The point is what you'd call a "movie" I believe. But, Gaede you tergiversate when you call a dot 2D. It's 3D. You can say "I treat it as 2D" but the real point/dot is physical, i.e. 3D. A plane is only real if we observe it and from some angles it disappears. Physically speaking a dot is 3D as anything we know.
The ink blot or chalk mark is 3D. A square or circle is 2D. The mathematicians have to tell the crowd whether their 'point' is the 3D raised mark or the 2D representation of the point. We can say that the mathematical point is AS A MINIMUM 2D. It certainly is not 0D as claimed.
Also, you say that the definition of a point is circular because it takes two points to define a line and two lines to define a point. But have you considered that it also can take a point and a normal to define a line in R2 and a plane in R3, You can also define a line by a line by a point and an angle. You dont know anything about math so you cant criticize it. now explain newton's cradle
@bgaede points are used to keep track of the relative locations of things in space, what's so inconsistent about that? and so what if i want to put an address on them, you're whole argument is that all these definitions are contradictory, but they're not lol.
2. "points are used to keep track of the relative locations of things in space"
All you confirmed is that in the religion of Math point = location. The mathematicians put a dot to replace the elephant so as to not be distracted by architecture and concentrate exclusively on location.
.
The problem is that the idiot of Math later forgets that there was an elephant there and starts moving the point (i.e., 'the' location).
@bgaede ... no, some things can be treated as points if they are small enough relative to your scale, if it's as big as an elephant then you need to represent the surface and interior of the elephant with points... you dont know anything about physics, so why are you criticizing it?
Alright, you win. You can keep your little hair-splitting game. I hope you enjoy your tiny, lonely, delusional little life, in your own tiny, lonely, delusional little mind.
In the mean time, we'll all be out here, together, working to discover ever more spectacular, mind blowing things about our complex, beautiful universe. Come and join us when you're ready to take that big step out of that intellectual hole you've dug yourself.
Or stay there, like the petulant manchild you are. I don't care.
Of course not! the reason is clear. You haven't decided whether your point is a dot, a location, an ordered pair, an intersection of two lines (each of which is a series of dots, meaning locations, meaning numbers...), a singularity or an event in spacetime!
4. "The language used in a scientific report is the same language that the scientist writing the report uses in every day life"
Perhaps at your monastery! Whatever idiocy the common dictionary has is unscientific. It cannot be used in Science because non of the critical terms is unambiguous enough to be used consistently. This is where the mathematicians say one thing and mean another. In Science we MUST have clear language in order to communicate theories.
5. "there are some who might say... that the language of science... is Mathematics"
Yeah. They are known as idiots! The language of Science is not Chinese, English, Spanish or Mathematics. The language of Science is rational (i.e., can be used consistently)!
In Science, we neither win nor lose nor seek the truth nor prove nor get Nobel Medals. In Science, we are much more humble. In Science, we merely explain.
7. "your tiny, lonely, delusional little life, in your own tiny, lonely, delusional little mind"
It is irrelevant to Mother Nature whether I conform to the majority or tough it out on my own. Perhaps you need people to hold your hand and feel depressed if they shun you. I'm an independent thinker. I clean my ass with Math because it has no bearing on Science (understanding) let alone on Physics! If you think otherwise, here's your chance to make your case.
In science, we do experiments and test predictions, and parametrize phenomena as accurately as possible, with mathematics, when possible. We don't draw pictures and make up fairy tales, like Bill Gaede does. Bill Gaede thinks the opposite because he's clearly a lunatic. LOL
2. "What problem do you have with a word having several different meanings"
Well, we need to understand your presentation, your explanation. If you draw a dot on the board with your chalk, call it a point, tell us that it is a geometric FIGURE (object), and then during your dissertation claim that your 'point' is a location (concept), then clearly you are being inconsistent (i.e., unscientific, irrational)!
@bgaede "We need to understand your presentation, your explination"
The only person who doesn't understand, is you.
Let me simplify it for you again.
A point can be an object. (a dot on a page)
A point can be a location (eg. the location one metre above your head)
It is perfectly logical to say, "The point is at a point." because the structure of the sentence implies that you are talking about an object being at a location.
This is stuff you should have learned in early childhood.
@bgaede "What do you mean by 'exists'?" . . . "empty statement then!"
Look at any dictionary you like. I mean exaclty what all the dictionaries say. This one isn't as tricky as "point" because all its meanings are concurrent.
This is entirely irrelevant to our discussion, so stop dancing about like a cowardly fool and stay on topic.
2. "It is perfectly logical to say, "The point is at a point."
What an idiot!
You need to learn the diff b/w scientific language and ordinary speech. You are trying to say in your clumsy way that a dot is at a location. This means, dear idiot Kar, that the dot is NOT the same as a location as your preacher told you!
3. And if we add that your church also claims that a dot and a location are equal to an ordered pair or triple or quadruple or whatever, [e.g., (x, y)], and that a point is the intersection b/w two lines, or that a point is a number, then we have no idea WTF you and your priest are talking about. Understando?
4. Nevertheless, in Science, we do not strain to understand what the idiot of Math wants to say. It's the other way around. He has the responsibility to tell us WHAT a point is. If he draws a dot on the board and calls it a point, the dot is OBJECTIVELY a point. He can't later change that geometric FIGURE and tell us that the dot 'represents' a location. Comprende, bean brain?
This just demonstrates that you have your head too far up your own arse to understand what absolutely every body in this comments section has been trying to tell you for a good three years now. Everyone agrees that a physical dot is not equal to a location, which is not equal to an ordered pair, but they all share a name, "point".
No one strains to understand except you. The context and structure of the sentences used are more than enough for anybody to understand which definition of the word "point" is being used at any one time. I cannot make this point any simpler. If the average 5 year old were sitting in your place, they would understand by now, so let's move on, shall we?
There is no 'language of science', Bill. The language used in a scientific report is the same language that the scientist writing the report uses in every day life.
Although, there are some who might say, and I know this will make you fly into a terrible hissy fit complete with stale attempts at insults and fatuous ad hom. attacks, that the language of science is the language of the universe, and the language of the universe is Mathematics.
@bgaede No, in SCIENCE we do experiments and test predictions. What are you, retarded? LOL you don't get to redefine science, just because drawing pretty pictures and making up stories about ropes is the extent of your pathetic intellectual ability.
You're just butthurt because you're too stupid to do the math real physics requires. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No one of import will EVER listen to you, not because you're a maverick, but because you're an idiot. LOL wake up and smell the coffee. YOU FAIL
Is it so hard for you to understand that a word can have several different meanings and still make sense, depending on the context in which it is used? Or would you prefer it if we created a whole new word for each and every possible context that word may be used in?
What the heck are you talking about? This is the English language. They're called "homonyms" Bill. Words that share spelling and pronunciation but with different meanings.
When you point (verb), the point (noun, object) of your fingertip exists at a point (noun, location) in space which can be expressed as the point [x, y, z] relative to the point (noun, object) of your nose.
In Plato's Meno, Socrates questions Meno as to the most accurate definition of a figure/shape. By showing the possibility of there being more than one definition, Socrates shows that a definition cannot wholly and accurately describe something and that there is no one absolute definition for anything including shape.
- That is why your argument is fundamentally wrong
2. "there's lots of schools of thought on existence"
I didn't ask you to tell me how many schools there are in your underprivileged ghetto. I asked you what is the definition of 'exist'. You answered something about 'anything', which you tell me is a 'thing'... which can be 'anything'. Is this the best you can do?
Irrelevant in Science! I asked you, "What is YOUR definition?" Since you seem to 'know' so much and be so sure of yourself, I thought you might be able to defend your def. Apparently not.
.
"for you to... try and make a... definition...is... unscientific"
"there is not just one definition... what is so hard to understand"
Your theory! If you are going to switch from one meaning to the next at your convenience, then YOU (let alone your audience) have no clue what you're talking about.
.
"when you misquote me..."
I have never misquoted you. I just take the relevant part of your statement! The extra blah, blah is overkill.
@bgaede When do scientists jump from definition to definition? The word point? All of those definitions are different ways to say the exact same thing... and you misquote everyone who disagrees with you... it's your only defense
@bgaede A point is a primitive notion, it represents a location in space and has a score of other properties, you should probably try and learn some math to FIGURE out what they are
@bgaede A point is much more than a dot, but the other things are inconvenient because they lead to actual results that the establishment has to show for their efforts so you attempt to use hand waving to quickly dismiss it without anyone noticing
Well, you didn't really clarify what you were referring to, so I took the liberty to interpret it for you. Yes, the point of Math is satire. And, yes, the point of Math is a joke!
@bgaede Y=X^2+4 If you draw it out, you can see what is called the behavior of the function; you get an idea what the trend is. The drawings are only notation for the concepts.
What they do at the Math Klub is unrelated to Science! The only purpose of plugging in values into an equation is to trace out an itinerary one location at a time. This is a DESCRIPTION of motion. Science is about EXPLAINING the causes of a phenomenon. Never the twain shall meet!
3. "Geometric points and lines are defined to have no area"
.
Then, they have nothing to do with Geometry or Physics! In Physics, we have no use for non-entities. All of Mother Nature's dealings are done with objects, mostly atoms. The abstractions of the religion of Math -- 0D points, 1D lines -- have nothing to do with our real world.
4. It is the idiots of Math who later propose that these 0D points -- which they call 'singularities -- are ACTUALLY at the center of mathematical abstractions they call 'black holes'. They are reifying a CONCEPT (center of a sphere) and alleging that this non-entity sucks in astronauts and clocks. They had to invent this poppycock to explain why stars in the vicinity act so strangely.
5. So it is important to stop the mathematician dead in his tracks before he crosses the border into Physics. He has no business being there. He should stick to his own religion and leave Physics to those who have their feet planted firmly on the ground.
@bgaede Y=X^2+4 If you draw it out, you can see what is called the behavior of the function; you get an idea what the trend is. The drawings are only notation for the concepts.
This is so dumb. The dot is only a practical representation of the point, with it being implied that the center of the dot marks the location. The location is defined by numbers, so these are all the same things. Also, two straight lines only intersect in an exact location, which is still the same thing. Two points only have one direction straight between them, thus limiting and defining the line. This is just absurd.
1. "The dot is only a... representation of the point"
.
Is a point a geometric FIGURE or not? Are the four lines also a 'representation' of the true abstract square? Are the 12 lines you draw just a 'representation' of the true unadulterated a cube?
.
"the center of the dot marks the location"
So a point is a location??? WTF was the dot for? Do you 'represent' love with a heart in your religion? Do you use objects to represent concepts?
@bgaede If you are making a drawing, such as a normal graph to visualize a function, you can't see an infinitely small marking. The point represents a single ordered pair in cartesian coordinates, not the entire region the shading covers. Drawing lines cannot be accurate either because they would also be invisible. They have to have some thickness so you can see the behavior of a function, which is the purpose of drawing it.
This is a conceptual issue, not one involving eyesight. Either a point is the mark or the mark physically REPRESENTS an abstract concept. In Science, it is OBJECTIVE. There is no SUBJECTIVITY. We don't read into it what ain't there before us. OBJECTIVELY, what is there before us is a dot. This dot is a geometric FIGURE. Make it as small as you want. This FIGURE is 2D. That's OBJECTIVELY what we have before us.
3. Now, if you can't use that figure for your purposes, it doesn't concern Science. That's WHAT a line IS. That's what we drew. That's what's OBJECTIVELY there. If you meant something else, then you are misleading the jury. You are introducing subjectivity into Science. You are drawing this and meaning that. You are cheating.
4. "they would also be invisible. They have to have some thickness"
.
Invisible?
Here's the geometric FIGURE called a line again, Sec: /
It is 2D. It has width and height. If you can't see it, bring your scanning electron microscope to the conference next time. Okay? It's not invisible. And it wouldn't matter if it were. This is a conceptual issue. There is no object that is 0D or 1D. An object is that which has shape. All objects are either 2D or 3D.
b. Then, you are NOT talking about a geometric line: a FIGURE. You are talking about an ITINERARY: MOTION!!! As all p-branes of Math, you are REPRESENTING motion with a geometric FIGURE. You are REIFYING a concept. That is wholly unscientific. That sleight of hand belongs exclusively to religion. Math ONLY deals with motion: adverbs (and quantitative at that)!
@bgaede what's unscientific about it? sometimes we want to know where a planet is going to go careening off to, not to mention you need to have something you cant test your theory by... what better thing to test than a function! Oh that's right you hide behind your lack of falsifyability by saying that it's irrelevant...
Exactly! In Science, we don´t falsify anything. Quite the contrary. We try to be as honest as we can. Fraud and deception are not the methods of Science.
In Science, the proponent explains a phenomenon of nature and the jurors attempt to understand the explanation. We´re done! Anything beyond this is known as religion.
2. "falsifyability... means that you can be proved wrong"
Proven to whom? How do you prove a theory to be wrong? Perhaps the theory that God created the U is right to you. It may not be to your neighbor. How do you prove that theory?
3. What if your neighbor doesn´t believe your theory after you´ve proven it? Is it proven? Proven to whom? Can we call it Truth? Or is it possible that tomorrow we have a new theory that is truer?
@bgaede he has to give a reason why your experimental design was flawed or biased... if he remains stubborn... you leave them in the dust until they come up with something to prove them wrong... if you prove something once... it is generally a pretty simple exercise to do it again...
@bgaede that is one you cant prove... that's why it's not a theory... you really need to start paying attention... a theory would be... cyanide kills because it dissolves the cell membrane of your red blood cells. If you do some investigation you'll see that is wrong... and that it actually inhibits cell respiration... so your theory about cyanide lethality would have been proven incorrect... always prove... if you cant prove it... you're doing religion...
@bgaede but if you have an explanation... there are conclusions you can draw from that... if those conclusions turn out to be false.... then your explanation is wrong...
@bgaede no... conclusions are not opinions... thats where you're absolutely wrong... you cannot rationally conclude that it destroy's cell membranes when the membranes are left intact... you can test whether or not it inhibits the electron transport chain by seeing if it binds to the enzyme responsible for the production of ATP... which it turns out it does... it's a fact end of story
So you think that God exists because your congregation reached that conclusion??? This is not an opinion?
.
"you cannot rationally conclude that it destroy's cell membranes when the membranes are left intact"
.
Who said conclusions have to be rational? A stupid piece of shit like you believes in warped space, black holes, Big Bang, dark energy, 0D particles, 1D strings... What is rational about any of these conclusions?
