If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that there are two types of vortexes, free vortexes and forced vortexes, neither of which forms anything resembling a double helix. You make sweeping generalizations about stuff you dont understand at all. Fluids either flow in the laminar or turbulent regime, there is a transition regime as well. Turbulent flow is chaotic, it doesnt look like a helix of any kind. And i know you just threw together a google seach to quote something ahhaha noob
@nubian377 yes lol... obviously it flows like a spiral... but a spiral is not a double helix... so your bill gayde analogy to his idiotic hypothesis was not apt. And dont knock my vocabulary just because you dont understand it you idiot. How about you just stick to flipping burgers... and yes i would like fries with that
@Xero555000 Zero..did they not teach you english in the mental institution you are housed in? Do you not understand what a simile is? What do you understand by the words "rope-like" or "like intertwined ropes" ?? Such an oaf.
@nubian377 i wouldnt consider a tornado to move in a "rope like" pattern, you cant replace the word spiral with rope because it fit's Gayde's hypothesis. If you idiots cant use words consistently then you can't chastise real scientists for the same thing. Even though they arnt being inconsistent in the first place. Oh well, the world needs ditch diggers too, have fun with your psuedo intellectual phase
btw perhaps the planets move round the sun in the manner of a rope - intertwined paths. In fact this rope-like motion is common to nature: water, tornadoes, DNA..all act like that.
If this is true, then it means blood, which is very much like water, also moves like intertwined ropes. It pulses as it moves.............thus the heart may not be a pump after all. All the puzzles are getting connected. The medical profession may have to revise their findings as well.
@nubian377 Mental rehab classes? Idk what those are, but i know you cant fix stupid. Have you studied fluid mechanics? Because I havem neither blood nor any fluid for that matter, doesnt flow in a helical pattern. You, just like you beloved Bill Gayde, are twisting the facts to suit your own idiotic theories.
lol virtually all natural fluids in their natural environments, travel in a double spiral manner, creating vortices. Water flows in spirals and forms vortices. The heart, which scientists say, supposedly pumps blood, has muscles that interwine to form spirals/ropes. With regards to the heart, go read this:
Marinelli, R. 1989. "The Spinning Heart and Vortexing Blood," Newsletter of the Society for the Evolution of Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 20-41.
@bgaede only DNA is rope-like out of the ones you depicted... just because they spiral doesnt mean you can draw some sort of parallel. Further, if you knew anything about DNA, you would realize that they have major and minor curves, they are not a perfect double helix... how can you have been on this earth so much longer than me and know so little about it
@Xero555000 Give me a summary, i'm not spending money on your idiotic book. I hope that you die as quickly as possible so any money that I would give you would simply be giving another spoonful of gruel to the braindead cancer victim. You'll never bring anything of value to this world, you don't even bring joy. You should really just kill yourself. Now explain polarization, dont give me numbers EXPLAIN thats what you SAY you're good at
@bgaede your paper does not reconcile the architecture of light with polarization. The establishment does. Your explanation give a hand-wavy argument at best. You then go on to say blah blah blah "this is beyond the scope of this paper" IT"S A SCIENTIFIC PAPER!!! If you're explanation is beyond the scope of a piece of scientific literature... then you're not doing science anymore. Explain polarization with reference to the architecture of light in your hypothesis.. you're still not off the hook
1. "your paper does not reconcile the architecture of light with polarization"
.
Again, you have a mental block in there somewhere, Xero. The paper clearly explains how the rope carries out the miracle called polarization. Conversely, you canNOT explain polarization with particles without invoking magic.
"A SECOND EFFECT...", you moron! You really got a problem in readin', let alone in learnin'! Maybe that's how you ended up being such a dumbass. You read superficially.
3. "IT"S A SCIENTIFIC PAPER!!! If you're explanation is beyond the scope of a piece of scientific literature"
You should read more often. Many journal articles say that certain topics are beyond the scope of the instant paper because they are not the central issue or because the explanation would take ten more pages. Many papers in the literature also say that more research must be done to resolve such and such matter. Are they perchance unscientific because the author left an open end?
@bgaede no... it doesnt. It addresses that polarization exists and then you make some hand wavy statement about how all the atoms are connected coo coo ka choo! and then you go TA DA!!! alright lets go on to gravity... rinse and repeat. How many dicks did you have to suck to get this one through peer review? You did not address how something with perfect rotational symmetry can be polarized. Your model is not up to snuff... try again!
"You did not address how something with perfect rotational symmetry can be polarized."
Rotational, smational! When you rotate the second polarizer wrt the first one, the ropes go in a diff direction. The ropes now torque along a diff direction than when the polarizers were parallel to each other. What part are you having trouble with?
@bgaede then it's not a "torsion" a torsion is simply a rotation of your "rope" along its axis of elongation. You can't polarize a torsion because it rotates! How does the polarizer know that some of those torsions are oriented one way and other are not. They are all spiraling willy-nilly. You havent explained the first polarizer so dont start talking about the second one. How can the polarizer select for some "torsions" and not others.
2. "some of those torsions are oriented one way and other are not"
.
You got it more or less! But it's the ropes which are oriented one way or the other. You'll understand the day you can distinguish b/w a rope and torquing.
3. "How can the polarizer select for some "torsions" and not others"
It doesn't. Each atom of the source of light is connected to each atom comprising the 1st P. These atoms (actually, entire molecules) RELAY the torsion to the atoms comprising the 2nd P. It is when you rotate the 1st P that the ropes are no longer relaying light directly across, but rather in a diff direction.
What's 'a' wave, bean brain? There's no physical object in Science called 'a' wave. 'Wave' is a verb. Wave is what yo momma DID when she left you at the asylum!
@bgaede you REALLY need to learn english, I'll pirate you a copy of rosetta stone or something, because you can't just pick one definition of a word that works for you and then say that everyone else is using it "inconsistently" that is psychologically irrational
@bgaede i dont care about rotating the polarizer, why is it that a polarizer can filter light so that it all moves with a single orientation. Further, explain this in the light (no pun intended) of optically active sterioisomers of organic compounds and why does this polarized light interact in a special way with these molecules.... this I gotta hear
@bgaede the wave model explains this, yours doesnt, so therefore it is a fundamentally faulty model. I understand wave and particle theory, and I understand that "dualities" dont completely make sense, but these scientists are twisting their model to fit reality, not reality to fit their model as you are. Example. See your botched thought experiment for the slit experiment, estragon shut you up pretty good their i reckon
@bgaede you still have not explained how a rotation can be polarized. The torsion already exists in 3 dimensional space. A wave exists in 2. So therefore how can these "rotations" be polarized. And if they were, by your model, that would cause constructive interference. You are not explaining physically what happens.
@bgaede your torsion "exists" in 3 dimensional space because it has 3 vectors needed to define it. 1 for it's translational motion and 2 for it's rotational motion. The wave has only 1 for it's periodic motion and 1 for it's translational motion. Now when it hits the polarizer, the polarizer physically blocks light that does not have the exact necessary orientation as dictated by its fine slits. See, explained. Gravity and electromagnetism are much more involved, we'll get to those eventually
Not for the purposes of Physics. In Physics, we don't move or see waves, motions, orbits, orbitals, itineraries, geodesics, vectors or energy. The nouns of Physics, the words you can put an article in front, all have shape. If it doesn't have shape, it is not a noun in Science. You confuse scientific language with ordinary speech.
