Bill Gaede escaped from a mental institution with an intro to physics textbook and has been wreaking minor havoc on youtube (but nowhere else significant) ever since hahahaha. His sockpuppets can't even keep up with his wiki entry lol
"has been wreaking minor havoc on youtube (but nowhere else significant"
.
Irrelevant for the purposes of Science! Science is not about convincing the world of your theory. Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. If the mathematical world has covered the bases to prevent the common folk from listening to alternatives, I can't do and don't intend to do anything about it. It's just the way things are.
@GMBCATASTROPHE I'm preface this by saying, this relates to politics, I'm laughing my ass off at how stupid PZ's fanboys are, they truly are idiots who think they are smart, They really are clueless when it comes to history and economics. They swallowed everything that was given to them hook line and sinker...
You see the stuff on my reading list includes authors like Rothbard, Hoppe, Thomas Woods. the last book I read was Allan Bloom's The Closing of The American Mind.
@justintempler Right. Good stuff. I knew that economics was all wrong, in terms of the mainstream. But the reasons for this seemed obvious enough. Simple public choice theory. What I didn't know was that the same bad craziness was going on in science. I had suspicions in certain areas. But it wasn't until 2005 that I began to get more and more suspect of mainstream physics, and the trajectory is yet to really bottom out. So you may get there. Its 2012, and you probably thought physics was safe
One notices always this with relativity goose-steppers. The theory of relativity is logically untenable, and empirically baseless. Therefore its a wrong theory. Proven wrong many many times over. Casually proven wrong all over the place. Because the goose-steppers don't want to believe this, their one tactic, is to make the claim that those people who object to the theory, don't understand the theory.
Thats not the problem. The problem is that its a wrong theory.
We have a situation where the earth is revolving, and moving around the sun, and yet the sun itself is moving around the galaxy. In the Keating time-dilation fantasy, we are supposed to suggest that one clock is still and one is moving. This would be ridiculous even if the earth was stationary and all other things were moving around it. Because velocity is relative. Nothing can be said to be at rest OR moving in a way that could justify Einsteins mystic view. They didn't allow for other factors.
@aqouby No relativity IS the failure. I didn't fail at all. Velocity is always relative. Whereas Einsteins wrong theory, is a theory of velocity-absolutism. Its illogical from the start. Relativity (ie Velocity-Absolutism) is a logical contradiction, since all velocities are relative.
@aqouby No no. Velocity is ALWAYS relative. Hence Einsteins theory of velocity-absolutism is logically contradictory, even before we recognise that it is baseless empirically.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Again, you failed to understand general relativity. Take your head out of Bill's asshole and read a book-- one not written by a mystic.
@aqouby No no. Its general relativity that has failed. After all its built up as a gargantuan fudge factor for the failure of special relativity. This is where the failure lies. Note how you switched to GENERAL relativity, when I was talking about Special relativity, which is a theory of velocity absolutism. You could not deny that special relativity was a theory of velocity absolutism, so you switched as a decoy.
@aqouby And by the way, since you are a goose-stepping idiot, I know what you would warble on about if you were motivated to go further into it. When we get this far the committed goose-stepper will start wanking on about "observers" and "frames of reference." The data for any of this thinking is entirely missing. This quite apart from the fact that we know it fails in logic.
@aqouby No no there is nothing wrong with my logic. The problem is with the logical failure of special relativity. Since velocity is a relative concept, the theory of velocity-absolutism fails.
@aqouby Lorentz transformations are just a silly game. They are just a way of smoothing over the concept of velocity-absolutism, with the reality of velocity-relativity. Lorentz transformations are simply using a bunch of mathematical tools, on a Cartesian graph, in order to make this unreality smooth.
@aqouby No no. The reality is that Lorentz transformations are a silly game, to smooth over a wrong idea, using a range of pre-existing mathematical tools.
@aqouby Yes thats right. Lorentz are a silly game. They are merely a way to smooth over a wrong hypothesis. They are not evidence for anything at all.
@GMBCATASTROPHE BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - A "silly game" that gives measurements of physical constants to up to 13 orders of magnitude of accuracy. LOL I can't figure out who is more clueless - Bill Gaede or the aptly named CATASTROPHE dude BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
@SidewaysQuark No thats just all lies. 13 orders of magnitude accuracy. Ridiculous. Auditing the logic of it, we see that its merely a mathematical smoothing operation, wherein, c is sort-of akin to "infinite velocity" and where an object would become infinitely massive if it actually got to c. All bullshit, but do go ahead with this story about someone achieving 13 orders of magnitude accuracy in service of this fantasy.
@SidewaysQuark No thats just all lies. 13 orders of magnitude accuracy. Ridiculous. Auditing the logic of it, we see that its merely a mathematical smoothing operation, wherein, c is sort-of akin to "infinite velocity" and where an object would become infinitely massive if it actually got to c. All bullshit, but do go ahead with this story about someone achieving 13 orders of magnitude accuracy in service of this fantasy.
@GMBCATASTROPHE When you make a comment like this one, it blatantly becomes clear that you don't know any of Einsteins real work beyond the phrase "e=mc^2."
You're a dunce and proud of it. How about you stop spitting on the theories that allow for your leisure and comment on big foot videos and UFO videos instead.
Really, I'm sure you take it as a compliment when I say that you sound like all of the uneducated conspiracy addicts that I come across.
@aqouby The reality is that the formula doesn't work, and is another example of the baselessness of Einstein's theory. For example, when we have nuclear power generation, no matter need be destroyed (ie, converted into energy) in the process. So its just another bit of bullshitartistry that didn't pan out.
Now if we are saying that there is much energy locked into the nucleus of a typical atom, well this is another matter. But the conversion of matter to energy doesn't pan out.
@aqouby You did know that e=,c^2 doesn't pan out didn't you? This quite apart from the reality that the units don't cancel in the formula like they usually do in physics, and that the formula is such that you get a different answer depending on which units you are using. If you don't believe me try it sometime.
@aqouby No thats wrong. The failure is all your own. The formula says that energy and matter were equivalent and could be converted one to the other. But when this turned out to be wrong, the goose-steppers couldn't admit this. The failure is all your own.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Goose-steppers? Do you live in 18th century England? Stop being a dildo and learn to comprehend the theory. You seem like you're more informed to the theory then I am, so please show me the energy to mass equation that I assume you remember by heart and define each section, please. If you know anything about this, you should know that.
@GMBCATASTROPHE My computer battery is dying and it's late and I have work to do tomorrow-- Surprise surprise! It's fucking physics! Nice way to pick 'em. You're equivalent is watching "power rangers," go bug her or him.
@aqouby You bet its a big fail. Its a fucking scandal. The formula has been shown not to work, and yet the public servants still lie about it. You couldn't get a bigger scandal.
@aqouby No no. The fact is that I'm smart and you are a goose-stepping dummy. You believe a whole range of baseless untenable pieces of crock, for no other reason that others believe these things, and have created a cult of personality around these wrong beliefs.
@GMBCATASTROPHE No, I happen to like mathematics and physics and desperately want to learn as much as I can about the Universe while I'm here to experience it. I will use my intuition and logic to cut though the bullshit, some harder than others-- yours is butter because you haven't posed an argument.
@aqouby You don't like Physics. You hate it. You hate it so much you are engaged in fantasies, and run away from real physics. The big bang is a creation myth. Its not physics. Space-time is a fantasy. Its not physics. So don't say you like physics, because you loathe physics.
@aqouby Its distinguished from fantasy and myth. It deals with real things in the universe. It works with evidence and reason. Rather than the mere concoction of fictions. So space-time is not part of physics, since it doesn't exist. The idea that space can be curved, isn't part of physics since its never happened, nor is there any evidence for it. So you don't like physics. The reality is that you are addicted to fantasy, and are an enemy of physics, also known as "natural philosophy."
@bgaede None of you have even made any points to substantiate your claims of alternative physics. Instead you twist around it like the snake you are.
:D I really have no more interest in talking to you, Bill, I'm busy with school and learning about the real world through objective means. Not pseudoscience jibberish.
@aqouby Its NOT alternativee physics. We are after REAL physics. Good physics, as distinguished from third-rate theology. Authentic physics as distinguished from fantasy. That is not alternative physics. That is just ..... Physics. Physics-at-last.
1. "A jury of bgaede YouTube subscribers/viewers would not be an impartial jury"
No one said anything about stuffing the jury with partial jurors. Nevertheless, in Science, the jury doesn't reach a verdict as in Math and in Law. In Science, a juror merely questions to understand what the prosecutor's theory is all about.
@bgaede The problem with your jury system is when prosecutor and defendant are BOTH wrong.
Anytime anyone challenges you, you ASSUME that person believes all kind of crazy things. Your thinking is so NARROW you don't even consider there may be other possible explanations.
In science you have to have the integrity to admit that you don't know the answer yet instead of having to choose a side.
1. "The problem with your jury system is when prosecutor and defendant are BOTH wrong."
.
We're talking about Science, not religion, you moron! In Science, we are never wrong. In Science, there is only rational and irrational. Right and wrong are OPINIONS and thus belong exclusively to religion.
2. "you ASSUME that person believes all kind of crazy things"
In Science, the prosecutor doesn't assume what the jurors believe. In Science, the prosecutor has to make an assumption about what underlies HIS theory!
Of course there are! Unfortunately, the mathematicians will never allow those other explanations to be heard. The peer-review system is 100% biased in favor of GR and QM. No other possibilities may be entertained.
What a stupid idiot like you never figured out, just, is that BY DEFAULT, you choose a theory whether you like it or not. There's no such thing as not liking any theory. If you don't like any theory it is only because you have one of your own.
3. Relativists propose that the Universe was CREATED in a Big Bang. This idiot Hawking explains that it all started from a CONCEPT called 'energy'. According to Hawking, God split negative energy from positive energy and created matter!
4. Nevertheless, these Relativists/Creationists should be allowed to present their version of the U. If anything, the amusing theories of Einstein's Idiots enables us to have a laugh during conference coffee breaks.
5. "Science comes from the Latin scientia the very word literally translates to knowledge"
Yes. However, 2 problems...
a. The Greek and 17th C versions of 'science' have nothing to do with Science. In Science, we EXPLAIN. Explain, we can only explain a consummated event (i.e., the past). Know, you can at best know the future. Knowledge and explanation, the twain shall never meet!
6. b. The idiots in ancient Greece and the morons who followed Newt forgot to define the word 'knowledge'. Not a single lame-brane of Math can tell you what knowledge is.
.
plato.stanford edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
newadvent org/cathen/08673a.htm
.
If you wanna 'know' what it means 'to know', you gotta read WGDE!
You don't 'know' your catechism, just! Maybe you should not play hooky from Sunday School so often. Perhaps you meant Pope Billy the First or something like that! We popes go on a first name basis only.
8. "when you turn on a light switch, the light comes on, it doesn't care whose theory makes it work"
Technology! Nothin' to do with Science! If you're going to invoke the word 'theory', you had better have more than, "Uh duh, I moved the switch upwards, boss!" Science is ALL about explaining (i.e., theorizing)! It is NOT about 'working'!
@bgaede 8. " If you're going to invoke the word 'theory',"
If you want to speak in Scientific terms yes, but then you should also stop invoking theory when you all you have is a hypothesis. None of your explanations qualify as a theory.
Of course! This is over your head, just! You can barely keep up as it is.
.
"word games"
You see? You think that this is a crossword puzzle or Scrabble or somethin'.
In Science, we must explain. In order to explain, we had better clear up the words that make or break the presenter's theory! It is bean brains like you who insist on using undefined words so that you can get away with double talk.
So you shouldn't have any problem showing us an actual photograph of one of your EM ropes. Oh that's right you can't. You just have to believe they exist in your religion.
@bgaede 2. No the "creation scientists" I'm talking about run the Discovery Institute and they even have their own peer review journals you should join forces, you'd fit right in.
Some of us don't swallow what we're told, some of us do actually have critical thinking skills. I'm not the one that proposed having people on a YouTube channel decide, you did.
I also see another one of your word games.
if someone accepts the popular view you call it BELIEF and call them RELIGIOUS
if someone accepts your alternative view you call it UNDERSTANDING and call them RATIONAL.
1. "if someone accepts your alternative view you call it UNDERSTANDING"
No, you moron! Get it right! At least take the trouble to understand the scientific position before misrepresenting it. In Science, rational and irrational are OBJECTIVE criteria!
3. "if someone accepts the popular view you call it BELIEF and call them RELIGIOUS"
Again, you really have an insurmountable mental barrier, just. You might need hammer and chisel trepanation, you know... to reduce all the swelling in that p-brane you got inside your sealed unit! Religious is he who invokes supernatural or irrational explanations. This is an objective criterion!
@aqouby Its got nothing to do with Maths. The reality that there is no such thing as space-time, or that space doesn't curve compress stretch or warp .... these are non-mathematical questions. The reality that energy production doesn't imply mass destruction isn't a mathematical question, except to the extent that no-one has found good data to suggest that the formula is correct.
@GMBCATASTROPHE You won't do it with maths because your lying to yourself and breaking that train of thought and getting your ass handed to you in math would rock your world maybe?