@bgaede just because you cant see them doesnt mean they dont exist... dont be so myopic. Sharks can see the electric fields generated by the nerve action of their prey, explain that with you rope hypothesis, or... explain why mercury is a liquid at room temperature while Gold and Thallium are solid... the electron cloud model has the answer
@bgaede Idk how they see a concept... maybe because it's a physical object.. You cant immediately assume you are correct.. this is why PROOF is important.. because it leads to irrational ideas such as magical ropes and balls of yarn atoms... how do you know that there arnt beings that can see in 4 dimensions? they might look at us and think we're primitive because we can only see in three... you can't be myopic and immediately rule it out.
@bgaede Observation is necessary because you can't prove something exists unless you have evidence. We didnt know that pluto existed until we observed it, what you dont understand is that science is not about explaining, it's a systematic method of acquiring knowledge, hence it's name. You have to gather knowledge by actually seeing how nature behaves, not just speculating the way you did in your pathetic attempt to debunk the double slit experiment.
Exactly! And the reason is that there is no provision for proof in the definition of the word 'exist'!
.
"We didnt know that pluto existed until"
Hopefully Pluto existED before we knew that it existED! Our knowledge had no bearing whatsoever on Pluto's existence. Same with God. Same with THIS chair!
@bgaede There are lots of definitions... Take a course in metaphysics, existence is not something that is easily put into words. A better definition, albeit still oversimplistic definition, is anything with a physical presence. The proof does not come into the definition, it comes from the application of the definition, you have to prove it before you can apply the definition... that's called axiom, learn it before you try and tango with people who know what they're doing
@bgaede also, it's hilarious that you say I would run away from the question, when ALL of your definitions are hand wavy at best, your polarization mechanism has multiple holes in it, your ionization mechanism makes no sense, and your mechanism for electricity fails completely in light of REALITY the juror to which all scientists are accountable.
2. "existence... anything with a physical presence"
What do you mean by anything? What's a thing? What do you mean by physical? What do you mean by presence?
.
"The proof does not come into the definition"
Great! So never mention proof again, okay? We can't prove that THIS chair exists. It exists merely because it has physical presence. What you gotta do now is tell us what YOU mean by 'physical' and by 'presence'.
@bgaede a thing is anything... the important part is physical presence... listen.. there's lots of schools of thought on existence, theres bundle theory which says that an object is the sum of it's properties, others say that things exist without their properties, there is not a single agreed upon definition, and for you to come along and just try and make a self serving definition to support your critique is foolish and unscientific in every sense
When a book is free, no one reads it. That's my experience.
.
But let's test you, Xero. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's see if you are really interested in hearing a different bell. You let me know in my YT comments section where you want to download it and I'll send you the book for free. I'm on record now.
@bgaede "When a book is free, no one reads it. That's my experience."
Consider, one of the reasons that Mises has become popular is that many of their books are free in electronic form and what they found was that people liked the book so much that the people wanted a hard copy. The result was book sales went up and they sold more books.
You also might want to consider putting one chapter online as a teaser. If people like it they migt be more inclined to buy your book
@bgaede you dont understand the concept of falsifyability, it means that you can be proved wrong, in your "theory" you are trying to hide yourself from being able to be proven wrong by saying it's irrelevant, but that's just because your theory is poorly put together and summarily wrong
@bgaede The mark never literally is the point. In fact it is actually a 3 dimensional smear of graphite on paper in most cases. Hopefully you're aware of drawing functions to quickly interpolate rather than plugging in new values to an equation, or understanding the behavior for analytic purposes?
Examining further the fraud of the big-bang theory (which is religion dressed as science) I looked at Sidis' 'The Animate and Inanimate'. Chapter 1 - waste of time verbosity simply to say that in reverse time construct, everything moves backwards just like film reel played backwards. But also in this were so many errors in simple reason, confusing discoveries for inventions and completely taking thought processes (which are neuro-chemical reactions which EXIST as the brain EXISTS) ..
@hep48 and Sidis is supposedly a 225 IQ mega genius who thinks that 'logic exists' independently of the cognitive thought of an observer and independently of causation and the order of events. I had to put the book down after Chapter 1 because his premises are entirely retarded. He never operationalized or consistently used the word 'physical'.
@hep48 Hence for Sidis both logic and matter are 'physical'. Logic is 'discovered' thus not 'invented' for him. It 'exists' to him and is not a 'concept'. Yet in a reverse order construct universe 'logic' for him still behaves as the observers tool insofar as we do not perform a reverse logic analysis of the reverse order universe (as we'd negate the reversibility construct!) This is a major problem for him that arises within his first 500 words. So that book is trash.
So I'd love to see Bill Gaede to a great debunking of Sidis - even though its regrettable that most people who attack his work are for wrong reasons (big bang debate)
You'd be surprised what people have proposed out there... There's even a book titled 'Pushing Gravity'. All the authors propose pushing mechanisms, Casimir-type stuff. Hilarious!
.
"I found Newton's concept of 'potential energy'... to be entirely irrational"
It is irrational because they reify concepts. The mathematicians treat energy as if it were a physical object.
I went to a 'science magnet' school ... At 7 Years old in physical sciences we studied potential energy. It NEVER made sense how an object on a ledge had 'potential' energy - and HOW ON EARTH 'removing' (who removed it?) this ledge is the 'cause' of the 'fall'. Still never answered WHY it fell DOWN. The mathematicians of the world have confused HOW for WHY?? Why does the object have 'more potential' of the 'ledge is higher'. Can we create potential underneath a sea-level object by digging??
@bgaede I showed my friend's kid brother 'What's the Point' he's a physics (math) student at Caltech and he's still scratching his head since last month. Finally I told him 'hey I UNDERSTAND that mathematics would never get any of that exciting funding if you guys were honest about your whole field being simply solving internally consistent logic-game/bubbles that had nothing to do with existence or physics. '
"mathematics... had nothing to do with existence or physics."
.
This is a point few 'physicists' are willing to concede. If Math has nothing to do with Science, the last 400 years have been spent barking up a tree. Science is about explaining. Math is about describing. Never the twain shall meet.
@bgaede Indeed! Still I am hopeful that some of these 400 yr ol concepts in 'theoretical' mathematics could some day have some scientific 'real world' application. For funding, etc. reasons, society had to 'couch' the uninteresting study of number/logic games in big fantastic and earth shaking 'science' ostensibly aimed at discovering 'the mind of god' the 'origin of the universe' etc. But instead of discovering anything which exists, they have just invented concepts. Some day 'we' may ...
@hep48 ... find a good use for this mathematics --- but one thing is certain, gravity PULLS it doesn't 'push' with '=< -1' .. I'm no genius but I was 7 years old when I found Newton's concept of 'potential energy' in static, non-moving objects, because of its vector locale in a Laplacian-like 'force-field' to be entirely irrational ... the whole Cartesian mind-warp. CAN YOU DO A VIDEO ABOUT THAT? You've touched on the fraud of Newton and Descartes 'fields' - but what of this 'potential energy'??
The point is what you'd call a "movie" I believe. But, Gaede you tergiversate when you call a dot 2D. It's 3D. You can say "I treat it as 2D" but the real point/dot is physical, i.e. 3D. A plane is only real if we observe it and from some angles it disappears. Physically speaking a dot is 3D as anything we know.
MrAlexGTV 2 days ago
"The point is...3D"
.
