Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-11-2013, 09:13 AM
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. 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?

If you want to see photons, stare at the sun.
If you want to observe electrons, stick two metal wires in the electrical outlet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 09:29 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
Mike, what'd I just tell you? Big Grin

Generally, mathematics don't give a fuck about reality. It is more concerned with modeling reality. Take the famed e equals m c squared. Another way of saying this is that energy varies directly with mass. Ya make e bigger, m gets bigger, it's pretty fucking straightforward.

Problems arise because one model may have many applications, and science gets popularized; and some wankers get their philosophical rocks off exploiting the openings thus revealed.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 10:09 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 08:58 AM)Mike Wrote:  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!

Oh, fuck me.

Well, that's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while.

How is it worth your time to even bother knowing what these people are saying?

How is it worth anyone's time?

(17-11-2013 08:58 AM)Mike Wrote:  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!

I tried to understand what that is saying.

I can't. It is incoherent drivel.

(17-11-2013 08:58 AM)Mike Wrote:  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

See above.

If you can't even tell what the other person is saying then it's not even possible to respond to them.

Relativity is real. Put a clock on a mountain.

Better yet, examine high energy radiation as it enters the Earth's atmosphere. Unless one accounts for length contraction or time dilation (depending on frame of reference) it is literally impossible for certain types of particles to reach the surface. And yet they do, and we can see them.

(17-11-2013 08:58 AM)Mike Wrote:  He say mass is just a concept thus it is not exist.

Huh

Everything is "just a concept".

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like cjlr's post
17-11-2013, 10:16 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How is it worth anyone's time?

I can't speak for Mike, of course, but I was just looking at my Gwynnies in the other tab... and I had to stop that. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 10:56 AM
 
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
It seems like not only you guys that don't understand what Bill Gaede and Fatfist are saying. I find it too hard to understand what are they trying to explain, too. He also said, we can only think critically, rationally explain and assume everything because our sensory system is limited and subjective so observations and experiments are limited and subjective too. Same to the technological equipment that we have today which is also limited. Why he said we can only think critically and rationally explain everything is because our intelligence or intellect is unlimited, while our sensory system is limited.

So, what are your thoughts about space, is it eternal, infinite or temporal and finite?
Quote this message in a reply
17-11-2013, 11:03 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 10:56 AM)Mike Wrote:  It seems like not only you guys that don't understand what Bill Gaede and Fatfist are saying. I find it too hard to understand what are they trying to explain, too. He also said, we can only think critically, rationally explain and assume everything because our sensory system is limited and subjective so observations and experiments are limited and subjective too. Same to the technological equipment that we have today which is also limited. Why he said we can only think critically and rationally explain everything is because our intelligence or intellect is unlimited, while our sensory system is limited.

So, what are your thoughts about space, is it eternal, infinite or temporal and finite?

No, it's not that we don't understand it. It's that they are not talking rationally they are making up bullshit and adding sciency words like mass and quantum it's woo pure and simple. They are just talking out of their ass so there is nothing to understand.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
17-11-2013, 11:06 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 10:56 AM)Mike Wrote:  It seems like not only you guys that don't understand what Bill Gaede and Fatfist are saying. I find it too hard to understand what are they trying to explain, too. He also said, we can only think critically, rationally explain and assume everything because our sensory system is limited and subjective so observations and experiments are limited and subjective too. Same to the technological equipment that we have today which is also limited. Why he said we can only think critically and rationally explain everything is because our intelligence or intellect is unlimited, while our sensory system is limited.

So, what are your thoughts about space, is it eternal, infinite or temporal and finite?

That first sentence... Big Grin

His confluence of philosophy with science is simply not helpful.

As for space, hmmmn... it is spacious. Big Grin

Yeah, that's not helpful either, but I try not to put too many of those concepts into a single train of thought lest it derail into the eternal navel. I believe in geometry and waveform, and thingness as a function of space; but I'm also mathematical in that I internalize models of reality rather than speculate upon "actual reality."

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
17-11-2013, 03:58 PM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 08:58 AM)Mike Wrote:  Regarding the mass, mass is, according to Bill Gaede's loyal follower Fatfist...

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!

You should speak to, or watch some lectures of physicists instead of blindly accepting what this guy is telling you. There isn't much point in explaining anything to you if your just going to take what this man says as gospel.

Why do you think you have more trouble picking up a car as opposed to a tv? Surely if it's Just Atoms there shouldn't be a difference? Atoms have a property called mass. You have a property called weight (your weight is a direct result of your mass + the strength of the gravitational field in which you reside).

A more massive object takes a greater force to move. Are you denying that there is a difference between lifting the tv and a car? When an object moves, the mass of that object moves. They aren't two separate things, mass is a property of the object like weight is a property you have (You actually have mass, weight varies, I simply say weight because your familiar with your weight not your mass). It is more useful to say the quantity of mass that moved as opposed to saying "a car". "A car" tells us very little information relevant to physics, while the mass tells us a great deal more. Such as the weight of the object on the surface of the earth and the the force required to accelerate it a set amount (or inertia, which tells us the resistance to movement, same thing).

It is also more helpful to put a maximum weight label on elevators as opposed to a maximum person label. It could say maximum 10, having a maximum weight capacity of 1500, but if 10 300 pound individuals get on the elevator there will be a problem. The maximum weight label gives more information than the maximum person label, and in physics what we want is information.

A great deal of confusion arises because we classify weight in kilograms most of the time, the same unit as mass. We have to pick somewhere to measure the mass so we can get accurate relative measurements, so we choose to define the mass of an object as the weight in the earths gravitational field at the surface (or ocean level) since it is convenient to measure an object on the surface of the earth. In particle physics though, mass is not defined this way.

For example: Say on earth your weight is 100kg, then your mass is 100kg. On the moon your mass is still 100kg but your weight would be around 17kg. Mass is constant, weight is dependant on the gravitational field in which you reside. I will repeat this because it is key to understanding the difference between the two.

Another example is when in orbit you are weightless (or when falling, which is the same thing minus the sideways velocity preventing you from hitting the ground).

In physics, Weight is measured in Newtons, it is a force that is exerted by the gravitational field the the object is in. Mass is measured in Kilograms (Or alternatively for particle physics, Electron-Volts), it is essentially a measure of the energy content of an object at rest. Your weight is dependent on your mass. Mass is constant, weight is not. Matter is a state energy can take (as opposed electromagnetic radiation, which is not matter), Mass is the energy content.

This might be a long explanation but I did try to get it across as coherently as possible, I'm not very fluent.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adenosis's post
18-11-2013, 03:04 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(17-11-2013 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How is it worth anyone's time?

SNIP

Everything is "just a concept".

Time is a concept do we have it to have worth from it...

Just saying

(isn't there wave particle duality in electromagnetic radiation, meaning it has a mass too? photons in motion have mass I am told)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Eternal universe without Big Bang?
(18-11-2013 03:04 AM)PursuingTruth Wrote:  
(17-11-2013 10:09 AM)cjlr Wrote:  How is it worth anyone's time?

SNIP

Everything is "just a concept".

Time is a concept do we have it to have worth from it...

Just saying

(isn't there wave particle duality in electromagnetic radiation, meaning it has a mass too? photons in motion have mass I am told)

1. Is that a question or a statement? Time is also a property of the reality we observe, events have duration.

2. EM radiation does act like particles (photoelectric effect), and waves (double slit/interferometer experiments). Light ALWAYS moves.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Adenosis's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: