chalsall,

I think the reason people are being confused is that you said "Agreed" to davar55 and then proceeded to (seemingly) refute what he said.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;314800]chalsall,

I think the reason people are being confused is that you said "Agreed" to davar55 and then proceeded to (seemingly) refute what he said.[/QUOTE]

Terribly sorry. I often agree with parts of those I argue with.

But I also feel free to disagree and argue with other parts.

I believe this is called open debate?

[QUOTE=Brian-E;314797]I'm confused, however, about the apparent agreement in your posting below, which was in answer to davar55.[/QUOTE]

Oh, sorry... This was actually in answer to xilman. I thought I had already answered. Maybe it was too subtle.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation[/url] will get you started.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;314790]My understanding is very poor indeed, but I understood the evaporation of black holes to be caused by the spontaneous appearance of something, a particle/antiparticle pair, out of nothing at the event horizon of a black hole. Doesn't this actually contradict what davar55 said?[/QUOTE]Ah, it becomes clearer now.

The source of my incomprehension is that I don't regard the quantum vacuum as "nothing". To me, the vacuum is very much "something", seething with activity and containing virtual particles of every kind and energy. In this view, Hawking radiation is no more miraculous than conversion of a photon into a electron - positron pair. Field energy (gravitational in the first case, electromagnetic in the second) is converted to particles according to E=mc^2.

[QUOTE=chalsall;314818]Terribly sorry. I often agree with parts of those I argue with.[/QUOTE]
Yes, I frequently agree with the mouths of people I argue with too.

[QUOTE]But I also feel free to disagree and argue with other parts.[/QUOTE]Other orifices are less trustworthy, it's true.

[QUOTE]I believe this is called open debate?[/QUOTE][U]Agreed.
[/U]Agreed with: xilman
From the post about: quantum vacuum
Delimited by: sorry, don't understand that word, have you got a wiki link?

Mike, can we have an agreement button for the soap box? One which offers the above choices? It would save a lot of confusion.
(Cue: two angry biscuits chasing a kitten across a meadow)

Well, I think we all agree I'm not omniscient. But that alone doesn't
prove that on any particular issue, one is right or wrong.
For example, though I agree with the image of a no-where vacuous
cosmos, the principle "de nihilo nihil" means also to me that there
couldn't have been a "creation', that the universe has always
existed, hence there goes another pillar of the god concept.
Well, pillar of my limited conception of what others mean when
they say they believe in existence.

[QUOTE](Cue: two angry biscuits chasing a kitten across a meadow)[/QUOTE]:shark:

Putting Theism to the [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5joYY3VrBtM"]test[/URL]

Do Orthodox Metropolitans sing [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ieg6iME8muU"]Foghat hymns[/URL]? (with apologies to Davieddy)

Flow Chart
 

One of a series of two.

Flow Chart
 

[QUOTE=kladner;315563]Two of a series of two.[/QUOTE]
:razz: