...Continued ! That was missing as indeffinerantly my stomach is crowlling from the tunnel of the air that my muscles are squeezing and twisting[?!X2] to the left I got to POT.ty
I'm sure you'll disagree and have something snarky to retort with. I'm just stating my opinion, and I didn't have to call anyone an 'idiot' to do it! Have a great day Mr. Gaede!
A geometric line is 'an' effect? It seems like a line is a geometric FIGURE whereas 'an' effect is a concept... I mean, if you don't understand the diff b/w an object and a concept...
So a stupid idiot like you thinks that electron balls is what flows into and out of the ends of a magnet, huh? What a moron! This is the garbage that comes out of schools these days! What did this MF go to school for?
.
That's probably why Mother Nature is ending the reign of Man. It's gullible morons like Quantum here which she can't stand any more!
The forces are created by potential differences of the discrete particles, called electrons. These electrons are flowing around the magnets within their potential fields. Force lines are just a macro effect of these discrete particles flowing around and through the poles of the magnets. These electrons will obviously be deflected more by the negative poles, because its like trying to push water into a fountain. Its really just probability and potential.QED doesn't state any 'truth' about what is
You are a very smart man :p I love your video here and all your explanations sound fucking great! But I was asked how H bomb blew up, how do you get a hydrogen atom? Lol... and message me about some good knowlegable books please not any written by our government slaves :)
@knowitsmet "... But I was asked how H bomb blew up, how do you get a hydrogen atom? Lol..."
Nice try, Iran. ಠ_ಠ.
But seriously I would speculate that the energy released is really the unraveling of Gaede's "ball of yarn" h-atom. I would speculate that the fabric of existence is really made up of these electromagnetic threads(or something close) and that matter (h-atom) is created when it somehow knots up.
Great presentation and fascinating too! It is nice to think about things differently than I (we) have been taught. I wonder if you have ever read Ed Leedskalnin's book on Magnetic currents? what he proposes sounds very similar to the magnetic string theory.
While the attraction and repulsion mechanic is now conceptually clear, I still have no idea how magnets work. The invisible threads seem a bit far fetched and seem like they need some more solid evidence.
So what is the conclusion? F'in magnets, how do they work?
In Science, we don't have any use for evidence. Evidence is a creature of religion. Evidence is what the religionist uses to persuade. It's the sole purpose of evidence: persuasion. In Science, we just explain. What YOU regard as evidence is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
You may believe that God pushes two magnets together and that He does it from a distance by throwing angels at it.
3. The threads constitute a hypothesis. The proposal is that all atoms in the U are bound to all others via EM ropes. The magnetic thread of this rope swings around and causes magnetic attraction and repulsion. This hypothesis enables us to explain light and gravity as well. It is a complete theory.
@bgaede All in all I'd say evidence, observation, physical measurement, whatever you want to call it, is pretty fundamental to science. You can hypothesize all day long but until you see it first hand you can't know for sure what exactly causes it. Not to put down hypothesis, you need a healthy dose of creativity to tackle the problem from different angles. But it is only that until you back it up with some physical evidence.
@bgaede But you yourself draw conclusions from the patterns you've observed. You yourself made an experiment with the needle and the laser and drew conclusions from what you observed. Science may be about explaining the world, but it is about explaining the observable world. Not just any old thing you make up. That is the problem with the established paradigm isn't it? They make up all sorts of nonsense to account for things they can't really explain.
@bgaede I think you're trading one extreme for another. While indeed some scientists may look clearly without a clue in the world, it seems you want to opt for a blind understanding.
Understanding and seeing go hand in hand. You can't understand what you can't see. And sight without understanding is pointless.
In Science, there is no 'blind' understanding, whatever that is. In Science, there is simply understanding. You either understand or you don't. It's a black or white issue.
2. "Understanding and seeing go hand in hand. You can't understand what you can't see."
See, we see a single, static image. Watch, we watch a film. We don't 'understand' pictures (objects). We VISUALIZE them. We understand movies: theories.
Which is what YOU are proposing. That's YOUR argument, not mine. In Science, we understand. In your religion, you observe. Let me quote YOU: "you've observed... the observable world"
4. In Science, we do NOT gawk! Observation has NOTHING to do with Science. Hawking did NOT observe a black hole. Relativists did NOT observe Big Bang. Bohr and his mechanics did NOT observe an atom, much less an electron. You did NOT observe the invisible mediator of light and gravity.
5. In Science, we MUST, absolutely MUST, hypothesize invisible entities which we have NOT observed and canNOT observe. We can't see the entity that keeps Mercury bound to the Sun, so we must HYPOTHESIZE: "Let us ASSUME that Merk is bound to the Sun by EM ropes interconnecting every atom in the Sun-Merk system." Now we can proceed to rationally explain gravity.
@bgaede Well how can you understand if you reject the thing that enables understanding? You need to see before you explain. And you can't explain rationally something that isn't seen. Directly or indirectly. Back to the point; while the EM ropes is a nice way to visualize the interaction, I don't think it can qualify as any kind of explanation until the ropes are somehow observed.
We agree there, idiot dolt. You're too stupid for this kind of thing. You should stick to scrubbing latrines.
.
"any kind of explanation"
What you just watched IS an explanation, you stupid moron! Whether you adopt this as your explanation is a diff matter. You should learn what an explanation is. Don't they have TV sets at your asylum?
@bgaede So what if it is god that throws angels at the matter to push it around in precisely the same way your EM ropes predict? You can't say without having a look. And you can't say whether it's EM ropes without having a look. If they cannot be observed then it's very simple; you can never say. And science ends.
2. "you can't say whether it's EM ropes without having a look"
.
Boy, you really are dense, dolt. I'll say it again. In Science, we do not see or prove the existence of or observe or have evidence of invisible entities. What part of 'invisible' is your insignificant ant brain having trouble with? What is it that you wish to observe? WHY do you ask to observe the invisible when it is forever beyond visibility? Are you really THAT stupid that you can't understand such a simple argument?
3. In Science, we must HYPOTHESIZE. We MUST make an ASSUMPTION. We don't prove assumptions. We take them at face value in order to UNDERSTAND the theory founded upon them. We don't care whether you like the theory or regard it as proof or truth or evidence for your personal repertoire. YOUR opinion is unimportant in Science. It only has relevance at YOUR Sunday School.
4. "If they cannot be observed... you can never say"
.
Again. Science is about explaining and understanding a rational theory, not about verifying or proving or running experiments. In Science, we do not 'say' like they do at your Church. In Science, we merely explain and do so rationally. What the juror chooses to believe after the show is his personal business and doesn't concern Science.
In order to explain rationally, we must have the objects identified, the key words defined and a statement of the facts: the initial scenes. The EM rope and the thread version of the atom are the objects. We point to them, define the key terms, make rational assumptions and then explain.
6. A stupid idiot like you raised on the 17th C, mathematical version of the Sci Meth looks for observation, prediction, experimental data, evidence, proof, truth and all the other nonsense the priest made you memorize at your congregation. You wouldn't be able to tell the diff b/w a hypothesis and a theory.
7. Therefore, 'science' ends for a moron like you because you have no ability to conceptualize. You will never 'observe' because you're p-brane is too clogged with irrelevant arguments and expectations. Science was already finished by the time you began to exercise them calcified neurons you got in that flat ceiling of yours, dolt. You are waiting for proof and prediction and observation... and the conference has been over for two hours. Please turn out the light before you leave.
@bgaede I don't think I like your branch of science at all. I prefer to understand things that are real and not some made up constructs whether or not they are EM ropes, negative massless particles in a field equation or god throwing angels.
I have a question: If magnets interact with each other through those ropes, then magnets interact with the ropes, if so, then why magnets do not affect gravity if gravity too relies on those ropes to interact with all objects?
If magnets affect ropes and ropes affect gravity then magnets should affect gravity and objects which do not normally interact with magnets.
You're right. How could I have been so stupid!? Science is about explanations not merely describing reality! And explanations have nothing to do with observation. We should be able to construct theories without even looking at the world. The world is irrelevant. Constructing experiments to verify our hypotheses is a complete waste of time! Acceleration is truly only a concept. When I press on my gas pedal I'm not causing a CONCEPT to happen! Saying "Force" is like saying "love." THANK YOU!
2. "Constructing experiments to verify our hypotheses is a complete waste of time!"
.
a. In Science, we only explain. Designing experiments is a persoanl matter that doesn´c concern Science. You can do all the experiments you want, but when you come to the conference, you are required to explain your theory.
...you are pressing a physical object. We say that, ´The car accelerates´ (object - verb), not that ´An acceleration has occurred" (verb reified into object, noun, subject).
.
"Force" is like saying "love."
Yes.
"THANK YOU!"
I´m glad I could be of help in your understanding of the fundamentals of Physics..
Sweet looking comb-over Dr. Stupid. Looking at your channel and this video it's obvious that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You should actually study Physics first before you try to debunk it with nonsense.
@bgaede I think that you're confused Sir. Professor Richard Feynman and others have explained magnetic field perfectly with both Mathematics and with Feynman also the famous Feynman diagrams. You are mistaken about many things including my size. You Sir are a bald crackpot with a bad comb-over.
You've simply redefined natural science to make your silly rope theory fit within that definition. You know your "theory" says almost nothing. If a theory doesn't tell us how the world actually works in accordance with our observations then it is worthless. You might as well be saying like charges attract because little angels live inside them and they want to have tea together. That is just as helpful as your absurd rope theory is.
