You have yet to describe what you want explained, Xero. You say that the only things in Newt's Cradle are strings, balls, air and the Earth. Then you say that the mathematicians have explained Newt's Cradle with things such as energy, momentum, velocity, mass and other 'stuff' that weren't in there. Then you ref a vid of the Cradle that includes a table. So until you can get your act together and tell the crowd what you want explained...
1. "scientists dont wait for people to challenge their theory BEFORE they explain it..."
.
Aaaahhh, but you put a clause in there that binds you, my dear Xero. You said to do it without Math. Now the onus is on you to explain the Math version so that we don't step on any toes even by mistake.
2. Before you ran away, you mentioned that under the Math version there are only strings, balls, air and the Earth before us. But then you added a table, and the official Math version also claims that there is also 'stuff' like energy, momentum, and velocity present, all of which are transferred and received by the balls. You need to confirm this version so that we can compare the Math proposal vs a rational one.
3. Therefore, the ball is in YOUR court. You now have the burden of telling the crowd all the objects that are present in the setup YOU want explained. For all we know, you could invoke ghosts and spirits that push the balls in your setup. We certainly wouldn't want to invoke those same objects even by mistake for fear that you might accuse us of plagiarism.
4. You have no choice, Xero. YOU must now put the Math version forward so that we can compare the rational version of Physics against it and certify that they are not the same. Both you and I have to show to the crowd that the objects the mathematicians invoke to do their hocus pocus are not the same as the items rational people use.
.
Are you up to it or are you throwing in the towel again? Or is it that you are ashamed of your version?
@bgaede sure... energy and momentum are conserved... these are the laws of the universe... so says the "mathematical establishment".. now explain it "rationally"
@bgaede if you actually believed anything of what you preach it would be pretty easy for your.... (assuming you knew what the hell you were talking about :) )
You keep going back and forth like the pink pussy that you are, Xero! You don't seem to have any balls.
You've already eliminated concepts such as energy, momentum, and velocity from the mathematical argument because YOU are on record saying that concepts such as energy don't move!
2. The mathematicians 'explain' Newton's Cradle by claiming that energy is stored, momentum is transferred, and velocity is acquired. Therefore, you say on the one hand that concepts cannot move and, on the other, that the mathematical version which relies on moving concepts is not bunk. Which is it?
4. "air is not a significant factor... you dont need to explain gravity to explain the cradle"
.
So, let's see, dear Xero... You said that the only objects we're allowed in YOUR version of Newt's Cradle are balls, strings, air and Earth. You add that air is not a significant factor. That leaves the Earth. How does the Earth affect the balls and the strings if there is no other object present? Obviously you are missing something from YOUR picture! The ball is still in your court.
How about you just explain it rather than wasting time and hoping that I forget... and i didnt say anything about the establishment's explanation. I'm interested in yours. How about you define everything considering you're the psyuntist.
You still haven't told the crowd what you want explained, Xero. So far you said that there are strings, balls, air and Earth. You said that concepts such as energy and momentum cannot be transferred. This debunks the mathematical version, right? Since YOU requested that I avoid the mathematical version and this nonsense is the mathematical version, it is now debunked. Yes or no?
@bgaede no... the mathematical version uses momentum, energy and mass, so you cant because you are so confident that you dont need them.... just go, what are you afraid of, that everyone will see how big of a fraud you are?
Bill: "So you finally agree that Mathematics has no rational explanation for the Cradle, correct?... you have now eliminated energy, momentum and velocity because, as YOU say, these are abstract concepts and concepts don't move. Correct?"
Xero: "no... the mathematical version uses momentum, energy and mass"
2. Well then, you have a contradiction to resolve, dear Xero! You say on the one hand that 'concepts don't move' and that the mathematical version does indeed invoke concepts such as energy, momentum and velocity as objects. The mathematicians describe in no uncertain terms that "energy is stored", "momentum is acquired" and "velocity is transferred".
3. If as YOU say, concepts don't move and you concede that the mathematical 'explanation' invokes moving concepts, then your answer should be "yes", not '"no". It would be futile to explain a rational version to wacko at the asylum if that's what you are.
4. Perhaps you said "no" without understanding the Q. The Q again is: "Is the mathematical version BUNK if, as YOU say, 'concepts don't move' AND the mathematical version does indeed invoke moving concepts?" It is a mandatory step we must cover because as you just restated: "you cant because you are so confident that you dont need them". We need to cross this T before we proceed.
5. You also need to tell the crowd what objects are present aside from balls, strings, Earth and air. Can I perform the Cradle underwater and obtain the same results? You figured out finally that air is a factor. Likewise, can we perform the Cradle on the Moon and get the same results? If not, then the Earth does have a bearing on the Cradle. We call this phenomenon 'gravity'.
6. But you have yet to tell us what objects mediate gravity. Hopefully, you are not proposing that the Earth or the Moon throws stones at the Cradle, but if you do, then the onus is on you to include these stones in your list of objects. Before we can start the explanation YOU need to tell us WHAT objects are present. You told us that energy, momentum, and velocity are not because they are concepts. Fine! That's what ain't! What is?
@bgaede no i dont, you can take gravity as a given. Explain newton's cradle. You're missing the point of the discussion. I want you to explain newton's cradle. Not gravity. Start small, because once everyone sees how horrible your explanation for newton's cradle is, they might start taking your rope hypothesis with a grain of salt as well
@bgaede air is not a significant factor, you could perform this in a vacuum and get similar results and yes you could perform it on the moon and get the same results. AND STOP COMPLICATING THE QUESTION! I told you that you may take gravity as a given, you dont need to explain gravity to explain the cradle... now... explain
@bgaede the mathematical version is not bunk, it's explanation is perfectly fine. I'm obviously joking when i say that concepts such as momentum and energy are irrational because they have wide application so they work just fine for me. You on the other hand are an ontologist so you dont really do much of anything other than jerk off and criticize
@bgaede no i'm eliminating them from your arsenal because they are your main criticisms of mathematical science, now i want to hear your explanation of newton's cradle, you know what the establishment says, you know what the setup is, what's holding you up?
Boys and girls. Here is bill gayde's true face. A whiny wimpering schoolgirl who when put to the test can't explain a simple mechanism like newton's cradle, but thinks he can explain gravitation and magnetism.
Yes. And we've made a little bit of progress, but unfortunately very slowly. You originally said that the Cradle only had strings and balls. As an afterthought you introduced air. The last member you blessed was the Earth. We're certainly improving.
2. But then you claimed that there were other physical objects present in the Cradle I'm supposed to explain. You said that there are 'things' such as energy and momentum and mass. What are these objects, Xero? Where are they in the video you referenced?
3. I mean, if I'm required to avoid the mathematical version at all costs, you need to identify these objects and not come back later and say that I invoked them in a subtle way in my explanation. If I say that Ball A transferred X to Ball B, you will argue that that's the mathematical version of energy or momentum.
.
Therefore, the onus is for you to identify these objects before we can begin our rational explanation so that we don't invoke the same objects under another name.
@bgaede idk but you have to explain newton's cradle without concepts... because you are the one that denounces mainstream science for it's wide use of abstractions
We haven't been able to get to the definitions yet. You're still struggling with the objects. We're trying to determine what objects YOU are proposing are present in the version of the Cradle YOU want explained. Is the Cradle underwater? Is the Cradle performed on the Moon? That kind of thing...
3. "you have to explain newton's cradle without concepts... you cant say that anything is transferred because concepts cant move"
.
You have made tremendous progress, Xero! I'm proud of you. You went from transferring energy to saying that only an idiot would say such a thing. What a conversion! These are mighty statements that you've laid down for the record. They'll kick you out of the Math Klub for this heresy, but if so don't worry. We'll accept you as a member into our club. Okay?
4. Let me repeat in my own words what you're saying so that we get it straight for the record. You are saying that the mathematical 'explanation' for the Cradle is BUNK because the mathematical 'explanation' specifically talks about transferring concepts, to wit: energy, momentum, and velocity. The mathematicians treat these terms as if they were objects. Here it is in the Wiki mathematicians' own words...
