You should get out of your doghouse more often and hear what's out there, Quark. It's another sign we are the last humans on Earth. There's no new music. Just noise and theatrics, breaking guitars on stage and the like.
@bgaede ...what?! If I wasn't clear, I was saying that your video was terrible. Please stop talking about anything scientific. You are not a scientist.
Since humans have memories of motion they can associate quantities for certain motions (someone calls the motion of a rotation of an object a second or whatever). By recorded, I meant recorded in memory.
"Time=Quantitative... By recorded, I meant recorded in memory"
I didn't ask about 'recorded'. I asked about 'quantitative'.
.
Erm... before/after? Early/later?
Hopefully, before the mathematicians invented the first number, the slave that came late to the rock pile was punished! The kings did not need a mathematician to tell them that the Sun was at its highest point in the noon sky and that the slave was not yet at his post. We invented time before we invented Math! We've had memory since...
Humans associate quantitative values (seconds, minutes, ect...) with memories of motion. I could lable a second as the duration it took for a fan to complete one rotation (someone back then could have called x or y or used another character to associate the concept of what we call a second with the movement of an object they remebered). How would you specifically define time?
Yes. Although the word 'science' derives from the Latin 'scire' meaning to know, Science has nothing to do with knowledge.
.
knowledge (to know): predicting without error the result of a phenomenon.
.
Science only attempts to understand and explain. Therefore, Science deals exclusively with consummated events: the past. We can only explain something that has happened.
I don't really know who you're kidding suggesting science has no business fraternizing with evidence, and, once again, you've managed to derail from the topic at hand. I can't help but wonder why. Science observes a phenomenon, some hypothesis are put forward, and among other things, EVIDENCE helps to choose the correct one.
1. "you're kidding suggesting science has no business fraternizing with evidence... Science observes a phenomenon, some hypothesis are put forward... EVIDENCE helps to choose the correct one"
You should make it a point to take an introductory course in Science when you get to high school, sham. Apparently, at the elementary school in your ghetto there's not enough money to hire science teachers.
2. In Science, we don't use evidence because, as you just said, it's only purpose is to convince YOU. What is evidence of a murder to you is just a knife to your neighbor.
But more importantly, in Science, we don't observe. Gawking is what they do in religion. In Science, we try to understand and explain. It serves no purpose to 'observe' w/o understanding.
3. And in Science, we don't put hypotheses forward. In Science, we put theories forward. You'll get the hang of it when you take your first course in Science. You'll see...
4. "you've managed to derail from the topic at hand"
Actually, you brought the issue of 'evidence' up. Perhaps you took for granted what you picked up on the streets and assumed that everyone shares your view.
The only reason someone invokes buzz words such as evidence, proof, and truth is to bring authority to bear on the discussion. Therefore, the subject needed to be addressed in passing.
5. There is no evidence of BHs. There can't be because there is no physical object called a BH. The infamous BH is a CONCEPT that religious people have reified and converted into an OBJECT.
6. So once again, the LHC should not have investigated the possibility of creating a BH any more than it should investigate whether spirits of the deceased leave their bodies. The fact that the mathematical morons did investigate and wrote a report on the subject indicates that the idiots working at the LHC actually believe that there are such spirits as BHs. How much each of the researchers actually believed that the LHC could create such nonsense we will probably never know.
That was not an insult, sham. If you are insulted by rational arguments, you need to see your shrink.
.
The argument is clear. People (and I'll include within 'people' some at the LHC) feared/worried/were concerned about creating a BH in the process of using high energies to uncover the Higgs.
You counter-argue that these are neophytes. The folks at CERN never lost any sleep over BHs.
YOUR choice of theory relies on evidence, not Science! To one person, the find is 'evidence' that T-Rex bit another one. To his friend, its just a bone with a mark in it. Evidence means that YOU bought into the theory.
4. The word 'evidence' already carries subjective connotations.
In Science, we don't prove or attempt to convince the jury (although it is natural for humans to do so). Therefore, a scientist has no use for evidence. It is the proselytizer, the door-to-door Bible seller who attempts to persuade (subjective). Science stops at explanation (objective).
@bgaede Unfortunately once again you've substituted an argument for insults. I'm sure you'd favour a world where science required no evidence for obvious reasons. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Key here being experimentation, as, without experimentation and EVIDENCE no theory, however stupid, can ever be tested and verified or falsified.
3. "gained through observation and experimentation"
Erm... we have experimented with and observed a stone falling to the ground for centuries. It never falls to the sky. Please explain the physical mechanism.
4. "without experimentation and EVIDENCE no theory"
So what is the experiment you ran to determine that space is warped? What is this 'observation' you talk about? Did you 'observe' a black hole? Did you run an experiment with one of these creatures, maybe throw an astronaut in there or something?
.
"can ever be... falsified"
In Science, we don't falsify or commit any other type of frauds. Falsifying is a hallmark of religion.
science is neither the past nor the future, it is merely the search for the truth. The truth which would permeate regardless of your timeframe. The physical mechanism is gravity, whats your point. Observational evidence for black holes include but are not limited to; hawking radiation observed in september 2010 (unconfirmed), observation of disc speed discrepancies in the majority of observed galaxies, gravitational lensing effects viewed via HST and other ground based telescopes.
2. "The physical mechanism is gravity, whats your point. "
.
physical = object; gravity = concept Gravity is neither a mechanism nor a mediator. The onus is on YOU to figure out what invisible physical entity Mother Nature avails herself of to perform her daily action-at-a-distance chores. Otherwise, you are stuck with magic.
Well, observational evidence for pink elephants comes from winos. Observational evidence for the Virgin Mary comes from Christians. Observational evidence for Flatland comes from the members of the Flat Earth Society... And observational evidence for flat 4D spacetime comes from their cousins, the Flatlander WMAP idiots. I still have a few doubts about the Virgin Mary. I have no doubts about the idiots at WMAP.
Radiation is a concept. You have eyes to see concepts? What does love look like? Please draw a picture of energy. And bring a sculpture of radiation to our next conference.
You observe discrepancies? Are you from Planet Earth, sham? I mean, we petty humans have sometimes trouble observing objects, but when someone claims to have seen a concept, we usually lock him up and throw the key away, especially if claims to have evidence of his vision.
@bgaede You seem to be having trouble with the concept of observation itself. You're of the opinion that an observation is only an observation when it is something viewed by eyes and eyes alone with no logic involved. This statement is incorrect, Aristotle was known to say 'the senses may mislead, but reason will not' And the basis of all science, ever, is through logic. Observation via optical just happens to be the most obvious place to start experimenting.
@bgaede A scientist who neglects any other form of observation including logic would find himself at a rather anticlimactic end given even the simple task of proving the earth is not flat. Observational evidence for black holes comes from the most prestigious scientists in the world, and it is held because nobody has ever found a plausible ulterior explanation. Your imaginary Wino friends dreaming of pink elephants do not fall under this category.
@bgaede Ironically radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe if one takes your ridiculous definition of the term, as light is radiation, and that happens to be how the human eye works.
1. "an observation is only... something viewed by eyes"
.
Exactly! In Science, we have a single definition per word. The idiot of Math attempts to mislead the jury by saying 'observed' when he means something else. That's why the words 'observed' and 'observation' are an important part of the religion of Math.
2. The mathematician insinuates that he has 'proven', that there is nothing more to argue if HE says that he 'observed' a particle. It turns out that the moron never 'observed' anything of the kind. He INFERRED that a particle mediated the transaction and calls this INFERENCE an 'observation'.
3. That's how the stupid idiots of Math today claim that they have 'observed' warped space and black holes and particles of light curve around the Sun. The reality is that the moron 'observed' a phenomenon that he still can't explain, especially with particles.
4. "given even the simple task of proving the earth is not flat"
The stupid idiots of Math claim that the U is flat. The mathematicians should all be executed. They have no right to live, let alone to have an opinion!
.
But it turns out that in Science we don't prove whether the Earth is flat, sham. In Science, the Earth is flat or round irrespective of whether you proved one or the other to your fellow monks.
5. "Observational evidence for black holes comes from the most prestigious scientists in the world"
.
In Science, we clean our asses with 'prestigious'. We have no respect whatsoever for authority. In Science, we are all equals. If the peer is irrational, he is not a fellow of Science, but rather of religion.
6. But then, we cannot 'observe' concepts, which is what 'a' BH is. So again, we only consider peers as equals if they are rational. Otherwise, we consider them lunatics and place them in asylums, especially if they claim to have 'observed a concept'.
7. "nobody has ever found a plausible ulterior explanation"
Not with Math they haven't. The reason is clear. Math only describes and then only quantitatively. It is in Science where we explain. But since the mathematicians censor anyone who criticizes their idiotic conclusions and explanations, they never get a chance to hear another opinion. They just like to hear themselves.
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
.
"radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe"
Until you tell the crowd what a 'thing' is, your entire statement has no meaning.
For the purposes of Physics, 'a' ray is NOT a thing. We're done. We can only observe things.
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
.
"radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe"
Until you tell the crowd what a 'thing' is, your entire statement has no meaning.
For the purposes of Physics, 'a' ray is NOT a thing. We're done. We can only observe things.
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
"A 3D cube 'exists' in YOUR mind (ordinary speech) but not in her world (scientific language)."
What "exists" is a 2D representation of a catergory of ideal geometrical percission (ideal 3D'sim if you want to call it that.)
Btw, I still say the two objects in my head have location cause there is a 'seperation' between their two surfaces. Also what do you think of this def of time=recorded measurement of motion?
Nobody who works at the LHC is the slighest bit worried about creating a black hole. That is purely the concern of the media and those uneducated in physics who choose to believe it
1. "Nobody who works at the LHC is the slighest bit worried about creating a black hole."