1. ¨ac•cel•er•a•tion... noun... the act... a change...¨
.
In Physics, a noun is a synonym of ´object´. No exceptions! The only nouns that can perform actions are objects. An object is that which has shape. What is the shape of acceleration, idiot math?
3. Therefore, for the purposes of Science, force, mass and acceleration do NOT exist. It´s in the religion of Mathematics where they talk about the existence of forces and of acceleration. And they do so because the idiots of your religion haven´t defined the word ´exist´.
5. When an idiot like you says that ´a´force acts, we treat you like the moron that you are. We accept YOUR LITERAL explanation, which is that YOU propose that force is a physical object , a noun, the subject of the sentence, the thing that is carrying out the action. Got it, bean brain?
6. So if YOU did not mean that the physical object that YOU call ´force´ acted, then WHAT physical object were you talking about in the alternative? Did the elephant push the door down or was it ´a´ force?
7. ¨When they say "a force acts" they are merely speaking informally....You are confusing the vernacular¨
It´s obvious that YOU brought the vernacular into a scientific context. You are using metaphor to push your theory thru because you can´t do it with physical objects. That´s how a stupid moron like you ends up talking about action-at-a-distance and warped space and 1D strings.
If something with mass is accelerating it has a corresponding force BY THE DEFINITION OF FORCE. So, you cannot deny the existence of force without denying the existence of mass and acceleration. All physicists know that force is merely a name for mass*acceleration. Therefore, they cannot be accused of thinking that it is an object. When they say "a force acts" they are merely speaking informally. Forces don't have intentions. You are confusing the vernacular with the theory.
The man in this video is woefully under/misinformed about the basic laws of nature... please sir, take some math courses (calculus and advanced algebra) and then begin taking rudimentary physics courses... you will immediately begin to understand how the suggestions you are putting forth here are not only wrong but laughably so.
You seem to have confused Science with Law. There are no laws in Science or in nature. Please name one law that has been enacted.
.
¨take some math courses (calculus and advanced algebra)¨
Math is not a part of Science. Math cannot help us explain ANY phenomenon of nature. But if you believe otherwise, please EXPLAIN with calculus or algebra how a magnet attracts another or what causes Mercury to orbit the Sun instead of drifting away.
@bgaede Are you serious? Name a law of nature that has been enacted? Please don't lower your standards to quibbling over nomenclature that is well established. These are the terms one must use to have intelligent scientific discourse. If you are incapable of digesting informed conversation because you insist on consciously misapplying the meaning of simple terms then I am afraid our conversation must come to an end.
There wasn´t any explanation of how a magnet attracts another in there, idiot Elcrapo. What paragraph explains how one magent physically attracts another? Please quote it instead of pointing to the entire article. In fact, a piece of shit like you should be able to explain the mechanism in his own words. Did the priest who raped you at the monastery make you learn by rote?
Okay. So you've proposed an alternative to Quantum Theory to describe the interaction between magnets... Have you performed experiments to demonstrate your hypothesis? Have you published a paper on the topic? I'd love to give that a read.
@bgaede I have a few problems. First, is that your paper spends almost as much time complaining of unfairly dismissing new, strange claims as it does actually describing the rope hypothesis. That seems utterly unnecessary in the setting of a scientific paper.
Second, although I realise the paper is simply meant to describe rope hypothesis, it doesn't propose any way of actually demonstrating that the hypothesis is correct. What experiments could you perform to demonstrate it is correct?
Yes. And they all seem to be related to your unfamiliarity with the Scientific Method.
.
¨your paper spends¨... much time complaining of unfairly dismissing new, strange claims¨
Yes, considering the extreme biases that permeate all peer-review boards, you need to open up the umbrella before it rains. It´s a miracle that in spite of the implications, the peers decided to publish the proposal in this case.
2. ¨the paper... doesn't propose any way of actually demonstrating that the hypothesis is correct¨
You should take an introductory course in Science before you read scientific papers, Fizz. When you decide to take that decision, you will learn that in Science, we don´t demonstrate hypotheses and much less do we demonstrate that anything is correct.
3. ´Correct´ is an OPINION, specifically YOUR opinion! Correct means that YOU made up YOUR mind. In Science, there are no correct/incorrect, true/false, right or wrong theories. There are only rational explanations.
4. ¨What experiments could you perform to demonstrate it is correct?¨
Again, when you decide to take a beginner´s course in Science, you will discover that we don´t perform ANY experiments. You can perform many experiments and never figure out what causes the pen to fall to the floor rather than to the ceiling. Therefore, the number of experiments that you perform has no bearing on your understanding of the causes.
@bgaede Look, mate, I was hoping to find out more about your ideas, but instead I'm met with hostility. I do have a good understanding of science and the scientific method, and experimentation is the core of it. If you can't demonstrate what you are saying experimentally (and that includes observations and measurements from nature), then it's not science. That is the ~only~ way you can get physical evidence to back up your ideas.
1. ¨I was hoping to find out more about your ideas, but instead I'm met with hostility¨
Before you can find out more about Science, you must learn the fundamentals of Science. If you are going to say stupid things such as ´´proving a hypothesis´or ´running an experiment´, then you clearly have no clue. You can either continue to pray at your monastery or come into the world of Science. There is no in-between.
2. ¨experimentation is the core of... science and the scientific method¨
That´s what the priest rammed up your ass, choirboy! In Science, we don´t do experiments! Got it, bean brain! So why don´t you take an intro course in Science before posting? In Science, we ONLY explain!¨Until you learn that first rule, you will not learn anything.
Again, what the priest whispered in your ear while he raped you is between you and him. In Science, we don´t measure anything, we don´t observe, we don´t do predictions, we don´t use Math -- indeed, observers are outlawed. In Science, we ONLY explain and we do so rationally.
In Science, we have no use for evidence. You confuse Science with Law. Evidence means that the priest convinced YOU. Evidence means that YOU now believe the priest´s theory. Evidence already includes an OPINION. You have already accepted the explanation.
.
Conversely, Science is unopinionated. Science is OBJECTIVE.
¨6. ¨Your model will also allows you to make predictions¨
Boy, that priest really shoved his dick up your ass, Fizz! All you´ve done so far is repeat what the Mathematical Establishment brainwashed you with all these years.
.
In Science, we don´t do predictions. That´s astrology. Two doors down the hall and to the left. Look for the Witches and Wizards Conference.
Again, wrong room, idiot Fizz. Go take your prophecies and palm reading somewhere else! Fucking moron! Is this what the monks asked you to read in the Bible? About prophecies and incantations? Is this what they told you that ´science´ is all about?
8. ¨ integrate it into technology, or use it to your advantage¨
And finally the old technology argument. They really raped you badly in that church, Fizz. I guess that´s the nickname the priest gave you after he did you, huh?
.
Technology has NOTHING to do with Science and Science is NOT useful or supposed to be useful. In Technology, they develop gadgets by trial and error. In Science, we merely explain.
@bgaede Look, your insults aren't doing anything to convince me I'm wrong. Can you show me why I'm wrong? Yes or no? That's the point I'm trying to make. Telling someone they're an idiot doesn't prove anything. Physical evidence does. And as for your idea that science isn't for making predictions, or for developing technology, is absolute bull. Would you like me to list some technologies that wouldn't exist without scientific research?
They brainwashed you so much, Fizz that you don´t even know what Qs to ask. What sense does the idiotic Q you just asked possibly make? There are two threads. That´s the entire quantity. Is that specific enough for you? My God!
What is it that you want to measure? What does measurement have to do with an explanation? Measurement can at best give you a description. Science is about explaining.
3. ¨Can you measure their effects in a way that makes them distinct from quantum effects?¨
In Science, we don´t measure AT ALL. In Science, we attempt to explain rationally. QM is IRRATIONAL.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
.
The Rope Hypothesis, on the other hand, enables us to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and atomic phenomena rationally. We´re done. What´s this bull about experiments and predictions and measurement and right and wrong?
Right and wrong are OPINIONS! Opinions belong exclusively in religion. In Science, we have no opinions. In Science, we explain rationally. What each juror believe after the show doesn´t concern Science. You can believe in God for all we care.
.
¨doesn't prove anything¨
In Science, we don´t prove. Proof means that YOU made up YOUR mind! Proof is an OPINION and, thus, belongs exclusively to religion.
Exactly, idiot! It is in astrology and religion where they do prophecies. What part are you having problems with? Where did you learn ´science´anyways? Hogwarts U?
.
¨developing technology¨
Science has NOTHING to do with Technology. In Technology, they develop gadgets thru trial and error. In Science, we explain phenomena. Never the twain shall meet.
@bgaede You're the one being religious, here. The difference between you and me is that I am happy to change my mind the very moment you convince me to do so. Can you do that? Or is insults and conspiracy claims the extent of your argument? You, on the other hand, will cling to your "theory", even with the mountains of evidence against it, and the complete lack of evidence supporting it. You are no better than the religious apologists you claim to revile.
@bgaede Here, I'm going to do exactly what you are doing... I hypothesise that magnetism is caused by magnetofairies. These faeries like to push atoms of metal together, and their favourite metal is iron. Occasionally, collections of magnetofaeries will disagree with each other, and tend to fly away from each other (hence the phenomenon of magnetic repulsion) Magnetofaeries are bullies, and tend to push electrofaeries away from themselves, but they always push them away in one direction.
