Bgaede, I'm a physicist, and no I'm not hear to disprove or insult. I'm beginning to understand more what you're putting forth. Are you basically putting forth an interpretation of what physics is that is much easier to grasp?
Have you developed at all methods to make predictions of these theories? Meaning, if you're correct, shouldn't you be able to make predictions that are testable or reformulations that are much simpler?
Scientific theories are NEITHER correct/incorrect, right/wrong, nor true/false. All of these are OPINIONS. Opinions belong exclusively to religion. Scientific theories are either RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL. This is the only OBJECTIVE standard.
In Science, we don't do predictions. That's the stuff of astrologers, palm readers and mathematicians. In science, we merely explain and do so rationally.
'Testable' is a detestable word in Science. In Science, we don't run experiments or test anything. In Science, we ONLY explain. If you don't like my explanation, you can run as many experiments as you want in your dark basement lab. But when you come back to the conference, your job is to explain. Science ONLY deals with explanations. What YOU did to come up with your theory is extra-scientific.
4. The purpose of Science is NOT to arrive at the truth simply because truth is an OPINION. What is true to you is a lie to me. In Science, we don't prove theories because proof is in the eye of the beholder. In Science, we explain objectively and the jurors UNDERSTAND. That's where Science ends. What begins thereafter is belief: religion. Persuasion is the military arm of religion. As soon as the scientists attempts to prove to you, he has stealthily switched hats. He is now a priest.
Was there something maybe lost in translation there? i'm pretty sure they're education(?) far exceeds mine, but i can see light as a rope, also seems pretty obvious that rope is made of many threads, smaller and smaller........
You refuse to talk about waves here on youtube because they are 'concepts' and therefore not a proper topic of your version of physics, and you refuse to talk about water waves, then you spend a bunch of time of this Q and A talking about light being waves along your ropes. Talk about hypocritical.
"you refuse to talk about water waves, then you spend a bunch of time of this Q and A talking about light being waves along your ropes"
I was facing a hostile audience. I was up against a mathematical crowd. I had to use THEIR terminology. I have no qualms in phrasing it the way it should be phrased: A rope is torqued.
@bgaede The rope is torqued, yes. But would you say something arrives when the torsion reaches the other end? It's fast, but not infinitely fast. Something is moving along the rope, and it's not a rope.
2. It is when the mathematician is confronted by a physicist that he realizes how powerless he is. So for the first time in his life he looks up the word to figure out what all the fuss is about and he transcribes the definition he finds in the dictionary. There isn't even an attempt to scrutinize whether what he transcribes makes any sense. A mathematician is an individual who is entirely lost w/o his numbers and equations.
3. This is out of your league, Boz, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's repeat the Q for you. Do you know what a 'thing' is for the purposes of Physics? Can you define the word 'thing' (or object) or not? Please try again (w/o using synonyms this time)...
@bgaede "Can you define the word 'thing' (or object) or not? Please try again (w/o using synonyms this time)..."
We're using your definition of object. But thing has a broader definition that pretty much is 'unspecified noun'. I used this word intentionally. Physics does not exclusively deal with objects as you claim in your idiosyncratic version of the science.
1. "We're using your definition of object. But thing has a broader definition"
.
You can't have both ways in Science. A definition that makes or breaks your argument has to be UNAMBIGUOUS. You can't say that 'object is that which has shape', claim that a BH is an object and, when I put you against the ropes, you qualify your initial definition by saying that, "Well, but the word 'thing' has a broader definition which includes BHs."
2. Let me state my definition again so that we're on the same page...
.
object: that which has shape (syn: thing, something, entity, medium, substance, structure, etc).
.
In Science, an 'object' is no different than a 'thing'. If you do not agree, then the onus is for you to define the word 'thing' and differentiate it from 'object'. No loopholes will be allowed.
@bgaede Bill the more I learn about physics, the more I realize that 99% of people on Earth don't understand what they THEMSELVES are talking about; i.e. people don't even understand their OWN definition! :O That's kinda scary and disturbing, no? Some kind of spooky surrealist nightmare.
*99% of people on Earth don't understand what they THEMSELVES are talking about*
Right. Take bill gaede for instance - This idiot defines an object as 'that which has a concept'.
Then he claims that he can DIFFERENTIATE 'objects' from 'concepts' according to this definition. Fortunately 99% of people on earth would consider this method to be utterly irrational.
"bill gaede... he can DIFFERENTIATE 'objects' from 'concepts'
.
Yes. On the other hand, the mathematicians can't. They are in the business of moving concepts. They claim to transfer energy, move 'a' mass, and carry 'a' force.
@bgaede If this is your best answer, then this is your best answer; there's not a lot i can do about you anymore. It is those poor uneducated people who fall for your crap that concern me.
Lol, actually you don't; that's the entire point. But please answer my question as i'm calling your lame bluff: Is an object that which has a concept? Y or N?
@bgaede When the question is "What is that thing?" 'thing' is broad enough to include whatever the answer is.
BH? Black hole?
In any case, where we get in to problems is still when we are discussing a non-object by your definition of object. I won't claim that a wave is an object by your definition. I will claim that it is a proper subject of study in physics.
1. "My argument is not made or broken by the word thing"
.
You're too late with that excuse, Bozo. Let's recap...
.
a. YOU said that 'objects' are used at least sometimes in Physics.
b. YOU did not put forth a definition for this essential word, but rather went along with the scientific version: 'that which has shape'. Fine. No problem.
2. c. YOU tried to escape the implications of this definition by claiming that object ≠ thing. You want to leave a door open for yourself, a tangent thru which to escape when the going gets rough. You want to be able to tell the jurors that a BH is perhaps not an 'object', but that it nevertheless is a 'thing'. Therefore, the words 'object' and 'thing' are indeed the essence, the foundations of YOUR argument.
3. d. If YOU claim that object ≠ thing, whereas I have made it plain that for the purposes of Physics they are identical, then we are not done yet. YOU are now required to define the word 'thing' and show how it is different than the word 'object' for the purposes of Physics if as YOU say they are not synonyms. Hence, YOUR argument is in fact not made/broken by the words 'thing' and 'object'
4. You are already on record as saying that 'objects' are a part of Physics and that an 'object' is 'that which has shape'. Now all YOU have to do is justify YOUR argument that object ≠ thing.
.
object: ________
thing: _________
.
Please define them (if you claim they are different). We don't want to have you invoke the word 'thing' instead of 'object' if you haven't defined it, now would we?
6. e.g., Space is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. 'A' black hole is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. Energy is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. Physics only studies 'things', specifically 'things' which exist. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics only studies that which exists. Concepts do not exist for the purposes of Science.
7. But if you claim that space, BH, energy, mass, 0D particle, warped space, spacetime, time, wormholes... are 'things' for the purposes of Physics, we will have to understand what YOU mean by 'thing'. Otherwise, your argument is poppycock.
2. By invoking the word 'thing' and using it to identify EVERY thing (words, concepts, objects) you have made your 'thing' word all powerful. The word 'thing' is now a synonym of God. It can solve any dialectic problem for you without giving you any understanding in exchange.
3. For instance, if you claim that a BH is an object, I can throw at you the 'shape' definition. Concepts such as singularities and event horizons obviously don't have shape. So now you introduce your loophole: "Well, a BH is not an object according to this def... but it is still a 'thing'. And since Physics studies 'things', a BH is still a part of Physics."
5. How are they different? In what way are you going to use the word 'thing' in Physics if it includes the set of words that have shape as well as those that don't? What is the purpose of such broad category?
6. In a scientific context, there are only TWO categories: objects and concepts. The words 'thing', entity, substance, medium, structure, concrete, image, etc. are 100% synonyms of 'object'. The words 'idea', 'notion', 'thought'... are synonyms of 'concept'.
7. Take ANY word in the dict. It either designates 'that which has shape' or 'that which doesn't'. It's either black or white, on or off, yes or not. There is no grey in Science, no attempt to mislead or confuse. Science is objective, rational, clear, literal. No metaphors, no poetry, no second or hidden meanings. The purpose of Sciecen is to explain and understand, not to believe or arrive at 'the' Truth.
8. For the purposes of Physics, space is NOT a 'thing'. Neither is time. The nouns of Physics, the ones that can be used as the subjects of sentences, are ONLY those which have shape. In Physics it is irrational to place an article in front of a concept (e.g., 'The' orbit of..., 'A' black hole is..., 'The' center of mass was..., 'A' charge accelerated...)
9. In Physics, 'the' orbit of Mercury is NOT elliptical (adjective). In Physics, 'Mercury orbits elliptically' (adverb). In Physics, it is not 'the motion of the Earth', but rather 'the Earth moves'.
10. Terms such as geodesic, energy, time, mass, charge, field, force, BH, Universe, 0D particle, 1D string, motion, orbital, trajectory... are NOT nouns for the purposes of Physics. They cannot be the proper subject of study. They cannot be used as the subject of a sentence. They are not things. They are not objects. They are not mediums or entities or substances. We cannot travel 'in' or 'thru' time or space or energy. Not in Phyz!
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/03Time/06TimeTravel html
11. Again, if you will argue otherwise, the onus is on you to define the words 'object' and 'thing' and establish what is the difference between them. You also need to clarify what you plan to use this all-encompassing word 'thing' for. It seems like that it's only purpose is to give you a tangent 'thru' which you can escape when the reporter asks the tough Qs at the end of your prez.
The brain! Thinking. Reasoning! Burning some grey matter! In Science, we don't copy definitions from the book without filtering them thru the neurons. We reason them out, rationalize them until we can find no holes, and then defend them until someone shows us a better mousetrap.
@bgaede "That's just a statement, a belief so far. Please justify it. What does Physics study? Verbs?"
It studies whatever verbs and nouns and whatever part of speech you like that is involved in how the universe (or whatever you want to call it) works. The basic question of physics is "what is everything and how does it work?" In particular matter and energy and the interactions of those things is studied in physics.
It is a more general question than you seem to want to make it.
"The basic question of physics is "what is everything"
.
But you are doing 'everything' possible to elude this Q. I asked you...
a. What is an 'object' (since we agree that Physics studies objects at least some of the times).
b. What is a 'thing', since you claim that for the purposes of Physics an object is not a synonym of a thing.
.
You state that you have no problems with the 'shape' version of 'object'. Fine! How is a 'thing' diff than an 'object'? What is your definition of 'thing'?
In the context of explaning natural phenomena, rational simply means clear.
The beautiful thing about science is that it requires no credibility; the only thing that matters is clear communication. Bill Gaede isn't always as clear as he could be, but since he is rigorous about his definitions and can makes pictures and movies that convey the actual shape of the entities he is hypothesizing, he is automatically miles ahead of any of the modern physicists.
Readers may be interested to know that Mr. Gaede is still currently on FBI and CIA watch lists. He also "may have intent to defraud." He is a convicted felon who now practices freely from his Argentina location.
oh i've been there, I could talk for hours about how he never tries to explain anything he says.
Rational irrational....he doesn't even define what these are, he's basically a relativist (ironically) and has no education on the the nature of what it means to be logical or how to go about testing anything.
like so many delusional people one pet theory becomes some crazy venture into nonsense.
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
1. "you have to rewrite all chemistry books as it always states the e for electron equation"
.
The equation is not being challenged. It is the physical interpretation that is under attack. It is not the same to explain that a discrete bead TRAVELED from A to B and IMPACTED B as to say that a string of yarn is EXTENDED from A to B and that the torsion on the string is what was FELT at B. These are two diff mechanisms.
2. Similarly, it is not the same to say that an atom LOST/DONATED an electron BALL as it is to say that a KNOT untangled. QM's ridiculous and childish planetary atom cannot explain how two H atoms remain faithful to each other by sharing discrete moons. All the actors in the movie -- planets and moons -- are DISCRETE entities. There is no reason for one to affect the other.
3. If, instead, the electron is a SHELL made of yarn that envelopes the nucleus (as Schrodinger and Born concluded), we can now visualize how the yarn is shared b/w 2 neighboring H atoms. The electron shells MERGE as rightfully depicted in ALL orbitron-like images.
.
winter group shef ac uk/orbitron/
.
The Rope Hypothesis replaces the ethereal CONCEPT 'orbital' (i.e., a bead ORBITING many times around the nucleus) with the OBJECT 'shell' (i.e., a woven surface).
Yes, I would like to buy the book. But I'm from India, so I want to know the price, before committing, to know whether I can afford it! Upto 40USD is ok including the shipping.
Yes, I would like to buy the book. But I'm from India, so I want to know the price, before committing, to know whether I can afford it! Upto 40USD is ok including the shipping.
Your entire argument is about me being an idiot and you not presenting any evidence or meaningful observations for your own theory. That doesn't make you right, does it? I guess I still need to find out what 'Bill's Science' is!
For instance, you assume that since I have seen a rope (man made object) I should think every particle is connected via an actual rope that was somehow created by nature? And you don't even expalin readioactive and how new ropes would be created nor how they prevent themselves from getting tangled. So yes I know what a rope is Bill, but it doesn't fit your crackpot analogy.
@illumined1 You really need to stop trolling Bill's account. Go learn about the theories first before talking crap; almost everything you say is either explained or you completely miss the point.
@L1ber8ted His theory is BS and his idea about what science is is completely irrational... by saying that he need not test or validate his theory he basically is avoiding the cold hard facts of nature... he is a big advocate of proof by intimidation
@Aegis5461 Learn how to make a rational argument. I'll give you a clue: that wasn't one. Otherwise, I don't want to know, so go away and learn about wave-packets, or angels. Whatever turns you on.
@L1ber8ted The establishment sent a man to the moon... Gaede and his idiotic disciples like you have nothing to show for all the pissing and moaning you do about how the science doesnt make sense. Here's a tip, get a degree in something other than communications or psychology before you start trying to talk about science. You're way out of your league you artsy little prick
"A classic crackpot is an Internet forum participant who constantly talks about his pet idea, who tries to turn every discussion into a debate about his idea, and who seems oblivious to contradicting evidence. Another distinguishing crackpot trait is that he doesn't think it's his responsibility to defend the idea, but the responsibility of others to disprove it."
This is you, Bill - not the rest of the physics community.
1. "A classic crackpot... constantly talks about his pet idea... tries to turn every discussion into a debate about his idea, and who seems oblivious to contradicting evidence.
.
I guess that makes Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the rest of the idiots of Math Phyz crackpots.
2. "Another... crackpot trait... doesn't think it's his responsibility to defend the idea, but the responsibility of others to disprove it."
.
And clearly I have stated that there are no proofs in Science. You agreed last time, but as always, idiots like you give lip service to such sweeping statements. You either don't understand what you said or contradict it at the next debate.
3. Try this at your therapy session with the shrink next week, ill. Say "Science requires proofs" and "Science doesn't require proofs" back and forth 1000 times.
Oh, I see... You're one of those Creationist loons, huh... somethin' like the Big Bangers: "First there was energy, positive and negative. Then there was time." Or... "First there was void. Then we split the sizzling vacuum and came up with negative and positive particles. Finally, we put them back together and created empty space."
6. I wonder how you idiots at the asylum create rabbits from the void? Do you wave a magic wand and convert void into tissue? Or do you pray and ask for God to create the rabbit for you?
In Science, there are no right or wrong or correct or incorrect explanations. There are only rational and irrational explanations. Whether the explanation is 'right' is YOUR PERSONAL opinion which, as it turns out, doesn't concern Science in the least.
1. "if it is rational then by default it is logical to believe that explanation until a better one comes along that may disprove it"
.
Too many errors, idiot Star. Firstly, we don't prove or disprove explanations in Science. Explanations are either rational or irrational. Beyond that, you can believe whichever theory you like best. No one cares.
2. Then, if a 'better' explanation comes along, this means that the one you proposed at the last conference was NOT proven. But a stupid moron like you never figured that contradiction out. You keep talking in circles like the babbling fool you are.
3. A stupid idiot like you repeats ad nauseam what the priest rammed up his ass at the confession box: "A theory is proven and must be accepted by all. But if a 'better' one comes along and always will, then the previous one is now disproven and the new one is the truth until anther one comes along." You should stick your head in the toilet for 20 minutes, Star, preferably before flushing the shit.
@illumined1 Why don't you go and learn about Bill's ideas first before making so many idiotic assumptions and false statements? You're engaging in trolling. So who's the crackpot exactly?!
