Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-11-2013, 07:53 PM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Bill Gaede say, scientists (Quantum physicists, mathematical physicists, etc.) and of course all people will never know what an atom looks like. But, here is the fatal flaw, while he said photons, electrons, dark matter, Higgs boson, quantum particles, etc. are irrational because we can't draw it, observe it, etc. and it is irrational to have a zero-size particle, but he accept atom as a rational assumption while he said, "The contemporary world of 'science' consists of mathematical philosophers more comfortable with publishing nonsense such as time travel and dark energy than about thinking critically. We will never know what an atom looks like because no one cares any more about WHAT an atom IS or looks like. Then again, the mainstreamer complains now and then that he doesn't have a deeper meaning of Quantum. No kidding?"





Bill Gaede's article about "Why can't you draw an atom?"

Thoughts?
Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 16-11-2013 09:04 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(16-11-2013 07:53 PM)Mike Wrote:  Bill Gaede say, scientists (Quantum physicists, mathematical physicists, etc.) and of course all people will never know what an atom looks like.

...

We will never know what an atom looks like because no one cares any more about WHAT an atom IS or looks like. Then again, the mainstreamer complains now and then that he doesn't have a deeper meaning of Quantum. No kidding?[/i]"

Mainstreamer as in typical non-scientific human or typical scientists?

String theory is something getting a great deal of attention, and it does have the potential to give us a deeper explanation as to what subatomic particles look like. Though string theory has not been verified. To avoid confusion, a more fitting term would be string hypothesis.

(16-11-2013 07:53 PM)Mike Wrote:  "[i]The contemporary world of 'science' consists of mathematical philosophers more comfortable with publishing nonsense such as time travel and dark energy than about thinking critically.

Time travel to the future is not nonsense (Special and General Relativity; Time Dilation). GPS satellites have to account for the time dilation that occurs because of their velocity in orbit and because they aren't as deep in the earths gravitational well as we are. A clock on the satellite will progress slower than a stationary clock on earth, meaning the satellite is effectively moving into the future (albeit by a tiny fraction faster than us, on the scale of nanoseconds per day I believe). The effect increases as you move faster, so we could watch our sun explode in 5 billion years if we were to travel very near the speed of light for a while. (Yes, a while is vague, I haven't done the calculation).

Dark energy, the cosmological constant, whatever we want to call it. Something exists which is accelerating the expansion of the universe, dark energy is the placeholder for that something (Unless some new discovery has been made that I'm not aware of).

So for someone to say these things are nonsense, kind of cuts his credibility for me.

Side note, I didn't watch the video.
Edit: Watching the video. Is this guy for real or is this video a joke?

Edit 2: "You should keep in mind that quantum [theory] has failed to incorporate gravity into the theory. So the question you should ask a particle mathematician (Particle mathematician? Wtf) is, how does quantum [theory] ever intend to produce attraction between two discrete particles, especially if neither of them has any size?"

Gravity isn't the only force, and it is by far the weakest. Electromagnetism and the Strong force are what exert forces ('produce attraction' and repulsion) between subatomic particles that can be measured in particle accelerators. He seems to think the universe needs to be intuitive and follow common sense, that's his problem.

On a side note(number 2!): This really has nothing to do with the thread topic, you should have made a new thread.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-11-2013, 09:16 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
So, am I missing something or what is this?




But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like evenheathen's post
17-11-2013, 01:57 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
So how can nothing (eg. space) that have no shape morph into objects? Because according to the BBT, quantum mechanics, etc. matter can pop in and out of nothing. If the universe indeed have an ending, how can space, which is nothing can be destroyed while it is already nothing? According to Bill Gaede, space, matter and motion are eternal. Without space, matter can't exist and matter can't move. But because matter is eternal, thus space is eternal too.
Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 04:03 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 01:57 AM)Mike Wrote:  So how can nothing (eg. space) that have no shape morph into objects? Because according to the BBT, quantum mechanics, etc. matter can pop in and out of nothing. If the universe indeed have an ending, how can space, which is nothing can be destroyed while it is already nothing? According to Bill Gaede, space, matter and motion are eternal. Without space, matter can't exist and matter can't move. But because matter is eternal, thus space is eternal too.

Part of the answer is that space isn't nothing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
17-11-2013, 04:13 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 04:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 01:57 AM)Mike Wrote:  So how can nothing (eg. space) that have no shape morph into objects? Because according to the BBT, quantum mechanics, etc. matter can pop in and out of nothing. If the universe indeed have an ending, how can space, which is nothing can be destroyed while it is already nothing? According to Bill Gaede, space, matter and motion are eternal. Without space, matter can't exist and matter can't move. But because matter is eternal, thus space is eternal too.

Part of the answer is that space isn't nothing.

Can you explain why space isn't nothing? But we know space don't have any shape like matter. Space is just the static distance between objects.
Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 04:38 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 04:13 AM)Mike Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 04:03 AM)Chas Wrote:  Part of the answer is that space isn't nothing.

Can you explain why space isn't nothing? But we know space don't have any shape like matter. Space is just the static distance between objects.

If space is nothing, then how is it deformed by mass? That is what General Relativity tells us gravity is.

Wikipedia Wrote:General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational effect between masses results from their warping of spacetime.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 05:21 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(16-11-2013 02:51 PM)birdseye Wrote:  ...evolutionists have accepted nuclear fusion as the cause of sunshine.

Biology. Now the science of sunshine. Angel

And Mike, stop listening to Bill Gaede. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like houseofcantor's post
17-11-2013, 08:58 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 04:38 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 04:13 AM)Mike Wrote:  Can you explain why space isn't nothing? But we know space don't have any shape like matter. Space is just the static distance between objects.

If space is nothing, then how is it deformed by mass? That is what General Relativity tells us gravity is.

Wikipedia Wrote:General relativity is a theory of gravitation that was developed by Albert Einstein between 1907 and 1915. According to general relativity, the observed gravitational effect between masses results from their warping of spacetime.

Regarding the mass, mass is, according to Bill Gaede's loyal follower Fatfist, "Relativists, or more specifically, mathematicians, have no clue what the word MASS means. They have never defined this word consistently. This is why they use the word MASS synonymously with WEIGHT, and with a multitude of many other terms as well,.....and they do so whenever it suits their arguments!

Mass (like time, distance-traveled, speed) is a scalar quantity (a conceptual relation) that we measure. The mathematicians have reified such concepts into objects. Then they move them around and make them “physically” interact with real objects, or they “stretch” or “increase” them. It is atoms that make up a real object, never “mass” or “weight” or “kilograms”. Mathematicians don't say that “the car” moved. They instead say that “the mass” of the car moved. In physics, mass (i.e. kilograms) does not move. Such notions belong in religion. And of course they believe in such idiocies as “moving mass” - they are mathematicians, NOT physicists!

In physics, there is a difference between “mass” and “matter”. Mass is only used in the context of dynamic concepts (ie. math scalar quantities), while matter (atoms) is used in the context of real objects which have the intrinsic property of shape. These terms cannot be used synonymously, like mathematicians use them in the religion of Relativity."
Relativity - Mass Increase is a FRAUD

He say mass is just a concept thus it is not exist.

Huh
Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 09:02 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Some of Bill Gaede's supporter said, if the Big Bang is true, in what medium did the Big Bang occurred? If the Big Bang occurred in a medium, that's mean space is there even before the Big Bang take place.
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: