Yes! The religion of Mathematical Physics is beyond any rational person's comprehension! It's absolutely stunning idiocy! But you got to get used to it, Rick.
1) Fallacy of false dichotomy: You made a false distinction between "length' and 'distance' when the two terms really are equivalent. To use your example, the length of one loaf of bread is the distance between the two ends. The distance between two loaves of bread is the length of the gap between them.
2) Fallacies of equivocation:The video presents Special Relativity as claiming the distance between the muon and the second palm tree has shrunk, and "refutes' this claim by saying it is the same as saying the distance between a stationary rock and the second palm tree has shrunk. Special Relativity shows that length measurements depend on relative motion, so any lengths/distances are contracted when in motion relative to the measurer. The muon sees the distance between rock & tree as smaller.
3) Another False dichotomy: The existence of black holes does not depend on a singularity. La Place first calculated the possibility of a mass so dense that the escape velocity would necessarily be higher than the speed of light. He did this using Newton's Law of Gravity and Conservation of Energy. Any first-semester physics student could do the same calculation.
Ignoring inconvenient facts: Newton's Law of gravity predicts that gravitational forces only exist between objects with mass. Einstein's General Relativity predicts that light (massless) will be affected by gravity. Measurements of light from stars seen behind a total solar eclipse just one year after Einstein first published his paper on General relativity clearly show that the light from these stars bent about 1.75 degrees.
GPS satellites work because relativity is used to correct for the motion of the satellite relative to the Earth (Special Relativity) AND to correct for the gravitational effects of the Earth on the communications signals (General Relativity) BOTH corrections are required to use GPS to pinpoint your location within a few feet. Without both corrections, the accuracy would drift by several miles peer day.
NASA's Gravity B Probe satellite proved conclusively just this past year that large, spinning bodies (like the Earth) warp and twist space-time (like a spinning spoon stuck in honey would drag the surrounding honey with it as it moves)
Please see science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
2. "The muon sees the distance between rock & tree as smaller."
Did the distance b/w the muon and Tree B shrink according to SR? Yes or No? i thought that the idiots of relativity assert that the distance b/w the muon and the Earth shrinks and that that's why the muon is found at the surface level when it was supposed to have ended its life earlier?
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/01Length/01Contract html
3. "The existence of black holes does not depend on a singularity"
.
Irrelevant! An introductory course in Physics would have educated you a bit so that you don't make such gross errors. Is a black hole an object or a concept? That's the only Q you need to answer.
4. Of course, if you would have taken a beginner's course in Physics, you would know the diff b/w an object and a concept. We learn the definition of the word 'object' on our first day of Physics class. Physics deals only with objects. We don't move concepts in Physics!
6. "Einstein's General Relativity predicts that light (massless) will be affected by gravity."
.
Yes. GR also holds that fields and grav waves (i.e., LIGO) are responsible for gravity. GR has gone out of its way to cover all the bases and make the religion of Math Phyz unfalsifiable. That explains in great measure its success.
7. "light from these stars bent about 1.75 degrees"
.
Bent???
.
Bent or DEFLECTED? Do you even understand the diff?
.
A banana is BENT or WARPED. A ping pong ball is DEFLECTED. Is the photon particle of the religion of Relativity BENT or DEFLECTED? Does 'a' wave of the religion of Math Phyz STRETCH from Andromeda to Earth or TRAVEL from Andromeda to Earth? Where does 'it' start? Where does 'it' end?
9. "NASA's Gravity B Probe satellite proved conclusively... that large, spinning bodies (like the Earth) warp and twist space-time"
.
a. In Science, we don't prove. So you must be talking about some religion you belong to. Proof means that the priest rammed his dick up your ass. Proof means that YOU gawked! proof is in the eye of the beholder. In Science, we don't prove (subjective). In Science, we explain (objective).
10. b. How do you warp a concept, area? Do you grab this spacetime stuff with tweezers? Did you take a picture of spacetime before you warped this hammock? Is this your spacetime, area?
@bgaede Well, sir I'll explain relativity to you. You see, back in the 1800's, scientists were pondering light. How does it travel throught space? They came up with the ether, the substance through which light propagates. An expirement was done to prove the ethers existence. It failed, showing light to travel at c from all reference points. One scientist refused to believe this almost his whole life. One reason is that the consequences are time and length dilation. He eventually accepted fact.
2. Who did they prove it to? To you? Were you gullible enough to accept the existence (or non) without questioning? Did they also prove the existence of God to you?
Relativity is a religion. It is entirely divorced from Science. In Science, we explain. Relativity has few explanations, the most important being for gravity. The explanation is that gravity is a consequence of warped space. This explanation assumes that space is a physical object. Thus, it has nothing to do with Science.
2. Another explanation relativity offers is for the fast orbit of stars around nothing. The idiots of relativity call this nothing a 'black hole'.
However, the infamous BH is a concept, no different than love or justice or information. We don't do Physics with concepts. Stars do not orbit information. So again, the BH is not a scientific proposal. None of relativity survives. None!
3. "the speed of light is c for all reference frames?"
What's a 'reference frame'? We recognize no such monster in Physics! Please draw a picture of one so that we can figure out what you're talking about. We don't have reference frames here on Planet Earth. What planet are you from, anyway?
@bgaede My soda next to me appears to be at rest. The reference frame here is the ground. If my reference frame is the sun, my soda is travelling very fast as it orbits the sun with the earth. Which speed is correct? Without relativity, the universe needs somekind of absolute reference frame. If this is true, some pretty weird effects of light would happen. These effects (no time to explain) are not observed, so light is c in all frames. Relativity undoubtedly has support even you cannot debunk.
2. "The reference frame here is the ground... my reference frame is the sun, my soda is travelling very fast"
.
For the purposes of Science, the term 'reference frame' means OPINION. Opinions are not a part of Science. It is in religion where they invoke observers and testimonials (i.e., measurement). in Science we ONLY explain. Whether the speed was this instead of that cannot help us EXPLAIN anything. Therefore, the entire description you just offered has nothing to do with Science.
3. In Science, we MUST, absolutely MUST, figure out WHAT physical objects mediate Mother Nature's invisible phenomena. We need to explain gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. Not one fucking idiot of Math, let alone of Relativity, has ever proposed a valid hypothesis. All we have today, just when Man is about to become extinct, are wave-packets, 0D particles, singularities, wormholes, fields, waves, aether, vortices, plasma and other such nonsense. Not one has proposed a genuine object.
A movie has frames. Each frame contains a STATIC image. We don't have ANY speed within ANY frame. If you still have doubts, find a picture of your grandma. Stare at it closely for about an hour and tell me whether anything moved.
...of gullible idiots like you who are starstruck by authority and never question the celebrities. Relativity says that space is warped. Did you ever question that, idiot Zar? Is space a physical object? Is that physical object what this stupid idiot Einstein bent into a well? Is this why the earth orbits the Sun? Because the canvas in our vicinity is warped?
@bgaede Well sir, you are a stubborn pseudoscientist who doesn't have the vaguest idea of how science, relativity, or quantum mechanics work, and i am done arguing about a theory that's been supported numerous times. I can see u are incapable of taking any kind of criticism; although, you can pour forth myriads of ludicrous and invalid criticism upon truths found nearly one hundred years ago. Also, i recommend you treat others with respect; it's difficult to take you seriously. Good day.
1. "a theory that's been supported numerous times"
What a gullible idiot you are, Zar. Is that all you can do? Gawk at authority? Ask the celebrity for an autograph? Is that what they call 'being a scientist' at your monastery?
So let's see if I have this right. To you a theory is truth if it is 'supported' by whomever, huh? What a fucking piece of shit you have for a brain, Zar. Your logic is appalling!
2. "u are incapable of taking any kind of criticism"
Criticism? We've been dealing with YOUR theory, you moron! We haven't got to mine. You haven't been able to defend your own religion.
.
"truths found nearly one hundred years ago"
What truths, fag boy? Truth is what your priest rammed up your ass! Truth means that YOU have bought the theory. Truth is an opinion. There are no truths in Science.
3. But the fact that what you claim as truth was laid down 100 years ago only exposes how behind the times you are. You've got a sharp learning curve ahead!
.
"i recommend you treat others with respect"
Sure. Just recommend that to your buddies first. Okay?
You don't seem to have grasped the notion that the speed of light is finite and that there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute time, Bill. So the distance/ length/ measurement BETWEEN things VARIES depending on your frame of reference. Also muons tend to be travelling towards the earth, not horizontally, as depicted in your video.
"the distance/ length/ measurement BETWEEN things VARIES depending on your frame of reference"
.
WTF??? What does this ´frame of the painting´ have to do with the physical or real separation between two surfaces? What does YOUR OPINION or YOUR measurement while you were drunk have to do with the actual, qualitative gap between two trees? Does the dist b/w the two trees change if I look at the scene from a different angle?
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/01Length/05Observer html (Fig 1).
@bgaede "Does the dist b/w the two trees change if I look at the scene from a different angle?"
Not if you are stationary, relative to the two trees. But if you are moving at half the speed of light, in the direction parallel with the relevant distance 'line', the distance measurement between the trees will appear to be 13.4% shorter.
What is YOUR interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment?
2. You are standing perpendicular to an imaginary line running between the two trees. I am standing at a very oblique 10° angle. We measure two diff distances. Does the distance b/w the two trees change because I measure something diff than you, you stupid, idiotic moron? Are you really THAT stupid, fin?
3. Do you have enough brains to tell me whether your measurement or mine is correct? Does the QUALITATIVE distance b/w the trees change because you run from Tree A to Tree B? Does one tree move closer to the other because you run b/w them?
@bgaede Brains? You're the one digging yourself into an ever deeper hole!
The correct linear distance between the trees can be calculated by each of us, by a number of means including trigonometry. As I said before the angular distance we each measure depends on our distance from the trees.
If by 'qualitative' you are assuming absolute space and time then logically the distance will be the same, but that is a false assumption to make, so it depends on your motion and reference frame.