5. "The ball on the opposite side acquires most of the velocity... the final ball receives most of the energy and momentum...energy is temporarily stored... the initial ball... impart[s] nearly all the momentum and energy to the last ball... the stationary one picks up all the other's velocity (and therefore all the momentum and energy..."
6. "The 1st ball... transfers its velocity to the 3rd ball... the 5th ball... is receiving momentum and energy from the 3rd and 4th balls... 40% to 50% of the kinetic energy of the initial ball is stored in the ball surfaces... 13% of the initial velocity is imparted to the 4th ball... This is 2.03 times more kinetic energy in the 5th ball than the 4th ball... energy losses are why the balls eventually come to a stop"
7. This is the garbage that the monks teach at the Math Klub! So you're right. Only an idiot would say that he transferred energy or momentum or velocity. I see why you are asking me to steer away form the spiritual objects of Math! This breathtaking mathematical 'explanation' should be avoided at all costs.
8. So you finally agree that Mathematics has no rational explanation for the Cradle, correct? Therefore, your requirement that I refrain from invoking Math was nonsense to begin with because Math does not have an explanation for it even to this day.
10. Therefore, if we can't invoke concepts such as energy and momentum to explain the Cradle because, as YOU have just affirmed, concepts don't move, then we are left with objects. Correct? Only objects intervene in the explanation of the Cradle. Yes or no?
If so, we must then identify the objects we have before us.
11. So far you've conceded that the physical objects in front of us are strings, balls, air, and Earth. You showed a table in your video although you haven't specifically listed it. You further clarified that it is not the same to do the Cradle in the air as it would be to perform it underwater. And you have now eliminated energy, momentum and velocity because, as YOU say, these are abstract concepts and concepts don't move. Correct? Are we in agreement so far?
if you're standing next to the setup, do you need to restart the experiment if you fart? because you didn't expect a fart to come into the equation, air resistance is negligible. Now explain if you can
1. "no conservation of energy and momentum EXPLAINS the behavior of newton's cradle"
Correct! It doesn't even describe it rationally!
.
"what kind of autistic moron asks what planet it's on, or if there's air, or if it's on a table"
More significantly, what autistic moron gawks like an idiot and says "Ahyuck, ahyuck, yup, yup" when you ask him if the only objects present in the Cradle experiment are the strings and balls.
2. "negligible is assumed to be synonymous with zero"
.
Again, only idiots like you and the mathematicians equate something with nothing. That's how the morons of your church converted photon 'particles' into 0D 'entities'. No attention to architecture!
It turns out that Physics cannot be done without objects!
3. "weighing the earth in tons... drop a grain of sand... make a difference?"
.
Apparently, in your religion it doesn't and that's why you conclude that the grain of sand is 0D and has no size.
In Science, on the other hand, yes! We don't take a grain of sand with a pinch of salt! We can later say that the effect was negligible, but we include all the objects up front. Otherwise, we end up like idiot Xero moving spiritual 'objects' around... energy, momentum, velocity, and the like.
Is that what you exclaimed when the priest unzipped his frock, Xero? Is that why you're a true believer now?
Well, why don't you see a bit of energy for us. Why don't you draw this energy 'stuff' or point to a picture of it anywhere on the Internet? That shouldn't be too hard for you now, Xero. Right?
5. "energy and momentum DO exist, because they are required to explain this physical phenomenon"
.
If that were true you would not be ashamed to put down the mathematical version so that we can all compare it against a rational explanation. You would say to the crowd straight-forwardly and proudly: "These are the physical objects present according to Xero of Math: energy, momentum, velocity, mass, heat, friction, frame of reference"...
7. Instead, you said that the ONLY objects present are strings and balls. What is any rational person supposed to conclude?
Of course, anyone makes an error. You are welcome to correct your earlier statement and add all the objects you believe are present. For instance, if you left out energy by mistake, you can say, "Ooops, I forgot this critical body the monks at the Math Monastery call 'energy'. This entity is necessary because the balls will be transferring energy between them."
8. But to say that ONLY the strings and balls are present debunks even the mathematical version. You made no allowance for energy or momentum in the 'ONLY strings and balls' version of the Cradle you want me to explain. The ball is in your court, Xero. For all anyone knows you may want to run the Cradle underwater or vertically. The results would certainly be a bit different.
9. If the Earth or a table are present, hopefully they exert gravitational influence over your experiment, especially if the table is in direct contact and weighs 1000 tons or is magnetized.
10. So the ball is still in your court, Xero. You must specify the experiment you want explained if as you say there are ONLY strings and balls present. Amend whatever you need to. You might even learn some Physics if you stick around.
11. "you broke down and just copied the establishment's explanation"
We will never know for sure now will we... because you have yet to tell us what the Mathematical Establishment's version is. That's one of the things we've been waiting for. On the other hand, I can imagine why you are so ashamed of it and would rather people not hear it.
As I said, that video YOU put as a reference has more than strings and balls. Please identify what other objects are present. That shouldn't be too hard to do for you, Xero.
For instance, I distinctly saw a table. That wasn't included in your 'ONLY strings and balls' hypothesis. Was that experiment done on Earth or on your planet?
14. "you didn't expect a fart to come into the equation"
What equation? How would an equation explain any physical phenomenon?
.
I mean, if you asked for an explanation and are expecting an equation or a description, then you are clearly delirious. Take it up with your priest at your next groping confession.
@bgaede You said if. You fell for it. You just completely negated your entire argument about air and all of the useless crap you clung on to to save your own position. As soon as you say "if it effects the setup" then you are free to decide if things are negligible or not. Now explain newton's cradle, just explain it.
@bgaede Stop copying. And explain without energy mass or momentum. You don't understand. I'm trying to make a point here, that you CANT explain anything unless you use these concepts, and you need math to prove it explicitly.
@bgaede Also, shut off the record. You sound like a 4 year old. Sorry I gave you the credit to know that I meant on earth and in the absence of drag forces.
So now, in addition to strings, balls, and air, we have planet Earth, huh? I guess this debunks your original 'Yup, yup, ahyuck, ahyuck' reply where you gawked and said that there were only strings and balls present, huh?
.
Is there anything else in the picture before we proceed? I mean, is there any energy? Is there any momentum in there somewhere? Is there velocity? Please tell us YOUR setup now or keep your peace forever!
2. For instance, am I allowed to say that Ball A transfers 'energy' to Ball B? Or that it transfers 'momentum' to Ball B? Or that it transfers 'velocity' to Ball B? Are there such physical objects present? You can't come back later and invoke such physical objects and claim that you transferred them from one ball to the other. You either state it now on the record or run away.
3. You started with strings and balls. Later you included air and talked about resistance. Now you say that the Earth is also present. What's next? You can't keep changing the contract every two seconds.
.
"you thought I meant underwater"
.
Until you specify otherwise, we can assume anything. But judging by your reply, apparently, we are not performing the Cradle underwater.
4. "explain without energy mass or momentum... you CANT explain anything unless you use these concepts"
.
Okay. So there is no water, but there is still more 'stuff' beyond strings, balls, air and Earth? If we understand you correctly, there is also energy, momentum, and mass present? Is that correct?
5. According to you, we can't explain the Cradle unless we invoke these spiritual objects... erm... I mean 'concepts', right? That's the challenge, right?
Get it right this time, Xero. Don't keep gawking "yup, yup, yup" until you thought about it a bit.
I thought you asked me to explain? What's this 'prove' bullshit? To whom am I suppose to prove? To myself?
I've already proven the Cradle to myself! Who else am I supposed to prove this explanation to? To the priest that raped you, Xero? How do you prove an explanation, anyways?
@bgaede i'm asking for YOUR explanation. Not the verified mathematical explanation. I'm trying to show that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and at this point it think it's more than just a preponderance of evidence
you really should try and start small, if you cant explain the most basic things in the physical world then you have no right to try and explain quantum effects or astrophysics
What a piece of caca yo momma gave you for a brain, Xero! Idiots like you use terms such as 'infinitesimal' and 'negligible' as synonyms of zero, vacuum, nothing.
Infinitesimal means that there is still something in there. Make it as infinitesimal as you want!