Why did you put quotes around the word 'exist'? Could it be that torsions can't exist because they are concepts? It just goes to show how difficult it is for you to adopt to scientific language. You want to phrase everything in terms of the ancient language of 17th C 'science'.
How many beers did you drink before writing that, Xero? Please draw 'a' wave so that we can SEE WHAT you are talking about. Bring 'a' wave to our next conference, okay?
6. "the polarizer physically blocks light... explained"
.
What is 'light'? Please draw 'it'.
I mean, if a polarizer can PHYSICALLY block light, light is an object. Light must have a surface in order to be PHYSICALLY blocked. Until you do, you have not explained anything. The first task a presenter has in Science is pointing to the objects that will play a key role in HIS theory. What is the shape of this invisible object you call 'light'? Is it a rope? A string of discrete particles?
@bgaede see estragon's post on his response video's you cant be that stupid to not know what a wave is after getting made to look like such a complete fool
@bgaede I read it... doesnt reconcile the architecture of light with polarization... just more hand wavy hippy bullcrap about all atoms being connected by angels and invisible squirrels
@bgaede No it's definitely a noun... looked it up... pretty sure the scientific method was designed so that it could be used in conjunction with everyday speech.. further... you dont use articles in front of verbs... so you cant say that "a wave is a verb"... it's a contradiction... much like your entire argument
@bgaede sin(theta) and no it's what my teacher taught me... you know you cant just make shit up when you dont understand the way the world works to suit your own delusions... tell me... what is the quality that is physically transferred from one object to another when a fast moving object collides with a slow moving object?
"what is the quality that is physically transferred from one object to another"
.
Um... idiot Xero? Quality is not a 'what'. You are reifying concepts again! Please draw WHAT is being transferred and we'll both know WHAT you're talking about. As long as you keep transferring and moving verbs you're going to be doing religion.
@bgaede no... there is some quality of a fast moving ball that a slow moving ball does not have... but gains after a collision... you're irrational if you think that is not so...
"there is some quality of a fast moving ball that a slow moving ball does not have."
.
So your entire argument fizzled! Unless you can relate speed to Science, it is irrelevant whether a fast ball is faster than a slow ball. The only thing you can do with your entire proposal is describe. You haven't explained anything.
@bgaede you have to start somewhere... besides... i hardly think making up imaginary squirrels and angels that hold all atoms together is any better than warping spacetime... at least their math adds up
The Scientific Method requires that you make an assumption regarding the invisible entities that mediate phenomena such as EM and gravity. The Mathematical Establishment proposes 0D particles for light and the electron and warped space and 0D gravitons for gravity. These proposals are irrational. They are reified concepts.
@bgaede maybe... but their model works better than yours... yours can be disproved by a college kid... listen.. i've read a couple of your papers.. and i'm shocked they got through... they were very poorly written and were extremely hand wavey in their explanations... stick to youtube where you can defend your arguments with misquotes and made up facts and misguided thought experiments
2. "they... were extremely hand wavey in their explanations"
.
Well, a stupid moron such as you didn't even understand the explanation for polarization even though it was illustrated. A 10 year old could have understood it. A Down's level nincompoop like you arrives at amusing conclusions because of your low ability to reason.
@bgaede by works i mean... sent a man to the moon... their science has results... yours has nothing... your explanations are meaningless if you dont test them... you cant just stop before you get to your tests otherwise you are the one wearing the pope hat
@bgaede if your theory cannot be proved or disproved... then it is religion... the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.. that's why your book is a pile of horseshit.. now.. because you feel no need to test your theories and you disregard people (like estragon) who have in fact disproved your ideas... you're just a crackpot so please just drop dead
.Absolutely NOT! You confuse Science with Technology!
.
¨explanations are meaningless if you dont test them¨
Only a stupid idiot like you who doesn´t know his ass from a hole in the ground would talk about testing an explanation. What meaning can such nonsense as ´testing an explanation´ have?
@bgaede but explanations can be right and wrong... the reason that trees are green is because chlorophyll absorbs all other wavelengths of light, not because they emit green light of their own accord
then i guess space is a physical object, one we cant perceive (see visualizing the 10th dimension) directly, only indirectly. And don't change the subject from your irrational hypothesis, you still havent answered the question of push, or how light can carry linear momentum
Not in Science. In Science, a donkey carries a saddle, a dog, a ball in his mouth, a fly, shit in hers. You are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH in a scientific context.
'' Not in Science. In Science, a donkey carries a saddle, a dog, a ball in his mouth, a fly, shit in hers. You are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH in a scientific context. ''
"just because you cant directly perceive it doesnt mean it's there"
.
In Science, there are no observers. Whether you can perceive or not is immaterial. You can be blind or quadriplegic for all that Science cares. In Science, we can only HYPOTHESIZE invisible objects. Einstein HYPOTHESIZED warped space. He PROPOSED that perhaps warped space was the cause of Merk's Perihelion Shift. I'm sure that Einstein never 'observed' warped space.
you still dodged the question about how light CANNOT be a torsion, you just spammed alot of BS to cover it up or said that it's not a question of science
@bgaede Torsion applies to angular momentum, they performed an experiment to calculate the momentum of light, and it showed no sign of angular momentum dont dodge the question, your theory has a big hole in it, almost as big as your mouth
@bgaede Torsion applies to angular momentum, they performed an experiment to calculate the momentum of light, and it showed no sign of angular momentum dont dodge the question, your theory has a big hole in it, almost as big as your mouth
@bgaede how about you answer the question rather than trying to hide behind your smoke screen of semantics. Is light a TORSION? yes or no? your answer to this question is central to your hypothesis not mine to your idiotic questions
@bgaede it proves that your hypothesis is irrational, a torsion does not carry rectilinear momentum, light does, therefore light is not a torsion. See that's how's science really works
"a torsion does not carry rectilinear momentum, light does"
I thought that the idiots of your religion claimed that light curves? What is 'rectilinear' about that, bean brain? In fact, if every atom in the U weighs the canvas 'downwards', light has no chance of traveling rectilinearly anywhere according to your religion.
@bgaede well it seems you're idea of relativity is highly oversimplified, just because it curves means it has some angular momentum, but your model allows for no transfer of linear momentum
1. "you're idea of relativity is highly oversimplified... your model allows for no transfer of linear momentum"
This is a black or white type of issue. Either space is a physical object or it is not. Assuming space is a physical object, it either is warped or not by objects.
2. So yes, I am simplifying because there is no need to be distracted by irrelevant arguments. Einstein explained that gravity is the result of the curvature of space. He proposed that warped space is the wall of a gravity well caused by a massive object such as the Sun that physically prevents a stone such as Mercury from escaping its orbit.
@bgaede Hi, I understand perfectly your Theory i wish to introduce this to my teachers over here in Mexico would you allow me to download your videos and translate them so they can interpret perfectly what you say? Its time the holy organization known today as quantum got rationally disapproved or approved.!!! I would also love to write your theory in wikipedia XD.
Dale nomas, Gablo! Traducilos al chino si queres! A mi ya no me queda tiempo para traducirlos. Varios me lo han pedido, pero sinceramente el reloj se me acabo.
also, light CANNOT be a torsion because that would imply rotational momentum, but experiments have shown that light carries only rectilinear momentum when uninfluenced by gravity. Or is the scientific community trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again and you're the messiah?
Startlingly elegant and plausible-sounding. What a world we live in where this could get so few views. I've presented your theory on Facebook, and so far, none of my physics-steeped friends have been able to disprove it.