.
You missed the point entirely, sham. It went over your head.
The stupid pieces of shit who work at the LHC INVESTIGATED whether there was any possibility of creating a BH in their search for the Higgs. These are the official findings of the morons at CERN...
2. Thus, there are no two ways about it. We absolutely need to put ALL the people who work at CERN in the Loony Wagon and take them to where they can be rehabilitated... or just put them out of their misery compassionately. ANYONE who believes in BHs should be institutionalized. Anyone who 'investigates' their possible creation in an accelerator, should be executed. No exceptions! Got it?
"We consider all such objects that have been theoretically envisaged"
Only idiots consider angels and black holes! Rational humans don't even investigate the possibility of such nonsense. Who investigates whether Little red was actually swallowed whole by the wolf? Who researches whether JC actually walked on water or made the RT to heaven? And who investigates whether 'a' BH can be generated if it is obvious that there is no such physical object?
Whether or not that is actually the case that black holes don't exist, which it more than likely isn't. That, as i'm sure you can see, was entirely not the point of discussion. You claimed scientists at the LHC were concerned about creating one, which is erroneous. The possible existance of any black hole doesn't have bearing on this discussion.
1. "That, as i'm sure you can see, was entirely not the point of discussion. You claimed scientists at the LHC were concerned about creating one, which is erroneous. The possible existance of any black hole doesn't have bearing on this discussion."
Au contraire, my dear sham. If the idiots at the LHC were NOT concerned about creating an angel, they would certainly not be researching the subject.
2. Hence, the mere fact that the idiots at the LHC even took the trouble to investigate the matter shows that they believe that there is (or was) a slight chance that an angel may exist and thus be created in the chamber. So the investigation itself shows that the morons at the LHC actually believe that angels are possible, although not probable.
@bgaede unfortunately this is a fallacy. They are only jumping through the hoops required of a scientific mind to ease the public unrest at the possibility. Whilst one may understand oneself the ridiculousness of any given postulation, if it is perceived to be true by large enough a group of people you still have to examine it with the same thoroughness as any other postulation
1. "They are only jumping through the hoops... to ease the public unrest at the possibility"
Nah! They are certainly not going thru the motions. If this were the case, all they would have to do is tell the public that BHs are nonsense, that the Mathematical Establishment has been feeding BS to the public at least since the 1960s, and that there is as much to worry about BHs as there is about JC coming back.
2. "if [postulation] is perceived to be true by large enough a group of people you still have to examine it"
One thing is to 'examine' whether we can create a ghost in the chamber. Another is to debunk up front whether a ghost can exist in the first place. It would be a waste of resources to investigate ghosts to begin with.
3. It is more practical and honest to tell the masses that BHs are BS and get it over with once and for all than perpetuate the notion that BHs are possible objects although not very likely to be created in an accelerator.
Unfortunately once again you're derailing from the topic of discussion. If you choose to fly in the face of evidence and disregard black holes as a viable phenomenon, so be it, but clearly this is written from the standpoint of those who don't. Thus this source you have quoted is the simplest way of showing a ridiculous accusation to be flawed.
In Science, we don't use evidence, sham! You must be confusing Science with Sunday School. Evidence is NECESSARILY used to convince, persuade, sway. In Science, we're not interested in YOUR opinion. In Science, we merely explain. What YOU choose to believe after the prez is YOUR personal business and doesn't concern Science. Evidence is the hallmark of religion.
Not exactly. The religion of Mathematics does not claim that BHs are a 'phenomenon'. The mathematicians claim that a BH is a physical OBJECT.
.
By simply looking up the term BH, we discover that 'it' is comprised of a mathematical singularity surrounded by the concept 'event horizon'. Two concepts do not an object make!
So a Q that arises in the rational mind is, "How does a concept swallow an astronaut?"
3. "clearly this is written from the standpoint of those who don't"
That' was exactly my argument. If an individual proposes that there are OBJECTS known as BHs, he should immediately be institutionalized. If he investigates them (e.g., to prove that the LHC will not create one), he must be executed. No exceptions! The individual is unrecoverable. So why not put him out of his misery? It's the humane thing to do.
4. "this source you have quoted is the simplest way of showing a ridiculous accusation to be flawed"
The accusation is that the folks at the LHC did in fact investigate (i.e., spent money on, wasted time on) whether the LHC could under some extreme circumstances produce a BH.
5. They IMPLICITLY took BH for granted (which is where the catastrophic intellectual failure occurred) and were already at the next loony stage: proving that they could not be created (as opposed to that they cannot possibly exist).
6. So, the accusation still stands. There was some kind of concern, perhaps remote, but nevertheless significant enough for the bean brains at the LHC to 'research' the problem.
.
You claim that it was politics (convincing the masses), that it was for 'them' and not for the folks at the LHC, who were at all times confident that a BH could not be created.
7. The fact that the report was published by CERN and states...
.
"the conclusion that dangerous objects, like growing black holes, are still far beyond the reach of the LHC, essentially because only extremely massive ones are stable"
.
... shows otherwise. It shows that these people are idiots! They did indeed treat a BH as an extremely remote possibility rather than as an irrationality.
Btw Bill, after youre done ranting, define distance for me again. I want to see if your def allows for two objects I imagine to exist because I visualize them together.
1. "I stated that an exist entailed that which was made of atoms"
Yeah. That was pretty stupid! An object is NOT 'that which is made of...' So exist cannot be 'that which is made of...' either. But a stupid piece of shit like you that goes around and around in circles like the idiots of Philosophy throughout history never manages to get off the merry-go-round.
2. "You cant point to an ideal geometric 3D cube or sphere"
Hopefully, but an idiot like you again gets tangled in 500 diff definitions that your wee p-brane tries to use simultaneously. The definition of object is NOT 'that which you can point to'. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.
3. "2D representations of tables (or rocks) arent tables or rocks..."
... yet they are OBJECTS because even the 2D drawing has shape. When the presenter says 'table' or 'rock' he is INDISPUTABLY alluding and referring to an OBJECT. He is NOT referring to a concept: a relation, lacking shape. The words 'table', 'rock', 'cube'... are ALWAYS classified under the category known as OBJECTS. You must've played hookey a lot this year at your kindergarten.
4. "You were trying to illustrate the point that the rock you were thinking of was like the rock 'out here' but just lacked location"
You're too stupid for this kind of reasoning, bean brain. The word 'rock' ALWAYS refers to an object, whether it is out here or up your ass. Got it? As soon as you say 'rock' people imagine a shape of some kind. They do not confuse it with 'love' or 'justice'. That only happens within your little p-brane, Duh.
What a moron! Talking to Duh is really like baby-sitting a five-year-old suffering from Downs.
.
"but that still does not mean an ideal cube is 3D"
What a fucking brain yo momma gave you, Duh. You should really visit a shrink, you know? Your reasoning prowess is... how should I put this so as not to offend your sensibilities, Duh? You seem to 'drift'... Yeah, that's the ticket! You're a 'drifter', Duh.
6. "You cant even imagine an ideal 3D cube as it is... the "true" or perfect ideal 3D cube cannot be imagined"
Everything that is VISUALIZED is 2D. Even if you rotate it. You either concentrate your attention on the perimeter or on the shading inside. The shading gives the appearance of 3D. The outline says something diff. Outlines are all 2D.
7. But all of that is an observer-related phenomenon and doesn't affect the fact that a cube is 3D. A cube is 3D irrespective of observers or visualizations. A tree is 3D. A table is 3D (...except over there in your beloved Flatland, I suppose).
8. Anyways, Duh. A cube is an object. It is a 3D object. Whenever anyone mentions the word 'cube', everyone associates it with a 3D object. Perhaps over there in Flatland you folks visualize it as 2D. That's fine. The day you can overcome the dimensional hurdle, you will see a diff world here in Solidland. Please come and visit us some day if you can.
9. Despite being 3D, a cube doesn't exist. Conclusions: A cube is a 3D object that doesn't exist. There's nothing you can do about it. Sorry, Flatlander. you just don't have the 'imagination' for this kind of stuff.
What an idiot! What a stupid moron! No wonder you're still in kindergarten, Duh!
btw - you don't have to use fancy terms. You can just call it 'X' and replace 'X' with any word you want. I think it would be easier on your brain, Duh. Try it!
.
"define distance"
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/03Dist/01LengthOrDist html
The IDEAL, perfectly smooth/continuous solid of Geometry known as cube is an OBJECT (not a concept) that does not exist. We can visualize it inside our heads, but it isn't OUT THERE.
2. A cube meets the requirement of 'object'. A cube has shape. Conversely, love, intelligence, beauty don't have shape. However, a cube does not have location. You cannot establish a distance between your chest and a cube. A cube is 'nowhere'.
Really? Show me an ideal 3D cube you stupid fuck. On the other hand I have no problem pointing a 3D Magnum .44 at youre head if you want. If you cant grab an ideal cube like you can with any actual 3D object (like the computer Im now typing on) IT AINT 3D! Also when you talk of an ideal 3D cube, your using the noun as a concept (a category). Youre in effect saying "Hypothetically speaking the perfect geometric configuration of a cube is the ideal cube, but we will never be able to imagine it."
"Everything that is VISUALIZED is 2D. Even if you rotate it. You either concentrate your attention on the perimeter or on the shading inside. The shading gives the appearance of 3D. The outline says something diff. Outlines are all 2D."
Great Bill, you've finally caught on. I only told you that 100 times. But....
"A cube is 3D irrespective of observers or visualizations."
Wow Bill, that was a pretty dumb statement. Just about as bad as saying space is a natural concept.