1. "The correct linear distance between the trees can be calculated by each of us"
.
What an idiot you are, fin! Those priests shoved their dicks so far up your ass that all you can do from now on is repeat the catechism like a parrot. Talking to a numskull like you is like talking to a zombie or to a demented Down´s patient at the asylum. But the arrogance that you people come out of the asylum with is unbelievable. I suppose brainwashing does that to you.
2. Anyways, Mother Nature doesn´t give a shit what you calculate. The dist b/w the trees will ALWAYS be the same. It doesn´t matter where you measure from, what you measure, how fast the muon or you are traveling, or whether you are moving at all. MN doesn´t recognize ref frames. This is merely mathematical poppycock and has nothing to do with Physics, with the real world. The two trees will not change the distance that separates them no matter what. It´s UNCONDITIONAL.
What a deranged moron! WTF is ´absolute´, you piece of monastery shit? Can you even define the words space and time... I mean, before you use them? Mother Nature doesn´t recognize anything called ´time´, and space is a synonym of ´nothing´, that ´stuff´that you find b/w the Earth and the Moon. What would the adjective ´absolute´change in either term, only a raving lunatic like you can answer!
4. "the distance will be the same... so it depends on your motion"
.
What an idiot! It´s truly like talking to a moron! It´s actually quite hilarious when you factor that people truly believe in the nonsense they parrot: "Yeah, the distance will be the same no matter what, but it all depends on your motion, Bill."
5. This is what the mathematicians have done. They´ve come up with so much poppycock that they´ve ended up running around in circles. And gullible, weak-minded idiots like fin swallow the catechism on the basis of authority. It´s all that secret work the priests did with him inside the confession box.
@bgaede It's not about being persuaded, it's possible to understand for oneself HOW relativity works. You Bill, do not seem to understand it at all well. In your book you mistake the ANALOGY of the bowling ball on a rubber sheet for an ACTUAL description of the fabric of reality. You also misunderstand the ANALOGY of the expanding balloon with coins. If you took the time to understand these THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS better, you would first face-palm, then you might learn something of value.
Of course, a stupid idiot such as you who doesn´t read or do research simply swallows the establishment´s version on the basis of authority w/o expending any gray matter on the subject.
2. "How do YOU account for the finite speed of light"
Irrational Q! Not a part of Science. You should learn the Scientific Method before posting nonsense.
It is irrational to ask, "Where did the first bit of matter come from?" Nevertheless, even in the best of cases, this is a Q of REASON, not of CAUSE. Therefore, it belongs in Philosophy, not Physics.
3. Likewise, it is irrational to ask, “Why little c and not some other speed?” Only a stupid idiot like you ponders those Qs simply because you are unfamiliar with the Sci Meth. And, of course, after gaping for two hours, you end up concluding that God´s Universe is truly unknowable. “We are so puny...”
4. “a frame of reference in which all objects existed, but was disproved by Michelson”
a. In Science, we don´t prove anything. Proof simply means that the priest rammed his dick up YOUR ass. Remember that whenever you use the words proof or truth in Science.
5. b. Did this idiot Michelson define the word ´object´? Did this mathematical moron define the word ´exist´? If you can´t produce his definitions in your next comment, then he ´proved´ doodly-squat!
6. “you mistake the ANALOGY of the bowling ball on a rubber sheet for an ACTUAL description of the fabric of reality”
Please don´t use analogy, then, idiot fin! In Science, we do NOT rely on parables, figures of speech, or second meanings. In Science, we do NOT attempt to mislead the juror, but rather clarify as much as possible so that there are no misinterpretations. We do not leave it to each of the jurors to figure out what the presenter was talking about.
7. So, if the bowling ball on canvas is not your explanation for why Merk doesn´t leave the SS, what is it in the alternative? That´s all you´ve got to answer, fin. Otherwise, we have to take your analogy LITERALLY, the way we take EVERYTHING in Physics. Mother Nature does not do Physics with figures of speech and poetry. Her world is LITERAL!
8. “You also misunderstand the ANALOGY of the expanding balloon with coins”
Great! Give it to me straight, fin! What happens in the real world if not the expansion of a balloon carrying with it the galaxies? If you cannot make a movie of your theory, it does NOT belong in Physics! Physics ONLY deals with IMAGINABLE objects. Anything else belongs to religion. Physics does NOT move reified concepts or use a 3D analogy to persuade the jurors to accept the unimaginable 4D world of GR!
10. In Science, we do not reify the CONCEPT space, tell the crowd that ´it´ is expanding and that the Sun warps ´it´, and at the end excuse our irrational, unimaginable explanation by saying that it´s JUST an analogy. Got it, you moron? You can swallow such garbage if you want, fin. But then you will be treated with the full respect that you deserve.
11. "The verbal abuse coming from you... Why not focus more on the science/ physics"
With a demented, arrogant idiot such as you who knows it all and talks about warped space as if it were a matter of fact, there is no other way to talk. Our motto at the Bill Gaede School of Physics is: "We teach with a baseball bat."
@bgaede With a motto like that it's hardly surprising you're NOT making the headlines as the guy who disproved Einstein. That plus the fact that you criticize that which you don't understand. Plus the fact that you try to ram your ideas down peoples throats and speak like a cross between a 12 year old schoolboy and a medieval oligarch!
1. "What do you think would happen if you looked at the corner reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, through a powerful telescope whilst flashing powerful laser pulses at them?"
watch?v=N7e39D-tVag
.
"If the finite speed of light is beyond your capacity to comprehend"
2. "Michelson (and Morley) devised, constructed and carried out an experiment to determine if and in which direction we were moving through the hypothesized ether"
And Einstein et al. converted the aether into spacetime. In a nutshell, you recognize an idiot of Math because he proposes that space is a physical object.
Except that Mother Nature's shop is quite simple: atoms bound by EM ropes. That's it. We're done. No warped space, no 0D particles of mass, no 1D strings, no BHs or wormholes, no dark matter or energy, no time stretching or travel.
What a piece of shit yo momma gave you for a brain, fin! ALL surfaces are 3D. Surface is inherently a 3D word. There is no such thing as a 2D 'surface'. If it's 2D, it belongs to the category known as planes, for instance, your brain!
Don't come with analogies, you lamebrain! Come with the real thing. Come with Physics! We're sick of analogies. Maybe you got used to all that 'anal' stuff at the monastery and can't kick the habit...
.
"As the cake rises/ expands, all the raisins are moving apart... Do you understand the usefulness of analogies"
.
How does this monastic anal stuff result in a 4D object called spacetime? So far I see only a 3D cake. Where's the fourth 90º line in your anal model?
7. "A thought experiment... Imagination allows us to test the logic of an idea."
a. What's the logic of converting space and time into physical objects (Oh, I forgot, you didn't define the word 'object'.)
b. So how is your thought exp diff than Aristotle's who 'logically' deduced that heavier rocks fall faster? I thought idiots like you criticized Ari for not doing hands-on experiments. Now, it turns out that you propose that thought exp are sufficient to test your theories. 180º turn!
8. "it is the force of gravity which acts upon matter"
.
Please draw 'a' force! Then, maybe we can accept that the surface of this object you call 'force' comes up against the surface of the rock. (Oh, I forgot. yes, you didn't define the word 'object'. You don't know what an object is yet. And that's the most important word of Physics!) Mother Nature does not recognize concepts such as force or mass. She runs her shop only with objects, specifically, with atoms.
10. "Why MUST there be a 'physical object' preventing mercury drifting away from the sun?"
.
This is where a piece of shit like you shows that he doesn't know the first thing about Physics. Then, idiot fin adds that he doesn't do 'physics' with magic.
So what is this action-at-a-distance nonsense, idiot fin? Do you invoke God? Angels? How do you do your gravitational magic at your monastery? Do you throw concepts at Merk to keep this object in its orbit?
11. It's when an idiot like fin asks such a startling Q that blood boils! It means that he never understood anything about Physics. yet he claims to know it all. Typical of ignoramuses! No wonder he can't define the word 'object' and runs away from the requirement.
12. "Space IS expanding and the sun DOES bend it. That is NOT the analogy."
.
I'm glad you clarified that the expansion and bending of space is not some of that monastic anal stuff, fin. Please draw space before you expand or bend 'it'! Make a mockup of space ad bring 'it' to the next conference. What does space look like, idiot fin? Point to a site anywhere on the Internet where they have a picture of space. No other objects please! JUST space!
13. The great failure of Mathematics is that for the last 10,000 years the idiots of this religion have regarded space to be a physical object. Today, the members of this guild stretch 'it' and warp 'it'. Yet, not one can draw 'it'. And, of course, it is not surprising that not one mathematician who calls himself a 'physicist' can define the word 'object'.
In Science, we neither prove nor disprove. Science is not in the business of arriving at the truth. Proof, truth, evidence... are all subjective opinions. Science is objective. In Science, a theory is either rational or irrational.
2. "Einstein et al... demonstrated that there IS no ether"
.
What an ignoramous you are, fin! Why don't you try educating yourself?
And I quote dearly departed Pastor Al: "According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time" aetherometry com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity php
3. "The surface of balloon is part of the analogy"
.
We don't do Philosophy in Physics. Analogies, poetry, figures of speech are okay as closing arguments, not as the main course. In Physics, you must first explain your theory. You can always 'decorate' it at the end of your prez with a punchline or closing argument or summary statement.
4. "galaxy superclusters are moving away from each other. I'm well aware that our own and the Andromeda galaxy are moving towards each other"
Oh, why is that, fin? Why would the rubber of the balloon expand and carry superclusters and not EVERY planet, EVERY star, let alone EVERY galaxy, away from each other?
6. "You're the one proclaiming that spacetime is an 'object'
.
What is ST in the alternative?
.
"thought experiments help to test the LOGIC of ideas"
No prob! What is the logic of converting the CONCEPT space (and/or ST) into an object, solid, concrete, thing, entity, medium...? WHAT are you warping?