Your theory is nothing but a hodgepodge of things that people have already discovered tand all you're doing is repackaging it and calling it your own..
@bgaede I mean... your "rope" is pretty much idiotic in every single way... but you're using it to try and unify quantum theory with coulombic and gravitational effects.... you mention torsion but you never explain where the tension that binds things together or... even less obvious in your theory.. the push from repulsive interactions comes from.. or.. where these ropes are... i tied two atoms together and i didnt see any rope... where is it gayde?
1. "your "rope" is pretty much idiotic in every single way"
My dear Xero. A true scientist, a genuine physicist would back his claim with at least a one-liner. You make sweeping statements and leave everyone hanging. Your statement remains unsubstantiated, a shot in the void.
2. "you're using it to try and unify quantum theory with..."
If this is your conclusion, then you understood very little of it. Quantum proposes that everything in the U is ultimately comprised of discrete particles. The Rope Hypothesis proposes instead that all atoms are interconnected. There is no common ground with QM whatsoever.
3. Quantum relies on magic, ergo: Quantum Magic. The FATAL flaw of Quantum is that cannot explain the force of PULL with discrete particles. How does a particle PULL on another (e.g., gluon on a quark, graviton on an atom)? And what is the shape of each particle in the Std Mod? these are the Qs you need to answer.
4. "you never explain where... the push from repulsive interactions comes from"
Because they are not Qs of Science! You should take a primer on the Scientific Method when you get to high school, Xero. In Science, we don't ask idiotic Qs such as, "Why is there matter?" "Why is there motion and not stillness?" or "Where does 'THE' push from 'THE' interaction come from?" In Science, we ask rational Qs. If you can formulate your Q in a scientific format, perhaps YOU might even understand it.
Experiments don't 'show' anything. Again, 'proof' and 'evidence' means that YOU bought into the theory. YOU liked the explanation.
.
Experiments are INTERPRETED. The mathematicians are famous for INTERPRETING the results of experiments in terms of PARTICLES and/or 'waves' (whatever those are).
7. So when they write their papers, they automatically and implicitly -- if not explicitly -- assume that photons, electrons, muons, the entire zoo consists of discrete particles. If there aren't any particles out there, then their physical interpretations of invisible 'forces' acting 'at-a-distance' are poppycock.
8. "that light carries only rectilinear momentum when uninfluenced by gravity"
The mathematicians have yet to show that gravity affects light at all. They INTERPRET -- based on the particle model -- that gravity DEFLECTED the photon, a phenomenon the idiots call 'bending' light.
You can bend an elongated entity -- a hammock, a banana, a curtain rod. You cannot 'bend' a series of discrete particles that are TRAVELING. You can at best DEFLECT them.
.
So the fundamental Q is not whether gravity can bend or warp light. The first Q we need to answer is whether light consists of discrete particles.
10. If it does, as QM holds, then gravity can at best deflect the entire stream o fphotons.
The idiot of Math wants it both ways. He talks about discrete particles traveling thru space. When he gets to the juicy part, he alleges that gravity, which he claims is either warped space or a shower of gravitons, bends or warps the 'beam' or 'ray'.
11. He treats the words beam and ray as if they were elongated pencils or rods. So he gets the best of both worlds. He gets 'deflection' (particles) AND 'bending' (beam).
In Science, it's called 'cheating'! In Science, the presenter has to tell the audience up front WHAT a photon looks like before he moves to the theory. The way he does this is he brings a picture or a mockup or a statue of a photon to the prez. Science is SHOW + Tell. You first must SHOW. Then, you can tell us what you want.
@bgaede no it's called a paradox, and in general, paradoxes are considered irrational, but not when there is experimental evidence to support it. and dont give me this "evidence is subjective" bullshit, it just shows how pathetic and tenuous your theory really is
Notice that Gaede never mentions the many other alternative scientists and physicists out there. He is not even close to being the most qualified one or the one with the most comprehensive theory, yet he takes all the credit himself for being some kind of voice of reason. He puts on his little show here and never acknowledges the many others out there whose work is far better than his. Folks, this is not Gaede's domain. He didn't start this, and he's one of the weakest in the field.
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
develop it further? bill, you're doing this to sell your books aren't you? you're a smart and cool guy, you can admit it and don't care about loss of revenue since you don't need that much doughs. btw, thanks for hunting down crothers. i'm very warm to his idea and begin to think high energy physics beyond the nuclear is a lot about faith and a little scepticism by way of crothers will send the experimentalists scrambling.
bill, i like your ideas of rigid sticks and torsional forces linking everything together. sounds like new age science to me but i'm sure you're not. you're too intelligent for that sort of crap. so how can you go about explaining atomic science, fission, spallation, transmutation, decays, neutrons, positions so i can at least use the alternative concepts and write a popular article describing Fukujima? And what good is your theory if you have no adherents willing to write textbooks and
regardless of what happened it is no need to treat me the way you do for my 'ignorance' of your theory. again it is your theory and hence up to you to explain it!
how childish did you feel when you realized your faith in communism was a failure, just like you? how was facing the music back in america? I guess you're just bitter, bill. I understand, but then again i guess i don't and never will.
We haven't even gotten to the theory, ill. You're still struggling with the hypothesis. And this is not an issue of ignorance or knowledge. A rope is a hypothesis, an assumption we make in order to explain. The theory is the explanation of how light behaves using this hypothesis. It is irrational to attempt to prove an explanation. It is perhaps more irrational to attempt to prove an assumption.
the oscillations are the electromagnetic pulsing forward. Since the speed of light is limited, the energy of the light-wave is translated to the pulsing oscillations of the wave. the more energy, instead of going faster, the wave 'waves' more, thus creating a higher frequency . this pulsing forward was established quite well by maxwell so the oscillations are a description of the frequency of the electromagnetic wave, so of course you can't 'see' an oscillation, but you can sure measure one!
2. Well, just go to your nearest hardware store and ask for a rope. They'll know exactly what you're talking about.
.
"what they are composed of"
.
Jesus, ill! Did you drop out of kindergarten or something? I mean, everyone in the world knows that a rope is composed of strands. Here's a pic for your benefit.
I see why they locked you up, idiot ill. You seem to have amnesia in addition to your other mental shortcomings. In your last post you said, and I quote, "this unprovable hypothesis". It's bad enough that you claim that theories can be proven. It's beyond words to say that a hypothesis can be proven
.
So looks like you're improvising and moving goal posts. Take it up with your shrink in your next conf-session.
8. "What kind of physicist or engineer uses... authority"
.
None. It's the mathematicians who invoke authority. And with good effect! For instance, look at a stupid idiot such as you. Why do you believe in 0D particles and wave-packets and and warped space? Because Einstein and Bohr and Hawking told you! Had it been the bum under the bridge, you wouldn't have believed it.
11. "I would like to make video responses to yours regarding light"
.
Great! But I would recommend that you try to read an intro book in Phyz before you publish anything. You might otherwise look... how should I put this? Astonishing?
13. "oscillations are the electromagnetic pulsing forward"
.
'THE' electromagnetic??? What's an 'electromagnetic', idiot ill? What did the shrink tell you? Is he asking you to draw it or just to go thru the motions, as IF you are truly seeing something?
"International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Vol. 1, No. 2, September 2011"
Volume ONE? Issue TWO, nothing like getting published in an ESTABLISHED journal...
