You are using different definitions to confuse the watcher. First you invoke the mathematical definition.. then you invoke the colloquial definition in an attempt to make the establishment seem like it is acting surreptitiously... you are just stupid and can't follow.. the world needs ditch diggers too
Yeah, society has been brainwashed to believe in athourity without thinking rationally and gets concepts and objects confused with one another. Btw, are you still going to post that video on E shell and rope touch?
your distinctions make no sense... vectors are not always dynamic dimensions are not always static, and coordinates can be used to represent either vectors or dimensions.
It makes the most sense if you're building a house to define a design space, where every point of that house is defined by it's coordinates in space relative to some origin. This allows you to incorporate the information about the dimensions of the house in the form of distances. what is so hard to understand? Idiot!
You keep mentioning scientists like Hawking are mixing up coordinates and dimensions, but you are the one misunderstanding. Take a meter stick and measure from a wall to any point. If you wanted to describe the measurement you'd have to give the coordinate. A coordinate is how Dimensions are described. When Hawking says coordinate he is talking about a point that has a measurement value. Numberlines are the only way to describe measurements. They are representative of the world so there values
@TankFridaysSeacret2 have REAL MEANING. I don't mean to reply to myself to finnish my sentence but there is so much wrong with this vid I could only talk about what is fundamentally wrong. When disagreeing with science don't pretend you're the one deciding what is science and what is not. So I have to ask, why do you mistrust the science that brought you the computer you posted this video with? Quantum Mechanics is based on relativity and spacetime is central to it. So why do electronics work?
Yeah. Relativity is a laugh. It's even funnier that there are idiots who believe in such nonsense as black holes and wave-packets. These morons think of themselves as 'scientists' and 'physicists'. Absolutely ludicrous!
Dude I've got to post this once because this is so obvious. .-.-.-. Look at what I just typed each measurement between each point represents a set distance. From point 1 to point 2 is 1 unit of distance from point 1 to 3 is 2 units of distance and so on. Whoever believes this video is lacking elementary school education.
"each measurement between each point represents a set distance"
.
The idiots of your religion define distance as a length. Nevertheless, when you talk about 'units' you are not talking about distance, but about DISTANCE-TRAVELLED. Do you understand the difference b/w distance and distance-traveled or not, you stupid moron?
@bgaede A unit specifies a length, and the number how many of those lengths. example, 1.25 meters is a meter of length multiplied by 1.25 The unit and number is a distance. Whether or not its "travelled" or not makes no difference. So why can't the circumference of the earth, about 40000km, be a distance? Does it not exist when described mathematically? Why do you think there is a difference between distance and your own made up term?
1. "Hawking... mixing up coordinates and dimensions..."
.
Is there no diff b/w a coordinate and a dimension? I thought the 3 dims were: length, width and height? I thought the 3 coo were: longitude, latitude and altitude? Do you understand the diff b/w height and altitude? B/w width and latitude? You don't seem to know the basics.
2."When Hawking says coordinate he is talking about a point..."
.
Oh, that's great, Tank! I thought coordinates were used for location. Is a dot the same thing as location? I thought a dot was an object? I thought 'location' was a concept?
3. "Numberlines are the only way to describe measurements"
You should try to take an introductory course in Physics, Tank. You not only confuse dim with coo but both of them with numberlines. Here's a primer...
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/05Dim/04SumDim html
4. "science... brought you the computer... why do electronics work?"
.
Erm... you really need to take an intro course in Science before posting, Tank. Science and Technology are 2 diff disciplines. Science is about explaining phenomena. Technology is about developing gadgets by trial and error. You can play with 2 magnets and show how they can do things w/o understanding the underlying principles.
5. Indeed, that's the case today. The idiots of Mathematics cannot tell you how a magnet PHYSICALLY attracts another one and then repels it when one of them is turned around. What is PHYSICALLY happening b/w the 2 magnets? The mathematicians DESCRIBE the magnetic field and do so with numbers. This is a far cry from Physics. In Physics, we MUST propose a mediator and rationally explain with it how the magnets do it...
7. "Whether or not its "travelled" or not makes no difference"
Perhaps in the religion of Math! In Science, the QUALITATIVE separation b/w 2 objects is not the same as the itinerary, the motion needed to get from one to the other. In Mother Nature's world, distance is a photograph, a static concept. Distance-TRAVELED is a movie, a dynamic concept. If you don't understand the diff b/w location and motion, you really got a problem.
@bgaede so.. distance boils down to... duhhh it's short!
Everyone... if we listen to Bill Gayde, we will revert back to the stone age... everyone please flag his video's as inappropriate so they are viewed by as few people as possible
Wow, it really is funny how often it becomes about the source, how people need an authority a news media to legitimize it a name to be dropped like it had any function. People just really don't understand the basics of science in empirical evidence of rational usable kind. That these theorists require magically invented variables to make their theory consistent and through attempts to evidence them these dark matter inventions are shown not to exist yet people don't get that. WTF is with people.
In 1936, in his reply to Einstein's EPR thought experiment, Bohr declared Quantum to be a complete theory. Since that day, Quantum has continuously been working on 'more completeness'. The mathematicians invented particle after particle to try to plug holes in their complete theory. That wasn't so bad. It really got bad when the 'experts' created particles of concepts. Today, the LHC is smashing particles to discover the particle of mass... Now that's scary!
E=mc2. Mass doesn't warp space time. Actually energy warps space time. because energy travels thru space time. Think of light condensing space time to nothing, Which is why time ceases at the speed of light. Perhaps [consider] that the tiny oscillations of energy called strings are actually warping the surrounding ST hence creating gravity. As there is no gravity without energy
@bgaede mass and energy are equiv dummy. You conveniently forget einstein's famous e=mc2. Bill your entire hoax, your entire joke is that you conveniently leave out fundamentals, you make statements that sound profound but when analyzed are merely creative bullshit. You're a fraud. You know, I know it and real scientists know it. That is why you don't get time on NOVA or a passing word other than "hope he's on his meds." No I cannot draw energy but mass is ENERGY
@bgaede See people the nut even denies E=mc2 the equivalence between energy and mass, Bill. go on your merry way. Like Don Quixote chasing windmills. If it weren't for the fact that you are an ex-con trying to rip off the public by selling bullshit books this would all be funny. Your avarice is disgusting.
Respond to this video... Come to Stanford, take a class start with math for that is obviously your weakest area. I don't give two protons about you. My reason for being in here is to tell people do not follow this false messiah.
@bgaede mass and energy are equiv dummy. You conveniently forget einstein's famous e=mc2. Bill your entire hoax, your entire joke is that you conveniently leave out fundamentals, you make statements that sound profound but when analyzed are merely creative bullshit. You're a fraud. You know, I know it and real scientists know it. That is why you don't get time on NOVA or a passing word other than "hope he's on his meds." No I cannot draw energy but mass is ENERGY
@bgaede split hairs old man that's all u do. you make no sense just argue splitting hairs. Those splits are meaningless carry on old man .Hawk your books. entice the masses. You know zero math little science. A waste of a potentially talented mind. Had you not been deported after fed prison for spying for the Soviets "you cudda been a contender." So sad.
just don't buy Gaede's books. All of this is his attempt to create a "buzz" and sell books. He spent time in US Fed prison. He sold computer secrets to the USSR thru Cuba. Mess with Bill Gaede all you wanr. Just don't buy his books, He's FOS anyway
What can these poor folk explain, mish? Can they tell you how a magnet physically attracts another? Can they tell you what agent comes up against the skin of a pen and causes it to fall to the ground?
.
Dear Newt used angels to push planets around the Sun. Greene and Suss invoke warped space. Where have the mathematicians made progress? What have you learned? Please flaunt your knowledge.
@bgaede The bullshit that you produce warps ST around the pen which cause the pen to squirt ink in an orgasmic frenzy and falls to the ground exhausted
Is time only just the relationships between the way different things change, like the earth going round the sun and atoms vibrating and clocks ticking and day and night and waking up and going to sleep?
@redmapleleaf It's the way we measure the sequence of events, duration, chronology and hisory. It's something we take for granted, so it's hard to describe in different words.
@redmapleleaf Sort of. But it's also worth noting that synchronising watches only works on a local scale. Two events cannot be simultaneious if they are more than a few thousand miles apart, at least not in such a way that observers at each location can agree upon. The speed of light can also be thought of as a time delay. If you were to speak to someone on the moon by radio, there would be a 2.6 second time delay. Light and radio waves take the same amount of 'time' to travel large distances.
people that stand behind modern mythematical physics are stupid math cannot explain the universe math is only good for making measurements everything else like black wholes strings quarks and voodoo science is absolute bullshit and intellectual mental masterbation and pseudo gnosis i implore you all to stop filling your minds with so much filth like quantum new age nonsence!! GOOD DAY
@finlarg emm k pal what is the equation for life and consciousness? it not that i hate science its just that i see both its and religions short coming people like kaku and hawking are mentally perverted and retarded the reason why is cause the system that they use is reductionist and instead of studying nature they invente hypothetical myths like string or black holes in short they provide no substance to they're nonsence and totally ignore nature and her superior processes.
@TheLovesoul1 I don't know if there is such a thing and I didn't suggest that there was.
