Everything in the visible universe, including BHs, could be inside a single BH, it wouldn't mean a massive thing if such is true or not, but it's an infinite cycle. Maybe dark energy results from Hawking loss at the boundary to another universe, still no reason for adding a new dimension for space anywhere in that, it could all happen in 3D space yet it's well beyond GR's scope, which has gravity actions without gravity quanta, confining its quantization to a political/funding exercise.
Anyone who believed CERN science was apolitical should've had that notion erased with the latest cheesy chapter of the speedy neutrino of biblical proportions saga. Ah, so the cable was loose with a delay that totally matches the FTL bit, but wait, there's more! A problem with a clock too! Timing gear needs replacing! It's not clear what the impact of the clock problem was! Stay tuned! More to come! Hopefully there will not be another magical-political-particle-worker union strike!
"relying on colliders for that while general relativity/big-bang politics still reigns is about as scientific as lighting people on fire to study heat"
.
As long as the guy at the stake is a mathematician, on with the experiment! There's enough of them to cover all the bases regarding heat.
Energy happens to be one of the things that any complete quantum hypothesis quantizes. It's easy to quantize electromagnetism and (as far as I can tell, once general relativity politics is replaced with something realistic) gravity. I suppose quantizing mass beyond drawing mass-energy equivalences is beyond anyone's capacity at this point, relying on colliders for that while general relativity/big-bang politics still reigns is about as scientific as lighting people on fire to study heat.
The Big Bang is weasely crypto-religion, it carries the musty odor of old freemasonic wetdreaming, explaining only the immaculate delusion. Science is politics any more, and as such it epitomizes a velvet face on a boot that intends to be grinding down forever.
But I'm not sure that this idiot will share it with you, HORR! He calls it his 'Lucasian chair' and it's very dear to him. I propose that we throw him with chair and all thru the window. I mean... Big Bang Creation? He's gotta be kiddin'!
@bgaede *Part 2* His Lucasian chair is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. Newton once held that chair. The Big Bang is just a theory, but the events led by it could happen in many different ways. For example, the Big Bang could've just been a release of energy, and Einstein's equations prove that energy could condense into matter and matter could condense into energy. Energy could be condensed into particles that form together to build up macroscopic matter we see today.
Yes. We should throw the bastard overboard with wheelchair and all. Nothing survives of what this moron ever proposed. Hawk's done more harm than good. It's time for him to go.
How do you prove with an equation? What was it that you proved?
.
"energy could condense into matter"
So let's see... We take the CONCEPT 'love', we squash it with our hands, and convert 'it' into the OBJECT 'heart'? Is that what you boys at the monastery did in your lab?
@bgaede Concept and humility are abstract objects. To define energy in physics is simply any quantity that causes force on an object, and to define force is simply any change in the motion of an object. Like I said, you need to quit the alcohol or smoking.
@bgaede Force in physics is simply any action that changes the state of a physical object. For example, somebody pushing a ball forward, you can say the individual who pushed the ball applied a force on the ball. Now, you can just say you moved the ball, but in physics everything has to be measurable, and "force" is a measurement unit that's measured in Newtons.
2. In Science, it is PROHIBITED to put an article in front of a concept! You are not allowed to say "Love moves mountains" or "The orbit of Jupiter". This is poetry, metaphor, figure of speech, parable... You can get away with this in ordinary speech, but not in rational discourse!
@bgaede Like I fucking said, force is an action. Do you understand the difference between a "verb" and a "noun", or an object and an action? And do you understand the use of measurement units in science/mathematics (e.g. kilogram)?
Also I never understood why theists think that they can argue that the big bang theory is unscientific because we can't replicate it in a laboratory (yet) ...
And then go on to postulate a god that can neither be proven or replicated in any provable way.
We have been studying the big bang for fifty years or so. And look how much we already know.
If religion was scientific, then after 2000 years of religious enquiry we'd all be wearing omnipotence belts and omniscience goggles
@itsjustameme The problem is; science as an objective way to understand reality is perfectly placed to examine faith. Faith as a subjective way to understand reality is not suited to the examination of science. This irks theists but, they keep trying :)
This guy is retarded... I suggest any arguing with him to be stopped because I care for whoever opposes this man and would not wish a heart attack upon them.
I agree, uby! finlarg should be institutionalized. He's one of those idiots who believes in warped space. Can you believe that there are still people around that think that warped space prevents a planet from leaving the Solar System?
@aqouby Talking to Gaede is a bit like trying to reason with an obstinate 8 year old. Not to mention his highly questionable ethics. Why call for someone to be institutionalised when that person is posing no threat beyond applying logic and reason to some whacky ideas?
@bgaede "Can you believe that there are still people around that think that warped space prevents a planet from leaving the Solar System?"
First of all, almost all scientifically literate people believe that relativity is a very close approximation to reality.
Secondly, your pre-determined assumptions prevent you from understanding what you are critical of. Relativity does not boil down to 'warped space preventing planets from leaving the solar system'. There's a lot more to it than that.
But your steadfast refusal to critically examine your OWN assumptions are at the heart of your problems.
The fact that you will not even entertain the notion that time and space are NOT the inflexible 'concepts' you seem to think they are, demonstrate to us how UN-SCEINTIFIC you really are!
Here's another question for you to dodge:
Can you give us an example of an experiment or test which has confirmed the accuracy of your EM rope hypothesis?
Well, I'm convinced. This monotheistic charlatan with half-baked arguments patched together into a quilt of nonsense has made such a compelling case. Or maybe it was just the map thumb-tacked to the wall behind him that seemed to lend so much credibility to his asinine assertions. I'd actually like the 9.5 minutes of my life back, thanks.
“This monotheistic charlatan with half-baked arguments patched together into a quilt of nonsense...”
.
Well, Einstein wasn’t THAT bad, edd. Give him break! In Al’s defense, he did recant towards the end of his life. It was his disciples who laughed at him and said he was senile.
That was quick! Thank the Lord! It's what happens when people hold irrational views. At the first sign of blood, they run with their tails between their legs and hide.
.
Bye, ass! The next time you come out of the cloister to give your unsubstantiated opinion about Physics, try reading a book first. It will help your image a little bit.
Actually, on a quantum level, matter does actually pop out of nothingness and then disappear right away. If you look up "virtual particles" you'll see that there is an exception to the rule.
@onimotoko Not really. It just hasn't been fully understood. I'm sure that saying the Earth was round in Europe was just as insane before Columbus demonstrated how it wasn't. I'm sure the idea of human flight was thought insane before the first men rose in the first baloon. In this case we know that it does, we just don't know how or why. Yet.
So how do you explain the red-shift in the cosmic microwave background if all galaxies are not moving apart from each other? Are you arguing that Earth lies at the center of the universe?
@scarshapedstar It's ASSUMED that redshift = velocity, IF it does not, the Universe isn't expanding! Please look up Halton C. Arp and his work on quantized redshift!
@scarshapedstar You're ASSUMING... the Doppler effect has only been confirmed for SOUND! Have you been to a redshifted galaxy and recorded the distance change for yourself?
Damn straight! There truly is no such thing as an atheist. It's just a label people use when they are too dumb to realize they actually do "believe" and believe in a lot of malarkey at that.
For instance, evolutionisit "atheists" believe in multiple gods, and all really winners: the nothing made everything god (BB) is my favorite then comes the god of mud, father time, and god of the fossil gaps, just to name a few.
The "big bang" is the epitome of impossible. It should be found in every dictionary under the word impossible. Science fiction has NOTHING over the big bang. Nothing, even remotely as bizarre. Even if you dissect the BB "there was "no before" the big bang" for instance. I mean only a fool swallows such ridiculous marlarkey. It defies all logic. Every fairy tale ever spoken pales in comparison of ridiculousness. The problem is logical alternatives approach the BB in ridiculousness.
And converted into what? Nothing? Empty space? Into a concept? Into more matter?
.
"energy... cannot be"
Anyone using the word 'energy' should be executed. There is no such thing as energy in Science. The reason energy cannot be destroyed is because 'it' is a concept. We cannot destroy energy any more than we can destroy love or honesty.