How much did you PAY to get your HYPOTHESIS published?
justintempler 1 month ago
"How much did you PAY to get your HYPOTHESIS published?"
.
As much as everyone else these days...
bgaede 1 month ago
DERP no one listens to my crackpot "theory" BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SidewaysQuark 1 month ago
"DERP"
.
Looks like you have a vocalization problem there, Quark! You should have the witch doc take a look at it.
bgaede 1 month ago
If you knew anything about fluids, you would know that there are two types of vortexes, free vortexes and forced vortexes, neither of which forms anything resembling a double helix. You make sweeping generalizations about stuff you dont understand at all. Fluids either flow in the laminar or turbulent regime, there is a transition regime as well. Turbulent flow is chaotic, it doesnt look like a helix of any kind. And i know you just threw together a google seach to quote something ahhaha noob
Xero555000 2 months ago
@Xero555000 You aptly named yourself Zero...
Do you even know what a vortex is, or just like a parrot, you are spewing words here and there for decoration?
Search for vortex on google or youtube. You can't have vortices without spiraling motion. Numb skull.
nubian377 2 months ago
@nubian377 yes lol... obviously it flows like a spiral... but a spiral is not a double helix... so your bill gayde analogy to his idiotic hypothesis was not apt. And dont knock my vocabulary just because you dont understand it you idiot. How about you just stick to flipping burgers... and yes i would like fries with that
Xero555000 2 months ago
@Xero555000 Zero..did they not teach you english in the mental institution you are housed in? Do you not understand what a simile is? What do you understand by the words "rope-like" or "like intertwined ropes" ?? Such an oaf.
nubian377 2 months ago
@nubian377 i wouldnt consider a tornado to move in a "rope like" pattern, you cant replace the word spiral with rope because it fit's Gayde's hypothesis. If you idiots cant use words consistently then you can't chastise real scientists for the same thing. Even though they arnt being inconsistent in the first place. Oh well, the world needs ditch diggers too, have fun with your psuedo intellectual phase
Xero555000 2 months ago
btw perhaps the planets move round the sun in the manner of a rope - intertwined paths. In fact this rope-like motion is common to nature: water, tornadoes, DNA..all act like that.
nubian377 3 months ago
"rope-like motion is common to nature: water, tornadoes, DNA"
.
nature com/news/quantum-theorem-shakes-foundations-1.9392
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede
If this is true, then it means blood, which is very much like water, also moves like intertwined ropes. It pulses as it moves.............thus the heart may not be a pump after all. All the puzzles are getting connected. The medical profession may have to revise their findings as well.
nubian377 3 months ago
@nubian377 no lol... you're just dumb
Xero555000 2 months ago
@Xero555000
Wow, such a brilliant refutation.....they teach you this in your mental rehab classes?
nubian377 2 months ago
@nubian377 Mental rehab classes? Idk what those are, but i know you cant fix stupid. Have you studied fluid mechanics? Because I havem neither blood nor any fluid for that matter, doesnt flow in a helical pattern. You, just like you beloved Bill Gayde, are twisting the facts to suit your own idiotic theories.
Xero555000 2 months ago
@Xero555000
lol virtually all natural fluids in their natural environments, travel in a double spiral manner, creating vortices. Water flows in spirals and forms vortices. The heart, which scientists say, supposedly pumps blood, has muscles that interwine to form spirals/ropes. With regards to the heart, go read this:
Marinelli, R. 1989. "The Spinning Heart and Vortexing Blood," Newsletter of the Society for the Evolution of Science, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 20-41.
nubian377 2 months ago
@bgaede only DNA is rope-like out of the ones you depicted... just because they spiral doesnt mean you can draw some sort of parallel. Further, if you knew anything about DNA, you would realize that they have major and minor curves, they are not a perfect double helix... how can you have been on this earth so much longer than me and know so little about it
Xero555000 2 months ago
the good of out of context quote, thought you had more class than that, i was saying that it was apparent you pulled it out your ass,
also, your hypothesis doesnt explain polarization, a rope cant be polarized because it has rotational symmetry
BOOM ROASTED, your theory is bunk
Xero555000 4 months ago
"your hypothesis doesnt explain polarization"
.
WGDE, pp. 218-220.
bgaede 4 months ago
@bgaede i'm not buying your stupid book in order to receive a 30 word explaination, your theory doesnt explain it
Xero555000 4 months ago
@Xero555000 Give me a summary, i'm not spending money on your idiotic book. I hope that you die as quickly as possible so any money that I would give you would simply be giving another spoonful of gruel to the braindead cancer victim. You'll never bring anything of value to this world, you don't even bring joy. You should really just kill yourself. Now explain polarization, dont give me numbers EXPLAIN thats what you SAY you're good at
Xero555000 2 months ago
"blah, blah, blah...explain polarization"
.
Erm... Xero? Stop mumbling to the mirror and turn around.
.
ijapm.org/papers/016-P0011.pdf (Figs 15 and 16)
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede your paper does not reconcile the architecture of light with polarization. The establishment does. Your explanation give a hand-wavy argument at best. You then go on to say blah blah blah "this is beyond the scope of this paper" IT"S A SCIENTIFIC PAPER!!! If you're explanation is beyond the scope of a piece of scientific literature... then you're not doing science anymore. Explain polarization with reference to the architecture of light in your hypothesis.. you're still not off the hook
Xero555000 2 months ago
1. "your paper does not reconcile the architecture of light with polarization"
.
Again, you have a mental block in there somewhere, Xero. The paper clearly explains how the rope carries out the miracle called polarization. Conversely, you canNOT explain polarization with particles without invoking magic.
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "this is beyond the scope of this paper"
"A SECOND EFFECT...", you moron! You really got a problem in readin', let alone in learnin'! Maybe that's how you ended up being such a dumbass. You read superficially.
bgaede 2 months ago
3. "IT"S A SCIENTIFIC PAPER!!! If you're explanation is beyond the scope of a piece of scientific literature"
You should read more often. Many journal articles say that certain topics are beyond the scope of the instant paper because they are not the central issue or because the explanation would take ten more pages. Many papers in the literature also say that more research must be done to resolve such and such matter. Are they perchance unscientific because the author left an open end?
bgaede 2 months ago
4. "Explain polarization"
.
ijapm.org/papers/016-P0011.pdf (Figs 15 + 16)
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede so do you... because i didnt say that... you once again misquoted me in an attempt to skirt the issue of your fundamentally flawed model
Xero555000 2 months ago
@bgaede no... it doesnt. It addresses that polarization exists and then you make some hand wavy statement about how all the atoms are connected coo coo ka choo! and then you go TA DA!!! alright lets go on to gravity... rinse and repeat. How many dicks did you have to suck to get this one through peer review? You did not address how something with perfect rotational symmetry can be polarized. Your model is not up to snuff... try again!
Xero555000 2 months ago
"You did not address how something with perfect rotational symmetry can be polarized."
Rotational, smational! When you rotate the second polarizer wrt the first one, the ropes go in a diff direction. The ropes now torque along a diff direction than when the polarizers were parallel to each other. What part are you having trouble with?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede then it's not a "torsion" a torsion is simply a rotation of your "rope" along its axis of elongation. You can't polarize a torsion because it rotates! How does the polarizer know that some of those torsions are oriented one way and other are not. They are all spiraling willy-nilly. You havent explained the first polarizer so dont start talking about the second one. How can the polarizer select for some "torsions" and not others.
The wave model has the answer... do you?
