frequency of the power supply.)<\/p>\n

    The mention of sonoluminescence here is just a non-sequitur. He wants<\/em> to pull
    \nthat in, because he’s going to claim that God’s speech created the universe via
    \nsomething like somoluminescence. Sonoluminescence is an interesting phenomena where small bubbles embedded in a fluid can be caused to collapse by passing sound waves through the fluid – and when they collapse, they release a burst of energy which manifests as a brief pulse of light.<\/p>\n

    And now, a quick taste of what he considers math: “A+B=C”. Of course, that little bit of mathematical notation has absolutely nothing<\/em> to do with what he’s actually about to say, but hey, he thinks it makes him look smart. Basically, he’s saying that since all matter has some connection to frequency, and all frequency has some relationship to sound, then all matter has some connection to sound. Oooh, deep, huh?<\/p>\n

    Then he jumps into a bunch of zero-point energy stuff – which he quite clearly doesn’t understand. Again, he’s trying to use this “frequency==sound” nonsense to try to say something that he can’t support – so he muddles together a bunch of different things: the fact that there is no perfect vaccum (and thus, there is<\/em> some sound in space);
    \nthe idea of the zero-point quantum fluctuations at the micro-scale of quantum mechanics which conceptually produce random magnetic fields; and the quantum mechanical concept of
    \na minimum energy state even in a perfect vacuum, which can be modeled as a field. If you
    \nmix those three up in inconsistent ways, then you get an omnipresent magnetic field which produces a universal sound wave through the low-density “atmosphere” of space, and which Mr. Hunt claims is the echo of God’s voice. To quote him again:<\/p>\n

    \nEnter Sonoluminescence and the Casimir Force. This solves the mystery behind why such a low-energy-density sound wave can cause a bubble to expel light and create a temperature of at least 10,000 degrees Celsius and possibly 1,000,000 degrees Celsius in its corona. Sounds like the corona of the sun doesn’t it? SOUNDS like the sun was spoken into existence to –and there is a math to prove it and another experiment to prove it besides sonoluminescence which is also described in my paper. So what was it that “moves through the surface of the water..”? Sound –God’s voice command. What was the effect of this sound wave? “…It disrupts the surface, creating waves.” What kind of waves? The only wave that exists –the EM wave from 0 Hz to infinity Hz. Everything else is just a segmentation of that wave like inches on a ruler. And since this happened everywhere all at once in the whole expanse of eternity, then you have one giant FIELD of indeterminate energy\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    So, you see… Not only is zero point energy the echo of Gods voice, but the reason that collapsing microscopic bubbles in a fluid using a sound wave produces a burst of energy is because it’s really an echo of the command that God used to create stars. It all makes perfect<\/em> sense!<\/p>\n

    Except… He goes on to say:<\/p>\n

    \nBy the way, whoever said that photons were particles was not very well informed. Photons are pure energy –they have no mass –therefore cannot be a particle. Photons distribute the properties OF particles (at times) and OF waves (at times)–but they are not waves or particles.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

    Which, even if he’d been making sense up to this point, would completely blow away
    \neverything which he claims supports his argument. Zero point energy, and the quantum mechanical structure of vacuum – which are an intrinsic part of the basis of his argument – are built on the math underlying the particle\/wave duality of light. If light is neither a particle nor a wave – then all of the math that underlies all of the theories that he’s referred to collapse. Oops.<\/p>\n

    Of course, he’s\tnot satisfied with having just presented a self-defeating argument – he needs to go further into nonsense, making claims for stuff that is allegedly supported by mathematical proof:<\/p>\n

    \n

    There are only 3 substance in the universe:<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. non-etheric, containing no mass and taking up no\/all space. These are mind, will, soul, emotions, etc.<\/li>\n
    2. etheric, taking up space, but have no mass. These are spiritual substances, God, angels, ghosts, magnetic and electric energy, etc.<\/li>\n
    3. matter, takes up space and contains mass. These are anything that is a particle, and compounds of particles. The rest of the paper just shows the whys and hows of every process taking place on each day, what the days REALLY are, the mathematics of each day and why everything had to happen exactly in the order Genesis says it did. Neither side of the debate has been very close to the truth about Genesis. Both sides are distorted –yet both sides have some amount of truth to prove my theory true. Peer review? These principles have already been taught all over the world for more than 450 years. Anyone who tries to discredit this will be discrediting all of science and mathematics that have been taught since the days of Archimedes and Leucippus. I hope you enjoy ‘the proof’.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/blockquote>\n

      So all of this is perfectly supported by mathematical proof. And it’s going to
      \ncompletely revolutionize everything. And if it’s wrong, then by his proof all of the math
      \nand science of the last 2000 years is also wrong. But, if you want to see the proof, you
      \nhave to… (do I really need to say it again? naaah.)<\/p>\n

      On a closing note… I’ve noticed a lot of these wacko theories make claims about how how if they’re wrong, it will invalidate 200 years of science. This is, to me, one of the most unbelievably arrogant claims that I can imagine. Has any<\/em> reputable scientist ever<\/em>made such a claim?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      One of my fellow SBers, Kevin over at Dr. Joan Bushwell’s Chimpanzee Refuge wrote a scathing article reviewing an incredibly bad anti-evolution blog. There’s no way that I can compete with Kevin’s writing on the topic – you should really check it out for a great example of just how to take a moronic creationist, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-331","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-debunking-creationism"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p4lzZS-5l","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=331"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/331\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=331"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=331"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.goodmath.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=331"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}