What do any of these terms have to do with Physics? WHAT are we talking about?
.
"I could do you a series of diagrams of a rock being accelerated"
WHAT would you draw for 'a' force? Point to 'a' force anywhere on the Internet. If you can't illustrate 'it', 'it' doens't belong in Physics as a noun! You can't put an article in front. You can't put a verb after!
That's not surprising. Why don't you ask Hawking... watch?v=CWOa2ZkgIN8
I suppose that after 400 years of Math, someone at the Math Klub should know, right? And he's your top guru, right?
.
I mean, how difficult can it be, fin? There's the Sun and Merk, a ball of gas and a stone, two objects separated by nothing. WHAT could cause the stone to go in circles around the ball of gas? Angels? What do you propose?
@bgaede Why do you put speech marks around something YOU concocted? To make it appear as if you're quoting me is disingenuous. You wouldn't want to mislead your other comment reader now, would you?
@bgaede Did you read the description under that picture? Here it is again in case you glossed over it:
Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion. Matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity. White lines do not represent the curvature of space but instead represent the coordinate system imposed on the curved spacetime, which would be rectilinear in a flat spacetime.
@bgaede Hawking is not my 'top guru'. Sure, he's done some very interesting work on the subject of black holes. Feynman, Sagan, Degrasse-Tyson and Lawrence Krauss have taught me more than Hawking though.
Planets travel in elliptical orbits, not circular as you suggest, mercury particularly so. Matter is attracted to matter. Matter in motion can overcome, or be balanced by this gravitational attraction.
@bgaede You're the guy who said, and I paraphrase from memory: In physics we don't have experts.
The significance of c is that no matter what speed you're travelling and no matter which direction you're travelling in you will measure it to be be the same. Two people can measure the same light whilst travelling at 100MPH in opposite directions, yet they will BOTH arrive at the figure of 670,634,982MPH. Has it dawned on you how counter-intuitive this is yet?
@bgaede We are talking about the MEASUREABLE relationships between objects in motion.
A force can be represented by an arrow, or a series of diagrams where each subsequent diagram represents a different moment in time - sometimes put together in the form of an animation.
@bgaede As I said in another comment. I don't know of an alternative word which accurately represents spacetime. Spacetime is the fabric of reality which 'contains' matter, energy etc. It is NOT made OF atoms. It is not made of anyTHING we can put another name to. But it DOES have properties which can be understood by realising that the speed of light is finite which means that space and time are NOT.
@bgaede "Does time have direction?" Yes, it moves forward at a rate of approximately one day every 24 hours.
"...what are the names of the 3 spacial dimensions?"
It depends where you are. My up-down, left-right, forward and backwards are alligned differently to yours, assuming you're on the other side of the atlantic.
@bgaede Because local gravity is stronger than the expansion between distant superclusters. If you can't tell how literally the analogy should be taken, then you need to read up on it again. You must have missed a few things the first time round.
What a stupid idiot you are, fin. You must've got the Scarecrow's brain after he turned his in to the Wiz. Please point to this 'forward' direction. Is your 'forward' direction the same as mine, idiot fin? Is this what the monks taught you at the Math Asylum? You have the IQ of a sack of potatoes!
2. "I don't know of an alternative word which accurately represents spacetime."
But you go door-to-door proclaiming yours to be the true religion...
.
"Spacetime is the fabric of reality"
WTF does that mean, you fucking piece of shit? Do you just repeat like a zombie what the priest asked you to recite while you counted beads on your rosary? What in the world is the 'fabric of reality'? Is this 'fabric' something you can jump on like a trampoline? What an unadulterated stupid idiot you are!
a. Why did you put quotes around 'contains'? It either contains or not!
b. So how can a mathematical CONCEPT 'contain' the mathematical CONCEPT 'energy'? Are you saying that a box contains a shoe? Does the 4D ST balloon YOU live in 'contain' love and justice?
.
I can't imagine how an idiot like you functions on a day-to-day basis, fin. Your mommy probably takes you by the hand everywhere.
Until you define this word 'THING' (i.e., object, something, anything, medium, entity, substance) the crowd has no idea WHAT you are talking about. Is spacetime 'something'? Y or N?
6. "The significance of c is that no matter what speed you're travelling and no matter which direction you're travelling in you will measure it to be be the same"
7. In Science, it's a piece of cake. c = ƒλ. Little c is a constant BECAUSE light can only be modeled by a rope... youstupidrelativist com/06QM/04Light/02Freq html. You can only increase the length of each link (wavelength) at the expense of reducing the number of links you have for a given length of rope.
Your turn. Please explain the constancy of little c with waves or particles.
9. Wasn't this p-brane Feynman the guy who said that the mathematicians had no idea WHAT 'energy' IS? Wasn't this moron Sagan the guy who said that we are going to travel to the stars? He sent a couple of disks out of the SS in an effort to communicate with the ETs and called space the 'cosmic ocean'. Dirac called 'it' the Dirac Sea. And Balboa called it the Pacific and claimed it for Spain.
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/03Kings/04Politics html
Until you tell the crowd whether ST is an object or a concept, we cannot visualize your proposal. How does a rock bend justice, stupid idiot fin? How does an object like the Earth bend a mathematical CONCEPT such as ST?
13. "Your website is full of analogies such as threads breaking and losing their tension."
.
There's really no analogy a la GR. It's straight forward. There are no CONCEPTS breaking up or stretching of CONCEPTS. A piece of shit like you still doesn't understand the diff b/w an object and a concept. Therefore, you think that placing a rock on a surface you call 'justice' can warp 'it'. In Science, we do not place objects on concepts, idiot fin.
2. "Is there anything about relativity theory which you don't know or understand?"
GR is very, very easy, fin. GR says only ONE thing: that space is a physical object, pretty much like a net or trampoline. Relativity warps this reified CONCEPT and tells the world that a planet such as Mercury doesn't drift out of the SS because a wall of warped space PHYSICALLY prevents it.
Is there something beyond this that relativity says? I would certainly like to hear it.
You should first learn what this 'anal' thing you ask for so much is, fin. Apparently, your priest did not cover the subject thoroughly in the confession box.
4. "why harp on about how 'in physics we don't use equations' then you bring up: c = ƒλ?"
The ONLY reason I bring these descriptions from the mathematical establishment is to EXPLAIN them in PHYSICAL terms. It would be nice if the mathematicians did the same and explained them with particles or waves.
Well, you should not play hooky from Sunday School so much, fin. In your religion, warped space is credited for preventing Merk from flying out. In the religion of Quantum, it is negative momentum transferred by gravitons.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/06Gravity/01NegMoment html
That's what I've been trying to tell you. Until you can tell the crowd unambiguously whether ST is an object or concept, you don't have a theory. If it's a concept, ST doesn't even belong in Physics.
.
"In my experience"
At the asylum?
.
"people tend to use bullying tactics as a facade to try to hide their insecurities"
Yes. That's why I keep telling you to bring it up at your next meeting with them.
You keep asking this Q about your religion, but never answer it. Does GR say that gravity is a consequence of warped space/ST? Y or N? I don't care about anything else that GR might say. Does GR claim that gravity is geometry? If so, it is not I, but you who has raised a strawman.
3. "objects with MASS cause a curvature in... spacetime"
You haven't told us what an object is. And you haven't confirmed idiot Hawking's claim that ST is an object. So you cannot talk about the curvature of ST until you identify ST as an object and define what you mean by 'object'. Your claim is poppycock.
What an idiot you are, fin! WHAT PHYSICAL OBJECT prevents Merk from leaving the SS? Doesn't YOUR GR religion claim that it is warped space, a depression in ST? Isn't the orbit of Merk due to the Sun's gravity well? Doesn't this imply that Merk is rolling around a roulette, skin to wall? Are you really THAT stupid, fin? My God!
6. "mass curves spacetime. And you can't even get that bit right!"
The CONCEPT mass curves the CONCEPT ST???
Yeah! I guess nobody can get that bit right! How do you curve a concept at your monastery anyways, fin? Do you bend 'it' after melting 'it' like steel?
7. "What's the difference between gravity and acceleration?"
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/04Grav/01AccelnoG html
.
"why do you continually make... connections between mathematicians, religion"
Because the mathematicians reify concepts. They call themselves 'physicists' to insinuate that their religion has something to do with the real world.
8. "do you concede that some maths is incorporated into physics ?"
Absolutely NOT! Physics ONLY deals with QUALITATIVE physical interpretations. In the cases I exemplified, we explain what each factor in the equations the idiots of Math have used to describe phenomena for centuries mean. These variables were invented by Man. Mother Nature has no idea what a meter or a lb is.
9. "Spacetime has 3 spacial dimentions... and one time dimention"
So, if it has 3 dimensions it is an object, correct? Or is ST a concept like love? Please decide once and for all. If you believe that ST doesn't fit into either category, please tell the crowd under what category it fits in the alternative and how that category differs from objects and concepts.
Not at all. I'm moving through air. Perhaps in your demented world the monks convinced you that you are moving thru time. Please draw a picture of time or point to 'it' somewhere on the Internet so we can see what object you are slicing in two.
That's an artificial proposal which is divorced from Science. In Science, we don't get older. In Science, we merely change our appearance. We get wrinkled, grow white hairs, tits droop... Getting 'older' belongs to ordinary speech. The statement has nothing to do with Science.
WTF does this mean, idiot fin? Width ALWAYS runs perpendicular to height. How can you imagine them as one, fin? What sense can such poppycock possibly make to an idiot like you? Do you just blurt out whatever comes out of your ass? Do you even bother to check whether it makes any sense?
.
"you've seen a space-time diagram?"
Is that the one where this idiot Feynman ran time perpendicular to width? Breathtaking!
@bgaede If you want to represent motion or displacement only, but don't need to specify direction, then you can use a space-time diagram. You're the one calling everyone else idiots, yet YOU fail to understand HOW a space-time diagram can be useful.
The hypocrisy of you calling Feynman an idiot, is hilarious!