The ink blot or chalk mark is 3D. A square or circle is 2D. The mathematicians have to tell the crowd whether their 'point' is the 3D raised mark or the 2D representation of the point. We can say that the mathematical point is AS A MINIMUM 2D. It certainly is not 0D as claimed.
bgaede 2 days ago
Also, you say that the definition of a point is circular because it takes two points to define a line and two lines to define a point. But have you considered that it also can take a point and a normal to define a line in R2 and a plane in R3, You can also define a line by a line by a point and an angle. You dont know anything about math so you cant criticize it. now explain newton's cradle
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
guys. dont bother talking to bill gayde about points, because he doesnt understand the concept of isomorphism in definitions
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
"dont bother talking to bill gayde about points, because he doesnt understand the concept"
.
I thought a point was a geometric FIGURE? Isn't this a point> .
.
It looks like a a two-dimensional object, Xero!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede thats because you have an agenda and no imagination
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
"you have... no imagination"
.
Please imagine a point for us, Xero. Does it look like this?> .
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede points are used to keep track of the relative locations of things in space, what's so inconsistent about that? and so what if i want to put an address on them, you're whole argument is that all these definitions are contradictory, but they're not lol.
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
1. "it also can take a point and a normal to define a line in R2 and a plane in R3"
So? What's your argument got to do with defining the word 'point' or drawing a point?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. "points are used to keep track of the relative locations of things in space"
All you confirmed is that in the religion of Math point = location. The mathematicians put a dot to replace the elephant so as to not be distracted by architecture and concentrate exclusively on location.
.
The problem is that the idiot of Math later forgets that there was an elephant there and starts moving the point (i.e., 'the' location).
bgaede 2 weeks ago
3. "what if i want to put an address on them"
An address on a dot???
You are more ill than I thought you were, Xero.
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede why?
Xero555000 1 week ago
@bgaede ... no, some things can be treated as points if they are small enough relative to your scale, if it's as big as an elephant then you need to represent the surface and interior of the elephant with points... you dont know anything about physics, so why are you criticizing it?
Xero555000 1 week ago
"some things can be treated as points if they are small enough"
.
And your brain is a case in point!
.
This is a point, you stupid idiotic moron> .
.
It's a 2D geometric FIGURE. Any questions?
.
bgaede 1 week ago
Alright, you win. You can keep your little hair-splitting game. I hope you enjoy your tiny, lonely, delusional little life, in your own tiny, lonely, delusional little mind.
In the mean time, we'll all be out here, together, working to discover ever more spectacular, mind blowing things about our complex, beautiful universe. Come and join us when you're ready to take that big step out of that intellectual hole you've dug yourself.
Or stay there, like the petulant manchild you are. I don't care.
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
1. "The context and structure of the sentences used are more than enough for anybody to understand"
If this were true, you would be able to explain. Obviously, you can't.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "I cannot make this point"
Of course not! the reason is clear. You haven't decided whether your point is a dot, a location, an ordered pair, an intersection of two lines (each of which is a series of dots, meaning locations, meaning numbers...), a singularity or an event in spacetime!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "If the average 5 year old were sitting in your place, they would understand by now"
What is it that the 5 year old would understand if YOU can't tell us what a point is? Are you 4 years old or younger, Kar?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "The language used in a scientific report is the same language that the scientist writing the report uses in every day life"
Perhaps at your monastery! Whatever idiocy the common dictionary has is unscientific. It cannot be used in Science because non of the critical terms is unambiguous enough to be used consistently. This is where the mathematicians say one thing and mean another. In Science we MUST have clear language in order to communicate theories.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. "there are some who might say... that the language of science... is Mathematics"
Yeah. They are known as idiots! The language of Science is not Chinese, English, Spanish or Mathematics. The language of Science is rational (i.e., can be used consistently)!
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/03Definition.html
bgaede 3 weeks ago
6. "Alright, you win"
In Science, we neither win nor lose nor seek the truth nor prove nor get Nobel Medals. In Science, we are much more humble. In Science, we merely explain.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
7. "your tiny, lonely, delusional little life, in your own tiny, lonely, delusional little mind"
It is irrelevant to Mother Nature whether I conform to the majority or tough it out on my own. Perhaps you need people to hold your hand and feel depressed if they shun you. I'm an independent thinker. I clean my ass with Math because it has no bearing on Science (understanding) let alone on Physics! If you think otherwise, here's your chance to make your case.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
8. Don't look behind you because it can't help your argument. It's just you and me on this island, kid!
.
"In the mean time, we'll all be out here, together..."
... in utter ignorance, per omnia saecula seculorum, holding hands like raped, gay choirboys, thinking that we have explained the workings of the U!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede cool story bro
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
@bgaede lol... for someone who has a head extremely far up his ass i find it hilarious that you consider yourself humble
Xero555000 2 weeks ago
In science, we do experiments and test predictions, and parametrize phenomena as accurately as possible, with mathematics, when possible. We don't draw pictures and make up fairy tales, like Bill Gaede does. Bill Gaede thinks the opposite because he's clearly a lunatic. LOL
SidewaysQuark 3 weeks ago
"In Mathematics, we do experiments and test predictions"
.
Yes. Conversely, in Science, we explain and understand.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Don't use quotation marks unless you're going to make a direct quote. That is simply dishonest and it destroys your credibility.
What he actually said was, "In SCIENCE, we do experiments and test predictions," which is correct.
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
"They're called "homonyms"
.
We're not into homos in Science, Kar. You're in the wrong field. You should look under rainbow or gays and lesbians.
.
"the point (noun, object) of your fingertip exists"
What do you mean by 'exists'?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "in space"
Is that what the priest who did you told you? That space is an ocean?
.
"the point [x, y, z]"
A point is x, y, z??? I thought a point was a geometric FIGURE? Yes or no?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "We're not into homos in Science"
I really hope you're just some elabourate troll, Bill, for your own sake.
If you're for real, I pity you and the lonely little universe of one you occupy.
"What do you mean by 'exists'?"
I'm not getting into a solipsist argument with you and wasting everyone's time, Bill.
Stop dodging like a coward and just answer my question, Bill.
What problem do you have with a word having several different meanings, dependent on context?
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
1. Kar: "the point (noun, object) of your fingertip exists"
Bill: ""What do you mean by 'exists'?"
Kar: "I'm not getting into a solipsist argument"
.
I thought so. Just an empty statement then!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "What problem do you have with a word having several different meanings"
Well, we need to understand your presentation, your explanation. If you draw a dot on the board with your chalk, call it a point, tell us that it is a geometric FIGURE (object), and then during your dissertation claim that your 'point' is a location (concept), then clearly you are being inconsistent (i.e., unscientific, irrational)!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. You have to decide whether this God you pray to is an object (dot) or a concept (location). The God of Math can't be both!
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-Concept
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. You have to decide whether this God you pray to is an object (dot) or a concept (location). The God of Math can't be both!
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-Concept
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "We need to understand your presentation, your explination"
The only person who doesn't understand, is you.
Let me simplify it for you again.
A point can be an object. (a dot on a page)
A point can be a location (eg. the location one metre above your head)
It is perfectly logical to say, "The point is at a point." because the structure of the sentence implies that you are talking about an object being at a location.
This is stuff you should have learned in early childhood.
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "What do you mean by 'exists'?" . . . "empty statement then!"
Look at any dictionary you like. I mean exaclty what all the dictionaries say. This one isn't as tricky as "point" because all its meanings are concurrent.
This is entirely irrelevant to our discussion, so stop dancing about like a cowardly fool and stay on topic.