@bgaede What did I just do? I proposed a hypothesis that describes the phenomenon. According to you, I don't have to actually demonstrate that my magnetofaeries actually exist. I don't need to make any quantifiable measurements of their existance. All I need to do is tell you how they work. Therefore, my theory is just as valid as your own! And apparently, all I need to do to confirm it, is tell you that you're an idiot!
Science is divided into Physics and Philosophy. Physics deals with objects and causes. Philosophy deals with concepts and reasons. Math Phyz proposes CONCEPTS such as black hole, energy, 0d ´particles´, waves, and the explanations are irrational. Therefore, Math Phyz is a branch of Philosophy, specifically, a branch known as Religion.
Science is about explaining. In order to explain, the presenter has to get his language straight. Otherwise, what he said is bunk! Therefore, the first task of a scientist is to define the terms that make or break HIS theory. If he says that a black hole is an object and that it exists, the entire statement is poppycock until he defines what HE means by ´object´ and ´exist´.
Proof in any way, shape, or form has NOTHING to do with Science, whetehr conclusive or not. Proof means that YOU bought into the theory just presented.
5. Try it Fizz! WHY, what CAUSES Mercury to stay in its orbit?
I´m not asking you to describe whether the orbit is round or elliptical or to tell me how many days it takes for Merk to go around. I´m asking you to EXPLAIN WHY Merk doesn´t leave the SS. WHAT physical object holds Merk in its orbit?
6. ¨Until you have measured it and demonstrated it, all you are doing is philosophising¨
.
So an idiot like you spends his day demonstrating that the stone always falls to the ground rather than to the sky. You´ve measured the acceleration and speed with absolute precision. Now, tell the crowd WHY the stone falls to the ground rather than to the sky. So far you´ve DESCRIBED. Now, please EXPLAIN the cause.
8. ¨I am happy to change my mind the very moment you convince me¨
.
Sorry, Fizz. You´re in the wrong forum. Here we do Science, not religion. Door-to-door Bible selling and persuading thru testimonials is what the religious folk do. Perhaps you also talk in tongues?
Here, we EXPLAIN. What YOU choose to believe after the show is your personal business and doesn´t concern Science.
9. ¨your theory... mountains of evidence against it¨
In Science, we have no use for evidence because we are not in the business of persuading. You confuse Science with Law. In Science, we explain. After you leave the conference, you can choose the theory you like the best.
12. ¨I hypothesise that magnetism is caused by magnetofairies¨
Okay. Got it...
.
¨These faeries like to push atoms of metal together¨
I understand what you are proposing. I have a mental image of fairies using their arms to push rather than pull atoms together. I see your movie w/o any problems.
15. ¨What did I just do? I proposed a hypothesis that describes the phenomenon¨
Not exactly! You proposed a hypothesis: the fairies. You EXPLAINED how YOU think they do their magic. The explanation is NOT a hypothesis, but a theory.
16. ¨According to you, I don't have to actually demonstrate that my magnetofaeries actually exist¨
.
Correct! In Science, you don´t and you can´t demonstrate that fairies exist. They exist (or not) pursuant to the definition of ´exist´.
.
In the instant case, they exist by default for the purposes of YOUR presentation. YOU made them exist when you proposed that fairies move the metal out there around.
17. YOU have presented the fairies as objects for the purposes of YOUR theory. You treated them as such. You are saying that they have shape and surface. You are saying that the surface of their hands comes up against the iron atoms, meaning that there is distance between the fairies´ bodies and the iron atoms. We understand YOUR proposal.
18. "I don't need to make any quantifiable measurements of their existance¨
.
Huh? What is this idiocy? What possible measurements can you make of existence? How do you measure existence, idiot Fizz? Do you use a ruler or a lie detector?
.
In Science, we define the word ´exist´. If the term in question meets the criteria of the definition, then it exists BY DEFINITION. You have no say in the matter.
19. Here, YOU argued that fairies are objects. YOU further argued that fairies have location. You met BOTH requirements of the definition. Thus, fairies exist for the purposes of YOUR presentation whether you like it or not. Your opinion is not needed. Measuremeent is not needed.
20. YOU are saying that fairies exist and with these entities YOU are going to explain how magnetism works. Whether fairies exist in the real world out there only Mother Nature knows for sure. We invoke objects to explain our theories to others so that they can UNDERSTAND our theories. That´s where Science ends. Anything beyond this is religion: opinion. It is the religious idiots of Math who convert their opinions into truth, proof, evidence, and fact.
22. ¨Therefore, my theory is just as valid as your own!¨
.
In Science, we take no decision regarding ´validity´. That´s what they do in Law and in Religion and in Mathematics. In Science, we merely explain objectively. What YOU choose to believe after the prez is YOUR personal religion.
23. If YOU think that the fairy explanation has merits, then YOU adopt it. It has more validity for YOU and only YOU. Another person proposes another theory. He may say that God moves the charges around. Another guy might say that warped space compels the iron to fall inwards. And another, that atoms pitch negative momentum carrying stones at each other. What distinguishes Science from religion is that Science is rational. Math Phyz is not.
@bgaede I think your fundamental problem is that you don't understand that the word "science" already has a definition. What you are doing, is making up an entirely new definition and mistakenly labeling it as "science". Whatever, go ahead, but realise it is the source of our frustration with you. The fact that you were suggesting i was on the right track with my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis (And yes, it is a hypothesis) betrays the true depth of your ignorance on the subject of science.
You keep banging on about rationality. This is another of those terms that already has a definition, which you are completely disregarding and inventing your own. To be rational, you need to be of sound judgement, posess good logic and have a fair grasp on reality. Currently, from this generally accepted definition, you are being irrational. You are demonstrating poor judgement, in insulting everyone who disagrees with you, rather than addressing their queries.
@bgaede Your arguments so far have been illogical and inconsistent with existing knowledge. And I would rank your grasp on reality pretty low, if you are willing to grant parts of my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis. Your line, "fairies exist for the purposes of YOUR presentation whether you like it or not. Your opinion is not needed. Measuremeent is not needed." suggests to me that you don't think what is actually happening in reality holds any value at all.
@bgaede As long as you have an explination that works in your own mind, you are content. Do you realise this is exactly what religious people do? Instead of looking at the real world, they slot in whatever explination feels comfortable to them. In their case, "God does it." In your case, "Gravity is caused by ropes." In my attempted caricature, which you suggested was on ther right track, "Faeries cause magnetism."
@bgaede Essentially, there is no difference between them in terms of explanatory power and usefulness. Don't you see that? Can't you see the irony in you calling mathematicians and real scientists "religious", when you are the only one here displaying a religious mindset?
2. ¨rationality... already has a definition... sound judgement... good logic... fair grasp on reality.¨
What a pieced of shit your mother gave you for a brain, Fizz! So the Christian tells you that he meets all these criteria. So does the Muslim. So does the mathematician. What is the OBJECTIVE criterion for rationality, you stupid, deranged idiot?
4. In Science, we don´t raise our hands or try to win by majority. In Science, a definition is rational if it can be used consistently. And a theory is rational if the explanation follows from the premises, the definitions are used consistently, and the objects are not reified concepts as they are in the religion of Math
It´s got nothing to do with agreement. It´s got to do with using correct English to describe an individual who defies logic. If YOU say that force is a noun for the purposes of Physics and that space is warped, there are no other terms I can invoke but idiot, stupid, moron, lamebrain, etc.
6. ¨Your arguments... inconsistent with existing knowledge¨
.
Science has nothing to do with knowledge (the future, predictions). Science only deals with consummated events (the past, explanations). Again, you should take an introductory course in Science before posting. You are obviously unfamiliar with the basics if you think that Science is about knowledge.
7. ¨ if you are willing to grant parts of my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis¨
In Science, we have no choice but to concede the objects that the presenter offers to explain HIS theory. There are no judges in Science. The only role of the juror is to understand the theory.
8. If the presenter explains that fairies are responsible for gravity or EM phenomena, so be it. That´s HIS theory. Whether you accept HIS theory after the prez is your personal business and doesn´t concern Science.
10. “As long as you have an explination that works in your own mind, you are content”
.
The explanation has to be rational in order to be accepted in Science. As a minimum the presenter has to be able to make a movie of his theory. What movie can the idiots of Math make with their reified concepts: transfer energy, move ´a´ mass, carry ´a´ force, singularity swallows a photon, ´field´ accelerates the concept ´charge´. What will the idiot of Math put on the screen for each of these movies?
Yes. All mathematicians reify concepts and then pretend to move the concept.
You walk into the Math Monastery and every cloister is filled with energy, mass, force, field, time, charge, 0D particles, 1D strings, warped space and all the rotten garbage that idiots since Newt came up with. When will any of them do Science?
12. “whatever explination feels comfortable to them¨
.
Yes. The Moron of Math has willed himself to believe in unjustified, magical phenomena such as warped space, tunneling, BH, time travel, length contraction, wormholes to parallel Us. The idiots who read the journals don´t even bat an eyelash when reading all this surrealistic stuff. They call it ´science´.
13. “Faeries cause magnetism... you suggested was on ther right track"
.
No. I listened to YOUR presentation, which is more than the mathematicians do with manuscripts and presentations which debunk their religion. What I believe after YOUR prez is my personal business and doesn´t concern you or Science.
14. The Rope Hypothesis enables us to rationally explain how gravity and light work. Whether you like Thread Theory is irrelevant. Your job is to ask questions if you find problems with it. So far, it looks quite good for TT because you haven´t been able to find anything irrational about it. All you did so far is make unsubstantiated statements. That´s encouraging.
