Big Bang: The BIG LIE!!

fatfist Hub Author 23 months ago

Thanks for the comment ODuck.

String Theory is another easy one. A string has ONE more dimension than the singularity.

A string is 1D.

Do I need to say more? Knowing what it represents is all that is required to put it to rest.

I think I'll do a little hub on it cause there are people out there who don't understand dimensions and the hysterical nonsense that surrounds these issues.

fatfist Hub Author 23 months ago

("No such thing as bad pupil. Only bad teacher. Teacher say. Pupil do.")

Yeah, human apes have evolved this tendency to mimic and parrot authority.

Hawking was enamored by those before him, and thus didn't think before he preached.

Einstein did pretty much the same. He used Lorentz's transformations to modify time, length, and mass, while keeping c constant. And got much of his stuff from Poincare's Relativity principle.

Einstein's 1905 paper didn't gain popularity because of its accurate & consistent content. There were other reasons for its instant sensation.

His papers were actually riddled with lots of mathematical errors, logical inconsistencies, and frauds. Einstein tried to fix them in 1907 and 1910, but that would have entailed modifying all of Relativity.

Instead, he changed some definitions, and interpretations, like the clock measurement (time intervals vs clock beat rates). And he also committed FRAUD by deliberately disguising his errors in order to conclude that moving clocks run slow. And yet these fundamental errors are still there today.

Just try posting about them in any relativity site and your post will be instantly deleted, your account suspended, and your IP blocked.

This is how religion protects itself in modern society.

fatfist Hub Author 23 months ago

(supposedly "everything" was in a "point" of no dimensions, then exploded/expanded into 3D. Makes perfect sense to me. (LOL)

Yep, the 0D singularity is the most powerful tool the mathematician has at his disposal. It is no different than the word "God" used by theologians. These two words have the power to turn humans into brain-dead zombies.

These words mean absolutely "nothing", yet when in the hands of authority (Hawking, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, etc.), they are REIFIED into objects by merely using them as NOUNS in sentences. Then the theists have grabbed you by the balls and pulled the wool over your eyes in one fell swoop!

You have nowhere to go after that than to get sucked into their dogmatic belief system.

fatfist Hub Author 23 months ago

Hello ss,

(I truly appreciate your thoughts as you sincerely "believe" in them)

If you know anything about science, you would have understood by now that science is not based on “belief”, and certainly not on “proof”. Beliefs and proofs are the hallmarks of Religions, like Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Christianity, Islam, etc.

I already explained this to you on SEVERAL occasions in my previous hub, but you did not acknowledge or respond to anything I said.

So clearly, you are being unfair and constantly creating a STRAWMAN claim that I “believe”. I am not angry, so don’t misunderstand me. But I have already explained this to you before, and yet you come here parroting the same nonsense.

(Your valuable comments appreciated)

I hope you don’t mind, but I created a new hub to address your hub and have an open discussion if you like. I don’t want to flood your hub and my hub here with such a response.

Even though your hub (“How Anyone Can Prove The BigBang Cosmos And The Beginning Of The Universe?”) has absolutely nothing to do with science, especially physics....I read it anyway, since you asked me to. And here are my comments regarding your presentation:

http://hubpages.com/hub/Response-to-ss-sneh-about-

There are too many unscientific issues which I identified, but don’t get upset. If you want to have a rational discussion and address these issues in a scientific manner, it would be fine with me.

If you want me to remove this hub and my response to you, please let me know and I will be happy to. Some people get very upset with such responses.

Thanks

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Winston,

Don't worry, they have plenty of tricks up their sleeves. They have this omnipotent God which they call Mathematics. Since 99.9999999% of the apes on this planet haven't a clue that math cannot explain, but only describe.....they will assume that those math equations explain reality.

But both you and me know that math equations are axiomatic, ie. rule-based. They only describe the conceptual ideas invented by the stupid mathematicians. They have no explanatory power.

BTW.....I just red-shifted the Sun today. Yep, believe it or not, I just made the Sun move farther away from the Earth!!

I hope I don't get blamed for Global Cooling.

HOW you ask?

My watch has a THICK sapphire crystal. When I tilted my watch face at a certain angle with sunlight, all I could see was a reflection of pure RED light. When tilted at another angle, all I could see was pure BLUE light.

Isn't that amazing?

I just made the freakin' Sun move farther and closer to the Earth!

You should try this out one of these days. And you don't even need a watch..... any glass, plastic or prism will do.....even water vapor (rainbows), and gases will redshift and blueshift light.

In fact, the more gases light passes thru, the more redshifted it becomes. Just imagine how many gases and galaxy coronas light hits before it reaches our telescopes here on Earth.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Winston,

Just a heads up.....whenever you attempt to intellectually converse with fundamentalist theists, like secularists, they will take your comments and weave them into straw puppets. Now they will have something to stab at and attack with all their might. This is the only way to ignore your rational arguments.

If morons want to believe that:

- morality exists

- love exists

- language exists

- and other concepts exist

then they will be arguing with their fellow theists until all the primates on Earth become extinct.

Stupidity is bliss!

Now do you understand why I call atheists morons?

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Hi robertb,

(There is not an edge to the universe.)

Of course, makes sense, there isn’t. Concepts have no edges. In order for something to have an “edge”, it must have shape. Only objects can have the intrinsic property of shape. The universe is clearly NOT an object. Just like “The Government” is clearly not an object. None have shape.

(For conceptual purposes, think of yourself as a 2 dimensional being living)

Are u serious? I don’t care how drunk somebody is, nobody can conceive of a 2D ‘being’ that is living, like a human for example. For anything to be considered ‘living’ or ‘life’, it must have a naturally developed ability to move of its own volition against gravity.

Here is a 2D object which you may call a “being”:

http://www.dicts.info/img/ud/human.png

This is clearly an object because it has shape. But does this object exist? In order for it to exist, it must have the extrinsic property of “location”. How can this object be located anywhere? How can this 2D object have a static distance between itself and you? Sure, you can draw it on a piece of paper that you paste on top of a soccer ball......but does that 2D object have location?

No! You can say the “paper” has location and the “ink” has location, as they both have physical presence (object+location) and exist. But the 2D object, any 2D object, does NOT exist. It is a CONCEPT. You look at the paper and the ink and your brain CONCEIVES of this 2D object, which does not exist. So it can only remain as an ABSTRACT OBJECT.

(on the surface of a 3 dimensional sphere. Where is the edge?)

The surface of a “sphere” or “soccer ball” or “Earth” has an edge. Without an edge, it would be impossible for it to be an object. And since it has an edge, there is an interior and exterior realm to that object’s edge. So that object, “sphere”, cannot possibly represent a universe. No way!!

(The universe does not necessarily "expand into" anything.)

In order for something, anything, to EXPAND, there must be “space” that allows for expansion. Space is the static distance between objects. Without space, nothing can stretch or expand, as all motion would be impossible. In fact, without space, the universe would be ONE solid brick of irreducible matter – no atoms would be possible.

So when you state that: The universe does not necessarily "expand into" anything

By logical necessity, you are necessarily implying that the universe does NOT expand.

And of course it doesn’t – the universe is a CONCEPT. Concepts do not expand!

So there is your contradiction for the Big Bang. Like all religions, the Big Bang has what are called DUALITIES. These dualities were specifically placed into this BB religion in order to protect it from attack. And since 99.9999999% of the apes on this planet are FOLLOWERS & PARROTS, they just swallow up whatever they are fed without so much as questioning it. It takes a rational person mere seconds to showcase the contradictions of any religion and rip it to shreds.

The BB religion is more surrealistic than Christianity!

(What we do observe is inflation within the universe.)

It makes NO difference what anybody observes!!

6.9 Billion people on this planet have observed God. Why don’t YOU consider those observations as proof? They certainly outvote your Big Bang observations a billion to 1.

Observations are left for religions. In science we only explain our Theories rationally.

So if you want to exit religion and enter the scientific realm, you had better leave your “observations” at home. Then you can come to the physics conference and explain to us exactly WHAT is expanding:

1. Is it physical objects (stars, planets, trees, mountains, water, people, cats, dogs) that are expanding?

2. Is it space (which is nothing) that is expanding?

----- OR -----

3. Are you saying that all the objects are in motion and ALL moving apart from each other in the vastness of space?

This is what separates physics from religion. Opinions, proofs, and claims are left for the religious (theists & atheists) to argue over until they become extinct.

In physics, we easily settle these issues during the presentation of your theory.

Thanks for your comments.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

(Do you believe)

Belief plays no role whatsoever in science. Science is the study of existence. And this verb, "study", entails the formulation of a Hypothesis and a Theory which rationally explains phenomena in nature. There is no provision for belief or proof anywhere in this process.

If somebody wants to "believe" a theory, it's their personal business. But a rational person will understand that a theory is ONLY "a rational explanation", nothing else.

A Theory is simply a rational explanation that you can make a movie out of. It has NO contradictions, and no supernatural or surrealistic mediators.

If you make a movie of the BB Theory:

1. Frame 1 will show the void, and explain how the void is different from "space".

2. Frame 2 to X, will show how the 0D singularity formed from the void.

3. Frame X+1 to Y, will show how the 0D singularity exploded, and what exactly made it explode.

4. Frame Y+1 to Z, will show how the singularity acquired Length, Width, and Height and formed atoms. And it will also show exactly how the singularity formed SPACE! And it will also show in detail how the singularity formed TIME!

And so on....

For those who don't want to explain with scientific detail, we treat them the same way we treat those who preach Creation ex nihilo from Genesis 1:1.

Traditional theists have a very wonderful PROOF for God & Creation. It goes something like this:

"Just look at the clouds, look at the trees, look at the beauty, order, and design in nature, etc. This proves that a divine God created the universe from nothing".

Contemporary theists also have a very wonderful PROOF for Big Bang & Creation. It goes something like this:

"Just look at the clouds, look at the trees, look at the redshift of galaxies, look at the background radiation, etc. This proves the creation & expansion of the universe from an explosion of nothing".

Both religious camps claim to PROVE by their subjective opinions: "observing". They offer absolutely NO rational explanations. Do you understand the ridiculousness of their childish arguments?

So now that we have rationally established that the universe is not an object, it has no shape, it has no edge......how in Jesus Christ's name can it possibly be Created??

And more importantly, since it is NOT an object....how in the Devil's name can it possibly expand?

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

For centuries, Theologians have been arguing that it is impossible to SEE God, or KNOW God, or PROVE God, because God is so great and has no limits. Then they quote from their bibles that God is a “man” who is a public speaker (Judges 1:1-2), drops by Abraham’s place for lunch (Genesis 18:1-5), and wrestle’s and LOSES with Jacob (Genesis 32:24-28), but God is a good sport about the loss and doesn’t smite Jacob!

So obviously, the atheists, are laughing it up, while quickly pointing at all the contradictions of the Christian circus show.

And yet these same atheists are BLIND when it comes to their OWN Religion of the Big Bang:

For decades, relativists have been arguing that it is impossible to SEE the Universe, or KNOW the Universe, or PROVE the Universe, because the Universe is so great and has no limits. Then they quote from their bibles that the Universe was created, is expanding, and is thus an object with shape and an edge! But yet it is not expanding into anything.

So the fools of both of these humorous religions FAIL to comprehend their own contradictions and circus show!

And the funniest part is that Christianity can at least illustrate a picture of their God:

http://heavenawaits.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/go

Their God is actually an object!!

Whereas, the Big Bang religion cannot illustrate a conceptual picture of the Universe, even if you put a gun at their heads. Their Universe, WHICH THEY CLAIM IS CREATED, is only a concept!!!!!!!!!

So which religion has the biggest fools: Big Bang or Christianity?

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

("Is it you understanding...")

My understanding, your understanding, or anybody else’s understanding is just a mere personal opinion. Opinions have nothing to do with science. Theories must explain without contradictions.

Before you tell the crowd that the Universe was created, you had better be able to tell them whether “The Universe” is an object or a concept.

If you say it is an object, you had better be able to illustrate a rough diagram of it on a bar napkin. Then you can certainly claim that it expanded, stretched, inflated, jumped, skipped, ran, swam, or any verb you want to use.

If you say it is a concept, then you’d better understand why it cannot be created.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

(Frame one would simply show all matter super hot and super dense.)

But WHERE did this matter come from? God???

The BB is supposed to be a rational Theory ABOUT CREATION.

So it had better explain how the first bit of matter came into existence...ie. created!

And it had better explain how “space” was created.

If you are claiming that it was ALREADY there in Frame #1, then you are indeed claiming that “matter” and “space” are ETERNAL, and definitely not created. Do you understand?

If BB can’t explain these basic issues, then it is useless. It can only be used as an “addendum” to Genesis 1:1, just as the Catholic Church has done. You do know that the Catholic Church has a huge science department, right? The BB is documented in their science literature as PROOF for God’s creation.

(It is almost like you are saying that someone could look at the "big bang" from outside the "big bang".)

No. It has nothing to do with human observation. In scientific Theories we eliminate all observers. Don’t you agree? Otherwise, how can you possibly tell me that Big Bang happened if there was nobody there to “observe” it? You have to first Hypothesize, then Theorize. The Scientific Method is a purely conceptual process used only for explaining consummated events. Observation from any being or God plays no role whatsoever in this process.

You are doing exactly what Hawking has been doing for decades.....You are circumventing the Scientific Method so you can protect the BB from scrutiny.

And theologians do the same so they can protect their faith.....

- in Frame 1 we have God.

- in Frame 2 God waves his magic wand

- in Frame 3 the universe is already there

A scientific theory must explain what was before God, and exactly what happened between Frame 2 and Frame 3.

Before you tell me the BB Theory, the Scientific Method requires that you formulate a Hypothesis, which is comprised of five ingredients:

1. unambiguous definitions

2. objects

3. the statement of the facts

4. illustrations

5. a description of the initial scenes of what is about to be explained

So #5 is very important to set the initial stage, the initial scene BEFORE creation. If the BB cannot explain the scene BEFORE this supposed "creation", then there was absolutely NO creation!

Once you have a valid Hypothesis, then you can proceed to your Theory. Now you use the ingredients of your Hypothesis to rationally explain the process of BB creation from Frame 1 to Frame N.

Take a look at some the videos which illustrate the Theory of Abiogenesis and Evolution. They start out with atoms or molecules and show all the frames to explain how a dinosaur came together.

Nobody was there to "see" it. But it is Hypothesized & Theorized.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to do this with creation. Why? Because it is contradictory. It violates all forms of logic, reason, and rationality. It is surrealistic and supernatural. Creation is only possible in religion.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

(You tend to cloud the issue, don't you?)

How so? What does the BB have to do with me?

I have the right to critique it and showcase its contradictions. I am giving you all the opportunity to present your case. This is why I made this hub, so any expert can come here and explain their case.