Bill, an ideal 3D cube is NOT "irrespective of observers" (telling by the "ideal" part of it). There are no observers in science. Before man, there was no such notion as an ideal 3D cube or a 2D imperfect version of a 3D object. There was just OBJECTIVELY 3D objects, no concept of perfection that was "ideal" for an object. Also (last time Ill say this hopefully) if an ideal 3D cube was 3D, I could touch it like ANY OTHER 3D object. A 3D object cant be abstract and natural at the same time. Thats
using the term 3D inconsistantly. Now for the location part of your def of exist (which is interesting because you invoke location as a criterion for existance). Location="The set of distances between the test object and remaning ones in the Universe."
I. Define distance (just distance, not lenght, or distance traveled. I understand those).
II. An object cannot be 'in' the Universe (like youre heart is in youre body.
1. "if an ideal 3D cube was 3D, I could touch it"
Not if it doesn't exist, which only goes to show you that 3D and touch are not the criteria for existence. All cubes are 3D, and yet you can't touch them.
.
"Before man, there was no such notion as an ideal 3D cube"
Now you understand why 3D cubes don't exist, Duh. Humans invented the 3D cube. Mother Nature still has no idea what YOU're talking about. A 3D cube 'exists' in YOUR mind (ordinary speech) but not in her world (scientific language).
So how is it that every other 3D object (besides youre so called ideal 3D cube) can be viewed in the Universe? If an object was actually 3D, it would by youre def have location in the universe (as no 2D or 1D object does). An ideal 3D cube (unless youre talking about the cubes I can purchase at Toys-R-Us) belongs in a CATEGORY of ideal perfect objects we could only faintly conceptualize (hence an ideal or goal of) an object, not a plain object). Idk, tricky subject...
So you cant even illustrate what you really intend to. If thats the case an ideal 3D cube is an irrational object because the jury cannot even imagine or draw it as its supposed to be (we can only imagine a 2D inaccurate representation). You still dont understand Bill so Ill ask my question again. If a 3D object doesnt exist according to you, how is it that I can grab my 3D chair, but I cant do that with youre fucking 3D cube? If an ideal cube was really 3D I could we could touch it dumbfuck!
Only objects that are objective (independent of any conceptualization) have lenght,width, and height Bill. No matter how many times you imagen an ideal 3D cube or draw it on a board you are in effect converting it into a 2D object. No object we concieve of can have actuall lenght, width, and height (or else the minute we thought of it the object would tear our brains.
"But when we talk about a cube, we specify that it is a solid (i.e., 3D)."
Now you are talking about a cube as the subject of a sentence (thus using the subject (cube) as a concept.
I could define a cube as having 5D's, dosent make my def true. Furthermore I did not understand why you mentioned the def of a cube to me, because if anything it defeats your purpose. Only none-imagined objects have 3Ds, like the computer Im typing on. You have not demonstrated that that premiss is false.
1. "Now you are talking about a cube as the subject of a sentence (thus using the subject (cube) as a concept."
This is where all of Geometry lies. Planes and solids are objects because they ALL, w/o exception, have shape. When we say 'triangle' we point to a geometric FIGURE. We cannot draw, let alone sculpt, a perfect isosceles triangle. It nevertheless belongs to the category known as 'objects' by this word's definition: that which has shape.
2. Is an isosceles triangle a concept because we cannot reproduce it in real life? If so, how do we distinguish 'it' from concepts such as love or intelligence which clearly do not have shape? What criterion should we use in the alternative to distinguish Physics (objects) from Philosophy (concepts)?
3. In a similar vein, we cannot draw or sculpt a perfect sphere. We point to a circle that has shading in it and call it a sphere. Is the proponent referring to a circle? Is this what the ET sees objectively?
4. But it is irrelevant for our purposes. Firstly, the 'thing' before us has shape. So whether circle or sphere, it is immaterial for the purposes of the instant argument, which is placing it under the proper category. Objects have shape. Concepts don't. End of story.
At this point the presenter has to clarify what he is talking about. He has to describe the entity in Q so that the ET does not confuse the sphere with a circle. (Note that we've said nothing so far about existence, i.e., location. We're just trying to discover whether a sphere is an object or a concept by applying the definitions strictly.)
6. So the Q to you is whether a sphere is an object or a concept? We must resolve this Q first BEFORE we discuss whether 'it' exists. The 'location' argument will be discussed next year at the Existence Conference. Right now, you're struggling with whether a cube or a sphere is an object.
I dont have any problems with the concept of cubes or spheres. Now matter how throughly you explain to an E.T the difference between a cube and a sphere is everytime he imagines it he is in effect visualizing a 2D representation of it.
"Is an isosceles triangle a concept because we cannot reproduce it in real life?"
Is a circle-square a concept because we cannot produce it in real life? What about 4D objects or space time?
My whole issue is with saying a single atom in the universe is non-
existant. It is not reliant upon any observers to have its structure (objective). Heck it could even brust up. The objects we imagine our reliant upon us the observer; they dont have shape on their own or are independent of human awareness. But a lone atom (hypothetically) is because it is 3D (not a 2D representation of a 3D object).
1. You are too stupid for all this analysis, Duh. You are hopeless. You really need to be institutionalized!
.
The first thing you have to try to get into your stupid idiotic head is the diff b/w an OBJECT and CONCEPT. BEFORE you can tackle the issue of EXISTENCE, you must, absolutely MUST determine whether the word under study is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.
2. You don't do this and, predictably, end up chasing your tail around. A stupid piece of shit like you attempts to tackles TWO unrelated issues simultaneously, jumps back and forth between them and ends up chasing his tail in circles. You either talk about OBJECT or you talk about EXIST.
.
A dumb bean brain like you still can't figure out the diff between OBJECT and EXIST, and that's the main error that the morons of Math make with these two strategic words.
3. It shows sloppiness in your 'reasoning' process (if we can even call it that in your case). Decide which Q you want to answer or keep going back and forth eternally, Duh. Determine whether a cube or a sphere is an OBJECT. Got it? Then. we'll talk about 'existence' at next year's conference.
4. You still can't get past the basics. Don't talk about existence until you have decided whether a triangle is an object or a concept. You are drowning in a drop of water!
.
I don't care if the triangle in Q is in your head or up your ass. Determine whether the word triangle should be placed in the category OBJECTS or the category CONCEPTS. You are still struggling with this petty stuff. Don't mention the words EXIST or EXISTENCE for another year. The subject is over your head!
A cube is an object Bill, thats quite obvious. "Determine whether the word triangle should be placed in the category OBJECTS or the category CONCEPTS."
I have a question of my own to ask you. A circle-square or a 7D....Are they both objects or concepts Bill?
Repeat after me Bill: Only objects such as a guitar, globe, or light (string) is 3D (has lenght, width, and height). Objects we imagine dont have those or else....BAMB...the brain explodes.
6. Only an idiot like you who has piece of shit for a brain says that a cube is 2D because it is in your imagination. You confuse your status as an observer with what a cube is independently. (Remember, the reason we invoke the word 'cube' is to use it in a hypothesis.)
7. So repeat after me. "A cube is a solid. All solids are 3D. A cube is different than a square, which is 2D. Squares belong to the category called 'planes'. Even the squares and cubes in your head are respectively 2D and 3D."
8. 3D cubes and 3D spheres do NOT exist. I can only bring an approximation to the conference. I can't bring the real McCoy. Therefore, 3D is NOT the criterion of existence. I'm sorry it offends you that a single 3D object in the U doesn't exist. That's the def. Object + location. We must follow it to the letter or run around in circles like you do. The key is 'location', not 3D!
9. God began to exist when he waved His magic wand. When God was all alone up there, He did not and could not exist, irrespective of whether He is 3D.
You have really lost touch with reality Bill. I don't know what to say or do to help you out. I guess I'm going to have to call the white room folks to report a crazy idiot. "In geometry, a cube is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex." That excatly what a rubik's (or any other cube we see at the store) is you shit face!!!!!
Please bring 'it' to class. Or draw 'it'! Let's see what you've got in that p-brane of yours. the purpose of the exhibits is to use as foundation for a theory. If you can't produce 'it' out here, 'it' ain't in there.
Observer, not what the object itself is or has. Is a house 2D because this is what you see from afar? What a moron!
.
"In geometry, a cube is a three-dimensional solid"
Finally! You're making progress, Duh. Next week we'll move on to spheres. They're tricky. Relativists like you claim they are 2D: longitude and latitude. I would first have to show you that coordinates are not eq to dimensions. That alone might take hours.
"Is a house 2D because this is what you see from afar? What a moron!"
No Bill, you were tripping the whole time. It was actually 3D, because it has lenght, width, and height. What youre too ignorant to understand or admit is that the cube or sphere we imagine in our head (the image itself) DOES NOT HAVE LENGHT WIDTH AND HEIGHT. A persons brain would explode the instant they 'concieved' of it in their head.
"Finally! You're making progress..."
Yeah, a rubik's cube is 3D. So whats youre point?
Youre continious rambling might take hours. A dimension entails the structure of the object itself (lenght, width, height). A coordinate is the location of the stuctures of an object (latitude, longitude, altitude). Vectors deal with motion of an object (dynamics), the other two deal with static attributes. Spheres are 2D because they lack one of the dimensions of physics.
1. "the cube or sphere we imagine... DOES NOT HAVE LENGHT WIDTH AND HEIGHT... Spheres are 2D"
.
What a piece of shit your mother gave you for a brain, Duh!
.
ANY cube, even the one up your fucking ass is 3D. The word 'cube' refers to an object (has shape) that is a solid. ALL solids are 3D, even the one you have up your ass. Got that much, idiot?
2. A cube is not a planar geometric FIGURE just because you imagine or see it out here that way. That's an OBSERVER-related phenomenon. Unfortunately for you, in Science, we clean our asses with observers and testimony. A cube is 3D evern if I never SAW one. Understando?