Kaku and Hawking don't pull their theories out of a hat like a cheap conjuring trick. They are extrapolated from a detailed understanding of all that has been learned about the universe so far. I'm not saying string theory is right (I don't know) but black holes DO exist. There is something at the centre of our galaxy which fits the description of a black hole. You might not like it, but it's there!
@finlarg sure pal just like fairs or a monsters are in my closet miss me with that bullshit ok look find a REAL picture of a galaxy then look at it real hard tell me you see a black whole don't go pulling that lame quackedimic crap out of your ass please black holes are myths just like string theory and 4d space time myths and pseudo knowledge just like the big bang. the universe just like gaia is a living entitie.
@TheLovesoul1 I'm sorry that you are beyond reasoning. Why bother trying to understand the universe when you can follow pseudoscientists and dismiss the study of reality?
Let's assume black holes are an imaginary concept: Could you describe one? Without google or wikipedia, could you give me a brief description, off the top of your head?
@finlarg why it has no tacital or concret existence and to answer that a black hole is a hypothetical entitie thats invisible sucks up light and matter through a gravitational force but like i said they and quarks super strings and membranes don't have any concret physical existence so i'd implore you to study real science would you prefure a fantasy over reality if you would then thats down right sad and pathetic i have no sympathy 4 u when u take a lie over truth.
1. OK. So do you understand that the speed of light is finite? Are you aware of the Michelson and Morley experiment? Have you thought about the implications of that experiment?
YOU implore ME to study real science...!!!?
How do YOU discern what is true and what is a lie?
Seriously dude, which one of us is calling the other sad and pathetic? Think about it! If you want to overthrow science, learn some first. I used to be like you, but I read and studied a LOT and guess what?
2. I changed my mind! I slowly began to realise that the Einsteins of this world were a LOT smarter than me, and not only that, I started to learn HOW and WHY this is so. It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand very well. I'm not trying to force you round to my way of thinking, I'm trying to help.
@finlarg thank for trying to help but hope you get around to studing plasma cosmology and the electric universe and also einsten wasn't a real scientist he was a mythmatician who used his imagenation to concoct nonsence that has no baurings in reality the universes light doesn't travel in a straight line it travels in spirals. sorry but mainstream science is moronic and mentally retarded nonsence and it only grows more obsured like malcolm x said make it plain which science doesn't.
@TheLovesoul1 Einstein was a patent clerk who played around with physics AND maths in his spare time. He stumbled upon and described in detail the nature of space, time and gravity. His predictions have been proven correct many times over. Gravitational lensing and GPS are two things off the top of my head which FULLY backup relativity. Unless you have a better explanation which incorporates all the evidence, then the chances are that you've gone down a pseudiscientific cul-de-sac.
2. ¨Gravitational lensing and GPS... FULLY backup relativity¨
.
You have to be quite gullible to believe in such nonsense, fin. Gravitational lensing relies on warped space which is an irrational proposal. The fact that you can´t draw warped space debunks your religion.
3. And GPS is simply a tweeking of a clock. It doesn´t prove that space is a physical object. In Science, drawing warped space is the only test for an object. It is a mandatory requirement of the Scientific Method.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/02Exhibit html
@bgaede "And GPS is simply a tweeking of a clock..."
Oh boy, you should read up on this before making such proclamations, if only to save yourself embarrassment!
"It doesn´t prove that space is a physical object..."
Who said space is a physical object? By your rationale: force, energy, light, motion, time and temperature must all be non-scientific and have no bearing on your 'understanding' of physics.
@bgaede So how come gravitational lensing has been predicted, then observed and then photographed?
Einstein wrote about the curvature of spacetime. Your simplification of 'warped space' is straw-manning. So is the way you repeatedly describe science as a religion. So is the way you call astrophysicists astrologers.
As soon as someone tries to juggle the metaphysical stuff known as relativist theory his mind goes in circles and the person has problems discerning fiction from reality.
i honestly can not tell if you (the uploader) are a troll or just stupid. He seems to forget completely that Hawking is PHYSICIST (as is the science) and ignores the fact that Hawkings book is written for the layperson and thus uses more ordinary language in order to be accessible. If you want to rip on the actual theory of space-time then find a physics textbook. I am sure that you must have a physics textbook considering how sure of yourself you are.
A physicist understands the diff b/w a coordinate and a dimension.
.
"Hawkings book is written for the layperson"
All of Physics is written for the lay person. If a layman does not understand, it is not Physics (Vid 6). Einstein: "You should be able to explain Physics to a barmaid." Feynman: "If you cannot explain it simply, YOU do not understand it!"
2. So in what way is the official super duper scholarly version of Relativity diff from what this idiot Hawking wrote in his book? Hawking claims, inter alia, that:
a. Big Bang was produced from energy
b. the surface of the Earth is 2D
c. there are objects out there known as black holes
3. So, obviously, he's a demented moron! Right? Which means that he needs to be locked away in a padded cell. I mean, how stupid can he be? How is the poppycock that he writes in his book diff from the official version of Relativity and Quantum?
@bgaede Given that you are quoting Feynman to support your own claims, how do you reconcile the fact that he agreed with the spacetime hypothesis? Was he an idiot too?
"you are quoting Feynman... Was he an idiot too?"
Non sequitur! I've quoted Einstein, Schrodinger, Wheeler, and others in positive contexts.
.
An idiot is he who holds irrational beliefs or presents irrational theories. I defined the word 'idiot' before I used it. Idiot is an objective criterion, not my opinion...
.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0004Horgan html
@bgaede I don't think my comment was a non-sequitur, but I do think that you exhibit an extreme form of cherry picking. Describing a person (Einstein no less) as a 'fucking idiot' in one comment and then quoting the same man favourably in another comment, does little to inspire confidence in the veracity of your assertions. It's a bit like a kid who pisses into a juice bottle and then drinks from it!
"Describing a person (Einstein no less) as a 'fucking idiot' in one comment and then quoting the same man favourably in another comment"
Yes. In Science, we do not trust in authority like they do in the religion of Math. We don't believe everything the alleged expert says after he won the Nobel. In Science, we analyze each claim separately. If the guy says something rational he gets credit for it. If he says something stupid, he is treated with the respect that his comment garnered.
How many times have you written that, followed by a string of assertions?
The great about the great scientists is that they recognise that some aspects of physics CAN be explained mathematically. You might not like it, but that's how it IS! Another thing about the great scientists is their humility, and willingness to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand exhibit bucket-fulls of arrogance and pour scorn on others freely. Hardly a recipe for balanced enquiry!
Math can ONLY describe. Math has no power or authority to explain. Here's Bishop Simanek of the Church of Math Phyz, fin: "Math Phyz doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Math Phyz doesn't explain; Math Phyz describes." web.ipac.caltech edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary html
You should learn the fundamentals of your religion before posting.
In Science, we don't prove anything. In Science, we merely explain. Proof means that YOU made up YOUR mind. Proof is a personal matter. And 'wrong' is an OPINION, specifically, YOUR opinion. You can believe that God has been proven and that everyone who doesn't believe in your God is wrong for all that Science cares.
5. "bucket-fulls of arrogance and pour scorn on others freely"
.
Yes, that characterizes the mathematical establishment pretty well, fin.
.
youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
.
"balanced enquiry"
So I should take pointers from the mathematicians, huh? After all, they balance dissidents against their proposals and inexplicably always end up choosing and publishing their proposals.
@bgaede Your selective quoting of my comments is amusingly childish!
If a 'dissident' like yourself comes up with some half-baked pseudoscience, don't be so upset when it fails to be acknowledged by the experts. If a 'dissident' makes a truly groundbreaking NEW discovery then it WILL be recognised. It has to be based on solid foundations though...
1. "Science... striving to... understand how things work in the universe"
Science does. Unfortunately, the mathematicians are in charge of regulating 'science' and they have no interest whatsoever to find out how things work. They would rather engage in fantastic and irrational explanations.
"All enquiries are evaluated and recorded"
Absolutely not! But more importantly, they are censored so that the public doesn't get to hear them.
@bgaede No I don't see what you mean. You are the one invoking your 'math phyz' in order to denigrate anyone who disagrees with your personal re-defined version of physics and science. Meanwhile the rest of the world is engaged in the fascinating exploration of this awesome universe!
@bgaede I admit that making large numbers of people aware of new ideas is hard, especially if you don't hold formal qualifications in the field you're writing about. I'm not convinced that the censorship is as blatant as you seem to think.
I have two questions I'd be grateful if you could address:
1: Are you aware of Maurice Cotterell?
2: Do you spend much time looking for flaws in your own work?
"spend much time looking for flaws in your own work?"
That´s what YT is for. People of all kinds come to criticize. A handful raise some valid issues.
.
"Maurice Cotterell"
And I quote: "radiation... energy...... gravitational forces...pull ....... instantaneous... force" Therefore, MC does not understand the Scientific Method and his language is irrational. Anyone who has taken Physics at the BG School spots these fatal errors immediately.
Maurice Cotterell, like you, thinks he has a better explanation for much of physics, including gravity and relativity. You are different, way more arrogant, but in some ways similar!
1. ¨Maurice Cotterell, like you, thinks he has a better explanation for much of physics... You are different, way more arrogant, but in some ways similar!¨
.