(You asked "where does the matter come from"? The answer to that question is not part of inflationary theory so is irrelevant)

Of course it’s irrelevant......just like asking “WHERE GOD CAME FROM”, is irrelevant to the theists. But atheists will always PRESS on this very issue of “WHO CREATED GOD?”

Do you see the irony here?

A scientific theory must THEORIZE how the first bit of matter came to be. This doesn’t mean to KNOW, or to BELIEVE, or to PROVE..... so please don’t misunderstand the issue. It is the Hypothesis which sets the stage of the initial scene. This is where certain physical assumptions have to be made in order for the Theory to offer a rational explanation.

Unfortunately, the BB has no Hypothesis! And this is why it fails to explain anything. Do you understand?

( just as how life initially began is irrelevant to evolutionary theory)

It is relevant to the Theory of Abiogenesis. Evolution simply takes it from there and evolves, morphs, contorts, the objects into other species.

We have movies that show molecules morph into dinosaurs.

How come we don’t have a movie showing how the void morphs into 3D matter and dimensionless space?

You are welcome to present your case for creation in whatever way you want. But please, don’t get upset if I point out the contradictions. That’s what science is all about.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

(Your argument is nonsensical. )

And what is MY argument, robertb?

It was YOU who is proposing that “The Universe” is created. This is YOUR presentation, remember?

Yet you cannot unambiguously tell us whether “The Universe” is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT.

This is where you are presently stuck, at the Hypothesis stage.

But no, you want to bypass the Hypothesis so that you can peddle another religious version of creation. Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with science.

(Just as Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the ToE)

In religion, people are entitled to their opinions. But Abiogenesis and Evolution have nothing to do with your opinions. Without the formation of molecules that can be used as building blocks to support life (abiogenesis), there is NO evolution. Nothing can evolve without those building blocks. What is the physical matter (dna molecules, etc.) that facilitates the evolution of a single-cell life form, into a dinosaur? Inquiring minds want to understand!

If you don’t understand this much, you need to take an intro course in logic/reasoning.

( where the initial matter came from is irrelevant to Inflationary Theory. )

What does Inflationary Theory have to do with anything?

Before you can inflate a balloon, you must produce the balloon (it must exist), right?

BB proposes matter was created. It did not exist....and then suddenly...it came into existence.

Please explain this process before you jump 100 miles ahead and start inflating balloons. The only reason you refuse to address this issue is because you are a door-to-door salesman trying to sucker people into buying into your religion.

(A scientific theory must explain specifically WHAT IS MEANT to explain, nothing more, nothing less. )

So WHO decides WHAT IS to be explained? You? Your Pastor? Your Rabbi? Your Mullah?

Science has nothing to do with authority or who decides what. Science only offers rational explanations using the scientific method.

Only in Religion do authorities decide what is to be CENSORED or not.

Only in Religion do they conveniently AVOID explaining how GOD or the FIRST BIT OF MATTER came to be. They must protect their religion and their income at all costs!!

(Inflationary theory, or Big Bang Cosmology says nothing about the universe)

Absolutely!!

It doesn’t even say whether the Universe is an OBJECT or a CONCEPT. But it uses reification to reify it into an object before it is stretched right before your eyes. BB is a Religion and nothing more.

(prior to the Plank scale)

Exactly WHAT is a “Plank scale”? Is it a device that measures the weight of “planks”?

Please talk science instead of parroting the mistakes of others.

(nor should it, as that is not the intention of the theory)

Of course it’s not the intention of the Priests of the BB to explain anything. Priests only FORCE their DOGMA upon the public!

Like I said robertb, you are welcome to explain the BB Theory. Your persistent refusal to do so clearly demonstrates your lack of understanding of what your priests forced you memorize.

Here is how we do it in science:

BB Hypothesis:

The universe is a _________________

The initial scene before creation is __________________

BB Theory:

I can now explain creation from the void as follows _______________

Can you please do us all a big favor and just fill in the blanks already?

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

rwoodin,

(The older I get the less I rule in or out any possible explanation for the workings of 'the universe'.)

The OPINIONS of society grab all of us while we’re young. They molest & rape our fresh rational brains with their self-serving propaganda, and dogmatically force us to be PARROTS for them until we die.

Very few manage to escape. The rest become BRAIN-DEAD ZOMBIES and warriors in an army who is the enemy of reason. This is why they cannot think rationally and answer simple kindergarten-level questions I pose here.

If you notice, none of these BRAIN-DEAD ZOMBIE PARROTS of the Big Bang want to answer any question I ask them.

(you hypothesize that space is nothing and goes on forever)

NO!

To “hypothesize” means to “assume” and form a Hypothesis. This is an activity that MUST be performed by the proponent of a Theory. But the religions of Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, Big Bang, etc.. have NO Hypothesis, and consequently....irrational theories!

What space IS.......has nothing to do with a hypothesis/assumption. It is a purely conceptual issue.

Do we hypothesize that if we cut off the head of a person that he will die?

Do we need to RUN AN EXPERIMENT to see if our hypothesis is factual?

Do we need mathematical EQUATIONS to PROVE our hypothesis true?

Do we need to form a PREDICTION that is accurate to 23 decimal places?

Well these are the nonsensical activities performed by stupid morons who call themselves: Mathematical Physicists.

Same goes for space......what experiment or equation should these morons make to prove that space has a border??

A rational human conceptualizes this issue as follows:

- space is nothing.

- if space was ‘something’ there would be no objects; the whole universe would be a solid brick of matter.

- space is UNBOUNDED (it is unscientific to use the word “infinite”, which is an adjective)

- space is limitless, borderless, shapeless, neither big nor small, neither hot nor cold, neither dense nor dilute, neither black nor white, etc..

If there was a limit or border to space, then we could throw an arrow through it and the universe would continue from there. And this is what DESTROYS the religion of the Big Bang!!!!!!!

(Space is a 'concept' for the distance measured between 2 point locations.)

No.

Space is a concept, a synonym for the word “nothing”.

In physics we don’t measure distances. These subjective activities are performed by idiots, not physicists. All the distances of physics have to do with static (qualitative) distance. Quantitative “distance-travelled” is a concept that is used in mathematics, never in physics.

And there is no such thing as a “point” location in physics. Such surrealistic nonsense is only found in mathematics.

Space is the STATIC distance between objects. Without space (nothing) there would be NO discrete objects.

(Everything - all matter and energy - have always been and will always be)

There is NO such ‘thing’ as energy!

Only matter (atoms) are eternal.

(there is no expansion of distance between actual objects?)

Absolutely!!

The minute anybody notices the “static” distance between objects EXPANDING, you know that they’ve been on a heavy-duty crackpipe or a meth abuse marathon.

(I read through this comment thread and the preceding article - but not REAL carefully.)

I invite you to stick around here and watch all the theologians of the Big Bang Religion FOLD under questioning, and dance around all the issues that destroy their religion!

Thanks for your comment.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

(the initial formation of matter, if such was the case, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE BIG BANG THEORY)

Ok, since this is your belief, let’s work with that.

So matter & space as ALREADY there!

Your claims is that the BB doesn’t account for that, it was already there, even though the members of your church, like Hawking, disagree with you.

Since ALL of matter and space was already there, the conceptual universe was already there, and the Religion of the BB is just a useless novelty.

You concede that there was NO creation!!!!!

(matter in the universe once it has surpassed the Plank scale)

You eluded the previous question: What is this “plank scale” nonsense?

Is it an object or a concept? Do you weigh “spirits” with it? Explain yourself....

(you continue to harp on irrelevancies)

Such as........Please explain how matter & space, magically came to be after your Big Bang God waved his magic wand?

Nice religion you got there. Just like a theist, you AVOID the basic questions that destroy your religion.

(put words into my mouth and generally misconstrue what is being discussed is interesting)

Ok genius.......I’ve given you PLENTY of opportunities to use your OWN mouth and your OWN brain to respond. But like a THEIST, you continue to dance around the Scientific Method.

Here you go....please talk.... and stop acting like a victim....

robertb Big Bang Hypothesis:__________________________

robertb Big Bang Theory:_____________________________

Fill in the blanks, instead of whining like a baby!!

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

robertb,

Just like a theist, you have eluded my questions for the 6 th time. You complain like a little princess that we are strawmaning you and not letting you speak. Yet you REFUSE to post any of your nonsense here for fear that its contradictions will allow me to rip it to shreds. You have a religion to protect, so that is understandable. LOL!

But you could at least be honest, and come clean of the fact that all you offer is dogmatic BELIEF and nothing else. But to try and pass it off as “Science”, well, no magician can pull off that trick. This is why we haven’t seen a single explanation from you.

If you feel you don’t have the skills to answer these baby questions, then by all means.....please bring one of your Priests here and have him answer for you.

God knows....whenever I go over to their forums and ask them these simple questions, all they do is delete my comments and ban me. It’s a joy to see that censorship and inquisitions are still part of your Religion today.

Unlike religion which has much to HIDE by not answering questions and censoring people.....I do neither.

All I do is ask you to explain in a rational manner.....and this is what causes BIG problems with people. Theists prefer to CENSOR an AVOID questions to protect their circus show.

(If you had a clue, you wouldn't have asked me about Plank)

Ohhhhh.....quite the contrary.....if YOU had a clue, you’d post it here and redeem yourself by making me look like a fool.

So please, don’t give us this Messiah act, pretending to come here sacrificing yourself to yourself for the sake of your goodness.

Nope, you will not post anything about this nonsense you call PLANK, because you are terrified that it will be instantly ripped to shreds.....just like all your other nonsense.

I have made it EXTREMELY EASY for you, because parroting puppets cannot think:

1. Was the Universe created....Yes or No?

2. If Yes..... then is the Universe an object......Yes or No?

3. If Yes..... then please illustrate it on paper. What? You can’t? Then you are a LIAR!!

4. If No...... then you are a LIAR!!

So your bullshit about STRETCHING/EXPANDING/INFLATING "The Universe" is flushed down the toilet!

Since there was NO Universe “created”, let’s continue to entertain your stupid claims:

1. What existed before space, matter, and time were, according to YOU, “created”? Please set the initial scene in your Hypothesis.

2. How did matter, space, and time get created? Please RATIONALLY EXPLAIN in your Theory.

robertb Big Bang Hypothesis:__________________________

robertb Big Bang Theory:_____________________________

Fill in the blanks, instead of whining like a baby!!

Please stop the dancing act and give it to us straight....ok?

And this is how we do it in science. In your Religion,....well....you dance around......you whine and complain like a little princess......you blame others for your inability to explain YOUR position, etc, etc, etc.

You are an atheist of your own religion, robertb. You can't explain anything.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Rbosak,

(What do your questions have to do with the Big Bang theory?)

Of course, when the theist is CORNERED, he denies that his God is real, he denies that his God is a burning bush, he denies that his God is of flesh/blood, he denies that we could ever know his God......yep, his God is now a spirit!!!!!!!

So rbosak is now denying that the BB is about creation, he is denying that there ever was a singularity/primeval atom/point/pea, he is denying there ever was a creation, he is denying there ever was an EXPLOSION, he is denying that spacetime was ever created.....yep, you heard him right folks.......now he is saying that THE UNIVERSE ALWAYS EXISTED!!!!!!

(the inflation of the universe)

Please define the word ----> UNIVERSE

You had better, because this is the word that makes or breaks your argument.

Is UNIVERSE an OBJECT or a CONCEPT? Which is it, rbosak?

Just give it to us straight please, no beating around the bush and no poetry.....we get enough of that from the Christians.

(after the point)

A point is this -----> .

It is a 2D shape known as a dot. Was this ‘point’ IN the universe? Where was it...on a piece of paper? What does this nonsense of yours have to do with the BB?

Can you please talk scientifically for once?

(larger than the Plank scale)

This is the THIRD time I am asking you: What is this PLANK crap you are talking about??

Does this PLANK SCALE “exist” in the Universe? Reference a picture of it so the audience knows exactly what it looks like.

(our universe is not an object)

FINALLY!!!!!

After being cornered for days you concede that this word “UNIVERSE” does NOT resolve to any object. It is only a CONCEPT!!

(Our universe is all objects.)

Let me get this straight.......you said: our universe is NOT an object, but it is all objects

What kind of nonsense is that, rbosak?

What grade are you in? When you go to school, please take an English grammar course and a course on logic 101, and physics 101. When you come here, you are expected to use scientific language, and not ordinary speech that bums use in dark alleys, ok?

BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON ------------------------------------

If the word “UNIVERSE”, cannot resolve to or designate an object which you can point at, or illustrate, then for the purposes of physics, it DOES NOT EXIST.

Why? Because it is only a CONCEPT!

All NOUNS of physics are OBJECTS. This includes all words that you reference with: ‘a’, ‘the’, ‘it’, ‘thing’, ‘something’. Got it?

An object is: that which has shape

A concept is: that which lacks shape

Does the “UNIVERSE” have shape? Does it have a “border”? Does it have an “edge”? Does it have “FORM”, as Aristotle & Plato used to say?

YOUR ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS WAS: “There is not an edge to the universe.”

That was from your post 2 days ago.

And today you said: “universe is not an object”.

So you concede that the Universe is NOT an object, it has NO shape!!!

SO IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE UNIVERSE TO EXPAND/STRETCH/INFLATE!!!!!!

Only objects, like balloons, can INFLATE.

Verbs can only be performed on the NOUNS of physics: the OBJECTS!

The objective criterion in physics is ‘shape’. It's the only way to use the word OBJECT consistently (ie, scientifically).

Did you ever play with shapes/objects/blocks in Junior Kindergarten, rbosak? If you did, then you would understand that ALL OBJECTS HAVE SHAPE. You can only perform VERBS on objects, like “move”, “pick up”, “throw”, “stretch”, “expand”, “inflate”. This is why ALL kids MUST attend JK.

PLEASE: Do yourself a huge favour - go back and repeat JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN. All aspects of your life depend on it.

END PHYSICS 101 LESSON ------------------------------------

(cosmic inflationary theory)

What does this CIT claim to inflate?.......a BALLOON?.......or the UNIVERSE?

Or perhaps does it claim to inflate SPACE (nothing)?

Or perhaps does it claim to inflate MATTER (atoms), which would turn us all into GIANTS?

In physics, before we INFLATE ‘something’, IT HAD BETTER BE AN OBJECT.

Only in Religion do they inflate concepts.

You see, rbosak, no matter which direction you take your argument, you always fall back on the word UNIVERSE being a “concept” that relates eternal matter with eternal space (nothing). We’re done!

I hope you have a better understanding of physics now....

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Hello itech,

(You've done a good presentation to prove your thoughts)

I appreciate your comment, itech. But I haven’t proven anything. I have only provided a rational explanation.

You see, PROOF is impossible outside the realm of a conceptual axiomatic system, such as logic, math, etc. It is impossible to prove anything in nature, or in science. This is why we use the scientific method, where a Theory is simply a rational explanation. That is the best we can ever hope to achieve.

Unfortunately, the mathematicians don’t like to follow the Scientific Method. They like to claim that they can prove anything under the sun with axiomatic equations. They claim that if they put testicles in your aunt, they can prove that she is actually your uncle.....go figure!

(But all it takes the full knowledge about every concept of life before concluding such points)

Unfortunately, full knowledge is impossible to attain. Nature is composed of invisible mediators which are responsible for matter, gravity, light, magnetism, electricity, etc. We will never know with 100% certainty nature’s exact mechanisms for these phenomena. The best we can ever hope to accomplish is to form valid Hypotheses and rational Theories. Mathematicians offer neither!

Thanks for posting

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Winston,

(the crucial observed phenomenon for BB is still redshift)

The subjective and opinionated activity that the mathematicians call “Observations”, has absolutely nothing to do with science. Only in Religion do we perform observations and proofs. And this is very easy to demonstrate as follows......

Consider the observations of quasars. There are extremely bright quasars with extremely high and extremely low redshifts, and anywhere in between. If fact, lots of quasars have been observed to be nearby a galaxy, where the quasar and its nearby galaxy have the same speed and direction. So according to Hubble’s Law, there is no reason for a quasar to have a different redshift than a nearby galaxy. Clearly, Hubble’s Law and Doppler Effect are in contradiction.

This observational evidence falsifies the Hubble Law, but mathematicians ignore this issue which destroys their religious interpretation of redshift. Also, since quasar redshift is not related to its distance, this is a direct contradiction of the Big Bang expansion.

You CANNOT pick and choose the particular evidence that brainwashes the gullible public to accept YOUR irrational theory, while IGNORING the evidence that FALSIFIES your theory. You cannot have it both ways. The circus show of mathematical physics completely violates the scientific method......and mostly because they have NO Hypothesis for any of their irrational Theories.

The other issue which I have DEBUNKED in this hub, is that you cannot INFLATE the Universe because it is a concept! The BB clearly fails at the Hypothesis stage,.....so there really is NO theory to it at all.

fatfist Hub Author 22 months ago

Oh it's a BIG LIE alright!

Anybody who wants to defend their RELIGIOUS DOGMA.....please....you are welcome to post here.

This is a friendly place where you can PROVE your case!

fatfist Hub Author 21 months ago

Oliver

(I must admit straight away that I am not a physicist)

You don’t need to have a PhD or a Nobel Prize in order to understand the basic issues outlined here. You are just as smart and have the same ability to reason as Stephen Hawking does, if not better. Fancy titles have nothing to do with physics. Only the ability to reason and rationally explain does.

(in the relevant peer-reviewed literature?)

The peer-review process was created by the establishment in order to protect itself from public scrutiny. It is no different than the Police Review Board, where the Police are able to review each other and exonerate each other from police battery charges and a host of other police offences. It is the same process which the Catholic Church uses to protect its priests from child rape charges, and allows them to continue what they’ve been doing for 1500 years.

The peer-review does not certify that a published theory is rational, nor that it has a valid hypothesis. A peer-review only wants to ensure that a “new theory” is in compliance with the established religions of Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory. Anything presented outside the scope of those religions, or anything defying/debunking them, will automatically be CENSORED!

A genuine scientist doesn't need his peers to pin a gold medal on his lapel. That's okay for Olympic athletes, Miss Universe, and screen actors. A genuine scientist has the satisfaction that he is able to rationally explain how nature’s invisible physical objects are able to perform phenomena such as gravity, light, magnetism, electricity, etc.

(Why is it that is it usually assumed that the consensus of physicists is that the Big Bang is true if the theory has the problems you outline?)

Because they HAVE to. There is no other way about it.

Billions and billions of taxpayer’s dollars have already been invested in the establishment of these Religions. Do you honestly think that any person who debunks them will have any effect on the establishment? Are they going to drop Relativity and the Big Bang and replace them with rationality?

Will Christianity drop Jesus after people have debunked their God Theory? Not even if heaven & hell freeze over!

Big Bang and creation of anything is a complete impossibility. The universe is composed of atoms which move from one location to another. And what makes their motion possible is the NOTHINGNESS of space! If space was a physical substance, then motion, and even life, would be absolutely impossible because the whole universe would be a solid block of matter! There would be no objects and nothing would have shape.

I am glad that you like these articles, Oliver. I have no agenda here. I am just another rational human who doesn’t want his brain molested by authority, which is comprised of con-artists who pat each on the back and nominate each other for Nobel Prizes for producing absolutely nothing!

Thanks for commenting

fatfist Hub Author 21 months ago

Creation Theories aka "Creative"

Are you still trying to sell your Alien Religion from the dorms of your insane asylum?

I thought they were going to take away Internet privileges from patients such as yourself...

fatfist Hub Author 21 months ago

I don't need your "pat in the back", Mr. Creative.

Find another forum to push your Alien Religion.

Maybe the Roswell Area 51 forum.

I bet you were banned from there too, cause not even those people are "that stupid" to believe that Aliens are Creator Gods.

Anyway....move along cause you are spamming the comments section in my hubs with your off-topic nonsense.

But that's the thing.....where can you find a forum on the gazillions of sites on the Internet where they will accept your Alien psycho babble? I don't have a clue. Looks like you're on your own with your beliefs. That's why you are so desperately looking for people to agree with you.

fatfist Hub Author 21 months ago

asald aka ssssss,

You previously referenced Carl Sagan for BB Expansion. But in fact, Carl Sagan claimed that redshift has nothing to do with expansion.

Now if that experience hurt you so much that you can't get over it, I suggest you go see a shrink!

fatfist Hub Author 20 months ago

Loco,

(the big bang theory IS widely accepted in science)

As humans, we are exposed to hundreds of “true” & “proven” claims on a DAILY basis. But we need to understand that what IS “widely accepted”, does not necessarily mean that it can be EXPLAINED. The fallacy of appeal popularity & authority is committed with such faulty reasoning. A show of hands or what is voted at the ballot box, is not truth or proof!

(but accepted as a theory until its either proven/disproven or another theory can take its place)

You are still in the Dark Ages where theories & claims were PROVEN with subjective and opinionated evidence stemming from the extremely limited human sensory system. Science has absolutely NO truths or proofs or predictions. Science only explains.

For example: What evidence, truth, proof or prediction can you give which will account for the reason WHY a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling??

In science there is no true or false theory, no proven or disproven theory.....there are only rational or irrational theories. That’s it.

These are the questions science tries to answer. Truths, Proofs, and Predictions belong in 17th Century “science” which was dominated by the Religious Priesthood of the time.

(no one claims to know how it all started and why. Nor how it will end.)

Well herein lies the fallacy in your reasoning ---> Begging the Question.

Your statement above has committed 2 of them:

1) It assumed existence ALREADY HAD a beginning.

2) It assumed existence WILL DEFINITELY have an end.

And you did this without even realizing it!

I don’t want to put you on the spot, so forgive me for what I am about to say,....but you have been brainwashed by the “system” to think in these irrational terms of begin & end.

(I encourage everyone to be critical to everything)

Agreed!!

(but when you lay out your arguments you are also putting out lies. Thats called propaganda.)

Please, my friend, just copy and paste ONE sentence of mine that is a lie.

(And it doesnt make for a serious discussion.)

Ok, let’s have a serious discussion. Let’s only speak rationally from now on, ok?

If you read my other hubs, you will see that I have put the following challenge to all creationists:

My challenge to all Theists, including Big Bang Apologists, is to provide a physical mechanism that we can all conceptualize, visualize, and understand. A mechanism that we can all watch unfold as a movie on the big screen. And you will have to start from frame #1, and show how NO space and NO matter, can morph into space and matter, or however else you imagine the 'creation of space & matter'. I don't want to put any words in your mouth or influence your thoughts in any way. Be as 'creative' as you want.

So if you like, you can post your rational reply to this question.

Thanks for your comment

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

Bailey,

There is no such thing as energy. Energy is a term that was invented by mathematicians & engineers, not physicists.

Energy is a mathematical abstract concept. It is a relation that embodies many concepts. Energy is what comes out of an equation, not what comes out of nature. Energy does not exist.

Energy is the mathematician’s equivalent to a religionist’s SPIRIT or SOUL. Energy is nothing!

The Universe is only composed of matter separated by space. The Universe is a binary system:

1) Matter is something.

2) Space is nothing.

There is no other option. There is no in-between matter and nothing.

In Physics, we rationally define two crucial words: object and space.

object: that which has shape.

space: that which doesn't

An object cannot spontaneously lose Length, Width, & Height. Space cannot spontaneously acquire Length, Width, & Height. An object cannot leave that which has no boundary (i.e., space). Not even God can escape from space. (Space is more powerful than God!) Without space surrounding Him, poor God would have no shape!

Now it's a piece of cake. Matter has ALWAYS been there. It was never created and it will never be destroyed (converted into space)! The Universe is 'infinite' in both 'directions' of 'time' (to use terminology you are likely more familiar with). The universe is eternal.

Matter exists ONLY in present mode, at the cutting edge of universal events. If matter exists ONLY in present mode, it is definitely perpetual! We cannot even conceive of matter appearing from the void or disintegrating and becoming void (except after we drink 2 bottles of Whiskey).

The idiots at SLAC, Fermi, KEK, CERN, etc., claim that they produced matter from the void. When push comes to shove, they restate and claim that a positron and an electron combine to form 'energy' (a concept) and that, conversely, a particle of space may split into a positron and an electron. The insinuation is that matter can indeed come out of the void.

This is magic, not Science. This stuff is all contrived and asserted without a single explanation to back up their claims. Only the gullible buy into it. Their claims are simply IRRATIONAL. They cannot make a movie of it. They cannot illustrate it because it is inconceivable. Frame 100 of this movie would show space and Frame 101 (in zero time) would show two particles. How did the 2 particles get there? No one can imagine let alone explain such a miracle. It is simply an assertion without any explanation. It is an ontological contradiction. That’s why their claims are completely impossible. They need to start over!

Therefore, to answer your question..... Matter cannot pop into existence. Exist is NOT a verb for the purposes of Science. It is an adjective. Exist is a static, not a dynamic concept. Matter exists in a cross-section of universal events. The existence of matter is not circumscribed by any event. Existence exists. It always has and it always will. The Universe is eternal. There is no other option. Aristotle reasoned this 2500 years ago. Why don't people understand this?

The fact that we are still talking about Baby Jesus creating the Universe means that we have been dumbed down through the millennia. Humans are driven by EMOTION, not by INTELLIGENCE.

I have 3 hubs which explain in laborious detail why Creation under any context, whether from God or Big Bang.....is completely IMPOSSIBLE.

http://hubpages.com/hub/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIBLE-Spa

http://hubpages.com/hub/UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE-Argum

http://hubpages.com/hub/INFINITE-REGRESS-Argument-

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

(Makes more sense that matter was always there.)

Of course, it makes more sense because that's the default position. There is no Theory for an eternal Universe because it is not a claim, and it posits no event, like creation does.

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

Of course it's a lame statement, because it is impossible for an entity like God to exist without space contouring Him. Every entity needs spatial separation from the background, otherwise it cannot move and cannot exist.

Space was there before God.

Matter in motion was there before God.

That's why a Creator God is impossible.

Now if God is an Alien that seeded life on this planet.....well that is possible and a completely separate issue that needs to be critically analyzed.

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

(mmmmmmmmm I feel sorry for you man!!!

Thank you! That's the BEST compliment I've ever had in my life.

(My 8 year old grandson has 1 million times more insight than you.)

But of course, with such a powerful argument you just posted here, I am speechless. You are the first person who has managed to stump Fatfist.

But then again....a religious fanatic such as yourself will dismiss reality outright and continue to BELIEVE in the Priest or Pastor who is raping him.

And as for your grandson, be very careful of all those atheist priests/pastors in your church....they love to get their hands on young gullible tender boys....just like they did with you.

That clown course you took at the circus has really paid off, Andor. Please amuse us some more!!

I am willing to pay you $200/hr as my PERSONAL clown so you can amuse me 24/7. Unlike your Pastor, I have no intention of putting my hands on you.

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

Winston,

I know. I've never seen such an Earth-shattering PROOF for the Creation of space & matter.

I guess I should pack it in and go live in a cave.

fatfist Hub Author 19 months ago

LOL!!!

fatfist Hub Author 18 months ago

Hi f_hruz,

(If the universe contains various life forms as we know to exist on this planet, can we not say, the univers is alive?)

Well, first we need to understand our terms. What does the term LIFE (alive) mean? What does the term UNIVERSE mean? Can we define these terms so that they are observer-independent, without injecting emotion & opinions into them? We sure can....

life: the ability an object has naturally developed to move of its own volition against gravity

Universe: a concept that embodies matter (atoms) and space (nothing).

Now that we understand what these terms mean, we can see that they are not equivalent, right?

Life and Universe are both concepts, they are not objects in and of themselves. They are both relations that embody objects, motion, or other concepts.

(for various forms of universes to exist simultaneously)

Well, here is the issue......what is it that would separate universes? The key point when discussing the ‘Multiverse Hypothesis’ is how do we separate 'our' space from 'their' space. A good solid fence makes good neighbours, right?

But space is nothing. Space is not an object. Space has no borders or boundaries. Space cannot be transcended. How in the name of God could there possibly be other Universes? This is a conceptual issue; it has nothing to do with experiment or evidence.

There is only ONE Universe......all of matter and space.

(we can observe around us a miniture universe)

I kinda get the idea of what you are trying to get at. But if we are going to talk rationally, we need to use our terms consistently. You cannot use the term Universe to describe what you are trying to convey to me. You need to be precise with your terms, otherwise we can talk all we want, but we will never understand each other.

(various forms of energy and matter)

There is a huge misconception with these terms. There is only one form of matter.....we call it MATTER (atoms). What atoms are composed of, is irrelevant right now. Let’s keep the discussion at the atomic level so we don’t get bogged down by the various Theories out there. There is no such ‘thing’ as energy.

Energy is a term invented by mathematicians and engineers to refer to the output of steam engines. Energy is not an object. There is no such ‘thing’ as energy.

Energy is not even a simple relation between objects (ie. concept).

Energy is an ABSTRACT CONCEPT.

Energy does not exist.

There is only matter (atoms) wrapped by space (nothing). The universe is a BINARY system. There is either SOMETHING or NOTHING....on or off.....yes or no.....white or black. There is no other option.

Thanks for your comments

fatfist Hub Author 18 months ago

rafken,

(It is easy to denounce a theory. I see your logic in denouncing it.)

First of all, let’s get our language straight, otherwise you might misinterpret me as trying to bless you with the spirit of Harry Krishna.

A Theory is a “rational explanation” of a positive CLAIM that is asserted by someone.

In this particular case, the CLAIM of Creation via the Big Bang Theory, was ASSERTED by the Religious Catholic Father Lemaitre,..... who wanted to prove God’s Creation to the Pope before the Beloved Virgin Mary took his soul to Heaven.