3. The fact that a piece of shit like you VISUALIZES it as 2D or whatever inside that p-brane of yours doesn't change the fact that the word 'cube' refers to a 3D object. I don't give a fucking rat's ass what YOU 'SEE" inside your fucking p-brane, Duh.
4. A cube, ALL cubes, any size, any color, any 'mass', has length, width and height. Like a house, a cube is ALWAYS 3D. So is a table. ANY table. The word 'table' refers to a 3D object (except in your fucking country: Flatland). But try to understand the following with the 2D flat brain yo momma gave you, Duh...
5. The fact that the table you drew on this piece of paper LOOKS flat doesn't change the fact that ALL tables are 3D... BECAUSE the word 'table'' alludes to a 3D object. ALWAYS! This one, the one you drew is a representation, a schematic, a 2D imitation of a 3D table. THIS 2D drawing of a table is NOT a table.
6. We label and call it a 'table' with the caveat that it is not the 'real' thing, but rather a 2D simile, a representation that is supposed to stand for a real, existing 3D object. The purpose of the exhibit is to use it in the theory that follows.
7. Likewise with the cube, even the one you have up your ass. ALL cubes, irrespective of size, color, smell, energy, mass (... or any other mathematical dimension) are 3D. ALL cubes have length, width and height.
8. The one you drew is an imperfect cube, which means it ain't an authentic cube. It is not supposed to be, partly because there are no authentic cubes. An ideal cube is by its very nature an imaginary object. A dog knows what a tree is. He pisses on it every day. A dog has no idea what a cube is and never will.
9. Therefore, even if we can imagine a cube and define it as being bounded 6 perfectly square sides, we cannot produce this OBJECT except as an imperfect projection on a piece of paper or as an imperfect imitation such as a mockup or sculpture.
10. A cube is an object. It is a 3D object. ALWAYS! There are no 2D cubes except in your fucking Flatland, DUH. Unfortunately, I can't get a Flatlander like you to jump the dimensional barrier and visit our beloved 3D Solid-land, so I suppose that you can barely imagine, and then only remotely, what I'm talking about.
11. A cube is a 3D object that does not exist. It has 3dimensions: length, width and height. But a cube lacks location. I'm sorry this destroys your fucking '3D' religion! Do not resist. It is futile.
you asked something like "What is the rock that Im thinking of made of?" and that " A rock is a rock is a rock." You were alluding to the rock in youre head as a rock, not a 2D representation. The only difference you illustrated was that the rock out here (even though you imagined the real thing) had location. Now youre saying 2D representations of tables (or rocks) arent tables or rocks. What an con you are.
You say an ideal cube is 3D and even though ever attempt man has done to imagine or
you replied something like "What is the rock that I'm thinking of made of ?", and that, " A rock is a rock..." You were trying to illustrate the point that the rock you were thinking of was like the rock 'out here' but just lacked location. Now your saying that any 2D interpretation we draw or imagine (of a table or rock) isnt a table or rock. What a fucking con you are.
So basically youre stupid premiss is this. An ideal 3D cube is 3D but every time we draw or envision it we can only make it
2D but that still does not mean an ideal cube is 3D, thats an observer issue. Futhermore you stated that an ideal cube cant be illustrated, or is imperfect we man imagines it. This goes back to my circle-square or 7D object issue. You cant even imagine an ideal 3D cube as it is! With a table, or any other 3D object we can (its just that the table 'in' our head lacks location). So according to you, the "true" or perfect ideal 3D cube cannot be imagined (we make it imperfect according to you).
So you cant even illustrate what you really intend to. If thats the case an ideal 3D cube is an irrational object because the jury cannot even imagine or draw it as its supposed to be (we can only imagine a 2D inaccurate representation). You still dont understand Bill so Ill ask my question again. If a 3D object doesnt exist according to you, how is it that I can grab my 3D chair, but I cant do that with youre fucking 3D cube? If an ideal cube was really 3D I could we could touch it dumbfuck!
"The fact that the table you drew on this piece of paper LOOKS flat doesn't change the fact that ALL tables are 3D... BECAUSE the word 'table'' alludes to a 3D object. ALWAYS! This one, the one you drew is a representation, a schematic, a 2D imitation of a 3D table. THIS 2D drawing of a table is NOT a table."
Once again Bill, useless jargon sprewing from youre mouth. You can point to a 3D table. You cant point to an ideal geometric 3D cube or sphere. So youre saying whenever
"Even the squares and cubes in your head are respectively 2D and 3D."
All objects we visualize can only be 2D representations of 3D objects. Otherwise, if a 3D object was 'in' your head, that instant is when the guts and blood burst from youre brain.
Zero gravity at center, so where is the pressure needed to created singularity, man? Get Mr. Crothers on this.
Yea, I accept some sort of high (infinite?) density of a shell at the graph on the right indicates, but density goes to zero as the left graph indicates. Hollow earth theory, Bill?
'Singularity' is a big word in this claim. 'Singularity' is a 'scientific' sounding word the idiots of Math invented to say 'center'. If we could identify every atom that constitutes Earth (and froze the motion of plant and animal life on the surface as well as all tectonic and volcanic activity), we could theoretically discover the exact location of the gravitational center (i.e., singularity) of the Earth for that cross section of time.
Hopefully, all celestial objects have zero gravity at their gravitational centers (Gauss' Grav Law). If as Thread theory holds, all atoms are interconnected by EM ropes, gravity should converge upon the center of a perfectly spherical object. This doesn't make the object hollow. Quite the contrary! It reaffirms the proposal just described. That's what the graph on the right shows.
LOL Bill Gaede's begging for cash for this crap BWAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA
SidewaysQuark 2 months ago
You should get out of your doghouse more often and hear what's out there, Quark. It's another sign we are the last humans on Earth. There's no new music. Just noise and theatrics, breaking guitars on stage and the like.
bgaede 2 months ago
This was just so very terrible!
0Longy 3 months ago
"This was just so very terrible!"
.
Yeah! The bomb missed its target!
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede ...what?! If I wasn't clear, I was saying that your video was terrible. Please stop talking about anything scientific. You are not a scientist.
0Longy 3 months ago
"If I wasn't clear, I was saying that your video was... scientific. You are... a scientist."
.
Thx. Not everyone is so nice.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Ha. I suppose that's one way to argue your point if you can't say anything intelligent.
0Longy 3 months ago
"Ha. I... can't say anything intelligent"
.
That's okay, 0L. Keep trying!
bgaede 3 months ago
The "No Higgs [at the LHC]" song video is somewhat related :)
quaithe1 4 months ago
Since humans have memories of motion they can associate quantities for certain motions (someone calls the motion of a rotation of an object a second or whatever). By recorded, I meant recorded in memory.
Theonedue 5 months ago
The measurement part invokes the subjective quantitative association with ceartain objects that move (see above).
Theonedue 5 months ago
Time=Quantitative associations with recorded (i.e memorized) motion.
Theonedue 5 months ago
"Time=Quantitative... By recorded, I meant recorded in memory"
I didn't ask about 'recorded'. I asked about 'quantitative'.
.
Erm... before/after? Early/later?
Hopefully, before the mathematicians invented the first number, the slave that came late to the rock pile was punished! The kings did not need a mathematician to tell them that the Sun was at its highest point in the noon sky and that the slave was not yet at his post. We invented time before we invented Math! We've had memory since...
bgaede 5 months ago
Humans associate quantitative values (seconds, minutes, ect...) with memories of motion. I could lable a second as the duration it took for a fan to complete one rotation (someone back then could have called x or y or used another character to associate the concept of what we call a second with the movement of an object they remebered). How would you specifically define time?
Theonedue 5 months ago
"define time"
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/05Dim/08Time html
bgaede 5 months ago
Nice def. I have another question though. Is it unscientific to use a priori knowledge to deduce a premiss or make a claim about an event or object?
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "Is it unscientific to use... knowledge"
.
Yes. Although the word 'science' derives from the Latin 'scire' meaning to know, Science has nothing to do with knowledge.
.
knowledge (to know): predicting without error the result of a phenomenon.
.
Science only attempts to understand and explain. Therefore, Science deals exclusively with consummated events: the past. We can only explain something that has happened.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Likewise, Science doesn't use premises (as Aristotle suggested). In Science, the presenter makes a statement of the facts.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/04Facts html
.
The statement of the facts is the foundation on which the theory is supported.
bgaede 5 months ago
I don't really know who you're kidding suggesting science has no business fraternizing with evidence, and, once again, you've managed to derail from the topic at hand. I can't help but wonder why. Science observes a phenomenon, some hypothesis are put forward, and among other things, EVIDENCE helps to choose the correct one.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "you're kidding suggesting science has no business fraternizing with evidence... Science observes a phenomenon, some hypothesis are put forward... EVIDENCE helps to choose the correct one"
You should make it a point to take an introductory course in Science when you get to high school, sham. Apparently, at the elementary school in your ghetto there's not enough money to hire science teachers.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. In Science, we don't use evidence because, as you just said, it's only purpose is to convince YOU. What is evidence of a murder to you is just a knife to your neighbor.
But more importantly, in Science, we don't observe. Gawking is what they do in religion. In Science, we try to understand and explain. It serves no purpose to 'observe' w/o understanding.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. And in Science, we don't put hypotheses forward. In Science, we put theories forward. You'll get the hang of it when you take your first course in Science. You'll see...
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "you've managed to derail from the topic at hand"
Actually, you brought the issue of 'evidence' up. Perhaps you took for granted what you picked up on the streets and assumed that everyone shares your view.