@lukeev No need to learn about Bill's theory - I have 10 gigs of physics books from the last 100 years that explain everything with verifiable precision. He hasn't presented any of the evidence I have asked him for - but insists on berating and ad hominem'ing' me instead of just answering my very simple questions. This only tells me he wants me to go away because he is otherwise unable to mount an effective explanation for my questions.
@StargateMunky true. nor can he explain why he was so rudely rushed through his introduction. guess the only people that actually want to listen to him still don't want to hear the introductory bullshit! lol
in essence, bills claims amounts to no ability to better understand reality, it does not increase our functional understanding of the universe and finally he cannot even explain how new ropes are created when atoms decay into multiple smaller particles. His hypothesis is untestable and hence invalid.
@illumined1 oh i've been there, I could talk for hours about how he never tries to explain anything he says.
Rational irrational....he doesn't even define what these are, he's basically a relativist (ironically) and has no education on the the nature of what it means to be logical or how to go about testing anything.
like so many delusional people one pet theory becomes some crazy venture into nonsense.
@lukeev trolling would implying he's trying to get an emotional response for his own self pleasure. At least bother to look up what a word means if you intend to use it.
If anything bill with all his countless insults is trolling because he can't even answer anything anyones asked of him
What's a 'vortex'? Please draw this physical object. The dict defines 'it' as "a whirling mass". Clearly, if 'it' is whirling, the alleged vortex is not a physical object. It is an abstract concept. We don't do Physics with concepts. The day that concepts begin to move we lock the proponent in padded walls so he doesn't hurt himself.
3. "spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow"
.
Vortex flow??? Now we have a movie of a movie! The run of the run, the jump of the jump, the swim of the swim... Vortex is a VERB, top! There is no noun in Physics called 'a' vortex'. No such THING!
'A' vortex doesn' have shape. What is 'vortexing' is what has shape, but never 'a' vortex! 'A' vortex is SOMETHING that is in motion! 'A' vortex is a movie, not a photograph. All objects MUST be photographs. An object occupies a single image. We don't need to watch a movie to see an object.
"Seventh dimension movement of space" . Eighth dimension, the barrel of beer rolls back again. . "What generates a vortex?" . Fortunately, we don't have to worry about that Q until you can tell the crowd WHAT a vortex IS. . "details in support of youre rope theory" . Absolutely NOT! Idiots use the word vortex. They wish to convey the notion that light is a concept. It's not. Light is an object.
Vortex? All I see is coffee and a spoon. No vortex! Vortex is a CONCEPT. In Science, we don't stir concepts. We don't hit them with spoons. There is no physical object called a vortex. If you believe otherwise the onus is on you t DRAW it. No other excuse or test or experiment will do! In Science, we don't move the wind (concept) because wind is already in motion. If anything, we use the word air (object).
3. "It is not a mathematical concept if you get struck by a tornado"
.
You don't get struck by a tornado because 'a' tornado is a CONCEPT!!! The object is AIR! Tornado is a MOVIE! There is no object you can point to called tornado! An ET who doesn't know your language would never know that the curly cues you point to are in motion unless you show him a MOVIE of swirling AIR!
Can't love what you don't understand. If you're still struggling with 'vortex', you haven't covered the basics. You have to understand what an object is. You still don't! Light is a physical object. You are by default claiming that 'it' is an abstract concept. You are on the par with the Quantum mathematicians. You are no different.
Speak for yourself, top. The day you manage to climb out of your 'vortex' -- whatever that is -- please make sure you take a picture of 'it' so that we know what object you were trapped in all these years.
Because 'vortex' is a word that idiots use. You recognize an idiot of Math instantly. They invoke the CONCEPT 'vortex' and convert it into an OBJECT: reification. Other idiots use CONCEPTS such as 'plasma', 'spherical waves' and 'aether'. They think they are doing Physics (objects) when in fact they are doing Philosophy (concepts).
3. "you have a solid robe attaching one part of the universe to another"
.
You attach a part of a CONCEPT to another CONCEPT??? What religion is this that you practice, top?
.
In Physics, you can't even clean your ass with 'the' Universe because 'the' Universe is a CONCEPT. Try cleaning your ass with love or with justice. You'll still have your ass dirty. Or try attaching beauty to intelligence. Betcha you can't hold them together!
5. Nevertheless, if 'a' vortex is a robe that moves, 'a' vortex is clearly a CONCEPT. In Science, anything in motion is a concept. The ONLY way to point to an object is if it is standing still. An object is always a photograph.
.
Therefore, in Science, it is irrational to say that you live inside a concept (i.e., 'the' vortex').
.
So again, What is this 'robe' YOU claim to live in, top? Is it like a cave? A hut? A skirt?
Obviously, if you're asking such Qs, it's because you haven't grasped the fundamentals. Before you get to the XYZs, you need to learn the ABCs. That goes for any discipline. You can't go from kindergarten to college without going thru elementary and high school.
"there's nothing more than you calling everyone an idiot"
.
Well, maybe that explains why a piece of shit like you didn't understand something as SIMPLE as what was there. Right? I mean, you can't teach a snail new tricks, correct?
@StargateMunky Don't tell him, but he's actually getting his ass handed to him in this very session, though he doesn't know it.
There's no need to bother calling him a loser, though. I think that he realized he was a loser when he made his son tape a biography about him and splash it on the Internet; or when he found himself self-publishing his books; or when, according to his Wikipedia entry, he worked at the Intel plant in my hometown in a gig which dropouts can land.
Laughing is good for the soul, but irrelevant in Science. You seem to get distracted by petty stuff, Munk. Sign of short attention span. Maybe you should have it checked out by a shrink.
At the BG School of Physics, we teach with a baseball bat. Whenever someone comes in and claims that he knows something for sure, we whack him across the face. Next time, he'll be more careful.
.
"it's all 18th century science"
.
Yes. Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, they are all products of the 17th C version of the 'scientific' method.
4. "Bills thesis is just "you're an idiot if you disagree with me"
.
Sounds more like the 'thesis' of Quantum Mechanics. I mean, just try to submit a paper to Science or Nature criticizing any aspect of Quantum and you will confirm my argument.
"sometimes the consensus can actually be right"
.
If everyone on Earth agrees that space is warped, it won't make it so. Nevertheless, 'right/wrong' is an OPINION!. What is right to you is wrong to the next guy.
@bgaede Right, right...under the auspices of the FBI, not as a moron who got caught trying to sell company secrets to a competitor and who fabricated a story about his involvement with the FBI...
"...Mr. Gaede professed to be a double agent working for the U.S. government and Cuba, although the U.S. Attorney's office has disavowed that claim." Physicists, philosophers, bureau agents...they must all be corrupt, not you who earns no respect from any of them, not even in your own YouTube videos.
2. I mean, really! Are you such a fucking fool that you also believe in US Law and prosecutors? Don't US prosecutors have some kind of interest? Or is it all for the Fatherland?
.
The next thing you'll tell me is that a lone gunman shot Kennedy and that Bin Laden demolished the Towers with airplanes. What a moron! The priest really must have fucked your ass! The semen is probably still floating in your brain.
@bgaede That's a good analogy. Believing that anyone in the FBI would take interest in you is about as plausible as believing that someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11.
Also, it's nice to accuse the U.S. government of conspiring against its own nation's company's interests and profits by hiring a moron to sell that company's development secrets overseas.
1. "believing that someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11"
.
The world is divided between gullible idiots like you who swallow the Gov's version lock, stock and barrel, and people who think.
.
If you truly believe that the Towers, which OBVIOUSLY collapsed like any ordinary demolition, were disintegrated by airplanes, including WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, then you are the sorriest dumbass that walked the Earth.
2. It is not surprising that a piece of shit like you believes in 0D particles, warped space and black holes, yang. You simply don't have the brains for rational analysis.
@bgaede I don't have many opinions on these areas of physics, honestly, and I don't need it at this point. Your errors at this point are in things that I know well: logic, language, and philosophy.
I talked with a couple of well-trained and credentialed physicists about your videos, though. They laughed their asses off.
Also, there's no evident correlation between the fact that you are a corporate thief and academic failure and the facts of contemporary physics.
"Your errors at this point are in things that I know well"
.