Only to a superficial reader like you, fin. Science is about EXPLAINING. Therefore, the first thing a scientist does is get the language straight. MC hasn´t done that. He still talks about energy, radiation, time, mass, and other irrational words. Until you train your eye to spot the snake oil, it will be all the same to you and him.
2. ¨Your simplification of 'warped space' is straw-manning¨
Oh, I´m sorry to have misrepresented and distorted GR. Please explain in your own words what Einstein claimed was the reason for Mercury not drifting out of the SS. If you don´t come up with an alternative in your next post, then let´s agree that YOU are the one who is straw-manning.
@bgaede My understanding of science does NOT equal religion, no matter how many times you assert otherwise.
Einstein claimed that space and time are SPACETIME and that IT is CURVED by objects with mass. You never heard of any of that?
No-one said that Mercury should LEAVE the sun... What are you talking about? The shifting of Mercury's perihelion is accounted for by general relativity.
1. ¨Why do you insist on only recognising physical 'objects'? Forces are an integral part of physics¨
It is religious zealots like you who believe that you can reify and move concepts. There is no physical object in Physics called ´force´. In Physics, only objects have the property of motion. I don´t care what the monks made you memorize at the monastery. Can´t move love. Can´t throw justice. Can´t transfer energy! Can´t carry ´a´ force.
Matter is a word we use to designate all the objects that exist. How do you convert the CONCEPT ´energy´ into an object at your monastery? How does nothing spontaneously acquire LW+H?
5. ¨you don't acknowledge the existence of anything which can't be drawn on a piece of paper?¨
Not exactly! Let´s get it right. An object is that which has shape. But not all objects exist. Only those objects which have location may be said to exist. If God wants to exist, God must first be an object. But that condition alone is insufficient. Donald Duck also has shape, yet lacks location. If God wants to exist, God must in addition be able to have distance wrt every atom in the U.
@bgaede I already addressed your mercury question, but in case you missed it, here it is again, in more detail:
Mercury is held in it's orbit by gravity. Just like all the other planets, moons, comets and asteroids. Why SHOULD it leave the solar system? Where did you get that bizarre idea from?
2. ¨If they turn out to be correct the investigation continues¨
.
Well, the predictions that space is warped and that an atom consists of an electron bead orbiting the proton bowling ball turned out to be wrong and yet the mathematicians continue to believe in GR and QM as if nothing. Therefore, the mathematicians don´t even follow their standard: Popperian falsifiability.
3. ¨my position is VERY different from that of a religious person¨
Is that what your priest told you, fin? Traditional religions such as Islam and Christianity believe in supernatural agents (God, angels, Devil, spirits, ghosts). Idiots like you believe in irrational agents, in reified objects (warped space, black hole, dark energy, 0D particle, 1D string), So it´s not really that different, but I guess you could make a case for it.
Yes. Einstein ´discovered´ that the CONCEPT ´energy´ converts into the CONCEPT ´mass´. Great! That´s like saying that love turns into justice or that X turns into Y. What have we learned about the physical world? Please draw a picture of both energy and mass and show how one of them morphs into the other.
5. ¨L,W and H are flexible concepts? Material objects tend to expand when heated¨
.
What an idiot! Make the rock of any size. It´s LW+H will remain the same. LW+H are QUALITATIVE concepts. When we say that the elephant is 3D (i.e., has LW+H) this description has no numbers, no magnitude attached to it.
6. You confuse the NUMBER LINES the idiots of your religion use to represent measurement with the QUALITATIVE (i.e., physical) notion that dimensions are supposed to be. The reason idiots like you end up placing time perpendicular to width on Feynman diagrams is that you treat the dimensions of Physics as number lines. You confuse parallel, meridian, and radius (QUANTITATIVE) with length, width and height (QUALITATIVE).
7. ¨God doesn't enter into it. I think He is a concept¨
,
What a moron you are, fin! So your pastor told you that ´HE -- a guy with two eyes, two legs, and two nuts -- is a CONCEPT??? ´HE´ looks more like an OBJECT! Perhaps if God were a synonym of love, intelligence, grace, the Spirit, then ´HE´ would qualify as a concept! You don´t even know the fundamentals to discuss religion. I suppose the you consider yourself a concept too, huh? Is that why they refer to you as ´HE´?
8. ¨the universe can be measured with respect to a fixed background¨
.
The word Universe is a CONCEPT. There is no physical object in Physics called ´the´Universe! The word Universe refers to BOTH space and matter (and I´ll pitch in there the EM ropes which interconnect all atoms, what the idiots of your religion call ´energy´).
9. However, Mother Nature doesn´t recognize space. Space is a synonym of nothing: that which has no shape. MN does her daily tricks with atoms. She isn´t even aware of space. We converted space into an ocean, a physical object. It is the idiots of Math who in order to peddle their religion decided to convert space into a medium and to argue that space is warped and that the planets and photons roll down the depressions of space. MN will have none of such poppycock.
10. ¨Do you believe that distances are... quantities¨
a. In Science, we don´t believe. In Science, we define the word ´distance´. Whatever conclusions we draw from our theories must be consistent with this definition.
b. In your religion, distance is a quantity??? WTF? What can that possibly mean? Distance is the QUALITATIVE separation b/w two surfaces. Distance has no numeridal values attached to it.
What a true, unadulterated idiot you are, fin! The Q we´re trying to answer is, ´WHAT is gravity?´ and a stupid moron like you tells the crowd that gravity is gravity. That´s just great!
13. Gravity is a concept. Gravity refers to an unidentified AGENT that mediates attraction b/w celestial objects and b/w all atoms. We want to understand how MN does this invisible trick. Here´s the Q again. Let´s see if you can at least understand the Q. Forget about the answer...
14. WHAT physical object prevents Mercury from drifting out of the SS? Is it the curved wall of warped space as Pastor Einstein says? Is it a bunch of swarming particles together lumped into another concept known as ´field´? Is it that the Sun pelts Merk with negative-momentum-carrying graviton stones as QM holds? Please explain the physical mechanism of gravity!
Well, if a boy swings a ball around his head at the end of a string, we can understand WHY the ball does not fly out of its orbit. Cut the string and the ball flies centrifugally. When the croupier throws the tiny ball around the roulette, we can understand why the ball stays within its orbit. There is a wall preventing its departure from the system. Getting the hang of this, fin? It´s called Physics.
16. Let´s now try it with Merk. Why does Merk orbit the Sun? Is it that it is tied to the Sun by a gigantic string? Is it that a warped wall of space extends along its orbit like Einstein proposed? Do you have any notion of Physics at all? It´s absolutely ridiculous that I have to explain such a simple Q to anybody. You must have a very low IQ, fin.
@bgaede Low IQ? Einstein did not propose a 'warped wall of space'. Mercury, or any other planet, travels along a geodesic THROUGH spacetime, or in other words it takes the most direct route, which happens to be an elliptical path around the sun. The gravitational 'pull' from the sun combined with it's kinetic energy keeps it in a stable orbit.
Yes I do have a basic grasp of physics Bill, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to you here!
@bgaede "Well, if a boy swings a ball around his head at the end of a string, we can understand WHY the ball does not fly out of its orbit. Cut the string and the ball flies centrifugally..." -in a parabolic arc, UNTIL it hits the ground. The force of gravity quickly takes over from the force that the boy exerts, when swinging the ball.
@bgaede Your question: "WHAT physical object prevents Mercury from drifting out of the SS?"
Why do you insist on there being a 'physical object'? Forces interact with matter. Gravity appears to be the result of the curvature of spacetime. I don't know if this is THE most accurate description, but it's a damn good approximation.
@bgaede Idiot again? You asked what prevented mercury from leaving the solar system, not what IS gravity. Gravity is an attractive force between objects with mass.
@bgaede Why are you attempting to hi-jack the word physics? If the vast majority of humanity agrees on the definition of physics, who are YOU to say they're wrong?
@bgaede The vast majority of the English speaking population understand the word distance to refer to the quantity of units between one thing and another thing: The distance between your ears is approximately 6 inches. I'm not going to try to describe what resides between those two objects!
On what authority do YOU re-define the word distance?
@bgaede You keep talking about 'warped space'. Why not go the whole Einsteinian hog and just say spacetime? That is how he referred to his discovery and that is how reality appears to be. Not only did he describe it conceptually, but he also proved it mathematically. You might not like it, but there is mathematics within physics.
1. “It's widely known that drawing a picture of an atom is a futile excercise. Atoms are so tiny that to zoom in and SEE one in detail is impossible.”
.
You missed the point altogether. The idiots of the religion of Quantum have obligation to reconcile THEIR proposed atom with THEIR theory. Science demands that the theory follow from the hypothesis, which includes illustrating THEIR atom.
2. The stupid, idiotic mathematician draws a proton bowling ball in the center and puts a hula hoop around it. Then he places an electron bead on this ring.
.
legacyweb.triumf ca/welcome/h-fusion html
brooklyn.cuny edu/bc/ahp/SDgraphics/PSgraphics/SD.PS.LG.Hydrogen html
5. So the explanation has NOTHING to do with the atom the idiot presented at the start of his prez. To make matters worse, the stupid, idiotic moron tells you that he has proof of his atom because he has taken pictures of it.
