Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   faith based science?
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 110 of 171 (677310)
10-29-2012 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by foreveryoung
10-29-2012 1:28 AM


Massless momentum of a photon is one of the delicious heights of the human absurdity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by foreveryoung, posted 10-29-2012 1:28 AM foreveryoung has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 3:01 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 115 of 171 (677469)
10-30-2012 3:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Taq
10-29-2012 3:01 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Taq, posted 10-29-2012 3:01 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 10:20 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 10:47 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


(1)
Message 118 of 171 (677543)
10-30-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
10-30-2012 10:47 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 10:47 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 4:09 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 127 of 171 (677605)
10-30-2012 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 10:20 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 10:20 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:24 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 129 of 171 (677607)
10-30-2012 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by NoNukes
10-30-2012 7:48 PM


Re: E&M 101
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by NoNukes, posted 10-30-2012 7:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 130 of 171 (677610)
10-30-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by New Cat's Eye
10-30-2012 5:03 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-30-2012 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:27 PM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 131 of 171 (677612)
10-30-2012 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Taq
10-30-2012 6:12 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Taq, posted 10-30-2012 6:12 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 12:54 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 137 of 171 (677668)
10-31-2012 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Taq
10-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: light waves
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 12:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 1:47 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 3:45 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 142 of 171 (677694)
10-31-2012 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Panda
10-31-2012 1:47 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 1:47 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 11:52 PM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 144 of 171 (677696)
10-31-2012 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Taq
10-31-2012 3:45 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Taq, posted 10-31-2012 3:45 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 11-01-2012 10:57 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 145 of 171 (677699)
10-31-2012 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by NoNukes
10-31-2012 1:48 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2012 1:48 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 147 of 171 (677702)
11-01-2012 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by New Cat's Eye
10-31-2012 12:24 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-31-2012 12:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-01-2012 9:58 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 148 of 171 (677703)
11-01-2012 12:25 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Panda
10-31-2012 11:52 PM


Re: light waves
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Panda, posted 10-31-2012 11:52 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Panda, posted 11-01-2012 6:48 AM Alfred Maddenstein has replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 150 of 171 (677715)
11-01-2012 4:40 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by foreveryoung
11-01-2012 3:15 AM


Re: E&M 101
Easy logistics, Forever. The quacks just build mathemagical bridges all over the "fields" and good communication is in place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by foreveryoung, posted 11-01-2012 3:15 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Alfred Maddenstein
Member (Idle past 3967 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 04-01-2011


Message 164 of 171 (677850)
11-01-2012 11:35 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Son Goku
11-01-2012 5:10 AM


Re: E&M 101
So what is it exactly travelling in your hypothesis, Son? You sound like it's the speeding fields.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Son Goku, posted 11-01-2012 5:10 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Son Goku, posted 11-02-2012 4:56 AM Alfred Maddenstein has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024