A theory cannot be denounced, be disliked, be unorthodox, be proven, be unproven, be disproven, be true, be false, be believed, be disbelieved, be known, be unknown, or be questionable.

A theory is either rational or irrational (has ontological contradictions). If it is rational, then the purported claim is POSSIBLE to have occurred. If it is irrational, then the purported claim is IMPOSSIBLE to have occurred.

Do you understand that? Why people have so much difficulty with this is beyond comprehension.

No theory can be denounced or disproved by logic. Such subjective acts only take place in circus shows as they are nonsensical and don’t concern the Scientific Method. I only explained why the Big Bang is full of ontological contradictions, and hence, the claim is completely impossible!

(What is your theory?)

Huh?

Ok, I give up......what positive CLAIM am I making?

(If you can disprove the probable and the improbable)

You need to learn the basics. Proof in only circumscribed within a tautologous axiomatic system of logical rules. All rules are made by man. Nature has no rules.....only atoms and space. Nature just moves atoms from one location to another. It is human apes who interpret rules in the exact fashion as they interpret the Bible. The best a human can do is to use the Scientific Method to rationally explain what is possible or impossible.

(You may like my hub Do scientists Believe in God)

Actually, I LOVED it....thank you!

The scientific establishment of today is indeed comprised of clowns who only BELIEVE in what they say, and can never EXPLAIN anything. And it's funny how they call theists Creationists, when these Ph.D clowns are Creationists themselves!

We are in total agreement.....The Religionists of today who vote themselves into authoritative power with such titles as Mathematical Physicist, Quantum Theorist, M-Theorist, String Theorist, Relativist....etc.....are no different and no more inquisitive or knowledgeable than the Harry Krishanist, the Born-Again Christian, the Scientologist, or the Jamaican Voodoo Spell Practitioner.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Euxaristo para poly, meteoboy :-)

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

superwags,

Creation, expanding universe, stretched time, warped space, 0D particles, black holes, white holes, tachyons, energy, mass, force, field, Bosons, Bozos,......the joke is on YOU!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

“Then why don't you cite a few papers? That'll help clear up the uncertainties I have.”

What if I FedEx you a paper that has the US Government seal, the signatures of the current President and the past 3 Presidents, the signatures of top officials from hospitals and the Surgeon General’s seal & signature.....which CERTIFY that I am your brother......will that clear up your uncertainty that I am your brother?

Are you for real, man?

Reality wipes its ass with your petty papers.

“You know that big bang is an accepted theory, right?”

Oh, the authority and democracy arguments, the last resort of those who have no valid explanations.

So....what you're saying is that if you would have been born in Biblical times you would have subscribed to the Flat Earth theory because the entire body of 'scientists' can't be wrong! And you would have subscribed to an Earth-centric universe covered by a firmament and supported by pillars.

Are you for real, man?

Science isn't about raising your hand. Mother Nature pisses on majority rule. Authority is for gullible idiots who look around to see how many stand behind him. And if they have a Nobel, they get down on their knees to drool.

In science, we don't reach a truce with religionists and theists. We are not diplomatic or sign unholy treaties with the Devil or with God. There is no fine print in our contracts, peer pressure, or gold medals for lifetime achievements. We don't give prizes or twist arms. Science is about explaining.....we call that “theories”....perhaps you should read about them.

Can you rationally explain whether the creation of space & matter is even the remotest of remote possibilities??

If you can, here’s your chance. Or just copy/paste it from your favorite celebrity. Otherwise you are just bellyaching because your Religion has been exposed.

“The pyhsics of the process were worked out long ago. the same physics that keeps your TV working or SatNav running.”

Technology is achieved by trial & error, and has nothing to do with science. Science only explains. Technology invents and innovates. This is basic stuff.

“What on earth makes you think that the big bang didn't happen?”

Ummm......superwags......can I ask you a very personal question?

No offence....but....did your parents ever hit you on the head when you were a child? Ya know....for spanking purposes? The last person who asked me WHY I think his CLAIM of X didn’t happen....flat out confessed to me that he was spanked squarely on the head as a child.

Creation is a CLAIM of a consummated event from YOUR religion, superwags. In Physics we call that a Theory. This onus is on YOU to explain to the audience whether YOUR claim is even remotely possible. Can you do that?

You are like the Fundamentalist Christian who asks:

“What on earth makes you think that that God did not create the universe?”

More than appalling, guys like you are amusing. You guys reject traditional religion -- God, Jesus, Creation and all that – then go to college for 10 years, get a PhD, and come out believing in self-Creation: Big Bang.

Is the circus in town?

“I genuinely thought you were joking.”

Like I said....the joke is on YOU. Unfortunately, you are all starry-eyed with authority & celebrity, and can’t wake up to read what is in front of you and understand it.

I bet you collect the autographs of your favorite mathematicians.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

“No, the onus is very much on you actually to provide evidence to the contrary.”

LOL. This stuff is obviously waaaaaaay over your head. You really haven’t a clue who is positing a CLAIM here, do you? Typical human ape!

What is evidence to YOU, my little superwags, is a to LIE someone else. Evidence is naught but OPINION. You don’t accept the evidence of Jesus’ Creation, but you accept the evidence of Self-Creation. What a clown! Learn the basics before coming here and making a fool out of yourself.

Tell you what, superwags......when you graduate from high school and are able to understand grammar, reasoning, and what a CLAIM, consummated event, and Theory is, then maybe you can come back here and talk coherently, ok?

If you can’t read and understand the many articles here which debunk your religion, then just keep BELEIVING in ghosts, non-existent entities and fairytales.....I can’t help you.

“A lot of physics is very counter-intuitive”

Then maybe you should try to understand YOUR Religion before coming here and making a fool out of yourself. You are horrible door-to-door representative because you can’t answer a SINGLE question. A Jehovah’s Witness can do a lot better than you!

“a galaxy moving away from us due to expansion.”

So let me get this straight, my little superwags..... if I move 10ft away from you, then ‘something’ is expanding according to your religion?

Tell the audience.....WHAT exactly is expanding??

“you're not going to listen to reason or evidence”

What evidence are you going to show me for the creation of space & matter......a Betamax videotape, a reel-to-reel movie, a certificate signed by God, or perhaps an HD widescreen format movie with THX 10.1 surround sound???

When you grow up,.....then maybe.....just maybe, you might understand that you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about. You are running around like a chicken with its head cut off.....just look at you!

Regardless......all you are doing is bellyaching because the priests of your Religion didn’t warn you that there were rational people like ME out there in the real world. You’ve had ample opportunity by now to rationalize your position or debunk any of my articles. You have failed either way.

You haven’t answered a single question I’ve been asking you for 2 days now. You are a disgruntled religionist who is doing nothing but TROLLING.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Winston,

"Existence is physicality. Energy is physical. It exists not as an object, but in all objects. It is a property of all objects. An object would not exist without it."

Gibberish statements from a typical easily-led brain-dead follower who is starry-eyed with Justin-Bieber-like celebrity. I bet that whenever he thinks of energy, 0D particles, force, time, field, mass, and Big Bang creation,....it fills his heart with passionate "emotion" and brings "tears" to his eyes. A typical cult-following zombie!

This clown doesn't even realize that he has said NOTHING with such a stupid statement.

Before he even opens his mouth to regurgitate what his Pastor whispered into his ear while doing him....he had better define the following terms which make or break his argument:

- Existence

- exists

- Physical

- Object

- Energy

But a brain-dead zombie will have a million interpretations of these terms and use them to support every single contradicting argument he makes.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Winston,

Energy is the GOD of the Religions of Atheism & Mathematics. It's about time rational people realize this and abandon these religions.

When I get some time, I will write a controversial hub exposing these religions. I can't wait for all the atheists to flock here and defend their religion in the EXACT manner that Christian Fundies do. It'll be fun, that's for sure :-)

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

"it's clear you have no manners"

Please, my dear superwags.....it is quite obvious that you are incapable of critical thought. I mean, you haven't offered a single argument against any of my articles. You a very emotional person who is distracted by form, and sacrifice it at the expense of substance. You cannot concentrate on the issue at hand and cannot post a single rational argument to defend your religion.

I have been more than gracious to you by answering you on every single point....line by line....which you have posted here. Is that fair or not?

You, otoh....cannot answer a single question I posed to you.

Perhaps Science is not your forte. Maybe you should hang around the gardening forums and everybody will agree with you there.

But here.....we have rational Scientific discussions where people participate by putting their arguments on the table for analysis. You do not wish to participate in a Scientific manner, but instead choose to project your opinions of celebrity, authority, and heart-felt emotion. It is obvious that rationality and critical thinking offends you. So unless you can put up with the rigors of the Scientific Method, I suggest you troll elsewhere.

"I have a PhD"

Yes, all priests do.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Thank you prometheus, but I don't have time right now.

I am too busy tutoring students of physics...

http://www.motivatedmonkey.com/wp-content/uploads/

http://www.funnycraigslistads.com/wp-content/uploa

http://www.users.cloud9.net/~destiny/MILF2.jpg

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags.....there is NO reason to be depressed. If you wish to be in that self-destructive state for the rest of your life, just like religionists are, then you will never understand anything I say to you. In that case, please don't waste my time...have some decency.

If you wish to talk rationally with me, then we can only do so if you also participate in the discussion.....this means....answering MY questions posed to you!

I am busy right now....but I will respond to you in a few hours...

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

“I don't really understand your last comment, it's sensless. You can't accuse me of being in high school one minute, then telling me that a PhD is worthless next; make up your mind.”

Like I told you earlier.....this stuff is way over your head.

In science, we don't even care whether you got a degree or a Nobel....Mother Nature pisses on authority. A real scientist wipes his ass with a PhD certificate, just as he does using the pages of the Bible.

We listen to and analyze the theory, not the speaker's degree. Does a theory have more weight if it is given by an idiot such as PhD William Lane Craig, or by Hawking? Is this what is important to you? What credentials did Einstein have in 1905 when he wrote the 4 papers that made him famous? This is what 'science' has become: A celebrity contest. They don't ask you any more, "What is your theory?" Now they ask you, "Who are you?"

Only an idiot of religion asks for credentials. He has been brought up to obey and follow whatever others (authority) have decided is correct. The way others decide what is correct nowadays is by granting a Nobel or some other lesser prize. And brain-dead morons follow these Hollywood-Science movie stars and collect their pics. Do you have Einstein's pic of the year 1909? I'll trade you a Newt and a Gawking pic for it! Mine are in mint condition.

“The scientific process is what allows you to have what you have today.”

Before you embarrass yourself any further, you should learn that the Scientific Process consists only of a Hypothesis and a Theory. The theory ONLY explains phenomena of nature....and it does so rationally.

Technology or what is “useful” has absolutely nothing to do with science. I already explained this to you 2 comments ago, but you have serious comprehension problems!

“theories you don't "believe in"

Only morons believe! In science, we only explain. What is it that you don’t understand????

What sense does it make to “believe” in an ‘object’ or a ‘concept’?

Do you believe in the existence of objects like: your arm, my car, God, Big Foot, Superman, etc?

Do you believe in concepts like: love, justice, Big Bang, motion, energy, mass, 0D quantum particles, free will, etc?

Don’t you understand why it is irrational to believe in objects or concepts? In science we don’t believe. Belief and faith is the hallmark of religion. In science we only explain.

Scientific Theories are either rational or irrational. Belief plays no role. Mother Nature could care what a stupid human ape believes....reality marches on!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

superwags,

“Gravity? Evolution? Gene, Meme, DNA, quantum, relativity? Magnetism? Continental drift? The none existence of faries?”

And now.....it is time for YOU TO ANSWER A QUESTION FOR ME:

In your BELIEF SYSTEM, which is based on Authority, Celebrity, Ph.D’s, and Nobel’s alone,.... you claim to have all the answers. So please answer ANY of the following common questions (I am being very fair by giving you a good list to choose from):

1) When you let go of the ball, WHY does it fall to the floor instead of the ceiling?

2) WHY is light so fast?

3) WHAT exactly is light....an object, a concept? Please explain.

4) WHY do 2 magnets attract each other in one configuration, but repel each other when one is flipped?

5) Exactly WHAT mediates the effects we call Electrical Voltage and Electrical Current?

6) WHY does a diode stop the effect of current in one direction, but mediates in the other direction?

7) WHY does a resistor reduce the effect of current?

8) WHY do the fringes occur in the Double-Slit Light Experiment?

9) WHY does the light produce the effect we call Polarization with certain materials?

10) WHY does an object accelerate as it is falling towards the ground?

11) WHY does light travel rectilinearly?

12) WHY does light bend when it goes through glass?

13) WHAT mediates the effects us humans call HEAT & COLD, and HOW does it do it?

14) WHY does the EPR effect happen?

15) Explain the WHY’s and the HOW’s of the Quantum Entanglement effect.

16) Explain the Mossbauer Effect: recoilless emission.

17) What does an H atom look like? Why does it do a 'quantum jump? Is it mostly empty space like the brain of this stupid idiot Rutherford?

18) Is the Universe an entity? Could 'it' have had an origin?

19) WHAT is space? Can space be curved? Can space expand?

20) WHAT is time? Is it an object or a concept? Is time real? Does time exist? Can you define motion?

Not one lamebrain of YOUR Religion can answer any of these questions of Physics. If you disagree......AND I HOPE YOU DO....be my guest and put my foot in my mouth!!

Here is your chance to dress up Fatfist with a little pink tutu dress, parade him around town, and make a fool out of him.......use your impressive Ph.D prowess to answer ANY of the above questions.....OR.... explain ANY OTHER NATURAL PHENOMENA you wish.

I mean, what good is your Ph.D or the lamebrain celebrities you reference from your Religion, if none of you can explain a single natural phenomenon????

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

Thank you for finally starting to answer questions. Let's begin...

“The universe is WHAT is expanding; space and time.”

Before you tell me the ‘universe’ is expanding.....you had better be able to define it in no uncertain terms. Otherwise, you’ve said nothing! Here you go......define the terms of your argument....

Universe: ____________

Space: _____________

Time: ______________

If you can’t define these terms, then you don’t even understand what you are talking about!

These terms are from questions 18, 19, and 20 above.

“These are fairly fundamental to all understanding of cosmology and if you don’t understand what space and time is then you shouldn’t be posting at all.”

EXACTLY!

Thank you!

You shouldn’t even be posting at all.....not at all. You should go hide in a cave.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

Again, thank you for participating in the discussion. Let’s get one thing straight....this is not a debate or a contest. There are no winners or losers. Since this hub troubled you when you saw it, and you allege it’s all wrong, then the purpose of our discussion is for you to rationally explain the Big Bang, which is a claim of an alleged event of creation of space & matter, which supposedly happened in the past.

So let’s resolve one issue at a time before we move on to other issues and get lost in irrelevancies. Let’s deal with one issue at a time please.