Matter can be destroyed. It turns into energy, but it's not matter anymore.
Also, if you think that no one should use the word energy than you probably didn't get around to studying the law of conservation of energy, which is one of the laws of physics. Energy may not be a useful term in some cases, but that doesn't mean there's no right way to use it in physics.
1. "Matter can be destroyed. It turns into energy"
.
What is energy, you stupid idiot? Please draw a picture of a chair and a table (matter) and then a picture of this 'energy' bullshit that you claim it morphed into. We don't have any of this 'energy' stuff here on Earth, pk. What planet are you from, anyway?
.
"studying the law"
You're in the wrong forum, you moron! This forum is about Science. We don't study legislation here.
@pkemrin Energy not being created or destroyed is a myth. It is only the case almost all the time. As for the big bang, if there was one we would be living inside a black hole. if all the matter there is breaks up into pieces big enough to form black holes how could it not have formed one when it was all contained in one spot. a child should reject this idea. Unless that is you believe we live in a black hole able to form black holes inside itself. which also makes no sense.
@SteveUllom The conservation of energy is an old and well established law of physics. If you're going to try to say it's a myth you'll have to disprove it.
The rest of your "a child should think so" physics are equally invalid. All they really say is that you don't know physics very well.
I mean, time as we know it may have started with the big bang. However, what happened just before that? The answer isn't "Nothing" the answer is "I don't know."
@pkemrin It depends on whether time started then or not. If it did, then there could be no before. The evidence suggests time did have a beginning, but I don't know for definite!
@finlarg That's silly. There would still be time before that even if we had no real means to measure it. The very fact that there's a before and after is tribute to that. Things may have been very different than they are now, but there was something.
I don't think we have any reason to think that something was an intelligent being of any kind, since everything we've seen suggests the universe is a natural phenomenon. However, there was obviously still something.
@pkemrin I think you're making an assumption which is impossible to prove conclusively, either way. But there are other things, such as temperature and pressure which have definite limits. You can't get colder than 0 Kelvin (-273 degrees centigrade) And you can't get a lower pressure than a vacuum. So who's to say there definiteley WAS time, prior to 13.7 billion years ago?
"who's to say there definiteley WAS time, prior to 13.7 billion years ago?"
What an idiot! We need to put your head in a vise and squash it, fin. You really are a demented individual. Why do you need a head, anyway? You probably wouldn't notice the diff w/o it.
Before you can use the word 'time' in a scientific debate, you need to define it UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Otherwise, you will make stupid statements like the one you just made...
@bgaede You and I may talk ABOUT science Bill, but this is not a scientific debate. Good scientists would not allow personal petty bias, such as wanting to squash people's heads or have them executed, to get in the way of the subject in question!
@bgaede It's not a scientific debate because you don't know almost anything about science. This isn't even a debate, it's just us all marveling at the freak show that is you and your ignorance.
@bgaede Time: The subjective observation of decay.
as for the scientific definition it seams pretty clear to me. a day is 24 hours an hour is 60 minutes and a minute is 60 seconds. a second is the radiation frequency of a cesium atom- that is-9,192,631,770 hertz (cycles per second).
But time does not exist. Without a subject to remember how things where and perceive change the world is nothing but a morphing blob. its as real as sound in a universe without a single ear.
@finlarg Well I am. I'm not saying that it was anything like the time we know necessarily. I'm just saying that for there to be a before the big bang, a brief moment during, and an after then before is still a time. And what about shortly before that? Must have still be some kind of time. We may have been unable to monitor it since there were no atoms, all the same though there would be a moment before and a moment after I think.
And I don't know what caused the big bang, but it was something.
@pkemrin I don't know whether saying 'before the big bang' has any meaning at all, but it's an interesting subject for speculation. My argument with Bill Gaede is that he makes crazy assertions about relativity and cosmology which do no more than highlight his poor understanding of the subjects. But no amount of reasoning gets through to him. His comments from 3 years ago are identical!
@finlarg Well, I think that the statement does have meaning. I'm no physicist though, so I could be mistaken. However, it seems to me that there must have been a before. It may not have taken place in time as we know it, but it seems to me that it still must have been.
Yep, Bgaede is a loon. As I mentioned, I'm no physicist. However, I can clearly see that his understanding of physics is extremely crude. He just doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.
@pkemrin What Gaede does is to pick out the parts which he doesn't understand, such as time, energy, force, space etc, and declare that they have NOTHING to do with science or physics. It would be like me going into a courtroom and saying that the judge, jury and witnesses have NOTHING to do with law, and furthermore they're all idiots!
@bgaede I'm not going to sit here and give you a physics lesson kid.
Wikipedia says: In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.
I say: Energy is an umbrella term of course referring to a number of different things including thermal, kinetic, electrical, and others.
If you want to know more read a book or head to school.
"energy... is an... observed quantity. It is... the ability"
.
So how does a table lose LW+H and turn into the concept 'quantity' or the concept 'ability', you stupid shit? How do you 'observe' a quantity or an ability, anyway? Do you use your green, forehead antennas on your planet?
@bgaede Yea, you're either extraordinarily uneducated or a troll.
The atomic bomb takes a bit of matter and converts it to energy. The blast is huge. If you don't know what it looks like or how it works, that's your problem.
stupid idiot pk: "The atomic bomb takes a bit of matter and converts it to energy. It goes kaboom!"
.
Erm... stupid idiot pk, I ask WHAT is energy and HOW did the table and the Moon (i.e., matter) lose LW+H and convert to an abstract concept invented by Man?
3. So, idiot pk escaped from all Qs. He doesn't know WHAT energy IS (curiously much like this idiot Feynman), he doesn't know how he can observe a concept, and he certainly doesn't know how matter can convert into a concept. He just knows that a bomb makes noise. (And he probably argues that it doesn't if he's not there to hear it.)
@bgaede Yes. If you want to know physics then go learn them yourself. I'm not interested in talking to you about them because you don't know anything and all you appear to be capable of is mocking people who are smarter than you. Goodbye now. ^_^
@finlarg How do you know he's not a kid? He's juvenile and his education doesn't even reflect the completion of middle school. He strikes me as being a kid.
@kc0itf You're missing the point. Temperature and pressure have lower limits that we KNOW of. Why is it so absurd to postulate that time had a start point?
@finlarg You are a religious FANATIC! Evangelical Christians also KNOW that God exists!
I remain skeptical. Absolute zero has NEVER been reached! Even top physicists will tell you that DUSTY nebulas are cleaner than our pathetic excuses for lab "vacuum"!
@kc0itf If you can't tell the difference between me and a religious fanatic then you (like Gaede) have some serious comprehension issues!
The universe is 'only' 13.7 billion years old, therefore not enough time has elapsed for the average universal temperature to have dropped to less than 3 Kelvin. We have got very close to absolute zero. Do you even know what temperature IS?
@kc0itf I'm not an expert on this subject and never claimed to be, but from your comments I seem to know more than you. Why can't you admit the simple fact that you are being critical of something you don't fully understand?
@kc0itf Christianity and relativity are polar opposites. You really should know that! Religion relies on dogma, control and obedience. Science (including relativity) can be questioned, tested and verified by ANYONE who can be bothered to put in the work required to gain a proper understanding of it.
By calling it irrational you're simply highlighting your own ignorance.
cont... There is no dogma in science, but when people like Gaede start hurling abuse and stating that current theory is garbage whilst clearly demonstrating the shortfall of their understanding (by straw manning and asking ridiculously stupid questions), they are often dismissed as cranks.
So, let me repeat: Learn and get to grips with the theory FIRST. Then, and only then will you be in a position to criticize. To miss out that vital step is to fall before the first hurdle.
These guys we're arguing with have a rare combination of ignorance and arrogance. The only other place I've seen such a trait is amongst religious fundamentalists!
It's fascinating to look at the history of temperature measurement. Fahrenheit and Celsius just don't get to the heart of the matter like Kelvin does.
A steadfast refusal to research the things you oppose is a weird trait some people have.
I'm looking into Bill Gaedes 'Rope Hypothesis', so I can more accurately assess just how wacky it is. I bet he won't read any of the things you have suggested though
You've shown great patience and presented well reasoned arguments so far. Keep it up.