2. Therefore, if air resistance is 'negligible' rather than zip, it is a factor in many experiments done on Earth.
.
Conversely, this set of phlogistons that the mathematicians invoke -- energy, momentum, velocity, mass, frame of reference -- are not 'negligible'. They are only in your ass, not in front of us!
Yes. That became apparent when you said that ONLY strings and balls were involved. So now the onus is on YOU to tell us how you do the Cradle without a planet.
If there is no energy or momentum, even the mathematicians bomb out!
Great! Then you should 'know' that the establishment transfers spiritual objects such as energy, mass, momentum and velocity from frame of reference to the balls. Here is one version of their 'explanation', and I quote...
7. In your 'ONLY strings and balls' setup, the mathematical version doesn't have a chance. You made no allowance for all the spiritual objects that the idiots of Math invoke to 'explain' the Cradle, to wit: momentum, energy, velocity, heat, friction.
.
The only physical object that the idiots of Math mention is air, which you included in your challenge only as an afterthought.
Don't change the subject, you moron! Don't run away.
.
Nevertheless, wherever in the Universe that setup was performed, there was a table and there was some kind of entity serving as a background. It suggests that THAT Cradle was performed in some kind of planet. There is more than just strings and balls in that vid!
9. Again, under what conditions would YOU like the Cradle explained if as you say there are only strings and balls before us? Where are you performing YOUR Cradle? Inside your ass?
10. "if you cant explain the most basic things in the physical world then you..."
.
...are known as a mathematician. The morons DESCRIBED the Cradle in the Wiki article and have yet to explain it. You'll have your chance to explain it, dear Xero. For now, tell us the conditions under which you would like to have it explained. The video you referenced invoked more than just strings and balls.
@bgaede What I like about you Bill is you spend so much time bashing what you don't like about science, you never get around to teaching anybody.
You end up unwittingly sending anybody that would be willing to listen to you running to the establishment so the establishment can teach them. They end up getting their education from the very people you rant and rave about.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...... comical Bill comical.
"You end up unwittingly sending anybody that would be willing to listen to you running to the establishment"
.
That's just the point, dear just! We teach with a baseball bat to weed out the mice from the men. JC said it 2000 years ago: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a mathematician to enter the Kingdom of Physics."
.
We. The few. The proud. The physicists. Move along, just. Go with the rabble. We're not here for the numbers...
@bgaede "Most people reject the imminent extinction of Man."
More hypocrisy Bill? When other scientists predict events in the future you throw a hissy fit, but it's OK when YOU do the same you want to be seen as some visionary?
@bgaede no, conservation of energy and momentum EXPLAINS the behavior of newton's cradle. It explains why two spheres rise when two are dropped. Listen you couldnt do it. You're not a physicist, nor are you an economist... you are pathetic
@bgaede i didnt change the subject... that was a video of newton's cradle, i was simply providing you a movie so you could wrap your autistic brain around my question... i think thanks are in order gayboy
@bgaede my challenge was to explain newton's cradle, like... what kind of autistic moron asks what planet it's on, or if there's air, or if it's on a table. These are all stalling tactics concocted to mask the fact that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
@Xero555000 "and just copied the establishment's explanation...."
I think you hit on something. A very popular theme in the Hispanic world is revenge. A lot of their movies and TV novelas (soap operas) are about revenge.
Bill feels like he has been shit on by the establishment, prison, deportation... So he's going to spend the rest of his life throwing shit back at the "establishment" in revenge for his shitty life.
@bgaede more quote mining, nice. And the point i'm making is that energy and momentum DO exist, because they are required to explain this physical phenomenon. You being so dead set against the use of concepts would be the only one capable of explaining such a simple system without invoking spirit, but you can't. So, pass the mic
@bgaede no, lol negligible is assumed to be synonymous with zero because considering it leads to much more complexity, and minor little difference in the final answer. If you're weighing the earth in tons, and i drop a grain of sand into it, does that sand make a difference? No it doesnt
2. Idiot Xero: Please explain Newton's Cradle without resorting to Math.
Bill: Is this the mathematical version (just so I don't invoke it by mistake)?
"The ball... acquires most of the velocity... the final ball receives most of the energy and momentum that was in the first ball.... transfers its velocity to the 3rd ball... the 5th ball... is receiving momentum and energy... the kinetic energy of the initial ball is stored"
@bgaede Cuz air isn't needed for the functioning of Newton'e cradle you idiot.
Air only needs to be included if you want explain things that impedes the functioning of Newton's cradle.
Apparently Xero has a better understanding of Newton's cradle than you do which explains why you avoided his challenge and tried to start explaining it on Facebook so they could correct your mistakes.
1. "Air only needs to be included if you want explain things that impedes the functioning of Newton's cradle."
.
Erm... idiot just? This moron Xero has not specified where the Cradle is being performed. We can perform Newt's Cradle inside his ass here on Earth or half way b/w the Earth and the Moon. The balls will not rise in the same way. Therefore, the onus is on Xero to specify the location and environmental conditions under which he wants the Cradle explained.
2. He replied that the ONLY things in front of us are strings and balls. Now Xero introduces a new factor, and I quote: "everyone know's about air resistance". There is no air on the Moon, so I have concluded that he didn't have the Moon in mind. That eliminates at least one celestial object in the Universe. Great! Perhaps if he gives us more hints we can eliminate a few more.
3. I asked him if the Earth was a factor and he said no. Just strings and balls. I have to conclude at this point that he is talking about the behavior of the Cradle in God's Heaven or in the parallel universe where he lives. I can't even imagine performing the Cradle with JUST balls and strings and nothing else.
4. Indeed, the mathematical version he wants me to avoid talks about transferring a spiritual object known in that religion as 'energy'. The Math Monks wave their magic wands another surrealistic object known as 'momentum' flies from one ball to another. They also talk about a ball 'acquiring' a substance known to the mathematicians as 'velocity'. Very spooky stuff! Xero's 'ONLY strings and balls' hypothesis even eliminates the mathematical version.
5. Therefore, the ball is in his court. If he wants me to avoid mathematical terms in my explanation such as energy, momentum, and mass, the onus is on him to tell me what these physical objects are. I could just as well say that I transferred X from Ball A to Ball B and he will accuse me of invoking Math. He will say that I transferred energy or momentum and called it something else.
6. And if he insists that the only objects before us are strings and balls, some air, no Earth, no energy, no momentum, no mass, no velocity, location in heaven somewhere, I challenge him to perform the Cradle in such an environment. Let's get the ground rules straight!
@bgaede He didn't insist on anything. He asked you to provide an explanation.
All your hand waving about him not establishing ground rules is comical. You couldn't even manage to explain on Facebook without fucking it up. An explanation would have included the required objects and conditions for the functioning of Newt's cradle. There would have been no outs because you would have explained why they were necessary.
Go ahead keep making excuses for your failure, Xero won by default.
2. "you would have explained why they were necessary"
.
An idiot like you has to tell the crowd WHERE in the U you are carrying out the Cradle?If as this moron Xero alleges the only objects before us are strings and balls, he's summarily debunking the Mathematical Establishment's proposal that there are spiritual objects such as energy and momentum flying around.
3. Again, you stupid idiot, is it the same to do the Cradle on the Moon than on the Earth? If as this idiot Xero says the ONLY objects in front of us are the strings and the balls, no table, no Earth, perhaps some air, then he has to show the crowd where and how he can perform such a magic trick. In what parallel universe is he standing?
4. Otherwise the onus is on Xero to tell the crowd what conditions and physical objects are there other than strings and balls. It's just that simple! Perhaps at your monastery you don't identify the objects before you do an experiment, but in Science, we must list all the objects that we are going to invoke to explain a theory. The ball is in Xero's court. He can either put up or run away. So far, it seems like he chickened out... cwaaaa cwaaaa... Instead, he sent his boy to defend him.
@bgaede Are you enjoying building your strawman Billy Boy?
Anybody that's been to their local shopping mall and seen the inside of Spencer Gifts has seen Newton's Cradle and they don't come with a Gaede 50 page instruction manual on how to set them up to make them work. You don't need to go to the moon to see one in operation.
