Relativity - Mass Increase is a FRAUD
74
In this hub we will investigate the ridiculous claim made by Relativity’s Mass Increase Theory:
“The MASS of an object INCREASES as the object moves faster and faster up to near-c speeds.”
Relativists, or more specifically, mathematicians, have no clue what the word MASS means. They have never defined this word consistently. This is why they use the word MASS synonymously with WEIGHT, and with a multitude of many other terms as well,.....and they do so whenever it suits their arguments!
Mass (like time, distance-traveled, speed) is a scalar quantity (a conceptual relation) that we measure. The mathematicians have reified such concepts into objects. Then they move them around and make them “physically” interact with real objects, or they “stretch” or “increase” them. It is atoms that make up a real object, never “mass” or “weight” or “kilograms”. Mathematicians don't say that “the car” moved. They instead say that “the mass” of the car moved. In physics, mass (i.e. kilograms) does not move. Such notions belong in religion. And of course they believe in such idiocies as “moving mass” - they are mathematicians, NOT physicists!
In physics, there is a difference between “mass” and “matter”. Mass is only used in the context of dynamic concepts (ie. math scalar quantities), while matter (atoms) is used in the context of real objects which have the intrinsic property of shape. These terms cannot be used synonymously, like mathematicians use them in the religion of Relativity.
History of Mass Increase
The “belief” that mass increases with velocity has become the vindication of Special Relativity. It is purported to be ‘verified’ in particle accelerators. But such wild claims are never explained rationally,.....they are only asserted!
The belief that mass increases with velocity can be traced back to an almost forgotten experiment published in 1901 by Walter Kaufmann. Kaufmann showed that when electrons are accelerated to velocities close to the speed of light, the ratio of charge to mass, e/m, does not remain constant, as had been expected, but decreases. He and others jumped to the irrational conclusion that a variation in mass, not in electrons, must be responsible. Kaufmann found that e/m decreased more rapidly with velocity than predicted by the Gamma Factor of Relativity, and this was initially interpreted as evidence that Einstein’s theory was falsified.
In anticipation of such experimental conclusions, Special Relativity axiomatically declared that light can have no mass, since any entity having mass becomes infinitely ‘heavy’ if it moves at the speed of light. And this saved Relativity for the time being.
But all this should have been a warning that physics was moving down the wrong path. How can anybody draw conclusions from subjective observations stemming from experiments, and declare that activity to be Scientific?
At that time, no one entertained the idea that the ratio e/m decreases because the charge of the electron, e, decreases with increasing velocity. Of course not! Relativity was gaining momentum in the scientific community and they would not allow anybody to deviate them from their course; as is the case today.
At the beginning of the twentieth century the sub-atomic nature of matter was not yet understood (is it now?). The nature of radiation was a total mystery (X-rays had just been discovered, and it was concluded that radium emitted two types of ‘radiation’, alpha and beta rays. Such nonsense led them to irrationally conclude that atoms are not the fundamental, basic, indivisible building blocks of nature. It was easier for them to deal with MASS as the variable, and the electron as the constant, in the inseparable connection e/m.
So What is MASS?
Mass is typically defined by the mathematicians as “the quantity of X”, where X usually designates matter (atoms).
All quantities are concepts that were invented by man. The Universe embodies a relation of objects and space, not “mass”. Mass is purely a conceptual relation of a measured quantity. It takes a human with a brain to perform such magical wizardries, as counting and relating. And this is obvious because the SI unit for mass is the “kilogram”. This means that the “mass” of an object is the same as the “weight” of the object.
So is the mass of an object the MEASURE of the amount of matter? Of course it is, because weight is also a MEASURE of the amount of matter. We have no idea how many atoms comprise the object because this is impossible to determine. All we know is how much it weighs!
But the most popular argument comes from neophytes, and it goes as follows:
"Excuse me sir! But on the Moon, my weight would be 28 lbs, and yet my mass would still be 170 lbs, as it is on Earth."
The fatal flaw with such reasoning is that if humans evolved on the Moon and had never visited Earth, this person would say that his weight on Earth is 170 lbs, while his mass would still be 28 lbs, just as it is on the Moon!
Therefore, on the Moon, this person’s weight and mass are BOTH 28 lbs. No exception!
We don’t even need to go to the Moon to perform a basic test of this. In fact, if you take the kilogram Standard from France to the North Pole, its weight and, therefore, its mass changes. We measure mass the same way we measure weight. Indeed, Einstein claimed to have “proved” (in Math they always 'prove') that Inertial and Gravitational mass are one and the same. So as far as Einstein was concerned, this issue is settled.