@kc0itf It is predicted by general relativity. Other things predicted by general relativity, such as gravitational lensing and the anomalous perihelion shift of mercury, have been confirmed, which lends credence to the theory being accurate.
@finlarg You are full of shit! There are alternative explanations of gravitational lensing. The anomalous perihelion shift of mercury WASN'T predicted by general relativity, it was developed as an answer to it! And there is STILL debate, as Bill Gaede points out, that relativity answers nothings but more problems of its own!
@kc0itf Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most well tested scientific theories from the 20th century. What Gaede 'points out' is irrelevant - he's the guy who has SUCH a poor grasp of modern science that he believes his own whacky ideas are scientific! You're free to hang on his every word, but don't expect any real answers to the mysteries of the universe!
@finlarg "Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most well-tested scientific theories from the 20th Century." AND they are known to be INCOMPATIBLE with each other! The Universe works on CONTRADICTIONS?!
"Relativity and quantum mechanics are... well-tested scientific theories"
.
Relativity proposes warped space. Quantum proposes 0D 'particles' and wave-packets. What is that you 'tested' in your lab, fin? WHAT did you handle with your tweezers? Sounds more like an unsubstantiated conclusion.
@bgaede It may sound like that to you Bill, but that is because you've only skimmed over the surface of the theories you criticize so strongly. You need to spend more time learning them properly.
@kc0itf Of course learning physics properly does not require faith. What a stupid question! Your brain is more likely to stultify if you follow pseudoscientists rather than real science with it's empirical evidence and testing of hypotheses, both of which Gaede dismisses from his own obscure 'Science'.
@finlarg We are CONTINUOUSLY told by the mainstream that blackholes are lurking EVERYWHERE! However, when we ask for a picture of the object in question, all we get is a picture of a star! In other words, it requires blind faith in the high priests of physics!
It is a case of the emperor having NO CLOTHES! Who dares mention the obvious, like Bill Gaede!
@kc0itf Black holes lurking everywhere? Either you've been misled or you haven't understood what you were being told. I don't know because I wasn't there when you were 'continuously being told' such things.
Describing physicists as priests indicates that either you're a sock account of Gaede's or you've been indoctrinated by him.
@finlarg A blackhole is a mystical evil object with such IMMENSE gravity attraction that NOTHING, not even ABSURD Hawking radiation escapes! But there is already a problem... what is it a HOLE into? Space? We already observe that space DOESN'T warp... how then does it have holes?
Blackholes are also supposed to affect time... but we don't even know what time is!
You will find blackholes MENTIONED many time in Astronomy Picture of the Day, but all I see are artist conceptions or STARS!
Oh dear. Back to the classroom you go! A black hole is nigh on impossible to photograph, for the same reason stars are. They are INCREDIBLY far away. We don't have powerfull enough telescopes to see surface detail of ANY star (with the exception of Betelgeuse), let alone a black hole. We can see that there is one at the centre of our galaxy. We have observed and measured stars orbiting it.
@kc0itf It depends on the mass of the black hole. The position is calculated, not 'measured' by actually going there. It's good to ask questions, but dismissing relativity etc BEFORE you've familiarized yourself with it, is not cool.
"the sun was NOT in the frame, the observed positions of the stars is DIFFERENT... This is because the mass of the sun curved spacetime"
.
Erm... fin? How does this prove that space/ST is warped? Where is the picture of warped space/ST that you promised? In fact, where is the picture of space/ST before you warp 'it'?
@bgaede Your comment indicates confusion on your part. Firstly, I'm not in the 'space-warping' business as you like to call it, but my mass curves spacetime a tiny bit. So does yours.
Here is a rather easy-to-understand article which deals with the matter in question:
@bgaede Anyone ever told you that you sound like a stuck record? If you equate love and justice with mass and spacetime even AFTER the difference has been painstakingly explained to you by myself and numerous other commenters, then there's little hope for you. You're missing out on so much. It's a shame really.
@finlarg Different phenomena? One finds SPACESHIPS in Einstein's "thought" experiments... are these craft not made of atoms? "Virtual" particles mayhaps then?
@kc0itf I don't have the time or the inclination to go into great detail here, with the 500 character limit, things which anyone who is critical of relativity and quantum should ALREADY KNOW!
Wikipedia have an introductory article on general relativity. It's easy to find. Do yourself a favour and READ it from start to finish, and if you didn't get it all, read it again!
@bgaede I would like for you and kc0itf (assuming you're not the same person) to READ the entire article, not just skim through it and focus all your attention on black holes and one particular illustration. Once you've done that we can have a sensible discussion. So far all you've done is demonstrate a child-like lack of comprehension.
"I would like for you and kc0itf (assuming you're not the same person) to READ the entire article"
.
a. You discovered my secret, fin. Yes, I am kc and kc is me. Since no one in the world agrees with me I have to create these user names and argue with myself to feel secure.
b. Why would we... I read the article? I mean, justify it. What is it about? Warped space? What else does Relativity have to offer?
a. Arguing and agreeing with yourself or anyone else are not the same. Your logic is unsound - or perhaps just typed it too quickly?
b. I don't have to justify anything to you. But it would be prudent, on your part, to familiarize yourself with the basics of relativity PRIOR to writing a debunking type of book (plus website and videos) on the subject!
@bgaede By astronomers Bill. You should be aware that following the publication of Einstein's paper in 1916 the next solar eclipse was eagerly anticipated - to see if his prediction was right. And in 1919 it was! It has subsequently been observed and measured many times.
I have seen photographs of gravitational lensing with my own eyes.
@bgaede Do I have to state the obvious with you Bill? I guess so...
When the above-mentioned photo is compared with another photo of the same patch of sky, taken when the sun was NOT in the frame, the observed positions of the stars is DIFFERENT. This is because the mass of the sun curved spacetime and altered the position of where we see the stars.
The very fact that all these idiots talk theory as if it's solid confrimed fact speaks volumes in itself. It merely makes them look more foolish than they already were before opening their cake holes - if that's possible, confirming their idiot status. Good video, favored. Thanks.
@bgaede On the basis of the title of your book 'why god doesn't exist', the majority of the population would conclude that you are an atheist. Are they all wrong?
1. "the majority of the population would conclude that you are an atheist. Are they all wrong?"
.
Atheists and theists have been arguing at least for decades if not centuries. The reason for this endless dispute is that both rely on belief (also know as 'knowledge'). There was an idiot named Plato who defined knowledge as a kind of 'belief' and that's what the philosophers continue to use today.
2. Therefore, atheists regard themselves to represent the rational and scientific world when nothing of the sort is true. Science does not leave the crucial word 'exist' to the uncertainty of subjectivity. In Science, we must absolutely get a hold of this enigmatic word. Until we do, atheists will continue to argue erroneously that 'God does not exist' and theists will continue to argue erroneously that 'God does exist'.
3. Both positions are unscientific, and this is an example that illustrates that definitions are everything. They make or break either argument. Once we define the word 'exist' as 'physical presence', we can finally use it consistently in any debate to resolve any argument.
4. In Science, we don't say that God exists or that God doesn't exist. In Science, we ASSUME that God exists (hypothesize) and then proceed to explain a phenomenon with this assumption (theorize). That's the genuine Scientific Method! What lamebrains such as Galileo and Newt 'thought' was 'science' is just another religion: belief in experiments, predictions, evidence, proof, existence...
5. Nevertheless, scientists don't vote for theories. It is the mathematicians who vote and declare a theory to be 'correct'. I assume that they determine this by simple majority... or perhaps, it depends on who the heavyweights are. For instance, Bohr was a heavyweight. Many of his amusing decrees and rulings still stand. How dare anyone challenge such scholar, such eminence?
6. It is the mathematicians who 'prove' theories and then claim that theories are temporary until a new one comes along. The idiots of Math live with these contradictions. The truth is final -- no chance to challenge it -- but it is a temporary truth.
.
So, it doesn't matter how many people declare atheism to be the true religion. In Science, we explain and do so rationally. What the majority of the world decides afterward is of no concern to Science.