I guess Xero should have started out with challenging you to explain something simpler like a spinning top or maybe a bouncing ball.
1. "Anybody that's been to their... shopping mall... has seen Newton's Cradle and... don't come with a Gaede 50 page instruction manual on how to set them up"
.
A bean brain like you not only confuses scientific language with ordinary speech, but also Science with pseudo-science. In Science, we have to be extra careful when explaining a phenomenon because there are invisible entities such as atoms and the mediator of gravity which play significant roles in just about everything.
2. This little twit, Xero, says that there are only strings and balls before us. He thinks that the balls swing back and forth by magic. Xero makes no provision for the phenomenon we call 'gravity' (i.e., the Earth).
3. "You don't need to go to the moon to see one in operation"
.
And again, you are too stupid to understand this argument, idiot just. The issue is NOT whether you need to go to the Moon to run the Cradle. The issue is whether the Cradle behaves differently on Earth and on the Moon.
4. "explain something simpler like a spinning top"
You're a spinning top, just. All you do is spin and spin circles. If you haven't yet figured out that the mathematical 'explanation' for the Cradle -- transfer energy, acquire momentum -- is bogus, then you really need to see a shrink!
5. The reason this idiot Xero ran away is that he either doesn't understand what his priest meant by 'transfer energy' and 'acquire momentum' or he's ashamed of this surrealistic 'explanation'. I hope for his sake that it is the latter.
6. Anyway, Xero is welcome to describe the conditions of his challenge and we'll gladly explain why the Cradle works the way it does under those circumstances. If in addition, as he has requested, we must avoid references to Math, he must clarify what Math says about the Cradle so that we don't step on any toes. So far he has opted to hide and send you to defend him with irrelevant collateral attacks.
@bgaede no... you have a statement from me saying that you need to fucking explain newton's cradle, not mentally masturbate until everyone gets bored of you and forgets so that you can avoid the fact that you actually dont have any idea of what physics is all about
@bgaede i personally dont think it's bogus, which is why i'm inviting you to give another one, because your explanation for light gravity and subatomic affects is lackluster at best
That has become painfully obvious. And then you send this pinko boy of yours -- 'justintimetosuckyou' -- who does an even lousier job. What a pair of fag boys! Where did you pick him up? In Frisco?
That has become obvious as well, dear Xero. As an example, you said that in the setup you want me to explain there are ONLY strings and balls. I asked you if there was a planet called Earth and you said no.
3. Then, you came back and suggested that there could be air resistance. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to specify the location, environment and or conditions under which you want the Cradle explained! Again, it is not the same to perform it here on Earth than on your planet.
4. So far you've seem to have run away. You have yet to specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained. That ball is definitely in YOUR court!
4. So far you've seem to have run away. You have yet to specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained. That ball is definitely in YOUR court!
5. If we follow YOUR specifications -- ONLY strings and balls and nothing else -- even the Mathematical 'explanation' (ha, ha, ha) fails. The mathematicians propose the transfer of substances they call 'energy', 'momentum', and 'mass' and they talk about a telephone pole they call 'frame of reference'.
6. If your conditions -- ONLY strings and balls -- are to be followed, the mathematicians on Earth can't invoke these objects either.
.
So clearly, the ball is in your court. Specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained or go back to your planet with your tail b/w your legs..
@bgaede you're deflecting again, i know the establishment's explanation, i want to know yours so i can see where you are logically deficient. Because i know that you can't explain it rationally with any of your models.
@bgaede no, as the one explaining, it is your job to set up the model, not mine, i'm just someone in the audience that asked you to explain newton's cradle
@bgaede you're over thinking it we only brought up air resistance because you brought up air as one of the objects needed to be specified, if you run the numbers, you'll find that the air resistance is negligible, all you need to say is, "i'm neglecting the effects of air resistance and assuming perfectly elastic collisions" and i'd say... that's fine
@bgaede i didnt say no... i just said explain it, its not up to the one asking the question to define everything, as the one explaining the situation, it is YOUR job to outline all of the parameters and then explain how they come into play, do you think i really meant that gravity was not involved? further, because i'm only asking you to explain newton's cradle, you get to take gravity as a given, no need to explain that in this exercise... so... go explain "scientist"
@bgaede i'm pretty sure there was a question mark... also, i think it's hilarious that you would call someone else a pinko because the government should have made you disappear ages ago for selling secrets because you're a worthless piece of shit, and i get it, you lose the debate so you resort to name calling
all this makes children cry. Just PLay.
NORGOTHURLAK 1 hour ago
EXPLAIN NEWTON'S CRADLE
Xero555000 6 days ago
"NEWTON'S CRADLE"
.
You have yet to describe what you want explained, Xero. You say that the only things in Newt's Cradle are strings, balls, air and the Earth. Then you say that the mathematicians have explained Newt's Cradle with things such as energy, momentum, velocity, mass and other 'stuff' that weren't in there. Then you ref a vid of the Cradle that includes a table. So until you can get your act together and tell the crowd what you want explained...
bgaede 6 days ago
@bgaede you describe it... then explain it... scientists dont wait for people to challenge their theory BEFORE they explain it...
and a table really? it's something for the thing to stand on are you that autistic... just explain it please
Xero555000 5 days ago
1. "scientists dont wait for people to challenge their theory BEFORE they explain it..."
.
Aaaahhh, but you put a clause in there that binds you, my dear Xero. You said to do it without Math. Now the onus is on you to explain the Math version so that we don't step on any toes even by mistake.
bgaede 5 days ago
2. Before you ran away, you mentioned that under the Math version there are only strings, balls, air and the Earth before us. But then you added a table, and the official Math version also claims that there is also 'stuff' like energy, momentum, and velocity present, all of which are transferred and received by the balls. You need to confirm this version so that we can compare the Math proposal vs a rational one.
bgaede 5 days ago
3. Therefore, the ball is in YOUR court. You now have the burden of telling the crowd all the objects that are present in the setup YOU want explained. For all we know, you could invoke ghosts and spirits that push the balls in your setup. We certainly wouldn't want to invoke those same objects even by mistake for fear that you might accuse us of plagiarism.
bgaede 5 days ago
4. You have no choice, Xero. YOU must now put the Math version forward so that we can compare the rational version of Physics against it and certify that they are not the same. Both you and I have to show to the crowd that the objects the mathematicians invoke to do their hocus pocus are not the same as the items rational people use.
.
Are you up to it or are you throwing in the towel again? Or is it that you are ashamed of your version?
bgaede 5 days ago
@bgaede sure... energy and momentum are conserved... these are the laws of the universe... so says the "mathematical establishment".. now explain it "rationally"
Xero555000 5 days ago
"energy and momentum are conserved..."
.
Conserved? Like in a glass jar? What do you conserve them for?
bgaede 4 days ago
@bgaede idk i didnt design the universe
Xero555000 3 days ago
"i didnt design the universe"
.
Sure you did! You're just too modest!
bgaede 3 days ago
"i didnt design the universe"
.
Sure you did! You're just too modest!
bgaede 3 days ago
@bgaede ? lol
Xero555000 2 days ago
@bgaede if you actually believed anything of what you preach it would be pretty easy for your.... (assuming you knew what the hell you were talking about :) )
Xero555000 5 days ago
See everyone he's dodging the question, he's got no answers... all he can do is conjure angels, smoke, and mirrors
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "the mathematical version is not bunk"
You keep going back and forth like the pink pussy that you are, Xero! You don't seem to have any balls.
You've already eliminated concepts such as energy, momentum, and velocity from the mathematical argument because YOU are on record saying that concepts such as energy don't move!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. The mathematicians 'explain' Newton's Cradle by claiming that energy is stored, momentum is transferred, and velocity is acquired. Therefore, you say on the one hand that concepts cannot move and, on the other, that the mathematical version which relies on moving concepts is not bunk. Which is it?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "I'm obviously joking when i say that concepts such as momentum and energy are irrational"
.
The Q is not whether they are irrational. It's whether concepts have the ability to move. Do they? Yes or no?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "air is not a significant factor... you dont need to explain gravity to explain the cradle"
.