Irrelevant. In Science, you must justify your definition. Any stupid idiot like you can say that an object is 'anything'. That's a synonym. It's not a definition. That's why you ran away. You can't defend your 'definition' because you don't have one. Yet you claim to do 'physics' in spite of the fact that Physics invokes objects. It's glaring cowardice.
2. "IF the earth WAS rolling along a 'wall' of 'space'...'
.
Please don't take my side of the argument, fin. Stay on your side. All you have to do is explain WHAT physical object keeps Earth from flying away. You have yet to tell the jurors WHAT object prevents the planets from drifting out of the SS. GR states that 'it' is the CONCEPT space/ST. GR has reified this concept and uses 'it' as a curved wall.
3. "analogies are not supposed to be taken LITERALLY!"
.
Unfortunately for you, in Phyz, ALL explanations are taken literally. It is in religion where they try to mislead the public with figures of speech and parables. Mother Nature runs her shop with real 3D atoms, not with reified concepts. Every phenomenon in the U is carried out with 3D entities at any level you wish to inspect.
4. Therefore, the explanation of any phenomenon of nature had better be amenable to illustration. You should be able to make a movie of any theory of Physics. Physics deals only with objects.
5. "relationships in the physical world can be measured"
Irrelevant for the purposes of Science. In Science, we don't measure anything. In Science, the first thing we do is kill the witness. No observers allowed! Testimonials are outlawed. In Science, we only explain.
7. "Spacetime differs from a solid 'object' because it is measurable in terms of 4 dimentions, not 3"
.
Does ST have width? Y or N? If so, it has shape. If it has shape, ST is an object by definition. You have no say in the matter after you define the word 'object'. Otherwise, define what an object is if not 'that which has shape'.
@bgaede "Each arrow in a ST diagram points to what, idiot fin?" Feynman diagrams have arrows, not necessarily space-time diagrams. You should know that Billy-O!
So is that what a triangle is made of, idiot fin? Is that what a leprechaun and Pegasus are made of? Is the bed you are dreaming about also made of atoms? Aren't these objects, idiot fin?
.
"Feynman diagrams have arrows, not necessarily space-time diagrams"
The Q was, "What are they pointing to, idiot fin?" You like to elude Qs, don't you? (And Bill looked at idiot fin in the eyes and idiot fin blinked yet one more time.)
@bgaede I already told you that the word 'object' can apply to different things, and I know what YOUR definition of it is. I have also given you several definitions. You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill!
The arrows are not pointing AT anything, they represent the interactions between particles. What did you think they were?
And what is that last sentence all about? What HAVE you been smoking?
@bgaede "Perhaps in your fucking religion. Not in Science."
I think the reason you capitalise the word 'Science' is because it has NOTHING to do with science, as understood by the rest of the world. YOUR 'special' BG 'Science' is no more than the confused ramblings of a middle aged world-weary (ex?) fraudster who has too much time on his hands, wanted to learn about relativity and quantum mechanics, but got confused BEFORE he finished reading about it and decided: THIS is a good time to...
Mother Nature doesn't care how many idiots like you belong to the Flat Earth Society, fin.
.
Physics deals first and foremost with objects. All you gotta do is define 'object'. The definition of the words 'object' and 'exist' destroys all religions.
...lauch an attack on those theories with their complicated diagrams and lines and lines of calculations which MUST be poppycock BECAUSE he (BG) can't understand them!
@bgaede It's an interesting question, to which I could throw in my two-pence worth, but there is insufficient space in these comment sections and I don't have the time to write a multiple/ long response just now.
Why do you insist on asserting that I have claimed things which I have not?
@bgaede Your selective quoting of my previous comments is disingenuous, because you have taken what I said out of context. Those words don't make sense in isolation.
You don't have the integrity to accurately represent the arguments of your adversaries.
horrible. absolutely horrible.
Ricktards 2 weeks ago
"absolutely horrible"
.
Yes! The religion of Mathematical Physics is beyond any rational person's comprehension! It's absolutely stunning idiocy! But you got to get used to it, Rick.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
Your video shows a complete misunderstanding of math, science, distance, time, AND religion. Wow!
areagan 2 months ago
"a complete misunderstanding of math, science, distance, time, AND religion"
Oh, what part did I misunderstand, area?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede
1) Fallacy of false dichotomy: You made a false distinction between "length' and 'distance' when the two terms really are equivalent. To use your example, the length of one loaf of bread is the distance between the two ends. The distance between two loaves of bread is the length of the gap between them.
areagan 2 months ago
2) Fallacies of equivocation:The video presents Special Relativity as claiming the distance between the muon and the second palm tree has shrunk, and "refutes' this claim by saying it is the same as saying the distance between a stationary rock and the second palm tree has shrunk. Special Relativity shows that length measurements depend on relative motion, so any lengths/distances are contracted when in motion relative to the measurer. The muon sees the distance between rock & tree as smaller.
areagan 2 months ago
3) Another False dichotomy: The existence of black holes does not depend on a singularity. La Place first calculated the possibility of a mass so dense that the escape velocity would necessarily be higher than the speed of light. He did this using Newton's Law of Gravity and Conservation of Energy. Any first-semester physics student could do the same calculation.
areagan 2 months ago
Ignoring inconvenient facts: Newton's Law of gravity predicts that gravitational forces only exist between objects with mass. Einstein's General Relativity predicts that light (massless) will be affected by gravity. Measurements of light from stars seen behind a total solar eclipse just one year after Einstein first published his paper on General relativity clearly show that the light from these stars bent about 1.75 degrees.
areagan 2 months ago
GPS satellites work because relativity is used to correct for the motion of the satellite relative to the Earth (Special Relativity) AND to correct for the gravitational effects of the Earth on the communications signals (General Relativity) BOTH corrections are required to use GPS to pinpoint your location within a few feet. Without both corrections, the accuracy would drift by several miles peer day.
areagan 2 months ago
NASA's Gravity B Probe satellite proved conclusively just this past year that large, spinning bodies (like the Earth) warp and twist space-time (like a spinning spoon stuck in honey would drag the surrounding honey with it as it moves)
Please see science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/04may_epic/
areagan 2 months ago
1. "the length of the gap"
.
You just measured your ruler. We already knew that your ruler has length. Can't measure the length of love or of intelligence! But keep trying.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "The muon sees the distance between rock & tree as smaller."
Did the distance b/w the muon and Tree B shrink according to SR? Yes or No? i thought that the idiots of relativity assert that the distance b/w the muon and the Earth shrinks and that that's why the muon is found at the surface level when it was supposed to have ended its life earlier?
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/01Length/01Contract html
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "The existence of black holes does not depend on a singularity"
.
Irrelevant! An introductory course in Physics would have educated you a bit so that you don't make such gross errors. Is a black hole an object or a concept? That's the only Q you need to answer.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. Of course, if you would have taken a beginner's course in Physics, you would know the diff b/w an object and a concept. We learn the definition of the word 'object' on our first day of Physics class. Physics deals only with objects. We don't move concepts in Physics!
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "gravitational forces only exist between objects"
.
Correct! So what is this BS about a concept (i.e., black hole) having to do with gravity?
bgaede 1 month ago
6. "Einstein's General Relativity predicts that light (massless) will be affected by gravity."
.
Yes. GR also holds that fields and grav waves (i.e., LIGO) are responsible for gravity. GR has gone out of its way to cover all the bases and make the religion of Math Phyz unfalsifiable. That explains in great measure its success.
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/02Gravity/02FWW html
bgaede 1 month ago
7. "light from these stars bent about 1.75 degrees"
.
Bent???
.
Bent or DEFLECTED? Do you even understand the diff?
.
A banana is BENT or WARPED. A ping pong ball is DEFLECTED. Is the photon particle of the religion of Relativity BENT or DEFLECTED? Does 'a' wave of the religion of Math Phyz STRETCH from Andromeda to Earth or TRAVEL from Andromeda to Earth? Where does 'it' start? Where does 'it' end?
bgaede 1 month ago
8. "GPS satellites work because relativity is used to correct for the motion of the satellite relative to the Earth"
.
We've been rewinding clocks for centuries, area. You've discovered nothing new.
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/04Grav/03AAAD html (Ref # 5 in Sec 3.0)
bgaede 1 month ago
9. "NASA's Gravity B Probe satellite proved conclusively... that large, spinning bodies (like the Earth) warp and twist space-time"
.
a. In Science, we don't prove. So you must be talking about some religion you belong to. Proof means that the priest rammed his dick up your ass. Proof means that YOU gawked! proof is in the eye of the beholder. In Science, we don't prove (subjective). In Science, we explain (objective).
bgaede 1 month ago
10. b. How do you warp a concept, area? Do you grab this spacetime stuff with tweezers? Did you take a picture of spacetime before you warped this hammock? Is this your spacetime, area?
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature.png
.
Is that fishnet what you call spacetime at your monastery? Is that what you pray to?
bgaede 1 month ago
Lulz this guy has no clue what length contraction is.
It's a physical contraction of the object moving.
If a meterstick is moving REALLY fast, it shrinks.
It's been tested and expirementally supported.
So, seriously, what makes this guy hate Relativity so much?
He is wrong. He is ignorant. He is not a scientist.
ZarnahXius 2 months ago
"length contraction is... a physical contraction of the object... If a meterstick is moving REALLY fast, it shrinks. It's been tested"
.
Are there really people out there as stupid as Zam? Is this guy for real?
.
Why did the object shrink, idiot Zam? WHAT physical object caused the stick to shrink?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Well, sir I'll explain relativity to you. You see, back in the 1800's, scientists were pondering light. How does it travel throught space? They came up with the ether, the substance through which light propagates. An expirement was done to prove the ethers existence. It failed, showing light to travel at c from all reference points. One scientist refused to believe this almost his whole life. One reason is that the consequences are time and length dilation. He eventually accepted fact.
ZarnahXius 2 months ago
1. "I'll explain relativity"
You didn't. You probably don't know the diff b/w an explanation and a description. That's probably why you didn't.