7. Atheists need to learn the rational argument to use the words 'God' and 'exist' scientifically. They are still in the dark ages! They still argue about 'why' God doesn't exist. This idiot Dawkins is a prime example of the 'God doesn't exist' fallacy. He's not a scientist. He's just another religious fool.
Amen! And I should 'know' because I used to be an atheist. I come from a strong atheist home. I never imagined I would one day turn my back on my own religion.
.
"these idiots talk theory as if it's solid confrimed fact"
That's the great error of the religion of Math Phyz! They propose the particle model of QM as a done deal (proof, truth, evidence) when every particle in the Std Mod is nothing more than an inference.
@bgaede Dawkins has a chapter in his book called 'A deeply religious non-believer' or something very similar. I think he was being ironic! Dawkins doesn't claim absolute certainty in his belief that there is no god.
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. If he's not a scientist, then I question your understanding of the word scientist.
@bgaede I would say that no good scientist would use the word correct because that implies an absolute. Science deals with degrees of probability, degrees of certainty.
The Copenhagen interpretation was arrived at as a working hypothesis with the un
Everything in the visible universe, including BHs, could be inside a single BH, it wouldn't mean a massive thing if such is true or not, but it's an infinite cycle. Maybe dark energy results from Hawking loss at the boundary to another universe, still no reason for adding a new dimension for space anywhere in that, it could all happen in 3D space yet it's well beyond GR's scope, which has gravity actions without gravity quanta, confining its quantization to a political/funding exercise.
CACBCCCU 5 days ago
Anyone who believed CERN science was apolitical should've had that notion erased with the latest cheesy chapter of the speedy neutrino of biblical proportions saga. Ah, so the cable was loose with a delay that totally matches the FTL bit, but wait, there's more! A problem with a clock too! Timing gear needs replacing! It's not clear what the impact of the clock problem was! Stay tuned! More to come! Hopefully there will not be another magical-political-particle-worker union strike!
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
"relying on colliders for that while general relativity/big-bang politics still reigns is about as scientific as lighting people on fire to study heat"
.
As long as the guy at the stake is a mathematician, on with the experiment! There's enough of them to cover all the bases regarding heat.
.
"the cable was loose..."
.
...in someone's brain...
bgaede 6 days ago
Energy happens to be one of the things that any complete quantum hypothesis quantizes. It's easy to quantize electromagnetism and (as far as I can tell, once general relativity politics is replaced with something realistic) gravity. I suppose quantizing mass beyond drawing mass-energy equivalences is beyond anyone's capacity at this point, relying on colliders for that while general relativity/big-bang politics still reigns is about as scientific as lighting people on fire to study heat.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
The Big Bang is weasely crypto-religion, it carries the musty odor of old freemasonic wetdreaming, explaining only the immaculate delusion. Science is politics any more, and as such it epitomizes a velvet face on a boot that intends to be grinding down forever.
CACBCCCU 6 days ago
Whatever he's on....I want it.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
"Whatever he's on....I want it"
.
Hawking is on a wheelchair.
But I'm not sure that this idiot will share it with you, HORR! He calls it his 'Lucasian chair' and it's very dear to him. I propose that we throw him with chair and all thru the window. I mean... Big Bang Creation? He's gotta be kiddin'!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede What I meant was, I want whatever drug/substance you were on when you made this video.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
@bgaede *Part 2* His Lucasian chair is the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics. Newton once held that chair. The Big Bang is just a theory, but the events led by it could happen in many different ways. For example, the Big Bang could've just been a release of energy, and Einstein's equations prove that energy could condense into matter and matter could condense into energy. Energy could be condensed into particles that form together to build up macroscopic matter we see today.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
1. "His Lucasian chair"
Yes. We should throw the bastard overboard with wheelchair and all. Nothing survives of what this moron ever proposed. Hawk's done more harm than good. It's time for him to go.
.
youstupidrelativist com/02Hawk.html
bgaede 3 weeks ago
2. "the Big Bang could've just been a release of energy"
How do you release a concept? How do you release humility? Do you open a valve? Take the hinges off the prison cell door? Blow a hole thru the wall?
.
Please draw a picture of this stuff you call 'energy'. We don't have any of 'it' here on Earth.
What planet are you from, anyway?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
3. "Einstein's equations prove"
How do you prove with an equation? What was it that you proved?
.
"energy could condense into matter"
So let's see... We take the CONCEPT 'love', we squash it with our hands, and convert 'it' into the OBJECT 'heart'? Is that what you boys at the monastery did in your lab?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
4. "matter could condense into energy"
So you took a rock, put it in the boiling pot, and came out with justice? That's some alchemy you choirboys practice there!
bgaede 3 weeks ago
5. "Energy could be condensed into particles"
Do the spirits in your church also freeze and turn into walking skeletons? Can you compress your souls and arrive at human flesh?
.
Please illustrate this magical substance that you have on your planet. We don't have this supernatural energy 'stuff' here on Earth.
.
youstupidrelativist com/05SR/02Mass/07What.html
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Define Church and Religion for me.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
@bgaede You need to quit smoking. I mean it.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Concept and humility are abstract objects. To define energy in physics is simply any quantity that causes force on an object, and to define force is simply any change in the motion of an object. Like I said, you need to quit the alcohol or smoking.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
"Concept and humility are abstract objects"
What's an 'object'?
.
"energy... is simply any quantity"
Is this what you 'transfer', bean brain? A quantity?
.
"any quantity that causes force"
How does a quantity cause a force, you stupid idiot? Does the number 5 push on your p-brane?
bgaede 3 weeks ago 2
@bgaede Seems like you don't understand the meaning of force at all.
HORRORTV1 3 weeks ago
"you don't understand the meaning of force at all"
.
Please enlighten us. What is the meaning of 'force'? How does the CONCEPT 'quantity' cause the CONCEPT 'force'?
bgaede 3 weeks ago
@bgaede Force in physics is simply any action that changes the state of a physical object. For example, somebody pushing a ball forward, you can say the individual who pushed the ball applied a force on the ball. Now, you can just say you moved the ball, but in physics everything has to be measurable, and "force" is a measurement unit that's measured in Newtons.
HORRORTV1 2 weeks ago
1. "Force... is simply any action... For example... pushing a ball forward"
.
So 'the' action CAUSES the wall to fall down or the ball to move forward? Is this what they taught you at the seminary, HORR?
.
"somebody... the individual... pushed the ball"
Yes! We need an OBJECT to do the pushing! We can't convert the CONCEPT 'force' into an object and say that 'THE" force pushed the wall, correct?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
2. In Science, it is PROHIBITED to put an article in front of a concept! You are not allowed to say "Love moves mountains" or "The orbit of Jupiter". This is poetry, metaphor, figure of speech, parable... You can get away with this in ordinary speech, but not in rational discourse!
bgaede 2 weeks ago
@bgaede Like I fucking said, force is an action. Do you understand the difference between a "verb" and a "noun", or an object and an action? And do you understand the use of measurement units in science/mathematics (e.g. kilogram)?
HORRORTV1 2 weeks ago
"force is an action"
.
Is there an echo in here?
.
I asked you whether an action itself can move a ball? Yes or no?
bgaede 2 weeks ago
I would argue that the very definition of existence must include being present in space and time.
Postulating a being outside space and time seems to me to be absurd. To me it is the same as saying that this being does in fact not exist.
itsjustameme 1 month ago
@itsjustameme I think 'outside space and time' is just a fancy way to say; nowhere and never.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 month ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER
Also I never understood why theists think that they can argue that the big bang theory is unscientific because we can't replicate it in a laboratory (yet) ...
And then go on to postulate a god that can neither be proven or replicated in any provable way.
We have been studying the big bang for fifty years or so. And look how much we already know.
If religion was scientific, then after 2000 years of religious enquiry we'd all be wearing omnipotence belts and omniscience goggles
itsjustameme 1 month ago
@itsjustameme The problem is; science as an objective way to understand reality is perfectly placed to examine faith. Faith as a subjective way to understand reality is not suited to the examination of science. This irks theists but, they keep trying :)
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 month ago
This guy is retarded... I suggest any arguing with him to be stopped because I care for whoever opposes this man and would not wish a heart attack upon them.
aqouby 1 month ago
"This guy is retarded"
.