The only reason someone invokes buzz words such as evidence, proof, and truth is to bring authority to bear on the discussion. Therefore, the subject needed to be addressed in passing.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. There is no evidence of BHs. There can't be because there is no physical object called a BH. The infamous BH is a CONCEPT that religious people have reified and converted into an OBJECT.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. So once again, the LHC should not have investigated the possibility of creating a BH any more than it should investigate whether spirits of the deceased leave their bodies. The fact that the mathematical morons did investigate and wrote a report on the subject indicates that the idiots working at the LHC actually believe that there are such spirits as BHs. How much each of the researchers actually believed that the LHC could create such nonsense we will probably never know.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede That's clearly not a retort. Unfortunately we need logic rather than insults in this debate. Science relys on evidence.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "we need logic rather than insults"
That was not an insult, sham. If you are insulted by rational arguments, you need to see your shrink.
.
The argument is clear. People (and I'll include within 'people' some at the LHC) feared/worried/were concerned about creating a BH in the process of using high energies to uncover the Higgs.
You counter-argue that these are neophytes. The folks at CERN never lost any sleep over BHs.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. But then again,
.
a. they investigated WHETHER it was even remotely possible for the LHC to produce them
b. by doing so they TACITLY conceded that BHs are a possibility in nature
.
However, as we all know, a BH is an irrational proposal...
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
.
Therefore, the mere fact that the project was undertaken, embodies a concern of the people at CERN.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "Science relys on evidence"
YOUR choice of theory relies on evidence, not Science! To one person, the find is 'evidence' that T-Rex bit another one. To his friend, its just a bone with a mark in it. Evidence means that YOU bought into the theory.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. The word 'evidence' already carries subjective connotations.
In Science, we don't prove or attempt to convince the jury (although it is natural for humans to do so). Therefore, a scientist has no use for evidence. It is the proselytizer, the door-to-door Bible seller who attempts to persuade (subjective). Science stops at explanation (objective).
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede Unfortunately once again you've substituted an argument for insults. I'm sure you'd favour a world where science required no evidence for obvious reasons. Science is systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. Key here being experimentation, as, without experimentation and EVIDENCE no theory, however stupid, can ever be tested and verified or falsified.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "you'd favour a world where science required no evidence"
.
It's not that I favor, sham. It's that evidence means that YOU are convinced of something. Evidence means that YOU bought into the theory.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "Science is... knowledge"
Absolutely NOT! Science only explains. Science is not about the future (experiments). Science is about the past (consummated events).
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "gained through observation and experimentation"
Erm... we have experimented with and observed a stone falling to the ground for centuries. It never falls to the sky. Please explain the physical mechanism.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "without experimentation and EVIDENCE no theory"
So what is the experiment you ran to determine that space is warped? What is this 'observation' you talk about? Did you 'observe' a black hole? Did you run an experiment with one of these creatures, maybe throw an astronaut in there or something?
.
"can ever be... falsified"
In Science, we don't falsify or commit any other type of frauds. Falsifying is a hallmark of religion.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede
science is neither the past nor the future, it is merely the search for the truth. The truth which would permeate regardless of your timeframe. The physical mechanism is gravity, whats your point. Observational evidence for black holes include but are not limited to; hawking radiation observed in september 2010 (unconfirmed), observation of disc speed discrepancies in the majority of observed galaxies, gravitational lensing effects viewed via HST and other ground based telescopes.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "science is... the search for the truth"
I thought that was the purpose of religion? Isn't truth an opinion? Isn't YOUR truth diff than that of your neighbor?
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "The physical mechanism is gravity, whats your point. "
.
physical = object; gravity = concept Gravity is neither a mechanism nor a mediator. The onus is on YOU to figure out what invisible physical entity Mother Nature avails herself of to perform her daily action-at-a-distance chores. Otherwise, you are stuck with magic.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "Observational evidence for black holes"
Well, observational evidence for pink elephants comes from winos. Observational evidence for the Virgin Mary comes from Christians. Observational evidence for Flatland comes from the members of the Flat Earth Society... And observational evidence for flat 4D spacetime comes from their cousins, the Flatlander WMAP idiots. I still have a few doubts about the Virgin Mary. I have no doubts about the idiots at WMAP.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "hawking radiation observed"
Radiation is a concept. You have eyes to see concepts? What does love look like? Please draw a picture of energy. And bring a sculpture of radiation to our next conference.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "observation of... speed discrepancies"
You observe discrepancies? Are you from Planet Earth, sham? I mean, we petty humans have sometimes trouble observing objects, but when someone claims to have seen a concept, we usually lock him up and throw the key away, especially if claims to have evidence of his vision.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. "observation of... effects viewed via... telescopes"
You can also see effects? I tried once to see justice thru a telescope. I saw a prison with barbed wire instead.
.
Anyways, when you stop babbling about Philosophy and want to talk about Physics, come and have a chat.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede You seem to be having trouble with the concept of observation itself. You're of the opinion that an observation is only an observation when it is something viewed by eyes and eyes alone with no logic involved. This statement is incorrect, Aristotle was known to say 'the senses may mislead, but reason will not' And the basis of all science, ever, is through logic. Observation via optical just happens to be the most obvious place to start experimenting.
shammythefox 5 months ago
@bgaede A scientist who neglects any other form of observation including logic would find himself at a rather anticlimactic end given even the simple task of proving the earth is not flat. Observational evidence for black holes comes from the most prestigious scientists in the world, and it is held because nobody has ever found a plausible ulterior explanation. Your imaginary Wino friends dreaming of pink elephants do not fall under this category.
shammythefox 5 months ago
@bgaede Ironically radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe if one takes your ridiculous definition of the term, as light is radiation, and that happens to be how the human eye works.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "an observation is only... something viewed by eyes"
.
Exactly! In Science, we have a single definition per word. The idiot of Math attempts to mislead the jury by saying 'observed' when he means something else. That's why the words 'observed' and 'observation' are an important part of the religion of Math.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. The mathematician insinuates that he has 'proven', that there is nothing more to argue if HE says that he 'observed' a particle. It turns out that the moron never 'observed' anything of the kind. He INFERRED that a particle mediated the transaction and calls this INFERENCE an 'observation'.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. That's how the stupid idiots of Math today claim that they have 'observed' warped space and black holes and particles of light curve around the Sun. The reality is that the moron 'observed' a phenomenon that he still can't explain, especially with particles.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "given even the simple task of proving the earth is not flat"
The stupid idiots of Math claim that the U is flat. The mathematicians should all be executed. They have no right to live, let alone to have an opinion!
.
But it turns out that in Science we don't prove whether the Earth is flat, sham. In Science, the Earth is flat or round irrespective of whether you proved one or the other to your fellow monks.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "Observational evidence for black holes comes from the most prestigious scientists in the world"
.
In Science, we clean our asses with 'prestigious'. We have no respect whatsoever for authority. In Science, we are all equals. If the peer is irrational, he is not a fellow of Science, but rather of religion.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. But then, we cannot 'observe' concepts, which is what 'a' BH is. So again, we only consider peers as equals if they are rational. Otherwise, we consider them lunatics and place them in asylums, especially if they claim to have 'observed a concept'.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. "nobody has ever found a plausible ulterior explanation"
Not with Math they haven't. The reason is clear. Math only describes and then only quantitatively. It is in Science where we explain. But since the mathematicians censor anyone who criticizes their idiotic conclusions and explanations, they never get a chance to hear another opinion. They just like to hear themselves.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
.
"radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe"
Until you tell the crowd what a 'thing' is, your entire statement has no meaning.
For the purposes of Physics, 'a' ray is NOT a thing. We're done. We can only observe things.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
.
"radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe"
Until you tell the crowd what a 'thing' is, your entire statement has no meaning.
For the purposes of Physics, 'a' ray is NOT a thing. We're done. We can only observe things.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. In WGDE there is a very clear QUALITATIVE explanation for the phenomenon the idiots of Math call 'black hole'. Here's an intro to why BH cannot possibly exist...
.
youstupidrelativist com/03GR/03BlackHole/01What html
bgaede 5 months ago
9. "radiation is in fact the ONLY thing you can observe"
Until you tell the crowd what a 'thing' is, your entire statement has no meaning.
For the purposes of Physics, 'a' ray is NOT a thing. We're done. We can only observe things.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede No it isn't. You don't know what science is.
shammythefox 5 months ago
"A 3D cube 'exists' in YOUR mind (ordinary speech) but not in her world (scientific language)."
What "exists" is a 2D representation of a catergory of ideal geometrical percission (ideal 3D'sim if you want to call it that.)
Btw, I still say the two objects in my head have location cause there is a 'seperation' between their two surfaces. Also what do you think of this def of time=recorded measurement of motion?
Theonedue 5 months ago
"time=recorded measurement of motion"
.
before/after, earlier/later??? There are no seconds or minutes. Where's the measurement?
bgaede 5 months ago
Nobody who works at the LHC is the slighest bit worried about creating a black hole. That is purely the concern of the media and those uneducated in physics who choose to believe it
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "Nobody who works at the LHC is the slighest bit worried about creating a black hole."
.
You missed the point entirely, sham. It went over your head.
The stupid pieces of shit who work at the LHC INVESTIGATED whether there was any possibility of creating a BH in their search for the Higgs. These are the official findings of the morons at CERN...
.
cdsweb cern ch/record/613175/files/CERN-2003-001 pdf?version=1
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Thus, there are no two ways about it. We absolutely need to put ALL the people who work at CERN in the Loony Wagon and take them to where they can be rehabilitated... or just put them out of their misery compassionately. ANYONE who believes in BHs should be institutionalized. Anyone who 'investigates' their possible creation in an accelerator, should be executed. No exceptions! Got it?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede Quoted from your own source;
We review the possibility of producing dangerous objects during heavy-ion collisions at the Large
Hadron Collider. We consider all such objects that have been theoretically envisaged, such as
negatively charged strangelets, gravitational black holes, and magnetic monopoles. We find no basis
for any conceivable threat.