15. ¨there is no difference between them in terms of explanatory power¨
.
Yes. A Christian will probably invoke angels to explain why the curtain moved. An idiot of Math will say that it was warped space or perhaps tell you that the curtain was pelted by gravitons. The difference is that whereas a Christian relies on supernatural agents, an idiot of Math will invoke reified concepts.
@bgaede What you are describing to me, mate, is not science, it's philosophy. You're here, arguing semantics when it's clear I'm using terms like "correct" and "proof" to simplify matters. I ~know~ that conclusive proof is not the goal in science. But what ~you~ don't understand is that science is about describing phenomena in the universe and because of our limited human senses, mathematics is the best way we've found to do it.
@bgaede You can't say that your idea is truly representative of what is happening in nature, until you measure it! Until you have measured it and demonstrated it, all you are doing is philosophising.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why there is so much opposition to you? It's not your abrasive demeanour and your tendency to insult those who disagree with you. It's your unwillingness to follow the scientific method, which has been making advancements for the past few hundred years.
@bgaede Furthermore, your dismissal of mathematics is disappointing. A mathematical model of your theory, when combined with your measurements, allows you to show that you're on the right track. Your model will also allows you to make predictions about nature, and that is the most important part. If you can't make predictions about nature using your theory, what use is it? Without those predictions, you can't expand on it, or integrate it into technology, or use it to your advantage.
@bgaede I'll phrase my questions another way, then. How do you quantify these threads? Can you measure them? Can you measure their effects in a way that makes them distinct from quantum effects?
And I suppose that particles are composed of more particles or of waves, right? Vibrating 1D strings perhaps? And then the 1D string is made of 0D 'elementary' particles which in turn are made of...
.
"someone who doesn't believe in the existence of waves"
In Science, we don't believe. That's religion where they believe. And before you can say that waves exist, you must define what YOU mean by 'exist'. Otherwise, you haven't said anything.
Oh, what is the evidence, math? Please explain polarization with particles. Who was it? This idiot named Popper, one of the priests of your religion, who said that if a single phenomenon falsifies your proposal your theory is bunk. Well, explain polarization with particles or apply Popperian falsifiability! It's just that simple.
3. "Not everything is in itself a physical object... Force isnt an object"
Well, I'm glad you realized that much, math. You've made progress.
Therefore, in Science, we can't put an article in front of such words as force, energy, mass, time, field or charge. They cannot be the subject of a sentence. They cannot serve as the executors of motion. We do not move concepts in Science.
You can see the wavelength of each wave and the frequency of the waves. You know what I meant. So are you agreeing that you can see the wavelength of and frequency?
PPOV COUG5:16
google.com/products/catalog?q=Mr.+Bean&hl=en&cid=9390384382906507880&ei=Y_MXT6qeBaXSsAff8eSECw&ved=0CI0BEPICMAg#p
iMISSFlutterVision 1 week ago
Who is Rowan Atkinson and about the cholesterol LSD levelS...
iMISSFlutterVision 1 week ago
"['ve,.]"
iMISSFlutterVision 1 week ago
...Continued ! That was missing as indeffinerantly my stomach is crowlling from the tunnel of the air that my muscles are squeezing and twisting[?!X2] to the left I got to POT.ty
iMISSFlutterVision 1 week ago
...Or @QuantumChance & @bgaede we can just simply listen to the sound is being created on the keyboard!
iMISSFlutterVision 1 week ago
"Please draw one, bean brain! Or point to a picture of one on the Internet."
-Please draw one of your supposed ropes, bean brain? lol
"I mean, if you don't understand the diff b/w an object and a concept..."
-I was going to say the same for your own silly 'rope' argument
" I think I'll have another beer"
Your problem is becoming clear to me.
"You stated your priest's opinion, you moron!"
-you've stated a lunatics opinion and can only defend yourself with strawmen, non-sequiturs and ad hominem
QuantumChance 1 week ago
¨Please draw one of your supposed ropes¨
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-7
bgaede 6 days ago
I'm sure you'll disagree and have something snarky to retort with. I'm just stating my opinion, and I didn't have to call anyone an 'idiot' to do it! Have a great day Mr. Gaede!
QuantumChance 1 week ago
1. "The forces are created"
.
May 'the' force go with you! Say 'hi' to your God... the fella who 'created' 'the' force!
.
"discrete particles, called electrons"
Please draw one, bean brain! Or point to a picture of one on the Internet.
bgaede 1 week ago
2. "These electrons are flowing around the magnets within their potential fields."
What an idiot! Is this what they make you memorize at the monastery?
bgaede 1 week ago
3. "Force lines are just a macro effect"
A geometric line is 'an' effect? It seems like a line is a geometric FIGURE whereas 'an' effect is a concept... I mean, if you don't understand the diff b/w an object and a concept...
bgaede 1 week ago
4. "these discrete particles flowing around"
So a stupid idiot like you thinks that electron balls is what flows into and out of the ends of a magnet, huh? What a moron! This is the garbage that comes out of schools these days! What did this MF go to school for?
.
That's probably why Mother Nature is ending the reign of Man. It's gullible morons like Quantum here which she can't stand any more!
bgaede 1 week ago
5. "These electrons will obviously be deflected more by the negative poles, because its like trying to push water into a fountain."
What an idiot! Absolutely hilarious. I think I'll have another beer.
.
"QED doesn't state any 'truth' about what is"
Of course not! It's divorced from Science, let alone from Physics, altogether!
bgaede 1 week ago
6. "I'm just stating my opinion"
You stated your priest's opinion, you moron!
Go back to Wonderland. You don't have the brains for this kinda stuff, Quantum. And change your name to LastChance. Okay?
.
"I didn't have to call anyone an 'idiot' to do it!"
Tell that to your bishops...
.
youstupidrelativist com/Ridicule/01Rid html
bgaede 1 week ago
The forces are created by potential differences of the discrete particles, called electrons. These electrons are flowing around the magnets within their potential fields. Force lines are just a macro effect of these discrete particles flowing around and through the poles of the magnets. These electrons will obviously be deflected more by the negative poles, because its like trying to push water into a fountain. Its really just probability and potential.QED doesn't state any 'truth' about what is
QuantumChance 1 week ago
This is completely wrong
mailbox2223 2 weeks ago
Oh, what's wrong about it?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
Finally. Magnets have been explained.
NickMinaj69 4 weeks ago
F = F'
iasedu 4 weeks ago
You are a very smart man :p I love your video here and all your explanations sound fucking great! But I was asked how H bomb blew up, how do you get a hydrogen atom? Lol... and message me about some good knowlegable books please not any written by our government slaves :)
knowitsmet 1 month ago
@knowitsmet "... But I was asked how H bomb blew up, how do you get a hydrogen atom? Lol..."
Nice try, Iran. ಠ_ಠ.
But seriously I would speculate that the energy released is really the unraveling of Gaede's "ball of yarn" h-atom. I would speculate that the fabric of existence is really made up of these electromagnetic threads(or something close) and that matter (h-atom) is created when it somehow knots up.
a46475 2 weeks ago
@ 4:14 Titties!!!!!!
DRnick2359 1 month ago
Great presentation and fascinating too! It is nice to think about things differently than I (we) have been taught. I wonder if you have ever read Ed Leedskalnin's book on Magnetic currents? what he proposes sounds very similar to the magnetic string theory.
extremadanger 1 month ago
While the attraction and repulsion mechanic is now conceptually clear, I still have no idea how magnets work. The invisible threads seem a bit far fetched and seem like they need some more solid evidence.
So what is the conclusion? F'in magnets, how do they work?
doltBmB 1 month ago in playlist Flere videoer fra bgaede
1. "I still have no idea how magnets work"
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-9
.
"The invisible threads seem a bit far fetched"
What's far fetched about it?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "they need some more solid evidence"
In Science, we don't have any use for evidence. Evidence is a creature of religion. Evidence is what the religionist uses to persuade. It's the sole purpose of evidence: persuasion. In Science, we just explain. What YOU regard as evidence is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.
.
You may believe that God pushes two magnets together and that He does it from a distance by throwing angels at it.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. The threads constitute a hypothesis. The proposal is that all atoms in the U are bound to all others via EM ropes. The magnetic thread of this rope swings around and causes magnetic attraction and repulsion. This hypothesis enables us to explain light and gravity as well. It is a complete theory.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede All in all I'd say evidence, observation, physical measurement, whatever you want to call it, is pretty fundamental to science. You can hypothesize all day long but until you see it first hand you can't know for sure what exactly causes it. Not to put down hypothesis, you need a healthy dose of creativity to tackle the problem from different angles. But it is only that until you back it up with some physical evidence.
doltBmB 1 month ago
"evidence, observation, physical measurement... is pretty fundamental to science"
.
Only for a brainwashed idiot like you who confuses what he calls 'science' with religion. Evidence means that it is evidence to YOU, not to me.
.
And in Science we don't observe or take measurements. In Science, we EXPLAIN and do so rationally.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede But you yourself draw conclusions from the patterns you've observed. You yourself made an experiment with the needle and the laser and drew conclusions from what you observed. Science may be about explaining the world, but it is about explaining the observable world. Not just any old thing you make up. That is the problem with the established paradigm isn't it? They make up all sorts of nonsense to account for things they can't really explain.
doltBmB 1 month ago
"You yourself made an experiment"
.