.
"An expirement was done to prove the ethers existence. It failed"
How do you prove the existence of THIS chair, Zar? Do you sit on it?
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-Proof
bgaede 2 months ago
2. Who did they prove it to? To you? Were you gullible enough to accept the existence (or non) without questioning? Did they also prove the existence of God to you?
bgaede 2 months ago
3. "One scientist refused to believe this almost his whole life"
He couldn't have been a scientist if he relied on belief. Maybe he convinced YOU that he was a scientist. Did he prove that to you too?
.
"He eventually accepted fact"
In Science, we don't deal with facts. In Science, we merely explain.
So, again, who told you this guy was a scientist? Why did you gawk and accept it?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede I am curious Mr. Gaede, how much of relativity do you accept?
Do you accept that the speed of light is c for all reference frames?
ZarnahXius 2 months ago
1. "how much of relativity do you accept?"
.
Relativity is a religion. It is entirely divorced from Science. In Science, we explain. Relativity has few explanations, the most important being for gravity. The explanation is that gravity is a consequence of warped space. This explanation assumes that space is a physical object. Thus, it has nothing to do with Science.
bgaede 2 months ago
2. Another explanation relativity offers is for the fast orbit of stars around nothing. The idiots of relativity call this nothing a 'black hole'.
However, the infamous BH is a concept, no different than love or justice or information. We don't do Physics with concepts. Stars do not orbit information. So again, the BH is not a scientific proposal. None of relativity survives. None!
bgaede 2 months ago
3. "the speed of light is c for all reference frames?"
What's a 'reference frame'? We recognize no such monster in Physics! Please draw a picture of one so that we can figure out what you're talking about. We don't have reference frames here on Planet Earth. What planet are you from, anyway?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede My soda next to me appears to be at rest. The reference frame here is the ground. If my reference frame is the sun, my soda is travelling very fast as it orbits the sun with the earth. Which speed is correct? Without relativity, the universe needs somekind of absolute reference frame. If this is true, some pretty weird effects of light would happen. These effects (no time to explain) are not observed, so light is c in all frames. Relativity undoubtedly has support even you cannot debunk.
ZarnahXius 2 months ago
1. "My soda next to me appears to be at rest"
No one rests in Mother nature's world, not even God! There is not a single atom in the U which is at rest.
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "The reference frame here is the ground... my reference frame is the sun, my soda is travelling very fast"
.
For the purposes of Science, the term 'reference frame' means OPINION. Opinions are not a part of Science. It is in religion where they invoke observers and testimonials (i.e., measurement). in Science we ONLY explain. Whether the speed was this instead of that cannot help us EXPLAIN anything. Therefore, the entire description you just offered has nothing to do with Science.
bgaede 2 months ago
3. In Science, we MUST, absolutely MUST, figure out WHAT physical objects mediate Mother Nature's invisible phenomena. We need to explain gravity, electricity, magnetism, etc. Not one fucking idiot of Math, let alone of Relativity, has ever proposed a valid hypothesis. All we have today, just when Man is about to become extinct, are wave-packets, 0D particles, singularities, wormholes, fields, waves, aether, vortices, plasma and other such nonsense. Not one has proposed a genuine object.
bgaede 2 months ago
4. "effects... are not observed"
You'd be more powerful than God if you could see concepts! In Science, we can only 'observe' objects. We don't have the eyes to see 'effects'.
bgaede 2 months ago
5. "light is c in all frames"
A movie has frames. Each frame contains a STATIC image. We don't have ANY speed within ANY frame. If you still have doubts, find a picture of your grandma. Stare at it closely for about an hour and tell me whether anything moved.
bgaede 2 months ago
6. "Relativity undoubtedly has support..."
...of gullible idiots like you who are starstruck by authority and never question the celebrities. Relativity says that space is warped. Did you ever question that, idiot Zar? Is space a physical object? Is that physical object what this stupid idiot Einstein bent into a well? Is this why the earth orbits the Sun? Because the canvas in our vicinity is warped?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Well sir, you are a stubborn pseudoscientist who doesn't have the vaguest idea of how science, relativity, or quantum mechanics work, and i am done arguing about a theory that's been supported numerous times. I can see u are incapable of taking any kind of criticism; although, you can pour forth myriads of ludicrous and invalid criticism upon truths found nearly one hundred years ago. Also, i recommend you treat others with respect; it's difficult to take you seriously. Good day.
ZarnahXius 2 months ago
1. "a theory that's been supported numerous times"
What a gullible idiot you are, Zar. Is that all you can do? Gawk at authority? Ask the celebrity for an autograph? Is that what they call 'being a scientist' at your monastery?
So let's see if I have this right. To you a theory is truth if it is 'supported' by whomever, huh? What a fucking piece of shit you have for a brain, Zar. Your logic is appalling!
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "u are incapable of taking any kind of criticism"
Criticism? We've been dealing with YOUR theory, you moron! We haven't got to mine. You haven't been able to defend your own religion.
.
"truths found nearly one hundred years ago"
What truths, fag boy? Truth is what your priest rammed up your ass! Truth means that YOU have bought the theory. Truth is an opinion. There are no truths in Science.
bgaede 2 months ago
3. But the fact that what you claim as truth was laid down 100 years ago only exposes how behind the times you are. You've got a sharp learning curve ahead!
.
"i recommend you treat others with respect"
Sure. Just recommend that to your buddies first. Okay?
youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
bgaede 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mr Gaede, you had the time to give me another barage of insults, but you didn't answer my question. So here it is again:
What is YOUR interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment?
finlarg 3 months ago
You don't seem to have grasped the notion that the speed of light is finite and that there is no such thing as absolute space and absolute time, Bill. So the distance/ length/ measurement BETWEEN things VARIES depending on your frame of reference. Also muons tend to be travelling towards the earth, not horizontally, as depicted in your video.
finlarg 3 months ago
"the distance/ length/ measurement BETWEEN things VARIES depending on your frame of reference"
.
WTF??? What does this ´frame of the painting´ have to do with the physical or real separation between two surfaces? What does YOUR OPINION or YOUR measurement while you were drunk have to do with the actual, qualitative gap between two trees? Does the dist b/w the two trees change if I look at the scene from a different angle?
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/01Length/05Observer html (Fig 1).
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "Does the dist b/w the two trees change if I look at the scene from a different angle?"
Not if you are stationary, relative to the two trees. But if you are moving at half the speed of light, in the direction parallel with the relevant distance 'line', the distance measurement between the trees will appear to be 13.4% shorter.
What is YOUR interpretation of the results of the Michelson Morley experiment?
finlarg 3 months ago
1. Bill: "Does the dist b/w the two trees change if I look at the scene from a different angle?"
fin: "Not if you are stationary"
.
What a moron! What a stupid idiotic moron you are, fin!
The word ´angle´ is a STATIC concept. So the scenario I was referring to is invariably stationary. I said nothing about motion.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. You are standing perpendicular to an imaginary line running between the two trees. I am standing at a very oblique 10° angle. We measure two diff distances. Does the distance b/w the two trees change because I measure something diff than you, you stupid, idiotic moron? Are you really THAT stupid, fin?
bgaede 3 months ago
3. Do you have enough brains to tell me whether your measurement or mine is correct? Does the QUALITATIVE distance b/w the trees change because you run from Tree A to Tree B? Does one tree move closer to the other because you run b/w them?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Brains? You're the one digging yourself into an ever deeper hole!
The correct linear distance between the trees can be calculated by each of us, by a number of means including trigonometry. As I said before the angular distance we each measure depends on our distance from the trees.
If by 'qualitative' you are assuming absolute space and time then logically the distance will be the same, but that is a false assumption to make, so it depends on your motion and reference frame.
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "The correct linear distance between the trees can be calculated by each of us"
.
What an idiot you are, fin! Those priests shoved their dicks so far up your ass that all you can do from now on is repeat the catechism like a parrot. Talking to a numskull like you is like talking to a zombie or to a demented Down´s patient at the asylum. But the arrogance that you people come out of the asylum with is unbelievable. I suppose brainwashing does that to you.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. Anyways, Mother Nature doesn´t give a shit what you calculate. The dist b/w the trees will ALWAYS be the same. It doesn´t matter where you measure from, what you measure, how fast the muon or you are traveling, or whether you are moving at all. MN doesn´t recognize ref frames. This is merely mathematical poppycock and has nothing to do with Physics, with the real world. The two trees will not change the distance that separates them no matter what. It´s UNCONDITIONAL.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "you are assuming absolute space and time"
.
What a deranged moron! WTF is ´absolute´, you piece of monastery shit? Can you even define the words space and time... I mean, before you use them? Mother Nature doesn´t recognize anything called ´time´, and space is a synonym of ´nothing´, that ´stuff´that you find b/w the Earth and the Moon. What would the adjective ´absolute´change in either term, only a raving lunatic like you can answer!
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "the distance will be the same... so it depends on your motion"
.
What an idiot! It´s truly like talking to a moron! It´s actually quite hilarious when you factor that people truly believe in the nonsense they parrot: "Yeah, the distance will be the same no matter what, but it all depends on your motion, Bill."
bgaede 3 months ago
5. This is what the mathematicians have done. They´ve come up with so much poppycock that they´ve ended up running around in circles. And gullible, weak-minded idiots like fin swallow the catechism on the basis of authority. It´s all that secret work the priests did with him inside the confession box.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede It's not about being persuaded, it's possible to understand for oneself HOW relativity works. You Bill, do not seem to understand it at all well. In your book you mistake the ANALOGY of the bowling ball on a rubber sheet for an ACTUAL description of the fabric of reality. You also misunderstand the ANALOGY of the expanding balloon with coins. If you took the time to understand these THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS better, you would first face-palm, then you might learn something of value.
finlarg 3 months ago
1. “Prior to the late 19th century it was assumed that the vacuum of space consisted of ether.”
And then this idiot Einstein came around and renamed this medium “spacetime”
aetherometry com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity php
Of course, a stupid idiot such as you who doesn´t read or do research simply swallows the establishment´s version on the basis of authority w/o expending any gray matter on the subject.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "How do YOU account for the finite speed of light"
Irrational Q! Not a part of Science. You should learn the Scientific Method before posting nonsense.
It is irrational to ask, "Where did the first bit of matter come from?" Nevertheless, even in the best of cases, this is a Q of REASON, not of CAUSE. Therefore, it belongs in Philosophy, not Physics.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. Likewise, it is irrational to ask, “Why little c and not some other speed?” Only a stupid idiot like you ponders those Qs simply because you are unfamiliar with the Sci Meth. And, of course, after gaping for two hours, you end up concluding that God´s Universe is truly unknowable. “We are so puny...”
bgaede 3 months ago
4. “a frame of reference in which all objects existed, but was disproved by Michelson”
a. In Science, we don´t prove anything. Proof simply means that the priest rammed his dick up YOUR ass. Remember that whenever you use the words proof or truth in Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. b. Did this idiot Michelson define the word ´object´? Did this mathematical moron define the word ´exist´? If you can´t produce his definitions in your next comment, then he ´proved´ doodly-squat!
bgaede 3 months ago
6. “you mistake the ANALOGY of the bowling ball on a rubber sheet for an ACTUAL description of the fabric of reality”
Please don´t use analogy, then, idiot fin! In Science, we do NOT rely on parables, figures of speech, or second meanings. In Science, we do NOT attempt to mislead the juror, but rather clarify as much as possible so that there are no misinterpretations. We do not leave it to each of the jurors to figure out what the presenter was talking about.
bgaede 3 months ago
7. So, if the bowling ball on canvas is not your explanation for why Merk doesn´t leave the SS, what is it in the alternative? That´s all you´ve got to answer, fin. Otherwise, we have to take your analogy LITERALLY, the way we take EVERYTHING in Physics. Mother Nature does not do Physics with figures of speech and poetry. Her world is LITERAL!
bgaede 3 months ago
8. “You also misunderstand the ANALOGY of the expanding balloon with coins”
Great! Give it to me straight, fin! What happens in the real world if not the expansion of a balloon carrying with it the galaxies? If you cannot make a movie of your theory, it does NOT belong in Physics! Physics ONLY deals with IMAGINABLE objects. Anything else belongs to religion. Physics does NOT move reified concepts or use a 3D analogy to persuade the jurors to accept the unimaginable 4D world of GR!
bgaede 3 months ago
9. “understand these THOUGHT EXPERIMENTS”
In Science, we do not rely on fantastic, magical thought experiments. In Science, we can only accept RATIONAL explanations.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
.
In Science, we must propose WHAT PHYSICAL OBJECT prevents Mercury from leaving the Sun and then explain our theory with it.
bgaede 3 months ago
10. In Science, we do not reify the CONCEPT space, tell the crowd that ´it´ is expanding and that the Sun warps ´it´, and at the end excuse our irrational, unimaginable explanation by saying that it´s JUST an analogy. Got it, you moron? You can swallow such garbage if you want, fin. But then you will be treated with the full respect that you deserve.
bgaede 3 months ago
11. "The verbal abuse coming from you... Why not focus more on the science/ physics"
With a demented, arrogant idiot such as you who knows it all and talks about warped space as if it were a matter of fact, there is no other way to talk. Our motto at the Bill Gaede School of Physics is: "We teach with a baseball bat."
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede With a motto like that it's hardly surprising you're NOT making the headlines as the guy who disproved Einstein. That plus the fact that you criticize that which you don't understand. Plus the fact that you try to ram your ideas down peoples throats and speak like a cross between a 12 year old schoolboy and a medieval oligarch!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "What do you think would happen if you looked at the corner reflectors placed on the moon by the Apollo astronauts, through a powerful telescope whilst flashing powerful laser pulses at them?"
watch?v=N7e39D-tVag
.
"If the finite speed of light is beyond your capacity to comprehend"
Only an idiot uses the adjective 'infinite'!
billgaede hubpages.com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-11
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Michelson (and Morley) devised, constructed and carried out an experiment to determine if and in which direction we were moving through the hypothesized ether"
And Einstein et al. converted the aether into spacetime. In a nutshell, you recognize an idiot of Math because he proposes that space is a physical object.
Oh, I forgot. You don't know what an object is.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Complex phenomena require complex explanations"
.
Except that Mother Nature's shop is quite simple: atoms bound by EM ropes. That's it. We're done. No warped space, no 0D particles of mass, no 1D strings, no BHs or wormholes, no dark matter or energy, no time stretching or travel.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "It's SURFACE represents in 2D"
.
What a piece of shit yo momma gave you for a brain, fin! ALL surfaces are 3D. Surface is inherently a 3D word. There is no such thing as a 2D 'surface'. If it's 2D, it belongs to the category known as planes, for instance, your brain!
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "Galaxies are moving away from each other"
.
You should read a little bit, do a minimum of research, fin! Andromeda is moving towards us. Andromeda is blue-shifted. Debunks your claim!
"time progresses"
Time is a physical object??? 'It' progresses? I wonder when love and justice will start progressing...
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "A better analogy would be"
Don't come with analogies, you lamebrain! Come with the real thing. Come with Physics! We're sick of analogies. Maybe you got used to all that 'anal' stuff at the monastery and can't kick the habit...
.
"As the cake rises/ expands, all the raisins are moving apart... Do you understand the usefulness of analogies"
.
How does this monastic anal stuff result in a 4D object called spacetime? So far I see only a 3D cake. Where's the fourth 90º line in your anal model?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. "A thought experiment... Imagination allows us to test the logic of an idea."
a. What's the logic of converting space and time into physical objects (Oh, I forgot, you didn't define the word 'object'.)
b. So how is your thought exp diff than Aristotle's who 'logically' deduced that heavier rocks fall faster? I thought idiots like you criticized Ari for not doing hands-on experiments. Now, it turns out that you propose that thought exp are sufficient to test your theories. 180º turn!
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "it is the force of gravity which acts upon matter"
.
Please draw 'a' force! Then, maybe we can accept that the surface of this object you call 'force' comes up against the surface of the rock. (Oh, I forgot. yes, you didn't define the word 'object'. You don't know what an object is yet. And that's the most important word of Physics!) Mother Nature does not recognize concepts such as force or mass. She runs her shop only with objects, specifically, with atoms.
bgaede 3 months ago
9. "Just because Bill Gaede says this or that about science does not mean that it IS so!"
.
Correct! In Science, it is objective. The theory is either rational or irrational.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
.
"that does not mean the theory is wrong"
In Science, there are no correct/incorrect, right or wrong theories. There are only rational and irrational theories. This is an objective standard.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
bgaede 3 months ago
10. "Why MUST there be a 'physical object' preventing mercury drifting away from the sun?"
.
This is where a piece of shit like you shows that he doesn't know the first thing about Physics. Then, idiot fin adds that he doesn't do 'physics' with magic.
So what is this action-at-a-distance nonsense, idiot fin? Do you invoke God? Angels? How do you do your gravitational magic at your monastery? Do you throw concepts at Merk to keep this object in its orbit?
bgaede 3 months ago
11. It's when an idiot like fin asks such a startling Q that blood boils! It means that he never understood anything about Physics. yet he claims to know it all. Typical of ignoramuses! No wonder he can't define the word 'object' and runs away from the requirement.
bgaede 3 months ago
12. "Space IS expanding and the sun DOES bend it. That is NOT the analogy."
.
I'm glad you clarified that the expansion and bending of space is not some of that monastic anal stuff, fin. Please draw space before you expand or bend 'it'! Make a mockup of space ad bring 'it' to the next conference. What does space look like, idiot fin? Point to a site anywhere on the Internet where they have a picture of space. No other objects please! JUST space!
bgaede 3 months ago
13. The great failure of Mathematics is that for the last 10,000 years the idiots of this religion have regarded space to be a physical object. Today, the members of this guild stretch 'it' and warp 'it'. Yet, not one can draw 'it'. And, of course, it is not surprising that not one mathematician who calls himself a 'physicist' can define the word 'object'.
bgaede 3 months ago
14. A mathematician is an individual who does 'physics' and physical experiments with concepts.
bgaede 3 months ago
15. "the guy who disproved Einstein"
.
In Science, we neither prove nor disprove. Science is not in the business of arriving at the truth. Proof, truth, evidence... are all subjective opinions. Science is objective. In Science, a theory is either rational or irrational.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede So you keep saying. But you ALSO claim that you have managed to debunk relativity. Not everyone agrees with you. For good reasons.
finlarg 3 months ago
1 "CAN you comprehend the notion that the speed of light is finite?"
.
Oh, what else can ANY speed be, fin?
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Einstein et al... demonstrated that there IS no ether"
.
What an ignoramous you are, fin! Why don't you try educating yourself?
And I quote dearly departed Pastor Al: "According to the General Theory of Relativity space without Aether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time" aetherometry com/Electronic_Publications/Science/einstein_aether_and_relativity php
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "The surface of balloon is part of the analogy"
.
We don't do Philosophy in Physics. Analogies, poetry, figures of speech are okay as closing arguments, not as the main course. In Physics, you must first explain your theory. You can always 'decorate' it at the end of your prez with a punchline or closing argument or summary statement.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "galaxy superclusters are moving away from each other. I'm well aware that our own and the Andromeda galaxy are moving towards each other"
Oh, why is that, fin? Why would the rubber of the balloon expand and carry superclusters and not EVERY planet, EVERY star, let alone EVERY galaxy, away from each other?
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "TIME is the 4th 'dimention'"
.
You seem to suffer from 4th dementia, fin, a common ailment among autists! I would recommend that you make an urgent appointment with a shrink.
Does time have direction?
.
"there are 3 spacial dimentions and one time dimension"
Oh, what are the names of the 3 spacial dimensions? Do you know or are you winging it?