So, let's see, dear Xero... You said that the only objects we're allowed in YOUR version of Newt's Cradle are balls, strings, air and Earth. You add that air is not a significant factor. That leaves the Earth. How does the Earth affect the balls and the strings if there is no other object present? Obviously you are missing something from YOUR picture! The ball is still in your court.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede sure why not?
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede you are so stupid lol it's laughable
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede you obviously dont get sarcasm
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
How about you just explain it rather than wasting time and hoping that I forget... and i didnt say anything about the establishment's explanation. I'm interested in yours. How about you define everything considering you're the psyuntist.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
"you just explain it"
.
You still haven't told the crowd what you want explained, Xero. So far you said that there are strings, balls, air and Earth. You said that concepts such as energy and momentum cannot be transferred. This debunks the mathematical version, right? Since YOU requested that I avoid the mathematical version and this nonsense is the mathematical version, it is now debunked. Yes or no?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede no... the mathematical version uses momentum, energy and mass, so you cant because you are so confident that you dont need them.... just go, what are you afraid of, that everyone will see how big of a fraud you are?
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. Xero: "concepts don't move"
Bill: "So you finally agree that Mathematics has no rational explanation for the Cradle, correct?... you have now eliminated energy, momentum and velocity because, as YOU say, these are abstract concepts and concepts don't move. Correct?"
Xero: "no... the mathematical version uses momentum, energy and mass"
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. Well then, you have a contradiction to resolve, dear Xero! You say on the one hand that 'concepts don't move' and that the mathematical version does indeed invoke concepts such as energy, momentum and velocity as objects. The mathematicians describe in no uncertain terms that "energy is stored", "momentum is acquired" and "velocity is transferred".
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. If as YOU say, concepts don't move and you concede that the mathematical 'explanation' invokes moving concepts, then your answer should be "yes", not '"no". It would be futile to explain a rational version to wacko at the asylum if that's what you are.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. Perhaps you said "no" without understanding the Q. The Q again is: "Is the mathematical version BUNK if, as YOU say, 'concepts don't move' AND the mathematical version does indeed invoke moving concepts?" It is a mandatory step we must cover because as you just restated: "you cant because you are so confident that you dont need them". We need to cross this T before we proceed.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. You also need to tell the crowd what objects are present aside from balls, strings, Earth and air. Can I perform the Cradle underwater and obtain the same results? You figured out finally that air is a factor. Likewise, can we perform the Cradle on the Moon and get the same results? If not, then the Earth does have a bearing on the Cradle. We call this phenomenon 'gravity'.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
6. But you have yet to tell us what objects mediate gravity. Hopefully, you are not proposing that the Earth or the Moon throws stones at the Cradle, but if you do, then the onus is on you to include these stones in your list of objects. Before we can start the explanation YOU need to tell us WHAT objects are present. You told us that energy, momentum, and velocity are not because they are concepts. Fine! That's what ain't! What is?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede no i dont, you can take gravity as a given. Explain newton's cradle. You're missing the point of the discussion. I want you to explain newton's cradle. Not gravity. Start small, because once everyone sees how horrible your explanation for newton's cradle is, they might start taking your rope hypothesis with a grain of salt as well
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede air is not a significant factor, you could perform this in a vacuum and get similar results and yes you could perform it on the moon and get the same results. AND STOP COMPLICATING THE QUESTION! I told you that you may take gravity as a given, you dont need to explain gravity to explain the cradle... now... explain
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede the mathematical version is not bunk, it's explanation is perfectly fine. I'm obviously joking when i say that concepts such as momentum and energy are irrational because they have wide application so they work just fine for me. You on the other hand are an ontologist so you dont really do much of anything other than jerk off and criticize
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede no i'm eliminating them from your arsenal because they are your main criticisms of mathematical science, now i want to hear your explanation of newton's cradle, you know what the establishment says, you know what the setup is, what's holding you up?
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
JUST EXPLAIN NEWTON'S CRADLE... OR SAY THAT YOU CAN! IT'S THAT SIMPLE
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
"EXPLAIN NEWTON'S CRADLE..."
.
So you agree that the Math 'explanation' is bunk?
.
What was it that you said, Xero? That you can't transfer CONCEPTS such as energy and momentum and velocity?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
Boys and girls. Here is bill gayde's true face. A whiny wimpering schoolgirl who when put to the test can't explain a simple mechanism like newton's cradle, but thinks he can explain gravitation and magnetism.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "i'm asking for YOUR explanation"
.
Yes. And we've made a little bit of progress, but unfortunately very slowly. You originally said that the Cradle only had strings and balls. As an afterthought you introduced air. The last member you blessed was the Earth. We're certainly improving.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. But then you claimed that there were other physical objects present in the Cradle I'm supposed to explain. You said that there are 'things' such as energy and momentum and mass. What are these objects, Xero? Where are they in the video you referenced?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. I mean, if I'm required to avoid the mathematical version at all costs, you need to identify these objects and not come back later and say that I invoked them in a subtle way in my explanation. If I say that Ball A transferred X to Ball B, you will argue that that's the mathematical version of energy or momentum.
.
Therefore, the onus is for you to identify these objects before we can begin our rational explanation so that we don't invoke the same objects under another name.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. What is this stuff YOU call energy that I am supposed to avoid in my explanation?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede idk but you have to explain newton's cradle without concepts... because you are the one that denounces mainstream science for it's wide use of abstractions
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede tell me your explanation, and use your definition of energy, i'd really love to see how you weave these ropes into a massive turd sandwich.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "did i say anything about energy?"
So now you don't even know what you blab about? Amnesia, huh?
Here. Let me refresh your short attention span, Xero... Try to stay awake for ten seconds...
.
"explain without energy mass or momentum... you CANT explain anything unless you use these concepts"
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "use your definition of energy"
Energy? Definition?
We haven't been able to get to the definitions yet. You're still struggling with the objects. We're trying to determine what objects YOU are proposing are present in the version of the Cradle YOU want explained. Is the Cradle underwater? Is the Cradle performed on the Moon? That kind of thing...
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "you have to explain newton's cradle without concepts... you cant say that anything is transferred because concepts cant move"
.
You have made tremendous progress, Xero! I'm proud of you. You went from transferring energy to saying that only an idiot would say such a thing. What a conversion! These are mighty statements that you've laid down for the record. They'll kick you out of the Math Klub for this heresy, but if so don't worry. We'll accept you as a member into our club. Okay?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. Let me repeat in my own words what you're saying so that we get it straight for the record. You are saying that the mathematical 'explanation' for the Cradle is BUNK because the mathematical 'explanation' specifically talks about transferring concepts, to wit: energy, momentum, and velocity. The mathematicians treat these terms as if they were objects. Here it is in the Wiki mathematicians' own words...
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. "The ball on the opposite side acquires most of the velocity... the final ball receives most of the energy and momentum...energy is temporarily stored... the initial ball... impart[s] nearly all the momentum and energy to the last ball... the stationary one picks up all the other's velocity (and therefore all the momentum and energy..."
bgaede 3 weeks ago
6. "The 1st ball... transfers its velocity to the 3rd ball... the 5th ball... is receiving momentum and energy from the 3rd and 4th balls... 40% to 50% of the kinetic energy of the initial ball is stored in the ball surfaces... 13% of the initial velocity is imparted to the 4th ball... This is 2.03 times more kinetic energy in the 5th ball than the 4th ball... energy losses are why the balls eventually come to a stop"
bgaede 3 weeks ago
7. This is the garbage that the monks teach at the Math Klub! So you're right. Only an idiot would say that he transferred energy or momentum or velocity. I see why you are asking me to steer away form the spiritual objects of Math! This breathtaking mathematical 'explanation' should be avoided at all costs.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
8. So you finally agree that Mathematics has no rational explanation for the Cradle, correct? Therefore, your requirement that I refrain from invoking Math was nonsense to begin with because Math does not have an explanation for it even to this day.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
9. The mathematicians still have no idea WHAT causes the balls to go up or down! Correct?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
10. Therefore, if we can't invoke concepts such as energy and momentum to explain the Cradle because, as YOU have just affirmed, concepts don't move, then we are left with objects. Correct? Only objects intervene in the explanation of the Cradle. Yes or no?