You can make all the experiments you want to reach YOUR own conclusions. Science is about EXPLAINING, not about gawking without understanding!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede I think you're trading one extreme for another. While indeed some scientists may look clearly without a clue in the world, it seems you want to opt for a blind understanding.
Understanding and seeing go hand in hand. You can't understand what you can't see. And sight without understanding is pointless.
Call me holistic if you want to.
doltBmB 1 month ago
1. "you want to opt for a blind understanding"
.
In Science, there is no 'blind' understanding, whatever that is. In Science, there is simply understanding. You either understand or you don't. It's a black or white issue.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "Understanding and seeing go hand in hand. You can't understand what you can't see."
See, we see a single, static image. Watch, we watch a film. We don't 'understand' pictures (objects). We VISUALIZE them. We understand movies: theories.
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "sight without understanding is pointless"
.
Which is what YOU are proposing. That's YOUR argument, not mine. In Science, we understand. In your religion, you observe. Let me quote YOU: "you've observed... the observable world"
bgaede 1 month ago
4. In Science, we do NOT gawk! Observation has NOTHING to do with Science. Hawking did NOT observe a black hole. Relativists did NOT observe Big Bang. Bohr and his mechanics did NOT observe an atom, much less an electron. You did NOT observe the invisible mediator of light and gravity.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. In Science, we MUST, absolutely MUST, hypothesize invisible entities which we have NOT observed and canNOT observe. We can't see the entity that keeps Mercury bound to the Sun, so we must HYPOTHESIZE: "Let us ASSUME that Merk is bound to the Sun by EM ropes interconnecting every atom in the Sun-Merk system." Now we can proceed to rationally explain gravity.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Well how can you understand if you reject the thing that enables understanding? You need to see before you explain. And you can't explain rationally something that isn't seen. Directly or indirectly. Back to the point; while the EM ropes is a nice way to visualize the interaction, I don't think it can qualify as any kind of explanation until the ropes are somehow observed.
doltBmB 1 month ago
1. "I don't think"
We agree there, idiot dolt. You're too stupid for this kind of thing. You should stick to scrubbing latrines.
.
"any kind of explanation"
What you just watched IS an explanation, you stupid moron! Whether you adopt this as your explanation is a diff matter. You should learn what an explanation is. Don't they have TV sets at your asylum?
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "until the ropes are somehow observed"
What a piece of shit yo momma gave you fo a brane, dolt.
Again, you canNOT observe an EM rope because the EM rope is what you use to observe. The EM rope is the mediator of light between any two atoms.
.
But good luck in 'observing' the rope some day. Meanwhile, go stick your head in the toilet and carry on with your scrubbin!
Noooo, idiot dolt! Flush the shit first, you dummy!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede So what if it is god that throws angels at the matter to push it around in precisely the same way your EM ropes predict? You can't say without having a look. And you can't say whether it's EM ropes without having a look. If they cannot be observed then it's very simple; you can never say. And science ends.
doltBmB 1 month ago
1. "So what if it is god that throws angels at the matter"
Yes. You can propose any explanation. Only rational explanations form the body of Science.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
.
"your EM ropes predict?"
Only idiots like astrologers and mathematicians do predictions. In Science, we don't do predictions.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "you can't say whether it's EM ropes without having a look"
.
Boy, you really are dense, dolt. I'll say it again. In Science, we do not see or prove the existence of or observe or have evidence of invisible entities. What part of 'invisible' is your insignificant ant brain having trouble with? What is it that you wish to observe? WHY do you ask to observe the invisible when it is forever beyond visibility? Are you really THAT stupid that you can't understand such a simple argument?
bgaede 1 month ago
3. In Science, we must HYPOTHESIZE. We MUST make an ASSUMPTION. We don't prove assumptions. We take them at face value in order to UNDERSTAND the theory founded upon them. We don't care whether you like the theory or regard it as proof or truth or evidence for your personal repertoire. YOUR opinion is unimportant in Science. It only has relevance at YOUR Sunday School.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. "If they cannot be observed... you can never say"
.
Again. Science is about explaining and understanding a rational theory, not about verifying or proving or running experiments. In Science, we do not 'say' like they do at your Church. In Science, we merely explain and do so rationally. What the juror chooses to believe after the show is his personal business and doesn't concern Science.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "And science ends"
.
We first define the word 'Science'...
.
Science: rational explanations.
.
In order to explain rationally, we must have the objects identified, the key words defined and a statement of the facts: the initial scenes. The EM rope and the thread version of the atom are the objects. We point to them, define the key terms, make rational assumptions and then explain.
bgaede 1 month ago
6. A stupid idiot like you raised on the 17th C, mathematical version of the Sci Meth looks for observation, prediction, experimental data, evidence, proof, truth and all the other nonsense the priest made you memorize at your congregation. You wouldn't be able to tell the diff b/w a hypothesis and a theory.
bgaede 1 month ago
7. Therefore, 'science' ends for a moron like you because you have no ability to conceptualize. You will never 'observe' because you're p-brane is too clogged with irrelevant arguments and expectations. Science was already finished by the time you began to exercise them calcified neurons you got in that flat ceiling of yours, dolt. You are waiting for proof and prediction and observation... and the conference has been over for two hours. Please turn out the light before you leave.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede I don't think I like your branch of science at all. I prefer to understand things that are real and not some made up constructs whether or not they are EM ropes, negative massless particles in a field equation or god throwing angels.
doltBmB 1 month ago
"I prefer to understand things that are real"
.
What can you possibly understand if you don't even understand the Scientific Method? And what do you mean by 'real'? Do you even have a clue?
bgaede 1 month ago
after seeing this video, i now know that no one yet to figure out what is the magnetic field.
But good video and thanks!
John56621 1 month ago
I have a question: If magnets interact with each other through those ropes, then magnets interact with the ropes, if so, then why magnets do not affect gravity if gravity too relies on those ropes to interact with all objects?
If magnets affect ropes and ropes affect gravity then magnets should affect gravity and objects which do not normally interact with magnets.
chordofdiscord 1 month ago
"why magnets do not affect gravity"
.
It's a light-on-light Q, chord, and thus beyond the scope of YT. (See Vid 7.) Your Q is addressed in the book, but it is too complex for this medium.
bgaede 1 month ago
You're right. How could I have been so stupid!? Science is about explanations not merely describing reality! And explanations have nothing to do with observation. We should be able to construct theories without even looking at the world. The world is irrelevant. Constructing experiments to verify our hypotheses is a complete waste of time! Acceleration is truly only a concept. When I press on my gas pedal I'm not causing a CONCEPT to happen! Saying "Force" is like saying "love." THANK YOU!
mathforphysics 3 months ago
1. "You're right....Science is about explanation¨"
Yes.
.
"explanations have nothing to do with observation"
Yes. A blind man cannot see, yet he can still explain. Most mathematicians look with healthy eyes and none of them can explain.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "Constructing experiments to verify our hypotheses is a complete waste of time!"
.
a. In Science, we only explain. Designing experiments is a persoanl matter that doesn´c concern Science. You can do all the experiments you want, but when you come to the conference, you are required to explain your theory.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. b. In Science, we don´t verify hypotheses. In Science, the presenter is required to formulate one before he explains his theory.
. "Acceleration is truly only a concept"
Hopefully!
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "When I press on my gas pedal..."
...you are pressing a physical object. We say that, ´The car accelerates´ (object - verb), not that ´An acceleration has occurred" (verb reified into object, noun, subject).
.
"Force" is like saying "love."
Yes.
"THANK YOU!"
I´m glad I could be of help in your understanding of the fundamentals of Physics..
bgaede 3 months ago
Sweet looking comb-over Dr. Stupid. Looking at your channel and this video it's obvious that you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about. You should actually study Physics first before you try to debunk it with nonsense.
bigboy45454545 3 months ago
¨Physics... try to debunk it¨
.
It´s Math that we´re debunking, little boy. We have no quarrel with Physics. You should pay attention.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I think that you're confused Sir. Professor Richard Feynman and others have explained magnetic field perfectly with both Mathematics and with Feynman also the famous Feynman diagrams. You are mistaken about many things including my size. You Sir are a bald crackpot with a bad comb-over.
bigboy45454545 3 months ago
" Feynman and others have explained magnetic fiel"
.
Please be my guest, little boy. Explain in your own words how a magnet PHYSICALLY attracts another.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Surely they have Mr. Crackpot with a terrible comb over.
bigboy45454545 3 months ago
You've simply redefined natural science to make your silly rope theory fit within that definition. You know your "theory" says almost nothing. If a theory doesn't tell us how the world actually works in accordance with our observations then it is worthless. You might as well be saying like charges attract because little angels live inside them and they want to have tea together. That is just as helpful as your absurd rope theory is.
mathforphysics 3 months ago
1. ¨ac•cel•er•a•tion... noun... the act... a change...¨
.
In Physics, a noun is a synonym of ´object´. No exceptions! The only nouns that can perform actions are objects. An object is that which has shape. What is the shape of acceleration, idiot math?
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨ you cannot deny the existence of force without denying the existence of mass and acceleration¨
.
Until you define what YOU mean by ´exist´, you haven´t said anything. In Science, we deny the existence of concepts.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. Therefore, for the purposes of Science, force, mass and acceleration do NOT exist. It´s in the religion of Mathematics where they talk about the existence of forces and of acceleration. And they do so because the idiots of your religion haven´t defined the word ´exist´.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨ When they say "a force acts" they are merely speaking informally¨
Oh, so that´s what they do, huh?