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
1. "A point can be an object. (a dot... A point can be a location"
Do you understand the diff b/w a dot and a location, you stupid piece of shit? A dot has shape. 'A' location doesn't. Got it? Basic Physics!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "It is perfectly logical to say, "The point is at a point."
What an idiot!
You need to learn the diff b/w scientific language and ordinary speech. You are trying to say in your clumsy way that a dot is at a location. This means, dear idiot Kar, that the dot is NOT the same as a location as your preacher told you!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. And if we add that your church also claims that a dot and a location are equal to an ordered pair or triple or quadruple or whatever, [e.g., (x, y)], and that a point is the intersection b/w two lines, or that a point is a number, then we have no idea WTF you and your priest are talking about. Understando?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. Nevertheless, in Science, we do not strain to understand what the idiot of Math wants to say. It's the other way around. He has the responsibility to tell us WHAT a point is. If he draws a dot on the board and calls it a point, the dot is OBJECTIVELY a point. He can't later change that geometric FIGURE and tell us that the dot 'represents' a location. Comprende, bean brain?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede :"a dot and a location are equal"
This just demonstrates that you have your head too far up your own arse to understand what absolutely every body in this comments section has been trying to tell you for a good three years now. Everyone agrees that a physical dot is not equal to a location, which is not equal to an ordered pair, but they all share a name, "point".
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
"Everyone agrees that a physical dot is not equal to a location, which is not equal to an ordered pair"
Great! You're making progress, Kar. I'm proud of you. You might yet make it out of the asylum this year!
.
"but they all share a name, "point"
.
Aaaawwwh! I guess I had my hopes up too prematurely.
Erm... so which is the true blue 'point' of geometry? Which one of these is the geometric FIGURE on a par with line, triangle, and cube?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "we do not strain to understand"
No one strains to understand except you. The context and structure of the sentences used are more than enough for anybody to understand which definition of the word "point" is being used at any one time. I cannot make this point any simpler. If the average 5 year old were sitting in your place, they would understand by now, so let's move on, shall we?
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
@bgaede "language of science"
There is no 'language of science', Bill. The language used in a scientific report is the same language that the scientist writing the report uses in every day life.
Although, there are some who might say, and I know this will make you fly into a terrible hissy fit complete with stale attempts at insults and fatuous ad hom. attacks, that the language of science is the language of the universe, and the language of the universe is Mathematics.
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
@bgaede No, in SCIENCE we do experiments and test predictions. What are you, retarded? LOL you don't get to redefine science, just because drawing pretty pictures and making up stories about ropes is the extent of your pathetic intellectual ability.
You're just butthurt because you're too stupid to do the math real physics requires. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA No one of import will EVER listen to you, not because you're a maverick, but because you're an idiot. LOL wake up and smell the coffee. YOU FAIL
SidewaysQuark 3 weeks ago
1. "in religion we do experiments and test predictions"
Yes. And in Science we explain and understand.
.
"you don't get to redefine science"
No one does.
Science: rational explanations
What part are you proposing to change?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "the math real physics requires"
Physics is first and foremost about objects. Without objects, you can do no Physics. Yes or No? What's this 'Math' bullshit?
.
"No one of import will EVER listen to you"
Irrelevant. Science is not about winning gold medals and gawking at authority.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
Is it so hard for you to understand that a word can have several different meanings and still make sense, depending on the context in which it is used? Or would you prefer it if we created a whole new word for each and every possible context that word may be used in?
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
"a word can have several different meanings and still make sense"
Perhaps in your religion! Not in Science! In Science, we do not attempt to mislead the crowd, saying one thing and meaning another.
.
"the context in which it is used"
This idiot Weyl, a pastor of your parish, uses several irreconcilable notions of the word 'point' to make his line...
.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0001Weyl.html
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede
"Perhaps in your religion! Not in Science!"
What the heck are you talking about? This is the English language. They're called "homonyms" Bill. Words that share spelling and pronunciation but with different meanings.
When you point (verb), the point (noun, object) of your fingertip exists at a point (noun, location) in space which can be expressed as the point [x, y, z] relative to the point (noun, object) of your nose.
Why does this confuse you, Bill?
KarsusZidan 3 weeks ago
In Plato's Meno, Socrates questions Meno as to the most accurate definition of a figure/shape. By showing the possibility of there being more than one definition, Socrates shows that a definition cannot wholly and accurately describe something and that there is no one absolute definition for anything including shape.
- That is why your argument is fundamentally wrong
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "i debunked them"
Poor soul!
.
"a thing is anything"
That thought must've drained half your brain! You should rest now, Xero...
bgaede 4 weeks ago
2. "there's lots of schools of thought on existence"
I didn't ask you to tell me how many schools there are in your underprivileged ghetto. I asked you what is the definition of 'exist'. You answered something about 'anything', which you tell me is a 'thing'... which can be 'anything'. Is this the best you can do?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
3. "there is not a single agreed upon definition"
Irrelevant in Science! I asked you, "What is YOUR definition?" Since you seem to 'know' so much and be so sure of yourself, I thought you might be able to defend your def. Apparently not.
.
"for you to... try and make a... definition...is... unscientific"
Oh, why is that?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
4. "Socrates shows that a definition cannot wholly and accurately describe something"
Right! A definition is supposed to define, not describe!
.
I'm not asking you to describe 'exist'. I'm asking for a def of 'exist'!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede you cant use the word in it's definition... definitions 101
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede you dont even know what science is so how can you make a statement whether or not what I said is irrelevant?
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede and i'm telling you there is not just one definition... what is so hard to understand about that you dolt?
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede CENSORSHIP!
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
"CENSORSHIP!"
.
That's your def of 'exist'???
Take a longer rest, Xero. You sound exhausted!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede no you dolt, when you misquote me... you are taking part in censorship...
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
"there is not just one definition... what is so hard to understand"
Your theory! If you are going to switch from one meaning to the next at your convenience, then YOU (let alone your audience) have no clue what you're talking about.
.
"when you misquote me..."
I have never misquoted you. I just take the relevant part of your statement! The extra blah, blah is overkill.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede When do scientists jump from definition to definition? The word point? All of those definitions are different ways to say the exact same thing... and you misquote everyone who disagrees with you... it's your only defense
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
"When do scientists jump from definition to definition?"
Never! It's the idiots of Math who do! Why don't you educate yourself, you stupid moron?
.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0001Weyl.html
.
"All of those definitions are different ways to say the exact same thing"
No they're not, you moron! Is a point a geometric FIGURE or not? Yes or No?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede A point is a primitive notion, it represents a location in space and has a score of other properties, you should probably try and learn some math to FIGURE out what they are
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
1. "A point is a primitive notion"
You're primitive, Xero!
.
"it represents a location"
.
What do you mean 'represents'? How the fuck does a concept (point) represent a concept (location)?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "in space"
Is space a pool you swim 'in'?
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/03Time/06TimeTravel.html
.
"learn some math to FIGURE out what they are"
Why does anyone need to learn Math to figure out what a dot is? A dot is OBJECTIVELY WHAT we have before us. This is a point, bean brain> .
Yes or no?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede A point is much more than a dot, but the other things are inconvenient because they lead to actual results that the establishment has to show for their efforts so you attempt to use hand waving to quickly dismiss it without anyone noticing
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
"A point is much more than a dot"
Is a point a geometric FIGURE or not? Yes or no? Is this a point> .