6. Yet, the pictures don´t look anything like a bead orbiting a nucleus that they pointed to at the start of their prez. They look exactly like the model proposed by the Rope Hypothesis instead (Fig 3).
7. So, yes. Anyone who believes in the poppycock proposed by Quantum has to be executed. He has no right to live, let alone to have an opinion. He needs to learn the fundamentals of Physics.
You haven´t learned anything, you stupid moron! Until you can RATIONALLY explain gravity, electromagnetic phenomena, atomic behavior and other invisible workings of Mother Nature, you could just as well invoked angels. In fact, angels are higher on the scale of rationality than Quantum. We can at least imagine an angel. We can´t imagine warped space or 0D wave-particles.
You´ve been brainwashed to believe such unjustified argument. You are no different than the Christian who goes Bible-selling door to door. You are still working with action-at-a-distance and filling in the gaps with reified concepts. You call it ´science´ over there at the Math Monastery.
12. Physics deals with objects. In Physics, we do not move concepts. An object is that which has shape. We should be able to draw ANY object. The only reason the idiots of Math can´t draw their mathematical ´objects´ is that they are all reified concepts. The Math Morons pretend to do Physics by moving concepts around.
13. The idiot of Math transfers energy, moves masses, and carries forces. Not one mathematician on Earth can make a movie of such proposals. What would he put on the screen? What image would he stamp in each frame of the film? What are we staring at when the idiot says ´energy transfer´? WHAT physical object is it that is moving on the screen?
14. WHAT is ´it´ that is bonding during covalent bonding if not the reified CONCEPT ´orbital´? WHAT is ´it´ that the reified 0D photon is traveling on when the idiot of GR says that gravitational lensing proves that the reified CONCEPT space is warped? WHAT physical object is ´the´ reified CONCEPT ´force´ carrying during subatomic interaction?
What a bumbling fool! What a true lamebrain you are, fin! Is this what the priest rammed up your ass at the monastery?
.
What form does a concept have? Cubic? Spherical? In what way does YOUR God exist, bean brain? What do you mean by ´exist´? How can YOUR God exist if ´HE´ is a concept?
Not in Science! The word Universe is a concept and concepts canNOT be nouns. Not in Physics! Concepts are relations. You are barred from placing an article in front of a concept in Physics. A concept canNOT serve as the subject of a sentence. That´s only true in the religion of Mathematics.
19. Science is about explaining a theory rationally. If you can´t explain rationally, you are doing religion. You are invoking angels and God to get your theory forcefully through.
In order to explain rationally, you MUST define the strategic words that make or break YOUR theory.
20. “Why not go the whole Einsteinian hog and just say spacetime?”
Because the idiots of GR sometimes say that it is space and others that it is spacetime which warps. If it is spacetime, then I suppose that they mean that both space AND time warp. Therefore, since space is included, it doesn´t matter either way.
21. “Einstein spacetime... warp... he also proved it mathematically”
In Science, we neither prove nor use Mathematics. So whatever Pastor Al did does not concern Science. It only concerns religious idiots like you who believe in the existence of God and angels and do their ´physics´ with heavenly magic.
coordinate = vector = dimensions
You are using different definitions to confuse the watcher. First you invoke the mathematical definition.. then you invoke the colloquial definition in an attempt to make the establishment seem like it is acting surreptitiously... you are just stupid and can't follow.. the world needs ditch diggers too
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "coordinate = vector = dimensions"
There's no diff b/w a dimension, a coordinate and a vector?
.
"vectors are not always dynamic dimensions are not always static, and coordinates..."
Make up your mind, Xero! Either there's no diff or there is. It would help if you define each of these terms so that you don't confuse them.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "incorporate... dimensions of the house in the form of distances"
What does distance have to do with dimension?
.
"the world needs ditch diggers too"
I'm glad that gives you hope, Xero, because you certainly won't cut it in Science.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
"...dynamic dimensions..."
Bill, just give up on this idiot.
Theonedue 1 day ago
He doesn´t have a clue! He´s studying some BS in college. Xero´s already being molded on the Math Assembly Line.
bgaede 1 day ago
Yeah, society has been brainwashed to believe in athourity without thinking rationally and gets concepts and objects confused with one another. Btw, are you still going to post that video on E shell and rope touch?
Theonedue 21 hours ago
he's not being inconsistent... the definitions are isomorphic... get it through your thick skull
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
you obviously dont know what a magnitude is as defined by mathematics if you think that magnitude and direction are one in the same
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
did you notice that your picture of orthogonality had a number in it... just sayin.. you're guilty of the same crime "the mathematicians" are
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
your distinctions make no sense... vectors are not always dynamic dimensions are not always static, and coordinates can be used to represent either vectors or dimensions.
It makes the most sense if you're building a house to define a design space, where every point of that house is defined by it's coordinates in space relative to some origin. This allows you to incorporate the information about the dimensions of the house in the form of distances. what is so hard to understand? Idiot!
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
You keep mentioning scientists like Hawking are mixing up coordinates and dimensions, but you are the one misunderstanding. Take a meter stick and measure from a wall to any point. If you wanted to describe the measurement you'd have to give the coordinate. A coordinate is how Dimensions are described. When Hawking says coordinate he is talking about a point that has a measurement value. Numberlines are the only way to describe measurements. They are representative of the world so there values
TankFridaysSeacret2 1 month ago
@TankFridaysSeacret2 have REAL MEANING. I don't mean to reply to myself to finnish my sentence but there is so much wrong with this vid I could only talk about what is fundamentally wrong. When disagreeing with science don't pretend you're the one deciding what is science and what is not. So I have to ask, why do you mistrust the science that brought you the computer you posted this video with? Quantum Mechanics is based on relativity and spacetime is central to it. So why do electronics work?
TankFridaysSeacret2 1 month ago
Lol wow haha...
MarvelsofaLifetime 1 month ago
"haha..."
Yeah. Relativity is a laugh. It's even funnier that there are idiots who believe in such nonsense as black holes and wave-packets. These morons think of themselves as 'scientists' and 'physicists'. Absolutely ludicrous!
bgaede 1 month ago
Dear Youtube,
There is a "Like" button on this video.
Please fix this.
Tr3xKuro 1 month ago
Dude I've got to post this once because this is so obvious. .-.-.-. Look at what I just typed each measurement between each point represents a set distance. From point 1 to point 2 is 1 unit of distance from point 1 to 3 is 2 units of distance and so on. Whoever believes this video is lacking elementary school education.
Luigi84289 1 month ago
"each measurement between each point represents a set distance"
.
The idiots of your religion define distance as a length. Nevertheless, when you talk about 'units' you are not talking about distance, but about DISTANCE-TRAVELLED. Do you understand the difference b/w distance and distance-traveled or not, you stupid moron?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Good shot at trying to piss me off. It didn't work. This will be my last comment. My point has already been made.
Luigi84289 1 month ago
"This will be my last comment"
.
There is a God after all! Or I'm getting better at chasing the idiots off.
Anyway, bean brain. Come back when you can tell the diff b/w distance and distance-traveled.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede A unit specifies a length, and the number how many of those lengths. example, 1.25 meters is a meter of length multiplied by 1.25 The unit and number is a distance. Whether or not its "travelled" or not makes no difference. So why can't the circumference of the earth, about 40000km, be a distance? Does it not exist when described mathematically? Why do you think there is a difference between distance and your own made up term?
TankFridaysSeacret2 1 month ago
1. "Hawking... mixing up coordinates and dimensions..."
.
Is there no diff b/w a coordinate and a dimension? I thought the 3 dims were: length, width and height? I thought the 3 coo were: longitude, latitude and altitude? Do you understand the diff b/w height and altitude? B/w width and latitude? You don't seem to know the basics.
bgaede 1 month ago
2."When Hawking says coordinate he is talking about a point..."
.
Oh, that's great, Tank! I thought coordinates were used for location. Is a dot the same thing as location? I thought a dot was an object? I thought 'location' was a concept?
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/What-is-a-point
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "Numberlines are the only way to describe measurements"
You should try to take an introductory course in Physics, Tank. You not only confuse dim with coo but both of them with numberlines. Here's a primer...
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/05Dim/04SumDim html
"what is science and what is not"
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
bgaede 1 month ago
4. "science... brought you the computer... why do electronics work?"
.
Erm... you really need to take an intro course in Science before posting, Tank. Science and Technology are 2 diff disciplines. Science is about explaining phenomena. Technology is about developing gadgets by trial and error. You can play with 2 magnets and show how they can do things w/o understanding the underlying principles.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. Indeed, that's the case today. The idiots of Mathematics cannot tell you how a magnet PHYSICALLY attracts another one and then repels it when one of them is turned around. What is PHYSICALLY happening b/w the 2 magnets? The mathematicians DESCRIBE the magnetic field and do so with numbers. This is a far cry from Physics. In Physics, we MUST propose a mediator and rationally explain with it how the magnets do it...
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-9
bgaede 1 month ago
6. "number is a distance"
Only in the demented religion of Math. In Science, the word 'distance' refers to the QUALITATIVE separation b/w 2 objects.
bgaede 1 month ago
7. "Whether or not its "travelled" or not makes no difference"
Perhaps in the religion of Math! In Science, the QUALITATIVE separation b/w 2 objects is not the same as the itinerary, the motion needed to get from one to the other. In Mother Nature's world, distance is a photograph, a static concept. Distance-TRAVELED is a movie, a dynamic concept. If you don't understand the diff b/w location and motion, you really got a problem.