.... then at the very least, efforts have to be made to cancel out all other potential factors EXCEPT FOR VELOCITY. There are many things which could be throwing two clocks out of whack with eachother. So you have to find a way to factor out all of these, prior to concluding (wrongly in logic) that velocity on its own played a part. We can say without controversy, that this was not done in the Keating experiment, and that no evidence for time dilation due to velocity exists anywhere.
In the case of the Keating experiment, they propose that they have evidence for the untenable idea of time dilation, and idea that is a logical contradiction. Logically, since velocity is a relative concept, and all velocities are relative, then no clock can be said to be the clock at rest, and no clock can be said to be the one moving. So the hypothesis is ruled out in the first place. But if one must waste money on an experiment we know to be wrong from the start, then at the very least.....
That phrase says it all. You already made up your mind. You know it can't happen, so therefore it did not happen. You aren't practicing science, you're practicing religion.
@justintempler No you idiot. Its untenable, because its a logical contradiction. You cannot say which object is at rest, since all velocities are relative. No-one has ever come up with anything that could possibly over-ride that very clear logic, and on top of that, no evidence exists anywhere for time dilation. Least of all in that extraordinarily unscientific Keating farce.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Because of your magnificent personality and attitude. I decided to see other fine examples of your magnificent intellect and low and behold I found:
The Gareme Bird Memorial Thread on Pharangula
Now I understand what you consider "very clear logic" and will judge your comments accordingly. :p
@justintempler Yeah that was excellent. But you cannot appreciate it without going to the prior thread. As every day passes, it becomes more and more clear that I bitch-slapped these morons (most all of them public servants) on all counts. Physics, economics, and sundry insults. This was one of my best performances. That fellow Myers is barely fit to teach high-school biology. And there he is pretending to be some sort of mega-reasoned spokesperson for atheists. A real thicko is Myers.
@GMBCATASTROPHE I guess you didn't get my hint of sarcasm in my last post. You really aren't that dense are you? Maybe you've been drinking too much ionized water? Better slow down.
@justintempler Who the fuck do you think you are you mental midgit? Of course I picked up the sarcasm. But it doesn't mean anything. It has no valence in reason. I'm smart. You are a moron. I think critically, you goose-step along to official doctrine. I was right on all counts on those two threads. My opponents were consistently wrong. You are a spineless insect. How can the sarcasm of a spineless insect affect the reality outside of its tiny brain? It cannot.
@justintempler Because I was right in every argument on those two threads and the Myers goose-steppers were wrong on all counts. They even went so far as to defend Obama's medical scheme. An outrageous power play of a scheme, designed to make everyone beholden for their very lives to Washington. No matter what argument came up these blockheads consistently had the wrong end of the stick.
Justintempler has brought up a serious topic. Idiotic taxeaters, making claims as to the implications of poorly done experiments, isn't necessarily evidence for what they themselves are trying to prove. You need to take the raw data of the experiment, and relate it through a process of reason to see whether the hypothesis that the taxeater is trying to prove is successfully being shown to be plausible by the results of the experiment.
If anyone wants to learn real science and physics then please message me. Any followers of Bgag are not welcome. . . Ignorance runs too deep in your little minds.
You sound like a child, one that had been dropped a few too many times. If you can't do the research and math yourself then fuck the fuck off, you fuck.
@justintempler There was no evidence for time dilation in the experiment. Thats a fact. Not only did they not allow for the effect of gravity, the effect of acceleration, possible effects of travelling through earths magnetic and gravitational field ..... They allowed for none of these. But it was worse than that. They covered up the data. So people had to go through freedom of information legislation to get at this crock. There has never been any evidence for time dilation. This is a fact.
@aqouby Lets have your evidence for time dilation idiot. And now that I've checked my emails, lets have your evidence for gravity travelling at the speed of light, rather than being effectively instantaneous. You have nothing. You are not smart. You are a fool. You are low wattage and you don't have a scintilla of evidence.
@bgaede That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard all year. You don't research in science? How can you explain a complex phenomenon without math? Just observation? Then in that case all magic tricks are real.
How exactly do you explain something without research and math, little man?
Bill Gaede is a joke. I can't believe he ever got a job somewhere. Hey Bill, how does it feel to be discredited by high-school students, let alone real scientists? Do you like looking like an ass in every aspect possible, or are you doing this by accident?
That's the problem you don't have a theory to stand on. All you have are some half baked hypotheses that pander to anything that is counter-intuitive in science.
100 years ago I'm sure there where lots of people that laughed at the idea that planes could fly in the air. They are too heavy, they would fall...
You pander to people's bias against anything that is counter-intuitive. You do it with science, you do it with your 911 channel, you did it at AMD
@bgaede Christ man, you type messages like a fucking douche-bag. Always quoting a few words then expanding on it in a nonsensical manner. Every aspect of you makes me sick. I can smell your wretchedness from here, it makes me gag, bgag.
@aqouby No mate. You are a joke. You are an embarrassment. Just another big-bang-believer who will go along with anything the taxeaters tell you no matter how baseless and irrational.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Are you serious? You're really pulling out all the stops to make yourself look like a paranoid stooge. What is irrational about science? What rational means to you look to for your interpretation of reality? I'm certain that you can't come up with a coherent explanation because you don't seem to know how to sort things of fact from whatever the fuck you think, which is complete nonsense.
But I won't run my mouth. Please, what do you define as evidence?
@aqouby Oh you fuckwit. Fuck you are a moron. There is irrational about science you idiot. For fucksakes. The point is that the big bang, and other irrational ideas are NOT SCIENCE. The big bang for example, is a creation myth. Creation myths have nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the big bang. Rather the public servants have contrived an anti-syllogism that goes like this:
If Doppler causes red shift then ONLY Doppler causes red shift.
200 years ago Gaede would have been making fun of people that believed in germ theory. They couldn't see germs, they didn't know what their shape was or what color they were, therefore they can't exist according to Bill. Bill would have fit right in 200 years ago.
@justintempler Well I'm not sure about that. Bill has written a fantastic book. I would say its the most important book of the new millennium. No shit.
Hey Bill, do you feel you would be pooh-poohing germ theory? Templer they had the microscope there didn't they? Bills methodology is such that if he heard the theory and saw the physical objects under the microscope, then surely he would give them a hearing. So post-microscope at least, I don't see how you have a case.
"They couldn't see germs, they didn't know what their shape was"
.
Erm... idiot just? The Q is NOT "What is the shape of...?" The Q is "DOES a germ have shape?" The latter Q is a yes or no type of Q. You don´t need eyesight or microscopes to resolve this one. No observers allowed! It is strictly a CONCEPTUAL issue! We don´t need to SEE an ideal cube to realize that the word alludes to an object. A cube has shape whether you like it or not!
That wasn't the question. Hindsight is 20/20 It's obvious what they are once you know what you are looking at or looking for. The point is 200 years ago they didn't know what a germ was, they were blind to it even though they were looking straight at it in their microscopes.