I agree, uby! finlarg should be institutionalized. He's one of those idiots who believes in warped space. Can you believe that there are still people around that think that warped space prevents a planet from leaving the Solar System?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede I was obviously talking about you and your warped mind.
aqouby 1 month ago
@aqouby Talking to Gaede is a bit like trying to reason with an obstinate 8 year old. Not to mention his highly questionable ethics. Why call for someone to be institutionalised when that person is posing no threat beyond applying logic and reason to some whacky ideas?
finlarg 1 month ago
@bgaede "Can you believe that there are still people around that think that warped space prevents a planet from leaving the Solar System?"
First of all, almost all scientifically literate people believe that relativity is a very close approximation to reality.
Secondly, your pre-determined assumptions prevent you from understanding what you are critical of. Relativity does not boil down to 'warped space preventing planets from leaving the solar system'. There's a lot more to it than that.
finlarg 1 month ago
But your steadfast refusal to critically examine your OWN assumptions are at the heart of your problems.
The fact that you will not even entertain the notion that time and space are NOT the inflexible 'concepts' you seem to think they are, demonstrate to us how UN-SCEINTIFIC you really are!
Here's another question for you to dodge:
Can you give us an example of an experiment or test which has confirmed the accuracy of your EM rope hypothesis?
finlarg 1 month ago
Well, I'm convinced. This monotheistic charlatan with half-baked arguments patched together into a quilt of nonsense has made such a compelling case. Or maybe it was just the map thumb-tacked to the wall behind him that seemed to lend so much credibility to his asinine assertions. I'd actually like the 9.5 minutes of my life back, thanks.
eddison72 1 month ago
“This monotheistic charlatan with half-baked arguments patched together into a quilt of nonsense...”
.
Well, Einstein wasn’t THAT bad, edd. Give him break! In Al’s defense, he did recant towards the end of his life. It was his disciples who laughed at him and said he was senile.
.
youstupidrelativist com/01Al html
bgaede 1 month ago
Oh man.
You religious nuts are getting desperate.
itsjustameme 1 month ago
"notheing else to see here"
.
That was quick! Thank the Lord! It's what happens when people hold irrational views. At the first sign of blood, they run with their tails between their legs and hide.
.
Bye, ass! The next time you come out of the cloister to give your unsubstantiated opinion about Physics, try reading a book first. It will help your image a little bit.
bgaede 1 month ago
"I can make up my mind"
.
Perhaps it is a symptom of Down's creeping in, ass.
.
"need to see a doc quick"
.
Yes. Perhaps you do.
bgaede 1 month ago
Actually, on a quantum level, matter does actually pop out of nothingness and then disappear right away. If you look up "virtual particles" you'll see that there is an exception to the rule.
putzthewondersloth 2 months ago
"matter does actually pop out of nothingness"
.
You wonder whether we ever left religion with such theories. I suppose that we were just fine with 'God says so'.
bgaede 2 months ago
@putzthewondersloth That is much more insane sounding than, "God created it".
onimotoko 2 months ago
@onimotoko Not really. It just hasn't been fully understood. I'm sure that saying the Earth was round in Europe was just as insane before Columbus demonstrated how it wasn't. I'm sure the idea of human flight was thought insane before the first men rose in the first baloon. In this case we know that it does, we just don't know how or why. Yet.
putzthewondersloth 2 months ago
@putzthewondersloth virtual particles belong in video games, NOT science!
kc0itf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kc0itf "virtual particles belong in video games, NOT science!"
You belong in video games, not science. I need something to practice my head shots on.
putzthewondersloth 1 month ago
So how do you explain the red-shift in the cosmic microwave background if all galaxies are not moving apart from each other? Are you arguing that Earth lies at the center of the universe?
scarshapedstar 2 months ago
"explain the red-shift in the cosmic microwave background"
.
WGDE, Ch7
.
"Are you arguing that Earth lies at the center of the universe?"
.
I don't know where you got that idea, but relativists seem to think so.
DecassyJake 2 months ago
@scarshapedstar It's ASSUMED that redshift = velocity, IF it does not, the Universe isn't expanding! Please look up Halton C. Arp and his work on quantized redshift!
kc0itf 2 months ago
@kc0itf
" It's ASSUMED that redshift = velocity"
Are you saying that the Doppler shift does not exist? Have you never driven a car? Speechless.
scarshapedstar 2 months ago
@scarshapedstar You're ASSUMING... the Doppler effect has only been confirmed for SOUND! Have you been to a redshifted galaxy and recorded the distance change for yourself?
kc0itf 1 month ago
"If Faith is belief IN God, then Religion is belief ABOUT God" Following this path of logic, Atheists are DEEPLY Religious People
in that they 'believe' God doesn't exist.
Atheists CLING to the 'Big Bang' as it re-enforce the concept
of evolution, on a Universal scale, yet still buy into 'Creationism'
at the same time!
I'm Agnostic, proud to say, but imo, Atheists are the most
irrational players of the bunch. Proving 'God' does not
exit is a double-negative, which is impossible to prove...
TheZenoEffect 2 months ago
@TheZenoEffect
Damn straight! There truly is no such thing as an atheist. It's just a label people use when they are too dumb to realize they actually do "believe" and believe in a lot of malarkey at that.
For instance, evolutionisit "atheists" believe in multiple gods, and all really winners: the nothing made everything god (BB) is my favorite then comes the god of mud, father time, and god of the fossil gaps, just to name a few.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Heard that educated idiot Michio Kaku last night...
speaking to the audience as if they were 3rd graders. Referring
to the 'multi-verse' as soap bubbles next to one another,
(pushing 'M Theory'), that if a non-existent Black Hole
swallowed Earth, we'd all turn into spaghetti & have a slide-show
of the entire history of the Universe, & that non-existent BH's
may be the cause of 'Big bangs' on the other end
- But, if you DARE criticize Kaku here on YT, hoards of
obedient slaves flock to defend?
TheZenoEffect 2 months ago
Man, this video is just sooo humble ;)
ritherz 2 months ago
The "big bang" is the epitome of impossible. It should be found in every dictionary under the word impossible. Science fiction has NOTHING over the big bang. Nothing, even remotely as bizarre. Even if you dissect the BB "there was "no before" the big bang" for instance. I mean only a fool swallows such ridiculous marlarkey. It defies all logic. Every fairy tale ever spoken pales in comparison of ridiculousness. The problem is logical alternatives approach the BB in ridiculousness.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
@gr8vibes2 And the above attests to the fact that we humans (or I speaking for myself) have a long way to go to think outside the human logic box.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Comment removed
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Comment removed
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
Matter can certainly be destroyed. How do you think atomic bombs work?
It's energy that cannot be.
pkemrin 2 months ago
"Matter can certainly be destroyed."
.
And converted into what? Nothing? Empty space? Into a concept? Into more matter?
.
"energy... cannot be"
Anyone using the word 'energy' should be executed. There is no such thing as energy in Science. The reason energy cannot be destroyed is because 'it' is a concept. We cannot destroy energy any more than we can destroy love or honesty.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede "Anyone using the word 'energy' should be executed."
Hilarious Bill. Did you know that you used THAT word 5 times in the above comment?
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede You may need a better education.
Matter can be destroyed. It turns into energy, but it's not matter anymore.
Also, if you think that no one should use the word energy than you probably didn't get around to studying the law of conservation of energy, which is one of the laws of physics. Energy may not be a useful term in some cases, but that doesn't mean there's no right way to use it in physics.
What do you think the E in E=MC^2 is?
pkemrin 2 months ago
1. "Matter can be destroyed. It turns into energy"
.
What is energy, you stupid idiot? Please draw a picture of a chair and a table (matter) and then a picture of this 'energy' bullshit that you claim it morphed into. We don't have any of this 'energy' stuff here on Earth, pk. What planet are you from, anyway?
.
"studying the law"
You're in the wrong forum, you moron! This forum is about Science. We don't study legislation here.
bgaede 2 months ago
"2. What do you think the E in E=MC^2 is?"