So the notion that “mass” has anything to do with the number of atoms in an object is utter nonsense.
There is no difference whatsoever between MASS and WEIGHT. The only reason the “MASS is not equal to WEIGHT” fallacy is perpetuated by the mathematicians, is because they want to defend and protect their conceptual notion of Relativistic Mass, .....which is nothing but a nonsensical concept that no Relativist can explain rationally.
MASS is NOT a Physical Property of Matter!
Atoms don’t have numbers written on them by God. As such, the atoms comprising the Earth cannot be counted by nature. It takes a human brain with memory to conceptualize such artificial notions as “counting”. Therefore, mass is not an intrinsic property of objects.
So if a nearby planet was accelerated to near-c speeds during a supernova explosion,.....it is obvious that the mass of the planet will not change. The planet doesn’t even have any property called “mass”, so how can it change?
So what are Relativists trying to say when they irrationally claim that “the mass of the planet increases”?
1) Are they saying that the planet somehow acquired more and more ATOMS as its speed was accelerated to near-c?
2) If so, then how is it possible for these extra atoms to magically materialize from nothing, and yet manage to assemble in their correct molecular configurations within the planet?
3) And where did these extra atoms disappear to, after the speed of the planet decelerated when it was captured in orbit by a massive star?
Conclusion:
Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the ridiculous claim that a concept, such as “mass”, increases with the increasing speed of an object. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, it is irrational to claim that concepts increase, or that even objects magically acquire extra atoms during motion. Relativity is a Religion that posits surrealism in the reality of nature, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with Physics.
CommentsLoading...
There are far too many terms floating out there Winston.
Just take the term "atheist" for example. There are hundreds of arguments against this term, and many of them have valid points. But ultimately, all of them are irrational because they are based on belief/disbelief/lack of belief.
There is NO single term that can capture a rational and consistent meaning. This is why we have: secularist, objectivist, bright, free-thinker, etc...and many more to come.
But in terms of what is coming out of math physics, I think that billgaede has captured the meaningful "essence" of their activities. He is the one who made the initial arguments that these activities belong to what we call "religion". And the reason is that they employ "surrealism" (moving a mass, stretching a concept, etc.) together with supernaturalism (Big Bang, creating atoms/particles/matter from nothing and converting it back into nothing, etc.)
If you really analyze the issue objectively, you will see that the terms “theist”, “atheist”, or “mathematical physicist”, have more in common with each other, than they have “not in common”. They differ only in WHAT they “believe”. Just like a Muslim and a Christian may argue and kill each other over the semantic NAME of their God and WHO the promised land belongs to,......but other than that, other than their axiomatic scriptures.....they are both IDENTICAL. Their respective positions are based on BELIEF and AXIOMS, rather than rational explanations.
So let’s introduce Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory into this reasoning. The mathematical establishment proposes irrational explanations for natural phenomena. Their explanations are irrational because they rely on reification via the conversion of abstract mathematical concepts into physical objects. This is exactly what Religion does. God, Jesus, Allah, etc.....were initially nothing but ideas, concepts. Then they were upgraded to the status of AXIOMS (unbreakable rules) via their scriptures. After that, these God concepts were reified into OBJECTS, which have shape. You can now see a 2D picture of any God. This is an object. But this object does not exist because it is not 3D (it has no location). And for the past 1000 years, they have AGAIN been upgraded to the status of PROVED, via the various philosophical arguments that prove God’s existence.
Just as theists can PROVE their God exists by showing a picture of him, and documenting data (experiments, eye-witness reports, exorcisms, scriptures, etc)......so do math physicists prove their IDEAS by showing EQUATIONS, and documenting data (experiments, observations, measurements, etc).
Case in point.....BOTH Catholics and math physicists have PROVEN creation ex nihilo when their priest Lemaintre published the Big Bang Theory. It’s a done deal now. If you so much as question the BB now, you are considered an ignorant and uneducated moron. Is this how we do science?
Do you understand now? There is no difference between religion and math physics, as both reify concepts into objects which interact with reality.....AND both have experimental data that proves their respective claims. And this is the definition of Religion.
(the religious think they are being criticized)
Actually, the religious just LOVE being compared to anything having to do with math or science. It brings in a sense of authority and validity for them. For example, William Lane Craig has many math, relativity, and quantum articles on his site which prove the existence of his God. If anybody can take a physics book and provide any type of reasoning (fallacious or otherwise) which alludes to the existence of a God, then that physics book belongs in the TRASH! No exception!