Oh, you KNOW, huh? You mean like, "I, yang, KNOW and there is no chance for rebuttal."?
.
Well, how lucky can I get. I mean... you know... it's not every day that you come across someone who KNOWS. I hope you will be so kind as to give me your autograph one day, yang.
5. There are lots of people who get PhDs in Theology and 'explain' the workings of the U with Gods and angels. They laugh their heads off at rational explanations. We all know how to laugh. Half of the world laughs at the other half. The issue is whether the monks at your monastery can explain physical phenomena rationally, not whether they can laugh.
Does that count against me in Physics? I mean, can a corporate thief still explain a theory or will the fact that he's a thief bar him from presenting a theory? Can a thief present a theory from jail? Or does this take away from overall credibility according to your Sunday School priest?
Oh, so you KNOW this too, huh? I can't seem to keep anything secret, big wonder I chose spying as a career!
.
"the facts of contemporary physics"
.
"The facts, ma'am. Just the facts!" Erm... yang? Name one 'fact' of contemporary 'physics'. (Other than the fact that not one mathematician can explain anything.)
@bgaede I learned the fundamentals of physics in high school and college, but I don't even need any further opinions or explanations on the subject to spot your elementary mistakes in areas of language, logic, and thoughts that are irrelevant to physics and scientific discourse.
This has been flagged as spam show
Can we please just combine particle and wave and call the ropes "The Gaede Warticle"?
MrIanzander 4 weeks ago
A torsion cannot apply pressure, You avoided answering all of the questions that were asked because you are a quack
Aegis5461 2 months ago
"A torsion cannot apply pressure"
.
Twist a rope and check the pressure on the wall.
bgaede 2 months ago 2
Bgaede, I'm a physicist, and no I'm not hear to disprove or insult. I'm beginning to understand more what you're putting forth. Are you basically putting forth an interpretation of what physics is that is much easier to grasp?
Have you developed at all methods to make predictions of these theories? Meaning, if you're correct, shouldn't you be able to make predictions that are testable or reformulations that are much simpler?
1czelaya 3 months ago
1. "if you're correct"
.
Scientific theories are NEITHER correct/incorrect, right/wrong, nor true/false. All of these are OPINIONS. Opinions belong exclusively to religion. Scientific theories are either RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL. This is the only OBJECTIVE standard.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "shouldn't you be able to make predictions"
.
In Science, we don't do predictions. That's the stuff of astrologers, palm readers and mathematicians. In science, we merely explain and do so rationally.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/01WhatSci html
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "that are testable"
.
'Testable' is a detestable word in Science. In Science, we don't run experiments or test anything. In Science, we ONLY explain. If you don't like my explanation, you can run as many experiments as you want in your dark basement lab. But when you come back to the conference, your job is to explain. Science ONLY deals with explanations. What YOU did to come up with your theory is extra-scientific.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. The purpose of Science is NOT to arrive at the truth simply because truth is an OPINION. What is true to you is a lie to me. In Science, we don't prove theories because proof is in the eye of the beholder. In Science, we explain objectively and the jurors UNDERSTAND. That's where Science ends. What begins thereafter is belief: religion. Persuasion is the military arm of religion. As soon as the scientists attempts to prove to you, he has stealthily switched hats. He is now a priest.
bgaede 3 months ago
opps i meant their education, as i said mine isn't much.
AmazedCactus 5 months ago
Was there something maybe lost in translation there? i'm pretty sure they're education(?) far exceeds mine, but i can see light as a rope, also seems pretty obvious that rope is made of many threads, smaller and smaller........
AmazedCactus 5 months ago
You refuse to talk about waves here on youtube because they are 'concepts' and therefore not a proper topic of your version of physics, and you refuse to talk about water waves, then you spend a bunch of time of this Q and A talking about light being waves along your ropes. Talk about hypocritical.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
"you refuse to talk about water waves, then you spend a bunch of time of this Q and A talking about light being waves along your ropes"
I was facing a hostile audience. I was up against a mathematical crowd. I had to use THEIR terminology. I have no qualms in phrasing it the way it should be phrased: A rope is torqued.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede The rope is torqued, yes. But would you say something arrives when the torsion reaches the other end? It's fast, but not infinitely fast. Something is moving along the rope, and it's not a rope.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. “something arrives when the torsion reaches the other end?”
Please define ‘something’ so that we’re on the same page.
.
“It's fast, but not infinitely fast”
a. c = 300,000 km/sec
b. Infinite is an adjective. It is an irrational word. It cannot be used in the context of motion (i.e., as an adverb).
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/06Numb/05Infinity html
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/08Z4Unbounded html
bgaede 5 months ago
3. “Something is moving along the rope, and it's not a rope”
.
I suppose that ‘something’ is also moving along the worm, but it ain’t a worm, huh?
Hmmmm? I wonder WHAT 'it' can be?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede "“It's fast, but not infinitely fast”
a. c = 300,000 km/sec
b. Infinite is an adjective. It is an irrational word. It cannot be used in the context of motion (i.e., as an adverb)."
Not instantaneous. You are being deliberately obtuse.
Something: a word used to refer to a thing, idea, concept, fact, etc when it is not being specified. Referring to a non specific noun.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. "Something: a word used to refer to a thing"
.
Erm... and I gues that 'thing' = something (right?)
bgaede 5 months ago
2. It is when the mathematician is confronted by a physicist that he realizes how powerless he is. So for the first time in his life he looks up the word to figure out what all the fuss is about and he transcribes the definition he finds in the dictionary. There isn't even an attempt to scrutinize whether what he transcribes makes any sense. A mathematician is an individual who is entirely lost w/o his numbers and equations.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. This is out of your league, Boz, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's repeat the Q for you. Do you know what a 'thing' is for the purposes of Physics? Can you define the word 'thing' (or object) or not? Please try again (w/o using synonyms this time)...
.
thing: _______
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede "Can you define the word 'thing' (or object) or not? Please try again (w/o using synonyms this time)..."
We're using your definition of object. But thing has a broader definition that pretty much is 'unspecified noun'. I used this word intentionally. Physics does not exclusively deal with objects as you claim in your idiosyncratic version of the science.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. "We're using your definition of object. But thing has a broader definition"
.
You can't have both ways in Science. A definition that makes or breaks your argument has to be UNAMBIGUOUS. You can't say that 'object is that which has shape', claim that a BH is an object and, when I put you against the ropes, you qualify your initial definition by saying that, "Well, but the word 'thing' has a broader definition which includes BHs."
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Let me state my definition again so that we're on the same page...
.
object: that which has shape (syn: thing, something, entity, medium, substance, structure, etc).
.
In Science, an 'object' is no different than a 'thing'. If you do not agree, then the onus is for you to define the word 'thing' and differentiate it from 'object'. No loopholes will be allowed.
.
thing: _____________
.
(...if diff than 'object').
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede Bill the more I learn about physics, the more I realize that 99% of people on Earth don't understand what they THEMSELVES are talking about; i.e. people don't even understand their OWN definition! :O That's kinda scary and disturbing, no? Some kind of spooky surrealist nightmare.
L1ber8ted 1 week ago
@L1ber8ted
*99% of people on Earth don't understand what they THEMSELVES are talking about*
Right. Take bill gaede for instance - This idiot defines an object as 'that which has a concept'.
Then he claims that he can DIFFERENTIATE 'objects' from 'concepts' according to this definition. Fortunately 99% of people on earth would consider this method to be utterly irrational.
fiesta181 1 week ago
"bill gaede... he can DIFFERENTIATE 'objects' from 'concepts'
.
Yes. On the other hand, the mathematicians can't. They are in the business of moving concepts. They claim to transfer energy, move 'a' mass, and carry 'a' force.
bgaede 1 week ago
@bgaede If this is your best answer, then this is your best answer; there's not a lot i can do about you anymore. It is those poor uneducated people who fall for your crap that concern me.
fiesta181 1 week ago
"this is your best answer"
No, I've got better ones, fiesta, but that one was an answer a fella at your level would understand.
.
"there's not a lot i can do... anymore"
There's probably little that you ever did...
.
"those poor uneducated people who fall for... crap..."
...are known as 'mathematicians'...
bgaede 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede *No, I've got better ones*
Lol, actually you don't; that's the entire point. But please answer my question as i'm calling your lame bluff: Is an object that which has a concept? Y or N?