Xero555000 2 months ago
1. "a torsion is simply a rotation of your "rope" along its axis of elongation"
Now you're learnin', Xero! I'm proud of you.
.
"You can't polarize a torsion"
Yes. 'A' torsion is a concept. We don't polarize concepts.
.
"How does the polarizer know"
We send some polarizers to school. Others polarizers just have a natural intuition. Instinct, they call it...
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "some of those torsions are oriented one way and other are not"
.
You got it more or less! But it's the ropes which are oriented one way or the other. You'll understand the day you can distinguish b/w a rope and torquing.
bgaede 2 months ago
3. "How can the polarizer select for some "torsions" and not others"
It doesn't. Each atom of the source of light is connected to each atom comprising the 1st P. These atoms (actually, entire molecules) RELAY the torsion to the atoms comprising the 2nd P. It is when you rotate the 1st P that the ropes are no longer relaying light directly across, but rather in a diff direction.
bgaede 2 months ago
4. "The wave model has the answer"
.
What's 'a' wave, bean brain? There's no physical object in Science called 'a' wave. 'Wave' is a verb. Wave is what yo momma DID when she left you at the asylum!
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede you REALLY need to learn english, I'll pirate you a copy of rosetta stone or something, because you can't just pick one definition of a word that works for you and then say that everyone else is using it "inconsistently" that is psychologically irrational
Xero555000 2 months ago
@bgaede i dont care about rotating the polarizer, why is it that a polarizer can filter light so that it all moves with a single orientation. Further, explain this in the light (no pun intended) of optically active sterioisomers of organic compounds and why does this polarized light interact in a special way with these molecules.... this I gotta hear
Xero555000 2 months ago
@bgaede the wave model explains this, yours doesnt, so therefore it is a fundamentally faulty model. I understand wave and particle theory, and I understand that "dualities" dont completely make sense, but these scientists are twisting their model to fit reality, not reality to fit their model as you are. Example. See your botched thought experiment for the slit experiment, estragon shut you up pretty good their i reckon
Xero555000 2 months ago
1. "why is it that a polarizer can filter light so that it all moves with a single orientation"
.
Alignment of the molecules comprising the polarizer...
.
"a regular array of fine parallel metallic wires, placed in a plane perpendicular to the incident beam" (Wiki)
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "the wave model explains this"
In Science, there is no physical object called 'a' wave. 'Wave' is a verb! In Science, we don't move concepts.
.
"the slit experiment, estragon"
That idiot couldn't tell us WHAT a wave is either. In fact, that stupid moron didn't even know that 'the' waves in HIS experiment were made of water.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede you use articles in front of nouns. A wave is a noun. To wave is a verb.
I before e except after c Bill. Except in words sounding like A as in neighbor or weigh.
Xero555000 2 months ago
@bgaede you still have not explained how a rotation can be polarized. The torsion already exists in 3 dimensional space. A wave exists in 2. So therefore how can these "rotations" be polarized. And if they were, by your model, that would cause constructive interference. You are not explaining physically what happens.
Xero555000 2 months ago
@bgaede your torsion "exists" in 3 dimensional space because it has 3 vectors needed to define it. 1 for it's translational motion and 2 for it's rotational motion. The wave has only 1 for it's periodic motion and 1 for it's translational motion. Now when it hits the polarizer, the polarizer physically blocks light that does not have the exact necessary orientation as dictated by its fine slits. See, explained. Gravity and electromagnetism are much more involved, we'll get to those eventually
Xero555000 2 months ago
1. "A wave is a noun"
.
Not for the purposes of Physics. In Physics, we don't move or see waves, motions, orbits, orbitals, itineraries, geodesics, vectors or energy. The nouns of Physics, the words you can put an article in front, all have shape. If it doesn't have shape, it is not a noun in Science. You confuse scientific language with ordinary speech.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "how a rotation can be polarized"
.
ijapm org/papers/016-P0011 pdf
.
Please try to understand before one of us dies...
.
watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "your torsion "exists"
.
Why did you put quotes around the word 'exist'? Could it be that torsions can't exist because they are concepts? It just goes to show how difficult it is for you to adopt to scientific language. You want to phrase everything in terms of the ancient language of 17th C 'science'.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. "3 dimensional space... 3 vectors needed to define it"
.
Is there no diff b/w length, width, and height on the one hand and depth, breadth, and elevation on the other?
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "translational motion... The wave has only 1"
.
How many beers did you drink before writing that, Xero? Please draw 'a' wave so that we can SEE WHAT you are talking about. Bring 'a' wave to our next conference, okay?
bgaede 1 month ago
6. "the polarizer physically blocks light... explained"
.
What is 'light'? Please draw 'it'.
I mean, if a polarizer can PHYSICALLY block light, light is an object. Light must have a surface in order to be PHYSICALLY blocked. Until you do, you have not explained anything. The first task a presenter has in Science is pointing to the objects that will play a key role in HIS theory. What is the shape of this invisible object you call 'light'? Is it a rope? A string of discrete particles?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede it's a wave... and a particle.. get over it
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede see estragon's post on his response video's you cant be that stupid to not know what a wave is after getting made to look like such a complete fool
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede no... you're unnecessarily trying to confuse dimensions and coordinates
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede I read it... doesnt reconcile the architecture of light with polarization... just more hand wavy hippy bullcrap about all atoms being connected by angels and invisible squirrels
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede No it's definitely a noun... looked it up... pretty sure the scientific method was designed so that it could be used in conjunction with everyday speech.. further... you dont use articles in front of verbs... so you cant say that "a wave is a verb"... it's a contradiction... much like your entire argument
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "it's a wave... and a particle"
.
Draw 'it'.
bgaede 1 month ago
"know what a wave is"
.
Draw 'it'
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "trying to confuse dimensions and coordinates"
Yes. That's why you have to learn that dimensions have to do with structure and coordinates with location.
"angels and invisible squirrels"
You read the Quantum paper, Xero. I asked you to read the Rope version.
bgaede 1 month ago
"it's definitely a noun... looked it up"
Great! Draw 'it'!
"the scientific method... used... with everyday speech"
Is this what the priest taught you?
"you dont use articles in front of verbs... so you cant say that "a wave is a verb"
You're learning, Xero! Keep it up!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede sin(theta) and no it's what my teacher taught me... you know you cant just make shit up when you dont understand the way the world works to suit your own delusions... tell me... what is the quality that is physically transferred from one object to another when a fast moving object collides with a slow moving object?
Xero555000 1 month ago
"what is the quality that is physically transferred from one object to another"
.
Um... idiot Xero? Quality is not a 'what'. You are reifying concepts again! Please draw WHAT is being transferred and we'll both know WHAT you're talking about. As long as you keep transferring and moving verbs you're going to be doing religion.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede no... there is some quality of a fast moving ball that a slow moving ball does not have... but gains after a collision... you're irrational if you think that is not so...
Xero555000 1 month ago
"there is some quality of a fast moving ball that a slow moving ball does not have... but gains after a collision"
.
Yeah. One is faster than the other. So? What's that got to do with Science? Speed is a description. Science is about explaining.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede thats just wrong... :-\ sorry try again
Xero555000 1 month ago
"there is some quality of a fast moving ball that a slow moving ball does not have."
.
