Of course there is censorship and bias, it goes both ways.
The reasons may be different. There is a fight for "being right".
Oftentimes "right" is not much more than cheering for a given team.
How did one come to cheer for just that team?
There is "trust no-one" and with good reason. Who is who? How do people come to represent this or that, why? Incidentally landing on this or that stand, or "shaped" into believing this or that and defend it - often by any means?
Well, let's put all the "population pyramid will result in mass extinction soon" stuff that I debated you some months ago aside. What exactly is it that you don't like about austrian economics?
"What exactly is it that you don't like about austrian economics?"
.
Austrian Econ is the same shit as Smithsonian, Marxist, Keynesian, and Friedman Eon. No diff! Austrian Econ does NOT address the problem (and can't).
.
Here's the million $ Q, Break> What comes after Services? Until you or von Mises can answer that Q, you have no solution to imminent extinction. So don't worry about answering Qs that are not asked. That is the only Q you must answer!
As I already told you, these different categories that you put goods into are abitrary and meaningless. There has never been such a thing such as "after agrarculture" or "after manufacturing" and there will never be such a thing as "after services". Services, manufacturing and agrarculture have always existed in some way or another. It's just that the distribution of how many of the total economy belongs to one sector or another has changed.
but as I already said, this "taxonomy" of "kinds of economies" is hardly more than semantics. All services/goods/whatever that you produce only serve to serve demand and make a profit so that you can buy stuff and produce more to buy more stuff. There is nothing "magical" about services that differentiates them from agrarculture. It's both just something that is done to meet demand. If demand for food would increase, then we'd just go back to a more agrarculture based economy..
.. so that producers can then meet that demand for food.
Here's my million $ question for you, Billy> What would stop markets to go back to a more manufacturing or even agrar based economy if public demand for these things would rise again? What is this magic barrier that forces us to stay with services no matter what?
1. "these different categories that you put goods into are abitrary and meaningless"
.
Not goods, but jobs or activities! There have been only four economic activities in which we have ever engaged (5 if we separate hunting from gathering).
.
"Services, manufacturing and agrarculture have always existed in some way or another"
We've never TRADED back scratching for food. There was no TRADE until we invented division of labor (i.e., post subsistence agri).
2. "If demand for food would increase, then we'd just go back to a more agrarculture based economy"
Why? All we need to do is crank up the tractors and combines. We can produce more food with the technology we have if the Martians would just put in an order!
Out of context, bean brain! You shouldn't listen to others' conversations with half an ear and a quarter of your 0D p-brane!
.
The idiots of YOUR religion treat it like a medium. Here, we are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH and the context is clear. We are not saying that a ball is moving thru an ocean. We are simply saying that things change throughout the movie. This is diff than saying like idiot Einstein says that time is a rod that can be bent.
Humans are undergoing the last phase of TERMINAL density-dependent birth rates. There is no turning back. The reason women are not having children is NOT what the morons of your religion told you: that women are smarter now (...implying that your grandma was an idiot).
3. Women aren't having children because we now live in cities. That's when density-dependence kicks in. Women will never again have children simply because we can't go back to the farms. The INEVITABLE trend is clear to anyone with a brain. We WILL all soon die huddled in cities!
.
census gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php
@bgaede "Women aren't having children because we now live in cities." You might live in a city Bill - doesn't mean we all do. And since when did urban habitation become a barrier to reproduction?
"We WILL all soon die huddled in cities!" Speak for yourself Billy-o!
I've been over this with you before, but you seem blinkered to the notion that you may be wrong in any way. I'm one of the few who IS concerned about population growth, but I disagree with your simplistic interpretations of it.
@bgaede You're such a funny old buffoon: You declare that anyone who doesn't share your strange world view to be religious whilst proclaiming to be a scientist!
But the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS in the alternative. If not warped space/ST, then WHAT?
"The idiots of Mathematics talk about flat space-time (i.e., 2-D), about curved space-time (i.e., 3-D), and about unimaginable hyperspherical space-time (i.e., 4-D). How many dimensions does our Universe have? Of course, if our Universe can be simultaneously 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D, it is not surprising that relativists can explain everything."
Flat spacetime is NOT 2D and curved spacetime is NOT 3D. Spacetime is 4D. 3 spacial dimentions and 1 time = 4D.
If you can't represent the arguments of your opponent (proponents of relativity) correctly, then you 'killer' question:
"But the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS in the alternative. If not warped space/ST, then WHAT?"
...falls flat on it's arse. You keep pasting links to your website, but when we go and read them, it's just more nonsense. As I've said COUNTLESS times before, if you want to demolish relativity...
...you MUST understand it FIRST. It's simply inadequate to declare that Newton, Einstein et al are idiots without qualifying your assertion in such a way which demonstrates that YOUR understanding of physics is superior (more accurate) than theirs.
You keep claiming that you DO understand relativity whilst demonstrating that you do not.
It finally sank into your p-brane, huh fin? It took a while!
.
But yes, global population is in decline because of density dependent birth rates. The end result is unavoidable. Even if the economy doesn't get us, the human population WILL come to an end (i.e., extinction). That's zero people, fin! It can't decline below that (... except in the religion of Math perhaps... you know... infinite, negative numbers and all that...).
2. Bill: "the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS... If not warped space/ST"
fin: "Uh duuuuuuhhh..."
.
Still thinkin', huh fin? Okay. Fine. I'll give you another two centuries!
Yes. I do. Now it's your turn to try to understand it. GR says that gravity is a result of the Geometry of space/ST. The followers of Pastor Al claim that space/ST is warped. They even ILLUSTRATE warped space/ST with a fishnet.
4. Of course, if you believe that GR proposes a different explanation than ball-rolling-around-roulette, feel free to write it here. That would certainly show your understanding of relativity as well as gravity.
6. In Science, one guy explains rationally and the crowd listens to his theory. That's it. That's where Science ends. Now, everyone goes go home and does what you do best: religion. You can now form your own opinions about whether the explanation is to your liking. A mathematician refers to this process of forming HIS opinion as truth, proof, evidence, verification, etc.
2. "I'm having trouble trying to have a sensible dialogue with you"
.
Well, that's no reason to flog yourself, fin. It's not easy for any of the patients at your asylum. The important thing is not to give up. Keep trying. One day, when you come out of your padded walls, you'll be able to have a sensible dialogue with anyone.
If you disagree, the onus is on YOU to write in these comments section what the official version is in the alternative. You have not done so. Therefore, we are still stuck with warped space/ST.
@bgaede I'm having trouble trying to have a sensible dialogue with you. I showed you a paragraph FROM YOUR OWN WEBSITE which contains gross errors regarding YOUR understanding of relativity. I'm not going to repeat myself, go back and read my previous comments if you need to.
@bgaede What kind of a non-argument is that? I quote you, respond to you and you misquote me in return. It's like trying to reason with a hyperactive child.
@bgaede You're such a funny old man - really - when an error (of yours) is shown to you, you CANNOT acknowledge it. You simply piddle about with your non-arguments. You say the global human population is in decline, I maintain that you're as wrong as wrong can be. It's not a subtle type of wrong, it's TOTALLY wrong. The population is currently rising. In 50 years it may well be declining, but in 2012 it's STILL rising. Does 7 billion ring any bells Bill?
@finlarg You're the buffoon here, finlarg. What's buffoonish is your title, "Is it Worth Arguing with BG" when you have been doing it for months--obviously it has been worth it TO YOU, because you keep coming back for more! What's buffoonish is having "open-minded AND skeptical" on your channel when your buffoon comments demonstrate that you are JUST skeptical.
@bgaede "Out of context, bean brain..." But it's OK for you to take analogies regarding spacetime out of context by interpreting them literally and then proclaiming them to be nonsense?
@bgaede In THIS comment, this one HERE Bill, the one I'm responding to HERE, you say: "Human population is in decline." I pointed this out to you, but rather than admitting that what you meant was population GROWTH is in decline you bulldoze your way to the next point you want to make. Are you one of these people who is incapable of admitting that they EVER make mistakes?
This is 2012 and the human population is STILL rising. Your sentence (as written by you) is WRONG. It's INCORRECT.
EVERYONE CHECK OUT HIS 6th VIDEO "Did you ever take math" He couldn't explain newton's cradle worth a damn and then attempted to censor another comment made by someone else as well as my own
You even got that wrong, fin! A concept is NOT 'that which doesn't have shape'. That is simply the shorthand version so as to contrast concept and object.
.
concept: A word that embodies or invokes more than one object or location.
.
youstupidrelativist com/04Exist/02Concept.html
.
You still haven't clarified the diff b/w mass and weight. We're still 'weighting'.
@bgaede OK, I stand corrected for using the short-hand version of your 'concept' definition instead of the one on your website.