As i said, not worried.
shammythefox 5 months ago
"We consider all such objects that have been theoretically envisaged"
Only idiots consider angels and black holes! Rational humans don't even investigate the possibility of such nonsense. Who investigates whether Little red was actually swallowed whole by the wolf? Who researches whether JC actually walked on water or made the RT to heaven? And who investigates whether 'a' BH can be generated if it is obvious that there is no such physical object?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede
Whether or not that is actually the case that black holes don't exist, which it more than likely isn't. That, as i'm sure you can see, was entirely not the point of discussion. You claimed scientists at the LHC were concerned about creating one, which is erroneous. The possible existance of any black hole doesn't have bearing on this discussion.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "That, as i'm sure you can see, was entirely not the point of discussion. You claimed scientists at the LHC were concerned about creating one, which is erroneous. The possible existance of any black hole doesn't have bearing on this discussion."
Au contraire, my dear sham. If the idiots at the LHC were NOT concerned about creating an angel, they would certainly not be researching the subject.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Hence, the mere fact that the idiots at the LHC even took the trouble to investigate the matter shows that they believe that there is (or was) a slight chance that an angel may exist and thus be created in the chamber. So the investigation itself shows that the morons at the LHC actually believe that angels are possible, although not probable.
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede unfortunately this is a fallacy. They are only jumping through the hoops required of a scientific mind to ease the public unrest at the possibility. Whilst one may understand oneself the ridiculousness of any given postulation, if it is perceived to be true by large enough a group of people you still have to examine it with the same thoroughness as any other postulation
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "They are only jumping through the hoops... to ease the public unrest at the possibility"
Nah! They are certainly not going thru the motions. If this were the case, all they would have to do is tell the public that BHs are nonsense, that the Mathematical Establishment has been feeding BS to the public at least since the 1960s, and that there is as much to worry about BHs as there is about JC coming back.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "if [postulation] is perceived to be true by large enough a group of people you still have to examine it"
One thing is to 'examine' whether we can create a ghost in the chamber. Another is to debunk up front whether a ghost can exist in the first place. It would be a waste of resources to investigate ghosts to begin with.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. It is more practical and honest to tell the masses that BHs are BS and get it over with once and for all than perpetuate the notion that BHs are possible objects although not very likely to be created in an accelerator.
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
shammythefox 5 months ago
@bgaede
Unfortunately once again you're derailing from the topic of discussion. If you choose to fly in the face of evidence and disregard black holes as a viable phenomenon, so be it, but clearly this is written from the standpoint of those who don't. Thus this source you have quoted is the simplest way of showing a ridiculous accusation to be flawed.
shammythefox 5 months ago
1. "fly in the face of evidence"
In Science, we don't use evidence, sham! You must be confusing Science with Sunday School. Evidence is NECESSARILY used to convince, persuade, sway. In Science, we're not interested in YOUR opinion. In Science, we merely explain. What YOU choose to believe after the prez is YOUR personal business and doesn't concern Science. Evidence is the hallmark of religion.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "disregard black holes as a viable phenomenon"
Not exactly. The religion of Mathematics does not claim that BHs are a 'phenomenon'. The mathematicians claim that a BH is a physical OBJECT.
.
By simply looking up the term BH, we discover that 'it' is comprised of a mathematical singularity surrounded by the concept 'event horizon'. Two concepts do not an object make!
So a Q that arises in the rational mind is, "How does a concept swallow an astronaut?"
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "clearly this is written from the standpoint of those who don't"
That' was exactly my argument. If an individual proposes that there are OBJECTS known as BHs, he should immediately be institutionalized. If he investigates them (e.g., to prove that the LHC will not create one), he must be executed. No exceptions! The individual is unrecoverable. So why not put him out of his misery? It's the humane thing to do.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "this source you have quoted is the simplest way of showing a ridiculous accusation to be flawed"
The accusation is that the folks at the LHC did in fact investigate (i.e., spent money on, wasted time on) whether the LHC could under some extreme circumstances produce a BH.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. They IMPLICITLY took BH for granted (which is where the catastrophic intellectual failure occurred) and were already at the next loony stage: proving that they could not be created (as opposed to that they cannot possibly exist).
bgaede 5 months ago
6. So, the accusation still stands. There was some kind of concern, perhaps remote, but nevertheless significant enough for the bean brains at the LHC to 'research' the problem.
.
You claim that it was politics (convincing the masses), that it was for 'them' and not for the folks at the LHC, who were at all times confident that a BH could not be created.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. The fact that the report was published by CERN and states...
.
"the conclusion that dangerous objects, like growing black holes, are still far beyond the reach of the LHC, essentially because only extremely massive ones are stable"
.
... shows otherwise. It shows that these people are idiots! They did indeed treat a BH as an extremely remote possibility rather than as an irrationality.
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
shammythefox 5 months ago
Btw Bill, after youre done ranting, define distance for me again. I want to see if your def allows for two objects I imagine to exist because I visualize them together.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "I stated that an exist entailed that which was made of atoms"
Yeah. That was pretty stupid! An object is NOT 'that which is made of...' So exist cannot be 'that which is made of...' either. But a stupid piece of shit like you that goes around and around in circles like the idiots of Philosophy throughout history never manages to get off the merry-go-round.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "You cant point to an ideal geometric 3D cube or sphere"
Hopefully, but an idiot like you again gets tangled in 500 diff definitions that your wee p-brane tries to use simultaneously. The definition of object is NOT 'that which you can point to'. Therefore, your comment is irrelevant.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "2D representations of tables (or rocks) arent tables or rocks..."
... yet they are OBJECTS because even the 2D drawing has shape. When the presenter says 'table' or 'rock' he is INDISPUTABLY alluding and referring to an OBJECT. He is NOT referring to a concept: a relation, lacking shape. The words 'table', 'rock', 'cube'... are ALWAYS classified under the category known as OBJECTS. You must've played hookey a lot this year at your kindergarten.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. "You were trying to illustrate the point that the rock you were thinking of was like the rock 'out here' but just lacked location"
You're too stupid for this kind of reasoning, bean brain. The word 'rock' ALWAYS refers to an object, whether it is out here or up your ass. Got it? As soon as you say 'rock' people imagine a shape of some kind. They do not confuse it with 'love' or 'justice'. That only happens within your little p-brane, Duh.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. "An ideal 3D cube is 3D"
What a moron! Talking to Duh is really like baby-sitting a five-year-old suffering from Downs.
.
"but that still does not mean an ideal cube is 3D"
What a fucking brain yo momma gave you, Duh. You should really visit a shrink, you know? Your reasoning prowess is... how should I put this so as not to offend your sensibilities, Duh? You seem to 'drift'... Yeah, that's the ticket! You're a 'drifter', Duh.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. "You cant even imagine an ideal 3D cube as it is... the "true" or perfect ideal 3D cube cannot be imagined"
Everything that is VISUALIZED is 2D. Even if you rotate it. You either concentrate your attention on the perimeter or on the shading inside. The shading gives the appearance of 3D. The outline says something diff. Outlines are all 2D.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. But all of that is an observer-related phenomenon and doesn't affect the fact that a cube is 3D. A cube is 3D irrespective of observers or visualizations. A tree is 3D. A table is 3D (...except over there in your beloved Flatland, I suppose).
bgaede 5 months ago
8. Anyways, Duh. A cube is an object. It is a 3D object. Whenever anyone mentions the word 'cube', everyone associates it with a 3D object. Perhaps over there in Flatland you folks visualize it as 2D. That's fine. The day you can overcome the dimensional hurdle, you will see a diff world here in Solidland. Please come and visit us some day if you can.
bgaede 5 months ago
9. Despite being 3D, a cube doesn't exist. Conclusions: A cube is a 3D object that doesn't exist. There's nothing you can do about it. Sorry, Flatlander. you just don't have the 'imagination' for this kind of stuff.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. "an ideal circle-square is a 3D object"
What an idiot! What a stupid moron! No wonder you're still in kindergarten, Duh!
btw - you don't have to use fancy terms. You can just call it 'X' and replace 'X' with any word you want. I think it would be easier on your brain, Duh. Try it!
.
"define distance"
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/03Dist/01LengthOrDist html
bgaede 5 months ago
11. "stupid observers cant imagine what I want them to"
.
Erm.. Duh? You have been staring at that mirror for six hours now. Do you want a beer or something to eat?
bgaede 5 months ago
@bgaede
"Despite being 3D, a cube doesn't exist."
Why cant we say a cube exists? I can point to a cube made out of cardboard. Or would you say that is a box?
So does a cube not exist because it is a concept which we must define?
tsixles 5 months ago
1. "Why cant we say a cube exists?"
The IDEAL, perfectly smooth/continuous solid of Geometry known as cube is an OBJECT (not a concept) that does not exist. We can visualize it inside our heads, but it isn't OUT THERE.
.
exist: physical presence (object + location)
bgaede 5 months ago
2. A cube meets the requirement of 'object'. A cube has shape. Conversely, love, intelligence, beauty don't have shape. However, a cube does not have location. You cannot establish a distance between your chest and a cube. A cube is 'nowhere'.
bgaede 5 months ago
Really? Show me an ideal 3D cube you stupid fuck. On the other hand I have no problem pointing a 3D Magnum .44 at youre head if you want. If you cant grab an ideal cube like you can with any actual 3D object (like the computer Im now typing on) IT AINT 3D! Also when you talk of an ideal 3D cube, your using the noun as a concept (a category). Youre in effect saying "Hypothetically speaking the perfect geometric configuration of a cube is the ideal cube, but we will never be able to imagine it."
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
"Show me an ideal 3D cube"
What will you ask for next, idiot Duh? A leprechaun? God?
And yet, despite everything, a leprechaun is a 3D object (except in your hometown of Flatland, Duh) And God, the fella who made the U, is also 3D.
bgaede 5 months ago
"Everything that is VISUALIZED is 2D. Even if you rotate it. You either concentrate your attention on the perimeter or on the shading inside. The shading gives the appearance of 3D. The outline says something diff. Outlines are all 2D."
Great Bill, you've finally caught on. I only told you that 100 times. But....
"A cube is 3D irrespective of observers or visualizations."
Wow Bill, that was a pretty dumb statement. Just about as bad as saying space is a natural concept.
Theonedue 5 months ago
Bill, an ideal 3D cube is NOT "irrespective of observers" (telling by the "ideal" part of it). There are no observers in science. Before man, there was no such notion as an ideal 3D cube or a 2D imperfect version of a 3D object. There was just OBJECTIVELY 3D objects, no concept of perfection that was "ideal" for an object. Also (last time Ill say this hopefully) if an ideal 3D cube was 3D, I could touch it like ANY OTHER 3D object. A 3D object cant be abstract and natural at the same time. Thats
Theonedue 5 months ago
using the term 3D inconsistantly. Now for the location part of your def of exist (which is interesting because you invoke location as a criterion for existance). Location="The set of distances between the test object and remaning ones in the Universe."
I. Define distance (just distance, not lenght, or distance traveled. I understand those).
II. An object cannot be 'in' the Universe (like youre heart is in youre body.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "if an ideal 3D cube was 3D, I could touch it"
Not if it doesn't exist, which only goes to show you that 3D and touch are not the criteria for existence. All cubes are 3D, and yet you can't touch them.
.
"Before man, there was no such notion as an ideal 3D cube"
Now you understand why 3D cubes don't exist, Duh. Humans invented the 3D cube. Mother Nature still has no idea what YOU're talking about. A 3D cube 'exists' in YOUR mind (ordinary speech) but not in her world (scientific language).
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "Define distance"
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Math/03Dist/01LengthOrDist html
.
"An object cannot be 'in' the Universe (like youre heart is in youre body"
Hey, you're not so stupid after all, Duh!
bgaede 5 months ago
So how is it that every other 3D object (besides youre so called ideal 3D cube) can be viewed in the Universe? If an object was actually 3D, it would by youre def have location in the universe (as no 2D or 1D object does). An ideal 3D cube (unless youre talking about the cubes I can purchase at Toys-R-Us) belongs in a CATEGORY of ideal perfect objects we could only faintly conceptualize (hence an ideal or goal of) an object, not a plain object). Idk, tricky subject...
Theonedue 5 months ago
I corrected that statement in a previous post. I meant to say 2D. Pay attention.
Theonedue 5 months ago
So is the chair I imagine a chair or no? You contradicted yourself on this point (see previous comments).
Theonedue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So you cant even illustrate what you really intend to. If thats the case an ideal 3D cube is an irrational object because the jury cannot even imagine or draw it as its supposed to be (we can only imagine a 2D inaccurate representation). You still dont understand Bill so Ill ask my question again. If a 3D object doesnt exist according to you, how is it that I can grab my 3D chair, but I cant do that with youre fucking 3D cube? If an ideal cube was really 3D I could we could touch it dumbfuck!
Theonedue 5 months ago
I could say the an ideal circle-square is a 3D object, but that stupid observers cant imagine what I want them to. Youre doing the same thing.
Theonedue 5 months ago
2D but that still does not mean an ideal cube is 3D, " Correction the end should read "does not mean it is 2D."
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Only objects that are objective (independent of any conceptualization) have lenght,width, and height Bill. No matter how many times you imagen an ideal 3D cube or draw it on a board you are in effect converting it into a 2D object. No object we concieve of can have actuall lenght, width, and height (or else the minute we thought of it the object would tear our brains.
Theonedue 5 months ago
"But when we talk about a cube, we specify that it is a solid (i.e., 3D)."
Now you are talking about a cube as the subject of a sentence (thus using the subject (cube) as a concept.
I could define a cube as having 5D's, dosent make my def true. Furthermore I did not understand why you mentioned the def of a cube to me, because if anything it defeats your purpose. Only none-imagined objects have 3Ds, like the computer Im typing on. You have not demonstrated that that premiss is false.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "Now you are talking about a cube as the subject of a sentence (thus using the subject (cube) as a concept."
This is where all of Geometry lies. Planes and solids are objects because they ALL, w/o exception, have shape. When we say 'triangle' we point to a geometric FIGURE. We cannot draw, let alone sculpt, a perfect isosceles triangle. It nevertheless belongs to the category known as 'objects' by this word's definition: that which has shape.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. Is an isosceles triangle a concept because we cannot reproduce it in real life? If so, how do we distinguish 'it' from concepts such as love or intelligence which clearly do not have shape? What criterion should we use in the alternative to distinguish Physics (objects) from Philosophy (concepts)?
bgaede 5 months ago
3. In a similar vein, we cannot draw or sculpt a perfect sphere. We point to a circle that has shading in it and call it a sphere. Is the proponent referring to a circle? Is this what the ET sees objectively?
.
Yes!
bgaede 5 months ago
4. But it is irrelevant for our purposes. Firstly, the 'thing' before us has shape. So whether circle or sphere, it is immaterial for the purposes of the instant argument, which is placing it under the proper category. Objects have shape. Concepts don't. End of story.
bgaede 5 months ago
5. Now, is the sphere a circle?
.
At this point the presenter has to clarify what he is talking about. He has to describe the entity in Q so that the ET does not confuse the sphere with a circle. (Note that we've said nothing so far about existence, i.e., location. We're just trying to discover whether a sphere is an object or a concept by applying the definitions strictly.)
bgaede 5 months ago
6. So the Q to you is whether a sphere is an object or a concept? We must resolve this Q first BEFORE we discuss whether 'it' exists. The 'location' argument will be discussed next year at the Existence Conference. Right now, you're struggling with whether a cube or a sphere is an object.
bgaede 5 months ago
I dont have any problems with the concept of cubes or spheres. Now matter how throughly you explain to an E.T the difference between a cube and a sphere is everytime he imagines it he is in effect visualizing a 2D representation of it.
"Is an isosceles triangle a concept because we cannot reproduce it in real life?"
Is a circle-square a concept because we cannot produce it in real life? What about 4D objects or space time?
My whole issue is with saying a single atom in the universe is non-
Theonedue 5 months ago
existant. It is not reliant upon any observers to have its structure (objective). Heck it could even brust up. The objects we imagine our reliant upon us the observer; they dont have shape on their own or are independent of human awareness. But a lone atom (hypothetically) is because it is 3D (not a 2D representation of a 3D object).
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. You are too stupid for all this analysis, Duh. You are hopeless. You really need to be institutionalized!
.
The first thing you have to try to get into your stupid idiotic head is the diff b/w an OBJECT and CONCEPT. BEFORE you can tackle the issue of EXISTENCE, you must, absolutely MUST determine whether the word under study is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. You don't do this and, predictably, end up chasing your tail around. A stupid piece of shit like you attempts to tackles TWO unrelated issues simultaneously, jumps back and forth between them and ends up chasing his tail in circles. You either talk about OBJECT or you talk about EXIST.
.
A dumb bean brain like you still can't figure out the diff between OBJECT and EXIST, and that's the main error that the morons of Math make with these two strategic words.
bgaede 5 months ago
3. It shows sloppiness in your 'reasoning' process (if we can even call it that in your case). Decide which Q you want to answer or keep going back and forth eternally, Duh. Determine whether a cube or a sphere is an OBJECT. Got it? Then. we'll talk about 'existence' at next year's conference.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. You still can't get past the basics. Don't talk about existence until you have decided whether a triangle is an object or a concept. You are drowning in a drop of water!
.
I don't care if the triangle in Q is in your head or up your ass. Determine whether the word triangle should be placed in the category OBJECTS or the category CONCEPTS. You are still struggling with this petty stuff. Don't mention the words EXIST or EXISTENCE for another year. The subject is over your head!
bgaede 5 months ago
A cube is an object Bill, thats quite obvious. "Determine whether the word triangle should be placed in the category OBJECTS or the category CONCEPTS."
I have a question of my own to ask you. A circle-square or a 7D....Are they both objects or concepts Bill?
Repeat after me Bill: Only objects such as a guitar, globe, or light (string) is 3D (has lenght, width, and height). Objects we imagine dont have those or else....BAMB...the brain explodes.
Theonedue 5 months ago
5. "The objects we imagine our reliant upon us the observer"
In Science, there are no observers. The presenter mentions the word cube and identifies it as a solid. ALL solids are 3D.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. Only an idiot like you who has piece of shit for a brain says that a cube is 2D because it is in your imagination. You confuse your status as an observer with what a cube is independently. (Remember, the reason we invoke the word 'cube' is to use it in a hypothesis.)
bgaede 5 months ago
7. So repeat after me. "A cube is a solid. All solids are 3D. A cube is different than a square, which is 2D. Squares belong to the category called 'planes'. Even the squares and cubes in your head are respectively 2D and 3D."
bgaede 5 months ago
8. 3D cubes and 3D spheres do NOT exist. I can only bring an approximation to the conference. I can't bring the real McCoy. Therefore, 3D is NOT the criterion of existence. I'm sorry it offends you that a single 3D object in the U doesn't exist. That's the def. Object + location. We must follow it to the letter or run around in circles like you do. The key is 'location', not 3D!
bgaede 5 months ago
9. God began to exist when he waved His magic wand. When God was all alone up there, He did not and could not exist, irrespective of whether He is 3D.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. What God lacked was 'location'.
bgaede 5 months ago
"3D cubes and 3D spheres do NOT exist."