Yes or no? What is OBJECTIVELY there?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede 1. Good one gayboy
2. Does everything need to be spelled out for you? Look it up!
3. Maybe you would understand how a point represents a location if you hadnt sucked so much dick in prison
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
I don't understand what you are supposed to be... Are you serious? Are you an actor? Is this supposed to be satire?
KarsusZidan 1 month ago
"Is this supposed to be satire?"
.
The infamous 'point' of Math is actually more than satire. It is a total joke. Not one idiot of Math can tell the crowd WHAT a point IS!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede That doesn't really answer my question.
KarsusZidan 1 month ago
Well, you didn't really clarify what you were referring to, so I took the liberty to interpret it for you. Yes, the point of Math is satire. And, yes, the point of Math is a joke!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede That's an extremely roundabout way to say "Yes, I am serious. No this is not satire." Thanks, I guess...
KarsusZidan 1 month ago
Comment removed
Thedoctor19000 1 month ago
cool.
950horsepower 1 month ago
@bgaede Y=X^2+4 If you draw it out, you can see what is called the behavior of the function; you get an idea what the trend is. The drawings are only notation for the concepts.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
@SecondAgeOfReason And the concepts themselves are in no way defined by, or dependent on, the drawings approximating them.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
1. "The mark never literally is the point"
.
In Physics, hopefully everything is literal. What we OBJECTIVELY have before us is a dot. Yes or No?
bgaede 2 months ago
2. "plugging in new values to an equation"
.
What they do at the Math Klub is unrelated to Science! The only purpose of plugging in values into an equation is to trace out an itinerary one location at a time. This is a DESCRIPTION of motion. Science is about EXPLAINING the causes of a phenomenon. Never the twain shall meet!
bgaede 2 months ago
3. "Geometric points and lines are defined to have no area"
.
Then, they have nothing to do with Geometry or Physics! In Physics, we have no use for non-entities. All of Mother Nature's dealings are done with objects, mostly atoms. The abstractions of the religion of Math -- 0D points, 1D lines -- have nothing to do with our real world.
bgaede 2 months ago
4. It is the idiots of Math who later propose that these 0D points -- which they call 'singularities -- are ACTUALLY at the center of mathematical abstractions they call 'black holes'. They are reifying a CONCEPT (center of a sphere) and alleging that this non-entity sucks in astronauts and clocks. They had to invent this poppycock to explain why stars in the vicinity act so strangely.
bgaede 2 months ago
5. So it is important to stop the mathematician dead in his tracks before he crosses the border into Physics. He has no business being there. He should stick to his own religion and leave Physics to those who have their feet planted firmly on the ground.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede well said
950horsepower 1 month ago
@bgaede "All of Mother Nature's dealings"
You are talking gibberish Bill, you can't even be consistent.
Nature is a concept, not an object.
Concepts can't have genders.
Concepts can't have dealings.
You go through great lengths at emphasizing the difference between CONCEPTS and OBJECTS but yet you break your own RULES on a regular basis.
The same arguments you use to say god doesn't exist,
would require you to say nature doesn't exist.
You should try politics, you are lousy at science.
justintempler 1 month ago
"Nature is a concept, not an object. Concepts can't have genders. Concepts can't have dealings... nature doesn't exist"
.
Hey, you´re learnin´, just!!! And I thought that you were incurable...
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "Hey, you´re learnin´"
Apparently you've got some catching up to do, I know your rules better than you do.
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Bill gaede makes some very volatile points.
fiesta181 1 month ago
@bgaede Y=X^2+4 If you draw it out, you can see what is called the behavior of the function; you get an idea what the trend is. The drawings are only notation for the concepts.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
This is so dumb. The dot is only a practical representation of the point, with it being implied that the center of the dot marks the location. The location is defined by numbers, so these are all the same things. Also, two straight lines only intersect in an exact location, which is still the same thing. Two points only have one direction straight between them, thus limiting and defining the line. This is just absurd.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
1. "The dot is only a... representation of the point"
.
Is a point a geometric FIGURE or not? Are the four lines also a 'representation' of the true abstract square? Are the 12 lines you draw just a 'representation' of the true unadulterated a cube?
.
"the center of the dot marks the location"
So a point is a location??? WTF was the dot for? Do you 'represent' love with a heart in your religion? Do you use objects to represent concepts?
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "location is defined by numbers"
Huh??? Your location wrt to the Moon is a number?
.
"two straight lines only intersect in an exact location"
That's two itineraries. A line is a 2D rectangle that looks like this: /
We are talking Geometry, right? We are talking about FIGURES, correct? What geometric FIGURE is 'location'? Please draw 'it'.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Two points only have one direction straight between them"
Two discrete, isolated points have no direction whatsoever. Perhaps a line has direction. Are you talking about points or lines?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede If you are making a drawing, such as a normal graph to visualize a function, you can't see an infinitely small marking. The point represents a single ordered pair in cartesian coordinates, not the entire region the shading covers. Drawing lines cannot be accurate either because they would also be invisible. They have to have some thickness so you can see the behavior of a function, which is the purpose of drawing it.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
1. "you can't see an infinitely small marking"
.
This is a conceptual issue, not one involving eyesight. Either a point is the mark or the mark physically REPRESENTS an abstract concept. In Science, it is OBJECTIVE. There is no SUBJECTIVITY. We don't read into it what ain't there before us. OBJECTIVELY, what is there before us is a dot. This dot is a geometric FIGURE. Make it as small as you want. This FIGURE is 2D. That's OBJECTIVELY what we have before us.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Drawing lines cannot be accurate either"
.
Accurate??? What does accuracy have to do with the instant issue?
This is a line, Sec: /
That geometric FIGURE is 2D. It has width and height! Any Qs?
A mathematician is a moron who calls a location a geometric point, and an itinerary, a geometric line.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. Now, if you can't use that figure for your purposes, it doesn't concern Science. That's WHAT a line IS. That's what we drew. That's what's OBJECTIVELY there. If you meant something else, then you are misleading the jury. You are introducing subjectivity into Science. You are drawing this and meaning that. You are cheating.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "they would also be invisible. They have to have some thickness"
.
Invisible?
Here's the geometric FIGURE called a line again, Sec: /
It is 2D. It has width and height. If you can't see it, bring your scanning electron microscope to the conference next time. Okay? It's not invisible. And it wouldn't matter if it were. This is a conceptual issue. There is no object that is 0D or 1D. An object is that which has shape. All objects are either 2D or 3D.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "you can see the behavior of a function"
.
a. You can see behavior???
b. Then, you are NOT talking about a geometric line: a FIGURE. You are talking about an ITINERARY: MOTION!!! As all p-branes of Math, you are REPRESENTING motion with a geometric FIGURE. You are REIFYING a concept. That is wholly unscientific. That sleight of hand belongs exclusively to religion. Math ONLY deals with motion: adverbs (and quantitative at that)!
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede what's unscientific about it? sometimes we want to know where a planet is going to go careening off to, not to mention you need to have something you cant test your theory by... what better thing to test than a function! Oh that's right you hide behind your lack of falsifyability by saying that it's irrelevant...
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "what's unscientific about it?... we want to know where a planet is going to go"
.
Nope! This has nothing to do with Science! Science is about EXPLAINING, not about DESCRIBING!
.