"You still haven't clarified the diff b/w mass and weight. We're still 'weighting'." Your argument is one of semantics, rather than physics. Just because I don't conform to YOUR criteria doesn't mean mass and weight are the same thing. Weight is gravity dependent. Mass is not. How can you continue to deny this?
1. "the diff b/w mass and weight...Your argument is one of semantics, rather than physics"
.
You still don't understand, fin. You are an incredible loony. I was telling the guys at our Science Forum that you are remarkable in that you honestly regard yourself as as a staunch defender of orthodoxy and all you've ever done in your life is gawk at authority.
.
Just so I don't blind side you, we're discussing you...
2. But again, you have NOT been able to tell the crowd what is the diff b/w mass an weight. All you have so far are statements. Your statements are circular. They are circular because all you've said so far is that the weight of an object is diff on the Moon than on Earth. But then, so is the mass because you weigh in order to determine mass. It is irrelevant whether you use a bathroom or a balance scale.
3. Wheeler said it clearly. Please read and kill your appalling ignorance!
.
"Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass.”
4. Therefore, dear fin, your own religion has NEVER defined the word 'mass'. You are a little peepsqueak trying to make it in a world of giants. You should look in the mirror and recognize who you are. You are tackling a problem that is 'weigh' over your head!
5. Rather than gawking at authority, try reasoning it out for yourself. Let's see if you can define 'mass' and explain to yourself what the diff with weight is. It can't be done! Been there, done that! Weight changes with location... and so does mass... until, of course, you can tell us what you mean by 'mass' and show how it is diff than weight.
...and so is mass because we determine mass not by counting units, but by weighing. So please don't say the same thing yet another time. How many times now? 10? 20? Please address the issue. Begin by defining the word 'mass'.
1. "Mass can be worked out by means other than weighing. Weighing is necessarily a ...measurement. You could calculate mass by measuring the inertia"
What a stupid idiot you are, fin! You really are brain dead. Let me repeat! As long as you use MEASUREMENT, irrespective of what method of measurement you use, you won't solve the diff b/w weight and mass. The ONLY way to resolve the diff is to COUNT. Do you understand the diff b/w measuring and counting?
"Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass.”
.
Do you understand what he said or not, you stupid shit?
3. "Where on earth did you pick up the idea that mass changes with location?"
.
What a piece of shit your mother gave you for a brain, fin! WTF is wrong with you? Mass changes with location BECAUSE weight changes with location! What part is it that you are having trouble with, idiot fin?
@bgaede We are going round in circles, because you are seemingly unable to register the significance of what I've been saying. Mass can be worked out by means other than weighing. Weighing is necessarily a vertical measurement. You could calculate mass by measuring the inertia of an object by applying a certain number of horsepower and seeing how long it takes to move a certain distance.
The two types of scale ARE important, despite your protestations to the contrary.
@bgaede Great, I'll have a look when I get the time.
I don't defend orthodoxy because it's orthodox. What I do is defend freedom and rationality. It is my opinion that a significant portion of orthodoxy (not necessarily all of it) is on the right track.
I was not always like this, contrary to your assertion. Like you now, I used to have serious doubts about whether the twin towers were brought down by planes only, not to mention a whole host of ill-informed hypotheses.
@freetheworldof I was about to comment on this video, then I realised someone had beat me to a more concise reaction. I hope so too dude, I really do...
Doesn't plasma exist in exactly the same way as a river does? You agree that water molecules exist, right? Just because they are all moving in a river does not mean that "science" can't study rivers, does it? Don't ions exist just like water molecules, and, hence, doesn't plasma exist? Why does "motion" destroy physical existence?
Your ideas are too important. I suggest that you not define yourself out of everyone else's viewpoint. The EU folks have much to offer science, just as you do.
1. "Doesn't plasma exist in exactly the same way as a river does?"
.
A river is an object. Plasma is a concept. Do you understand the diff?
In Science, only OBJECTS may be said to exist. Concepts cannot and do not exist for the purposes of Science. If God wants to exist, 'He' must first morph into an object.
What do YOU mean by 'exist'? No one in the last 10,000 years has defined this enigmatic and crucial word.
.
plato.stanford edu/entries/existence/
.
Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies that which exists. In Physics, we have no choice but to define the word 'exist' unambiguously.
If the UNIT that comprises a river is taken to be a molecule of water, then we should talk about the water molecule and not about the river. Likewise, if the strategic term 'plasma' refers to a swarm of molecules or atoms, we should talk about the molecules or atoms and not about plasma.
4. "Don't ions exist just like water molecules, and, hence, doesn't plasma exist?"
.
An H atom is ionized. According to the religion of Quantum -- which the idiots of the Electric Universe Sect subscribe to -- this means that the proton is now all alone. We have a bowling ball w/o its accompanying electron bead. An H atom ion is simply a proton!
5. If the Quantum and EU proton is a bowling ball, that's all we have before us. Both the mechanics and electricians have to PHYSICALLY justify what they mean by 'positive'. WHY is a proton positive? The idiots of these two camps have never done so.
.
And again, you need to tell the crownd what YOU mean by 'exist' when you ask 'don't ions exist?'
6. "Why does "motion" destroy physical existence?"
I give up. Tell me.
In Science, only OBJECTS may perform motion. Motion is a property circumscribed to objects (i.e., that which has shape) In Science, we do not talk about the motion of concepts (soul, love, spirit, energy, mass, force, charge, etc).
.
But to destroy physical existence only makes sense in religion. Is this what your pastor told you to memorize for the Sunday mass?
7. "I suggest that you not define yourself out of everyone else's viewpoint"
Irrelevant to Mother Nature! She doesn't care about politics or about diplomacy! We must define the terms that we use to communicate our theories to one another in such a way that we use them consistently. Otherwise, we are not doing Science! If the definition of a term destroys a long held belief or a particular religion, then so be it! In Science, it is better to have a million enemies than to lie to yourself
Interesting video, as usual. Not to digress too much from your video's topic, what role do you think mathematics should play in the study of physics? Couldn't we agree that there are some mathematical tools that are useful in the application of physics, such as engineering?
Also, would love to read your paper on alternatives to waves and wave packets. Where might obtain a copy?
IonizED matter is the same as BROKEN table or DEAD cat. There is an object called 'table' There is no physical object called 'broken table'. There is an object called 'cat'. There is no object called 'dead cat'. In Physics, all objects come without qualifiers of any kind!
2. For the purposes of Physics, you can move a table or kick a cat. You cannot move a broken table or kick a dead cat! A broken table/dead cat is already a movie! You are already IMPLICITLY COMPARING the broken table against one that ain't and a dead cat against a living one.
3. IonizED atom or matter is already a MOVIE. IonizED means that something has happenED or is happenING to the atom. Ionized = movie! When you move an ionizED atom, you are moving a movie! You are attempting to condense a movie within a photograph. You are asking the crowd to stare at a 'static' atom that has lost or is in the process of losing an electron.
No they don't! They can talk about atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons... (if they propose these as standalone, discrete entities) What's this bullshit called plasma? What's this bullshit called electricity? Plasma and electricity are PROCESSES. They are things that are already in motion! Same with vortex. Same with wave. Same with 'field'.
@bgaede Isn't an electron already in motion? Actually, isn't everything vibrating - in motion - on the sub-atomic level? Why demand that things not move if in reality on the smallest scale they're always moving?
2. A movie consists of several frames. Each frame is a photograph, a still image! Before you ionize (movie) you must show what physical object is in the frame. That physical object must NOT have motion in THAT frame! IONIZE is a VERB (i.e., MOVIE)!!!! You can put electron or proton or neutron in a single frame. You canNOT put IONIZE in a single frame, in a still image, in a snapshot!
3. What will the picture show when you take a snapshot of ionizED atom? (And please don't say something stupid like "We can't take a pic of an atom.") This is strictly a CONCEPTUAL issue. If Atom Man had the ability to take a snapshot of an ionizED H atom, what would the STILL IMAGE show? Would you see a plus sign above a ball (which is what the fucking morons of Quantum draw)?
@bgaede not true... air moves you cant draw it though... what are you going to draw... a couple lines? a cloud? no.. you're drawing something that represents air... is air not an object? listen... your definition of object is flawed because you havent defined shape... which is a nebulous definition in and of itself
"the establishment was doing a service to the rest of the world by limiting"
You´re just confirming, Xero. An idiot like you thinks that Science is about censorship. It´s actually the other way around. Science is about allowing all theorists to give their versions. It becomes religion when a few grab a hold of the mike and decide what the public should hear.
.
"you probably got banned because you're an asshole"
Well thank you, Xero! That´s about the kindest thing anyone ever said to me.
@bgaede i dont think it's about censorship... but i also believe that not everyone deserves to have their voice heard unless they actually know what their talking about...
"the scientific method... Problem, Hypothesis, Testing, Results, Conclusion, Repeat."
.