The God argument is instantly destroyed by the definition of “object” and “exist”. It’s that simple. It is impossible for any human or alien to take these two definitions into any context (no matter what the context is) and attempt to argue for the existence of any God.....no way.....impossible!
SciFi on the other hand, is deliberate "fiction" - it's entertainment. In fact, it was Relativity that gave movie producers the ideas around star trek, spacewarp, timewarp, wormholes, time travel, etc., that we have in movies today.
So what do you think....do these activities have more to do with Religion or SciFi?
Fatfist,
You thinking always impresses. You ability to write in clear, concise, meaningful prose is remarkable. It is a treat to be able to read your arguments and conclusions for free.
Thanks.
Of course it is religion - I was just being a wiseass.
Your comments and critique is always appreciated Winston.
Thanks for the kind words!
(Actually, the religious just LOVE being compared to anything having to do with math or science. It brings in a sense of authority and validity for them.)
Fatfist,
I stumbled upon the realization that the theistic claim that a conceptual God is real and interacts with humans and the physical world is not a lot different that the concept of dark matter and dark energy - in essence one may even equate dark matter and dark enegy with attributes of a "dark God".
In that sense, theism is based on an axiom similar to an axiom of quantum logic, in that theism's axiomatic foundation would be that it is possible for a non-physical entity to exist and interact with the physical world, just as quantum credits OD "objects" as having the ability to exist and interact with the physical world.
When one disavows rationality, one steps into the world of the conceptual, of imagination, make-believe and pretend. There is no particular reason to use the words "dark matter" - why not call it the "invisible hand of God"?
The problem with that is you lose the pseudo-authenticity of the sound of "dark matter", and as the whole scheme is built as a logical construction, and conclusions must stem from a previous premise, and the idea of dark matter wouldn't sound nearly so scientific if the underlying premise said "it is possible that a conceptual god exists and interacts with the physical world" - although dark matter and God could both stem from this same premise.
The Hubble telescope would still be on the drawing board if the stated objective would have been to "find evidence to help falsify the idea of a Big Bang."
Winston,
(I stumbled upon the realization that the theistic claim that a conceptual God is real and interacts with humans and the physical world is not a lot different that the concept of dark matter)
Aha!
I knew you were a rational thinker when you first came here a few months ago Winston. You pick things up real quick. It takes MOST people at least 2 years to understand the difference between an object and a concept......I wish I was kidding, but sadly I am NOT!
(theism's axiomatic foundation would be that it is possible for a non-physical entity to exist)
ALL theists use DUALITIES in which their God is both a concept AND an object for the purposes of covering all the bases with their arguments, and PROVING everything under the sun. This is why the very very very very very very very IGNORANT & UNEDUCATED “atheists” have been falling into this ontological trap for the past 2000 years, and unable to crush any theistic argument!
The only thing atheists have been doing for the past 2000 years is inventing their own RELIGIOUS arguments which reify concepts into objects that supposedly exist......concepts such as: love, natural order, morality, good vs evil, singularities, waves, 0D particles, higgs, warped space, time, energy, mass, field, force, black holes, dark matter, universe, etc.
The religion of atheists is Mathematical Physics.....a religion that is MUCH MORE surrealistic than traditional religion, such as Christianity.
When Christians want to prove their God, they will show you a picture of God or Jesus, or even a movie (The Passion of Christ) of Jesus being crucified and resurrected. So God & Jesus are 2D objects. They don’t exist for the purposes of science, but they definitely form a VALID HYPOTHESIS. Therefore, Christians can at least use these hypothesized objects to attempt to explain their God Theory....and without any rational explanations.
But Christians can also emotionally convince you to somewhat believe in their Theory by asserting that Jesus is “spirit”, a concept! But the FOOLISH atheist doesn’t understand that spirt=concept. So this fool believes that spirit is some type of undiscovered & unproven entity which we have no EVIDENCE for. And because there is no evidence, the foolish atheist says that he doesn’t believe it. Do you see the stupidity of this argument, Winston? The atheist does NOT challenge the theist on the basis that a spirit is a concept. Nope! This fool challenges him on the basis of evidence.....something that is EQUALLY SUBJECTIVE AND BASED ON OPINION!
(just as quantum credits OD "objects" as having the ability to exist and interact with the physical world)
Whereas QM cannot even illustrate any of their particles. So they don’t even have a valid Hypothesis. But the irony is that the Christians do!
Isn’t this a bundle of laughs??
QM, Relativity, and String Theory are EXPONENTIALLY more surrealistic and supernatural than Christianity!