Superwags: “The universe, broadly speaking is a term to define all matter and energy, basically everything.”

Matter: all the atoms

Everything: all objects

Object: that which has shape (synonym: thing, something, substance, physical, finite, discrete, entity, particle, structure, being, stuff, body, architecture, medium, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, etc.).

Atoms are objects since they have shape.

So are you saying that this “universe” term only encompasses matter (atoms, which are objects) and ‘energy’....nothing else, right?

Please define this elusive term ‘energy’ so the audience can understand what it means. Is energy an ‘object’ or ‘concept’?

We understand that matter (atoms) is part of reality. We need to understand whether this English term ‘energy’ resolves to something which is part of reality.

superwags: “What the fundmentals of the universe is, is a open discussion.”

Excuses are irrelevant!

Either you can tell the audience what this term UNIVERSE “means” for the purposes of YOUR presentation/theory, or you can’t. Since you are positing a CLAIM of “Expanding Universe”, you need to communicate the MEANING of your ideas to another human being in a rational manner. If you cannot, then, like you said.....”you shouldn’t even be posting at all”.....and your claim summarily goes in the trash.

So yes, I agree 100% with this rule you set, because it makes sense....it is rational. It ensures that people understand what they are talking about before opening their mouths and spewing out nonsense. I promise to follow your rule to a T.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Superwags,

“Matter in this instance is used to describe mainly sub atomic particles; photons, plasma and quarks; so actually atoms is not what is meant.”

Again, you are veering off into a tangent of irrelevancies. You are attempting to introduce models of the atom which are irrelevant to the discussion.

The term ‘matter’ refers to ATOMS. What the ‘atoms’ consist of is irrelevant. This issue is whether we are dealing with OBJECTS or CONCEPTS. Atoms are objects. They have shape. What their shape is or what they consist of belongs exclusively to the Hypothesis stage of the atomic model.....and is totally irrelevant to the Scientific definition of the term Universe.

“Why does an object need a shape?”

Objects don’t NEED shape like you need pants. Objects have shape all on their own, irrespective of observers and their opinions.

The issue is what the term ‘object’ means. What differentiates objects from concepts? At the most reductionist fundamental level of observer-independence, all objects have the intrinsic property shape/form which spatially separates them from their background. Concepts do not have shape. The Sun had shape even before a human observer could look at it and give an opinion about the issue. Absolutely all objects have shape, irrespective of anybody being there to bear witness.

If you disagree, then please provide the audience with a rational & objective Scientific definition of the term ‘object’, which is unambiguous and can be used consistently across all contexts.....and I promise we will use your defn.

Object:________________

If you can’t, then the Scientific definition I have provided will stay, because it is rational.....it can be used consistently (i.e. scientifically!!!) across all contexts.

“As I say, these are difficult terms to explain in every day language.”

Your excuses are irrelevant to the discussion. Either you understand YOUR claims or you do not? Which is it? If you do not, then your CLAIM of “Universe is expanding” goes in the trash!

So let’s stay on topic and please define this term ENERGY, which according to your claim.....is part of the Universe. The audience wants to FULLY understand what you mean with the word “Universe”.

Energy:_____________________

Is ‘energy’ an OBJECT or a CONCEPT?

We need a complete and rational definition in order to understand what YOU MEAN by this term “Universe”.

Please, do not go off in irrelevant tangents. Please stay on topic. Thank you!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

@prometheus,

superwags is still trying to explain to the audience what he means by the term "Universe", for the purposes of his dissertation regarding the CLAIM of "Universe is expanding".

We will get to the other terms after he is able to define "Universe".

Please don't bring up any other issues. This Scientific discussion needs to stay on topic. Thanks.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

@Superwags,

PLEASE LISTEN TO ME VERY CAREFULLY!

Please stay on topic so the audience can understand your claim.

This is the SECOND time you have made complaints & excuses that YOU don’t understand the words which YOU are posting here:

1) Universe

2) Object

3) Energy

If that’s the case, then you haven’t a clue of what you are talking about, and you are just trolling.

Please, either define your terms scientifically......OR......be honest to me, and say that you don’t understand what these words mean, and hence you don’t understand your CLAIM of “Universe expanding”. This is not a contest. There is nothing to be embarrassed about.

Please be considerate of my time and dedication to have a rational discussion with you. I have other things to do. I do not tolerate trolling.

Please be a decent human being and have the courtesy to be honest with me. This is your last warning!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Hi Sheerplan, and welcome.

“My problem is that when I read superwags comments I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND what he saying”

Finally, a rational human!

I love having people like you post here, sheerplan. You don’t know how much I like people who completely understand what they post.

Since you completely understand what superwags is saying, then could you please Scientifically define the following terms which you “obviously” completely understood from him??

1) Universe: _____________

2) Object: _______________

3) Energy:_______________

I trust that you were honest when you said that you completely understand. If I am mistaken or somehow misunderstood you, and you cannot for some reason define these terms Scientifically...i.e. objectively, unambiguously, and consistently.....please be HONEST with me, and I will post the Scientific definitions. All I ask is for honesty and responsibility......we are all adults here.

“I am going to assume that it is a failure of intellect”

Nope. Sorry. I don’t accept excuses. There is absolutely no human being on this planet who can claim they have superior or inferior intellect.....unless of course they have some physical handicap in their brain. We are all on the same level.

“can put your response in layman's terms”

Either we are going to talk POETRY or SCIENCE. Which do you prefer, sheerplan? Science is an objective discipline.....there is no poetry or “layman’s” terms. Such subjectivities & opinions can be discussed in the Conference on Religion......3rd door to your right, down the hall.

My hubs are strictly about Physics.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Hi sheerplan,

"I am mistaken thinking that I COMPLETELY understand what superwags is saying."

Thank you, sheerplan. You don't know how much it means to me when adults come to post here, and are honest about what they claim or what they understand.

"But, then again, I don't think I need your answers either. If I need an answer to my question I will just find it on my own."

No problem, sheerplan. Suit yourself.

If you ever change your mind, please feel free to come back and ask me to objectively, unambiguously, and consistently define ANY Scientific term you like. Please don't be shy in any way....we are all people....and we should be able to communicate to each other without deception.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

You're welcome, superwags.

I knew all along that you were blowing smoke out of your butt!

When I cornered "sheerplan" on the issue....he admitted it too!!

I mean....all you've said in your posts is...

"God works in mysterious ways.....we can never UNDERSTAND God....words cannot describe nor explain God and His ways.....but yet....God is REAL....God EXISTS....not only does God love us......but He CREATED the Universe too!!!"

How sweet is the poetry you post.

Oh dear God....why do you keep sending your Religionists here to waste my time?

Don't be sad, superwags.....at least you completely understand that you haven't a clue what you were talking about when you uttered the nonsensical clause: "The Universe Expands".

Fatfist will learn 'ya!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

LOL, Winston.

But I had high hopes for superwags. I thought he would go the distance,.....I mean, with his respectable Ph.D and all that authority crap he throws around....I didn't expect him to stumble and fall flat on his face on the very first word: UNIVERSE!

Pathetic...

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Yes, my dear superwags, you had the last word....you won the contest which plays in your mind!

You have no reason to commit suicide now, so cheer up.

Your God has cursed me with a lifetime of torture from pea-brains like you!

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Kirrui,

You get it....I have no clue why THEY don't get it.

Before you can have expansion, explosion, or whatever....you MUST absolutely have substance, an object.

Only matter can perform MOTION (verbs), which we stupid human apes call: expansion, explosion, bang, etc.

And BEFORE matter can move, there MUST absolutely be space! Without spatial separation, motion is impossible.

Space, matter, motion....are all eternal.

Not even God can impart the very first motion.

Why?

Because He must already be moving in order to do it :-)

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

jomine,

Fanaticism is an innate uncontrollable urge which is common to ALL human apes. An analogy would be: THE URGE TO GET LAID WITH EVERY WOMAN which tickles your fancy!

It is those apes among us who have the intellectual capacity to control and “suspend” these urges momentarily and deal with the situation at hand in a rational manner, which we call: humans.

If a foolish ape cannot unambiguously define these terms:

1) Universe

2) Object

3) Concept

4) Space

5) Energy

.......then they have NO business using any of them to make an argument, much less utter a sentence. Clowns who don’t understand what they utter, should at least have the mental capacity to seek an understanding one way or another. But to continue to claim that GOD or ENERGY created the concept which we call, Universe, .....is BEYOND STUPID.

Fanaticism spans all sectors of human endeavor. Science is not exempt.

The foolish ATHEIST who alleges to be “Science-Minded”, will hate on baby Jesus and his daddy, Yahweh, and irrationally CLAIM they don’t exist......solely because the evidence presented by the theist doesn’t meet his “personal” opinionated tastes.

Then this same foolish clown who is proud to be an Atheist, will turn around and dogmatically dictate in your face that ‘the’ Universe, which is a concept,.....self-created itself.

All fanatics need to be institutionalized permanently. Electro-shock therapy doesn’t work.

fatfist Hub Author 15 months ago

Right, prometheus.....it is pure "crapola" to claim that one human, like Einstein, can understand something, but nobody else can. This is only possible in the Wizard of Oz.

Here, in reality, if a stupid human ape cannot rationally convey his ideas to another human ape, and help him understand.....then this circus clown hasn't a freakin' clue what he is talking about. Now, if people "refuse" to understand....that is an entirely different matter which is based on biases. Understanding ultimately boils down to rationality.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Anonymous,

Absolutely every single theory on the universe, or about its alleged origins, is 100% contradictory, and hence, total BS!

The universe just IS. There is NO theory about reality. And yes, check out Bill Gaede's work on these issues....

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“If energy is a concept, does that mean that it cannot be measured?”

This alleged ‘it’ that we measure is not energy. We cannot measure concepts. We can only take measurements of physical objects. Now the measurement itself, is a concept! In essence, that is one of the reasons why energy is a concept....understand?

Energy is a concept that intrinsically depends on the concept of time. Time does not exist.

1 J = 1 W s = 1 kg x m ^2 / s ^2

And this is another reason why energy doesn't exist. Energy is not an object. It is a concept of the human mind that establishes a dynamic relation between objects. This is why energy is a dynamic concept that necessarily depends on time for its quantification. The 'energy' concept represents a human relation between two objects. It necessarily requires an observer just like measurement does. Anything which depends on an observer, does not exist in the universe, and in physics.

For example, when a bomb explodes, we measure how much weight (kg) of matter was moved, how far it moved (m), and in what time interval (s). We plug these measurements into our equation above and get the amount of Joules of Energy. You see.....this is an abstract concept embodying many other concepts. The object is the matter only. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS ENERGY. THERE IS ONLY MATTER.

The mathematicians use the word energy to explain every phenomenon of nature, yet they have no idea what they are talking about:

“ It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.” (The Feynman Lectures on Physics)

So if these idiots do not “know” what energy is, then just what the hell are they talking about whenever they invoke this word in their presentations????

The word ENERGY is absolutely no different than the word GOD. Religionists and mathematicians invoke it to attempt to explain everything under the sun. In traditional religion, they call it ‘God’. The mathematicians just changed the name. They did the same with the aether which they now call ‘spacetime’.

“Do you believe or agree with the theory of thermodynamics? Entropy?”

The laws of thermodynamics stemmed from observations in steam engines in the 1800’s. They are purely descriptive and don’t explain anything. This is why they are written in math equations. Math has absolutely NO explanatory power whatsoever. These laws have NO use in science. They are only used in Engineering. In science we only explain (theory) natural phenomena. In engineering we tinker with trial & error to invent useful technology. Science has nothing to do with technology and vice versa. These disciplines are polar opposites of each other.

My short answer is that the 2nd “concept” of thermodynamics is a useful empirical rule for dealing with sub-universe sized macroscopic systems.

The universe is a closed, isolated system. Motion is conserved in such a system. Nature doesn't care if that motion is useful to us or readily apparent to us, Nature just cares that the balance sheet matches *exactly*. Besides, entropy is a concept, it has no power to perform actions such as increasing or moving.

The neat thing about the second law of thermodynamics is that it's a system specific law. If one cannot draw a boundary around the system (which may be true of the whole universe) then the second law does not apply. The 2nd law requires the system to be surrounded by 'an' infinite "sea" i.e. thermal reservoir. Since there are no infinite objects in reality this scenario is physically unrealizable. Even more to the point, since the universe is "everything that exists" then there can be no existing thermal reservoir surrounding it. Such a thing, not being part of the universe, wouldn't exist.

Like information, order (entropy) is an issue which is solely in the eye of the beholder. It is purely subjective and nothing else. Order is like beauty: it is an opinion. There is no such thing as beauty as there is no such thing as order. A dog does not think that Miss Universe is anymore beautiful than his bone, and the atoms of DNA are just as ordered as they need to be to carry out their functions. There are only arrangements of atoms in space. Whatever an observer makes of them is mere opinion.

The only scientific issue we can extract from these laws is that:

1) Space cannot acquire length, width, and height and convert into matter

2) Matter cannot lose length, width, and height and convert into space

This means that creation is impossible.

“anti-matter, dark energy, and dark matter.”

Again, these are sub-inventions of the GOD word in order to attempt to haphazardly explain the FAILURES of their original theories. These sub-words are no different than the sub-words used by traditional religions to attempt to fill-in the holes in their nonsense: JESUS, DEVIL, SPIRIT, ANGEL, etc.

“I wonder what you think about Lawrence Krauss' theory on 'A Universe from Nothing':”

I’ve seen it. It’s total bullshit. He contradicts himself in every statement. It’s quite humorous. Krauss is nothing more than a contemporary religionist who believes in CREATION.

Thanks for dropping by.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“I'm just so used to thinking that time does exist in some way”

There is no such thing as time in Physics. We have no use for the word. Time is like the word God. It conveniently cures all ills. But what is this worth if we sacrificed understanding in exchange?

Time is a scalar quantity used for quantifying motion (ie. measuring movement). It doesn't slow down, speed up, dilate, contract, bend, warp, shrink, expand, etc. any more than a meter shrinks or expands. Only the object being measured can speed up, slow down, shrink, or expand.

The word time is not part of the vocabulary of Science or of Physics. Time is a word invented by the idiots of Mathematics, and they are certainly not a part of Science. In Science, we have no use for time. We cannot explain any phenomenon of nature with the word time. Time is descriptive. It can be used to describe observations.

Time doesn’t exist. Time is a human conception. After all, our entire existence revolves around the concept of “time.” Just try uttering a single sentence without referring to time: “today I’m going to …”; “call me later”; “when I was …”; “how long will it …”; and so on. Time is so innate, ingrained, and intuitive to our thought processes that we don’t even give it a second thought. The human capacity for perceiving time has to do with our sophisticated memory, which certainly IS a prerequisite for perceiving time. After all, a huge chunk of what we perceive as time, the past, is only made possible by memory. Without a good memory the past is inconceivable. A rich collection of memories, however, could actually be a mentally debilitating liability without some means to categorize those memories and make some sense of them. Chronological ordering is certainly a useful way to categorize memories, thus necessitating the concept of time. Animals that don’t possess such rich memories or engage in complex mental analyses may not require the concept of time. There are lower life forms than humans whose lives are governed less by thinking and more by “genetic programming.” Insects, for instance, are totally controlled by programming, largely directed by the release of chemical pheromones. Insects have absolutely no need for the concept of time. Time is merely an aid to thoughts that require memory.