Let's test your method, Xero! Let's see if what you propose 'works'. Please explain RATIONALLY (i.e., scientifically) why Mercury doesn't drift out of the SS. Please explain how a magnet physically attracts another and then repels it when you turn one of them around.
@bgaede Sorry we dont have ALL the answers yet, you can't force science by making up angels that hold space together, warped space and particles are the best we have SO FAR! The reason you fail is because you try to oversimplify the whole problem into something that you can draw pretty pictures of
You don't have ANY answers and never will! The reason is simple. You're not looking for RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS. All you have after 400 years of Newtonian 'science' are descriptions and irrational explanations!
2. "you can't force science by making up angels that hold space together"
.
You're forcing 'science' when you propose angels, energy, waves, fields, black holes... as mediating physical entities. A rope is NOT an irrational proposal. You can illustrate a rope and show how it can bind two atoms to each other. You can explain light as torsion of a rope.
@bgaede concerning Xero's comment: "not everyone deserves to have their voice heard unless they actually know what their talking about..."
This does not make any sense at all. Since when does "knowing" what you are talking about have to do with anything? That's like saying I need to understand the properties of gasoline molecules before I can drive a car!
This is bullshit, it's a self serving pile of crap.... you've had some of your papers published... and they're shit, that was a bigger crime than the ones that didnt get through... the establishment was doing a service to the rest of the world by limiting the amount of intellectually disenfranchised idiots that you're breeding with your idiotic videos
Great work Bill. I caught that interview with you and stef and no wonder he doesnt show the video to his cult following. You showing that his logical thought process is flawed because it follows philosophical thinking instead of submitting to the logical, scientific method of approaching evidence and theory, especially when related to question about god, was great. That kind of knowledge would upset his cult and as you said, his donators.
Bill, Have you ever considered that people are hostile to your arguments and new universal model because you approach them with so much hubris?
It takes a lot of time to digest the extent of Thread Theory and the rigorous scientific definitions it is built upon. The folks your are engaging with do not yet have the context to internalize what you are really proposing so they just brush you off as trolling instead.
1. "people are hostile to your arguments and new universal model because you approach them with so much hubris"
.
If it were just me, you might have a case. When I came out of priz, I entered relativistic forums meekly and mildly to share with them a novel approach: rather than consider atoms to be discrete, independent entities, I proposed that they were all interconnected. That´s the foundation of Thread Theory.
2. I never got to make my case because the backlash was simply unreal.
You would think that the "scholars" at the journals would be a notch above the rabble. Big mistake! In fact, you discover that they´re the same people. Several folks in the forums told the crowds here and there that they were reviewers and editors and that they had thrown "classical" papers directly into the traschcan without reading them.
4. The fact that the editors and "peers" tell you in no uncertain terms that Relativity and Quantum are done deals, that they have already been proven, that everyone in the Math world has already bought into warped space and dark matter and the Higgs, shows that you are dealing not with Science, but with religion. You are only allowed to publish in journals and raise issues in the forums within THEIR framework.
5. "It takes a lot of time to digest the extent of Thread Theory"
Never will a mathematician even take the trouble. A mathematician already "knows" everything. Why should he read anything outside of what he was taught in college especially if he doesn´t find it in a mainstream journal? And why would he find Thread Theory in a mainstream j if by their very nature the journals peer-censor anything which does not conform to "established phyz"?
6. The mathematicians have painted themselves into a corner, worked themselves to a catch-22. They want to read new stuff that stimulates their minds yet are willing to entertain theories that fall only within the purview of their upbringing. Very few if any venture into the wild jungle out there to hunt for food for thought.
@bgaede "You are only allowed to publish in journals and raise issues in the forums within THEIR framework."
This is inaccurate. You must demonstrate a competent level of understanding of the subject matter in order to be taken seriously. By all means shoot the establishment down in flames, but make sure it IS the establishment and not a straw-man.
2. "shoot the establishment... but make sure it IS the establishment and not a straw-man"
No strawman! Relativity states in no uncertain terms that gravity is geometry, specifically, the geometry of space. The idiots of this religion explain that the reason Merk doesn't drift out of the SS is that a wall of warped space (the walls of the gravity well generated by the weight of the Sun) stands in its way.
Therefore, the official explanation of gravity of Einstein and his Relativity is as stated above. There is no attempt to misinterpret it or to raise strawmen. If you know of another version, you are welcome to post it here. Otherwise, you should not raise the 'strawman' argument again.
@bgaede If you represented relativity accurately I wouldn't accuse you of straw-manning. But the fact of the matter is that you continually present a highly simplified and therefore incorrect version. You misinterpret diagrams which are clearly meant to be analogies and not a literal illustration.
The reason you are not taken seriously is that your arguments are childish. Sorry to be so blunt Bill, but IF there is any merit to your thread hypothesis, you'll need to approach the establishment...
...with a modicum of humility and a willingness to LISTEN as well as make your own case. You might not like criticism, but that's too bad. If your hypothesis is rational and demonstrably accurate then it will become widely known. If, on the other hand, it's poppycock, then it will be lost amongst countless other whacky ideas.
1. "don't appear to know the difference between weight and mass"
There is no difference, you piece of shit! But you are welcome to tell us what that diff is. Let's see what you 'know', idiot fin. What's the diff b/w weight and mass?
2. "you continually present a highly simplified and therefore incorrect version"
I asked you to write here any alternative version you knew, you fucking idiot! I still don't see it. So I suppose that the 'warped space' explanation for gravity is it! You are still welcome to put any other version you know!
@bgaede "... I suppose that the 'warped space' explanation for gravity is it...."
I've told you many times before that 'warped space' is an insufficient summary of general relativity. If you bothered to mention that objects with mass curve spacetime and that all objects follow geodesics through spacetime, then I wouldn't need to keep repeating myself. GR is not an 'alternative' version, but there is more to it than just 'warped space'.
1. "Mass can be measured... mass is a property of matter which does not change with location"
What a fucking idiot you are, fin! You truly have no clue!
How do you measure mass, you moron? Don't you measure mass in kilograms? Don't you weigh the thing? Or do the fucking monks at your monastery count units of mass?
2. When you move the elephant from the Equator to the North Pole it's weight changes and so does its mass. The reason for this is that the fucking morons of your religion MEASURE mass by weighing! The religion of Math has never figured out how to separate mass from weight.
3. "If you weigh 100kg in your bathroom, the same scales with the same Mr Bill Gaede standing on them would only read 17kg on the moon."
Right, you fucking idiot! And your mass was 100 kg and is now 17 kg! Got it, idiot? Or did you COUNT units of mass? How many atoms does an elephant have, you fucking piece of shit? How do you know that when you take the elephant to the Moon, the elephant changed the number of atoms if you never counted them to begin with, you idiotic, demented moron?
1."On another planet or moon the mass is the same"
You keep stating this, you fucking piece of shit, but you haven't justified it yet. Got it, bean brain? The mass also changes because you MEASURE mass by weighing it. Do you understand or not, you stupid moron? All you are doing is repeating like a fucking parrot what the priest drove thru your ass in high school. You still have not reasoned the diff b/w mass and weight. And the reason is clear: there isn't ANY diff b/w mass and weight!
2. "the mass of an object differs between the equator and the north pole!"
Exactly, you fucking piece of human excrement! There is no diff b/w mass and weight because you MEASURE mass by weighing! Got it, you fucking idiot? Your job is to show that mass is diff than weight. You haven't done so and never will. The only way you could show that they are diff is by equating mass to quantity of matter. But since quantity of matter you COUNT and mass you MEASURE, then you are out of luck!
3. "A kilogram is a measurement derived by humans which will equal a certain number of atoms"
Yo momma should have thrown you into the garbage can, fin. You don't have the brains to deal with such issues. How many atoms does the kilogram standard in France have? Please COUNT them and get back to me.
5. "Why do you think gravity must be 'mediated' by a physical object?"
How do they do it at your church, you moron? Did the priest tell you that God moves objects by remote control? Does the Good Lord send angels according to your religion? How do you pull on a donkey if not via some extended mediator?
What a fucking piece of shit yo momma gave you fo a brane, fin! I suppose you kids in the ghetto never manage to overcome your handicaps. You should try busing to a desegregated school across town.
@bgaede Once again (you arrogant, bigoted old git), balancing scales are NOT the same as weighing scales with a pressure plate. A kg of mass only WEIGHS 1kg here on earth, or in a gravitational field of 1g. What part of this don't you understand?
So is mass because the idiots of your religion determine mass by weighing! Aren't you the moron who claims that the pastors in your parish determine mass by WEIGHING the object on a balance scale?
3. "If you took a set of bathroom scales and a set of balancing scales to the moon"
What would be the diff, you stupid idiotic moron? What would you put on the other side of the balancing scale, you fucking lunatic? Wouldn't you put the same rock as on Earth?
It is YOU who is trying to peddle snake oil among the crowds. It is the morons of YOUR church who have been telling people a lie for the last 400 years that weight is different than mass.