It's poppycock, idiot pk! All that these letters say is that...
love = justice * running^2.
What's energy or mass got to do with Physics, idiot pk? Please amuse us.
.
"an old... law of physics... you'll have to disprove it"
In Science, we have no laws and we don't prove anything, idiot pk. In Science, we just explain.
What an arrogant moron! What hole did you climb out of, pk? Who let you out of the dungeon?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Bgaede, I'm not really interested in arguing with you. You simply aren't educated enough to be interesting.
If you don't already know what energy is then I'm not sure why you claim you're discussing science.
If you don't know that there are laws of physics and that they aren't legislation, then I'm not sure why you claim you're discussing science.
Bugger off until you finish middle school kid. You're wasting people's time.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin Energy not being created or destroyed is a myth. It is only the case almost all the time. As for the big bang, if there was one we would be living inside a black hole. if all the matter there is breaks up into pieces big enough to form black holes how could it not have formed one when it was all contained in one spot. a child should reject this idea. Unless that is you believe we live in a black hole able to form black holes inside itself. which also makes no sense.
SteveUllom 2 months ago
@SteveUllom The conservation of energy is an old and well established law of physics. If you're going to try to say it's a myth you'll have to disprove it.
The rest of your "a child should think so" physics are equally invalid. All they really say is that you don't know physics very well.
pkemrin 2 months ago
I'm not sure this is true.
I mean, time as we know it may have started with the big bang. However, what happened just before that? The answer isn't "Nothing" the answer is "I don't know."
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin It depends on whether time started then or not. If it did, then there could be no before. The evidence suggests time did have a beginning, but I don't know for definite!
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg That's silly. There would still be time before that even if we had no real means to measure it. The very fact that there's a before and after is tribute to that. Things may have been very different than they are now, but there was something.
I don't think we have any reason to think that something was an intelligent being of any kind, since everything we've seen suggests the universe is a natural phenomenon. However, there was obviously still something.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin I think you're making an assumption which is impossible to prove conclusively, either way. But there are other things, such as temperature and pressure which have definite limits. You can't get colder than 0 Kelvin (-273 degrees centigrade) And you can't get a lower pressure than a vacuum. So who's to say there definiteley WAS time, prior to 13.7 billion years ago?
finlarg 2 months ago
"who's to say there definiteley WAS time, prior to 13.7 billion years ago?"
What an idiot! We need to put your head in a vise and squash it, fin. You really are a demented individual. Why do you need a head, anyway? You probably wouldn't notice the diff w/o it.
Before you can use the word 'time' in a scientific debate, you need to define it UNAMBIGUOUSLY. Otherwise, you will make stupid statements like the one you just made...
.
time: ____
.
Please fill in the blanks.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede You and I may talk ABOUT science Bill, but this is not a scientific debate. Good scientists would not allow personal petty bias, such as wanting to squash people's heads or have them executed, to get in the way of the subject in question!
finlarg 2 months ago
"Did you know that you used THAT word 5 times"
It's the mathematician in you, fin. You can't help it. When's the physicist going to come out?
.
"this is not a scientific debate"
Right! I can't have a scientific debate with a religious nut like you.
.
"wanting to squash people's heads or have them executed... get in the way of the subject in question!"
We have to make an exception in your case, fin. I hope you understand...
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede It's not a scientific debate because you don't know almost anything about science. This isn't even a debate, it's just us all marveling at the freak show that is you and your ignorance.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin Do you have anything to say about the video? What is outside of the big bang? Space? Then out goes the bb no?
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
@bgaede Time: The subjective observation of decay.
as for the scientific definition it seams pretty clear to me. a day is 24 hours an hour is 60 minutes and a minute is 60 seconds. a second is the radiation frequency of a cesium atom- that is-9,192,631,770 hertz (cycles per second).
But time does not exist. Without a subject to remember how things where and perceive change the world is nothing but a morphing blob. its as real as sound in a universe without a single ear.
SteveUllom 2 months ago
@bgaede What are you talking about? You're not qualified to participate in a scientific debate. This is just a casual discussion.
You're a douche for saying that guy needs his head to be crushed.
You may have accidentally pointed out the issue between him and I though. We may be using different definitions of the word time...
pkemrin 2 months ago
@finlarg Well I am. I'm not saying that it was anything like the time we know necessarily. I'm just saying that for there to be a before the big bang, a brief moment during, and an after then before is still a time. And what about shortly before that? Must have still be some kind of time. We may have been unable to monitor it since there were no atoms, all the same though there would be a moment before and a moment after I think.
And I don't know what caused the big bang, but it was something.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin I don't know whether saying 'before the big bang' has any meaning at all, but it's an interesting subject for speculation. My argument with Bill Gaede is that he makes crazy assertions about relativity and cosmology which do no more than highlight his poor understanding of the subjects. But no amount of reasoning gets through to him. His comments from 3 years ago are identical!
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg Well, I think that the statement does have meaning. I'm no physicist though, so I could be mistaken. However, it seems to me that there must have been a before. It may not have taken place in time as we know it, but it seems to me that it still must have been.
Yep, Bgaede is a loon. As I mentioned, I'm no physicist. However, I can clearly see that his understanding of physics is extremely crude. He just doesn't appear to know what he's talking about.
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin What Gaede does is to pick out the parts which he doesn't understand, such as time, energy, force, space etc, and declare that they have NOTHING to do with science or physics. It would be like me going into a courtroom and saying that the judge, jury and witnesses have NOTHING to do with law, and furthermore they're all idiots!
It's as asinine as that!
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg Yep. He's either a kid or a troll. I haven't been able to put my finger on which yet. I suppose he could be both.
Asinine is about the only word for it.
pkemrin 2 months ago
Bill: "What is energy, you stupid idiot?"
stupid idiot pk: "If you don't already know what energy is..."
.
I thought so!
Neeeeext!
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede I'm not going to sit here and give you a physics lesson kid.
Wikipedia says: In physics, energy (Ancient Greek: ἐνέργεια energeia "activity, operation"[1]) is an indirectly observed quantity. It is often understood as the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.
I say: Energy is an umbrella term of course referring to a number of different things including thermal, kinetic, electrical, and others.
If you want to know more read a book or head to school.
pkemrin 2 months ago
"energy... is an... observed quantity. It is... the ability"
.
So how does a table lose LW+H and turn into the concept 'quantity' or the concept 'ability', you stupid shit? How do you 'observe' a quantity or an ability, anyway? Do you use your green, forehead antennas on your planet?
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Yea, you're either extraordinarily uneducated or a troll.
The atomic bomb takes a bit of matter and converts it to energy. The blast is huge. If you don't know what it looks like or how it works, that's your problem.
pkemrin 2 months ago
1. "Bill: "What is energy, you stupid idiot?"
stupid idiot pk: "The atomic bomb takes a bit of matter and converts it to energy. It goes kaboom!"
.
Erm... stupid idiot pk, I ask WHAT is energy and HOW did the table and the Moon (i.e., matter) lose LW+H and convert to an abstract concept invented by Man?
bgaede 2 months ago
2. stupid idiot pk: "energy... is an... observed quantity. It is... the ability"
Bill: "How do you 'observe' a quantity or an ability?"
stupid idiot pk: "If you don't know what it looks like or how it works, that's your problem."
bgaede 2 months ago
3. So, idiot pk escaped from all Qs. He doesn't know WHAT energy IS (curiously much like this idiot Feynman), he doesn't know how he can observe a concept, and he certainly doesn't know how matter can convert into a concept. He just knows that a bomb makes noise. (And he probably argues that it doesn't if he's not there to hear it.)
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Yes. If you want to know physics then go learn them yourself. I'm not interested in talking to you about them because you don't know anything and all you appear to be capable of is mocking people who are smarter than you. Goodbye now. ^_^
pkemrin 2 months ago
Bill: "What is energy, you stupid idiot? How do you 'observe' a quantity or an ability?"
stupid idiot pk: I'm not interested in talking to you about them because I don't know anything... Goodbye"
.
Bye, pk. Try to learn something before you come back, okay?
bgaede 2 months ago
@pkemrin He's definitely not a kid! Having said that a lot of what he comes out with is infantile nonsense!