If so, we must then identify the objects we have before us.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
11. So far you've conceded that the physical objects in front of us are strings, balls, air, and Earth. You showed a table in your video although you haven't specifically listed it. You further clarified that it is not the same to do the Cradle in the air as it would be to perform it underwater. And you have now eliminated energy, momentum and velocity because, as YOU say, these are abstract concepts and concepts don't move. Correct? Are we in agreement so far?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Billy I see your whole goal is to talk in circles so you never have to explain anything.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
Fag boy!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede You should know fag means cigarette from your time you spent with your drinking buddy Jake when you visited him in Liverpool.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
"fag means cigarette"
Yes. I suppose that Xero sticks you up his ass, right?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Your skill insulting people is on par with the average primary school student.
justintempler 3 weeks ago
@bgaede you cant say that anything is transferred because concepts cant move
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede did i say anything about energy? you're explanation please
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede unfortunately you're wasting time :-\
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
if you're standing next to the setup, do you need to restart the experiment if you fart? because you didn't expect a fart to come into the equation, air resistance is negligible. Now explain if you can
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
1. "no conservation of energy and momentum EXPLAINS the behavior of newton's cradle"
Correct! It doesn't even describe it rationally!
.
"what kind of autistic moron asks what planet it's on, or if there's air, or if it's on a table"
More significantly, what autistic moron gawks like an idiot and says "Ahyuck, ahyuck, yup, yup" when you ask him if the only objects present in the Cradle experiment are the strings and balls.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
2. "negligible is assumed to be synonymous with zero"
.
Again, only idiots like you and the mathematicians equate something with nothing. That's how the morons of your church converted photon 'particles' into 0D 'entities'. No attention to architecture!
It turns out that Physics cannot be done without objects!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
3. "weighing the earth in tons... drop a grain of sand... make a difference?"
.
Apparently, in your religion it doesn't and that's why you conclude that the grain of sand is 0D and has no size.
In Science, on the other hand, yes! We don't take a grain of sand with a pinch of salt! We can later say that the effect was negligible, but we include all the objects up front. Otherwise, we end up like idiot Xero moving spiritual 'objects' around... energy, momentum, velocity, and the like.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
4. "seeing is believing"
.
Is that what you exclaimed when the priest unzipped his frock, Xero? Is that why you're a true believer now?
Well, why don't you see a bit of energy for us. Why don't you draw this energy 'stuff' or point to a picture of it anywhere on the Internet? That shouldn't be too hard for you now, Xero. Right?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
5. "energy and momentum DO exist, because they are required to explain this physical phenomenon"
.
If that were true you would not be ashamed to put down the mathematical version so that we can all compare it against a rational explanation. You would say to the crowd straight-forwardly and proudly: "These are the physical objects present according to Xero of Math: energy, momentum, velocity, mass, heat, friction, frame of reference"...
bgaede 4 weeks ago
6. ...and you would point to each one so that everyone in the crowd can relate the word you pronounce to the object you point to.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
7. Instead, you said that the ONLY objects present are strings and balls. What is any rational person supposed to conclude?
Of course, anyone makes an error. You are welcome to correct your earlier statement and add all the objects you believe are present. For instance, if you left out energy by mistake, you can say, "Ooops, I forgot this critical body the monks at the Math Monastery call 'energy'. This entity is necessary because the balls will be transferring energy between them."
bgaede 4 weeks ago
8. But to say that ONLY the strings and balls are present debunks even the mathematical version. You made no allowance for energy or momentum in the 'ONLY strings and balls' version of the Cradle you want me to explain. The ball is in your court, Xero. For all anyone knows you may want to run the Cradle underwater or vertically. The results would certainly be a bit different.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
9. If the Earth or a table are present, hopefully they exert gravitational influence over your experiment, especially if the table is in direct contact and weighs 1000 tons or is magnetized.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
10. So the ball is still in your court, Xero. You must specify the experiment you want explained if as you say there are ONLY strings and balls present. Amend whatever you need to. You might even learn some Physics if you stick around.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
11. "you broke down and just copied the establishment's explanation"
We will never know for sure now will we... because you have yet to tell us what the Mathematical Establishment's version is. That's one of the things we've been waiting for. On the other hand, I can imagine why you are so ashamed of it and would rather people not hear it.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
12. "that was a video of newton's cradle"
As I said, that video YOU put as a reference has more than strings and balls. Please identify what other objects are present. That shouldn't be too hard to do for you, Xero.
For instance, I distinctly saw a table. That wasn't included in your 'ONLY strings and balls' hypothesis. Was that experiment done on Earth or on your planet?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
13. "if you're standing next to the setup, do you need to restart the experiment if you fart?"
.
If your fart is strong enough to blow the entire Cradle with baby and all from the table, then yes.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
14. "you didn't expect a fart to come into the equation"
What equation? How would an equation explain any physical phenomenon?
.
I mean, if you asked for an explanation and are expecting an equation or a description, then you are clearly delirious. Take it up with your priest at your next groping confession.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede "...so that we can all compare it against a rational explanation..."
You mean the rational explanation that you never provided? You're too busy throwing shit at the wall..
justintempler 4 weeks ago
@bgaede you obviously have no grasp of idiomatic expressions
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede You said if. You fell for it. You just completely negated your entire argument about air and all of the useless crap you clung on to to save your own position. As soon as you say "if it effects the setup" then you are free to decide if things are negligible or not. Now explain newton's cradle, just explain it.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Because you are obviously retarded, i'll spell it out. Explain newton's cradle, on earth.
Be sure to explicitly state all assumptions you make about where you're performing this thought experiment.
Now explain
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Seriously though, you're retarded if you thought I meant underwater, that isnt even a rational thing to assume.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Stop copying. And explain without energy mass or momentum. You don't understand. I'm trying to make a point here, that you CANT explain anything unless you use these concepts, and you need math to prove it explicitly.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Also, shut off the record. You sound like a 4 year old. Sorry I gave you the credit to know that I meant on earth and in the absence of drag forces.
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
1. "Explain newton's cradle, on earth"
.
So now, in addition to strings, balls, and air, we have planet Earth, huh? I guess this debunks your original 'Yup, yup, ahyuck, ahyuck' reply where you gawked and said that there were only strings and balls present, huh?
.
Is there anything else in the picture before we proceed? I mean, is there any energy? Is there any momentum in there somewhere? Is there velocity? Please tell us YOUR setup now or keep your peace forever!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. For instance, am I allowed to say that Ball A transfers 'energy' to Ball B? Or that it transfers 'momentum' to Ball B? Or that it transfers 'velocity' to Ball B? Are there such physical objects present? You can't come back later and invoke such physical objects and claim that you transferred them from one ball to the other. You either state it now on the record or run away.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. You started with strings and balls. Later you included air and talked about resistance. Now you say that the Earth is also present. What's next? You can't keep changing the contract every two seconds.
.
"you thought I meant underwater"
.
Until you specify otherwise, we can assume anything. But judging by your reply, apparently, we are not performing the Cradle underwater.
Thank God! That eliminates one more variable.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "explain without energy mass or momentum... you CANT explain anything unless you use these concepts"
.
Okay. So there is no water, but there is still more 'stuff' beyond strings, balls, air and Earth? If we understand you correctly, there is also energy, momentum, and mass present? Is that correct?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. According to you, we can't explain the Cradle unless we invoke these spiritual objects... erm... I mean 'concepts', right? That's the challenge, right?
Get it right this time, Xero. Don't keep gawking "yup, yup, yup" until you thought about it a bit.
bgaede 3 weeks ago
6. "you need math to prove it"
.
Prove???
I thought you asked me to explain? What's this 'prove' bullshit? To whom am I suppose to prove? To myself?
I've already proven the Cradle to myself! Who else am I supposed to prove this explanation to? To the priest that raped you, Xero? How do you prove an explanation, anyways?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede i'm asking for YOUR explanation. Not the verified mathematical explanation. I'm trying to show that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and at this point it think it's more than just a preponderance of evidence
Xero555000 3 weeks ago
you really should try and start small, if you cant explain the most basic things in the physical world then you have no right to try and explain quantum effects or astrophysics
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
1. "the air resistance is negligible"
What a piece of caca yo momma gave you for a brain, Xero! Idiots like you use terms such as 'infinitesimal' and 'negligible' as synonyms of zero, vacuum, nothing.