So your entire argument fizzled! Unless you can relate speed to Science, it is irrelevant whether a fast ball is faster than a slow ball. The only thing you can do with your entire proposal is describe. You haven't explained anything.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede you have to start somewhere... besides... i hardly think making up imaginary squirrels and angels that hold all atoms together is any better than warping spacetime... at least their math adds up
Xero555000 1 month ago
"making up imaginary squirrels and angels"
.
The Scientific Method requires that you make an assumption regarding the invisible entities that mediate phenomena such as EM and gravity. The Mathematical Establishment proposes 0D particles for light and the electron and warped space and 0D gravitons for gravity. These proposals are irrational. They are reified concepts.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede maybe... but their model works better than yours... yours can be disproved by a college kid... listen.. i've read a couple of your papers.. and i'm shocked they got through... they were very poorly written and were extremely hand wavey in their explanations... stick to youtube where you can defend your arguments with misquotes and made up facts and misguided thought experiments
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "their model works\"
.
So do angels and God. We didn't need QM and GR to have supernatural explanations of the workings of the Universe.
.
"yours can be disproved"
Perhaps in religion. In Science, we neither prove nor disprove theories. We explain them.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "they... were extremely hand wavey in their explanations"
.
Well, a stupid moron such as you didn't even understand the explanation for polarization even though it was illustrated. A 10 year old could have understood it. A Down's level nincompoop like you arrives at amusing conclusions because of your low ability to reason.
bgaede 1 month ago
"stick to youtube"
.
Thx for the advice. I'll do that.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede by works i mean... sent a man to the moon... their science has results... yours has nothing... your explanations are meaningless if you dont test them... you cant just stop before you get to your tests otherwise you are the one wearing the pope hat
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede if your theory cannot be proved or disproved... then it is religion... the existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.. that's why your book is a pile of horseshit.. now.. because you feel no need to test your theories and you disregard people (like estragon) who have in fact disproved your ideas... you're just a crackpot so please just drop dead
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. ¨science has results¨
.Absolutely NOT! You confuse Science with Technology!
.
¨explanations are meaningless if you dont test them¨
Only a stupid idiot like you who doesn´t know his ass from a hole in the ground would talk about testing an explanation. What meaning can such nonsense as ´testing an explanation´ have?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. ¨theory cannot be proved or disproved¨
.
Yes, bean brain! You´re finally learnin´ something!
.
¨no need to test... theories¨
.
Exactly. Only idiots at the asylum attempt to test theories.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede ... determining if you're right? oh right you feel like you're right even if the facts say otherwise
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede Science and technology are completely intertwined... along with math... sorry you're an idiot
Xero555000 1 month ago
¨Science and technology are completely intertwined¨
.
Technology is about inventing and developing gadgets. Science is about explaining causes. Never the twain shall meet!
bgaede 1 month ago
¨you're right¨
.
Well, thank you for your support, Xero, but in Science we don´t deal with either right or wrong (i.e., opinions). In Science, we just explain!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede but explanations can be right and wrong... the reason that trees are green is because chlorophyll absorbs all other wavelengths of light, not because they emit green light of their own accord
Xero555000 1 month ago
"explanations can be right and wrong"
.
Explanations can only rational OR irrational!
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel.html
" the reason that trees are green is because chlorophyll absorbs..."
.
That´s YOUR personal religion. A Muslim might say that they are green because Allah covers them with green angels!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Lol ok whatever you say
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede No i read your paper, all I saw were unsubstantiated claims of angels and william wonka connecting atoms with nerds rope
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede sin(theta)
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede Already done... look it up on google images.. i'm sure you'll find a picture to gawk at
Xero555000 1 month ago
then i guess space is a physical object, one we cant perceive (see visualizing the 10th dimension) directly, only indirectly. And don't change the subject from your irrational hypothesis, you still havent answered the question of push, or how light can carry linear momentum
Xero555000 5 months ago
"space is a physical object"
Please bring a chunk of 'it' to class and place 'it' on the table.
.
"one we cant perceive (see visualizing the 10th dimension) directly"
You need to swim in a barrel of rum before you can do it?
.
"irrational hypothesis... how light can carry linear momentum"
Yes. Light cannot carry a concept. Try phrasing your thoughts scientifically for a change, Xero.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede WRONG, light carries momentum, it has been experimentally shown, you carry anger and misanthropy, and those things are concepts right?
And once again with your... seeing is believing... what a caveman
Xero555000 5 months ago
"light carries momentum... you carry anger"
Not in Science. In Science, a donkey carries a saddle, a dog, a ball in his mouth, a fly, shit in hers. You are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH in a scientific context.
.
"those things are concepts"
Make up your mind. Things or Concepts?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede concepts are things...
light carries momentum... you carry anger"
'' Not in Science. In Science, a donkey carries a saddle, a dog, a ball in his mouth, a fly, shit in hers. You are invoking ORDINARY SPEECH in a scientific context. ''
No
Xero555000 5 months ago
@bgaede just because you cant directly perceive it doesnt mean it's there caveman
Xero555000 5 months ago
"just because you cant directly perceive it doesnt mean it's there"
.
In Science, there are no observers. Whether you can perceive or not is immaterial. You can be blind or quadriplegic for all that Science cares. In Science, we can only HYPOTHESIZE invisible objects. Einstein HYPOTHESIZED warped space. He PROPOSED that perhaps warped space was the cause of Merk's Perihelion Shift. I'm sure that Einstein never 'observed' warped space.
bgaede 4 months ago
@bgaede idk where you get all this stuff about science, because it's all bullshit
Xero555000 4 months ago
"where you get all this stuff about science"
I pulled it out of my ass, Xero. Irrelevant Q, anyways!
bgaede 4 months ago
@bgaede that's very apparent
Xero555000 4 months ago
Bill: "Irrelevant Q"
Xero: "that's very apparent"
.
Well, I'm glad you agree for once.
bgaede 4 months ago
you still dodged the question about how light CANNOT be a torsion, you just spammed alot of BS to cover it up or said that it's not a question of science
Xero555000 5 months ago
"you still dodged the question about how light CANNOT be a torsion"
No I answered the idiocy that you posted...
.
idiot Xero: "you never explain where... the push from repulsive interactions comes from"
That statement of yours shows what I said: that you need to take a primer on the Scientific Method.
.
Now you ask a diff Q: whether light can be a torsion. So let's begin at the beginning, shall we?
Does light have a medium? Y or N? Is there an entity that underlies light? Y or N?
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "paradoxes are considered irrational, but not when there is experimental evidence to support it"
.
Loved it! No further comment needs to be made.
bgaede 5 months ago 5
@bgaede Torsion applies to angular momentum, they performed an experiment to calculate the momentum of light, and it showed no sign of angular momentum dont dodge the question, your theory has a big hole in it, almost as big as your mouth
Xero555000 5 months ago
@bgaede Torsion applies to angular momentum, they performed an experiment to calculate the momentum of light, and it showed no sign of angular momentum dont dodge the question, your theory has a big hole in it, almost as big as your mouth
Xero555000 5 months ago
@bgaede how about you answer the question rather than trying to hide behind your smoke screen of semantics. Is light a TORSION? yes or no? your answer to this question is central to your hypothesis not mine to your idiotic questions
Xero555000 5 months ago
"they performed an experiment to calculate the momentum of light"
Great! That means that they know exactly WHAT light is and looks like!
Please draw a picture of light, Xero!
.
"Is light a TORSION? yes or no?"