That's why it took until the 1850s for germ theory started being developed and the first experiments to confirm it didn't happen till the 1860s
Bill Gaede is the king of censorship... every time he is proven wrong, he misquotes the person in question and tries to weasel his way out of the situation... he's a hypocrite and an idiot... FACT
Bill that bubble trail is one of the things I was really skeptical about prior to your excellent assistance. I have to confess to thinking it might be just me, and I lacked confidence to shout to loud about that one. But its so ridiculous. If its just one electron, surely the maximum bubble would have to be a single bubble, and not a trail of them. But even a single bubble is way excessive for a single electron. Its just hard to believe how dysfunctional and useless these public servants are.
@bgaede Has any part of your thread hypotheses been tested? If not, then it's just conjecture and your OPINION... which in the grand scheme of things isn't really worth much. If however, you were really onto something, then it would be worth further study. But since you've conveniently re-defined science into something unrecognizable to all scientists, it's pretty much worthless.
@finlarg Right. But its a very good theory. One would have to suggest that the orthogonal threads will be at least part of the winning theory, if we ever get a serious society, with a serious scientific culture together again. Because no other theory explains both light and gravity simultaneously. The closest I could find prior to Bill's theory was "push-gravity" but in the end that stood as just implausible. In a sense Bill lacks competition.
@GMBCATASTROPHE Your physics reply didn't entail any features of what your "REAL" physics is! What is it? What the hell are you talking abut? How do you go about explaining the world around you?
Bill Gaede escaped from a mental institution with an intro to physics textbook and has been wreaking minor havoc on youtube (but nowhere else significant) ever since hahahaha. His sockpuppets can't even keep up with his wiki entry lol
SidewaysQuark 1 week ago
"has been wreaking minor havoc on youtube (but nowhere else significant"
.
Irrelevant for the purposes of Science! Science is not about convincing the world of your theory. Science is about explaining a phenomenon of nature. If the mathematical world has covered the bases to prevent the common folk from listening to alternatives, I can't do and don't intend to do anything about it. It's just the way things are.
bgaede 1 week ago
There's an edited version here as well:
.
Part 1: blip (dot) tv (slash) philosophy (slash) bill-gaede-in-austria-cern-and-the-lhc-part-1-5438667
.
Part 2: ... bill-gaede-in-austria-cern-and-the-lhc-part-2-5152635
L1ber8ted 3 weeks ago in playlist Bill Gaede and his ropes
I like how Bill Gaede thinks he's "in science" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Real science is too hard for Billy Gaede so he makes stupid shit up and puts it on youtube instead LOLOLOL
SidewaysQuark 4 weeks ago
@SidewaysQuark Science? He sounds more like a writer for The Onion News Network.
psychobackpacker 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
SidewaysQuark 1 month ago
Note that once dummies one and only tactic was laid bare he quickly had to do a runner.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
justintempler 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE I'm preface this by saying, this relates to politics, I'm laughing my ass off at how stupid PZ's fanboys are, they truly are idiots who think they are smart, They really are clueless when it comes to history and economics. They swallowed everything that was given to them hook line and sinker...
You see the stuff on my reading list includes authors like Rothbard, Hoppe, Thomas Woods. the last book I read was Allan Bloom's The Closing of The American Mind.
goose stepper eh?
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Right. Good stuff. I knew that economics was all wrong, in terms of the mainstream. But the reasons for this seemed obvious enough. Simple public choice theory. What I didn't know was that the same bad craziness was going on in science. I had suspicions in certain areas. But it wasn't until 2005 that I began to get more and more suspect of mainstream physics, and the trajectory is yet to really bottom out. So you may get there. Its 2012, and you probably thought physics was safe
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
One notices always this with relativity goose-steppers. The theory of relativity is logically untenable, and empirically baseless. Therefore its a wrong theory. Proven wrong many many times over. Casually proven wrong all over the place. Because the goose-steppers don't want to believe this, their one tactic, is to make the claim that those people who object to the theory, don't understand the theory.
Thats not the problem. The problem is that its a wrong theory.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
We have a situation where the earth is revolving, and moving around the sun, and yet the sun itself is moving around the galaxy. In the Keating time-dilation fantasy, we are supposed to suggest that one clock is still and one is moving. This would be ridiculous even if the earth was stationary and all other things were moving around it. Because velocity is relative. Nothing can be said to be at rest OR moving in a way that could justify Einsteins mystic view. They didn't allow for other factors.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE LOL Relativity fail!
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No relativity IS the failure. I didn't fail at all. Velocity is always relative. Whereas Einsteins wrong theory, is a theory of velocity-absolutism. Its illogical from the start. Relativity (ie Velocity-Absolutism) is a logical contradiction, since all velocities are relative.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Nonsense
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. Velocity is ALWAYS relative. Hence Einsteins theory of velocity-absolutism is logically contradictory, even before we recognise that it is baseless empirically.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Again, you failed to understand general relativity. Take your head out of Bill's asshole and read a book-- one not written by a mystic.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. Its general relativity that has failed. After all its built up as a gargantuan fudge factor for the failure of special relativity. This is where the failure lies. Note how you switched to GENERAL relativity, when I was talking about Special relativity, which is a theory of velocity absolutism. You could not deny that special relativity was a theory of velocity absolutism, so you switched as a decoy.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@aqouby And by the way, since you are a goose-stepping idiot, I know what you would warble on about if you were motivated to go further into it. When we get this far the committed goose-stepper will start wanking on about "observers" and "frames of reference." The data for any of this thinking is entirely missing. This quite apart from the fact that we know it fails in logic.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE You know it fails in logic because you haven't experienced conception of logic yet.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no there is nothing wrong with my logic. The problem is with the logical failure of special relativity. Since velocity is a relative concept, the theory of velocity-absolutism fails.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Over and over again with you. Like a ferris wheel of stupid.
Look, have you done the transformations? Do you know the differentials? Do you know how to construct a logical argument???