Well, in Physics we speak LITERALLY! There are no metaphors, no poetry, no figures of speech in Science!
bgaede 3 months ago
5. When an idiot like you says that ´a´force acts, we treat you like the moron that you are. We accept YOUR LITERAL explanation, which is that YOU propose that force is a physical object , a noun, the subject of the sentence, the thing that is carrying out the action. Got it, bean brain?
bgaede 3 months ago
6. So if YOU did not mean that the physical object that YOU call ´force´ acted, then WHAT physical object were you talking about in the alternative? Did the elephant push the door down or was it ´a´ force?
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨When they say "a force acts" they are merely speaking informally....You are confusing the vernacular¨
It´s obvious that YOU brought the vernacular into a scientific context. You are using metaphor to push your theory thru because you can´t do it with physical objects. That´s how a stupid moron like you ends up talking about action-at-a-distance and warped space and 1D strings.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. ¨If a theory doesn't tell us how the world actually works¨
That´s exactly what Math Phyz and its infamous particle hypothesis doesn´t do. Thread Theory, instead, explains exactly how our world works.
bgaede 3 months ago
If something with mass is accelerating it has a corresponding force BY THE DEFINITION OF FORCE. So, you cannot deny the existence of force without denying the existence of mass and acceleration. All physicists know that force is merely a name for mass*acceleration. Therefore, they cannot be accused of thinking that it is an object. When they say "a force acts" they are merely speaking informally. Forces don't have intentions. You are confusing the vernacular with the theory.
mathforphysics 3 months ago
Comment removed
mathforphysics 3 months ago
The man in this video is woefully under/misinformed about the basic laws of nature... please sir, take some math courses (calculus and advanced algebra) and then begin taking rudimentary physics courses... you will immediately begin to understand how the suggestions you are putting forth here are not only wrong but laughably so.
Elcrapocrew 3 months ago
¨the basic laws of nature¨
You seem to have confused Science with Law. There are no laws in Science or in nature. Please name one law that has been enacted.
.
¨take some math courses (calculus and advanced algebra)¨
Math is not a part of Science. Math cannot help us explain ANY phenomenon of nature. But if you believe otherwise, please EXPLAIN with calculus or algebra how a magnet attracts another or what causes Mercury to orbit the Sun instead of drifting away.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Are you serious? Name a law of nature that has been enacted? Please don't lower your standards to quibbling over nomenclature that is well established. These are the terms one must use to have intelligent scientific discourse. If you are incapable of digesting informed conversation because you insist on consciously misapplying the meaning of simple terms then I am afraid our conversation must come to an end.
Elcrapocrew 3 months ago
@bgaede
Math is the language of science.
But if you would like I can use math to explain the orbit of mercury ... wikipedia -> newtons law of gravity. Done.
Magnets are a bit more tricky but ... wikipedia -> magnets
gravity also has an updates definition given by Einstein ... wikipedia -> general relativity.
That's an awful lot of math for not being part of science.
Elcrapocrew 3 months ago
1. ¨a law of nature¨
So? You couldn´t name a single law of nature? I thought so! I guess that that´s why they call you El crapo?
.
¨Math is the language of science¨
Math has nothing to do with Science. Idiots like you who have no clue what Science is about try to bring Math into the picture.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨ I can use math to explain the orbit of mercury¨
What a stupid idiot! But perhaps it´s your mother´s fault, elcrapo. You´re not to blame for her mistakes. You should sue her.
So in your religion you ´explain´ orbits?
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨Magnets are a bit more tricky... wiki¨
There wasn´t any explanation of how a magnet attracts another in there, idiot Elcrapo. What paragraph explains how one magent physically attracts another? Please quote it instead of pointing to the entire article. In fact, a piece of shit like you should be able to explain the mechanism in his own words. Did the priest who raped you at the monastery make you learn by rote?
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨gravity also has an updates definition given by Einstein ... wiki¨
The mathematical idiots who wrote the article state:
¨description of gravity as a geometric property of space and time... the curvature of spacetime¨
So please draw spacetime before you curve ´it´. What does this object you call ´spacetime´ look like, you arrogant bean brain?
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Please, seek help. I will not succumb to your vitriol and respond in like kind. You are a sad angry man and you have my pity. Good day.
Elcrapocrew 3 months ago
Yeah, go stick your head in a toilet Elcrapo. It´s good for nothing else.
bgaede 3 months ago
Okay. So you've proposed an alternative to Quantum Theory to describe the interaction between magnets... Have you performed experiments to demonstrate your hypothesis? Have you published a paper on the topic? I'd love to give that a read.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨Have you performed experiments to demonstrate your hypothesis?¨
In Science, we don´t do experiments or demonstrate hypotheses. A hypothesis is an assumption.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/04Hypot/01WhatHypo html
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨Have you published a paper on the topic?¨
.
I´ve published a paper on the foundations of Thread Theory.
worldsci org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_6292 pdf
.
The Rope Hypothesis has also been published in a peer-reviewed book.
amazon com/What-Electron-Volodimir-Simulik/dp/0973291125
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I have a few problems. First, is that your paper spends almost as much time complaining of unfairly dismissing new, strange claims as it does actually describing the rope hypothesis. That seems utterly unnecessary in the setting of a scientific paper.
Second, although I realise the paper is simply meant to describe rope hypothesis, it doesn't propose any way of actually demonstrating that the hypothesis is correct. What experiments could you perform to demonstrate it is correct?
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨I have a few problems¨
Yes. And they all seem to be related to your unfamiliarity with the Scientific Method.
.
¨your paper spends¨... much time complaining of unfairly dismissing new, strange claims¨
Yes, considering the extreme biases that permeate all peer-review boards, you need to open up the umbrella before it rains. It´s a miracle that in spite of the implications, the peers decided to publish the proposal in this case.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨the paper... doesn't propose any way of actually demonstrating that the hypothesis is correct¨
You should take an introductory course in Science before you read scientific papers, Fizz. When you decide to take that decision, you will learn that in Science, we don´t demonstrate hypotheses and much less do we demonstrate that anything is correct.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ´Correct´ is an OPINION, specifically YOUR opinion! Correct means that YOU made up YOUR mind. In Science, there are no correct/incorrect, true/false, right or wrong theories. There are only rational explanations.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨What experiments could you perform to demonstrate it is correct?¨
Again, when you decide to take a beginner´s course in Science, you will discover that we don´t perform ANY experiments. You can perform many experiments and never figure out what causes the pen to fall to the floor rather than to the ceiling. Therefore, the number of experiments that you perform has no bearing on your understanding of the causes.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Look, mate, I was hoping to find out more about your ideas, but instead I'm met with hostility. I do have a good understanding of science and the scientific method, and experimentation is the core of it. If you can't demonstrate what you are saying experimentally (and that includes observations and measurements from nature), then it's not science. That is the ~only~ way you can get physical evidence to back up your ideas.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨I was hoping to find out more about your ideas, but instead I'm met with hostility¨
Before you can find out more about Science, you must learn the fundamentals of Science. If you are going to say stupid things such as ´´proving a hypothesis´or ´running an experiment´, then you clearly have no clue. You can either continue to pray at your monastery or come into the world of Science. There is no in-between.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨experimentation is the core of... science and the scientific method¨
That´s what the priest rammed up your ass, choirboy! In Science, we don´t do experiments! Got it, bean brain! So why don´t you take an intro course in Science before posting? In Science, we ONLY explain!¨Until you learn that first rule, you will not learn anything.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨observations and measurements¨
Again, what the priest whispered in your ear while he raped you is between you and him. In Science, we don´t measure anything, we don´t observe, we don´t do predictions, we don´t use Math -- indeed, observers are outlawed. In Science, we ONLY explain and we do so rationally.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨physical evidence¨
In Science, we have no use for evidence. You confuse Science with Law. Evidence means that the priest convinced YOU. Evidence means that YOU now believe the priest´s theory. Evidence already includes an OPINION. You have already accepted the explanation.
.
Conversely, Science is unopinionated. Science is OBJECTIVE.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. ¨your dismissal of mathematics is disappointing¨
In Science, we clean our asses with Math books. Math has no place in Science!
.
¨mathematical model of your theory, when combined with your measurements...
... has to end up with idiocy such as the garbage you must believe in.
bgaede 3 months ago
¨6. ¨Your model will also allows you to make predictions¨
Boy, that priest really shoved his dick up your ass, Fizz! All you´ve done so far is repeat what the Mathematical Establishment brainwashed you with all these years.
.
In Science, we don´t do predictions. That´s astrology. Two doors down the hall and to the left. Look for the Witches and Wizards Conference.
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨ If you can't make predictions¨
Again, wrong room, idiot Fizz. Go take your prophecies and palm reading somewhere else! Fucking moron! Is this what the monks asked you to read in the Bible? About prophecies and incantations? Is this what they told you that ´science´ is all about?
bgaede 3 months ago
8. ¨ integrate it into technology, or use it to your advantage¨
And finally the old technology argument. They really raped you badly in that church, Fizz. I guess that´s the nickname the priest gave you after he did you, huh?
.
Technology has NOTHING to do with Science and Science is NOT useful or supposed to be useful. In Technology, they develop gadgets by trial and error. In Science, we merely explain.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede Look, your insults aren't doing anything to convince me I'm wrong. Can you show me why I'm wrong? Yes or no? That's the point I'm trying to make. Telling someone they're an idiot doesn't prove anything. Physical evidence does. And as for your idea that science isn't for making predictions, or for developing technology, is absolute bull. Would you like me to list some technologies that wouldn't exist without scientific research?