6. b. A mathematician determines mass by MEASURING rather than by COUNTING. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether an idiot like fin uses a bathroom scale or a balance scale. Either way he is going to WEIGH (measure) rather than COUNT units. A stupid idiotic moron like fin never learned the diff b/w measuring and counting.
7. "Once again... balancing scales are NOT the same as weighing scales with a pressure plate"
What's the diff?
.
"A kg of mass only WEIGHS 1kg here on earth"
Right! So? How much does 'that' MASS weigh on the Moon, you stupid piece of shit?
You see, idiot fin... you're talking to THE expert of mass here on Earth! Unlike the idiotic morons of your religion -- Newt, Pastor Al, Hawk -- I've studied the issue left and right!
@bgaede The difference between balancing scales and bathroom scales (with a pressure plate) is the following: The former allows you to compare what you're weighing with objects of known mass OR weight (they're the same on earth). The latter relies on gravitational pressure to give a reading. Therefore, in a situation with weaker gravity it will give a lower reading.
1kg of mass will weigh approximately 170g on the moon. It's mass is still the same. If someone threw it at your head, it would hurt just as much as on earth (assuming you're not wearing a helmet), but if it was dropped on your foot it would not hurt so much. Do you get it now?
1. "Mass is weighed on earth... We put an object of known mass (which we weighed on earth) on the other side. And surprise surprise Bill - the reading is different on the moon!"
What a fucking idiot! You are truly a demented moron, fin. You are a deranged door to door Bible seller. This is now the 4th time...
2. WHAT IS THE DIFF B/W WEIGHT and MASS????? Please answer the Q without giving any examples. Okay, you fucking moron? Got that much? We already know that the weight and the mass will be diff on the Moon than on the Earth because the idiots of Math WEIGH in order to determine mass. Please don't repeat it again and again. Just tell the crowd what is the diff b/w weight and mass.
3. "The former allows you to compare what you're weighing with objects of known mass OR weight (they're the same on earth). The latter relies on gravitational pressure to give a reading. Therefore, in a situation with weaker gravity it will give a lower reading."
For both!
The reason again is that you determine mass by weighing.
4. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use a bathroom or a balance scale. Don't invoke this example for the 20th time again! Just tell the crowd WHAT IS DIFF B/W WEIGHT and MASS!
5. "In Hydrogen atoms a kilogram would be approximately 1.67x10*27 units"
What do you mean approximately, you moron? And where did you pull that number? Out of your ass? A kilogram is not an approximation, you stupid idiotic moron.
6. The reason the idiots of your religion are trying to come up with a COUNTING std is that they've realized the problem I'm pointing out. A gullible piece of shit like you and the fucking moron just never figured out that there is a problem because all you can do is gawk at authority.
@bgaede At no point did I claim that physicists have all the answers - but they ARE working on it. You, on the other hand, don't even know the difference between balancing scales and bathroom scales, let alone weight and mass!
Of course there is censorship and bias, it goes both ways.
The reasons may be different. There is a fight for "being right".
Oftentimes "right" is not much more than cheering for a given team.
How did one come to cheer for just that team?
There is "trust no-one" and with good reason. Who is who? How do people come to represent this or that, why? Incidentally landing on this or that stand, or "shaped" into believing this or that and defend it - often by any means?
Kenzofeis 1 hour ago in playlist Electric Universe
Plasms physics isn't different at all from mainstream physics.
both could be thrown in the garbage.
sergio267 4 days ago
Well, let's put all the "population pyramid will result in mass extinction soon" stuff that I debated you some months ago aside. What exactly is it that you don't like about austrian economics?
Breaker242 4 days ago
"What exactly is it that you don't like about austrian economics?"
.
Austrian Econ is the same shit as Smithsonian, Marxist, Keynesian, and Friedman Eon. No diff! Austrian Econ does NOT address the problem (and can't).
.
Here's the million $ Q, Break> What comes after Services? Until you or von Mises can answer that Q, you have no solution to imminent extinction. So don't worry about answering Qs that are not asked. That is the only Q you must answer!
bgaede 3 days ago
@bgaede
As I already told you, these different categories that you put goods into are abitrary and meaningless. There has never been such a thing such as "after agrarculture" or "after manufacturing" and there will never be such a thing as "after services". Services, manufacturing and agrarculture have always existed in some way or another. It's just that the distribution of how many of the total economy belongs to one sector or another has changed.
Breaker242 3 days ago
@bgaede
but as I already said, this "taxonomy" of "kinds of economies" is hardly more than semantics. All services/goods/whatever that you produce only serve to serve demand and make a profit so that you can buy stuff and produce more to buy more stuff. There is nothing "magical" about services that differentiates them from agrarculture. It's both just something that is done to meet demand. If demand for food would increase, then we'd just go back to a more agrarculture based economy..
Breaker242 3 days ago
@bgaede
.. so that producers can then meet that demand for food.
Here's my million $ question for you, Billy> What would stop markets to go back to a more manufacturing or even agrar based economy if public demand for these things would rise again? What is this magic barrier that forces us to stay with services no matter what?
Breaker242 3 days ago
1. "these different categories that you put goods into are abitrary and meaningless"
.
Not goods, but jobs or activities! There have been only four economic activities in which we have ever engaged (5 if we separate hunting from gathering).
.
"Services, manufacturing and agrarculture have always existed in some way or another"
We've never TRADED back scratching for food. There was no TRADE until we invented division of labor (i.e., post subsistence agri).
bgaede 3 days ago
2. "If demand for food would increase, then we'd just go back to a more agrarculture based economy"
Why? All we need to do is crank up the tractors and combines. We can produce more food with the technology we have if the Martians would just put in an order!
bgaede 3 days ago
3. "What would stop markets to go back to a more manufacturing or even agrar based economy if public demand for these things would rise again?"
TECHNOLOGY! Technology FORBIDS going back thru time!
Nevertheless, why would demand increase? Human population is in decline. We are projected to reach ZPG by mid-century.
.
census gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php
bgaede 3 days ago
4. "What is this magic barrier that forces us to stay with services no matter what?"
.
That YOU cannot even imagine the next activity in which the next generation will work!
bgaede 3 days ago
@bgaede "...thru time..." What's this Bill - I though you said going through time was an impossibility?
"Human population is in decline." What planet are you on Bill? The human population is still rising. You couldn't be more wrong if you tried!
finlarg 1 day ago
1. "...thru time..."
.
Out of context, bean brain! You shouldn't listen to others' conversations with half an ear and a quarter of your 0D p-brane!
.
The idiots of YOUR religion treat it like a medium. Here, we are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH and the context is clear. We are not saying that a ball is moving thru an ocean. We are simply saying that things change throughout the movie. This is diff than saying like idiot Einstein says that time is a rod that can be bent.
bgaede 1 day ago
2. "The human population is still rising"
.
Humans are undergoing the last phase of TERMINAL density-dependent birth rates. There is no turning back. The reason women are not having children is NOT what the morons of your religion told you: that women are smarter now (...implying that your grandma was an idiot).
bgaede 1 day ago
3. Women aren't having children because we now live in cities. That's when density-dependence kicks in. Women will never again have children simply because we can't go back to the farms. The INEVITABLE trend is clear to anyone with a brain. We WILL all soon die huddled in cities!
.
census gov/population/international/data/idb/worldgrgraph.php
bgaede 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede "Women aren't having children because we now live in cities." You might live in a city Bill - doesn't mean we all do. And since when did urban habitation become a barrier to reproduction?
"We WILL all soon die huddled in cities!" Speak for yourself Billy-o!
I've been over this with you before, but you seem blinkered to the notion that you may be wrong in any way. I'm one of the few who IS concerned about population growth, but I disagree with your simplistic interpretations of it.
finlarg 1 day ago
@bgaede You're such a funny old buffoon: You declare that anyone who doesn't share your strange world view to be religious whilst proclaiming to be a scientist!
finlarg 1 day ago
"take analogies regarding spacetime out of context by interpreting them literally"
.
What 'analogy' is a CONCEPT such as spacetime for an OBJECT such as a canvas, idiot fin?
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/03Example.html
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/08ForLaymen.html
.
But the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS in the alternative. If not warped space/ST, then WHAT?
bgaede 1 day ago
Comment removed
finlarg 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede On your website you have:
"The idiots of Mathematics talk about flat space-time (i.e., 2-D), about curved space-time (i.e., 3-D), and about unimaginable hyperspherical space-time (i.e., 4-D). How many dimensions does our Universe have? Of course, if our Universe can be simultaneously 2-D, 3-D, and 4-D, it is not surprising that relativists can explain everything."
Flat spacetime is NOT 2D and curved spacetime is NOT 3D. Spacetime is 4D. 3 spacial dimentions and 1 time = 4D.
finlarg 1 day ago
If you can't represent the arguments of your opponent (proponents of relativity) correctly, then you 'killer' question:
"But the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS in the alternative. If not warped space/ST, then WHAT?"