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Lorentz transformations are just a silly game. They are just a way of smoothing over the concept of velocity-absolutism, with the reality of velocity-relativity. Lorentz transformations are simply using a bunch of mathematical tools, on a Cartesian graph, in order to make this unreality smooth.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE . . . I expected you to say stupid things, but you really could have tried better. I mean, christ, people could be watching.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. The reality is that Lorentz transformations are a silly game, to smooth over a wrong idea, using a range of pre-existing mathematical tools.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE You already said that
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Yes thats right. Lorentz are a silly game. They are merely a way to smooth over a wrong hypothesis. They are not evidence for anything at all.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Prove it
aqouby 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - A "silly game" that gives measurements of physical constants to up to 13 orders of magnitude of accuracy. LOL I can't figure out who is more clueless - Bill Gaede or the aptly named CATASTROPHE dude BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
SidewaysQuark 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SidewaysQuark No thats just all lies. 13 orders of magnitude accuracy. Ridiculous. Auditing the logic of it, we see that its merely a mathematical smoothing operation, wherein, c is sort-of akin to "infinite velocity" and where an object would become infinitely massive if it actually got to c. All bullshit, but do go ahead with this story about someone achieving 13 orders of magnitude accuracy in service of this fantasy.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@SidewaysQuark No thats just all lies. 13 orders of magnitude accuracy. Ridiculous. Auditing the logic of it, we see that its merely a mathematical smoothing operation, wherein, c is sort-of akin to "infinite velocity" and where an object would become infinitely massive if it actually got to c. All bullshit, but do go ahead with this story about someone achieving 13 orders of magnitude accuracy in service of this fantasy.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE When you make a comment like this one, it blatantly becomes clear that you don't know any of Einsteins real work beyond the phrase "e=mc^2."
You're a dunce and proud of it. How about you stop spitting on the theories that allow for your leisure and comment on big foot videos and UFO videos instead.
Really, I'm sure you take it as a compliment when I say that you sound like all of the uneducated conspiracy addicts that I come across.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby The reality is that the formula doesn't work, and is another example of the baselessness of Einstein's theory. For example, when we have nuclear power generation, no matter need be destroyed (ie, converted into energy) in the process. So its just another bit of bullshitartistry that didn't pan out.
Now if we are saying that there is much energy locked into the nucleus of a typical atom, well this is another matter. But the conversion of matter to energy doesn't pan out.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Blah blah blah blah, you sound like someone who really didn't listen to-- Did you learn about Einstein from your meth dealer??
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. The problem was with Einsteins logic, and his approach to science. Which was a mystical approach.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE "The genius was the dumb one! I'm the smart one! Blah Blah blahhhhhh"
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby You did know that e=,c^2 doesn't pan out didn't you? This quite apart from the reality that the units don't cancel in the formula like they usually do in physics, and that the formula is such that you get a different answer depending on which units you are using. If you don't believe me try it sometime.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE . . . You do know that e=mc^2 isn't the equation, right?
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Yes of course you idiot. But the reality is that it doesn't pan out empirically.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Prove it
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Prove it? Energy generation doesn't require matter destruction. QED.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Under the plank scale you fucking dope
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. The reality is that energy production doesn't imply destruction of mass so the formula is wrong.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE It doesn't make that as a statement. It's stating the relationship. Again, failure to understand.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No thats wrong. The failure is all your own. The formula says that energy and matter were equivalent and could be converted one to the other. But when this turned out to be wrong, the goose-steppers couldn't admit this. The failure is all your own.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Goose-steppers? Do you live in 18th century England? Stop being a dildo and learn to comprehend the theory. You seem like you're more informed to the theory then I am, so please show me the energy to mass equation that I assume you remember by heart and define each section, please. If you know anything about this, you should know that.
aqouby 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE My computer battery is dying and it's late and I have work to do tomorrow-- Surprise surprise! It's fucking physics! Nice way to pick 'em. You're equivalent is watching "power rangers," go bug her or him.
aqouby 1 month ago
"My computer battery is dying... It's fucking physics!"
.
No, idiot uby! Physics is explaining WHY it is dying!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Mixing sentences is a good way to look like an idiot.
aqouby 1 month ago
"you'd know what it's like to confront a jury"
But you obviously don't! You'd rather run with your tail between your legs instead of submitting your theories to scrutiny.
.
"Mixing sentences is a good way to look like an idiot"
You don't even have to do that, ub. You're doing just fine even w/o that!
.
"I'm busy with school and learning"
Whatcha learnin', ub? Sewin' and knittin'? Don't forget the threads...
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Go on then. Explain it. Cogently.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE big fail
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby You bet its a big fail. Its a fucking scandal. The formula has been shown not to work, and yet the public servants still lie about it. You couldn't get a bigger scandal.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE And you're so in-tuned to this world of secrets and cover-ups? OooooOOoooo
aqouby 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Either your math is flawed or Einstein's and the hundreds of hundreds of others after him.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby I'm guessing, like I did in the beginning, that you're fuckin' retarded.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No no. The fact is that I'm smart and you are a goose-stepping dummy. You believe a whole range of baseless untenable pieces of crock, for no other reason that others believe these things, and have created a cult of personality around these wrong beliefs.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE No, I happen to like mathematics and physics and desperately want to learn as much as I can about the Universe while I'm here to experience it. I will use my intuition and logic to cut though the bullshit, some harder than others-- yours is butter because you haven't posed an argument.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby You don't like Physics. You hate it. You hate it so much you are engaged in fantasies, and run away from real physics. The big bang is a creation myth. Its not physics. Space-time is a fantasy. Its not physics. So don't say you like physics, because you loathe physics.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE I'm just going to take this as a compliment. Physics to you is... Again, you haven't told me.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Its distinguished from fantasy and myth. It deals with real things in the universe. It works with evidence and reason. Rather than the mere concoction of fictions. So space-time is not part of physics, since it doesn't exist. The idea that space can be curved, isn't part of physics since its never happened, nor is there any evidence for it. So you don't like physics. The reality is that you are addicted to fantasy, and are an enemy of physics, also known as "natural philosophy."
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE ;D Thanks for the conversation, dumb dumb
aqouby 1 month ago
"Any followers of Bgag are not welcome"
.
What a pussy! On top of the fact that you are an ignorant fool, you have no balls to confront the jury!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Lol, you'd know what it's like to confront a jury, Bill ;)
aqouby 1 month ago
@bgaede None of you have even made any points to substantiate your claims of alternative physics. Instead you twist around it like the snake you are.
:D I really have no more interest in talking to you, Bill, I'm busy with school and learning about the real world through objective means. Not pseudoscience jibberish.
aqouby 1 month ago
Comment removed
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@aqouby Its NOT alternativee physics. We are after REAL physics. Good physics, as distinguished from third-rate theology. Authentic physics as distinguished from fantasy. That is not alternative physics. That is just ..... Physics. Physics-at-last.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@bgaede I object! A jury of bgaede YouTube subscribers/viewers would not be an impartial jury.
and the thought of using a jury of YouTube users to decide what is true and not true in science is a very scary thought.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "A jury of bgaede YouTube subscribers/viewers would not be an impartial jury"
No one said anything about stuffing the jury with partial jurors. Nevertheless, in Science, the jury doesn't reach a verdict as in Math and in Law. In Science, a juror merely questions to understand what the prosecutor's theory is all about.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "decide what is true and not true in science is a very scary thought"
It didn't seem to scare you until now. The jurors have been deciding what YOU should believe for the last 400 years! Where have you been?
