Krauss is ‘nothing not something’, Mon, May 20 2013 #(1933)

May 20, 2013

Carl Arnold
Professor Dawkins professional opus has been unerringly spot-on.
His demeanor, scholarship and acuity have been almost without peer.
His recent affiliation with Lawrence Krauss threatens his earned reputation.
Krauss’ contention of a “something not nothing” being demonstrable is as
provably inane as a “weightless earth”. Extolling the virtues/benefits of such an
existence does nothing to remove the obstacle that is the Law of Gravity.
MIT physicist Ian Hutchinson sat 6′ from Krauss at a debate including Shermer
and D’Souza, and stated;”you’re not describing a universe without God–
you’re describing a universe without physics”. Krauss had 50 minutes to respond
and had nothing. Of course he has nothing! The Laws of Thermodynamics can’t
be smirked and snarked away.
Krauss’ MO is to address laity sandbagging his fall back as, ‘who’s the physicist
here’? Or physicists with, ‘I’m paid to think the unimaginable’. But that’s not how
he’s representing his balloon juice when teaming with Dawkins. He represents
physics’ version of “Evolution” re “origins”.
It’s crap! And it hurts Dawkins by affiliation.
Krauss’ unctuous ingratiation may help his desperate need to compensate.
But the imbecility, and painfully obvious irreconcilability of his “formula” are stand alone bad enough. But his ogerish, unfunny, ceaseless knifes at faceless-nameless theists
clearly demonstrates not a mean smallness alone. But a validation by virtue of
unnecessary poison invective, that theists must be worthy of attack.
Professor Dawkins has let facts, not emotions speak for his contentions.
Krauss’ need to exorcise personal demons injures Dawkin’s reputation.
Carl Arnold

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.