"you need to have something you cant test your theory by"
How do you test a theory, Xero? Do you bounce it against the wall? Smash it with a sledge hammer?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "falsifyability... it's irrelevant"
Exactly! In Science, we don´t falsify anything. Quite the contrary. We try to be as honest as we can. Fraud and deception are not the methods of Science.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. Science: rational explanations.
.
In Science, the proponent explains a phenomenon of nature and the jurors attempt to understand the explanation. We´re done! Anything beyond this is known as religion.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede According to you...
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "you test it by seeing if it's predictions hold true"
A prediction is a description, not an explanation! Science is about explaining the past, not about predicting the future!
Again, how do you test an explanation (i.e., theory)? What´s a theory got to do with predicting?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "falsifyability... means that you can be proved wrong"
Proven to whom? How do you prove a theory to be wrong? Perhaps the theory that God created the U is right to you. It may not be to your neighbor. How do you prove that theory?
bgaede 1 month ago
3. What if your neighbor doesn´t believe your theory after you´ve proven it? Is it proven? Proven to whom? Can we call it Truth? Or is it possible that tomorrow we have a new theory that is truer?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede he has to give a reason why your experimental design was flawed or biased... if he remains stubborn... you leave them in the dust until they come up with something to prove them wrong... if you prove something once... it is generally a pretty simple exercise to do it again...
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede that is one you cant prove... that's why it's not a theory... you really need to start paying attention... a theory would be... cyanide kills because it dissolves the cell membrane of your red blood cells. If you do some investigation you'll see that is wrong... and that it actually inhibits cell respiration... so your theory about cyanide lethality would have been proven incorrect... always prove... if you cant prove it... you're doing religion...
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede but if you have an explanation... there are conclusions you can draw from that... if those conclusions turn out to be false.... then your explanation is wrong...
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "there are conclusions you can draw"
Any conclusions YOU draw are YOUR personal OPINIONS!
.
"those conclusions turn out to be false"
"False" is YOUR opinion!
.
"your explanation is wrong"
"Wrong" is YOUR opinion!
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "cyanide kills because..."
One theory.
"it actually inhibits..."
Another theory.
.
"If you do some investigation you'll see that..."
...they are 2 diff explanations! Tomorrow, another guy proposes yet a third version. YOU can reject and accept the ones YOU like.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "your theory about cyanide lethality would have been proven incorrect"
To whom?
.
"if you... prove it... you're doing religion"
Yes. Proof means that YOU opened YOUR cheeks!
.
"if you prove something once"
...it means that the rest of the world continues to believe in God! They weren´t there to challenge YOUR interpretation.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede To whom? the the rest of the rational world
and how about you actually address my points rather than obviously changing the context of my quote... oh right... you have the intellect of a turd
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede no... conclusions are not opinions... thats where you're absolutely wrong... you cannot rationally conclude that it destroy's cell membranes when the membranes are left intact... you can test whether or not it inhibits the electron transport chain by seeing if it binds to the enzyme responsible for the production of ATP... which it turns out it does... it's a fact end of story
Xero555000 1 month ago
"conclusions are not opinions"
.
So you think that God exists because your congregation reached that conclusion??? This is not an opinion?
.
"you cannot rationally conclude that it destroy's cell membranes when the membranes are left intact"
.
Who said conclusions have to be rational? A stupid piece of shit like you believes in warped space, black holes, Big Bang, dark energy, 0D particles, 1D strings... What is rational about any of these conclusions?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede just because you cant see them doesnt mean they dont exist... dont be so myopic. Sharks can see the electric fields generated by the nerve action of their prey, explain that with you rope hypothesis, or... explain why mercury is a liquid at room temperature while Gold and Thallium are solid... the electron cloud model has the answer
Xero555000 1 month ago
"just because you cant see them doesnt mean they dont exist"
What does 'see' have to do with 'exist'? Where in the definition of 'exist' do you see a provision for sight?
.
"Sharks can see the electric fields"
Can they also see love and justice? How do you see a concept such as 'field'? Physics deals with objects, not with concepts.
.
"explain why mercury is a liquid at room temperature while Gold and Thallium are solid"
WGDE Chp 8
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Idk how they see a concept... maybe because it's a physical object.. You cant immediately assume you are correct.. this is why PROOF is important.. because it leads to irrational ideas such as magical ropes and balls of yarn atoms... how do you know that there arnt beings that can see in 4 dimensions? they might look at us and think we're primitive because we can only see in three... you can't be myopic and immediately rule it out.
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede Observation is necessary because you can't prove something exists unless you have evidence. We didnt know that pluto existed until we observed it, what you dont understand is that science is not about explaining, it's a systematic method of acquiring knowledge, hence it's name. You have to gather knowledge by actually seeing how nature behaves, not just speculating the way you did in your pathetic attempt to debunk the double slit experiment.
Xero555000 1 month ago
"you can't prove something exists"
Exactly! And the reason is that there is no provision for proof in the definition of the word 'exist'!
.
"We didnt know that pluto existed until"
Hopefully Pluto existED before we knew that it existED! Our knowledge had no bearing whatsoever on Pluto's existence. Same with God. Same with THIS chair!
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Why-God-Doesnt-Exist-Living
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede there is no provision for proof in YOUR definition of exist... yours is not THE definition, for science or otherwise
Xero555000 1 month ago
"yours is not THE definition, for science"
Great! Let's look at yours, Xero. Let's see where you put proof in YOUR def of 'exist'! (And please don't run away from this Q...)
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede There are lots of definitions... Take a course in metaphysics, existence is not something that is easily put into words. A better definition, albeit still oversimplistic definition, is anything with a physical presence. The proof does not come into the definition, it comes from the application of the definition, you have to prove it before you can apply the definition... that's called axiom, learn it before you try and tango with people who know what they're doing
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede also, it's hilarious that you say I would run away from the question, when ALL of your definitions are hand wavy at best, your polarization mechanism has multiple holes in it, your ionization mechanism makes no sense, and your mechanism for electricity fails completely in light of REALITY the juror to which all scientists are accountable.
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "Take a course in metaphysics, existence is not something that is easily put into words"
Well, bean brain, if you can't put it into words, perhaps you should take the course in meta whatever...
I put the def into words without any problem...
.
exist: physical presence
.
See how easy it is?
Your turn!
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "existence... anything with a physical presence"
What do you mean by anything? What's a thing? What do you mean by physical? What do you mean by presence?
.
"The proof does not come into the definition"
Great! So never mention proof again, okay? We can't prove that THIS chair exists. It exists merely because it has physical presence. What you gotta do now is tell us what YOU mean by 'physical' and by 'presence'.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "ALL of your definitions are hand wavy"
The scientific criterion is whether you can use the def consistently (i.e., scientifically, rationally).
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/03Definition.html
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "your polarization mechanism has multiple holes in it"
Cheap shot. No justification. Just an unsubstantiated statement.
.
"your ionization mechanism makes no sense"
Sorry that you're not up to the job, Xero!
.
"your mechanism for electricity fails completely"
Another unjustified statement.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede no it's not ... read your old posts of mine... i debunked them thoroughly
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede a thing is anything... the important part is physical presence... listen.. there's lots of schools of thought on existence, theres bundle theory which says that an object is the sum of it's properties, others say that things exist without their properties, there is not a single agreed upon definition, and for you to come along and just try and make a self serving definition to support your critique is foolish and unscientific in every sense
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede Not buying your book, because you dont have the answer. Make your books free and then i'll read them
Xero555000 1 month ago
"Make your books free and then i'll read them"
.