...falls flat on it's arse. You keep pasting links to your website, but when we go and read them, it's just more nonsense. As I've said COUNTLESS times before, if you want to demolish relativity...
finlarg 1 day ago
...you MUST understand it FIRST. It's simply inadequate to declare that Newton, Einstein et al are idiots without qualifying your assertion in such a way which demonstrates that YOUR understanding of physics is superior (more accurate) than theirs.
You keep claiming that you DO understand relativity whilst demonstrating that you do not.
finlarg 1 day ago
1. "population GROWTH is in decline"
.
It finally sank into your p-brane, huh fin? It took a while!
.
But yes, global population is in decline because of density dependent birth rates. The end result is unavoidable. Even if the economy doesn't get us, the human population WILL come to an end (i.e., extinction). That's zero people, fin! It can't decline below that (... except in the religion of Math perhaps... you know... infinite, negative numbers and all that...).
bgaede 23 hours ago
2. Bill: "the onus is on the priests of your religion to tell us what physical object prevents Merk from drifting out of the SS... If not warped space/ST"
fin: "Uh duuuuuuhhh..."
.
Still thinkin', huh fin? Okay. Fine. I'll give you another two centuries!
bgaede 23 hours ago
3. "relativity... you MUST understand it"
Yes. I do. Now it's your turn to try to understand it. GR says that gravity is a result of the Geometry of space/ST. The followers of Pastor Al claim that space/ST is warped. They even ILLUSTRATE warped space/ST with a fishnet.
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png
.
What part are you having trouble with, fin?
bgaede 23 hours ago
4. Of course, if you believe that GR proposes a different explanation than ball-rolling-around-roulette, feel free to write it here. That would certainly show your understanding of relativity as well as gravity.
bgaede 23 hours ago
5. "Newton, Einstein et al... YOUR understanding of physics is superior (more accurate) than theirs"
.
Thanks for the vote of confidence, fin, but in Science there are no superior or more accurate explanations.
bgaede 23 hours ago
6. In Science, one guy explains rationally and the crowd listens to his theory. That's it. That's where Science ends. Now, everyone goes go home and does what you do best: religion. You can now form your own opinions about whether the explanation is to your liking. A mathematician refers to this process of forming HIS opinion as truth, proof, evidence, verification, etc.
bgaede 23 hours ago
@bgaede Blatant quote mining from you again Bill.
Despite your claims you are NOT a scientist. You are an amateur philosopher.
finlarg 8 hours ago
1. "You're such a funny old man - really"
.
Well, thank you, fin! I'm glad you're enjoying yourself.
.
"the global human population is in decline... it's TOTALLY wrong"
.
Oh, what's wrong about it, fin? We WILL attain ZPG soon. What part are you having trouble with?
bgaede 4 hours ago
2. "I'm having trouble trying to have a sensible dialogue with you"
.
Well, that's no reason to flog yourself, fin. It's not easy for any of the patients at your asylum. The important thing is not to give up. Keep trying. One day, when you come out of your padded walls, you'll be able to have a sensible dialogue with anyone.
bgaede 4 hours ago
3. "YOUR understanding of relativity"
There's not much to understand. GR states that gravity is caused by warped space/ST. Here you see the theory illustrated...
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png
.
If you disagree, the onus is on YOU to write in these comments section what the official version is in the alternative. You have not done so. Therefore, we are still stuck with warped space/ST.
bgaede 4 hours ago
@bgaede I'm having trouble trying to have a sensible dialogue with you. I showed you a paragraph FROM YOUR OWN WEBSITE which contains gross errors regarding YOUR understanding of relativity. I'm not going to repeat myself, go back and read my previous comments if you need to.
finlarg 8 hours ago
@bgaede What kind of a non-argument is that? I quote you, respond to you and you misquote me in return. It's like trying to reason with a hyperactive child.
finlarg 8 hours ago
@bgaede You're such a funny old man - really - when an error (of yours) is shown to you, you CANNOT acknowledge it. You simply piddle about with your non-arguments. You say the global human population is in decline, I maintain that you're as wrong as wrong can be. It's not a subtle type of wrong, it's TOTALLY wrong. The population is currently rising. In 50 years it may well be declining, but in 2012 it's STILL rising. Does 7 billion ring any bells Bill?
finlarg 8 hours ago
@finlarg You're the buffoon here, finlarg. What's buffoonish is your title, "Is it Worth Arguing with BG" when you have been doing it for months--obviously it has been worth it TO YOU, because you keep coming back for more! What's buffoonish is having "open-minded AND skeptical" on your channel when your buffoon comments demonstrate that you are JUST skeptical.
gerstners 22 hours ago
"You're the buffoon here, finlarg."
.
Please do not attack the 'scientific' community, gerst!
bgaede 4 hours ago
@bgaede "Out of context, bean brain..." But it's OK for you to take analogies regarding spacetime out of context by interpreting them literally and then proclaiming them to be nonsense?
finlarg 1 day ago
@bgaede In THIS comment, this one HERE Bill, the one I'm responding to HERE, you say: "Human population is in decline." I pointed this out to you, but rather than admitting that what you meant was population GROWTH is in decline you bulldoze your way to the next point you want to make. Are you one of these people who is incapable of admitting that they EVER make mistakes?
This is 2012 and the human population is STILL rising. Your sentence (as written by you) is WRONG. It's INCORRECT.
finlarg 1 day ago
EXPLAIN NEWTON'S CRADLE!!! MAKE A VIDEO OF IT PUSSY
Xero555000 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
when a person uses the word "I believe" or "I don't believe" he entraps himself.
nayanmalig 1 week ago
EVERYONE CHECK OUT HIS 6th VIDEO "Did you ever take math" He couldn't explain newton's cradle worth a damn and then attempted to censor another comment made by someone else as well as my own
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
"He couldn't explain newton's cradle worth a damn and then attempted to censor another comment made by someone else..."
.
Erm... Xero... Why don't you go fuck yourself? Okay?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede Erm... Bill... People claiming to be RATIONAL don't need to tell people to "go fuck yourself"
justintempler 2 weeks ago
Erm... just... why don't you go fuck yourself, too, okay?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede Bill you have to define your words.
Define the word fuck and how it is possible to "go fuck yourself"
Why would one need to go anywhere?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
"you have to define your words"
.
You should preach to the mathematicians.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede I'll take your lack of a snappy comeback as you admitting defeat
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
"I'll... admit... defeat"
.
The agony of the feet!
bgaede 1 week ago
@bgaede ... you are obviously retarded
Xero555000 6 days ago
Good on you Bill for taking it on the chin and allowing my video response! I still think you're something of a loon though!
finlarg 2 weeks ago
You even got that wrong, fin! A concept is NOT 'that which doesn't have shape'. That is simply the shorthand version so as to contrast concept and object.
.
concept: A word that embodies or invokes more than one object or location.
.
youstupidrelativist com/04Exist/02Concept.html
.
You still haven't clarified the diff b/w mass and weight. We're still 'weighting'.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede OK, I stand corrected for using the short-hand version of your 'concept' definition instead of the one on your website.
"You still haven't clarified the diff b/w mass and weight. We're still 'weighting'." Your argument is one of semantics, rather than physics. Just because I don't conform to YOUR criteria doesn't mean mass and weight are the same thing. Weight is gravity dependent. Mass is not. How can you continue to deny this?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
1. "the diff b/w mass and weight...Your argument is one of semantics, rather than physics"
.
You still don't understand, fin. You are an incredible loony. I was telling the guys at our Science Forum that you are remarkable in that you honestly regard yourself as as a staunch defender of orthodoxy and all you've ever done in your life is gawk at authority.
.
Just so I don't blind side you, we're discussing you...
.
facebook com/groups/149993398400709/members/#!/groups/149993398400709/
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. But again, you have NOT been able to tell the crowd what is the diff b/w mass an weight. All you have so far are statements. Your statements are circular. They are circular because all you've said so far is that the weight of an object is diff on the Moon than on Earth. But then, so is the mass because you weigh in order to determine mass. It is irrelevant whether you use a bathroom or a balance scale.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. Wheeler said it clearly. Please read and kill your appalling ignorance!
.
"Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass.”
bgaede 2 weeks ago
4. Therefore, dear fin, your own religion has NEVER defined the word 'mass'. You are a little peepsqueak trying to make it in a world of giants. You should look in the mirror and recognize who you are. You are tackling a problem that is 'weigh' over your head!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
5. Rather than gawking at authority, try reasoning it out for yourself. Let's see if you can define 'mass' and explain to yourself what the diff with weight is. It can't be done! Been there, done that! Weight changes with location... and so does mass... until, of course, you can tell us what you mean by 'mass' and show how it is diff than weight.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
6. "Weight is gravity dependent"
.