.
Again, in Science, the purpose of the juror is to ask Qs and to understand, not to arrive at the truth!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede The problem with your jury system is when prosecutor and defendant are BOTH wrong.
Anytime anyone challenges you, you ASSUME that person believes all kind of crazy things. Your thinking is so NARROW you don't even consider there may be other possible explanations.
In science you have to have the integrity to admit that you don't know the answer yet instead of having to choose a side.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "The problem with your jury system is when prosecutor and defendant are BOTH wrong."
.
We're talking about Science, not religion, you moron! In Science, we are never wrong. In Science, there is only rational and irrational. Right and wrong are OPINIONS and thus belong exclusively to religion.
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "you ASSUME that person believes all kind of crazy things"
In Science, the prosecutor doesn't assume what the jurors believe. In Science, the prosecutor has to make an assumption about what underlies HIS theory!
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "there may be other possible explanations"
Of course there are! Unfortunately, the mathematicians will never allow those other explanations to be heard. The peer-review system is 100% biased in favor of GR and QM. No other possibilities may be entertained.
bgaede 1 month ago
4. "In science you have to have the integrity to admit that you don't know the answer"
a. In Science, we don't deal with knowledge at all. We only explain.
b. If you don't have an explanation, you are NOT a scientist. You are a religious idiot: a mathematician.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "instead of having to choose a side"
What a stupid idiot like you never figured out, just, is that BY DEFAULT, you choose a theory whether you like it or not. There's no such thing as not liking any theory. If you don't like any theory it is only because you have one of your own.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede 5."you choose a theory"
Hey Billy when you turn on a light switch, the light comes on, it doesn't care whose theory makes it work.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "Juries are wrong all the time"
Perhaps in Law. Not in Science! In Science, the jury is there merely to understand, not to issue verdicts!
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "creation scientists"... want to promote their "intelligent design" hypotheses"
Yes. They're known as Relativists. They are the disciples of an idiot known as Einstein (...although Pastor Al himself did not believe in Creation.)
bgaede 1 month ago
3. Relativists propose that the Universe was CREATED in a Big Bang. This idiot Hawking explains that it all started from a CONCEPT called 'energy'. According to Hawking, God split negative energy from positive energy and created matter!
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/07Z3Nothing.html (Sec. d)
bgaede 1 month ago
4. Nevertheless, these Relativists/Creationists should be allowed to present their version of the U. If anything, the amusing theories of Einstein's Idiots enables us to have a laugh during conference coffee breaks.
bgaede 1 month ago
5. "Science comes from the Latin scientia the very word literally translates to knowledge"
Yes. However, 2 problems...
a. The Greek and 17th C versions of 'science' have nothing to do with Science. In Science, we EXPLAIN. Explain, we can only explain a consummated event (i.e., the past). Know, you can at best know the future. Knowledge and explanation, the twain shall never meet!
bgaede 1 month ago
6. b. The idiots in ancient Greece and the morons who followed Newt forgot to define the word 'knowledge'. Not a single lame-brane of Math can tell you what knowledge is.
.
plato.stanford edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
newadvent org/cathen/08673a.htm
.
If you wanna 'know' what it means 'to know', you gotta read WGDE!
bgaede 1 month ago
7. "Pope Gaede"
You don't 'know' your catechism, just! Maybe you should not play hooky from Sunday School so often. Perhaps you meant Pope Billy the First or something like that! We popes go on a first name basis only.
bgaede 1 month ago
8. "when you turn on a light switch, the light comes on, it doesn't care whose theory makes it work"
Technology! Nothin' to do with Science! If you're going to invoke the word 'theory', you had better have more than, "Uh duh, I moved the switch upwards, boss!" Science is ALL about explaining (i.e., theorizing)! It is NOT about 'working'!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede 8. " If you're going to invoke the word 'theory',"
If you want to speak in Scientific terms yes, but then you should also stop invoking theory when you all you have is a hypothesis. None of your explanations qualify as a theory.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "the "creation scientists" I'm talking about... have their own peer review journals"
.
Yes, I know: Nature. 'Science'. 'Scientific' American. 'Physics' Review...
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "all you have is a hypothesis"
What is a hypothesis, you stupid piece of shit? Do you just throw words around to sound important?
.
hypothesis: ___
.
Fill in the blanks, bean brain! Try also...
.
theory: ___
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede I'm not going to play along in your word games with you.
If you want to criticize other people for using words incorrectly,
We get to criticize YOU when you use words incorrectly.
Words that children learn in grade school make people sound important?
No Bill that just means they went to school.
justintempler 1 month ago
"I'm not going to play along"
Of course! This is over your head, just! You can barely keep up as it is.
.
"word games"
You see? You think that this is a crossword puzzle or Scrabble or somethin'.
In Science, we must explain. In order to explain, we had better clear up the words that make or break the presenter's theory! It is bean brains like you who insist on using undefined words so that you can get away with double talk.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "...The rope hypothesis justifies and simulates basic features and behaviors..."
That's a direct quote from YOUR International Journal of Applied Physics and Mathematics paper.
YOUR SCIENTIFIC paper says rope HYPOTHESIS , it does not say rope THEORY.
Apparently you couldn't properly DEFINE the word theory when trying to get your own paper published.
justintempler 1 month ago
"YOUR SCIENTIFIC paper says rope HYPOTHESIS , it does not say rope THEORY"
.
Hopefully! A rope can never be a theory, you idiot! A rope is a physical object, not an explanation!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "A rope is a physical object"
So you shouldn't have any problem showing us an actual photograph of one of your EM ropes. Oh that's right you can't. You just have to believe they exist in your religion.
Is idiot your favorite word?
justintempler 1 month ago
"So you shouldn't have any problem showing us an actual photograph of one of your EM ropes"
In Science, any illustration of the object in Q will do. Here's the illustration, bean-brane...
.
billgaede.hubpages com/hub/Einsteins-Idiots-7
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "Here's the illustration, "
Illustration and explanation of an imaginary rope, has the same credibility as the illustration and story of Noah's ark.
justintempler 1 month ago
"Illustration and explanation of an imaginary rope"
What's this 'imaginary' BS? We're talking about a rope that interconnects any two atoms. What's imaginary about that?
.
"has the same credibility as"
In Science, we clean our asses with 'credibility'. In Science, we only hope to explain and understand a theory. No 'credibility' involved!
bgaede 1 month ago 2
@bgaede " Nature. 'Science'. 'Scientific' American..."
We call those magazines. No wonder you have problems getting your papers published.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede 2. No the "creation scientists" I'm talking about run the Discovery Institute and they even have their own peer review journals you should join forces, you'd fit right in.
justintempler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede 1. "the jury is there merely to understand, not to issue verdicts!"