Light is the torsion of an EM rope that binds any two atoms. What part are you struggling with, Xero?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede it proves that your hypothesis is irrational, a torsion does not carry rectilinear momentum, light does, therefore light is not a torsion. See that's how's science really works
Xero555000 5 months ago
"a torsion does not carry rectilinear momentum, light does"
I thought that the idiots of your religion claimed that light curves? What is 'rectilinear' about that, bean brain? In fact, if every atom in the U weighs the canvas 'downwards', light has no chance of traveling rectilinearly anywhere according to your religion.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede well it seems you're idea of relativity is highly oversimplified, just because it curves means it has some angular momentum, but your model allows for no transfer of linear momentum
Xero555000 5 months ago
1. "you're idea of relativity is highly oversimplified... your model allows for no transfer of linear momentum"
This is a black or white type of issue. Either space is a physical object or it is not. Assuming space is a physical object, it either is warped or not by objects.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. So yes, I am simplifying because there is no need to be distracted by irrelevant arguments. Einstein explained that gravity is the result of the curvature of space. He proposed that warped space is the wall of a gravity well caused by a massive object such as the Sun that physically prevents a stone such as Mercury from escaping its orbit.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. If space is not a physical object, we cannot even begin to talk about its curvature. Einstein's argument is moot.
And if space is not a physical object, Eddington's 'proof' that light curves around the Sun is bunk as well.
bgaede 5 months ago
Wht profesion do you have?Do you really understand wht is all about?Im an engineer in construction.Wht studies do you have?
Androsstudio 5 months ago
@bgaede Hi, I understand perfectly your Theory i wish to introduce this to my teachers over here in Mexico would you allow me to download your videos and translate them so they can interpret perfectly what you say? Its time the holy organization known today as quantum got rationally disapproved or approved.!!! I would also love to write your theory in wikipedia XD.
GabloFX2 5 months ago
"download your videos and translate them"
Dale nomas, Gablo! Traducilos al chino si queres! A mi ya no me queda tiempo para traducirlos. Varios me lo han pedido, pero sinceramente el reloj se me acabo.
bgaede 5 months ago
also, light CANNOT be a torsion because that would imply rotational momentum, but experiments have shown that light carries only rectilinear momentum when uninfluenced by gravity. Or is the scientific community trying to pull the wool over our eyes yet again and you're the messiah?
Xero555000 5 months ago
Startlingly elegant and plausible-sounding. What a world we live in where this could get so few views. I've presented your theory on Facebook, and so far, none of my physics-steeped friends have been able to disprove it.
GrantValdes 5 months ago
You should join us at the Rational Science group, Grant...
bgaede 5 months ago
Your theory is nothing but a hodgepodge of things that people have already discovered tand all you're doing is repackaging it and calling it your own..
Xero555000 6 months ago
"Your theory... people have already discovered"
You are welcome to point to any reference that claims that every atom in the U is physically connected to all others via an EM rope.
bgaede 6 months ago
@bgaede I mean... your "rope" is pretty much idiotic in every single way... but you're using it to try and unify quantum theory with coulombic and gravitational effects.... you mention torsion but you never explain where the tension that binds things together or... even less obvious in your theory.. the push from repulsive interactions comes from.. or.. where these ropes are... i tied two atoms together and i didnt see any rope... where is it gayde?
Xero555000 6 months ago
1. "your "rope" is pretty much idiotic in every single way"
My dear Xero. A true scientist, a genuine physicist would back his claim with at least a one-liner. You make sweeping statements and leave everyone hanging. Your statement remains unsubstantiated, a shot in the void.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "you're using it to try and unify quantum theory with..."
If this is your conclusion, then you understood very little of it. Quantum proposes that everything in the U is ultimately comprised of discrete particles. The Rope Hypothesis proposes instead that all atoms are interconnected. There is no common ground with QM whatsoever.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. Quantum relies on magic, ergo: Quantum Magic. The FATAL flaw of Quantum is that cannot explain the force of PULL with discrete particles. How does a particle PULL on another (e.g., gluon on a quark, graviton on an atom)? And what is the shape of each particle in the Std Mod? these are the Qs you need to answer.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "you never explain where... the push from repulsive interactions comes from"
Because they are not Qs of Science! You should take a primer on the Scientific Method when you get to high school, Xero. In Science, we don't ask idiotic Qs such as, "Why is there matter?" "Why is there motion and not stillness?" or "Where does 'THE' push from 'THE' interaction come from?" In Science, we ask rational Qs. If you can formulate your Q in a scientific format, perhaps YOU might even understand it.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "where these ropes are"
Just about everywhere. Every atom in your body is bound to every atom on Earth, including every atom that constitutes me.
.
"i tied two atoms together"
is that what the shrink makes you do at the Loony Asylum for your rehabilitation? How many pairs did you do so far?
.
"i didnt see any rope"
You used string? Snot? Went thru the motions of tying?
bgaede 5 months ago
6. "experiments have shown"
Experiments don't 'show' anything. Again, 'proof' and 'evidence' means that YOU bought into the theory. YOU liked the explanation.
.
Experiments are INTERPRETED. The mathematicians are famous for INTERPRETING the results of experiments in terms of PARTICLES and/or 'waves' (whatever those are).
bgaede 5 months ago
7. So when they write their papers, they automatically and implicitly -- if not explicitly -- assume that photons, electrons, muons, the entire zoo consists of discrete particles. If there aren't any particles out there, then their physical interpretations of invisible 'forces' acting 'at-a-distance' are poppycock.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. "that light carries only rectilinear momentum when uninfluenced by gravity"
The mathematicians have yet to show that gravity affects light at all. They INTERPRET -- based on the particle model -- that gravity DEFLECTED the photon, a phenomenon the idiots call 'bending' light.
bgaede 5 months ago
9. What did they 'bend'?
You can bend an elongated entity -- a hammock, a banana, a curtain rod. You cannot 'bend' a series of discrete particles that are TRAVELING. You can at best DEFLECT them.
.
So the fundamental Q is not whether gravity can bend or warp light. The first Q we need to answer is whether light consists of discrete particles.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. If it does, as QM holds, then gravity can at best deflect the entire stream o fphotons.
The idiot of Math wants it both ways. He talks about discrete particles traveling thru space. When he gets to the juicy part, he alleges that gravity, which he claims is either warped space or a shower of gravitons, bends or warps the 'beam' or 'ray'.
bgaede 5 months ago
11. He treats the words beam and ray as if they were elongated pencils or rods. So he gets the best of both worlds. He gets 'deflection' (particles) AND 'bending' (beam).
In Science, it's called 'cheating'! In Science, the presenter has to tell the audience up front WHAT a photon looks like before he moves to the theory. The way he does this is he brings a picture or a mockup or a statue of a photon to the prez. Science is SHOW + Tell. You first must SHOW. Then, you can tell us what you want.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede no it's called a paradox, and in general, paradoxes are considered irrational, but not when there is experimental evidence to support it. and dont give me this "evidence is subjective" bullshit, it just shows how pathetic and tenuous your theory really is
Xero555000 5 months ago
@bgaede that's not a question of science, or your theory cant answer it rationally?
Xero555000 5 months ago
@bgaede well you cant explain the force of PUSH now
Xero555000 5 months ago
great theory sounds really plausible
Androsstudio 6 months ago
@Androsstudio on the surface, not if you know anything about physics as the real world sees it
Xero555000 5 months ago
Notice that Gaede never mentions the many other alternative scientists and physicists out there. He is not even close to being the most qualified one or the one with the most comprehensive theory, yet he takes all the credit himself for being some kind of voice of reason. He puts on his little show here and never acknowledges the many others out there whose work is far better than his. Folks, this is not Gaede's domain. He didn't start this, and he's one of the weakest in the field.
taxihotel 9 months ago
Bill Gaede hangs himself with his own rope.