When a book is free, no one reads it. That's my experience.
.
But let's test you, Xero. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's see if you are really interested in hearing a different bell. You let me know in my YT comments section where you want to download it and I'll send you the book for free. I'm on record now.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "When a book is free, no one reads it. That's my experience."
Consider, one of the reasons that Mises has become popular is that many of their books are free in electronic form and what they found was that people liked the book so much that the people wanted a hard copy. The result was book sales went up and they sold more books.
You also might want to consider putting one chapter online as a teaser. If people like it they migt be more inclined to buy your book
justintempler 1 month ago
"consider putting one chapter online as a teaser"
.
That's what I did. For instance...
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/00SumMass.html
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede you dont understand the concept of falsifyability, it means that you can be proved wrong, in your "theory" you are trying to hide yourself from being able to be proven wrong by saying it's irrelevant, but that's just because your theory is poorly put together and summarily wrong
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede you test it by seeing if it's predictions hold true under different circumstances
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede Geometric points and lines are defined to have no area. Drawings, again, only show the eye the directions and locations.
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
@bgaede The mark never literally is the point. In fact it is actually a 3 dimensional smear of graphite on paper in most cases. Hopefully you're aware of drawing functions to quickly interpolate rather than plugging in new values to an equation, or understanding the behavior for analytic purposes?
SecondAgeOfReason 3 months ago
Examining further the fraud of the big-bang theory (which is religion dressed as science) I looked at Sidis' 'The Animate and Inanimate'. Chapter 1 - waste of time verbosity simply to say that in reverse time construct, everything moves backwards just like film reel played backwards. But also in this were so many errors in simple reason, confusing discoveries for inventions and completely taking thought processes (which are neuro-chemical reactions which EXIST as the brain EXISTS) ..
hep48 3 months ago
@hep48 and Sidis is supposedly a 225 IQ mega genius who thinks that 'logic exists' independently of the cognitive thought of an observer and independently of causation and the order of events. I had to put the book down after Chapter 1 because his premises are entirely retarded. He never operationalized or consistently used the word 'physical'.
hep48 3 months ago
@hep48 Hence for Sidis both logic and matter are 'physical'. Logic is 'discovered' thus not 'invented' for him. It 'exists' to him and is not a 'concept'. Yet in a reverse order construct universe 'logic' for him still behaves as the observers tool insofar as we do not perform a reverse logic analysis of the reverse order universe (as we'd negate the reversibility construct!) This is a major problem for him that arises within his first 500 words. So that book is trash.
hep48 3 months ago
So I'd love to see Bill Gaede to a great debunking of Sidis - even though its regrettable that most people who attack his work are for wrong reasons (big bang debate)
hep48 3 months ago
1. "gravity PULLS it doesn't 'push'
.
You'd be surprised what people have proposed out there... There's even a book titled 'Pushing Gravity'. All the authors propose pushing mechanisms, Casimir-type stuff. Hilarious!
.
"I found Newton's concept of 'potential energy'... to be entirely irrational"
It is irrational because they reify concepts. The mathematicians treat energy as if it were a physical object.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "the whole Cartesian mind-warp. CAN YOU DO A VIDEO ABOUT THAT?"
I treat the subject to a certain degree in Vid 4.
watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4
.
"The mathematicians of the world have confused HOW for WHY"
It's worse than you think, hep. They actually believe that Science just describes...
"Science does not explain. Science describes." Donald Simanek (Emeritus, Lock Haven U).
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Why does the object have 'more potential' of the 'ledge is higher'."
That is the key Q that the mathematicians have failed to answer. Stating that it does is merely a description.
.
Here is an explanation to that Q...
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-12
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "the fraud of the big-bang theory"
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-20
.
"film reel played backwards"
Even when it does, Mickey's arms continue to spin CW. Relativists never discovered this open secret. Mind-boggling!
.
"Sidis is supposedly a 225 IQ mega genius"
There are no experts in Science. In Science, we merely explain. You have to reach your own conclusions.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "the whole Cartesian mind-warp. CAN YOU DO A VIDEO ABOUT THAT?"
I treat the subject to a certain degree in Vid 4.
watch?v=9Q9IePuHut4
.
"The mathematicians of the world have confused HOW for WHY"
It's worse than you think, hep. They actually believe that Science just describes...
"Science does not explain. Science describes." Donald Simanek (Emeritus, Lock Haven U).
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Why does the object have 'more potential' of the 'ledge is higher'."
That is the key Q that the mathematicians have failed to answer. Stating that it does is merely a description.
.
Here is an explanation to that Q...
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-12
bgaede 3 months ago
I went to a 'science magnet' school ... At 7 Years old in physical sciences we studied potential energy. It NEVER made sense how an object on a ledge had 'potential' energy - and HOW ON EARTH 'removing' (who removed it?) this ledge is the 'cause' of the 'fall'. Still never answered WHY it fell DOWN. The mathematicians of the world have confused HOW for WHY?? Why does the object have 'more potential' of the 'ledge is higher'. Can we create potential underneath a sea-level object by digging??
hep48 3 months ago
"@sinoascus You have no point"
.
Leave sino alone! He's still asking himself, "What's the point?"
bgaede 3 months ago
211 People can't define 'Exist'
hep48 3 months ago in playlist Bill Gaede
Only 211???
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede At least 212
hep48 3 months ago
That's better!
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I showed my friend's kid brother 'What's the Point' he's a physics (math) student at Caltech and he's still scratching his head since last month. Finally I told him 'hey I UNDERSTAND that mathematics would never get any of that exciting funding if you guys were honest about your whole field being simply solving internally consistent logic-game/bubbles that had nothing to do with existence or physics. '
hep48 3 months ago
"mathematics... had nothing to do with existence or physics."
.
This is a point few 'physicists' are willing to concede. If Math has nothing to do with Science, the last 400 years have been spent barking up a tree. Science is about explaining. Math is about describing. Never the twain shall meet.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Indeed! Still I am hopeful that some of these 400 yr ol concepts in 'theoretical' mathematics could some day have some scientific 'real world' application. For funding, etc. reasons, society had to 'couch' the uninteresting study of number/logic games in big fantastic and earth shaking 'science' ostensibly aimed at discovering 'the mind of god' the 'origin of the universe' etc. But instead of discovering anything which exists, they have just invented concepts. Some day 'we' may ...
hep48 3 months ago
@hep48 ... find a good use for this mathematics --- but one thing is certain, gravity PULLS it doesn't 'push' with '=< -1' .. I'm no genius but I was 7 years old when I found Newton's concept of 'potential energy' in static, non-moving objects, because of its vector locale in a Laplacian-like 'force-field' to be entirely irrational ... the whole Cartesian mind-warp. CAN YOU DO A VIDEO ABOUT THAT? You've touched on the fraud of Newton and Descartes 'fields' - but what of this 'potential energy'??
hep48 3 months ago
@Fruckert And he is not even a real physicist or any sort of scientist. He's just a bored and failed programmer.
lucasirineu 3 months ago
"He's just a bored and failed programmer."
.
Not failed. Just bored.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Criminal convictions are a big fail, dude.
sinoascus 3 months ago
So, I just read your wikipedia article.
Nice little history that you have there.
Specifically the industrial spy that betrayed