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg How do you know he's not a kid? He's juvenile and his education doesn't even reflect the completion of middle school. He strikes me as being a kid.
You have reason to think he's not?
pkemrin 2 months ago
@pkemrin He's 59, but on the basis of his comments he appears to have the mental age of an adolescent homophobe. Have you watched his videos?
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg "So who's to say there definitely WAS time, prior to 13.7 billion years ago?"
If that's the case, who's to say there will BE time tomorrow? What stops and starts time?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf I've no idea what, if anything, STOPS time. But as far as we know time BEGAN at the big bang.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg You make no sense! How can time BEGIN if it wasn't STOPPED?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf "How can time BEGIN if it wasn't STOPPED?"
Perhaps time has a start point just like temperature has a minimum (0 Kelvin) and pressure has a minimum (perfect vacuum).
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg 0 Kelvin hasn't been observed in nature! Even the supposed CMBR has a temp! There is no "perfect" vacuum due to Bill Gaede's thread theory!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf You're missing the point. Temperature and pressure have lower limits that we KNOW of. Why is it so absurd to postulate that time had a start point?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg You are a religious FANATIC! Evangelical Christians also KNOW that God exists!
I remain skeptical. Absolute zero has NEVER been reached! Even top physicists will tell you that DUSTY nebulas are cleaner than our pathetic excuses for lab "vacuum"!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf If you can't tell the difference between me and a religious fanatic then you (like Gaede) have some serious comprehension issues!
The universe is 'only' 13.7 billion years old, therefore not enough time has elapsed for the average universal temperature to have dropped to less than 3 Kelvin. We have got very close to absolute zero. Do you even know what temperature IS?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg "not enough time has elapsed..." How much time IS required to reach absolute zero?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf I don't know. Hundreds of billions of years? Try looking up 'heat death of the universe'.
You didn't address my question: Do you know WHAT temperature is?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg Yes, I know what temp is...
"I don't know." how long it will take for the universe to die a cold death? But 13.7 billion years DEFINITELY isn't long enough!
You're making this up as you go!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf I'm not an expert on this subject and never claimed to be, but from your comments I seem to know more than you. Why can't you admit the simple fact that you are being critical of something you don't fully understand?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg How can I understand something when it's IRRATIONAL? I don't understand Christianity for it too is IRRATIONAL!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf Christianity and relativity are polar opposites. You really should know that! Religion relies on dogma, control and obedience. Science (including relativity) can be questioned, tested and verified by ANYONE who can be bothered to put in the work required to gain a proper understanding of it.
By calling it irrational you're simply highlighting your own ignorance.
finlarg 1 month ago
cont... There is no dogma in science, but when people like Gaede start hurling abuse and stating that current theory is garbage whilst clearly demonstrating the shortfall of their understanding (by straw manning and asking ridiculously stupid questions), they are often dismissed as cranks.
So, let me repeat: Learn and get to grips with the theory FIRST. Then, and only then will you be in a position to criticize. To miss out that vital step is to fall before the first hurdle.
finlarg 1 month ago
@kc0itf He's not just making it up as he goes. Been spot on so far.
There is a good episode of Horizon called What is one degree? I thought I understood temperature 'till I watched it. Now I actually do. I think;)
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 month ago
@SKELTER1SKELTER Thanks for the support!
These guys we're arguing with have a rare combination of ignorance and arrogance. The only other place I've seen such a trait is amongst religious fundamentalists!
It's fascinating to look at the history of temperature measurement. Fahrenheit and Celsius just don't get to the heart of the matter like Kelvin does.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg You're Welcome.
A steadfast refusal to research the things you oppose is a weird trait some people have.
I'm looking into Bill Gaedes 'Rope Hypothesis', so I can more accurately assess just how wacky it is. I bet he won't read any of the things you have suggested though
You've shown great patience and presented well reasoned arguments so far. Keep it up.
SKELTER1SKELTER 1 month ago
@finlarg What is your evidence for time having a beginning?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf It is predicted by general relativity. Other things predicted by general relativity, such as gravitational lensing and the anomalous perihelion shift of mercury, have been confirmed, which lends credence to the theory being accurate.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg You are full of shit! There are alternative explanations of gravitational lensing. The anomalous perihelion shift of mercury WASN'T predicted by general relativity, it was developed as an answer to it! And there is STILL debate, as Bill Gaede points out, that relativity answers nothings but more problems of its own!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most well tested scientific theories from the 20th century. What Gaede 'points out' is irrelevant - he's the guy who has SUCH a poor grasp of modern science that he believes his own whacky ideas are scientific! You're free to hang on his every word, but don't expect any real answers to the mysteries of the universe!
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg "Relativity and quantum mechanics are two of the most well-tested scientific theories from the 20th Century." AND they are known to be INCOMPATIBLE with each other! The Universe works on CONTRADICTIONS?!
kc0itf 1 month ago
"Relativity and quantum mechanics are... well-tested scientific theories"
.
Relativity proposes warped space. Quantum proposes 0D 'particles' and wave-packets. What is that you 'tested' in your lab, fin? WHAT did you handle with your tweezers? Sounds more like an unsubstantiated conclusion.
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede It may sound like that to you Bill, but that is because you've only skimmed over the surface of the theories you criticize so strongly. You need to spend more time learning them properly.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg How do we learn them "properly"? Does it require a faith system? That we turn off our brains and trust the high priests of "physics"?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf Of course learning physics properly does not require faith. What a stupid question! Your brain is more likely to stultify if you follow pseudoscientists rather than real science with it's empirical evidence and testing of hypotheses, both of which Gaede dismisses from his own obscure 'Science'.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg We are CONTINUOUSLY told by the mainstream that blackholes are lurking EVERYWHERE! However, when we ask for a picture of the object in question, all we get is a picture of a star! In other words, it requires blind faith in the high priests of physics!
It is a case of the emperor having NO CLOTHES! Who dares mention the obvious, like Bill Gaede!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf Black holes lurking everywhere? Either you've been misled or you haven't understood what you were being told. I don't know because I wasn't there when you were 'continuously being told' such things.
Describing physicists as priests indicates that either you're a sock account of Gaede's or you've been indoctrinated by him.
Do you know what a black hole is?
What would you expect it to look like?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg A blackhole is a mystical evil object with such IMMENSE gravity attraction that NOTHING, not even ABSURD Hawking radiation escapes! But there is already a problem... what is it a HOLE into? Space? We already observe that space DOESN'T warp... how then does it have holes?
Blackholes are also supposed to affect time... but we don't even know what time is!
You will find blackholes MENTIONED many time in Astronomy Picture of the Day, but all I see are artist conceptions or STARS!
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf
"A blackhole is a mystical evil object..."
"We already observe that space DOESN'T warp..."
Oh dear. Back to the classroom you go! A black hole is nigh on impossible to photograph, for the same reason stars are. They are INCREDIBLY far away. We don't have powerfull enough telescopes to see surface detail of ANY star (with the exception of Betelgeuse), let alone a black hole. We can see that there is one at the centre of our galaxy. We have observed and measured stars orbiting it.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg "We don't have powerful enough telescopes to see surface detail of ANY star."
I guess the folks at SOHO didn't get that memo... how does one ORBIT a blackhole?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf OK. If we're being pedantic then I should have mentioned the obvious fact that we can see a lot of surface detail on our own star.
A black hole has mass. So as long as you're outside the event horizon, stars and other objects will orbit in the normal way.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg Where is the event horizon? If one has to measure where it is, doesn't that imply they get sucked in?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf It depends on the mass of the black hole. The position is calculated, not 'measured' by actually going there. It's good to ask questions, but dismissing relativity etc BEFORE you've familiarized yourself with it, is not cool.
finlarg 1 month ago
"the sun was NOT in the frame, the observed positions of the stars is DIFFERENT... This is because the mass of the sun curved spacetime"
.
Erm... fin? How does this prove that space/ST is warped? Where is the picture of warped space/ST that you promised? In fact, where is the picture of space/ST before you warp 'it'?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Your comment indicates confusion on your part. Firstly, I'm not in the 'space-warping' business as you like to call it, but my mass curves spacetime a tiny bit. So does yours.