So when you use the word jury it's not a jury as commonly understood
Which totally destroys the use of the word jury in your analogy.
So now you've broken your analogy and descended into gibberish
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede 4. "a. In Science, we don't deal with knowledge at all."
No Bill that is religion, religion deals with explanations.
Science - the very word Science comes from the Latin scientia the very word literally translates to knowledge.
I'm going to have start calling you Pope Gaede.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede 3. "The peer-review system is 100% biased"
I hear the same claim from the "creation scientists" who want to promote their "intelligent design" hypotheses.
justintempler 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@bgaede 2. "In Science, the prosecutor..what underlies HIS theory!"
You're what is your prosecutor, prosecuting?
If we're talking about "his theory" that would make him the defendant, not the prosecutor. You don't even understand your own analogies.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede " In Science, we are never wrong."
Juries are wrong all the time. Which is why your jury analogy is broken.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede "deciding what YOU should believe"
Some of us don't swallow what we're told, some of us do actually have critical thinking skills. I'm not the one that proposed having people on a YouTube channel decide, you did.
I also see another one of your word games.
if someone accepts the popular view you call it BELIEF and call them RELIGIOUS
if someone accepts your alternative view you call it UNDERSTANDING and call them RATIONAL.
Nice MANIPULATION tactic there Bill.
justintempler 1 month ago
1. "if someone accepts your alternative view you call it UNDERSTANDING"
No, you moron! Get it right! At least take the trouble to understand the scientific position before misrepresenting it. In Science, rational and irrational are OBJECTIVE criteria!
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel.html
bgaede 1 month ago
2. "some of us do actually have critical thinking skills"
.
Is that what the shrink told you at the asylum?
bgaede 1 month ago
3. "if someone accepts the popular view you call it BELIEF and call them RELIGIOUS"
Again, you really have an insurmountable mental barrier, just. You might need hammer and chisel trepanation, you know... to reduce all the swelling in that p-brane you got inside your sealed unit! Religious is he who invokes supernatural or irrational explanations. This is an objective criterion!
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Sci/03SciRel.html
bgaede 1 month ago
@aqouby Its got nothing to do with Maths. The reality that there is no such thing as space-time, or that space doesn't curve compress stretch or warp .... these are non-mathematical questions. The reality that energy production doesn't imply mass destruction isn't a mathematical question, except to the extent that no-one has found good data to suggest that the formula is correct.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE You won't do it with maths because your lying to yourself and breaking that train of thought and getting your ass handed to you in math would rock your world maybe?
aqouby 1 month ago
.... then at the very least, efforts have to be made to cancel out all other potential factors EXCEPT FOR VELOCITY. There are many things which could be throwing two clocks out of whack with eachother. So you have to find a way to factor out all of these, prior to concluding (wrongly in logic) that velocity on its own played a part. We can say without controversy, that this was not done in the Keating experiment, and that no evidence for time dilation due to velocity exists anywhere.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE You're full of shit, buddy. I suggest you stop learning anything and to go into a cave or preferably a sewer and stay there. Thanks.
If you'd like a physics lesson then please ask away, but I'm not going to indulge in this web page's fans.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No pal. You are full of shit. You cannot justify any of this public servant generated voodoo.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
In the case of the Keating experiment, they propose that they have evidence for the untenable idea of time dilation, and idea that is a logical contradiction. Logically, since velocity is a relative concept, and all velocities are relative, then no clock can be said to be the clock at rest, and no clock can be said to be the one moving. So the hypothesis is ruled out in the first place. But if one must waste money on an experiment we know to be wrong from the start, then at the very least.....
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE " the untenable idea of time dilation"
That phrase says it all. You already made up your mind. You know it can't happen, so therefore it did not happen. You aren't practicing science, you're practicing religion.
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler No you idiot. Its untenable, because its a logical contradiction. You cannot say which object is at rest, since all velocities are relative. No-one has ever come up with anything that could possibly over-ride that very clear logic, and on top of that, no evidence exists anywhere for time dilation. Least of all in that extraordinarily unscientific Keating farce.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Because of your magnificent personality and attitude. I decided to see other fine examples of your magnificent intellect and low and behold I found:
The Gareme Bird Memorial Thread on Pharangula
Now I understand what you consider "very clear logic" and will judge your comments accordingly. :p
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler ^Pharangula^= ^Pharyngula^
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Yeah that was excellent. But you cannot appreciate it without going to the prior thread. As every day passes, it becomes more and more clear that I bitch-slapped these morons (most all of them public servants) on all counts. Physics, economics, and sundry insults. This was one of my best performances. That fellow Myers is barely fit to teach high-school biology. And there he is pretending to be some sort of mega-reasoned spokesperson for atheists. A real thicko is Myers.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE I guess you didn't get my hint of sarcasm in my last post. You really aren't that dense are you? Maybe you've been drinking too much ionized water? Better slow down.
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Who the fuck do you think you are you mental midgit? Of course I picked up the sarcasm. But it doesn't mean anything. It has no valence in reason. I'm smart. You are a moron. I think critically, you goose-step along to official doctrine. I was right on all counts on those two threads. My opponents were consistently wrong. You are a spineless insect. How can the sarcasm of a spineless insect affect the reality outside of its tiny brain? It cannot.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Thinking critically? Smart? Right on all counts?
Why are you defending yourself on those two threads and assuming that I'm a goosestepper? Do you have psychic abilities?
But go ahead and carry on with the insults, make an ass out of yourself. Your mouth moves faster than your brain.
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Actually they move at about the same pace you piss drinking ass spelunker.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby :D
aqouby 1 month ago
@justintempler Because I was right in every argument on those two threads and the Myers goose-steppers were wrong on all counts. They even went so far as to defend Obama's medical scheme. An outrageous power play of a scheme, designed to make everyone beholden for their very lives to Washington. No matter what argument came up these blockheads consistently had the wrong end of the stick.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Comment removed
aqouby 1 month ago
Justintempler has brought up a serious topic. Idiotic taxeaters, making claims as to the implications of poorly done experiments, isn't necessarily evidence for what they themselves are trying to prove. You need to take the raw data of the experiment, and relate it through a process of reason to see whether the hypothesis that the taxeater is trying to prove is successfully being shown to be plausible by the results of the experiment.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
If anyone wants to learn real science and physics then please message me. Any followers of Bgag are not welcome. . . Ignorance runs too deep in your little minds.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby They are not getting real physics from you. They are getting baseless modern voodoo.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
You sound like a child, one that had been dropped a few too many times. If you can't do the research and math yourself then fuck the fuck off, you fuck.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby You are an idiot mate. Now lets have that evidence for Time Dilation!!!