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
taxihotel 9 months ago
develop it further? bill, you're doing this to sell your books aren't you? you're a smart and cool guy, you can admit it and don't care about loss of revenue since you don't need that much doughs. btw, thanks for hunting down crothers. i'm very warm to his idea and begin to think high energy physics beyond the nuclear is a lot about faith and a little scepticism by way of crothers will send the experimentalists scrambling.
hitlerscollection 10 months ago
bill, i like your ideas of rigid sticks and torsional forces linking everything together. sounds like new age science to me but i'm sure you're not. you're too intelligent for that sort of crap. so how can you go about explaining atomic science, fission, spallation, transmutation, decays, neutrons, positions so i can at least use the alternative concepts and write a popular article describing Fukujima? And what good is your theory if you have no adherents willing to write textbooks and
hitlerscollection 10 months ago
regardless of what happened it is no need to treat me the way you do for my 'ignorance' of your theory. again it is your theory and hence up to you to explain it!
illumined1 10 months ago
how childish did you feel when you realized your faith in communism was a failure, just like you? how was facing the music back in america? I guess you're just bitter, bill. I understand, but then again i guess i don't and never will.
illumined1 10 months ago
yes bill i did drop out in kindergarten. luckily i have you to define shape for me. tell me, tell me!
illumined1 10 months ago
1. "i did drop out in kindergarten"
.
I had a hunch! You didn't really have to fess up in public, ill.
.
"how was facing the music back in america?"
.
Great! Learned a lot about Yankee 'justice'! (That's a concept, ill.)
bgaede 10 months ago
2. "I guess you're just bitter"
.
Not at all! I had a great life so far! A lot to tell the grandkids.
bgaede 10 months ago
3. "my 'ignorance' of your theory"
.
We haven't even gotten to the theory, ill. You're still struggling with the hypothesis. And this is not an issue of ignorance or knowledge. A rope is a hypothesis, an assumption we make in order to explain. The theory is the explanation of how light behaves using this hypothesis. It is irrational to attempt to prove an explanation. It is perhaps more irrational to attempt to prove an assumption.
bgaede 10 months ago
I knew you would be unable to define shape
illumined1 10 months ago
I see, now define shape without the religion of mathematics!
illumined1 10 months ago
You didn't know what a rope was. I had to tell you. Then you boasted that you knew all along. Now you don't know what shape is??? Come ooooon!
.
You DID drop out in kindergarten, ill! Right?
bgaede 10 months ago
this is your world bill, we just live in it.
illumined1 10 months ago
the oscillations are the electromagnetic pulsing forward. Since the speed of light is limited, the energy of the light-wave is translated to the pulsing oscillations of the wave. the more energy, instead of going faster, the wave 'waves' more, thus creating a higher frequency . this pulsing forward was established quite well by maxwell so the oscillations are a description of the frequency of the electromagnetic wave, so of course you can't 'see' an oscillation, but you can sure measure one!
illumined1 10 months ago
1. "you still have not answered my questions"
.
Oh, what was your Q, ill? I didn't realize you asked one.
.
"the model doesn't explain exactly what these ropes are"
.
You don't know what a rope is???
.
My God! You've got a steep learning curve ahead of you, ill. We usually learn these things in elementary school.
bgaede 10 months ago
2. Well, just go to your nearest hardware store and ask for a rope. They'll know exactly what you're talking about.
.
"what they are composed of"
.
Jesus, ill! Did you drop out of kindergarten or something? I mean, everyone in the world knows that a rope is composed of strands. Here's a pic for your benefit.
.
en wikipedia org/wiki/File:Rope jpg
bgaede 10 months ago
3. "your model has NO PREDICTIVE CAPABILITY"
.
Hopefully. Light is a rope, not a crystal ball.
.
"hawking and susskind... back it up with math"
.
Oh, how does Math back up that a photon / wave-packet is 0D? Is it the 0 in 0D?
bgaede 10 months ago
4. "This is my last post"
.
Do you really mean it, ill?
.
"the observations fit the model"
.
Thank you. Now you're talking! Can't argue against that!
bgaede 10 months ago
5. "science of course is not about proving"
.
I see why they locked you up, idiot ill. You seem to have amnesia in addition to your other mental shortcomings. In your last post you said, and I quote, "this unprovable hypothesis". It's bad enough that you claim that theories can be proven. It's beyond words to say that a hypothesis can be proven
.
So looks like you're improvising and moving goal posts. Take it up with your shrink in your next conf-session.
bgaede 10 months ago
6. "no way to reveal how or in what manner they actually exist"
.
What do you mean by 'exist'? Unless you define that crucial word in your statement, YOU have no idea what you've said.
.
"your argument is that the concept of the wave is... 'not real'
.
You got it!
bgaede 10 months ago
7. "tell us what IS real"
.
real (syn: exist): said of an object that has location
.
Tell all your mates in the Padded-Wall Ward to memorize that, okay?
bgaede 10 months ago
8. "What kind of physicist or engineer uses... authority"
.
None. It's the mathematicians who invoke authority. And with good effect! For instance, look at a stupid idiot such as you. Why do you believe in 0D particles and wave-packets and and warped space? Because Einstein and Bohr and Hawking told you! Had it been the bum under the bridge, you wouldn't have believed it.
bgaede 10 months ago
9. "I am considering making a string of videos"
.
You don't know what a rope is and you will make a string... Great! I hope it helps your rehabilitation. Go for it!
.
"as an entry physics student"
.
First Grade, huh?
bgaede 10 months ago
10. "I like strange ideas"
.
Quantum? Relativity? String T? Yeah. I guess you do. That's probably why you are institutionalized.
.
"I will forego reason to delude myself"
.
You're entitled to your personal freedom. Knock yourself out!
bgaede 10 months ago
11. "I would like to make video responses to yours regarding light"
.
Great! But I would recommend that you try to read an intro book in Phyz before you publish anything. You might otherwise look... how should I put this? Astonishing?
bgaede 10 months ago
12. "if you are interested in having some actual dialogue perhaps we can clear anything up between our misunderstandings"
.
I usually have dialogues with rational people, ill, not with walls. But I'll make an exception for the sake of your sanity. It might help you.
bgaede 10 months ago
13. "oscillations are the electromagnetic pulsing forward"
.
'THE' electromagnetic??? What's an 'electromagnetic', idiot ill? What did the shrink tell you? Is he asking you to draw it or just to go thru the motions, as IF you are truly seeing something?
bgaede 10 months ago
14. "the energy of the light-wave"
.
"THE' energy??? What's an 'energy', idiot ill? Please draw this thing that you claim oscillates.
.
"pulsing oscillations of the wave"
.
What's 'a' wave, idiot ill? In Science, wave is what you DO with a handkerchief. Is a handkerchief 'the' wave you're talking about?
bgaede 10 months ago
15. "you can't 'see' an oscillation"
.
Ever wonder why, idiot ill?
.
"but you can sure measure one"
Is this what the shrink makes you do as part of your therapy?
bgaede 10 months ago
@bgaede DEFINE OBJECT
illumined1 10 months ago
object: that which has shape
bgaede 10 months ago