Here is a rather easy-to-understand article which deals with the matter in question:
undsci berkeley edu/article/0_0_0/fair_tests_04
finlarg 1 month ago
"my mass curves spacetime"
.
A concept bending a concept... That's quite novel, fin. What's next? Justice curving love?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Anyone ever told you that you sound like a stuck record? If you equate love and justice with mass and spacetime even AFTER the difference has been painstakingly explained to you by myself and numerous other commenters, then there's little hope for you. You're missing out on so much. It's a shame really.
finlarg 1 month ago
@kc0itf They are not contradictory, they each deal with different phenomena. Did you not know that?
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg Different phenomena? One finds SPACESHIPS in Einstein's "thought" experiments... are these craft not made of atoms? "Virtual" particles mayhaps then?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@finlarg "Well-tested..." Did they pass the tests? What were the tests?
kc0itf 1 month ago
@kc0itf I don't have the time or the inclination to go into great detail here, with the 500 character limit, things which anyone who is critical of relativity and quantum should ALREADY KNOW!
Wikipedia have an introductory article on general relativity. It's easy to find. Do yourself a favour and READ it from start to finish, and if you didn't get it all, read it again!
finlarg 1 month ago
"if you didn't get it all, read it again!"
I read it, fin. It talks about magical objects called black holes...
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Black_Hole_Milkyway jpg
.
and describes a fishnet the members of this religion call 'spacetime'...
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:Spacetime_curvature png
.
Is that what you wanted people to see?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede I would like for you and kc0itf (assuming you're not the same person) to READ the entire article, not just skim through it and focus all your attention on black holes and one particular illustration. Once you've done that we can have a sensible discussion. So far all you've done is demonstrate a child-like lack of comprehension.
finlarg 1 month ago
"I would like for you and kc0itf (assuming you're not the same person) to READ the entire article"
.
a. You discovered my secret, fin. Yes, I am kc and kc is me. Since no one in the world agrees with me I have to create these user names and argue with myself to feel secure.
b. Why would we... I read the article? I mean, justify it. What is it about? Warped space? What else does Relativity have to offer?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede
a. Arguing and agreeing with yourself or anyone else are not the same. Your logic is unsound - or perhaps just typed it too quickly?
b. I don't have to justify anything to you. But it would be prudent, on your part, to familiarize yourself with the basics of relativity PRIOR to writing a debunking type of book (plus website and videos) on the subject!
finlarg 1 month ago
"gravitational lensing and the anomalous perihelion shift of mercury, have been confirmed"
.
By whom? By you, fin?
And how were they 'confirmed'? Did you see warped space with your own eyes?
.
"lends credence to the theory"
So now it turns out that the theory wasn't confirmed at all! You now argue that YOU believe (i.e., credence) the theory...
bgaede 1 month ago 2
@bgaede By astronomers Bill. You should be aware that following the publication of Einstein's paper in 1916 the next solar eclipse was eagerly anticipated - to see if his prediction was right. And in 1919 it was! It has subsequently been observed and measured many times.
I have seen photographs of gravitational lensing with my own eyes.
finlarg 1 month ago
"I have seen photographs of gravitational lensing with my own eyes."
.
Here's the one this idiot Eddington used to 'confirm' Pastor Al's 'prediction', dear fin...
.
en.wikipedia org/wiki/File:1919_eclipse_positive jpg
.
Please point to the part of the picture where you see warped space. Is it in the uper left hand quarter of the pic? On the lower right?
bgaede 1 month ago
@bgaede Do I have to state the obvious with you Bill? I guess so...
When the above-mentioned photo is compared with another photo of the same patch of sky, taken when the sun was NOT in the frame, the observed positions of the stars is DIFFERENT. This is because the mass of the sun curved spacetime and altered the position of where we see the stars.
finlarg 1 month ago
@finlarg "the observed positions of the stars is DIFFERENT."
It can't be helped that you have BAD VISION... where was the ABSOLUTE position of the stars?
kc0itf 1 month ago
The very fact that all these idiots talk theory as if it's solid confrimed fact speaks volumes in itself. It merely makes them look more foolish than they already were before opening their cake holes - if that's possible, confirming their idiot status. Good video, favored. Thanks.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
@bgaede On the basis of the title of your book 'why god doesn't exist', the majority of the population would conclude that you are an atheist. Are they all wrong?
finlarg 2 months ago
1. "the majority of the population would conclude that you are an atheist. Are they all wrong?"
.
Atheists and theists have been arguing at least for decades if not centuries. The reason for this endless dispute is that both rely on belief (also know as 'knowledge'). There was an idiot named Plato who defined knowledge as a kind of 'belief' and that's what the philosophers continue to use today.
bgaede 2 months ago
2. Therefore, atheists regard themselves to represent the rational and scientific world when nothing of the sort is true. Science does not leave the crucial word 'exist' to the uncertainty of subjectivity. In Science, we must absolutely get a hold of this enigmatic word. Until we do, atheists will continue to argue erroneously that 'God does not exist' and theists will continue to argue erroneously that 'God does exist'.
bgaede 2 months ago
3. Both positions are unscientific, and this is an example that illustrates that definitions are everything. They make or break either argument. Once we define the word 'exist' as 'physical presence', we can finally use it consistently in any debate to resolve any argument.
bgaede 2 months ago
4. In Science, we don't say that God exists or that God doesn't exist. In Science, we ASSUME that God exists (hypothesize) and then proceed to explain a phenomenon with this assumption (theorize). That's the genuine Scientific Method! What lamebrains such as Galileo and Newt 'thought' was 'science' is just another religion: belief in experiments, predictions, evidence, proof, existence...
bgaede 2 months ago
5. Nevertheless, scientists don't vote for theories. It is the mathematicians who vote and declare a theory to be 'correct'. I assume that they determine this by simple majority... or perhaps, it depends on who the heavyweights are. For instance, Bohr was a heavyweight. Many of his amusing decrees and rulings still stand. How dare anyone challenge such scholar, such eminence?
bgaede 2 months ago
6. It is the mathematicians who 'prove' theories and then claim that theories are temporary until a new one comes along. The idiots of Math live with these contradictions. The truth is final -- no chance to challenge it -- but it is a temporary truth.
.
So, it doesn't matter how many people declare atheism to be the true religion. In Science, we explain and do so rationally. What the majority of the world decides afterward is of no concern to Science.
bgaede 2 months ago
7. Atheists need to learn the rational argument to use the words 'God' and 'exist' scientifically. They are still in the dark ages! They still argue about 'why' God doesn't exist. This idiot Dawkins is a prime example of the 'God doesn't exist' fallacy. He's not a scientist. He's just another religious fool.
bgaede 2 months ago
@bgaede Atheists are more religious than creationists because they have more hurdles to faith leap than "my sky daddy did it" Christians.
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
"Atheists are more religious than creationists"
.
Amen! And I should 'know' because I used to be an atheist. I come from a strong atheist home. I never imagined I would one day turn my back on my own religion.
.
"these idiots talk theory as if it's solid confrimed fact"
That's the great error of the religion of Math Phyz! They propose the particle model of QM as a done deal (proof, truth, evidence) when every particle in the Std Mod is nothing more than an inference.
bgaede 2 months ago
@gr8vibes2 Do you even know what the word 'atheist' means?
finlarg 2 months ago
@finlarg buy a dictionary
gr8vibes2 2 months ago
@bgaede Dawkins has a chapter in his book called 'A deeply religious non-believer' or something very similar. I think he was being ironic! Dawkins doesn't claim absolute certainty in his belief that there is no god.
Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. If he's not a scientist, then I question your understanding of the word scientist.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede Truth is synonymous with correct-ness and implies an absolute.
I'm not aware of any intelligent thinking person who has claimed atheism to be the 'true religion'. It's like a fireman fighting fire with fire.
finlarg 2 months ago
@bgaede I would say that no good scientist would use the word correct because that implies an absolute. Science deals with degrees of probability, degrees of certainty.
The Copenhagen interpretation was arrived at as a working hypothesis with the un