...and so is mass because we determine mass not by counting units, but by weighing. So please don't say the same thing yet another time. How many times now? 10? 20? Please address the issue. Begin by defining the word 'mass'.
.
mass: ___
.
Please fill in the blanks.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede Where on earth did you pick up the idea that mass changes with location? You sound like a crazy person when you keep repeating that.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
1. "Mass can be worked out by means other than weighing. Weighing is necessarily a ...measurement. You could calculate mass by measuring the inertia"
What a stupid idiot you are, fin! You really are brain dead. Let me repeat! As long as you use MEASUREMENT, irrespective of what method of measurement you use, you won't solve the diff b/w weight and mass. The ONLY way to resolve the diff is to COUNT. Do you understand the diff b/w measuring and counting?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. Here it is again from your guru Wheeler...
.
"Nature does not offer us any concept as ‘the amount of matter.’ History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would not equal mass.”
.
Do you understand what he said or not, you stupid shit?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. "Where on earth did you pick up the idea that mass changes with location?"
.
What a piece of shit your mother gave you for a brain, fin! WTF is wrong with you? Mass changes with location BECAUSE weight changes with location! What part is it that you are having trouble with, idiot fin?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede I do not have a guru or a priest or a religion, so quit adding unnecessary nonsense to the discussion.
I'm not the one insisting that mass MUST be counted. All I'm saying is that mass is a different property from weight.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
"mass is a different property from weight"
.
How is it diff? Please define each term before you begin.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede We are going round in circles, because you are seemingly unable to register the significance of what I've been saying. Mass can be worked out by means other than weighing. Weighing is necessarily a vertical measurement. You could calculate mass by measuring the inertia of an object by applying a certain number of horsepower and seeing how long it takes to move a certain distance.
The two types of scale ARE important, despite your protestations to the contrary.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
@bgaede Great, I'll have a look when I get the time.
I don't defend orthodoxy because it's orthodox. What I do is defend freedom and rationality. It is my opinion that a significant portion of orthodoxy (not necessarily all of it) is on the right track.
I was not always like this, contrary to your assertion. Like you now, I used to have serious doubts about whether the twin towers were brought down by planes only, not to mention a whole host of ill-informed hypotheses.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
This is satire, right?
freetheworldof 2 weeks ago
@freetheworldof I was about to comment on this video, then I realised someone had beat me to a more concise reaction. I hope so too dude, I really do...
butteredcrumpet 2 weeks ago
"This is satire, right?"
.
It is more than just satire. The entire mathematical world is a complete circus with clowns, ring master, and all!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede
Then I really think you should seek professional medical help.
freetheworldof 2 weeks ago
" I really... should seek professional medical help"
.
The first step in your cure is acknowledging the problem!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede
The only problem I have, is that I am drawn to watching batshit crazy videos.
I acknowledge that & so I will stop looking at your channel.
Yeh, I have taken the first step.
freetheworldof 2 weeks ago
"The only problem I have, is that I am drawn to watching batshit crazy videos."
.
You're too modest, dof! You should check yourself in.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
Doesn't plasma exist in exactly the same way as a river does? You agree that water molecules exist, right? Just because they are all moving in a river does not mean that "science" can't study rivers, does it? Don't ions exist just like water molecules, and, hence, doesn't plasma exist? Why does "motion" destroy physical existence?
Your ideas are too important. I suggest that you not define yourself out of everyone else's viewpoint. The EU folks have much to offer science, just as you do.
bdw000 2 weeks ago
1. "Doesn't plasma exist in exactly the same way as a river does?"
.
A river is an object. Plasma is a concept. Do you understand the diff?
In Science, only OBJECTS may be said to exist. Concepts cannot and do not exist for the purposes of Science. If God wants to exist, 'He' must first morph into an object.
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-Concept
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. "water molecules exist, right?"
.
What do YOU mean by 'exist'? No one in the last 10,000 years has defined this enigmatic and crucial word.
.
plato.stanford edu/entries/existence/
.
Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies that which exists. In Physics, we have no choice but to define the word 'exist' unambiguously.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. "Just because they are all moving in a river"
If the UNIT that comprises a river is taken to be a molecule of water, then we should talk about the water molecule and not about the river. Likewise, if the strategic term 'plasma' refers to a swarm of molecules or atoms, we should talk about the molecules or atoms and not about plasma.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
4. "Don't ions exist just like water molecules, and, hence, doesn't plasma exist?"
.
An H atom is ionized. According to the religion of Quantum -- which the idiots of the Electric Universe Sect subscribe to -- this means that the proton is now all alone. We have a bowling ball w/o its accompanying electron bead. An H atom ion is simply a proton!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
5. If the Quantum and EU proton is a bowling ball, that's all we have before us. Both the mechanics and electricians have to PHYSICALLY justify what they mean by 'positive'. WHY is a proton positive? The idiots of these two camps have never done so.
.
And again, you need to tell the crownd what YOU mean by 'exist' when you ask 'don't ions exist?'
bgaede 2 weeks ago
6. "Why does "motion" destroy physical existence?"
I give up. Tell me.
In Science, only OBJECTS may perform motion. Motion is a property circumscribed to objects (i.e., that which has shape) In Science, we do not talk about the motion of concepts (soul, love, spirit, energy, mass, force, charge, etc).
.
But to destroy physical existence only makes sense in religion. Is this what your pastor told you to memorize for the Sunday mass?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
7. "I suggest that you not define yourself out of everyone else's viewpoint"
Irrelevant to Mother Nature! She doesn't care about politics or about diplomacy! We must define the terms that we use to communicate our theories to one another in such a way that we use them consistently. Otherwise, we are not doing Science! If the definition of a term destroys a long held belief or a particular religion, then so be it! In Science, it is better to have a million enemies than to lie to yourself
bgaede 2 weeks ago
8. "The EU folks have much to offer science"
The EU folks are good critics of officialdom! I am on record. We are brothers in this regard.
Conversely, the EU folks alternative proposal sucks! You will see this in the next vid I post. It has no standing in Science.
To make matters worse, the EU folk are in the business of censorship (Vid 26). This is a no-no in Science.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
Interesting video, as usual. Not to digress too much from your video's topic, what role do you think mathematics should play in the study of physics? Couldn't we agree that there are some mathematical tools that are useful in the application of physics, such as engineering?
Also, would love to read your paper on alternatives to waves and wave packets. Where might obtain a copy?
ReasonDefender 2 weeks ago
"what role do you think mathematics should play in the study of physics"
None! In Physics, we study objects and how they behave. We are not into numerology.
.
"mathematical tools... are useful in... engineering"
Technology, not Science! In Technology, they develop gadgets by trial and error. In Science, we explain phenomena. Never the twain shall meet.
.
"your paper on alternatives to waves and wave packets"
ijapm org/papers/016-P0011.pdf
bgaede 2 weeks ago
You've said that plasma is not a physical object, and that you were cut off before you could reply to "Plasma is ionized matter."
Is plasma not a physical object because ionized matter is not a physical object, or do you disagree that plasma is ionized matter?
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
1. "ionized matter is not a physical object"
IonizED matter is the same as BROKEN table or DEAD cat. There is an object called 'table' There is no physical object called 'broken table'. There is an object called 'cat'. There is no object called 'dead cat'. In Physics, all objects come without qualifiers of any kind!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. For the purposes of Physics, you can move a table or kick a cat. You cannot move a broken table or kick a dead cat! A broken table/dead cat is already a movie! You are already IMPLICITLY COMPARING the broken table against one that ain't and a dead cat against a living one.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. IonizED atom or matter is already a MOVIE. IonizED means that something has happenED or is happenING to the atom. Ionized = movie! When you move an ionizED atom, you are moving a movie! You are attempting to condense a movie within a photograph. You are asking the crowd to stare at a 'static' atom that has lost or is in the process of losing an electron.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede ". . . (which is what the f------- morons of Quantum draw)?"
I see that instead of just "morons" you're dealing with "f-" morons now.
You need a vacation.
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
"They are things that are already in motion!"
.
Yes! A rock is an object. A jumping rock is not! What part are you having trouble with, Tog? What part went over your head?
.
"instead of just "morons" you're dealing with "f-" morons now"
Certainly looks that way...
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "What part went over your head?"
The part about having to make up a drawing of a hypothetical object to move.
I get it now.
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Well, do they simply need to invent a proper term?
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
"do they simply need to invent a proper term?
."
No they don't! They can talk about atoms, protons, electrons, neutrons... (if they propose these as standalone, discrete entities) What's this bullshit called plasma? What's this bullshit called electricity? Plasma and electricity are PROCESSES. They are things that are already in motion! Same with vortex. Same with wave. Same with 'field'.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Isn't an electron already in motion? Actually, isn't everything vibrating - in motion - on the sub-atomic level? Why demand that things not move if in reality on the smallest scale they're always moving?