.
youstupidrelativist com/04Exist/04SumMot html
bgaede 1 month ago
8. "why can't the circumference of the earth, about 40000km, be a distance?"
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/03Dist/04Measure2 html (Sec. 2)
.
"Does it not exist"
What do you mean by 'exist'?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede so.. distance boils down to... duhhh it's short!
Everyone... if we listen to Bill Gayde, we will revert back to the stone age... everyone please flag his video's as inappropriate so they are viewed by as few people as possible
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
Wow, it really is funny how often it becomes about the source, how people need an authority a news media to legitimize it a name to be dropped like it had any function. People just really don't understand the basics of science in empirical evidence of rational usable kind. That these theorists require magically invented variables to make their theory consistent and through attempts to evidence them these dark matter inventions are shown not to exist yet people don't get that. WTF is with people.
MrCryospark 2 months ago
"these dark matter inventions"
.
In 1936, in his reply to Einstein's EPR thought experiment, Bohr declared Quantum to be a complete theory. Since that day, Quantum has continuously been working on 'more completeness'. The mathematicians invented particle after particle to try to plug holes in their complete theory. That wasn't so bad. It really got bad when the 'experts' created particles of concepts. Today, the LHC is smashing particles to discover the particle of mass... Now that's scary!
bgaede 2 months ago 2
E=mc2. Mass doesn't warp space time. Actually energy warps space time. because energy travels thru space time. Think of light condensing space time to nothing, Which is why time ceases at the speed of light. Perhaps [consider] that the tiny oscillations of energy called strings are actually warping the surrounding ST hence creating gravity. As there is no gravity without energy
mishigreene 2 months ago
"Mass doesn't warp space time... energy warps space time... energy travels"
.
What a moron! Please draw a picture of 'energy', bean brain. We would like to know WHAT it is that is traveling, too.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede mass and energy are equiv dummy. You conveniently forget einstein's famous e=mc2. Bill your entire hoax, your entire joke is that you conveniently leave out fundamentals, you make statements that sound profound but when analyzed are merely creative bullshit. You're a fraud. You know, I know it and real scientists know it. That is why you don't get time on NOVA or a passing word other than "hope he's on his meds." No I cannot draw energy but mass is ENERGY
mishigreene 2 months ago
"mass and energy are equiv"
Love = justice??? WTF does that mean, bean brain?
.
"No I cannot draw energy but mass is ENERGY"
.
Then draw mass, you fucking idiot! Or point to a picture of mass anywhere on the Internet.
What do you do 'phyz' with at the Math Monastery, idiot mish? Concepts?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede See people the nut even denies E=mc2 the equivalence between energy and mass, Bill. go on your merry way. Like Don Quixote chasing windmills. If it weren't for the fact that you are an ex-con trying to rip off the public by selling bullshit books this would all be funny. Your avarice is disgusting.
mishigreene 2 months ago
1. E=mc2
ego = moron crazy 2 ???
So what? What's this got to do with Science?
.
"Come to Stanford"
For what? To warm a seat? To listen to the Nobels brag about their medals and not be able to explain a simple magnet?
.
"My reason for being in here is to tell people do not follow this false messiah"
Because you have no other arguments. I mean, you said you couldn't draw energy because it is equal to mass. So draw mass!
bgaede 2 months ago
Respond to this video... Come to Stanford, take a class start with math for that is obviously your weakest area. I don't give two protons about you. My reason for being in here is to tell people do not follow this false messiah.
mishigreene 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede mass and energy are equiv dummy. You conveniently forget einstein's famous e=mc2. Bill your entire hoax, your entire joke is that you conveniently leave out fundamentals, you make statements that sound profound but when analyzed are merely creative bullshit. You're a fraud. You know, I know it and real scientists know it. That is why you don't get time on NOVA or a passing word other than "hope he's on his meds." No I cannot draw energy but mass is ENERGY
mishigreene 2 months ago
@bgaede E=mc2
ego = moron crazy 2 ???
So what? What's this got to do with Science?
I REST MY CASE! When e=mc2 is not science. as per Gaede, I REST MY CASE
mishigreene 2 months ago
"e=mc2 is not science"
.
Yes. Science is about explaining.An equation has no ability to explain anything. Equations were made to describe.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede split hairs old man that's all u do. you make no sense just argue splitting hairs. Those splits are meaningless carry on old man .Hawk your books. entice the masses. You know zero math little science. A waste of a potentially talented mind. Had you not been deported after fed prison for spying for the Soviets "you cudda been a contender." So sad.
mishigreene 2 months ago
just don't buy Gaede's books. All of this is his attempt to create a "buzz" and sell books. He spent time in US Fed prison. He sold computer secrets to the USSR thru Cuba. Mess with Bill Gaede all you wanr. Just don't buy his books, He's FOS anyway
mishigreene 2 months ago
Do whatever u want people just don't buy Gaede's books because all his Bull is just to sell hius crappola.
mishigreene 2 months ago
"Do whatever u want people"
.
Hey, mish! You came back! I knew it!
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Hey Bill you dumb fraud. Watch PBS wed Nov 9 9pm est Briane Greene on "time" Hang in there maybe you'll learn something
mishigreene 2 months ago
@bgaede Prof Susskind says hello. Wants to know if the new meds are helping
mishigreene 2 months ago
"Watch... Briane Greene... Prof Susskind says"
.
What can these poor folk explain, mish? Can they tell you how a magnet physically attracts another? Can they tell you what agent comes up against the skin of a pen and causes it to fall to the ground?
.
Dear Newt used angels to push planets around the Sun. Greene and Suss invoke warped space. Where have the mathematicians made progress? What have you learned? Please flaunt your knowledge.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede The bullshit that you produce warps ST around the pen which cause the pen to squirt ink in an orgasmic frenzy and falls to the ground exhausted
mishigreene 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Is time only just the relationships between the way different things change, like the earth going round the sun and atoms vibrating and clocks ticking and day and night and waking up and going to sleep?
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
Comment removed
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
Comment removed
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
Comment removed
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
Comment removed
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
finlarg, do you know what TIME is?
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
@redmapleleaf It's the way we measure the sequence of events, duration, chronology and hisory. It's something we take for granted, so it's hard to describe in different words.
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg So time is only just our subjective measurement of how things change relative to us?
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
@redmapleleaf Sort of. But it's also worth noting that synchronising watches only works on a local scale. Two events cannot be simultaneious if they are more than a few thousand miles apart, at least not in such a way that observers at each location can agree upon. The speed of light can also be thought of as a time delay. If you were to speak to someone on the moon by radio, there would be a 2.6 second time delay. Light and radio waves take the same amount of 'time' to travel large distances.
finlarg 3 months ago
Comment removed
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
Can anyone answer this question-Just WHAT is time?
redmapleleaf 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
people that stand behind modern mythematical physics are stupid math cannot explain the universe math is only good for making measurements everything else like black wholes strings quarks and voodoo science is absolute bullshit and intellectual mental masterbation and pseudo gnosis i implore you all to stop filling your minds with so much filth like quantum new age nonsence!! GOOD DAY
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 I would bet a lot of money (if I had it) that if you were to sit a basic physics exam you wouldn't do very well!
Many of the laws of physics boil down to simple equations. To insinuate that maths tarnishes physics in any way is laughable!
What does quantum mechanics have to do with new age anyway?
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg emm k pal what is the equation for life and consciousness? it not that i hate science its just that i see both its and religions short coming people like kaku and hawking are mentally perverted and retarded the reason why is cause the system that they use is reductionist and instead of studying nature they invente hypothetical myths like string or black holes in short they provide no substance to they're nonsence and totally ignore nature and her superior processes.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 I don't know if there is such a thing and I didn't suggest that there was.
Kaku and Hawking don't pull their theories out of a hat like a cheap conjuring trick. They are extrapolated from a detailed understanding of all that has been learned about the universe so far. I'm not saying string theory is right (I don't know) but black holes DO exist. There is something at the centre of our galaxy which fits the description of a black hole. You might not like it, but it's there!
finlarg 3 months ago
"if you were to sit a basic physics exam you wouldn't do very well!"
You're not doing so hot yourself, fin!
.
"the laws of physics boil down to simple equations"
See what I mean? In Physics, we don't use equations. At all!
.
"What does quantum mechanics have to do with new age anyway?"
Yeah! What does QM have to do with Science?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede So you deny that F=ma has ANYTHING to do with physics?
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg sure pal just like fairs or a monsters are in my closet miss me with that bullshit ok look find a REAL picture of a galaxy then look at it real hard tell me you see a black whole don't go pulling that lame quackedimic crap out of your ass please black holes are myths just like string theory and 4d space time myths and pseudo knowledge just like the big bang. the universe just like gaia is a living entitie.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 I'm sorry that you are beyond reasoning. Why bother trying to understand the universe when you can follow pseudoscientists and dismiss the study of reality?
Let's assume black holes are an imaginary concept: Could you describe one? Without google or wikipedia, could you give me a brief description, off the top of your head?