Infinitesimal means that there is still something in there. Make it as infinitesimal as you want!
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/01Point/03Infinitesimal.html
.
And 'negligible' is like 'negligee'. You can see the tits, but it's still not entirely transparent.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
2. Therefore, if air resistance is 'negligible' rather than zip, it is a factor in many experiments done on Earth.
.
Conversely, this set of phlogistons that the mathematicians invoke -- energy, momentum, velocity, mass, frame of reference -- are not 'negligible'. They are only in your ass, not in front of us!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
3. "i really meant that gravity was not involved"
.
Yes. That became apparent when you said that ONLY strings and balls were involved. So now the onus is on YOU to tell us how you do the Cradle without a planet.
If there is no energy or momentum, even the mathematicians bomb out!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
4. "i know the establishment's explanation"
.
Great! Then you should 'know' that the establishment transfers spiritual objects such as energy, mass, momentum and velocity from frame of reference to the balls. Here is one version of their 'explanation', and I quote...
bgaede 4 weeks ago
5. a. "imparting nearly all the momentum and energy to the last ball"
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle#Action
.
b. "the 2nd ball... transfers its velocity to the 3rd ball"
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle#Simple_solution
bgaede 4 weeks ago
6. c. "the 5th ball... is receiving momentum and energy from the 3rd and 4th balls"
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle#More_complete_solution
.
d. "This discussion has assumed there are no heat losses... or friction losses from air resistance and the strings"
en.wikipedia org/wiki/Newton%27s_cradle#Heat_and_friction_losses
bgaede 4 weeks ago
7. In your 'ONLY strings and balls' setup, the mathematical version doesn't have a chance. You made no allowance for all the spiritual objects that the idiots of Math invoke to 'explain' the Cradle, to wit: momentum, energy, velocity, heat, friction.
.
The only physical object that the idiots of Math mention is air, which you included in your challenge only as an afterthought.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
8. "Explain this video"
.
Don't change the subject, you moron! Don't run away.
.
Nevertheless, wherever in the Universe that setup was performed, there was a table and there was some kind of entity serving as a background. It suggests that THAT Cradle was performed in some kind of planet. There is more than just strings and balls in that vid!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
9. Again, under what conditions would YOU like the Cradle explained if as you say there are only strings and balls before us? Where are you performing YOUR Cradle? Inside your ass?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
10. "if you cant explain the most basic things in the physical world then you..."
.
...are known as a mathematician. The morons DESCRIBED the Cradle in the Wiki article and have yet to explain it. You'll have your chance to explain it, dear Xero. For now, tell us the conditions under which you would like to have it explained. The video you referenced invoked more than just strings and balls.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede What I like about you Bill is you spend so much time bashing what you don't like about science, you never get around to teaching anybody.
You end up unwittingly sending anybody that would be willing to listen to you running to the establishment so the establishment can teach them. They end up getting their education from the very people you rant and rave about.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot...... comical Bill comical.
justintempler 4 weeks ago
"You end up unwittingly sending anybody that would be willing to listen to you running to the establishment"
.
That's just the point, dear just! We teach with a baseball bat to weed out the mice from the men. JC said it 2000 years ago: "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a mathematician to enter the Kingdom of Physics."
.
We. The few. The proud. The physicists. Move along, just. Go with the rabble. We're not here for the numbers...
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede What so they can join the Gaede Magical Rope Society and form their own Heaven's Gate community awaiting the extinction of mankind?
justintempler 4 weeks ago
You'd be surprised, just. Most people reject the imminent extinction of Man.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede "Most people reject the imminent extinction of Man."
More hypocrisy Bill? When other scientists predict events in the future you throw a hissy fit, but it's OK when YOU do the same you want to be seen as some visionary?
justintempler 4 weeks ago
@bgaede no, conservation of energy and momentum EXPLAINS the behavior of newton's cradle. It explains why two spheres rise when two are dropped. Listen you couldnt do it. You're not a physicist, nor are you an economist... you are pathetic
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede wow lol... you are a master at typing alot and saying nothing
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede i didnt change the subject... that was a video of newton's cradle, i was simply providing you a movie so you could wrap your autistic brain around my question... i think thanks are in order gayboy
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede my challenge was to explain newton's cradle, like... what kind of autistic moron asks what planet it's on, or if there's air, or if it's on a table. These are all stalling tactics concocted to mask the fact that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede sigh... so you finally did it, you broke down and just copied the establishment's explanation.... saw that coming. You're pathetic
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Xero555000 "and just copied the establishment's explanation...."
I think you hit on something. A very popular theme in the Hispanic world is revenge. A lot of their movies and TV novelas (soap operas) are about revenge.
Bill feels like he has been shit on by the establishment, prison, deportation... So he's going to spend the rest of his life throwing shit back at the "establishment" in revenge for his shitty life.
justintempler 4 weeks ago
@bgaede just admit you don't know... it's really that simple
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede more quote mining, nice. And the point i'm making is that energy and momentum DO exist, because they are required to explain this physical phenomenon. You being so dead set against the use of concepts would be the only one capable of explaining such a simple system without invoking spirit, but you can't. So, pass the mic
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede translation "seeing is believing"
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede no, lol negligible is assumed to be synonymous with zero because considering it leads to much more complexity, and minor little difference in the final answer. If you're weighing the earth in tons, and i drop a grain of sand into it, does that sand make a difference? No it doesnt
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
just thought i'd repost justin's comment because bill gayde attempted to censor it
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "everyone know's about air resistance"
.
Well, I'm glad you finally learned it, too, Xero!
.
How come you didn't include air in your statement where you said that the strings and the balls were the only objects in Newton's Cradle?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. Idiot Xero: Please explain Newton's Cradle without resorting to Math.
Bill: Is this the mathematical version (just so I don't invoke it by mistake)?
"The ball... acquires most of the velocity... the final ball receives most of the energy and momentum that was in the first ball.... transfers its velocity to the 3rd ball... the 5th ball... is receiving momentum and energy... the kinetic energy of the initial ball is stored"
Xero: "no i'm not responding"
.
Ashamed of it, huh?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Cuz air isn't needed for the functioning of Newton'e cradle you idiot.
Air only needs to be included if you want explain things that impedes the functioning of Newton's cradle.
Apparently Xero has a better understanding of Newton's cradle than you do which explains why you avoided his challenge and tried to start explaining it on Facebook so they could correct your mistakes.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "Air only needs to be included if you want explain things that impedes the functioning of Newton's cradle."
.
Erm... idiot just? This moron Xero has not specified where the Cradle is being performed. We can perform Newt's Cradle inside his ass here on Earth or half way b/w the Earth and the Moon. The balls will not rise in the same way. Therefore, the onus is on Xero to specify the location and environmental conditions under which he wants the Cradle explained.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. He replied that the ONLY things in front of us are strings and balls. Now Xero introduces a new factor, and I quote: "everyone know's about air resistance". There is no air on the Moon, so I have concluded that he didn't have the Moon in mind. That eliminates at least one celestial object in the Universe. Great! Perhaps if he gives us more hints we can eliminate a few more.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. I asked him if the Earth was a factor and he said no. Just strings and balls. I have to conclude at this point that he is talking about the behavior of the Cradle in God's Heaven or in the parallel universe where he lives. I can't even imagine performing the Cradle with JUST balls and strings and nothing else.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. Indeed, the mathematical version he wants me to avoid talks about transferring a spiritual object known in that religion as 'energy'. The Math Monks wave their magic wands another surrealistic object known as 'momentum' flies from one ball to another. They also talk about a ball 'acquiring' a substance known to the mathematicians as 'velocity'. Very spooky stuff! Xero's 'ONLY strings and balls' hypothesis even eliminates the mathematical version.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. Therefore, the ball is in his court. If he wants me to avoid mathematical terms in my explanation such as energy, momentum, and mass, the onus is on him to tell me what these physical objects are. I could just as well say that I transferred X from Ball A to Ball B and he will accuse me of invoking Math. He will say that I transferred energy or momentum and called it something else.
bgaede 1 month ago
6. And if he insists that the only objects before us are strings and balls, some air, no Earth, no energy, no momentum, no mass, no velocity, location in heaven somewhere, I challenge him to perform the Cradle in such an environment. Let's get the ground rules straight!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede He didn't insist on anything. He asked you to provide an explanation.