We are living objects in motion, not in time! The concepts within our human mind’s reality have no physical collateral, and hence do not coincide to anything within the actuality of the Universe.

Time = object motion + memory

Time is a dynamic concept, a scalar quantity necessarily requiring the measurement of motion of an object. Without sentient observers with memory, there is no time!

“So if time is just a concept, what causes objects to exist?”

Objects exist by DEFINITION only!! They exist by what it MEANS to exist.

Exist = object + location

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

Existence is impossible to be CAUSED (ie. created). Existence just IS. Creation is for the religious only. Matter, space, motion....are all eternal. See the hub I wrote about this.

“if the universe is a closed system, then it can't be a concept can it?”

There is no OUTSIDE to the universe (space + matter). There are no outside borders to cross and exist space and reach God’s Heaven. Therefore, the universe as a whole is not open.....it is what it IS (conceptually a system in and of itself). In entropy we call it a closed system.

The universe is a concept. A system is a concept. It embodies 2 different ideas: space + matter. That is definitely a concept, not an object. Only the matter is objects.

It’s a shame they don’t teach this stuff in school and everybody on the planet has no clue what a concept is.....even the human apes who boast IQs of 160++.

“What about the 'space' or 'void' surroung this closed system that helps define it AS a system?”

There is no space surrounding ‘the’ system. ‘The’ system is not an object that can be surrounded. It is a concept (space + matter = universe). All objects/matter is wrapped by space....no exceptions.

“I wonder whether you might recommend some literature for me that might help me to understand 'reality' a little better?”

Look up user billgaede on this site and check out his book.

“What's the difference between a 'truth' and a 'fact'?”

In science there are NO truths and NO facts. There are only “statements of the facts” in the Hypothesis stage of the sci method. And had better not be contradictory.

Despite that the word 'science' comes from 'scire' (to know), Science does not deal with knowledge. In Science, we don't know or claim to know. In Science, we EXPLAIN.

In Science, we MUST propose an object. With this object, we EXPLAIN a phenomenon. Whether the explanation matches how MN runs her shop only She 'knows'. We don't 'know'. We ONLY explain. You can choose the explanation you like best. If you like God, go with God. If you like Big Bang, go with Big Bang. And so on.

Physics deals with objects. Philosophy deals with concepts. Philosophy is not Science. I talk Physics. Mathematicians talk Philosophy. Mathematics ONLY deals with concepts. Math Phyz is a religion because it reifies concepts, converts them into objects, and pretends to move them around.

In Science, we don't deal with THE truth. We delegate truth to religion. Right, wrong, true, false are elements of established religion. The panel of judges of the Inquisition looks at the helpless soul that has dared raise his voice against them and tells him: "You're wrong!"

Truth IS an opinion. I challenge anyone to posit just one TRUTH that is not THEIR opinion! I just have to find one person in the world who doesn't agree with THEIR version of TRUTH to debunk the argument for truth.

Wrong, right, incorrect, correct, truth, lie, proof, certainty and confirmation are nothing but OPINIONS!!! Opinions are NOT a part of Science and don’t concern reality. In Science, we only EXPLAIN. What YOU choose to believe and call 'proof' after the show is your personal business and doesn't concern Science.

In Science, we don't have or use 'facts' (consummated events). Facts belong exclusively to religion. It means that the pastor of Math has already decided for all of us what exactly happened and we cannot question it. In Science, we have STATEMENT(S) OF THE FACTS. A statement of the fact is an ASSUMPTION. The proponent PROPOSES a scenario: what COULD have happened in the past. Whereas a blatant ‘fact’ that cannot be supported in the ‘explanation stage’ by a rational explanation, is simply forced down our throats as authoritative BELIEF! No different than what religion and Math idiots do.

Therefore, Jesus walking on water is NOT a fact as alleged by religion. Religion claims that if 12 disciples in a boat saw Jesus walking on water, their 'observation of this event' converts it into an actual phenomenon of nature. And if all the cardinals vote for this phenomenon, it is now a fact.

In Science, we make an ASSUMPTION, "Let us ASSUME that Jesus walked on water." Now we move to do Science: an explanation based on this assumption.

Can we now rationally explain how an object can walk on water? If not, then what can possibly make it a ‘statement of fact’?

This is the only reliable and consistent way we can assess the difference between Scientific Theory and Religion.

“Many scientists claim that the theory of evolution is a fact.”

Not in science it ain’t!!!

Evolution is a theory (rational explanation) and it will always be a theory, and it absolutely will never ever be a fact (i.e. one’s opinion). Those so-called scientists who don’t understand these basics of science have no business opening their mouths and uttering ignorant statements.

Theory = RATIONAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY A PHENOMENON OCCURS.

Theory != SPECULATION, FACT, OPINION, TRUTH, PROOF, etc.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Yes, Prometheus....they both make very cute, sweet, and tender bedfellows. I feel sorry for the one who has to bend over and pick up the soap after it falls in the shower stall.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

"The further away a star is, the longer it will take for its light to reach the earth. So if the universe has been around forever, then all the light that's out there will have had time to reach us, and the night sky would be ablaze with starlight."

This is total bullshit!

How can idiot who can't even tell whether light is an object or a concept, make such unfounded claims.

It's like a religionist who claims that Jesus is the 'truth' and the 'light' ......no difference!!!

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

""Darwin’s theory is indeed only a theory,"

The onus is on HIM to tell us what he means by the term Theory, and how it relates to the Scientific Method.

"but one with strong evidence. "

Evidence is in the eye of the beholder. The fossil record is evidence to the idiots of the Catholic Church that God evolved the species on this planet.

Whereas to a stupid moronic creationist like Richard Dawkins, the fossil record is evidence that we ultimately evolved from the Big Bang Creation.

Both parties are dumber than dumb....and stupider than stupid!!

Any questions?

"That evolution happens is simple fact."

Absolutely not!!

Evolution is not a fact. A fact is an OPINION. Evolution is NOT a fact to a Fundamentalist Pentecostal Creationist.....but it IS to a Big Bang Creationist.

So who's FACT is RIGHT?? Should we flip a coin? Should we vote on this issue?

NONE! There are NO facts or truths in Science....ever!

In science we only have Hypotheses and Theories which rationally explain natural phenomena without contradiction. Anything else is Religion - not Science.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“Ok fatfist, but I'm still trying to get my head around what a 'fact' is in the way that you describe”

Peter, unless you can sit down and OBJECTIVE define the following the following terms without contradictions or dependencies on human observers, then you will never understand what they mean. You will just keep talking gibberish like religionists do and not understand anything.

1) Truth

2) Proof

3) Fact

4) Knowledge

All these terms are dependent on a human observer who uses his limited sensory system to make an observation.....and then based on how it makes him feel....he will dogmatically decree it as: truth, proof, fact, and knowledge.

What does this have to do with reality? Mother Nature pisses on observers and their stupid subjective opinions.

Mother Nature only respects those human apes who can use their CRITICAL THINKING skills to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN (without subjectivities & contradictions) how Mother Nature does her magic tricks. This is what the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is all about.....nothing more.....nothing less. Understand?

Truths, proof, facts, certainties, knowledge......are the hallmark of Religion.....never Science.

In Science we NEVER “know”......in Science we only EXPLAIN (theory stage).....and we do so rationally!

“a fact is an objective validation of real objects”

IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

It takes a sentient observer (human) to perform this alleged validation via their limited sensory system. This is SUBJECTIVE (opinion).....NEVER objective. Most people have a big problem understanding this because they were brainwashed by Religion for the past 2000 years.....really sad!

But before Christianity brainwashed every single ignorant ape on this planet....the Greeks had all this shit figured out:

The Ancient Greeks already understood and documented that TRUTH WAS NOTHING MORE THAN OPINION. It was the Sophists of Ancient Greece, like Protagoras , Prodikos , Hippias, Eleios, and Gorgias from Leontini, etc. who persistently advanced the principle that “truth is what suits the individual’s interests”. They had the rationality to understand that truth does not exist. But it is rather a human invention that is at best, self-serving.

And this is why Aristotle took it upon himself to formalize truth by encapsulating it within an axiomatic system: Classical Logic. Anything claimed as ‘truth’ outside the realm of a conceptual axiomatic domain, is nothing but self-serving opinion. This means that ‘truth’ & ‘proof’ are subjective notions which are completely DIVORCED from reality.

“The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fact as "1. Something known with certainty.”

Dictionaries were written by people who should be dealing with grammar.....not Science. There is not a single scientific definition to be found in any dictionary.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for any sentient observer in the universe to make any statement of certainty. There are no absolutes.

“Here is a statement of fact, in the scientific sense: * Under normal circumstances, if a piano is dropped from a height, it will fall.”

That a piano would fall to the ground is NOT a fact.....it is a CONSUMMATED EVENT....not an alleged present one like you are alluding to here. There are no “present” or “future” events. Events are always in the past.

Therefore, “the piano fell to the ground” is NOT a fact as alleged by the religion of Math. This religion claims that if Stephen Hawking saw the piano fall to the ground, then his authoritative observation of this event is dogmatically converted into an actual phenomenon in nature. And if all his peer-reviewers vote for this phenomenon, it now becomes FACT!!

In Science we do things differently. The piano is an object. The action due to the gravitational effect performed on the piano is part of the Theory (rational explanation) of how objects are attracted to each other. That the piano falls to the ground is predicated solely on the Theory of Gravity...and NOT on any FACT or other opinion of a human ape.

It is these basic fundamental ideas which Religionists & Mathematicians alike do not grasp. No wonder they end up believing in God, creation, ghosts, spirits, 0D particles, Big Bang, black holes, donut holes, assholes, waves, warped space, dilated time, etc.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“This is true no matter how many times the piano is dropped and no matter how many different people drop it.”

No it is NOT true!!!!

Want proof???

Ok, let me ask my next door neighbour about this issue. My neighbour said that it is not true that a piano will fall to the ground. He said that the viscosity of the air will keep the piano floating, and that is the TRUTH!!

And personally, I have never seen a piano fall to the ground. So according to ME....it is NOT TRUE!!

So there you go, Peter.....all I need to do is find JUST ONE person who disagrees with your version of the truth in order to blow your whole argument out of the water.

Only Religionists base their arguments on TRUTHS and FACTS.

In science we only explain rationally!

“They can all agree that the piano will fall.”

Oh....I see......if you can get people to VOTE on this issue, then it magically turns it into a FACT, right?

I CAN TOP THAT......YOU JUST WATCH!!!!!!

I have lots of money and I can pay MOST of the population of this planet to VOTE FOR MY VERSION THAT THE PIANO WILL NOT FALL.

THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO YOUR LOGIC......MY VERSION OF EVENTS IS NOW FACT, AND ABSOLUTE PROVEN CERTAINTY!!!!!!

Do you now understand how your argument has been instantly reduced into a Religious one????

It is no different than Christians arguing with Atheists.....God vs Big Bang.....truth, fact, proof, etc.

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

You know what, prometheus.....I just asked 5 of my coworkers who are into video editing and they told me that video of the piano is edited and doctored. The piano didn't really fall, so it's not true.

piano falls = 2 votes

piano not falls = 7 votes (don't forget my neighbor whose wife I sleep with when he's at work)

Therefore, MY version is truth!

....and I really like that MILF!!

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Of course......TRUTH = FACT = PROOF = CERTAINTY = OPINION = DEMOCRACY

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“But aren't you using your "limited sensory system" to "know" that the sun exists whether we notice it or not?”

You cannot KNOW that the Sun exists....not in science you can’t. The Sun exists by DEFINITION only!

Exist = object + location

Where is there provision for KNOWLEDGE in the definition of exist??

How about those people who were born and live in an underground secret society. They certainly don’t “know” that the Sun exists. Does that mean that their “lack of knowledge” prevents the Sun from existing??

In science we don’t inject the OPINIONS of observers into scientific definitions. They are all objective i.e. observer-independent. Understand?

“I mean, everything is subjective from our point of view, even theories of matter, space and motion.”

No! You missed the point entirely.

Science is a discipline which demands OBJECTIVITY. The only way to accomplish that feat is to kill all observers and their subjective testimonies from definitions, hypotheses, and theories. A Theory is objective when it is predicated solely on critical thinking, objective analysis, and rational explanation. Subjectivities play no role in science.

“we can still make a claim that existence is unprovable because existence JUST IS. This is a subjective statement, is it not?”

Please try to understand this one thing I am trying to convey to you.....

The word ‘exist’ has an objective meaning in reality, right?

If a human being uses the word ‘exist’ without the ability to define it objectively (unambiguously, consistently, rationally), then that person has NO CLUE of what the hell they are talking about, right?

Hence.....we MUST be able to define all terms objectively.....without dependence on observers. The Scientific Method demands that......otherwise we are doing Religion and not Science....makes sense?

“we could be wrong...our "limited sensory system" could be lying to us that objects like the sun exist independently of our noticing them.”

This is what the brain-dead idiots of Quantum want you to believe because they haven’t got a single explanation for ANY phenomenon in nature.

Objects exist whether humans are present or not. Whomever DISAGREES with this statement is necessarily implying that matter is CREATED FROM NOTHING (ex nihilo). Only Religious idiots believe this CRAP.

Creation under ANY context is IMPOSSIBLE.

What? You didn’t hear it correctly?

Let me repeat it again......IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

Any questions??

I have several articles explaining this in EXTREME laborious detail.

“We cannot get away from our subjectivity no matter how we try...”

Yes we can.....easy.....define all terms without injecting observers into the equation.....and explain all theories rationally. Dead easy!!

“All of this is like a new language to me, but I'm trying to understand, so please bear with me.”

No problem. You are not alone, Peter. I felt the same way when I was first exposed to it. But it does feel good to finally be able to discern reality from fantasy.....don’t you think??

fatfist Hub Author 14 months ago

Peter,

“Going by your logic, would it make sense to say that the ancient Greeks once existed based on evidence?”

In science, we cannot use the word exist in past tense (i.e., existED). One’s personal opinion that it is a true statement, is unscientific any which way you see it. In science, we don't predict or explain existence. Existence ONLY functions in present tense...never in the past or future. So your usage of the word ‘exist’ is circumscribed only to ordinary speech and not scientific language.

The word exist is an exclusive property of the step known as Hypothesis. It can never be part of a Theory. You cannot theorize that THIS chair exists and you cannot theorize that the Greeks existED, and you cannot predict that your future son has a right hand! Define exist rationally, and we'll both understand whether this chair can possibly exist.