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨How do you quantify these threads?¨
They brainwashed you so much, Fizz that you don´t even know what Qs to ask. What sense does the idiotic Q you just asked possibly make? There are two threads. That´s the entire quantity. Is that specific enough for you? My God!
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨Can you measure them?¨
.
What is it that you want to measure? What does measurement have to do with an explanation? Measurement can at best give you a description. Science is about explaining.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨Can you measure their effects in a way that makes them distinct from quantum effects?¨
In Science, we don´t measure AT ALL. In Science, we attempt to explain rationally. QM is IRRATIONAL.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
.
The Rope Hypothesis, on the other hand, enables us to explain electromagnetic, gravitational and atomic phenomena rationally. We´re done. What´s this bull about experiments and predictions and measurement and right and wrong?
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨convince me I'm wrong¨
.
Right and wrong are OPINIONS! Opinions belong exclusively in religion. In Science, we have no opinions. In Science, we explain rationally. What each juror believe after the show doesn´t concern Science. You can believe in God for all we care.
.
¨doesn't prove anything¨
In Science, we don´t prove. Proof means that YOU made up YOUR mind! Proof is an OPINION and, thus, belongs exclusively to religion.
bgaede 3 months ago
5. ¨Physical evidence does¨
Again, evidence means that YOU are convinced of a theory. To YOU it is evidence. To your pal it is just a knife.
bgaede 3 months ago
6. ¨science isn't for making predictions¨
Exactly, idiot! It is in astrology and religion where they do prophecies. What part are you having problems with? Where did you learn ´science´anyways? Hogwarts U?
.
¨developing technology¨
Science has NOTHING to do with Technology. In Technology, they develop gadgets thru trial and error. In Science, we explain phenomena. Never the twain shall meet.
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨ Would you like me to list some technologies that wouldn't exist without scientific research?¨
.
Yeah, sure. Let´s see waht you got.
Hold it! Let me get some popcorn and a beer. This has got to be amusing.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede You're the one being religious, here. The difference between you and me is that I am happy to change my mind the very moment you convince me to do so. Can you do that? Or is insults and conspiracy claims the extent of your argument? You, on the other hand, will cling to your "theory", even with the mountains of evidence against it, and the complete lack of evidence supporting it. You are no better than the religious apologists you claim to revile.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede Here, I'm going to do exactly what you are doing... I hypothesise that magnetism is caused by magnetofairies. These faeries like to push atoms of metal together, and their favourite metal is iron. Occasionally, collections of magnetofaeries will disagree with each other, and tend to fly away from each other (hence the phenomenon of magnetic repulsion) Magnetofaeries are bullies, and tend to push electrofaeries away from themselves, but they always push them away in one direction.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede What did I just do? I proposed a hypothesis that describes the phenomenon. According to you, I don't have to actually demonstrate that my magnetofaeries actually exist. I don't need to make any quantifiable measurements of their existance. All I need to do is tell you how they work. Therefore, my theory is just as valid as your own! And apparently, all I need to do to confirm it, is tell you that you're an idiot!
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨not science, it's philosophy¨
.
Science is divided into Physics and Philosophy. Physics deals with objects and causes. Philosophy deals with concepts and reasons. Math Phyz proposes CONCEPTS such as black hole, energy, 0d ´particles´, waves, and the explanations are irrational. Therefore, Math Phyz is a branch of Philosophy, specifically, a branch known as Religion.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨arguing semantics¨
Science is about explaining. In order to explain, the presenter has to get his language straight. Otherwise, what he said is bunk! Therefore, the first task of a scientist is to define the terms that make or break HIS theory. If he says that a black hole is an object and that it exists, the entire statement is poppycock until he defines what HE means by ´object´ and ´exist´.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨conclusive proof is not the goal in science¨
.
Proof in any way, shape, or form has NOTHING to do with Science, whetehr conclusive or not. Proof means that YOU bought into the theory just presented.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. ¨science is about describing phenomena¨
.
Any idiot can describe: ¨Uh, duh... the car has a dent in it, officer.¨
So, can the witness explain WHY, what caused the dent?
bgaede 3 months ago
5. Try it Fizz! WHY, what CAUSES Mercury to stay in its orbit?
I´m not asking you to describe whether the orbit is round or elliptical or to tell me how many days it takes for Merk to go around. I´m asking you to EXPLAIN WHY Merk doesn´t leave the SS. WHAT physical object holds Merk in its orbit?
bgaede 3 months ago
6. ¨Until you have measured it and demonstrated it, all you are doing is philosophising¨
.
So an idiot like you spends his day demonstrating that the stone always falls to the ground rather than to the sky. You´ve measured the acceleration and speed with absolute precision. Now, tell the crowd WHY the stone falls to the ground rather than to the sky. So far you´ve DESCRIBED. Now, please EXPLAIN the cause.
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨the scientific method... has been making advancements for the past few hundred years¨
.
Oh what advancements, Fizz. What can you explain? Gravity? Magnets? Atoms? Electricity?
Please show off all your knowledge.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. ¨I am happy to change my mind the very moment you convince me¨
.
Sorry, Fizz. You´re in the wrong forum. Here we do Science, not religion. Door-to-door Bible selling and persuading thru testimonials is what the religious folk do. Perhaps you also talk in tongues?
Here, we EXPLAIN. What YOU choose to believe after the show is your personal business and doesn´t concern Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
9. ¨your theory... mountains of evidence against it¨
In Science, we have no use for evidence because we are not in the business of persuading. You confuse Science with Law. In Science, we explain. After you leave the conference, you can choose the theory you like the best.
bgaede 3 months ago
10. ¨abrasive demeanour and your tendency to insult those who disagree with you¨
.
You´ve just described the typical mathematician, Fizz...
.
youstupidrelativist com/11Blog/1Math/M0004Horgan html
bgaede 3 months ago
11. And the mathematicians take their revenge against people who ridicule them by censoring their manuscripts...
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/10Peer html
bgaede 3 months ago
12. ¨I hypothesise that magnetism is caused by magnetofairies¨
Okay. Got it...
.
¨These faeries like to push atoms of metal together¨
I understand what you are proposing. I have a mental image of fairies using their arms to push rather than pull atoms together. I see your movie w/o any problems.
bgaede 3 months ago
13. ¨magnetofaeries will disagree with each other, and tend to fly away from each other (hence the phenomenon of magnetic repulsion¨
.
Okaaaayyy... I understand what you are saying.
bgaede 3 months ago
14. ¨Magnetofaeries are bullies, and tend to push electrofaeries away from themselves, but they always push them away in one direction¨
Why in ONE direction?
But otherwise, I understand what you are explaining. It´s coming thru loud and clear.
bgaede 3 months ago
15. ¨What did I just do? I proposed a hypothesis that describes the phenomenon¨
Not exactly! You proposed a hypothesis: the fairies. You EXPLAINED how YOU think they do their magic. The explanation is NOT a hypothesis, but a theory.
bgaede 3 months ago
16. ¨According to you, I don't have to actually demonstrate that my magnetofaeries actually exist¨
.
Correct! In Science, you don´t and you can´t demonstrate that fairies exist. They exist (or not) pursuant to the definition of ´exist´.
.
In the instant case, they exist by default for the purposes of YOUR presentation. YOU made them exist when you proposed that fairies move the metal out there around.
bgaede 3 months ago
17. YOU have presented the fairies as objects for the purposes of YOUR theory. You treated them as such. You are saying that they have shape and surface. You are saying that the surface of their hands comes up against the iron atoms, meaning that there is distance between the fairies´ bodies and the iron atoms. We understand YOUR proposal.
bgaede 3 months ago
18. "I don't need to make any quantifiable measurements of their existance¨
.
Huh? What is this idiocy? What possible measurements can you make of existence? How do you measure existence, idiot Fizz? Do you use a ruler or a lie detector?
.
In Science, we define the word ´exist´. If the term in question meets the criteria of the definition, then it exists BY DEFINITION. You have no say in the matter.
bgaede 3 months ago
19. Here, YOU argued that fairies are objects. YOU further argued that fairies have location. You met BOTH requirements of the definition. Thus, fairies exist for the purposes of YOUR presentation whether you like it or not. Your opinion is not needed. Measuremeent is not needed.
bgaede 3 months ago
20. YOU are saying that fairies exist and with these entities YOU are going to explain how magnetism works. Whether fairies exist in the real world out there only Mother Nature knows for sure. We invoke objects to explain our theories to others so that they can UNDERSTAND our theories. That´s where Science ends. Anything beyond this is religion: opinion. It is the religious idiots of Math who convert their opinions into truth, proof, evidence, and fact.
bgaede 3 months ago
21. ¨All I need to do is tell you how they work¨
.
Exactly! We care only about understanding your theory.
.
Science: rational theories
bgaede 3 months ago
22. ¨Therefore, my theory is just as valid as your own!¨
.