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "You're the one proclaiming that spacetime is an 'object'
.
What is ST in the alternative?
.
"thought experiments help to test the LOGIC of ideas"
No prob! What is the logic of converting the CONCEPT space (and/or ST) into an object, solid, concrete, thing, entity, medium...? WHAT are you warping?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. "Force = mass x acceleration"
force = concept, mass = concept, accel = concept.
What do any of these terms have to do with Physics? WHAT are we talking about?
.
"I could do you a series of diagrams of a rock being accelerated"
WHAT would you draw for 'a' force? Point to 'a' force anywhere on the Internet. If you can't illustrate 'it', 'it' doens't belong in Physics as a noun! You can't put an article in front. You can't put a verb after!
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "You don't even recognise F=ma"
.
You're talking to the expert on the subject...
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/04Grav/01AccelnoG html
.
"You don't even recognise... the significance of the finite speed of light!"
Oh, what is the significance of c, fin? Please elaborate.
bgaede 3 months ago
9. "I don't know the mechanism behind gravity"
.
That's not surprising. Why don't you ask Hawking... watch?v=CWOa2ZkgIN8
I suppose that after 400 years of Math, someone at the Math Klub should know, right? And he's your top guru, right?
.
I mean, how difficult can it be, fin? There's the Sun and Merk, a ball of gas and a stone, two objects separated by nothing. WHAT could cause the stone to go in circles around the ball of gas? Angels? What do you propose?
bgaede 3 months ago
10. "spacetime is a medium"
What do you mean by 'medium'? Is this a fella who brings back the dead?
.
"it can be seen"
Great! That means that you can draw 'it', right. Please draw a bird's-eye view of ST if as YOU claim YOU can see 'it'!
This is what I get when I enter 'spacetime'> en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature png
Is this what you're talking about? Is that your famous curved 'spacetime'?
bgaede 3 months ago
11. "Us mathematicians have come a long way in the last 10,000 years, ahyuck, ahyuck"
.
Yes. You went from 0D points and 1D lines in the days of Euclid to warped space, black 'hoes', and time travel. You made tremendous progress, fin!
bgaede 3 months ago
12. "A mathematician is a mathematician"
Well, that was quite enlightening... (A horse is a horse, of course, of course...)
.
"A bad physicist or pseudoscientist will make ludicrous assertions such as: "In physics we use equations."
That was a bit better.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede The first quote is truncated and you omited the correct punctuation. The second one is your own concoction.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Why do you put speech marks around something YOU concocted? To make it appear as if you're quoting me is disingenuous. You wouldn't want to mislead your other comment reader now, would you?
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Did you read the description under that picture? Here it is again in case you glossed over it:
Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime distortion. Matter changes the geometry of spacetime, this (curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity. White lines do not represent the curvature of space but instead represent the coordinate system imposed on the curved spacetime, which would be rectilinear in a flat spacetime.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Hawking is not my 'top guru'. Sure, he's done some very interesting work on the subject of black holes. Feynman, Sagan, Degrasse-Tyson and Lawrence Krauss have taught me more than Hawking though.
Planets travel in elliptical orbits, not circular as you suggest, mercury particularly so. Matter is attracted to matter. Matter in motion can overcome, or be balanced by this gravitational attraction.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede You're the guy who said, and I paraphrase from memory: In physics we don't have experts.
The significance of c is that no matter what speed you're travelling and no matter which direction you're travelling in you will measure it to be be the same. Two people can measure the same light whilst travelling at 100MPH in opposite directions, yet they will BOTH arrive at the figure of 670,634,982MPH. Has it dawned on you how counter-intuitive this is yet?
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede We are talking about the MEASUREABLE relationships between objects in motion.
A force can be represented by an arrow, or a series of diagrams where each subsequent diagram represents a different moment in time - sometimes put together in the form of an animation.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede As I said in another comment. I don't know of an alternative word which accurately represents spacetime. Spacetime is the fabric of reality which 'contains' matter, energy etc. It is NOT made OF atoms. It is not made of anyTHING we can put another name to. But it DOES have properties which can be understood by realising that the speed of light is finite which means that space and time are NOT.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede "Does time have direction?" Yes, it moves forward at a rate of approximately one day every 24 hours.
"...what are the names of the 3 spacial dimensions?"
It depends where you are. My up-down, left-right, forward and backwards are alligned differently to yours, assuming you're on the other side of the atlantic.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Because local gravity is stronger than the expansion between distant superclusters. If you can't tell how literally the analogy should be taken, then you need to read up on it again. You must have missed a few things the first time round.
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Your website is full of analogies such as threads breaking and losing their tension. Don't be such a hypocrite Bill!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. Bill: "Does time have direction?"
idiot fin: "Yes, it moves forward"
.
What a stupid idiot you are, fin. You must've got the Scarecrow's brain after he turned his in to the Wiz. Please point to this 'forward' direction. Is your 'forward' direction the same as mine, idiot fin? Is this what the monks taught you at the Math Asylum? You have the IQ of a sack of potatoes!
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "I don't know of an alternative word which accurately represents spacetime."
But you go door-to-door proclaiming yours to be the true religion...
.
"Spacetime is the fabric of reality"
WTF does that mean, you fucking piece of shit? Do you just repeat like a zombie what the priest asked you to recite while you counted beads on your rosary? What in the world is the 'fabric of reality'? Is this 'fabric' something you can jump on like a trampoline? What an unadulterated stupid idiot you are!
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "'contains'... energy"
a. Why did you put quotes around 'contains'? It either contains or not!
b. So how can a mathematical CONCEPT 'contain' the mathematical CONCEPT 'energy'? Are you saying that a box contains a shoe? Does the 4D ST balloon YOU live in 'contain' love and justice?
.
I can't imagine how an idiot like you functions on a day-to-day basis, fin. Your mommy probably takes you by the hand everywhere.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "It is not made of anyTHING"
.
Until you define this word 'THING' (i.e., object, something, anything, medium, entity, substance) the crowd has no idea WHAT you are talking about. Is spacetime 'something'? Y or N?
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "A force can be represented by an arrow"
What do you use in your religion to represent mass? A redskin? And I suppose that you represent accel with a bullet, huh?
So let's see... arrow = injun * bullet
Hmmmm...
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "The significance of c is that no matter what speed you're travelling and no matter which direction you're travelling in you will measure it to be be the same"
.
Yes. Any reason WHY, idiot fin?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. In Science, it's a piece of cake. c = ƒλ. Little c is a constant BECAUSE light can only be modeled by a rope... youstupidrelativist com/06QM/04Light/02Freq html. You can only increase the length of each link (wavelength) at the expense of reducing the number of links you have for a given length of rope.
Your turn. Please explain the constancy of little c with waves or particles.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "Feynman, Sagan, Degrasse-Tyson and Lawrence Krauss have taught me"
.
Oh, so these are the priests who worked on you in the confession box, huh?
bgaede 3 months ago
9. Wasn't this p-brane Feynman the guy who said that the mathematicians had no idea WHAT 'energy' IS? Wasn't this moron Sagan the guy who said that we are going to travel to the stars? He sent a couple of disks out of the SS in an effort to communicate with the ETs and called space the 'cosmic ocean'. Dirac called 'it' the Dirac Sea. And Balboa called it the Pacific and claimed it for Spain.
.
youstupidrelativist com/08Ext/03Kings/04Politics html
bgaede 3 months ago
10. "Matter is attracted to matter"
WHY? What CAUSES matter to be attracted to matter, idiot fin? Is this a philosophical Q or does it belong in Physics?
.
"Two-dimensional analogy of spacetime"
Where can I find the real, super-duper 4D version? Can you please bring it to the conference? Thx.
bgaede 3 months ago
11. "(curved) geometry being interpreted as gravity"
Interpreted???
I thought it was a done deal? I thought that the monks at your monastery already PROVED warped space?
Now it turns out that it was JUST an interpretation, huh? So maybe there's other interpretations... you know, the ones you censor.
bgaede 3 months ago
12. "Matter changes the geometry of spacetime"
Until you tell the crowd whether ST is an object or a concept, we cannot visualize your proposal. How does a rock bend justice, stupid idiot fin? How does an object like the Earth bend a mathematical CONCEPT such as ST?
bgaede 3 months ago
13. "Your website is full of analogies such as threads breaking and losing their tension."
.
There's really no analogy a la GR. It's straight forward. There are no CONCEPTS breaking up or stretching of CONCEPTS. A piece of shit like you still doesn't understand the diff b/w an object and a concept. Therefore, you think that placing a rock on a surface you call 'justice' can warp 'it'. In Science, we do not place objects on concepts, idiot fin.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede In my experience people tend to use bullying tactics as a facade to try to hide their insecurities. I can see right through you BIll!
I'm not going to repeat (yet again) why your physics arguments are flawed. Try reading through my previous comments if you haven't got it yet.
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "WHAT religion is, and is not."
Please enlighten us, fin. What is religion? Is it what they taught you at the seminary, stuff like warped space and 0D particles?
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Is there anything about relativity theory which you don't know or understand?"
GR is very, very easy, fin. GR says only ONE thing: that space is a physical object, pretty much like a net or trampoline. Relativity warps this reified CONCEPT and tells the world that a planet such as Mercury doesn't drift out of the SS because a wall of warped space PHYSICALLY prevents it.
Is there something beyond this that relativity says? I would certainly like to hear it.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Is your 'rope model' an analogy?"
You should first learn what this 'anal' thing you ask for so much is, fin. Apparently, your priest did not cover the subject thoroughly in the confession box.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/03Example html
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "why harp on about how 'in physics we don't use equations' then you bring up: c = ƒλ?"
The ONLY reason I bring these descriptions from the mathematical establishment is to EXPLAIN them in PHYSICAL terms. It would be nice if the mathematicians did the same and explained them with particles or waves.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "I don't know the mechanism behind gravity"
Well, you should not play hooky from Sunday School so much, fin. In your religion, warped space is credited for preventing Merk from flying out. In the religion of Quantum, it is negative momentum transferred by gravitons.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/06Gravity/01NegMoment html
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "you do"
Yes...