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg why it has no tacital or concret existence and to answer that a black hole is a hypothetical entitie thats invisible sucks up light and matter through a gravitational force but like i said they and quarks super strings and membranes don't have any concret physical existence so i'd implore you to study real science would you prefure a fantasy over reality if you would then thats down right sad and pathetic i have no sympathy 4 u when u take a lie over truth.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1
1. OK. So do you understand that the speed of light is finite? Are you aware of the Michelson and Morley experiment? Have you thought about the implications of that experiment?
YOU implore ME to study real science...!!!?
How do YOU discern what is true and what is a lie?
Seriously dude, which one of us is calling the other sad and pathetic? Think about it! If you want to overthrow science, learn some first. I used to be like you, but I read and studied a LOT and guess what?
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg emm k pal sure list the books you study ok.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1
2. I changed my mind! I slowly began to realise that the Einsteins of this world were a LOT smarter than me, and not only that, I started to learn HOW and WHY this is so. It's easy to dismiss something you don't understand very well. I'm not trying to force you round to my way of thinking, I'm trying to help.
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg thank for trying to help but hope you get around to studing plasma cosmology and the electric universe and also einsten wasn't a real scientist he was a mythmatician who used his imagenation to concoct nonsence that has no baurings in reality the universes light doesn't travel in a straight line it travels in spirals. sorry but mainstream science is moronic and mentally retarded nonsence and it only grows more obsured like malcolm x said make it plain which science doesn't.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 Einstein was a patent clerk who played around with physics AND maths in his spare time. He stumbled upon and described in detail the nature of space, time and gravity. His predictions have been proven correct many times over. Gravitational lensing and GPS are two things off the top of my head which FULLY backup relativity. Unless you have a better explanation which incorporates all the evidence, then the chances are that you've gone down a pseudiscientific cul-de-sac.
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg are you retarded look this up "Einstein is Wrong - Falsifying Observational Evidence Part 1 ".
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 Of course I'm not retarded, but you seem more interested in talking and criticizing than listening!
finlarg 3 months ago
@finlarg sorry for that didn't mean to offend you just look at the video ok.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
@TheLovesoul1 Don't worry, I've got thick skin!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "Einstein... described in detail the nature of space, time and gravity"
a. In Science, we don´t do descriptions. In Science, we do explanations.
b. Pastor Al´s descriptions require irrational entities: warped space and 0D photons. Therefore, they have no place in Science.
.
"His predictions have been proven correct"
a. In Science, we don´t do predictions. Predictions are what the astrologers do.
b. In Science, we don´t prove. In Science, we explain.
c. ´Correct´ means YOUR opinion.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨Gravitational lensing and GPS... FULLY backup relativity¨
.
You have to be quite gullible to believe in such nonsense, fin. Gravitational lensing relies on warped space which is an irrational proposal. The fact that you can´t draw warped space debunks your religion.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. And GPS is simply a tweeking of a clock. It doesn´t prove that space is a physical object. In Science, drawing warped space is the only test for an object. It is a mandatory requirement of the Scientific Method.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/02Exhibit html
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "And GPS is simply a tweeking of a clock..."
Oh boy, you should read up on this before making such proclamations, if only to save yourself embarrassment!
"It doesn´t prove that space is a physical object..."
Who said space is a physical object? By your rationale: force, energy, light, motion, time and temperature must all be non-scientific and have no bearing on your 'understanding' of physics.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede So how come gravitational lensing has been predicted, then observed and then photographed?
Einstein wrote about the curvature of spacetime. Your simplification of 'warped space' is straw-manning. So is the way you repeatedly describe science as a religion. So is the way you call astrophysicists astrologers.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Oh come on now, are you seriously saying you can't tell the difference between making a prediction and fortune telling?
My opinion doesn't enter into it. Multiple experimental results CAN and DO back up the spacetime hypothesis.
finlarg 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
truth hurt you eistein hero worshiping idiots.
TheLovesoul1 3 months ago
Hawkings is not a physicist (a person that deals in reality).
His mind no longer functions properly.It is suspected that he is used to sell phony books for profit.
ElectricSparq 3 months ago
"His mind no longer functions properly."
What do you mean 'no longer'?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede
As soon as someone tries to juggle the metaphysical stuff known as relativist theory his mind goes in circles and the person has problems discerning fiction from reality.
Some of these people have taken gedanken too far.
ElectricSparq 3 months ago
i honestly can not tell if you (the uploader) are a troll or just stupid. He seems to forget completely that Hawking is PHYSICIST (as is the science) and ignores the fact that Hawkings book is written for the layperson and thus uses more ordinary language in order to be accessible. If you want to rip on the actual theory of space-time then find a physics textbook. I am sure that you must have a physics textbook considering how sure of yourself you are.
Disanthrophobia 3 months ago
1. "Hawking is PHYSICIST"
A physicist understands the diff b/w a coordinate and a dimension.
.
"Hawkings book is written for the layperson"
All of Physics is written for the lay person. If a layman does not understand, it is not Physics (Vid 6). Einstein: "You should be able to explain Physics to a barmaid." Feynman: "If you cannot explain it simply, YOU do not understand it!"
bgaede 3 months ago
2. So in what way is the official super duper scholarly version of Relativity diff from what this idiot Hawking wrote in his book? Hawking claims, inter alia, that:
a. Big Bang was produced from energy
b. the surface of the Earth is 2D
c. there are objects out there known as black holes
d. time is a dimension and can be stretched
bgaede 3 months ago
3. So, obviously, he's a demented moron! Right? Which means that he needs to be locked away in a padded cell. I mean, how stupid can he be? How is the poppycock that he writes in his book diff from the official version of Relativity and Quantum?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Given that you are quoting Feynman to support your own claims, how do you reconcile the fact that he agreed with the spacetime hypothesis? Was he an idiot too?
finlarg 3 months ago
"you are quoting Feynman... Was he an idiot too?"
Non sequitur! I've quoted Einstein, Schrodinger, Wheeler, and others in positive contexts.
.
An idiot is he who holds irrational beliefs or presents irrational theories. I defined the word 'idiot' before I used it. Idiot is an objective criterion, not my opinion...
.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0004Horgan html
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I don't think my comment was a non-sequitur, but I do think that you exhibit an extreme form of cherry picking. Describing a person (Einstein no less) as a 'fucking idiot' in one comment and then quoting the same man favourably in another comment, does little to inspire confidence in the veracity of your assertions. It's a bit like a kid who pisses into a juice bottle and then drinks from it!
finlarg 3 months ago
"Describing a person (Einstein no less) as a 'fucking idiot' in one comment and then quoting the same man favourably in another comment"
Yes. In Science, we do not trust in authority like they do in the religion of Math. We don't believe everything the alleged expert says after he won the Nobel. In Science, we analyze each claim separately. If the guy says something rational he gets credit for it. If he says something stupid, he is treated with the respect that his comment garnered.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "In Science, we..."
How many times have you written that, followed by a string of assertions?
The great about the great scientists is that they recognise that some aspects of physics CAN be explained mathematically. You might not like it, but that's how it IS! Another thing about the great scientists is their humility, and willingness to be proven wrong. You, on the other hand exhibit bucket-fulls of arrogance and pour scorn on others freely. Hardly a recipe for balanced enquiry!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "How many times have you written that"
I don't count them, fin. But you're welcome to keep track of them if you are into stamp collecting.
Rutherford: "All science is either physics or stamp collecting."
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "physics CAN be explained mathematically"
Math can ONLY describe. Math has no power or authority to explain. Here's Bishop Simanek of the Church of Math Phyz, fin: "Math Phyz doesn't answer why questions, it only answers how questions. Math Phyz doesn't explain; Math Phyz describes." web.ipac.caltech edu/staff/jarrett/LiU/resource/misused_glossary html
You should learn the fundamentals of your religion before posting.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Another thing about the great scientists is their humility"
Yeah. Here's an example of how humble the mathematicians are...
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0004Horgan html
.
And what is more commendable is that they spread their humility to all the peer review boards.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "proven wrong"
In Science, we don't prove anything. In Science, we merely explain. Proof means that YOU made up YOUR mind. Proof is a personal matter. And 'wrong' is an OPINION, specifically, YOUR opinion. You can believe that God has been proven and that everyone who doesn't believe in your God is wrong for all that Science cares.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "bucket-fulls of arrogance and pour scorn on others freely"
.
Yes, that characterizes the mathematical establishment pretty well, fin.
.
youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
.
"balanced enquiry"
So I should take pointers from the mathematicians, huh? After all, they balance dissidents against their proposals and inexplicably always end up choosing and publishing their proposals.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Your selective quoting of my comments is amusingly childish!
If a 'dissident' like yourself comes up with some half-baked pseudoscience, don't be so upset when it fails to be acknowledged by the experts. If a 'dissident' makes a truly groundbreaking NEW discovery then it WILL be recognised. It has to be based on solid foundations though...
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "Science... striving to... understand how things work in the universe"
Science does. Unfortunately, the mathematicians are in charge of regulating 'science' and they have no interest whatsoever to find out how things work. They would rather engage in fantastic and irrational explanations.
"All enquiries are evaluated and recorded"
Absolutely not! But more importantly, they are censored so that the public doesn't get to hear them.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Your selective quoting of my comments is amusingly childish!"
Well, I'm glad it humors you, fin.