Play...
lol
fiesta181 1 week ago
"99% of people on Earth don't understand what they THEMSELVES are talking about"
.
If it's any relief, the number in the universities is closer to 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%
bgaede 1 week ago
@bgaede *99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%*
You missed one. I mean, yet another one...
Lol
fiesta181 1 week ago
@bgaede When the question is "What is that thing?" 'thing' is broad enough to include whatever the answer is.
BH? Black hole?
In any case, where we get in to problems is still when we are discussing a non-object by your definition of object. I won't claim that a wave is an object by your definition. I will claim that it is a proper subject of study in physics.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
@bgaede " A definition that makes or breaks your argument has to be UNAMBIGUOUS."
My argument is not made or broken by the word thing or object.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. "My argument is not made or broken by the word thing"
.
You're too late with that excuse, Bozo. Let's recap...
.
a. YOU said that 'objects' are used at least sometimes in Physics.
b. YOU did not put forth a definition for this essential word, but rather went along with the scientific version: 'that which has shape'. Fine. No problem.
bgaede 5 months ago 2
2. c. YOU tried to escape the implications of this definition by claiming that object ≠ thing. You want to leave a door open for yourself, a tangent thru which to escape when the going gets rough. You want to be able to tell the jurors that a BH is perhaps not an 'object', but that it nevertheless is a 'thing'. Therefore, the words 'object' and 'thing' are indeed the essence, the foundations of YOUR argument.
bgaede 5 months ago 2
3. d. If YOU claim that object ≠ thing, whereas I have made it plain that for the purposes of Physics they are identical, then we are not done yet. YOU are now required to define the word 'thing' and show how it is different than the word 'object' for the purposes of Physics if as YOU say they are not synonyms. Hence, YOUR argument is in fact not made/broken by the words 'thing' and 'object'
bgaede 5 months ago 2
4. You are already on record as saying that 'objects' are a part of Physics and that an 'object' is 'that which has shape'. Now all YOU have to do is justify YOUR argument that object ≠ thing.
.
object: ________
thing: _________
.
Please define them (if you claim they are different). We don't want to have you invoke the word 'thing' instead of 'object' if you haven't defined it, now would we?
bgaede 5 months ago
5. Here's mine for the record...
.
object: that which has shape
thing: that which has shape
bgaede 5 months ago
6. e.g., Space is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. 'A' black hole is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. Energy is NOT a 'thing' for the purposes of Physics. Physics only studies 'things', specifically 'things' which exist. Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics only studies that which exists. Concepts do not exist for the purposes of Science.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. But if you claim that space, BH, energy, mass, 0D particle, warped space, spacetime, time, wormholes... are 'things' for the purposes of Physics, we will have to understand what YOU mean by 'thing'. Otherwise, your argument is poppycock.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede "Do you know what a 'thing' is for the purposes of Physics?"
What, in your opinion, is a good source for such a definition?
Bozeman42 5 months ago
1. ""What is that thing?" 'thing' is broad enough to include whatever the answer is"
ORDINARY SPEECH! In ordinary speech we also say that 'love exists'. Does the sayer know exactly what he's saying? Is he being rigorous and precise?
bgaede 5 months ago
2. By invoking the word 'thing' and using it to identify EVERY thing (words, concepts, objects) you have made your 'thing' word all powerful. The word 'thing' is now a synonym of God. It can solve any dialectic problem for you without giving you any understanding in exchange.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. For instance, if you claim that a BH is an object, I can throw at you the 'shape' definition. Concepts such as singularities and event horizons obviously don't have shape. So now you introduce your loophole: "Well, a BH is not an object according to this def... but it is still a 'thing'. And since Physics studies 'things', a BH is still a part of Physics."
bgaede 5 months ago
4. Until you can define the two words UNAMBIGUOUSLY and show how they are different, you can't begin to do Science...
.
object: __________
thing: ___________
bgaede 5 months ago
5. How are they different? In what way are you going to use the word 'thing' in Physics if it includes the set of words that have shape as well as those that don't? What is the purpose of such broad category?
bgaede 5 months ago
6. In a scientific context, there are only TWO categories: objects and concepts. The words 'thing', entity, substance, medium, structure, concrete, image, etc. are 100% synonyms of 'object'. The words 'idea', 'notion', 'thought'... are synonyms of 'concept'.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. Take ANY word in the dict. It either designates 'that which has shape' or 'that which doesn't'. It's either black or white, on or off, yes or not. There is no grey in Science, no attempt to mislead or confuse. Science is objective, rational, clear, literal. No metaphors, no poetry, no second or hidden meanings. The purpose of Sciecen is to explain and understand, not to believe or arrive at 'the' Truth.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. For the purposes of Physics, space is NOT a 'thing'. Neither is time. The nouns of Physics, the ones that can be used as the subjects of sentences, are ONLY those which have shape. In Physics it is irrational to place an article in front of a concept (e.g., 'The' orbit of..., 'A' black hole is..., 'The' center of mass was..., 'A' charge accelerated...)
bgaede 5 months ago
9. In Physics, 'the' orbit of Mercury is NOT elliptical (adjective). In Physics, 'Mercury orbits elliptically' (adverb). In Physics, it is not 'the motion of the Earth', but rather 'the Earth moves'.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. Terms such as geodesic, energy, time, mass, charge, field, force, BH, Universe, 0D particle, 1D string, motion, orbital, trajectory... are NOT nouns for the purposes of Physics. They cannot be the proper subject of study. They cannot be used as the subject of a sentence. They are not things. They are not objects. They are not mediums or entities or substances. We cannot travel 'in' or 'thru' time or space or energy. Not in Phyz!
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/03Time/06TimeTravel html
bgaede 5 months ago
11. Again, if you will argue otherwise, the onus is on you to define the words 'object' and 'thing' and establish what is the difference between them. You also need to clarify what you plan to use this all-encompassing word 'thing' for. It seems like that it's only purpose is to give you a tangent 'thru' which you can escape when the reporter asks the tough Qs at the end of your prez.
bgaede 5 months ago
12. "a good source for such a definition?"
The brain! Thinking. Reasoning! Burning some grey matter! In Science, we don't copy definitions from the book without filtering them thru the neurons. We reason them out, rationalize them until we can find no holes, and then defend them until someone shows us a better mousetrap.
bgaede 5 months ago
13. "I won't claim that a wave is an object by your definition. I will claim that it is a proper subject of study in physics."
That's just a statement, a belief so far. Please justify it. What does Physics study? Verbs?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede "That's just a statement, a belief so far. Please justify it. What does Physics study? Verbs?"
It studies whatever verbs and nouns and whatever part of speech you like that is involved in how the universe (or whatever you want to call it) works. The basic question of physics is "what is everything and how does it work?" In particular matter and energy and the interactions of those things is studied in physics.
It is a more general question than you seem to want to make it.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
"The basic question of physics is "what is everything"
.
But you are doing 'everything' possible to elude this Q. I asked you...
a. What is an 'object' (since we agree that Physics studies objects at least some of the times).
b. What is a 'thing', since you claim that for the purposes of Physics an object is not a synonym of a thing.
.
You state that you have no problems with the 'shape' version of 'object'. Fine! How is a 'thing' diff than an 'object'? What is your definition of 'thing'?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede The purpose of such a broad category is to not make assumptions about what your are going to find when you try to learn something.
Bozeman42 5 months ago
lol you didnt flame everyone who questioned your hypothesis, PROOF of the effect of the observer, quantum mechanics is present even in you gayde
Xero555000 5 months ago
"quantum mechanics is present even in you"
All them particles pulling, huh?
bgaede 5 months ago
Lol... simple question... ran away between your legs gayde
They owned you... and you had absolutely no answers... very pathetic
Xero555000 5 months ago
In the context of explaning natural phenomena, rational simply means clear.
The beautiful thing about science is that it requires no credibility; the only thing that matters is clear communication. Bill Gaede isn't always as clear as he could be, but since he is rigorous about his definitions and can makes pictures and movies that convey the actual shape of the entities he is hypothesizing, he is automatically miles ahead of any of the modern physicists.