The error theists, atheists, and agnostics make is the same. They don't understand the Scientific Method. In Science, we don't prove or believe in or theorize about the existence or non-existence of God. In Science, God, like any object, either exists or doesn't, whether we like it or not. God exists or doesn't BY DEFINITION and not because you touched or saw Him, or because we have written eye-witness accounts or evidence.

Likewise, YOUR hand exists whether I saw it or believe in it. It exists because it has physical (object) presence (location). There is no provision for faith or wisdom or time or evidence in the definition of the word exist.

So, we cannot use the word existed in past tense as in 'existED.' You are saying the Greeks 'livED' and confusing living with existing, a very common error. You exist in present tense only. By saying existED, you are saying that Plato came into existence and at some point ceased to exist when you meant to say that Plato was born (began to live) and then one day stopped living. In Science, exist is NOT a synonym of living or alive.

The Devil’s advocate will ask: Didn’t Elvis Presley exist? Hasn’t he existed in the past?

A: At best you can say he ‘lived’ during a past period, and his atoms are eternally recycled. But the word ‘exist’ has no provision for PROOF or KNOWLEDGE or EVIDENCE. How do you propose we PROVE that Elvis existED? Not only is that irrational, but impossible.

“We can only assume or use a theory to explain that the ancient Greeks existed before, at present, we exist right now.”

Bingo, you got it! But we explain that the Greeks “lived”. We Hypothesize the existence of those objects which we cannot bring into the Physics Conference and place on the podium....like light, God, ghosts, etc. Then we rationally explain with our Theory some consummated event in which our ACTORS (light, God, the Greeks, etc.) have participated in.

“If existence is a default definition, then we cannot ever say that anyone (any other object) from the past existed before we did, can we?”

The Sci Method is always based on consummated events of the past....they have already occurred. We assume the existence of INVISIBLE objects and use our Theory to rationally explain how they participated in the event, and WHY the event occurred as it did.

Conclusion: If the Theory is rational (no contradictions), then the event MAY have occurred...and the said objects MAY have existed/lived (ordinary speech)....it is possible. Otherwise, it is IMPOSSIBLE.

NOTE: It is unscientific to claim to know or prove or have truth that the event occurred (remember....it is of the PAST). It is impossible to PROVE existence. Only Religions can make such unwarranted assertions.

fatfist Hub Author 12 months ago

Kamrom,

“our universe is expanding”

Hi kamrom, I hope that you realize that “expand” is a VERB, and verbs can only be performed by objects. An object is that which has shape. So the pertinent question which you have to answer is: Is ‘the’ Universe an object or a concept??

a) If ‘it’ is an object, then you should have no trouble illustrating it with a crayon or simply referencing an image of it online.

b) If it is not an object, then you should have no trouble “defining” this concept which we call “Universe”.

So what’s it gonna be?

I mean, if you can’t tell audience what this term “Universe” means for the purposes of your claims of “expansion”, then you’ve said nothing. You would be no different than the Jehova’s witness who claims that your soul goes to Heaven, as he too cannot tell us what ‘soul’ and ‘Heaven’ are.....be he can sure as hell blindly assert it.

“You know we can see very very far back right?”

Wow! That’s quite the amazing eyesight you have! Could you please tell me how I can train my eyes to see that far back too? The only thing I’ve been able to see in the past week is my neighbor’s wife’s butt in a thong bikini. Does that qualify as being that far back?

“We are completely, utterly, totally able to determine exactly what happend in the past 13.7 billions years”

Listen, idiot!! If we cannot completely, utterly, totally able to determine exactly what happened just 10 years ago on 9/11, or whether or not Osama Bin Laden was shot and killed or not, then how the hell can you tell me this nonsense of what happened 13.7 Billion years ago??? Do you have some extra magical crystal ball which whispers in your ear or something?

“We can absolutely confirm then, everything that happend in our universe”

Before you pull out your crystal ball and allegedly confirm in front of your church members what happened 13.7 bya.....please use it to CONFIRM for us exactly what happened with Osama Bin Laden just 2 weeks ago!! And remember....no bald assertions or alleged claims.....just CONFIRM, ok? I mean, Osama was part of the universe, right?

“Void is where the universe is not”

The universe embodies space and matter. So the ‘void’ had better be part of the universe.....otherwise the term which you SHOULD be using is MATTER, and not ‘Universe’....got it? I mean, this is basic grammar, so I can’t imagine why you are struggling with it. What is it that is causing you so much difficulty?

“As a result, the vacuum forces would be always pulling”

Vacuum force???? WTF is that??

Vacuum is nothing!!! Nothingness cannot impart any force (action/verb) on anything. Forces (actions/verbs) can only be mediated by OBJECTS, and not nothing!!

I mean, we learn this stuff in Junior Kindergarten.

Here....let me help you out so you can understand......during your lunch break in high school today I want you to go to your local pre-school and go talk to any kid in Junior Kindergarten class.....preferably one still in diapers. Please tell the kid that a ball can be FORCED (action/verb) to bounce by NOTHING. Then see the expression on the kid’s face and watch how the whole class of junior kindergarteners laughs and mocks you.....they might even throw rocks or their diapers at such a stupid moron who would suggest that ‘nothing’ can perform actions.

“a void MUST fill itself”

Oh....this gets even better!!!

Now the void/nothingness is a container of sorts......just like the Tupperware your mother uses to fill with your lunch for school....right?

And, this Tupperware of nothingness will now magically fill itself.....it will perform an action (fill) all by itself, right? This is quite the smart void/nothing if it can do all these actions by itself.

Ummmm....Kamrom......when was the last time you were institutionalized for a mental disorder? Have you ever had a psychiatric evaluation before? It’s never too late to start, ya know.....I can write you a letter of recommendation if you like.

"And thats just how it is."

Ya! It's quite obvious you need to spend a good long vacation in an Insane Asylum where there are lots of trees and flowers in the garden.

fatfist Hub Author 12 months ago

Shahid,

The only Big Crunch I know of is the kind you get when you bite into a Crunch chocolate bar....and the "crunch" is unbelievably BIG....unlike the one purported by the Church of Mathematical Physics.

http://alexdesignz.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/cru

"Elite Physicists ... making a living out of Nonsense"

They started doing this with the invention of the word "Energy" in the 1800's along with the mathematical modeling of abstract concepts......it all went downhill from there.

fatfist Hub Author 11 months ago

And where did you read that, nicomp? Not in here you didn't. Did you take your medication today?

fatfist Hub Author 11 months ago

Yeah nicomp, that's the crap you get from Religion. In this particular case...the Religion of Mathematical Physics.

Magical waves emanate from objects just like spirits. The mathematicians have replaced Jesus' spirit resurrecting into Heaven, with spirits resurrecting from stars and planets....they call them gravity waves...go figure.

fatfist Hub Author 11 months ago

I know, nicomp....you're confused like everyone else. Here's a tip for ya: stop kneeling down to those priests & pastors who want to molest your brain, and start thinking for yourself...amen!

fatfist Hub Author 8 months ago

Spastic,

“Soccer balls, billiard balls, the earth, even neutron stars, are concepts, not objects.”

The words themselves, yes, they are concepts. All terms are conceptual. We conceive of what word to assign to ‘that’ which we “resolve”. In reality, the ‘that’ can either be “resolved” to an object or to a concept....there is no other option or category. Since we have reasoned 2 categories, the onus is on us to scientifically define them.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between objects (has no shape)

In short, objects have shape and concepts don’t. This is a black or white issue. There is no other option.

So now, it is very easy to test your words.

Do the words ball, Earth and star resolve to ‘that’ which has shape? Even if we are born and raised in an underground society all our lives and never seen them; can we conceptualize these “alleged” entities? Can we illustrate them on the blackboard? If so, then they have no choice but to be objects.

Note: we haven’t even talked about existence at this point, which is another issue altogether.

“Zoom in close enough (atomic scale, or subatomic scale in the case of a neutron star) and there is no edge or boundary to be found. “

Conceptually, we critically reason that the concept known as object invokes two 'things': the object itself and whatever surrounds and gives shape to it. Objects are necessarily spatially separated. In physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE. When you point to a table and say "table" there is no second guessing that it is made of pieces. And that it “may” be made of pieces is irrelevant in the instant context of its reference. This is how we distinguish one object from another. Mereology is not a part of Science. It is a branch of religion, i.e. God is made of up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. This is irrelevant. The critical question which must be answered is: Is God an object, yes or no?

In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is shape. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word. We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we have converted the word butter into a concept, and introduced a new object called “molecule”. In this new context, the prosecutor can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....but he is now only dealing with the molecule object.

The word ‘ball’ refers to the entire object, not to its parts. From one edge to the other, the ball is taken to be PHYSICALLY CONTINUOUS (made of a single piece) (not the 'continuous' of Math which means the opposite: discrete, segmented). Hence, there is no 'distance' between the two edges. There is only length: continuous material.

“'Edge' is conceptual.”

Yes, ‘edge’ is a concept, not an object. When we conceive what separates an object from its background, we call this RELATION: edge. Of course, the object ‘ball’ does have a surface which is physical (an object) and is real. Surfaces are 3D. The spatial separation is what we refer to as shape or form.

fatfist Hub Author 8 months ago

Spastic,

“Even with molecules, we can dissect them into atoms,”

And there lies the problem. You are now attempting to define what a molecule is. You are saying that a molecule is made of up atoms which are in a specific configuration, somehow bonded together, in motion, etc. This right there is a RELATION, ....a concept, not an object. You are attempting to define an alleged entity you call “molecule”. Objects cannot possibly be defined in any objective manner. Only concepts can be defined. Objects are only pointed at or illustrated and given a “name”....that is it.

We point that entity hanging from a tree and call it “apple”. We don't care (yet) about what it is made of, who made it, whether it will change its form in the next few seconds, whether it weighs a lot, whether it's big or small, or whether it will move. The very first step before we can do any physics is to determine what an object is. And we do that be defining it. Afterwards, we can form hypotheses and theories about the building blocks we call ‘matter’ or ‘atoms’ for all objects. The initial stage is the most crucial one which determines whether we are doing physics (objective/rational).

An object of physics is an entity considered to be a single piece....not a relation of entities and ideas. When this single-piece entity partakes in motion, collisions with other objects, etc., then we are doing physics by explaining natural phenomena or consummated events with that single piece. What the object is composed of is irrelevant to the instant context. In physics, relations between objects and forces and energy, and motions do not hit you over the head....they do not have any physical effect in nature. Only an object like a hammer can hit you over the head.

Similarly, when someone says that God is a man-like being with a big penis, love, consciousness, spirit, etc,. they are not talking about an object. They are talking about a concept only.

“....then a nucleus, then protons and neutrons, then quarks etc.”

When we are talking about these alleged entities, then we must be able to illustrate to the audience what they are HYPOTHESIZED to look like. If we cannot do this, then these alleged entities are not objects....they cannot possibly exist. They are only concepts. As it turns out, nobody in mathematical physics has been able to illustrate a proton, electron, neutron, etc. These names allude to a specific behaviour or configuration of the atom.....not to a ‘thing’ which can exist. These names allude to relations, i.e. concepts.

Just like the famous “wave” of math physics. They claim that light is a wave. Well, there is no such thing as a wave. Wave is what an object does, like water, which undulates up/down. Water is the object. Wave is the motion of the water....it’s relation which depends on the motion and configuration of the rest of the water.

When people don’t understand the diff between an object and a concept, then we get these ridiculous notions of concepts acquiring motion and knocking us down at the beach. We call this: Religion.

“So would you agree that even in physics we use the terms 'concept' and 'object' interchangably depending on what scale we're working at (how far we zoom in)?”

No we don’t, not in physics. Butter is an object. A molecule is an object. An atom is an object. We can illustrate them rationally as part of our hypothesis. And we can use them in our theory to explain some phenomenon in nature in that specific context...whether it be butter or atoms....but not both at the same time. So, individually, they can never be concepts. The moment we start to relate them together, their bonds, their configurations, their behavior, etc....and claim that these relations (i.e. energy) perform actions, then we are talking about concepts and doing religion, not physics.

"How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!"

Objects do not “possess” qualities or concepts....of course this is nonsense when taken literally. Objects can only literally “possess” other objects. A lady can possess a purse on her.

By “has” shape, we are using the limited power of our language to say that shape is an intrinsic property, and not a separate entity or idea or observer-dependent relation. We are saying that objects are spatially separated. We call this shape or form. Shape cannot be possessed....it cannot be something that an entity literally “has”. Any word in any language can either allude to ‘something’ which is spatially separated or not. If it is, then we say that it “has” shape. We say that an apple has shape, while love doesn’t.

Shape is unavoidable and irreducible. This is why shape cannot be broken down into sub-components or sub-properties. It is observer-independent. It is in its very own category. It is an irreducible root word. And this is why we conceivably call it an ‘intrinsic property’ of an object. Objects have no other intrinsic property that can possibly be conceived.

Shape is the fundamental irreducible word which distinguishes something from nothing. So yes, this word is a concept.....it describes a very important notion. It alludes to our conceptualization of spatial separation i.e. SOMETHING vs NOTHING. The universe consists of something and nothing....there is no other option or category. For if there is, then all I have said about shape and object, and the definitions I have given,... would be all bunk....they immediately go in the trash and we must start over.

“My response would probably be that the claim that an object has shape is simply a case of ease of use of language and scientific communication.”

It is not a “claim”. It is a rational definition, as I explained above. And yes, because shape is a root word, it is simple and easy to understand in any type of communication, whether scientific or layman’s terms.

“I appreciate your input fatfist. I hope I'm not annoying you. Just tell me if I am and I won't post anymore.”

You are welcome. Ask whatever question you want. My only requirement is that we have a rational discussion.

“Matt Slick's TAG. .....fails by reifying concepts into existing objects. Transcendental objects no less!”

And this is the reason why Slick has to define what an object is or what a “logical absolute” is before giving his presentation. Otherwise he said nothing.

But according to Slick, logical absolutes are concepts, not objects. Therefore, concepts cannot be transcendental....they cannot transcend anything. Only objects can transcend. I can transcend the boundaries of my home. Only that which has “shape” can transcend another entity which must have “shape”. It is the spatial separation which gives objects the ability to have boundaries that can be “transcended”.

You see, once we rationally define our key terms, there is NO place we can hide. Either we talk rationally or we talk nonsense. This is why religionists refuse to define anything. It allows them to get away with murder.

Slick’s argument fails instantly. I refuted it in his youtube, but he deleted my comments.

fatfist Hub Author 8 months ago

Spastic,

No, I am not. I can't say that I've been partying with Fidel Castro in the 1990's. I wish I did tho....must have been awesome!