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Does calling people idiots make you feel smart?
We have this thing called a search box on YouTube. Lookie what I found.
The 1971 Hafele and Keating Time Dilation Experiment, They have links to the data and everything. :p
watch?v=gdRmCqylsME
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler There was no evidence for time dilation in the experiment. Thats a fact. Not only did they not allow for the effect of gravity, the effect of acceleration, possible effects of travelling through earths magnetic and gravitational field ..... They allowed for none of these. But it was worse than that. They covered up the data. So people had to go through freedom of information legislation to get at this crock. There has never been any evidence for time dilation. This is a fact.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@aqouby Lets have your evidence for time dilation idiot. And now that I've checked my emails, lets have your evidence for gravity travelling at the speed of light, rather than being effectively instantaneous. You have nothing. You are not smart. You are a fool. You are low wattage and you don't have a scintilla of evidence.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
"you can't do the research and math"
.
Umh... idiot uby? In Science, we do neither research nor Math. In Science, we merely explain a phenomenon.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "we do neither research nor Math....we merely explain a phenomenon."
Sounds like you've confused your science books with the Bible.
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede That has to be the most stupid thing I've heard all year. You don't research in science? How can you explain a complex phenomenon without math? Just observation? Then in that case all magic tricks are real.
How exactly do you explain something without research and math, little man?
aqouby 1 month ago
Bill Gaede is a joke. I can't believe he ever got a job somewhere. Hey Bill, how does it feel to be discredited by high-school students, let alone real scientists? Do you like looking like an ass in every aspect possible, or are you doing this by accident?
aqouby 1 month ago
"how does it feel to be discredited"
In Science, we don´t. The theory stands on its own. Either it is rational or irrational. No more needs to be said.
.
"Do you like looking like an ass in every aspect possible"
Yes. And I try my damnednest to fit the part!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede "The theory stands on its own. "
That's the problem you don't have a theory to stand on. All you have are some half baked hypotheses that pander to anything that is counter-intuitive in science.
100 years ago I'm sure there where lots of people that laughed at the idea that planes could fly in the air. They are too heavy, they would fall...
You pander to people's bias against anything that is counter-intuitive. You do it with science, you do it with your 911 channel, you did it at AMD
justintempler 1 month ago
@bgaede Christ man, you type messages like a fucking douche-bag. Always quoting a few words then expanding on it in a nonsensical manner. Every aspect of you makes me sick. I can smell your wretchedness from here, it makes me gag, bgag.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby No mate. You are a joke. You are an embarrassment. Just another big-bang-believer who will go along with anything the taxeaters tell you no matter how baseless and irrational.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Are you serious? You're really pulling out all the stops to make yourself look like a paranoid stooge. What is irrational about science? What rational means to you look to for your interpretation of reality? I'm certain that you can't come up with a coherent explanation because you don't seem to know how to sort things of fact from whatever the fuck you think, which is complete nonsense.
But I won't run my mouth. Please, what do you define as evidence?
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Oh you fuckwit. Fuck you are a moron. There is irrational about science you idiot. For fucksakes. The point is that the big bang, and other irrational ideas are NOT SCIENCE. The big bang for example, is a creation myth. Creation myths have nothing to do with science. There is no evidence for the big bang. Rather the public servants have contrived an anti-syllogism that goes like this:
If Doppler causes red shift then ONLY Doppler causes red shift.
Science is not about logic failure.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE WHAT????
aqouby 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Lol, I'm arguing with a 4 year old
aqouby 1 month ago
200 years ago Gaede would have been making fun of people that believed in germ theory. They couldn't see germs, they didn't know what their shape was or what color they were, therefore they can't exist according to Bill. Bill would have fit right in 200 years ago.
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler Well I'm not sure about that. Bill has written a fantastic book. I would say its the most important book of the new millennium. No shit.
Hey Bill, do you feel you would be pooh-poohing germ theory? Templer they had the microscope there didn't they? Bills methodology is such that if he heard the theory and saw the physical objects under the microscope, then surely he would give them a hearing. So post-microscope at least, I don't see how you have a case.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
"They couldn't see germs, they didn't know what their shape was"
.
Erm... idiot just? The Q is NOT "What is the shape of...?" The Q is "DOES a germ have shape?" The latter Q is a yes or no type of Q. You don´t need eyesight or microscopes to resolve this one. No observers allowed! It is strictly a CONCEPTUAL issue! We don´t need to SEE an ideal cube to realize that the word alludes to an object. A cube has shape whether you like it or not!
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Of course they had a shape.
That wasn't the question. Hindsight is 20/20 It's obvious what they are once you know what you are looking at or looking for. The point is 200 years ago they didn't know what a germ was, they were blind to it even though they were looking straight at it in their microscopes.
That's why it took until the 1850s for germ theory started being developed and the first experiments to confirm it didn't happen till the 1860s
justintempler 1 month ago
@justintempler I think he's still a little too bronze-age for 200 years ago.
aqouby 1 month ago
Bill Gaede is the king of censorship... every time he is proven wrong, he misquotes the person in question and tries to weasel his way out of the situation... he's a hypocrite and an idiot... FACT
Xero555000 1 month ago
Bill that bubble trail is one of the things I was really skeptical about prior to your excellent assistance. I have to confess to thinking it might be just me, and I lacked confidence to shout to loud about that one. But its so ridiculous. If its just one electron, surely the maximum bubble would have to be a single bubble, and not a trail of them. But even a single bubble is way excessive for a single electron. Its just hard to believe how dysfunctional and useless these public servants are.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
Pearls of Finlarg:
"Facts are facts"
"facts need to be observed"
"Opinions can be wrong."
sergio267 2 months ago
"Opinions can be wrong."
.
I wonder why mine are always right and yours wrong... unless, of course, they agree with mine?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Has any part of your thread hypotheses been tested? If not, then it's just conjecture and your OPINION... which in the grand scheme of things isn't really worth much. If however, you were really onto something, then it would be worth further study. But since you've conveniently re-defined science into something unrecognizable to all scientists, it's pretty much worthless.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg Right. But its a very good theory. One would have to suggest that the orthogonal threads will be at least part of the winning theory, if we ever get a serious society, with a serious scientific culture together again. Because no other theory explains both light and gravity simultaneously. The closest I could find prior to Bill's theory was "push-gravity" but in the end that stood as just implausible. In a sense Bill lacks competition.
GMBCATASTROPHE 1 month ago
@GMBCATASTROPHE Your physics reply didn't entail any features of what your "REAL" physics is! What is it? What the hell are you talking abut? How do you go about explaining the world around you?
aqouby 1 month ago
@sergio267 Nice truncated selective quoting! I guess quoting in context is too much of an effort?
finlarg 1 month ago