All your hand waving about him not establishing ground rules is comical. You couldn't even manage to explain on Facebook without fucking it up. An explanation would have included the required objects and conditions for the functioning of Newt's cradle. There would have been no outs because you would have explained why they were necessary.
Go ahead keep making excuses for your failure, Xero won by default.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "He asked you to provide an explanation..."
.
... without invoking the nonsense of the religion of Math!"
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "you would have explained why they were necessary"
.
An idiot like you has to tell the crowd WHERE in the U you are carrying out the Cradle?If as this moron Xero alleges the only objects before us are strings and balls, he's summarily debunking the Mathematical Establishment's proposal that there are spiritual objects such as energy and momentum flying around.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. Again, you stupid idiot, is it the same to do the Cradle on the Moon than on the Earth? If as this idiot Xero says the ONLY objects in front of us are the strings and the balls, no table, no Earth, perhaps some air, then he has to show the crowd where and how he can perform such a magic trick. In what parallel universe is he standing?
bgaede 1 month ago
4. Otherwise the onus is on Xero to tell the crowd what conditions and physical objects are there other than strings and balls. It's just that simple! Perhaps at your monastery you don't identify the objects before you do an experiment, but in Science, we must list all the objects that we are going to invoke to explain a theory. The ball is in Xero's court. He can either put up or run away. So far, it seems like he chickened out... cwaaaa cwaaaa... Instead, he sent his boy to defend him.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Are you enjoying building your strawman Billy Boy?
Anybody that's been to their local shopping mall and seen the inside of Spencer Gifts has seen Newton's Cradle and they don't come with a Gaede 50 page instruction manual on how to set them up to make them work. You don't need to go to the moon to see one in operation.
I guess Xero should have started out with challenging you to explain something simpler like a spinning top or maybe a bouncing ball.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "Anybody that's been to their... shopping mall... has seen Newton's Cradle and... don't come with a Gaede 50 page instruction manual on how to set them up"
.
A bean brain like you not only confuses scientific language with ordinary speech, but also Science with pseudo-science. In Science, we have to be extra careful when explaining a phenomenon because there are invisible entities such as atoms and the mediator of gravity which play significant roles in just about everything.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. This little twit, Xero, says that there are only strings and balls before us. He thinks that the balls swing back and forth by magic. Xero makes no provision for the phenomenon we call 'gravity' (i.e., the Earth).
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "You don't need to go to the moon to see one in operation"
.
And again, you are too stupid to understand this argument, idiot just. The issue is NOT whether you need to go to the Moon to run the Cradle. The issue is whether the Cradle behaves differently on Earth and on the Moon.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. "explain something simpler like a spinning top"
You're a spinning top, just. All you do is spin and spin circles. If you haven't yet figured out that the mathematical 'explanation' for the Cradle -- transfer energy, acquire momentum -- is bogus, then you really need to see a shrink!
bgaede 1 month ago
5. The reason this idiot Xero ran away is that he either doesn't understand what his priest meant by 'transfer energy' and 'acquire momentum' or he's ashamed of this surrealistic 'explanation'. I hope for his sake that it is the latter.
bgaede 1 month ago
6. Anyway, Xero is welcome to describe the conditions of his challenge and we'll gladly explain why the Cradle works the way it does under those circumstances. If in addition, as he has requested, we must avoid references to Math, he must clarify what Math says about the Cradle so that we don't step on any toes. So far he has opted to hide and send you to defend him with irrelevant collateral attacks.
bgaede 1 month ago
7. All we have from Xero so far is an amusing statement that the only objects present are strings and balls.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede YOU were the one who said "Math is a language some idiots use to describe. Math can't explain any cause!"
So Xero asked you do explain it without math, if you can....
Apparently you can't. You're the one that dropped the ball Billy Boy. You lost get over it.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede no... you have a statement from me saying that you need to fucking explain newton's cradle, not mentally masturbate until everyone gets bored of you and forgets so that you can avoid the fact that you actually dont have any idea of what physics is all about
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede no we dont... just explain it without using any numbers and concepts because they dont exist
And as the scientist it's your job to explain the setup of your model or experiment. I'm not going to spoonfeed you
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede i ran away? you must be seeing double...
Xero555000 1 month ago
@bgaede i personally dont think it's bogus, which is why i'm inviting you to give another one, because your explanation for light gravity and subatomic affects is lackluster at best
Xero555000 1 month ago
1. "i ran away"
.
That has become painfully obvious. And then you send this pinko boy of yours -- 'justintimetosuckyou' -- who does an even lousier job. What a pair of fag boys! Where did you pick him up? In Frisco?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
2. "i personally dont think"
That has become obvious as well, dear Xero. As an example, you said that in the setup you want me to explain there are ONLY strings and balls. I asked you if there was a planet called Earth and you said no.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
3. Then, you came back and suggested that there could be air resistance. Therefore, the onus is on YOU to specify the location, environment and or conditions under which you want the Cradle explained! Again, it is not the same to perform it here on Earth than on your planet.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
4. So far you've seem to have run away. You have yet to specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained. That ball is definitely in YOUR court!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
4. So far you've seem to have run away. You have yet to specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained. That ball is definitely in YOUR court!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
5. If we follow YOUR specifications -- ONLY strings and balls and nothing else -- even the Mathematical 'explanation' (ha, ha, ha) fails. The mathematicians propose the transfer of substances they call 'energy', 'momentum', and 'mass' and they talk about a telephone pole they call 'frame of reference'.
bgaede 4 weeks ago
6. If your conditions -- ONLY strings and balls -- are to be followed, the mathematicians on Earth can't invoke these objects either.
.
So clearly, the ball is in your court. Specify under what conditions you want the Cradle explained or go back to your planet with your tail b/w your legs..
bgaede 4 weeks ago
7. "you have a statement from me saying that you need to fucking explain newton's cradle"
.
Yes. And you added specifically not to invoke Math and that the only objects before us are strings and balls. So?
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede Billy are you having fun throwing shit at the wall hoping some of it sticks?
justintempler 4 weeks ago
"are you having fun throwing shit at the wall hoping some of it sticks?"
.
Absolutely!
bgaede 4 weeks ago
@bgaede see the video, you can't run away now, everything has been spoon fed to you
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede /watch?v=N23hWICdgsU
Explain this video, it cant be more clear, all of the objects that you could need to invoke are right there in the video, ball's in your court now
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede you're deflecting again, i know the establishment's explanation, i want to know yours so i can see where you are logically deficient. Because i know that you can't explain it rationally with any of your models.
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede no, as the one explaining, it is your job to set up the model, not mine, i'm just someone in the audience that asked you to explain newton's cradle
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede you're over thinking it we only brought up air resistance because you brought up air as one of the objects needed to be specified, if you run the numbers, you'll find that the air resistance is negligible, all you need to say is, "i'm neglecting the effects of air resistance and assuming perfectly elastic collisions" and i'd say... that's fine
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede i didnt say no... i just said explain it, its not up to the one asking the question to define everything, as the one explaining the situation, it is YOUR job to outline all of the parameters and then explain how they come into play, do you think i really meant that gravity was not involved? further, because i'm only asking you to explain newton's cradle, you get to take gravity as a given, no need to explain that in this exercise... so... go explain "scientist"
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede i'm pretty sure there was a question mark... also, i think it's hilarious that you would call someone else a pinko because the government should have made you disappear ages ago for selling secrets because you're a worthless piece of shit, and i get it, you lose the debate so you resort to name calling
Xero555000 4 weeks ago
@bgaede come on gaede.... really?
Xero555000 1 month ago