|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: faith based science? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Massless momentum of a photon is one of the delicious heights of the human absurdity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Irrelevant. Photon is a mathematical object. It is a quantity of motion translated called energy in the jargon. That in turn could be reduced to potential distance travelled by an object. A length. That itself may not travel or be scattered which is a kind of travelling. Impossible.
Wave requires a medium necessarily. Waving nothing, or waving vacuum, space-time or whatever the euphemism might be is not allowed by Mother Nature. Impossible and highly irrational proposition. It is one thing to admit, well, we just do not know what the medium might be or we just cannot conceptualise it to date, and another thing to insist that there may be exceptions to the rule and it is just that Mother Nature is a weird momma. Well, she is certainly not. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined:
|
Irrelevant. Wave is what an object or medium does, not what anything is. No medium, no wave. Zero dimensional entities do not qualify as objects. Sorry. You persist in being absurd after your beloved authorities. You can shake a hand, can you hand a shake? If you can send it to the cat by the morning post.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Irrelevant, Vatican. You can always measure a positive value when you believe your prayers are answered. All you need is an explanatory framework to demonstrate you are special. And you can make a graph and show that to the skeptics.
Explains nothing in real terms though. Impossible and contradictory assumptions. You are not special and you do not represent any science. Whereas Bill Gaede explains while assuming only what is physically possible, conceivable without contradictions and therefore could be necessary. He assumes Mach's principle which is already necessary with no single bit matter being able to be created or destroyed and all matter being in constant interaction and the degree of that interaction is a function of distance, and he conceptualises a plausible mechanism of that necessary state of universal play. Gives the physical architecture to Mach's sound principle. Waves are waving in the hypothesis not by magic but through a plausible medium of electromagnetic ropes connecting all bits of matter in existence and of necessity eternally configured to be in tension. That tension of taut ropes is conceptualised as gravity while the speed of light signal travelling along the threads as the rest of the causal interaction.Vast difference next to your ridiculous faith. Lots of phenomena are stripped of their weirdness, quantum or otherwise. Any mathematician can translate any of this into lovely measurements and nice graphs. Now he offers his rational explanation to you and is met with a heap of abuse, which is a natural reaction on your part. Since rational explanations are the last thing you want needing only the comfort of certainty your stupid bigbangist faith is giving you being currently voted up by the majority. No wonder he is enraged at you piggish lot and is mercilessly mocking your whole idiotic peer-review set-up and so on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Nuke, all you need to do is to explain to yourself what does that "field" means in real physical terms. Is that a physical object not in need of support by any physical medium, or is that another word for abstract region of Faraday populated by you with lines of forces, tensors, scalars, magnitudes and vectors? What is charge exactly? Can you define it beyond "that mysterious something that attracts or repels depending on the mutual sign I put on my piece of paper?
If the latter is the case, then again: impossible and highly irrational proposition.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Vatican, that makes space into a waving ocean of light with photons being water molecules. Is that what you are proposing? The cat is aware though that in the theory, light only arrives and departs as photons while travelling all those quadrillions of intergalactic miles strictly as waves. That makes it an ocean stripped of water molecules. Quite a dry affair.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, the original belief in ether was based on strict necessity and sound understanding that wave is a verb for the purposes of physics, not any noun representing a physical entity. Wave is what something does. Wave is a changing shape of a medium in a particular type of motion. No exceptions, sorry. Waving fields of electromagnetic radiation is a metaphor like waves of anger or new wave in music. The angry or music playing folks are implied to really exist. The concept of ether itself was contradictory but that is another issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, all your evidence only shows there is a contradiction in terms. I repeat slowly for the exceptionally dull and unreceptive: wave is what something does. An act needs an actor. You can believe whatever you want and persist in your absurdities. It's up to you. Irrelevant otherwise. Love without a lover is religion. If you say God is pure Love, light is pure wave and stream of zero-dimensional, massless beads with momentum and so on, that is your faith and religion is three doors down the hall. You are welcome there. No questions asked and you can run all the experiments to confirm your faith. In physics it's different. No contradictions allowed.
If you say God is Love, you show the object that loves and physics is happy to study and explain the mechanics of that object and its love. Simple. Same goes for light. Understand?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Actor and act are both nouns standing for objects? Not for the purposes of physics, Pandy. For the purposes of poetry and religion only both love and a lover are nouns. The same with runner and running. In pop physics they are used indiscriminately as concepts reified into objects with the help of mathemagic and that creates a lot of confusion. For the purposes of real physics running is a verb and a concept. It is what runners do. No runners, no running is possible. No exceptions for waves and suchlike.
All the pop phyz religion is based on is a bunch of such exceptions and that is why they have the fluctuating nothing of the Big Bunk acting to create the Universe and the rest of the nonsense you are fed daily by the popphyz stars. You are happy to swallow their crap and to fake understanding, they are glad to fake communicating an explanation in order to get their upkeep in exchange. So every one is happy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
No, Tacky. Every experiment indicates waves thereby indicating there is a medium that allows the waving. No ether is postulated in the hypothesis. Your span of attention is too short. It is double helix ropes connecting all the atoms that is conceptualised, not ether as ether is contradictory too.
You are talking through your hat again. Photons are but mathematical entities. Remember, in the theory they are only counted and do not do any travelling anyway. It's waves again that propagate. That needs a medium necessarily. That is clear since there is no handless shake coming from you lot in my post. Only your usual spewing of second hand nonsense.That is why the ropes are conceptualised rationally explaining a lot of phenomena as a result . If you can come up with a better explanation including a better fitting medium, please do. Until that time the Gaede's ropes trump anything else. Edited by Alfred Maddenstein, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Nuke, you just assert that the extrapolation has failed. You expect everybody to take your claim that an exception is somehow possible at face value. Wave is a moving shape. Shapes and configurations without any exceptions need what is shaped and configured. Granted, if you repeat your absurd claim many times in a chorus you can persuade most apes that such an exception is somehow possible in the case of light. But not everybody and not all the time. There always will be somebody who'll see that your emperor is naked and call your bluff, Nuke.
You may depend on that, my learned friend.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
You've got it, Vatican. Bill's explanation is internally consistent and yours second hand one is not. So yours fails already before any testing can even begin. What is there to test if you have no clue what you are talking about? You just flip and flop and dance around the issues. That what inconsistent means.
That is how you ended up with the Universe popping out of nothing and the rest of mathematical fudges like dark matter, energy and so on accelerating into the same nothing. You've got nothing, Vatican. Your case is closed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Blah, blah, blah, Panda's Thumby. Of course, all those are nouns as grammatical category. Love though is an abstraction devoid of physical properties and only a lover is a physical object that can move and love. Love does not belong in physics. Lovers can wave, love cannot do that other than in poetry. Love is an abstraction denoting the various actions of lovers. Simple.
Can you grasp the difference or your skull is too thick for that? My grasp of English may be poor or may be not. Your grasp of anything at all is non-existent. It's all borrowed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
Easy logistics, Forever. The quacks just build mathemagical bridges all over the "fields" and good communication is in place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Alfred Maddenstein Member (Idle past 3967 days) Posts: 565 Joined: |
So what is it exactly travelling in your hypothesis, Son? You sound like it's the speeding fields.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024