In Science, we take no decision regarding ´validity´. That´s what they do in Law and in Religion and in Mathematics. In Science, we merely explain objectively. What YOU choose to believe after the prez is YOUR personal religion.
bgaede 3 months ago
23. If YOU think that the fairy explanation has merits, then YOU adopt it. It has more validity for YOU and only YOU. Another person proposes another theory. He may say that God moves the charges around. Another guy might say that warped space compels the iron to fall inwards. And another, that atoms pitch negative momentum carrying stones at each other. What distinguishes Science from religion is that Science is rational. Math Phyz is not.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel html
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede I think your fundamental problem is that you don't understand that the word "science" already has a definition. What you are doing, is making up an entirely new definition and mistakenly labeling it as "science". Whatever, go ahead, but realise it is the source of our frustration with you. The fact that you were suggesting i was on the right track with my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis (And yes, it is a hypothesis) betrays the true depth of your ignorance on the subject of science.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede
You keep banging on about rationality. This is another of those terms that already has a definition, which you are completely disregarding and inventing your own. To be rational, you need to be of sound judgement, posess good logic and have a fair grasp on reality. Currently, from this generally accepted definition, you are being irrational. You are demonstrating poor judgement, in insulting everyone who disagrees with you, rather than addressing their queries.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede Your arguments so far have been illogical and inconsistent with existing knowledge. And I would rank your grasp on reality pretty low, if you are willing to grant parts of my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis. Your line, "fairies exist for the purposes of YOUR presentation whether you like it or not. Your opinion is not needed. Measuremeent is not needed." suggests to me that you don't think what is actually happening in reality holds any value at all.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede As long as you have an explination that works in your own mind, you are content. Do you realise this is exactly what religious people do? Instead of looking at the real world, they slot in whatever explination feels comfortable to them. In their case, "God does it." In your case, "Gravity is caused by ropes." In my attempted caricature, which you suggested was on ther right track, "Faeries cause magnetism."
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede Essentially, there is no difference between them in terms of explanatory power and usefulness. Don't you see that? Can't you see the irony in you calling mathematicians and real scientists "religious", when you are the only one here displaying a religious mindset?
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
1. ¨you don't understand that the word "science" already has a definition¨
Oh, and what is that definition, Fizz? I mean, if you don´t provide an alternative, I guess that we have to go with the one you object to, right?
bgaede 3 months ago
2. ¨rationality... already has a definition... sound judgement... good logic... fair grasp on reality.¨
What a pieced of shit your mother gave you for a brain, Fizz! So the Christian tells you that he meets all these criteria. So does the Muslim. So does the mathematician. What is the OBJECTIVE criterion for rationality, you stupid, deranged idiot?
bgaede 3 months ago
3. ¨accepted definition¨
By whom, you lamebrain? By the priest that raped you in the confession box?
Is that how you do ´science´ at your monastery? You vote for definitions?
bgaede 3 months ago
4. In Science, we don´t raise our hands or try to win by majority. In Science, a definition is rational if it can be used consistently. And a theory is rational if the explanation follows from the premises, the definitions are used consistently, and the objects are not reified concepts as they are in the religion of Math
bgaede 3 months ago
5. ¨insulting everyone who disagrees with you¨
It´s got nothing to do with agreement. It´s got to do with using correct English to describe an individual who defies logic. If YOU say that force is a noun for the purposes of Physics and that space is warped, there are no other terms I can invoke but idiot, stupid, moron, lamebrain, etc.
bgaede 3 months ago
6. ¨Your arguments... inconsistent with existing knowledge¨
.
Science has nothing to do with knowledge (the future, predictions). Science only deals with consummated events (the past, explanations). Again, you should take an introductory course in Science before posting. You are obviously unfamiliar with the basics if you think that Science is about knowledge.
bgaede 3 months ago
7. ¨ if you are willing to grant parts of my "magnetofaeries" hypothesis¨
In Science, we have no choice but to concede the objects that the presenter offers to explain HIS theory. There are no judges in Science. The only role of the juror is to understand the theory.
bgaede 3 months ago
8. If the presenter explains that fairies are responsible for gravity or EM phenomena, so be it. That´s HIS theory. Whether you accept HIS theory after the prez is your personal business and doesn´t concern Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
9. ¨ you don't think what is actually happening in reality holds any value at all¨
.
Quite the contrary. It is when we brush aside the irrationalities proposed by Math Phyz that we arrive at a crisp explanation for reality.
bgaede 3 months ago
10. “As long as you have an explination that works in your own mind, you are content”
.
The explanation has to be rational in order to be accepted in Science. As a minimum the presenter has to be able to make a movie of his theory. What movie can the idiots of Math make with their reified concepts: transfer energy, move ´a´ mass, carry ´a´ force, singularity swallows a photon, ´field´ accelerates the concept ´charge´. What will the idiot of Math put on the screen for each of these movies?
bgaede 3 months ago
11. “this is exactly what religious people do?¨
.
Yes. All mathematicians reify concepts and then pretend to move the concept.
You walk into the Math Monastery and every cloister is filled with energy, mass, force, field, time, charge, 0D particles, 1D strings, warped space and all the rotten garbage that idiots since Newt came up with. When will any of them do Science?
bgaede 3 months ago
12. “whatever explination feels comfortable to them¨
.
Yes. The Moron of Math has willed himself to believe in unjustified, magical phenomena such as warped space, tunneling, BH, time travel, length contraction, wormholes to parallel Us. The idiots who read the journals don´t even bat an eyelash when reading all this surrealistic stuff. They call it ´science´.
bgaede 3 months ago
13. “Faeries cause magnetism... you suggested was on ther right track"
.
No. I listened to YOUR presentation, which is more than the mathematicians do with manuscripts and presentations which debunk their religion. What I believe after YOUR prez is my personal business and doesn´t concern you or Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
14. The Rope Hypothesis enables us to rationally explain how gravity and light work. Whether you like Thread Theory is irrelevant. Your job is to ask questions if you find problems with it. So far, it looks quite good for TT because you haven´t been able to find anything irrational about it. All you did so far is make unsubstantiated statements. That´s encouraging.
bgaede 3 months ago
15. ¨there is no difference between them in terms of explanatory power¨
.
Yes. A Christian will probably invoke angels to explain why the curtain moved. An idiot of Math will say that it was warped space or perhaps tell you that the curtain was pelted by gravitons. The difference is that whereas a Christian relies on supernatural agents, an idiot of Math will invoke reified concepts.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede What you are describing to me, mate, is not science, it's philosophy. You're here, arguing semantics when it's clear I'm using terms like "correct" and "proof" to simplify matters. I ~know~ that conclusive proof is not the goal in science. But what ~you~ don't understand is that science is about describing phenomena in the universe and because of our limited human senses, mathematics is the best way we've found to do it.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede You can't say that your idea is truly representative of what is happening in nature, until you measure it! Until you have measured it and demonstrated it, all you are doing is philosophising.
Have you ever stopped to wonder why there is so much opposition to you? It's not your abrasive demeanour and your tendency to insult those who disagree with you. It's your unwillingness to follow the scientific method, which has been making advancements for the past few hundred years.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede Furthermore, your dismissal of mathematics is disappointing. A mathematical model of your theory, when combined with your measurements, allows you to show that you're on the right track. Your model will also allows you to make predictions about nature, and that is the most important part. If you can't make predictions about nature using your theory, what use is it? Without those predictions, you can't expand on it, or integrate it into technology, or use it to your advantage.
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
@bgaede I'll phrase my questions another way, then. How do you quantify these threads? Can you measure them? Can you measure their effects in a way that makes them distinct from quantum effects?
Fizzblipp 3 months ago
Why do magnets stick together ? saftey in numbers I'd say
T2000Terminator 3 months ago
If I take a photograph of waves in a pond I can see wavelength and the frequency of each wave. It is right there!
mathforphysics 3 months ago
1. "Waves can be composed of particles"
And I suppose that particles are composed of more particles or of waves, right? Vibrating 1D strings perhaps? And then the 1D string is made of 0D 'elementary' particles which in turn are made of...
.
"someone who doesn't believe in the existence of waves"
In Science, we don't believe. That's religion where they believe. And before you can say that waves exist, you must define what YOU mean by 'exist'. Otherwise, you haven't said anything.
bgaede 3 months ago
2. "A gave you the evidence"
Oh, what is the evidence, math? Please explain polarization with particles. Who was it? This idiot named Popper, one of the priests of your religion, who said that if a single phenomenon falsifies your proposal your theory is bunk. Well, explain polarization with particles or apply Popperian falsifiability! It's just that simple.
bgaede 3 months ago
3. "Not everything is in itself a physical object... Force isnt an object"
Well, I'm glad you realized that much, math. You've made progress.
Therefore, in Science, we can't put an article in front of such words as force, energy, mass, time, field or charge. They cannot be the subject of a sentence. They cannot serve as the executors of motion. We do not move concepts in Science.
bgaede 3 months ago
4. "particles... travel in wave packets"
So you confirm that there is no physical object called 'a' wave. Wave is what 'traveling particles' DO, correct?
bgaede 3 months ago
5. "I can see wavelength and the frequency of each wave"
Oh??? So you can see frequency in a single wave? (...not to mention that in a photograph there is no inkling of time!)
frequency: the number of occurrences of a repeating event per unit time (Wiki)
You should take an introductory course in Physics before posting, fin. Come back next year when you learned the basics.
bgaede 3 months ago
@bgaede
You can see the wavelength of each wave and the frequency of the waves. You know what I meant. So are you agreeing that you can see the wavelength of and frequency?
mathforphysics 3 months ago
@bgaede
A wave is a physical object composed of other physical objects.
mathforphysics 3 months ago
@bgaede
A wave is a physical object composed of other physical objects.
mathforphysics 3 months ago
Comment removed
mathforphysics 3 months ago
"Therefore, in Science, we can't put an article in front of such words as force, "
Usually "Therefore" comes at the end of an argument. I don't see any argument here. Force is measurable. Your weight rea