EpicYarnEM 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@EpicYarnEM and that is why you will never have a job
Xero555000 5 months ago
Señor Gaede, ¿usted logró conservar la virginidad anal en prisión? =3
DiosDeHouses 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Readers may be interested to know that Mr. Gaede is still currently on FBI and CIA watch lists. He also "may have intent to defraud." He is a convicted felon who now practices freely from his Argentina location.
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"does not exist. It only exist"
""""What do you mean by 'exist'? """" -- bgaede
This liar loves to deflect things like this. He will drag you down into college philosophy if you let him. He is a classic crackpot.
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lols rationalising fanboys
StargateMunky 1 month ago
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
oh i've been there, I could talk for hours about how he never tries to explain anything he says.
Rational irrational....he doesn't even define what these are, he's basically a relativist (ironically) and has no education on the the nature of what it means to be logical or how to go about testing anything.
like so many delusional people one pet theory becomes some crazy venture into nonsense.
StargateMunky
taxihotel 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Bill Gaede is a communist Argentine spy who stole and provided the Soviet Bloc with secret American technical information during the cold war. Later, he stole and sold Intel’s proprietary state-of-the-art Pentium process to China and Iran. Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted in the United States. He served a term of 33 months in prison, after which he was deported back to Argentina, where he now works as a disinformation specialist.
taxihotel 9 months ago
Is the electron spin part of the wave equation?
.
Spin is one of the Quantum Numbers. It is not an element of Schrodinger's equation.
bgaede 9 months ago
"does not exist. It only exist"
.
What do you mean by 'exist'?
bgaede 9 months ago
1. "you have to rewrite all chemistry books as it always states the e for electron equation"
.
The equation is not being challenged. It is the physical interpretation that is under attack. It is not the same to explain that a discrete bead TRAVELED from A to B and IMPACTED B as to say that a string of yarn is EXTENDED from A to B and that the torsion on the string is what was FELT at B. These are two diff mechanisms.
bgaede 10 months ago
2. Similarly, it is not the same to say that an atom LOST/DONATED an electron BALL as it is to say that a KNOT untangled. QM's ridiculous and childish planetary atom cannot explain how two H atoms remain faithful to each other by sharing discrete moons. All the actors in the movie -- planets and moons -- are DISCRETE entities. There is no reason for one to affect the other.
bgaede 10 months ago
3. If, instead, the electron is a SHELL made of yarn that envelopes the nucleus (as Schrodinger and Born concluded), we can now visualize how the yarn is shared b/w 2 neighboring H atoms. The electron shells MERGE as rightfully depicted in ALL orbitron-like images.
.
winter group shef ac uk/orbitron/
.
The Rope Hypothesis replaces the ethereal CONCEPT 'orbital' (i.e., a bead ORBITING many times around the nucleus) with the OBJECT 'shell' (i.e., a woven surface).
bgaede 10 months ago
Yes, I would like to buy the book. But I'm from India, so I want to know the price, before committing, to know whether I can afford it! Upto 40USD is ok including the shipping.
(This I wish is the comment section)
jomine9 10 months ago
Hi Jom,
Go to youtube com/user/bgaede and send me a personal message (Send Message box next to the picture). We do this to protect your privacy.
bgaede 10 months ago
Yes, I would like to buy the book. But I'm from India, so I want to know the price, before committing, to know whether I can afford it! Upto 40USD is ok including the shipping.
jomine9 10 months ago
Where is the link to buy the paper book?
jomine9 10 months ago
You can make the request at my comments section of YouTube.
bgaede 10 months ago
Comment removed
datzfast 11 months ago
Your entire argument is about me being an idiot and you not presenting any evidence or meaningful observations for your own theory. That doesn't make you right, does it? I guess I still need to find out what 'Bill's Science' is!
illumined1 11 months ago
For instance, you assume that since I have seen a rope (man made object) I should think every particle is connected via an actual rope that was somehow created by nature? And you don't even expalin readioactive and how new ropes would be created nor how they prevent themselves from getting tangled. So yes I know what a rope is Bill, but it doesn't fit your crackpot analogy.
illumined1 11 months ago
@illumined1 You really need to stop trolling Bill's account. Go learn about the theories first before talking crap; almost everything you say is either explained or you completely miss the point.
L1ber8ted 10 months ago 5
@L1ber8ted His theory is BS and his idea about what science is is completely irrational... by saying that he need not test or validate his theory he basically is avoiding the cold hard facts of nature... he is a big advocate of proof by intimidation
Aegis5461 2 months ago
@Aegis5461 Learn how to make a rational argument. I'll give you a clue: that wasn't one. Otherwise, I don't want to know, so go away and learn about wave-packets, or angels. Whatever turns you on.
L1ber8ted 2 months ago
@L1ber8ted The establishment sent a man to the moon... Gaede and his idiotic disciples like you have nothing to show for all the pissing and moaning you do about how the science doesnt make sense. Here's a tip, get a degree in something other than communications or psychology before you start trying to talk about science. You're way out of your league you artsy little prick
Aegis5461 2 months ago
"get a degree in something"
Einstein and Hawking got degrees and it didn't do them any good, now did it?
bgaede 2 months ago
-See 'Crackpot'
"A classic crackpot is an Internet forum participant who constantly talks about his pet idea, who tries to turn every discussion into a debate about his idea, and who seems oblivious to contradicting evidence. Another distinguishing crackpot trait is that he doesn't think it's his responsibility to defend the idea, but the responsibility of others to disprove it."
This is you, Bill - not the rest of the physics community.
illumined1 11 months ago
1. "A classic crackpot... constantly talks about his pet idea... tries to turn every discussion into a debate about his idea, and who seems oblivious to contradicting evidence.
.
I guess that makes Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the rest of the idiots of Math Phyz crackpots.
bgaede 11 months ago 6
2. "Another... crackpot trait... doesn't think it's his responsibility to defend the idea, but the responsibility of others to disprove it."
.
And clearly I have stated that there are no proofs in Science. You agreed last time, but as always, idiots like you give lip service to such sweeping statements. You either don't understand what you said or contradict it at the next debate.
bgaede 11 months ago 2
3. Try this at your therapy session with the shrink next week, ill. Say "Science requires proofs" and "Science doesn't require proofs" back and forth 1000 times.
bgaede 11 months ago
4. "every particle is connected via an actual rope that was somehow created by nature?
.
Particles??? Huh? You must have put in the particles by hand, ill. Maybe you read that nonsense in a Quantum book.
bgaede 11 months ago
5. "how new ropes would be created"
.
Created???
.
Oh, I see... You're one of those Creationist loons, huh... somethin' like the Big Bangers: "First there was energy, positive and negative. Then there was time." Or... "First there was void. Then we split the sizzling vacuum and came up with negative and positive particles. Finally, we put them back together and created empty space."
bgaede 11 months ago
6. I wonder how you idiots at the asylum create rabbits from the void? Do you wave a magic wand and convert void into tissue? Or do you pray and ask for God to create the rabbit for you?
.
"you don't even expalin readioactive"
.
WGDE, pp. 213-214.
bgaede 11 months ago
7. "how they prevent themselves from getting tangled"
.
WGDE, pp. 343-359.
.
"me being an idiot"
.
Well, don't flaunt it, ill. It's not good for your rehabilitation to say that publicly. But don't worry. You'll be cured some day. Perhaps.
bgaede 11 months ago
8. "evidence or meaningful observations for your own theory"
.
In Science, we don't present evidence and certainly we don't stare or gape. Science is about explaining, not about persuading.
bgaede 11 months ago
9. "That doesn't make you right"
.
In Science, there are no right or wrong or correct or incorrect explanations. There are only rational and irrational explanations. Whether the explanation is 'right' is YOUR PERSONAL opinion which, as it turns out, doesn't concern Science in the least.
bgaede 11 months ago
10. "I guess I still need to find out what... Science' is!"
.
Yes. We agree.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/00SumSci html
bgaede 11 months ago
@bgaede relativistic nonsense.
if it is rational then by default it is logical to believe that explanation until a better one comes along that may disprove it.
StargateMunky 10 months ago
1. "if it is rational then by default it is logical to believe that explanation until a better one comes along that may disprove it"
.