YOURE A FUCKING DUMBSHIT! YOURE TELLING ME A RUBIKS CUBE OR A DISCO BALL DOES NOT EXIST!!?? BOTH ARE 3D!
Theonedue 5 months ago
A Rubik's Cube is not a cube, you dumb fuck!
bgaede 5 months ago
You have really lost touch with reality Bill. I don't know what to say or do to help you out. I guess I'm going to have to call the white room folks to report a crazy idiot. "In geometry, a cube is a three-dimensional solid object bounded by six square faces, facets or sides, with three meeting at each vertex." That excatly what a rubik's (or any other cube we see at the store) is you shit face!!!!!
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "A circle-square or a 7D"
.
Please bring 'it' to class. Or draw 'it'! Let's see what you've got in that p-brane of yours. the purpose of the exhibits is to use as foundation for a theory. If you can't produce 'it' out here, 'it' ain't in there.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. "3D... Objects we imagine dont have those"
Observer, not what the object itself is or has. Is a house 2D because this is what you see from afar? What a moron!
.
"In geometry, a cube is a three-dimensional solid"
Finally! You're making progress, Duh. Next week we'll move on to spheres. They're tricky. Relativists like you claim they are 2D: longitude and latitude. I would first have to show you that coordinates are not eq to dimensions. That alone might take hours.
bgaede 5 months ago
"Is a house 2D because this is what you see from afar? What a moron!"
No Bill, you were tripping the whole time. It was actually 3D, because it has lenght, width, and height. What youre too ignorant to understand or admit is that the cube or sphere we imagine in our head (the image itself) DOES NOT HAVE LENGHT WIDTH AND HEIGHT. A persons brain would explode the instant they 'concieved' of it in their head.
"Finally! You're making progress..."
Yeah, a rubik's cube is 3D. So whats youre point?
Theonedue 5 months ago
Youre continious rambling might take hours. A dimension entails the structure of the object itself (lenght, width, height). A coordinate is the location of the stuctures of an object (latitude, longitude, altitude). Vectors deal with motion of an object (dynamics), the other two deal with static attributes. Spheres are 2D because they lack one of the dimensions of physics.
Theonedue 5 months ago
1. "the cube or sphere we imagine... DOES NOT HAVE LENGHT WIDTH AND HEIGHT... Spheres are 2D"
.
What a piece of shit your mother gave you for a brain, Duh!
.
ANY cube, even the one up your fucking ass is 3D. The word 'cube' refers to an object (has shape) that is a solid. ALL solids are 3D, even the one you have up your ass. Got that much, idiot?
bgaede 5 months ago
2. A cube is not a planar geometric FIGURE just because you imagine or see it out here that way. That's an OBSERVER-related phenomenon. Unfortunately for you, in Science, we clean our asses with observers and testimony. A cube is 3D evern if I never SAW one. Understando?
bgaede 5 months ago
3. The fact that a piece of shit like you VISUALIZES it as 2D or whatever inside that p-brane of yours doesn't change the fact that the word 'cube' refers to a 3D object. I don't give a fucking rat's ass what YOU 'SEE" inside your fucking p-brane, Duh.
bgaede 5 months ago
4. A cube, ALL cubes, any size, any color, any 'mass', has length, width and height. Like a house, a cube is ALWAYS 3D. So is a table. ANY table. The word 'table' refers to a 3D object (except in your fucking country: Flatland). But try to understand the following with the 2D flat brain yo momma gave you, Duh...
bgaede 5 months ago
5. The fact that the table you drew on this piece of paper LOOKS flat doesn't change the fact that ALL tables are 3D... BECAUSE the word 'table'' alludes to a 3D object. ALWAYS! This one, the one you drew is a representation, a schematic, a 2D imitation of a 3D table. THIS 2D drawing of a table is NOT a table.
bgaede 5 months ago
6. We label and call it a 'table' with the caveat that it is not the 'real' thing, but rather a 2D simile, a representation that is supposed to stand for a real, existing 3D object. The purpose of the exhibit is to use it in the theory that follows.
bgaede 5 months ago
7. Likewise with the cube, even the one you have up your ass. ALL cubes, irrespective of size, color, smell, energy, mass (... or any other mathematical dimension) are 3D. ALL cubes have length, width and height.
bgaede 5 months ago
8. The one you drew is an imperfect cube, which means it ain't an authentic cube. It is not supposed to be, partly because there are no authentic cubes. An ideal cube is by its very nature an imaginary object. A dog knows what a tree is. He pisses on it every day. A dog has no idea what a cube is and never will.
bgaede 5 months ago
9. Therefore, even if we can imagine a cube and define it as being bounded 6 perfectly square sides, we cannot produce this OBJECT except as an imperfect projection on a piece of paper or as an imperfect imitation such as a mockup or sculpture.
bgaede 5 months ago
10. A cube is an object. It is a 3D object. ALWAYS! There are no 2D cubes except in your fucking Flatland, DUH. Unfortunately, I can't get a Flatlander like you to jump the dimensional barrier and visit our beloved 3D Solid-land, so I suppose that you can barely imagine, and then only remotely, what I'm talking about.
bgaede 5 months ago
11. A cube is a 3D object that does not exist. It has 3dimensions: length, width and height. But a cube lacks location. I'm sorry this destroys your fucking '3D' religion! Do not resist. It is futile.
bgaede 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
Wow Bill you should try to pay attention in detail to what you say. A 3D table is an existing object. An ideal cube isnt. But lets review.
"This one, the one you drew is a representation, a schematic, a 2D imitation of a 3D table."
No shit you old fuck, I've only been telling you that incessantly since we got to the subject!
"THIS 2D drawing of a table is NOT a table."
Now I see youre a hypocrite as well. Back in the day when I stated that an exist entailed that which was made of atoms
Theonedue 5 months ago
you asked something like "What is the rock that Im thinking of made of?" and that " A rock is a rock is a rock." You were alluding to the rock in youre head as a rock, not a 2D representation. The only difference you illustrated was that the rock out here (even though you imagined the real thing) had location. Now youre saying 2D representations of tables (or rocks) arent tables or rocks. What an con you are.
You say an ideal cube is 3D and even though ever attempt man has done to imagine or
Theonedue 5 months ago
you replied something like "What is the rock that I'm thinking of made of ?", and that, " A rock is a rock..." You were trying to illustrate the point that the rock you were thinking of was like the rock 'out here' but just lacked location. Now your saying that any 2D interpretation we draw or imagine (of a table or rock) isnt a table or rock. What a fucking con you are.
So basically youre stupid premiss is this. An ideal 3D cube is 3D but every time we draw or envision it we can only make it
Theonedue 5 months ago
2D but that still does not mean an ideal cube is 3D, thats an observer issue. Futhermore you stated that an ideal cube cant be illustrated, or is imperfect we man imagines it. This goes back to my circle-square or 7D object issue. You cant even imagine an ideal 3D cube as it is! With a table, or any other 3D object we can (its just that the table 'in' our head lacks location). So according to you, the "true" or perfect ideal 3D cube cannot be imagined (we make it imperfect according to you).
Theonedue 5 months ago
So you cant even illustrate what you really intend to. If thats the case an ideal 3D cube is an irrational object because the jury cannot even imagine or draw it as its supposed to be (we can only imagine a 2D inaccurate representation). You still dont understand Bill so Ill ask my question again. If a 3D object doesnt exist according to you, how is it that I can grab my 3D chair, but I cant do that with youre fucking 3D cube? If an ideal cube was really 3D I could we could touch it dumbfuck!
Theonedue 5 months ago
Comment removed
Theonedue 5 months ago
"The fact that the table you drew on this piece of paper LOOKS flat doesn't change the fact that ALL tables are 3D... BECAUSE the word 'table'' alludes to a 3D object. ALWAYS! This one, the one you drew is a representation, a schematic, a 2D imitation of a 3D table. THIS 2D drawing of a table is NOT a table."
Once again Bill, useless jargon sprewing from youre mouth. You can point to a 3D table. You cant point to an ideal geometric 3D cube or sphere. So youre saying whenever
Theonedue 5 months ago
So is a circle-square an object? Yes or no.
Theonedue 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Even the squares and cubes in your head are respectively 2D and 3D."
All objects we visualize can only be 2D representations of 3D objects. Otherwise, if a 3D object was 'in' your head, that instant is when the guts and blood burst from youre brain.
Theonedue 5 months ago
Bill, you have a big head so can you crunch this?
wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
Zero gravity at center, so where is the pressure needed to created singularity, man? Get Mr. Crothers on this.
Yea, I accept some sort of high (infinite?) density of a shell at the graph on the right indicates, but density goes to zero as the left graph indicates. Hollow earth theory, Bill?
hitlerscollection 5 months ago
1. "the pressure needed to created singularity"
.
'Singularity' is a big word in this claim. 'Singularity' is a 'scientific' sounding word the idiots of Math invented to say 'center'. If we could identify every atom that constitutes Earth (and froze the motion of plant and animal life on the surface as well as all tectonic and volcanic activity), we could theoretically discover the exact location of the gravitational center (i.e., singularity) of the Earth for that cross section of time.
bgaede 5 months ago
2. A mathematical calculation can only be an approximation, a ballpark location. (Again: the diff b/w Math and Phyz!)
bgaede 5 months ago
3. "Zero gravity at center"
.
Hopefully, all celestial objects have zero gravity at their gravitational centers (Gauss' Grav Law). If as Thread theory holds, all atoms are interconnected by EM ropes, gravity should converge upon the center of a perfectly spherical object. This doesn't make the object hollow. Quite the contrary! It reaffirms the proposal just described. That's what the graph on the right shows.
bgaede 5 months ago