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-12
bgaede 3 months ago
7. Bill: "the real, super-duper 4D version?"
fin: "You're in it "
.
I'm in my house, fin. It's 3D as far as the eye can see. So, your prediction didn't come true.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "spacetime... doesn't work"
That's what I've been trying to tell you. Until you can tell the crowd unambiguously whether ST is an object or concept, you don't have a theory. If it's a concept, ST doesn't even belong in Physics.
.
"In my experience"
At the asylum?
.
"people tend to use bullying tactics as a facade to try to hide their insecurities"
Yes. That's why I keep telling you to bring it up at your next meeting with them.
youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede This comment of yours is pathetic on so many levels, I'm sure it will give the other comment reader something to chuckle about!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "what relativity theory really says"
You keep asking this Q about your religion, but never answer it. Does GR say that gravity is a consequence of warped space/ST? Y or N? I don't care about anything else that GR might say. Does GR claim that gravity is geometry? If so, it is not I, but you who has raised a strawman.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "help people to recognise pseudoscience"
That's exactly what we do here at the BG School of Phyz. GR, QM and ST are shown for what they are: pseudoscience, religion, reifications.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "objects with MASS cause a curvature in... spacetime"
You haven't told us what an object is. And you haven't confirmed idiot Hawking's claim that ST is an object. So you cannot talk about the curvature of ST until you identify ST as an object and define what you mean by 'object'. Your claim is poppycock.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "where you get a 'wall of warped space' from"
What an idiot you are, fin! WHAT PHYSICAL OBJECT prevents Merk from leaving the SS? Doesn't YOUR GR religion claim that it is warped space, a depression in ST? Isn't the orbit of Merk due to the Sun's gravity well? Doesn't this imply that Merk is rolling around a roulette, skin to wall? Are you really THAT stupid, fin? My God!
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "moving through time"
Can't be done! Sorry!
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/03Time/06TimeTravel html
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "mass curves spacetime. And you can't even get that bit right!"
The CONCEPT mass curves the CONCEPT ST???
Yeah! I guess nobody can get that bit right! How do you curve a concept at your monastery anyways, fin? Do you bend 'it' after melting 'it' like steel?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. "What's the difference between gravity and acceleration?"
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/04Grav/01AccelnoG html
.
"why do you continually make... connections between mathematicians, religion"
Because the mathematicians reify concepts. They call themselves 'physicists' to insinuate that their religion has something to do with the real world.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "do you concede that some maths is incorporated into physics ?"
Absolutely NOT! Physics ONLY deals with QUALITATIVE physical interpretations. In the cases I exemplified, we explain what each factor in the equations the idiots of Math have used to describe phenomena for centuries mean. These variables were invented by Man. Mother Nature has no idea what a meter or a lb is.
bgaede 3 months ago
9. "Spacetime has 3 spacial dimentions... and one time dimention"
So, if it has 3 dimensions it is an object, correct? Or is ST a concept like love? Please decide once and for all. If you believe that ST doesn't fit into either category, please tell the crowd under what category it fits in the alternative and how that category differs from objects and concepts.
bgaede 3 months ago
10. "you are moving forward through time"
Not at all. I'm moving through air. Perhaps in your demented world the monks convinced you that you are moving thru time. Please draw a picture of time or point to 'it' somewhere on the Internet so we can see what object you are slicing in two.
bgaede 3 months ago
11. "You're getting older Bill"
That's an artificial proposal which is divorced from Science. In Science, we don't get older. In Science, we merely change our appearance. We get wrinkled, grow white hairs, tits droop... Getting 'older' belongs to ordinary speech. The statement has nothing to do with Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
12. "The 3 spacial one's can be viewed as one"
WTF does this mean, idiot fin? Width ALWAYS runs perpendicular to height. How can you imagine them as one, fin? What sense can such poppycock possibly make to an idiot like you? Do you just blurt out whatever comes out of your ass? Do you even bother to check whether it makes any sense?
.
"you've seen a space-time diagram?"
Is that the one where this idiot Feynman ran time perpendicular to width? Breathtaking!
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede If you want to represent motion or displacement only, but don't need to specify direction, then you can use a space-time diagram. You're the one calling everyone else idiots, yet YOU fail to understand HOW a space-time diagram can be useful.
The hypocrisy of you calling Feynman an idiot, is hilarious!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "my definition differs from yours"
Irrelevant. In Science, you must justify your definition. Any stupid idiot like you can say that an object is 'anything'. That's a synonym. It's not a definition. That's why you ran away. You can't defend your 'definition' because you don't have one. Yet you claim to do 'physics' in spite of the fact that Physics invokes objects. It's glaring cowardice.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "IF the earth WAS rolling along a 'wall' of 'space'...'
.
Please don't take my side of the argument, fin. Stay on your side. All you have to do is explain WHAT physical object keeps Earth from flying away. You have yet to tell the jurors WHAT object prevents the planets from drifting out of the SS. GR states that 'it' is the CONCEPT space/ST. GR has reified this concept and uses 'it' as a curved wall.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "analogies are not supposed to be taken LITERALLY!"
.
Unfortunately for you, in Phyz, ALL explanations are taken literally. It is in religion where they try to mislead the public with figures of speech and parables. Mother Nature runs her shop with real 3D atoms, not with reified concepts. Every phenomenon in the U is carried out with 3D entities at any level you wish to inspect.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. Therefore, the explanation of any phenomenon of nature had better be amenable to illustration. You should be able to make a movie of any theory of Physics. Physics deals only with objects.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "relationships in the physical world can be measured"
Irrelevant for the purposes of Science. In Science, we don't measure anything. In Science, the first thing we do is kill the witness. No observers allowed! Testimonials are outlawed. In Science, we only explain.
bgaede 3 months ago
6. "These can and have been tested, so they have predictive powers"
In Science, we neither test nor do predictions. We only explain.
.
"How do you think astronomers knew where to look for Uranus and Neptune?"
Irrelevant! Can any of these idiots tell us WHY your anus doesn't doesn't drift out of the SS? Is it warped space? Gravity water-well? Gravitons?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. "Spacetime differs from a solid 'object' because it is measurable in terms of 4 dimentions, not 3"
.
Does ST have width? Y or N? If so, it has shape. If it has shape, ST is an object by definition. You have no say in the matter after you define the word 'object'. Otherwise, define what an object is if not 'that which has shape'.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. "don't need to specify direction, then you can use a space-time diagram"
Each arrow in a ST diagram points to what, idiot fin?
.
"can be useful"
In Science, we have no use for usefulness. In Science, we merely wish to understand.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "Each arrow in a ST diagram points to what, idiot fin?" Feynman diagrams have arrows, not necessarily space-time diagrams. You should know that Billy-O!
finlarg 3 months ago
1. "Can you name some physicists who agree with your hypothesis?"
Not a Q of Science. We don't do stamp collecting in Science. Sorry!
.
"Does your homophobia stem from your 33 months behind bars?"
This is a Q Science tries to answer, but it falls under Philosophy and not Physics.
.
"Why would anyone take the claims of a convicted fraudster seriously?"
Not a Q of Science. It could become a Q of Philosophy if you phrase it in terms of a given individual.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "You're the one who says that there MUST be a physical object... I already told you that objects travel..."
What a fucking piece of shit you have for a brain, fin! You don't have the intelligence to tackle the simplest contradictions.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "what shape is the universe"
You're the stupid idiot who has to answer that Q. YOU are the one claiming that space is a physical object.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "Objects are made of atoms"
So is that what a triangle is made of, idiot fin? Is that what a leprechaun and Pegasus are made of? Is the bed you are dreaming about also made of atoms? Aren't these objects, idiot fin?
.
"Feynman diagrams have arrows, not necessarily space-time diagrams"
The Q was, "What are they pointing to, idiot fin?" You like to elude Qs, don't you? (And Bill looked at idiot fin in the eyes and idiot fin blinked yet one more time.)
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I already told you that the word 'object' can apply to different things, and I know what YOUR definition of it is. I have also given you several definitions. You're the one making a mountain out of a molehill!
The arrows are not pointing AT anything, they represent the interactions between particles. What did you think they were?
And what is that last sentence all about? What HAVE you been smoking?
finlarg 3 months ago
"the word 'object' can apply to different things"
Perhaps in your fucking religion. Not in Science.
.
"I have also given you several definitions"
Not one yet. You wrote a synonym: 'anything'. That's not a definition.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "Perhaps in your fucking religion. Not in Science."
I think the reason you capitalise the word 'Science' is because it has NOTHING to do with science, as understood by the rest of the world. YOUR 'special' BG 'Science' is no more than the confused ramblings of a middle aged world-weary (ex?) fraudster who has too much time on his hands, wanted to learn about relativity and quantum mechanics, but got confused BEFORE he finished reading about it and decided: THIS is a good time to...
finlarg 3 months ago
"as understood by the rest of the world"
.
Mother Nature doesn't care how many idiots like you belong to the Flat Earth Society, fin.
.
Physics deals first and foremost with objects. All you gotta do is define 'object'. The definition of the words 'object' and 'exist' destroys all religions.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede "Mother Nature doesn't care how many idiots like you belong to the Flat Earth Society, fin."
Let me repeat my previous question: What HAVE you been smoking?
finlarg 3 months ago
...lauch an attack on those theories with their complicated diagrams and lines and lines of calculations which MUST be poppycock BECAUSE he (BG) can't understand them!
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede It's an interesting question, to which I could throw in my two-pence worth, but there is insufficient space in these comment sections and I don't have the time to write a multiple/ long response just now.
Why do you insist on asserting that I have claimed things which I have not?
finlarg 3 months ago
@bgaede Your selective quoting of my previous comments is disingenuous, because you have taken what I said out of context. Those words don't make sense in isolation.
You don't have the integrity to accurately represent the arguments of your adversaries.
finlarg 3 months ago