Too many errors, idiot Star. Firstly, we don't prove or disprove explanations in Science. Explanations are either rational or irrational. Beyond that, you can believe whichever theory you like best. No one cares.
bgaede 10 months ago
2. Then, if a 'better' explanation comes along, this means that the one you proposed at the last conference was NOT proven. But a stupid moron like you never figured that contradiction out. You keep talking in circles like the babbling fool you are.
bgaede 10 months ago
3. A stupid idiot like you repeats ad nauseam what the priest rammed up his ass at the confession box: "A theory is proven and must be accepted by all. But if a 'better' one comes along and always will, then the previous one is now disproven and the new one is the truth until anther one comes along." You should stick your head in the toilet for 20 minutes, Star, preferably before flushing the shit.
bgaede 10 months ago
@illumined1 Why don't you go and learn about Bill's ideas first before making so many idiotic assumptions and false statements? You're engaging in trolling. So who's the crackpot exactly?!
lukeev 10 months ago 2
@lukeev No need to learn about Bill's theory - I have 10 gigs of physics books from the last 100 years that explain everything with verifiable precision. He hasn't presented any of the evidence I have asked him for - but insists on berating and ad hominem'ing' me instead of just answering my very simple questions. This only tells me he wants me to go away because he is otherwise unable to mount an effective explanation for my questions.
illumined1 10 months ago
@illumined1 he can't even explain why the sky is blue.
StargateMunky 10 months ago
@StargateMunky true. nor can he explain why he was so rudely rushed through his introduction. guess the only people that actually want to listen to him still don't want to hear the introductory bullshit! lol
illumined1 10 months ago
@illumined1 Actually everything's in the book, but you can't be bothered to challenge your own prejudice.
lukeev 10 months ago
in essence, bills claims amounts to no ability to better understand reality, it does not increase our functional understanding of the universe and finally he cannot even explain how new ropes are created when atoms decay into multiple smaller particles. His hypothesis is untestable and hence invalid.
illumined1 10 months ago
@illumined1 oh i've been there, I could talk for hours about how he never tries to explain anything he says.
Rational irrational....he doesn't even define what these are, he's basically a relativist (ironically) and has no education on the the nature of what it means to be logical or how to go about testing anything.
like so many delusional people one pet theory becomes some crazy venture into nonsense.
StargateMunky 10 months ago
@illumined1 In essence, you're still trolling.
lukeev 10 months ago 4
@lukeev no, you are trolling me
illumined1 10 months ago
@illumined1 You mean that explain nothing. And don't accuse me of things you do yourself.
lukeev 10 months ago
@lukeev trolling would implying he's trying to get an emotional response for his own self pleasure. At least bother to look up what a word means if you intend to use it.
If anything bill with all his countless insults is trolling because he can't even answer anything anyones asked of him
StargateMunky 10 months ago
@StargateMunky But that's excactly what he's doing...
L1ber8ted 10 months ago 2
@L1ber8ted lols rationalising fanboys
StargateMunky 10 months ago
"Is youre rope the object"
.
Hopefully, top!
.
"is it a lineair electric field (object) and a lineair magnetic field (object) in motion?"
.
There is no physical object in Science called 'a' field. The famous 'field' of Math is a CONCEPT. In Science, we don't move concepts.
bgaede 11 months ago
"Does a rope connecting 1 atom to the other atom has a fixed amount of links?"
.
Of course not!
.
youstupidrelativist com/06QM/04Light/02Freq html
bgaede 11 months ago
"In vortices i can see... the lenght of the vortex"
.
If you can see 'a' vortex, draw one. What's a vortex, top? There's no such monster in Science!
bgaede 1 year ago
"Tornado:height, length ,width"
.
I thought 'tornado' referred to 'something' in MOTION?
tornado: ROTATING column of air (Wiki)
.
Do you know the diff b/w a movie and a photograph, top?
.
"1 airs ,2 airs,3 airs"
.
In Science, we don't count objects. In Science, we point to them.
bgaede 1 year ago
1. "A prism breaks up white light in many colours. Can u explains such a feature with youre rope theory?"
.
It's in the paper that was presented at the conference.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "every vortex makes up a different pressure"
.
What's a 'vortex'? Please draw this physical object. The dict defines 'it' as "a whirling mass". Clearly, if 'it' is whirling, the alleged vortex is not a physical object. It is an abstract concept. We don't do Physics with concepts. The day that concepts begin to move we lock the proponent in padded walls so he doesn't hurt himself.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "spiral motion with closed streamlines is vortex flow"
.
Vortex flow??? Now we have a movie of a movie! The run of the run, the jump of the jump, the swim of the swim... Vortex is a VERB, top! There is no noun in Physics called 'a' vortex'. No such THING!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "What is an object"
.
object: that which has shape
'A' vortex doesn' have shape. What is 'vortexing' is what has shape, but never 'a' vortex! 'A' vortex is SOMETHING that is in motion! 'A' vortex is a movie, not a photograph. All objects MUST be photographs. An object occupies a single image. We don't need to watch a movie to see an object.
bgaede 1 year ago
"Vortex... is a energy pressure differential"
.
This stuff's over your head, top!
.
"the object is vacuum energy"
.
My God! The world will die with Quantum and Relativity.
bgaede 1 year ago
bgaede 1 year ago
1. "The only way to `make` motion into an object is to fotograph it"
.
In Science, it works in reverse. You can't have motion without an object. We start by pointing to the object. Then you can move it wherever you want.
.
"youre object isnt real"
.
Just define the crucial word 'real' and the crowd will understand what you're talking about.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "Stirring a cup... Can this vortex"
.
Vortex? All I see is coffee and a spoon. No vortex! Vortex is a CONCEPT. In Science, we don't stir concepts. We don't hit them with spoons. There is no physical object called a vortex. If you believe otherwise the onus is on you t DRAW it. No other excuse or test or experiment will do! In Science, we don't move the wind (concept) because wind is already in motion. If anything, we use the word air (object).
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "It is not a mathematical concept if you get struck by a tornado"
.
You don't get struck by a tornado because 'a' tornado is a CONCEPT!!! The object is AIR! Tornado is a MOVIE! There is no object you can point to called tornado! An ET who doesn't know your language would never know that the curly cues you point to are in motion unless you show him a MOVIE of swirling AIR!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "love youre rope theory"
.
Can't love what you don't understand. If you're still struggling with 'vortex', you haven't covered the basics. You have to understand what an object is. You still don't! Light is a physical object. You are by default claiming that 'it' is an abstract concept. You are on the par with the Quantum mathematicians. You are no different.
bgaede 1 year ago
1. "Earth... lives in a vortex"
.
Please draw this 'box' the Earth 'lives' in.
.
"we live in a vortex"
.
Speak for yourself, top. The day you manage to climb out of your 'vortex' -- whatever that is -- please make sure you take a picture of 'it' so that we know what object you were trapped in all these years.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "Why wouldnt light behave in a vortex?"
.
Because 'vortex' is a word that idiots use. You recognize an idiot of Math instantly. They invoke the CONCEPT 'vortex' and convert it into an OBJECT: reification. Other idiots use CONCEPTS such as 'plasma', 'spherical waves' and 'aether'. They think they are doing Physics (objects) when in fact they are doing Philosophy (concepts).
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "you have a solid robe attaching one part of the universe to another"
.
You attach a part of a CONCEPT to another CONCEPT??? What religion is this that you practice, top?
.
In Physics, you can't even clean your ass with 'the' Universe because 'the' Universe is a CONCEPT. Try cleaning your ass with love or with justice. You'll still have your ass dirty. Or try attaching beauty to intelligence. Betcha you can't hold them together!
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "A robe moving in clockwise and counterclockwise motion in a 3d environment is by definition a vortex"
.
A robe? You mean like a robe the emperor wore when he was hoodwinked?
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/01Emp/00SumEmp html
bgaede 1 year ago
5. Nevertheless, if 'a' vortex is a robe that moves, 'a' vortex is clearly a CONCEPT. In Science, anything in motion is a concept. The ONLY way to point to an object is if it is standing still. An object is always a photograph.
.
Therefore, in Science, it is irrational to say that you live inside a concept (i.e., 'the' vortex').
.
So again, What is this 'robe' YOU claim to live in, top? Is it like a cave? A hut? A skirt?
bgaede 1 year ago
"If you can find e/pi the natural vortex constant"
.