Any clarifications or complaints with my previous explanation of object and shape?

fatfist Hub Author 8 months ago

Spastic....I know Bill G. He is the inventor of Thread Theory. I am one of several people who make use of his theory to debunk all the garbage that is prevalent today in the religion of math physics.

fatfist Hub Author 7 months ago

Spastic, look up user billgaede here or on utube. He has videos and articles on his theory which will answer all your questions.

fatfist Hub Author 6 months ago

@Philo,

Do you enjoy posting the same questions on multiple hubs?

Do you think this action will validate what you parrot....i.e. "prove" it?

And why are you ashamed of Winston? Did he break one of your 10 Commandments? Did he "sin" according to YOUR scriptures?

fatfist Hub Author 3 months ago

Ha ha, I love the onion network!

fatfist Hub Author 3 months ago

Confuscience,

“I understand energy is not an object, so it must be a concept, a relation between objects”

Of course it is. That makes sense.

We need to remember that in reality (out there in nature) every word we can conceive of will either resolve to an object or a concept. There is no other option. Specifically, all the nouns of reality are objects, and as we know, objects can only perform verbs. Energy is a verb and has always been a verb until the mathematicians unwittingly reified it into a noun in the 1800’s because they never understood the difference between an object and a concept.

Energy is a verb (origin: Greek “energia”, which means ACTIVITY and nothing else). Energy is what an object DOES, not what an object IS. For example....an object A weighing ‘w’ kilograms moves ‘d’ meters with respect to object B, in a time of ‘t’ seconds, as measured by an observer. This is the relational ACTIVITY (i.e. energy) object A performed with respect to object B. We give a unit of measure, Joules (J = kg x m^2/s^2), to this “activity”. Without an observer to establish this relation between objects A and B, there is NO energy!

The litmus test for this energy nonsense is to imagine the universe consisting of a single lone object. This single object has NO energy because it cannot even move from one location to another. It cannot move a distance of ‘d’ meters. It doesn’t even have any weight ‘w’ kilograms because there is no gravitational pull to it. Also, in this scenario, there is no time ‘t’ seconds because time is a concept that requires a minimum of 3 objects to be realized. For example, 2 objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object must be an observer with MEMORY......like a human who counts, or a computer that keeps a running total (i.e. memory) of the “ticks” from an arbitrarily-defined unit we call the second.

As you can see, energy is NOT something that can exist. Energy is a concept, more succinctly, a verb! Energy is a concept that necessarily requires at least 2 objects to be defined.

Mathematicians have reified the verb energy into a noun. Now these clowns claim to transfer it from one location to another, or even conserve it. They even tell us that we need to eat more energy after rigorous exercise. And the education system forces us to parrot this nonsense like a mantra.

Energy is to an object, like walking is to a human being.

“energy, is not real?”

Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. So no, energy is not real. Concepts do not exist....only objects do.

“I feel heat ... I feel pain “

Yes, what you feel is what your sensory system does. Atoms on your flesh are in perpetual motion. When their motion is synchronized in some specific way, they stimulate your sensory system. That is what you feel.

“Are forms of energy like forces (direct and non-direct contact forces) and heat just experienced”

Forces and heat are not real. They are not objects and don’t exist. What exists is an object A which comes in contact with object B to either push or pull it. We call this activity (verb) FORCE. Similarly, heat is a concept relating the motion of atoms to our sensory experience of them. For example, put your hand over the stove top and high motion of the atoms in the air will induce the atoms of your hand to move much faster. Your sensory system responds to this and you feel it has heat/pain. Remember, heat is a verb!

fatfist Hub Author 3 months ago

Confuscience,

“I was wondering if you might explain what the dilemma is with discrete objects.”

We cannot explain gravity, light, 'fields' and other invisible phenomena rationally with discrete objects/particles. The discrete particle is a mere hypothesis which has no rationally theory to support it. It should once and for all be abandoned. It has no place in physics.

Case in point: how can 2 atoms attract each other? How can a ball fall towards the Earth if the ball and Earth were discrete (i.e. DISCONNECTED)? Are there spirits between them pulling them together? Surely you jest. You can only PULL your dog when there is a rope connecting you and the dog. There must be an entity connecting the objects if they are to attract (i.e. pull) each other. Attraction without a mediating entity (i.e. connecting object) is impossible!

And there are tons more arguments which debunk the mathematician’s particle hypothesis. We can write books and books. Here is just a small taste....

1. When you get an X-ray, why does the technician leave the room? Why don’t the X-rays just shoot from the gun, and through your body, and onto a plate and get absorbed? How hard is it to absorb and collect X-ray particles, or even redirect them outside the building and shoot them into the atmosphere or into a radiation barrel and bury it like they do in nuclear reactors? The X-rays from the gun are pumping torsion signals to every single atom in that room....and not only that....but to every single atom in the universe via their connecting ropes.

2. Particles and waves fail the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PPR). They cannot retrace their path back to the source during reflection, refraction, and diffraction. Especially when the source or target are in motion.

3. It is impossible to explain diffraction (0 slit, 1 slit, 2 slit, etc) with particles. Any attempt to do so is absolutely hilarious!

4. Refraction does not involve a change in the speed of light. What changes is the freq and wavelength (i.e., link length under the rope).

Again, the onus is on them to answer the question: "What accelerates light back to c after it refracted thru a prism? What physical object compels the alleged photon particle to speed up instantaneously (in zero time) after it comes back out of the glass into air?" If they can't answer this question then the refractive index theory along with the photon and particle theory is total bunk!

There are no such things as discrete particles. We cannot explain any phenomenon of nature with particles. That's why the mathematicians have decided that it is best to regard muons, photons, electrons, and Quantum particles , as point particles (i.e. 0D). If any of these particles has shape, the mathematicians could not get away with their supernatural explanations. They are doing physics with metaphors, not objects.

Thanks for asking interesting questions :-)

fatfist Hub Author 3 months ago

confuscience,

"is existence an object AND a concept?"

Only words which can resolve to an entity with shape are objects....like apple, rock, star, dog.

The word exist is only a concept because it DESCRIBES objective presence; that is, an object having location.

Hence exist is an adjective, not a verb like the stupid dictionary claims. Existence is static, not dynamic. We can take a photograph of an object that exists, we don't need a movie of Big Foot to say he exists...a pic will do fine. Hence exist cannot possibly be a verb. Objects do NOT need to perform actions in order to exist. Objects exist by definition only...and at an instant....hence static (i.e. adjective).

Thanks for your comments confuscience and El Dude.

fatfist Hub Author 2 months ago

Hi Fred, long time no see. Welcome.

"why is there something instead of nothing?"

Because God commanded it to be so???

I think we already discussed this “seemingly innocent” question before. You need to ask yourself....is this really an innocent or valid question, or is it loaded or tainted in some way?

As it turns out, such an innocent looking question is extremely tainted....it is phrased in such a way as to sway people who are gullible...people who don’t understand the difference between facts and theories. It commits the fallacy of Begging of Question. It already assumes a higher being who commanded it to be something....who commanded existence.

Remember Fred....existence is an issue of fact....NEVER a theory.

It is irrational to ask, 'WHY does a chair have 4 legs?' or 'WHY is a leaf green?' Does a chair have 4 legs because the carpenter couldn't find a 5th one? Is a leaf green because God waved His Magic Wand and made it so?

In order to become a rational question, the issue under consideration has to be phrased in terms of a DYNAMIC event, phenomenon, or occurrence! A theory is a movie, NOT a photograph. 'Ice = slippery', 'leaf = green', 'chair = 4 legs'... are NOT movies. They are as much theories (movies) as 'pi = circumference/diameter' is a theory. You are not explaining anything with this WHY question....you are just making an irrational ASSUMPTION that God did it. We don't explain facts. We explain theories. We don't explain WHY a chair is. Likewise, we don't explain WHY the sky is blue. And we certainly don't explain WHY matter exists. It is Religionists and Mathematicians who confuse these types of WHY questions with mechanisms and causes. Existence has no mechanism or cause....existence is STATIC...hence, no “why” question to be asked in any conceivably rational way.

The obvious answer to ANY question of EXISTENCE (am, is, to be, exist, why are the laws that way?, why does the chair have 4 legs, why is the sky blue?, etc),....is because God made it so! So whomever asks these questions, all they have to do is check their Bible and they'll 'prove' to themselves that God dunnit.

My dear Fred, let’s review this again....slowly this time: Questions of existence are YES or NO type of questions (does space have shape? Can a photon move? They either are or aren't! All questions that invoke 'IS' or its variants, are questions of existence, not of causes. Questions of existence are exclusively embodied in the HYPOTHESIS. Causes are exclusively dealt with in the THEORY....ok?

Therefore, how a question is phrased is extremely important if we are to objectively understand it. The famous: "Why is the sky blue?" is a good example of a poorly asked question.

Whataya mean WHY is the sky blue??? The sky 'IS' blue!!! This is a yes or no type of question. And the person is not asking, "What CAUSED the sky to be blue?" There is no action involved, nothing to explain. A diff question is, "Why did the color of the sky change from grey to blue?"

An explanation (a theory) is a MOVIE, not a photograph. "Why is the sky blue?" is a photograph, not a movie. On the other hand, "Why did the color of the sky change from grey to blue?" is an OCCURRENCE (event) that demands an explanation. We can only possibly offer explanations for events....not facts. And we don't explain objects either. Understand? Only Religionists and Mathematicians will attempt to 'explain' facts and chairs....and fall flat on their face doing so!

So again, "why is there something instead of nothing?"...is a yes or no, existence type question that is unwittingly morphed into a question of 'causes'. Nothing CAUSED matter to exist. It is impossible to get shape from no-shape. It is impossible for the void/space/nothing to magically acquire shape....to magically acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into an atom.

Existence is eternal. Creation from nothing is an irrational claim with absolutely no possible explanation...not now, and not ever.

“I have not completely abandoned creationism, however I have determined that I would rather know the truth than believe a lie.”

Fred, I have neither truths nor lies, or any such opinions to offer you.....all I can do is to try and help you understand reason and rationality. Belief is a personal subjective position which is divorced from reality. You are free to believe what you like.

“I wish to go to where the evidence leads even if it means the end of faith. “

There is NO such thing as evidence. What is clearly evident to you, is a LIE to your neighbor....and vice versa. EVIDENCE = OPINION.....whereas explanation = rationality.

“I just can't wrap my head around matter NEVER having a beginning.”

I’ve tried, but I can’t help you, Fred...sorry.

The only way to wrap your head around it and understand it .....is to understand the basics of human language, definitions, reason....and apply them to understanding theories vs facts/hypotheses, and objects vs concepts. It’s that simple...there is no magic!

“the boundlessness of space, it doesn't make sense to me”

Again, I can’t help you. If you can reason or justify in any way why space is bounded and has a border....then I am willing to hear it. But the onus is up to you. And remember, if space is bounded, then you need to tell the audience what is outside the bounds of space....is it more space?

“can matter be fininte while space is boundless?”

Of course it is. There is a constant amount of matter in the universe. If there was an UNLIMITED amount of matter, then the universe would be a single infinite block of matter with absolutely NO space! Do you understand the reasoning behind this very bold and very crucial statement?

fatfist Hub Author 2 months ago

El Dude,

“I can't see why it'd be irrational to ask such a thing (why is the sky blue)”

Color is a tautology... it is defined to be the case. We observed sensory stimulations via our eyes and defined them ‘blue’ or ‘green’ or whatever.

Color is a STATIC relation, like pi, for instance. Color is not a theory for which you can give an explanation about. A theory is about something that HAPPENED. Did color “happen”? If so, who or what made it happen....was it God or was it the Devil? I mean, it couldn’t have just happened all on its own, like the Big Bang allegedly did, right? It was either God or the Devil...there is absolutely no other option...guaranteed.

You see....these types of questions are very very loaded. They make dangerous assumptions of Begging the Question. And to people who can’t reason them through, they are very precarious because they can spawn a whole Religion out of such a simple innocent-looking question.

Case in point: Why is there something instead of nothing?

A: Because God was bored and decided one fine day to create matter and space, good and evil, morality and immorality, and put us on a planet, and see if we sin or not, and see who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t....even though He is omniscient and knows the outcome of every single event....including the outcome of this “game” He allegedly staged.

When you convince the masses of this nonsense, then you have what is called “Religion”. If only the masses were critical thinkers and were able to understand that this is nothing but a YES or NO existence type of question that is unwittingly morphed into a question of 'causes'....then all Religions would die in an instant and there would be no tax breaks for the con-artists who run these enterprises.

Nothing “caused” matter to exist. And nothing “caused” color to happen because color is what we refer to as the frequency (i.e. motion) of a medium (i.e. a dynamic property of objects). All matter is in eternal motion. There is no start to motion.....so color cannot possibly happen or arise from either God or the Devil. A medium can vibrate at frequency X or Y or whatever.....the point is that the medium has vibrated eternally and will never stop vibrating. There is no possible explanation for this relation. The only explanation that can arise.... is out of explaining WHY the sky changed from color grey to color blue. And this is the Theory of this dynamic event of change. If the whole universe was blue, there wouldn't be a notion such as blue. Blue has relevance only in the context of other colors (vibrational frequencies) because we need to compare/relate them.

Static relations of nature, we “discover”. There is no theory about them, no explanation of WHY, what happened, or 'what caused it' (did God make it so?). Color in and of itself (just like matter in and of itself) is not an event or an occurrence. It is more like stating that the elephant is pink. Is this 'true'? is the elephant pink? Can we have an opinion about it?

No way....there is no scientific rationality for this. We establish what wavelength gives us the color pink and agree that only that wavelength = pink. Then, it's straight forward. We don’t need expert witnesses to testify at trial. We need not take anybody's word for granted. Either the elephant's skin has the matching wavelength or it doesn't....yes or no.

fatfist Hub Author 2 months ago

Fred,

Thanks for coming to my hubs and offering your perspective in a civil manner. I'm not sure that you have been set free from the matrix by merely reading my hubs....only you really know that. Some people have a wake-up call and do it overnight. But for the majority, it takes a very long time to understand the issues and what they wish to do with their life. Everybody is different.

And be assured that it's not my business either way. I have nothing to gain by "converting" people, nor do I care to do so. My hubs are only informational...and for those who are interested. They challenge authority, tradition and conventional wisdom, not just in religion, ...but in philosophy, science and mathematics.

“ even IF there were no such thing as God, I would not love my wife any less, nor would it change my desire to be a good person.”

I certainly hope not. You need to remember that it is people who put these fears upon you. Setting aside all the biases associated with both theism and atheism.....at the end of the day it is YOU who is in charge of your life. Nobody can label you “good” or “bad”. It is your choice of actions in your life which allows YOU to place these labels on yourself as you see fit.

fatfist Hub Author 2 months ago

Precisely, Winston. Mathematics is a symbolic language that is used to quantify dynamic relations. This means that math can only describe. It is impossible for math to explain anything in the universe.

Explanations are qualitative, just like Physics is. Math is of use only in engineering/technology, never in physics.