.
"If a 'dissident' makes a truly groundbreaking NEW discovery then it WILL be recognised"
How do you expect it to be recognized if the peers censor it as soon as it becomes obvious to them that the proposal contradicts their religion?
.
"It has to be based on Math Phyz foundations though"
See what I mean!
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede No I don't see what you mean. You are the one invoking your 'math phyz' in order to denigrate anyone who disagrees with your personal re-defined version of physics and science. Meanwhile the rest of the world is engaged in the fascinating exploration of this awesome universe!
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede I admit that making large numbers of people aware of new ideas is hard, especially if you don't hold formal qualifications in the field you're writing about. I'm not convinced that the censorship is as blatant as you seem to think.
I have two questions I'd be grateful if you could address:
1: Are you aware of Maurice Cotterell?
2: Do you spend much time looking for flaws in your own work?
finlarg 3 months ago
"spend much time looking for flaws in your own work?"
That´s what YT is for. People of all kinds come to criticize. A handful raise some valid issues.
.
"Maurice Cotterell"
And I quote: "radiation... energy...... gravitational forces...pull ....... instantaneous... force" Therefore, MC does not understand the Scientific Method and his language is irrational. Anyone who has taken Physics at the BG School spots these fatal errors immediately.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Only a handful?
Maurice Cotterell, like you, thinks he has a better explanation for much of physics, including gravity and relativity. You are different, way more arrogant, but in some ways similar!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. ¨Maurice Cotterell, like you, thinks he has a better explanation for much of physics... You are different, way more arrogant, but in some ways similar!¨
.
Only to a superficial reader like you, fin. Science is about EXPLAINING. Therefore, the first thing a scientist does is get the language straight. MC hasn´t done that. He still talks about energy, radiation, time, mass, and other irrational words. Until you train your eye to spot the snake oil, it will be all the same to you and him.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨Your simplification of 'warped space' is straw-manning¨
Oh, I´m sorry to have misrepresented and distorted GR. Please explain in your own words what Einstein claimed was the reason for Mercury not drifting out of the SS. If you don´t come up with an alternative in your next post, then let´s agree that YOU are the one who is straw-manning.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨Who said space is a physical object?¨
YOU, you stupid idiot! Don´t you even understand the idiocy of YOUR religion? Why don´t you learn about YOUR religion before posting?
Doesn´t this lamebrain Einstein say that space is warped? Doesn´t he also say that gravity can bend time? You never heard of any of that?
.
So what are YOU warping? What is this ´gravity well´ that prevents Mercury from leaving the Sun? Please draw ´it´.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨force, energy... time and temperature must all be non-scientific and have no bearing on... physics¨
.
You´re learning, fin! Good for you! In Physics, we don´t deal with or move concepts.
bgaede 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede Once again, you're taking my words out of context, and you know it.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede My understanding of science does NOT equal religion, no matter how many times you assert otherwise.
Einstein claimed that space and time are SPACETIME and that IT is CURVED by objects with mass. You never heard of any of that?
No-one said that Mercury should LEAVE the sun... What are you talking about? The shifting of Mercury's perihelion is accounted for by general relativity.
finlarg 3 months ago
1. ¨Why do you insist on only recognising physical 'objects'? Forces are an integral part of physics¨
It is religious zealots like you who believe that you can reify and move concepts. There is no physical object in Physics called ´force´. In Physics, only objects have the property of motion. I don´t care what the monks made you memorize at the monastery. Can´t move love. Can´t throw justice. Can´t transfer energy! Can´t carry ´a´ force.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨I didn't say that he explained the CAUSES¨
Not rationally at least! Therefore, Pastor Al was not a scientist because that´s what scientists do: explain causes rationally.
.
¨his calculations helped to predict¨
Erm... that´s astrology, fin. We don´t prophesize or read palms in Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨that comes accross as a disdain for mathematicians¨
For mathematicians who call themselves ´physicists´, yes. For Math itself, no.
.
¨energy cannot be created or destroyed¨
Agreed. Energy is a concept. We neither physically create nor destroy concepts.
.
youstupidrelativist com/04Exist/01Z2Z3Indestruct html
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨energy... CAN be converted into matter¨
Matter is a word we use to designate all the objects that exist. How do you convert the CONCEPT ´energy´ into an object at your monastery? How does nothing spontaneously acquire LW+H?
bgaede 3 months ago
5. ¨you don't acknowledge the existence of anything which can't be drawn on a piece of paper?¨
Not exactly! Let´s get it right. An object is that which has shape. But not all objects exist. Only those objects which have location may be said to exist. If God wants to exist, God must first be an object. But that condition alone is insufficient. Donald Duck also has shape, yet lacks location. If God wants to exist, God must in addition be able to have distance wrt every atom in the U.
bgaede 3 months ago
6. ¨That must pose some serious limitations¨
None at all! But you are welcome to propose an example. The scientific definition of ´exist´ (physical presence) is foolproof.
.
¨SS, solar system?¨
Yes. What physical object comes up against the skin of Mercury and inhibit this rock from leaving the Solar System, fin? Do you have an answer or not?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I already addressed your mercury question, but in case you missed it, here it is again, in more detail:
Mercury is held in it's orbit by gravity. Just like all the other planets, moons, comets and asteroids. Why SHOULD it leave the solar system? Where did you get that bizarre idea from?
finlarg 3 months ago
1. ¨Astrologers and mathematicians DO make predictions¨
Yes. And palm readers do too.
.
¨If they turn out to be wrong the hypothesis is discarded¨
That´s interesting. In the old days, the kings would execute the mathematicians whose prophecies were proved to be wrong.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨If they turn out to be correct the investigation continues¨
.
Well, the predictions that space is warped and that an atom consists of an electron bead orbiting the proton bowling ball turned out to be wrong and yet the mathematicians continue to believe in GR and QM as if nothing. Therefore, the mathematicians don´t even follow their standard: Popperian falsifiability.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨my position is VERY different from that of a religious person¨
Is that what your priest told you, fin? Traditional religions such as Islam and Christianity believe in supernatural agents (God, angels, Devil, spirits, ghosts). Idiots like you believe in irrational agents, in reified objects (warped space, black hole, dark energy, 0D particle, 1D string), So it´s not really that different, but I guess you could make a case for it.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨Ever heard of E=mc*2?¨
.
Yes. Einstein ´discovered´ that the CONCEPT ´energy´ converts into the CONCEPT ´mass´. Great! That´s like saying that love turns into justice or that X turns into Y. What have we learned about the physical world? Please draw a picture of both energy and mass and show how one of them morphs into the other.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. ¨L,W and H are flexible concepts? Material objects tend to expand when heated¨
.
What an idiot! Make the rock of any size. It´s LW+H will remain the same. LW+H are QUALITATIVE concepts. When we say that the elephant is 3D (i.e., has LW+H) this description has no numbers, no magnitude attached to it.
bgaede 3 months ago
6. You confuse the NUMBER LINES the idiots of your religion use to represent measurement with the QUALITATIVE (i.e., physical) notion that dimensions are supposed to be. The reason idiots like you end up placing time perpendicular to width on Feynman diagrams is that you treat the dimensions of Physics as number lines. You confuse parallel, meridian, and radius (QUANTITATIVE) with length, width and height (QUALITATIVE).
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨God doesn't enter into it. I think He is a concept¨
,
What a moron you are, fin! So your pastor told you that ´HE -- a guy with two eyes, two legs, and two nuts -- is a CONCEPT??? ´HE´ looks more like an OBJECT! Perhaps if God were a synonym of love, intelligence, grace, the Spirit, then ´HE´ would qualify as a concept! You don´t even know the fundamentals to discuss religion. I suppose the you consider yourself a concept too, huh? Is that why they refer to you as ´HE´?
bgaede 3 months ago
8. ¨the universe can be measured with respect to a fixed background¨
.
The word Universe is a CONCEPT. There is no physical object in Physics called ´the´Universe! The word Universe refers to BOTH space and matter (and I´ll pitch in there the EM ropes which interconnect all atoms, what the idiots of your religion call ´energy´).
bgaede 3 months ago
9. However, Mother Nature doesn´t recognize space. Space is a synonym of nothing: that which has no shape. MN does her daily tricks with atoms. She isn´t even aware of space. We converted space into an ocean, a physical object. It is the idiots of Math who in order to peddle their religion decided to convert space into a medium and to argue that space is warped and that the planets and photons roll down the depressions of space. MN will have none of such poppycock.
bgaede 3 months ago
10. ¨Do you believe that distances are... quantities¨
a. In Science, we don´t believe. In Science, we define the word ´distance´. Whatever conclusions we draw from our theories must be consistent with this definition.
b. In your religion, distance is a quantity??? WTF? What can that possibly mean? Distance is the QUALITATIVE separation b/w two surfaces. Distance has no numeridal values attached to it.
bgaede 3 months ago
11. Perhaps you are confusing the QUALITATIVE distance of Physics with the QUANTITATIVE ´distance-traveled´ of the religion of Math?
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-3
bgaede 3 months ago
12. ¨Mercury is held in it's orbit by gravity¨
.
What a true, unadulterated idiot you are, fin! The Q we´re trying to answer is, ´WHAT is gravity?´ and a stupid moron like you tells the crowd that gravity is gravity. That´s just great!
bgaede 3 months ago
13. Gravity is a concept. Gravity refers to an unidentified AGENT that mediates attraction b/w celestial objects and b/w all atoms. We want to understand how MN does this invisible trick. Here´s the Q again. Let´s see if you can at least understand the Q. Forget about the answer...
bgaede 3 months ago
14. WHAT physical object prevents Mercury from drifting out of the SS? Is it the curved wall of warped space as Pastor Einstein says? Is it a bunch of swarming particles together lumped into another concept known as ´field´? Is it that the Sun pelts Merk with negative-momentum-carrying graviton stones as QM holds? Please explain the physical mechanism of gravity!
bgaede 3 months ago
15. ¨Why SHOULD it leave the solar system?¨
.
Well, if a boy swings a ball around his head at the end of a string, we can understand WHY the ball does not fly out of its orbit. Cut the string and the ball flies centrifugally. When the croupier throws the tiny ball around the roulette, we can understand why the ball stays within its orbit. There is a wall preventing its departure from the system. Getting the hang of this, fin? It´s called Physics.
bgaede 3 months ago
16. Let´s now try it with Merk. Why does Merk orbit the Sun? Is it that it is tied to the Sun by a gigantic string? Is it that a warped wall of space extends along its orbit like Einstein proposed? Do you have any notion of Physics at all? It´s absolutely ridiculous that I have to explain such a simple Q to anybody. You must have a very low IQ, fin.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Low IQ? Einstein did not propose a 'warped wall of space'. Mercury, or any other planet, travels along a geodesic THROUGH spacetime, or in other words it takes the most direct route, which happens to be an elliptical path around the sun. The gravitational 'pull' from the sun combined with it's kinetic energy keeps it in a stable orbit.
Yes I do have a basic grasp of physics Bill, otherwise I wouldn't be responding to you here!
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede "Well, if a boy swings a ball around his head at the end of a string, we can understand WHY the ball does not fly out of its orbit. Cut the string and the ball flies centrifugally..." -in a parabolic arc, UNTIL it hits the ground. The force of gravity quickly takes over from the force that the boy exerts, when swinging the ball.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede Your question: "WHAT physical object prevents Mercury from drifting out of the SS?"
Why do you insist on there being a 'physical object'? Forces interact with matter. Gravity appears to be the result of the curvature of spacetime. I don't know if this is THE most accurate description, but it's a damn good approximation.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede You say gravity is merely a concept. I say gravity is a force.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede Idiot again? You asked what prevented mercury from leaving the solar system, not what IS gravity. Gravity is an attractive force between objects with mass.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede Why are you attempting to hi-jack the word physics? If the vast majority of humanity agrees on the definition of physics, who are YOU to say they're wrong?
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede The vast majority of the English speaking population understand the word distance to refer to the quantity of units between one thing and another thing: The distance between your ears is approximately 6 inches. I'm not going to try to describe what resides between those two objects!
On what authority do YOU re-define the word distance?
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede You keep talking about 'warped space'. Why not go the whole Einsteinian hog and just say spacetime? That is how he referred to his discovery and that is how reality appears to be. Not only did he describe it conceptually, but he also proved it mathematically. You might not like it, but there is mathematics within physics.
finlarg 2 months ago
1. “It's widely known that drawing a picture of an atom is a futile excercise. Atoms are so tiny that to zoom in and SEE one in detail is impossible.”
.
You missed the point altogether. The idiots of the religion of Quantum have obligation to reconcile THEIR proposed atom with THEIR theory. Science demands that the theory follow from the hypothesis, which includes illustrating THEIR atom.
bgaede 2 months ago
2. The stupid, idiotic mathematician draws a proton bowling ball in the center and puts a hula hoop around it. Then he places an electron bead on this ring.
.
legacyweb.triumf ca/welcome/h-fusion html
brooklyn.cuny edu/bc/ahp/SDgraphics/PSgraphics/SD.PS.LG.Hydrogen html
bgaede 2 months ago
3. Next, the Math Moron tells you that that is not really his atom. His atom actually looks more like a cloud surrounding the proton ball.
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Atom
mhhe com/physsci/astronomy/fix/student/chapter16/16f07 html
bgaede 2 months ago
4. Then, he explains ionization and electricity with the discrete e- bead model.
osha gov/SLTC/radiationionizing/introtoionizing/ionization html
.
And finally he explains covalent bonding with orbitals and tells you that electrons are BOTH particles AND waves.
chemistryland com/CHM151S/09-CovalentBonds/Covalent html
bgaede 2 months ago
5. So the explanation has NOTHING to do with the atom the idiot presented at the start of his prez. To make matters worse, the stupid, idiotic moron tells you that he has proof of his atom because he has taken pictures of it.
.
apesir com/mechanical-engineering/solid-state-structure
bgaede 2 months ago
6. Yet, the pictures don´t look anything like a bead orbiting a nucleus that they pointed to at the start of their prez. They look exactly like the model proposed by the Rope Hypothesis instead (Fig 3).
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-8
bgaede 2 months ago
7. So, yes. Anyone who believes in the poppycock proposed by Quantum has to be executed. He has no right to live, let alone to have an opinion. He needs to learn the fundamentals of Physics.
bgaede 2 months ago
8. “We still have a lot to learn.”
You haven´t learned anything, you stupid moron! Until you can RATIONALLY explain gravity, electromagnetic phenomena, atomic behavior and other invisible workings of Mother Nature, you could just as well invoked angels. In fact, angels are higher on the scale of rationality than Quantum. We can at least imagine an angel. We can´t imagine warped space or 0D wave-particles.
bgaede 2 months ago
9. “HOW different my position is from religion”
You´ve been brainwashed to believe such unjustified argument. You are no different than the Christian who goes Bible-selling door to door. You are still working with action-at-a-distance and filling in the gaps with reified concepts. You call it ´science´ over there at the Math Monastery.
bgaede 2 months ago
10. “have some of your hypotheses properly tested”
In Science, we don´t test hypotheses. We formulate them. It´s a mandatory step of the Sci Meth.
.
Youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/00SumHyp html
bgaede 2 months ago
11. “every natural process is translatable into something Mr Gaede can draw on a piece of paper with a crayon”
Yes! If you cannot draw it, if you cannot make a movie of it, it doesn´t belong in Science, let alone in Physics.
bgaede 2 months ago
12. Physics deals with objects. In Physics, we do not move concepts. An object is that which has shape. We should be able to draw ANY object. The only reason the idiots of Math can´t draw their mathematical ´objects´ is that they are all reified concepts. The Math Morons pretend to do Physics by moving concepts around.
bgaede 2 months ago
13. The idiot of Math transfers energy, moves masses, and carries forces. Not one mathematician on Earth can make a movie of such proposals. What would he put on the screen? What image would he stamp in each frame of the film? What are we staring at when the idiot says ´energy transfer´? WHAT physical object is it that is moving on the screen?
bgaede 2 months ago
14. WHAT is ´it´ that is bonding during covalent bonding if not the reified CONCEPT ´orbital´? WHAT is ´it´ that the reified 0D photon is traveling on when the idiot of GR says that gravitational lensing proves that the reified CONCEPT space is warped? WHAT physical object is ´the´ reified CONCEPT ´force´ carrying during subatomic interaction?
bgaede 2 months ago
15. “If we're talking about a rock here then it will remain roughly the same shape when heated”
What an idiot you are, fin! The Q is NOT, ´What is the shape of...?´. The Q is, ´Does it have shape?´ It´s a yes or no type of Q.
bgaede 2 months ago
16. “God exists... in the form of a concept”
What a bumbling fool! What a true lamebrain you are, fin! Is this what the priest rammed up your ass at the monastery?
.
What form does a concept have? Cubic? Spherical? In what way does YOUR God exist, bean brain? What do you mean by ´exist´? How can YOUR God exist if ´HE´ is a concept?
bgaede 2 months ago
17. “The universe is a noun”
Not in Science! The word Universe is a concept and concepts canNOT be nouns. Not in Physics! Concepts are relations. You are barred from placing an article in front of a concept in Physics. A concept canNOT serve as the subject of a sentence. That´s only true in the religion of Mathematics.
bgaede 2 months ago
18. “bogged down with semantics”
Sorry that Science is too tedious for you, fin. You should have gone for a masters in cooking and sewing.
bgaede 2 months ago
19. Science is about explaining a theory rationally. If you can´t explain rationally, you are doing religion. You are invoking angels and God to get your theory forcefully through.
In order to explain rationally, you MUST define the strategic words that make or break YOUR theory.
bgaede 2 months ago
20. “Why not go the whole Einsteinian hog and just say spacetime?”
Because the idiots of GR sometimes say that it is space and others that it is spacetime which warps. If it is spacetime, then I suppose that they mean that both space AND time warp. Therefore, since space is included, it doesn´t matter either way.
bgaede 2 months ago
21. “Einstein spacetime... warp... he also proved it mathematically”
In Science, we neither prove nor use Mathematics. So whatever Pastor Al did does not concern Science. It only concerns religious idiots like you who believe in the existence of God and angels and do their ´physics´ with heavenly magic.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Another woefully ignorant comment, you've outdone yourself Mr Gaede!
finlarg 2 months ago