What does it look like, top?
bgaede 1 year ago
What's 'a' vortex? I've never seen such a critter. Please draw this CONCEPT!
bgaede 1 year ago
How exactly does this rope theory explain quantum fluctuations?
What is the difference between your rope theory and simply calling these 'ropes' the trajectory of a particle?
Do you have any mathematical way of predicting anything from this theory?
HelloIAmDaniel 1 year ago
@HelloIAmDaniel
Also, does this theory apply to other particles?
If not, why not, what makes light so special?
How does this theory explain the microwave background?
How does this theory explain the dual slit experiment?
HelloIAmDaniel 1 year ago
Obviously, if you're asking such Qs, it's because you haven't grasped the fundamentals. Before you get to the XYZs, you need to learn the ABCs. That goes for any discipline. You can't go from kindergarten to college without going thru elementary and high school.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede
tell me the fundamentals then
I went to your website and there's nothing more than you calling everyone an idiot
HelloIAmDaniel 1 year ago
"there's nothing more than you calling everyone an idiot"
.
Well, maybe that explains why a piece of shit like you didn't understand something as SIMPLE as what was there. Right? I mean, you can't teach a snail new tricks, correct?
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede no one wants to explain anything to your ignorant ass bill because you're an obnoxious cunt.
You get laughed at because you come out treating other people like shit so is it any WONDER none has any interest in wanting to teach you anything.
You haven't got a clue about science because you think it's all 18th century science.
Bills thesis is just "you're an idiot if you disagree with me" sometimes the consensus can actually be right you know bill. you're a fucking loser.
StargateMunky 1 year ago
@StargateMunky Don't tell him, but he's actually getting his ass handed to him in this very session, though he doesn't know it.
There's no need to bother calling him a loser, though. I think that he realized he was a loser when he made his son tape a biography about him and splash it on the Internet; or when he found himself self-publishing his books; or when, according to his Wikipedia entry, he worked at the Intel plant in my hometown in a gig which dropouts can land.
theyangist 1 year ago
1. "you're an obnoxious cunt"
.
I didn't create the environment, Munk. You should bring that up with the priest of your church... youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
.
You should get used to it. You'll find it in every 'physics' forum run by the math physicists.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "You get laughed at"
.
Laughing is good for the soul, but irrelevant in Science. You seem to get distracted by petty stuff, Munk. Sign of short attention span. Maybe you should have it checked out by a shrink.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "treating other people like shit"
.
At the BG School of Physics, we teach with a baseball bat. Whenever someone comes in and claims that he knows something for sure, we whack him across the face. Next time, he'll be more careful.
.
"it's all 18th century science"
.
Yes. Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, they are all products of the 17th C version of the 'scientific' method.
bgaede 1 year ago
4. "Bills thesis is just "you're an idiot if you disagree with me"
.
Sounds more like the 'thesis' of Quantum Mechanics. I mean, just try to submit a paper to Science or Nature criticizing any aspect of Quantum and you will confirm my argument.
"sometimes the consensus can actually be right"
.
If everyone on Earth agrees that space is warped, it won't make it so. Nevertheless, 'right/wrong' is an OPINION!. What is right to you is wrong to the next guy.
bgaede 1 year ago
5. "he was a loser"
.
Oh, what is a winner, idiot Munk? You?
.
"he worked at the Intel plant in my hometown"
.
...under the auspices of the FBI...
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede Right, right...under the auspices of the FBI, not as a moron who got caught trying to sell company secrets to a competitor and who fabricated a story about his involvement with the FBI...
"...Mr. Gaede professed to be a double agent working for the U.S. government and Cuba, although the U.S. Attorney's office has disavowed that claim." Physicists, philosophers, bureau agents...they must all be corrupt, not you who earns no respect from any of them, not even in your own YouTube videos.
theyangist 1 year ago
1. "who fabricated a story about his involvement with the FBI..."
.
Maybe you should watch ABC's Nightline, the people who actually researched the story, before opening your big mouth, yang.
.
abcnewsstore go com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/DSIProductDisplay?catalogId=11002&storeId=20051&productId=2012874&langId=-1&categoryId=100041
bgaede 1 year ago
2. I mean, really! Are you such a fucking fool that you also believe in US Law and prosecutors? Don't US prosecutors have some kind of interest? Or is it all for the Fatherland?
.
The next thing you'll tell me is that a lone gunman shot Kennedy and that Bin Laden demolished the Towers with airplanes. What a moron! The priest really must have fucked your ass! The semen is probably still floating in your brain.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede That's a good analogy. Believing that anyone in the FBI would take interest in you is about as plausible as believing that someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11.
Also, it's nice to accuse the U.S. government of conspiring against its own nation's company's interests and profits by hiring a moron to sell that company's development secrets overseas.
theyangist 1 year ago
1. "believing that someone besides Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy and that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11"
.
The world is divided between gullible idiots like you who swallow the Gov's version lock, stock and barrel, and people who think.
.
If you truly believe that the Towers, which OBVIOUSLY collapsed like any ordinary demolition, were disintegrated by airplanes, including WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, then you are the sorriest dumbass that walked the Earth.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. It is not surprising that a piece of shit like you believes in 0D particles, warped space and black holes, yang. You simply don't have the brains for rational analysis.
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede I don't have many opinions on these areas of physics, honestly, and I don't need it at this point. Your errors at this point are in things that I know well: logic, language, and philosophy.
I talked with a couple of well-trained and credentialed physicists about your videos, though. They laughed their asses off.
Also, there's no evident correlation between the fact that you are a corporate thief and academic failure and the facts of contemporary physics.
theyangist 1 year ago
1. "I don't have many opinions on these areas of physics"
.
Irrelevant! In Science, we don't deal with opinions. We solely deal with explanations!
.
So the Question is whether you have an explanation for any phenomenon of Physics and not whether you have an opinion.
bgaede 1 year ago
2. "I don't need it at this point"
.
That makes two of us!
.
"Your errors at this point are in things that I know well"
.
Oh, you KNOW, huh? You mean like, "I, yang, KNOW and there is no chance for rebuttal."?
.
Well, how lucky can I get. I mean... you know... it's not every day that you come across someone who KNOWS. I hope you will be so kind as to give me your autograph one day, yang.
bgaede 1 year ago
3. "I talked with a couple of well-trained and credentialed physicists"
.
Credentialed??? Oh my God! They must KNOW wonders! They have certified knowledge.
.
Were these 'physicists' certified like the Scarecrow in Oz, who started doin' calculations upon receiving his diploma???
bgaede 1 year ago
4. Let's do a 'Lion's Paw' test on these credentialed 'physicists' of yours, yang. Ask them to EXPLAIN...
.
a. how a magnet physically attracts another and repels it upon reversal
b. why this pen falls to the floor rather than to the ceiling
.
I mean, if they cannot answer such simple Qs, then what are their credentials worth? Correct?
bgaede 1 year ago
5. There are lots of people who get PhDs in Theology and 'explain' the workings of the U with Gods and angels. They laugh their heads off at rational explanations. We all know how to laugh. Half of the world laughs at the other half. The issue is whether the monks at your monastery can explain physical phenomena rationally, not whether they can laugh.
bgaede 1 year ago
6. "you are a corporate thief"
.
Does that count against me in Physics? I mean, can a corporate thief still explain a theory or will the fact that he's a thief bar him from presenting a theory? Can a thief present a theory from jail? Or does this take away from overall credibility according to your Sunday School priest?
bgaede 1 year ago
7. "and academic failure"
.
Oh, so you KNOW this too, huh? I can't seem to keep anything secret, big wonder I chose spying as a career!
.
"the facts of contemporary physics"
.
"The facts, ma'am. Just the facts!" Erm... yang? Name one 'fact' of contemporary 'physics'. (Other than the fact that not one mathematician can explain anything.)
bgaede 1 year ago
@bgaede I learned the fundamentals of physics in high school and college, but I don't even need any further opinions or explanations on the subject to spot your elementary mistakes in areas of language, logic, and thoughts that are irrelevant to physics and scientific discourse.
theyangist 1 year ago
lol Bill's backtracking here is legendary.
StargateMunky 1 year ago
"Bill's backtracking"
.
Cheap shot, no argument!
bgaede 1 year ago