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
1. "Isn't an electron already in motion?... Why demand that things not move"
.
Huh??? Who's asking for things not to move? Obviously, you understood squat, Tog! BEFORE you move anything, you MUST draw it!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. A movie consists of several frames. Each frame is a photograph, a still image! Before you ionize (movie) you must show what physical object is in the frame. That physical object must NOT have motion in THAT frame! IONIZE is a VERB (i.e., MOVIE)!!!! You can put electron or proton or neutron in a single frame. You canNOT put IONIZE in a single frame, in a still image, in a snapshot!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. What will the picture show when you take a snapshot of ionizED atom? (And please don't say something stupid like "We can't take a pic of an atom.") This is strictly a CONCEPTUAL issue. If Atom Man had the ability to take a snapshot of an ionizED H atom, what would the STILL IMAGE show? Would you see a plus sign above a ball (which is what the fucking morons of Quantum draw)?
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Ions.svg
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "Who's asking for things not to move?"
That's what I heard you saying when you stated, "They are things that are already in motion!"
TogetherBuilding 3 weeks ago
@bgaede not true... air moves you cant draw it though... what are you going to draw... a couple lines? a cloud? no.. you're drawing something that represents air... is air not an object? listen... your definition of object is flawed because you havent defined shape... which is a nebulous definition in and of itself
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
"air... you cant draw it"
.
chemistryland com/CHM107/AirWeBreathe/Comp/AirComposition.html
.
"you havent defined shape"
You should stop taking your cues from fiesta! He's already been hammered! He's out of the race now. Ask him for an answer to that one.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
you're whole video is a 13 minute long butthurt pity parade.... someone call the waaaaaambulance
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
"the establishment was doing a service to the rest of the world by limiting"
You´re just confirming, Xero. An idiot like you thinks that Science is about censorship. It´s actually the other way around. Science is about allowing all theorists to give their versions. It becomes religion when a few grab a hold of the mike and decide what the public should hear.
.
"you probably got banned because you're an asshole"
Well thank you, Xero! That´s about the kindest thing anyone ever said to me.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede i dont think it's about censorship... but i also believe that not everyone deserves to have their voice heard unless they actually know what their talking about...
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
"not everyone deserves to have their voice heard unless they actually know what their talking about..."
.
Who decides, dear Xero?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede people who follow the scientific method... ie "Problem, Hypothesis, Testing, Results, Conclusion, Repeat."
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
"the scientific method... Problem, Hypothesis, Testing, Results, Conclusion, Repeat."
.
Let's test your method, Xero! Let's see if what you propose 'works'. Please explain RATIONALLY (i.e., scientifically) why Mercury doesn't drift out of the SS. Please explain how a magnet physically attracts another and then repels it when you turn one of them around.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Sorry we dont have ALL the answers yet, you can't force science by making up angels that hold space together, warped space and particles are the best we have SO FAR! The reason you fail is because you try to oversimplify the whole problem into something that you can draw pretty pictures of
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "Sorry we dont have ALL the answers yet"
You don't have ANY answers and never will! The reason is simple. You're not looking for RATIONAL EXPLANATIONS. All you have after 400 years of Newtonian 'science' are descriptions and irrational explanations!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "you can't force science by making up angels that hold space together"
.
You're forcing 'science' when you propose angels, energy, waves, fields, black holes... as mediating physical entities. A rope is NOT an irrational proposal. You can illustrate a rope and show how it can bind two atoms to each other. You can explain light as torsion of a rope.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "particles are the best we have SO FAR"
The rope beats the particle H by a mile; no contest! The particle H cannot justify wavelength, amplitude, straightness, speed, etc.
.
But you're welcome to show what property of light you can simulate with particles.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede concerning Xero's comment: "not everyone deserves to have their voice heard unless they actually know what their talking about..."
This does not make any sense at all. Since when does "knowing" what you are talking about have to do with anything? That's like saying I need to understand the properties of gasoline molecules before I can drive a car!
MrWolynski 3 weeks ago
you probably got banned because you're an asshole
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
This is bullshit, it's a self serving pile of crap.... you've had some of your papers published... and they're shit, that was a bigger crime than the ones that didnt get through... the establishment was doing a service to the rest of the world by limiting the amount of intellectually disenfranchised idiots that you're breeding with your idiotic videos
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
Great work Bill. I caught that interview with you and stef and no wonder he doesnt show the video to his cult following. You showing that his logical thought process is flawed because it follows philosophical thinking instead of submitting to the logical, scientific method of approaching evidence and theory, especially when related to question about god, was great. That kind of knowledge would upset his cult and as you said, his donators.
BlindPlague 1 month ago
Bill, Have you ever considered that people are hostile to your arguments and new universal model because you approach them with so much hubris?
It takes a lot of time to digest the extent of Thread Theory and the rigorous scientific definitions it is built upon. The folks your are engaging with do not yet have the context to internalize what you are really proposing so they just brush you off as trolling instead.
0rthogonal 1 month ago
1. "people are hostile to your arguments and new universal model because you approach them with so much hubris"
.
If it were just me, you might have a case. When I came out of priz, I entered relativistic forums meekly and mildly to share with them a novel approach: rather than consider atoms to be discrete, independent entities, I proposed that they were all interconnected. That´s the foundation of Thread Theory.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. I never got to make my case because the backlash was simply unreal.
You would think that the "scholars" at the journals would be a notch above the rabble. Big mistake! In fact, you discover that they´re the same people. Several folks in the forums told the crowds here and there that they were reviewers and editors and that they had thrown "classical" papers directly into the traschcan without reading them.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. So no! I didn´t create the hostile atmosphere that I stumbled upon when I tried to publish. It was already there.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. The fact that the editors and "peers" tell you in no uncertain terms that Relativity and Quantum are done deals, that they have already been proven, that everyone in the Math world has already bought into warped space and dark matter and the Higgs, shows that you are dealing not with Science, but with religion. You are only allowed to publish in journals and raise issues in the forums within THEIR framework.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "It takes a lot of time to digest the extent of Thread Theory"
Never will a mathematician even take the trouble. A mathematician already "knows" everything. Why should he read anything outside of what he was taught in college especially if he doesn´t find it in a mainstream journal? And why would he find Thread Theory in a mainstream j if by their very nature the journals peer-censor anything which does not conform to "established phyz"?
bgaede 1 month ago
6. The mathematicians have painted themselves into a corner, worked themselves to a catch-22. They want to read new stuff that stimulates their minds yet are willing to entertain theories that fall only within the purview of their upbringing. Very few if any venture into the wild jungle out there to hunt for food for thought.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "You are only allowed to publish in journals and raise issues in the forums within THEIR framework."
This is inaccurate. You must demonstrate a competent level of understanding of the subject matter in order to be taken seriously. By all means shoot the establishment down in flames, but make sure it IS the establishment and not a straw-man.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
1. "You must demonstrate a competent level of understanding"
To whom, you stupid idiot? To you? Or to the nitwits who dabble in Relativity and Quantum?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "shoot the establishment... but make sure it IS the establishment and not a straw-man"
No strawman! Relativity states in no uncertain terms that gravity is geometry, specifically, the geometry of space. The idiots of this religion explain that the reason Merk doesn't drift out of the SS is that a wall of warped space (the walls of the gravity well generated by the weight of the Sun) stands in its way.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. In fact, to make their case absolutely clear, the morons of this religion actually illustrate their warped fishnet...
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png
.
Therefore, the official explanation of gravity of Einstein and his Relativity is as stated above. There is no attempt to misinterpret it or to raise strawmen. If you know of another version, you are welcome to post it here. Otherwise, you should not raise the 'strawman' argument again.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede If you represented relativity accurately I wouldn't accuse you of straw-manning. But the fact of the matter is that you continually present a highly simplified and therefore incorrect version. You misinterpret diagrams which are clearly meant to be analogies and not a literal illustration.
The reason you are not taken seriously is that your arguments are childish. Sorry to be so blunt Bill, but IF there is any merit to your thread hypothesis, you'll need to approach the establishment...
finlarg 3 weeks ago
...with a modicum of humility and a willingness to LISTEN as well as make your own case. You might not like criticism, but that's too bad. If your hypothesis is rational and demonstrably accurate then it will become widely known. If, on the other hand, it's poppycock, then it will be lost amongst countless other whacky ideas.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
1. "don't appear to know the difference between weight and mass"
There is no difference, you piece of shit! But you are welcome to tell us what that diff is. Let's see what you 'know', idiot fin. What's the diff b/w weight and mass?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "you continually present a highly simplified and therefore incorrect version"
I asked you to write here any alternative version you knew, you fucking idiot! I still don't see it. So I suppose that the 'warped space' explanation for gravity is it! You are still welcome to put any other version you know!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "... I suppose that the 'warped space' explanation for gravity is it...."
I've told you many times before that 'warped space' is an insufficient summary of general relativity. If you bothered to mention that objects with mass curve spacetime and that all objects follow geodesics through spacetime, then I wouldn't need to keep repeating myself. GR is not an 'alternative' version, but there is more to it than just 'warped space'.
finlarg 3 weeks ago
1. "Mass can be measured... mass is a property of matter which does not change with location"
What a fucking idiot you are, fin! You truly have no clue!
How do you measure mass, you moron? Don't you measure mass in kilograms? Don't you weigh the thing? Or do the fucking monks at your monastery count units of mass?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. When you move the elephant from the Equator to the North Pole it's weight changes and so does its mass. The reason for this is that the fucking morons of your religion MEASURE mass by weighing! The religion of Math has never figured out how to separate mass from weight.
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/03QMatter.html
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "If you weigh 100kg in your bathroom, the same scales with the same Mr Bill Gaede standing on them would only read 17kg on the moon."
Right, you fucking idiot! And your mass was 100 kg and is now 17 kg! Got it, idiot? Or did you COUNT units of mass? How many atoms does an elephant have, you fucking piece of shit? How do you know that when you take the elephant to the Moon, the elephant changed the number of atoms if you never counted them to begin with, you idiotic, demented moron?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "Balancing scales measure mass"
And what do you put on the other plate, you fucking, idiotic lunatic? A weight? Or do you count how many atoms the standard in France has?
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Kilogram
.
Why don't you educate yourself, fin? Or do you plan to be a piece of shit for whatever remains of your life?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. "Gravity is a force, not an object"
WHAT physical object MEDIATES gravity, you stupid idiot? If not warped space, then WHAT?
.
"warped space' is an insufficient summary of general relativity"
All you need to tell the crowd is WHAT physical object prevents Mercury from drifting out of the SS! If not warped space, then WHAT?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "WHAT physical object MEDIATES gravity...?"
Your question doesn't make sense. Why do you think gravity must be 'mediated' by a physical object?
finlarg 3 weeks ago
1."On another planet or moon the mass is the same"
You keep stating this, you fucking piece of shit, but you haven't justified it yet. Got it, bean brain? The mass also changes because you MEASURE mass by weighing it. Do you understand or not, you stupid moron? All you are doing is repeating like a fucking parrot what the priest drove thru your ass in high school. You still have not reasoned the diff b/w mass and weight. And the reason is clear: there isn't ANY diff b/w mass and weight!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "the mass of an object differs between the equator and the north pole!"
Exactly, you fucking piece of human excrement! There is no diff b/w mass and weight because you MEASURE mass by weighing! Got it, you fucking idiot? Your job is to show that mass is diff than weight. You haven't done so and never will. The only way you could show that they are diff is by equating mass to quantity of matter. But since quantity of matter you COUNT and mass you MEASURE, then you are out of luck!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "A kilogram is a measurement derived by humans which will equal a certain number of atoms"
Yo momma should have thrown you into the garbage can, fin. You don't have the brains to deal with such issues. How many atoms does the kilogram standard in France have? Please COUNT them and get back to me.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "A kilogram of mass is always a kilogram of mass"
Is this what the shrink asked you to repeat at the asylum, idiot fin? Do you count the beads on your rosary when you say this over and over?
"the same object will WEIGH more OR less, depending on it's location"
And so will its mass because you determine mass by weighing, you fucking piece of shit! But you are welcome to justify otherwise.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. "Why do you think gravity must be 'mediated' by a physical object?"
How do they do it at your church, you moron? Did the priest tell you that God moves objects by remote control? Does the Good Lord send angels according to your religion? How do you pull on a donkey if not via some extended mediator?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
6. "Your question doesn't make sense."
.
What a fucking piece of shit yo momma gave you fo a brane, fin! I suppose you kids in the ghetto never manage to overcome your handicaps. You should try busing to a desegregated school across town.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Once again (you arrogant, bigoted old git), balancing scales are NOT the same as weighing scales with a pressure plate. A kg of mass only WEIGHS 1kg here on earth, or in a gravitational field of 1g. What part of this don't you understand?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
1. "Mass is an intrinsic property of matter"
What property, you stupid piece of shit. You keep mentioning this and never clarify.
.
"the difference between bathroom scales (with a pressure plate) and balancing scales"
What do you put on the other side of the balancing scale, idiot fin?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. "Weight is gravity dependent"
So is mass because the idiots of your religion determine mass by weighing! Aren't you the moron who claims that the pastors in your parish determine mass by WEIGHING the object on a balance scale?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. "If you took a set of bathroom scales and a set of balancing scales to the moon"
What would be the diff, you stupid idiotic moron? What would you put on the other side of the balancing scale, you fucking lunatic? Wouldn't you put the same rock as on Earth?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
4. "Why is this so important to you?"
It is not! Mass is what you celebrate every Sunday in YOUR religion. In Physics we call it weight!
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/05RestMass.html
.
It is YOU who is trying to peddle snake oil among the crowds. It is the morons of YOUR church who have been telling people a lie for the last 400 years that weight is different than mass.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
5. "I don't have time to work out the exact number of platinum and iridium atoms in the standard kg"
And you never will. The reason is that:
a. The idiots of Math 'phyz' never defined a unit of mass (e.g., the H atom, the elementary or fundamental particle)
bgaede 2 weeks ago
6. b. A mathematician determines mass by MEASURING rather than by COUNTING. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether an idiot like fin uses a bathroom scale or a balance scale. Either way he is going to WEIGH (measure) rather than COUNT units. A stupid idiotic moron like fin never learned the diff b/w measuring and counting.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/04UnitMass.html
bgaede 2 weeks ago
7. "Once again... balancing scales are NOT the same as weighing scales with a pressure plate"
What's the diff?
.
"A kg of mass only WEIGHS 1kg here on earth"
Right! So? How much does 'that' MASS weigh on the Moon, you stupid piece of shit?
You see, idiot fin... you're talking to THE expert of mass here on Earth! Unlike the idiotic morons of your religion -- Newt, Pastor Al, Hawk -- I've studied the issue left and right!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede "What's the diff?.
I see you are still confused Pope Billy. You must of missed school the day they explained the difference between Weight and Mass.
Here's a cartoon even a child could understand: watch?v=grWG_U4sgS8
justintempler 2 weeks ago
"the difference between Weight and Mass"
.
Yeah! What is the diff b/w weight and mass, just? Please tell us.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede "What is the diff b/w weight and mass, just?"
"Here's a cartoon even a child could understand: watch?v=grWG_U4sgS8"
What's the matter Billy did you have a problem understanding the 10 minute cartoon?
justintempler 2 weeks ago
@bgaede The difference between balancing scales and bathroom scales (with a pressure plate) is the following: The former allows you to compare what you're weighing with objects of known mass OR weight (they're the same on earth). The latter relies on gravitational pressure to give a reading. Therefore, in a situation with weaker gravity it will give a lower reading.
finlarg 2 weeks ago
1kg of mass will weigh approximately 170g on the moon. It's mass is still the same. If someone threw it at your head, it would hurt just as much as on earth (assuming you're not wearing a helmet), but if it was dropped on your foot it would not hurt so much. Do you get it now?
finlarg 2 weeks ago
1. "Mass is weighed on earth... We put an object of known mass (which we weighed on earth) on the other side. And surprise surprise Bill - the reading is different on the moon!"
What a fucking idiot! You are truly a demented moron, fin. You are a deranged door to door Bible seller. This is now the 4th time...
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. WHAT IS THE DIFF B/W WEIGHT and MASS????? Please answer the Q without giving any examples. Okay, you fucking moron? Got that much? We already know that the weight and the mass will be diff on the Moon than on the Earth because the idiots of Math WEIGH in order to determine mass. Please don't repeat it again and again. Just tell the crowd what is the diff b/w weight and mass.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. "The former allows you to compare what you're weighing with objects of known mass OR weight (they're the same on earth). The latter relies on gravitational pressure to give a reading. Therefore, in a situation with weaker gravity it will give a lower reading."
For both!
The reason again is that you determine mass by weighing.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
4. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether you use a bathroom or a balance scale. Don't invoke this example for the 20th time again! Just tell the crowd WHAT IS DIFF B/W WEIGHT and MASS!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
5. "In Hydrogen atoms a kilogram would be approximately 1.67x10*27 units"
What do you mean approximately, you moron? And where did you pull that number? Out of your ass? A kilogram is not an approximation, you stupid idiotic moron.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
6. The reason the idiots of your religion are trying to come up with a COUNTING std is that they've realized the problem I'm pointing out. A gullible piece of shit like you and the fucking moron just never figured out that there is a problem because all you can do is gawk at authority.
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Kilogram#Atom-counting_approaches
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede At no point did I claim that physicists have all the answers - but they ARE working on it. You, on the other hand, don't even know the difference between balancing scales and bathroom scales, let alone weight and mass!
finlarg 2 weeks ago