("dark matter" - why not call it the "invisible hand of God"?)
There is no difference. Both a concepts that can be described with the exact same relations.
("find evidence to help falsify the idea of a Big Bang.")
The mathematicians have it all backwards. Evidence is subjective because it is based on the opinion stemming from the 5 biological human senses of whomever gathers the evidence. Evidence never has anything to do with science, only with religion...CASE CLOSED!
The Scientific Method demands a Hypothesis and a Theory (rational explanation). Evidence is an extra-scientific activity, and never part of the scientific method.
A scientist can gather all the evidence about the Big Bang he wishes, but he can only use it to convince his fat aunt who goes to church on Sundays. But when the scientist comes to the physics conference, he’d better be able to rationally explain (with his theory) to the audience what physical OBJECTS (in his hypothesis) are responsible for mediating the verb known as CREATION of the universe. What people believe after that is their personal business.
The BB has no valid hypothesis, and an extremely irrational theory.....it belongs in the garbage!
Just watch my Big Bang hubs and see all the atheists coming there thinking they are geniuses who can refute my hubs. Then they are SHOCKED to find out the Universe is only a concept....which cannot even expand!!!!!
Well, it turns out that these self-proclaimed geniuses, never learned in school the difference between an object and a concept. The same goes for Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Wheeler, Lawrence Krauss, et all.
And unfortunately, this is why we are, where we are today!
Fatfist,
Truth is that I've been extraordinarily lucky to run into exceptional teachers and this time is no different. My part has been an open mind that recognizes a valid and consistent argument coupled with a desire to learn.
I think the open minded part is particularly helpful as far as speed of learning, in that there are no automatic "say no" defense mechanisms to break through before rational thought is allowed to reign.
The trick that has been played on the gullible public was to take irrationality and wrap it in authoritative-sounding discussions by people proclaimed as authorities who then sell their authoritative descriptions to the media who propogate the claims in, not a singularity, but a circularity. :-))
This has not been unlike wrapping a turd in silk and placing it in a box wrapped with gift wrapping paper and tying it all together with a bow and putting a card with golden lettering on top - the problem is that the lump in the box underneath all the dazzle is still a turd.
Winston,
Sorry, I disagree.....you don't have an open mind :-)
Mind is an abstract concept stemming from philosophy, where back in the day, the Christian philosopher decreed that the mind is a SPIRIT that resides outside the physical brain. So the mind lacks shape, is incorporeal, and has no location. It doesn't exist. Even though the Christian philosopher asserts that this "mind" follows you around wherever you go..LOL.
What you are, Winston, is a rational human. And consider yourself extremely lucky cause you are a very rare commodity. You are able to take in information and determine whether it makes sense and whether it applies to reality (i.e. objects), or if it's an opinion (i.e. concept) that somebody pulled out of their virtual butt.
The typical atheist will ask Hawking & Einstein for their autograph. But you will ask them to rationally explain what they preach ;-)
Consider buying and studying "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler. This book does a good job of explaining special relativity.
Folks with undergraduate degrees learn that mass (measured in slugs for folks still stuck with English units) is not the same as weight (measured in pounds). The relationship comes from Newton's second law:
Force (in Newtons) = mass (in slugs) Acceleration (of gravity in feet/second^2)
The modern units are grams for mass, and newtons for weight. People in the US report their weight as a force, and those across the pond use mass. Folks are just following local tradition.
The key equation relating mass, energy and momentum is:
E^2 - P^2 c^2 = m^2 c^4
Both energy and momentum are Lorentz covariant quantities - a very fancy way to say we understand exactly how they change as the velocity difference gets bigger. Here is how I would explain it. Say there is a ball sitting in front of me, and I want to push it. Easy to do, I get it going at 5 mph. Now imagine the same kind of ball, but it is moving at 100 mph relative to me. It is going to take much more work by me to get it to go at 105 mph because I first have to get my hand moving at 100 mph to give it a push.
Special relativity provides the math tools for determining how energy and momentum increase for an observer. It also says the m^2 C^4 does NOT change - it is Lorentz INvariant. Everyone agrees on that value.
For more than a hundred years, people misunderstand special relativity. I expect it will continue a hundred years into the future. It is a subject where one can trip up easily. FInding inconsistent information is easy to do. "Spacetime Physics" is the best non-trivial book on the subject I know. Good luck in your studies.
Physicist,
(Consider buying and studying "Spacetime Physics" by Taylor and Wheeler. This book does a good job of explaining special relativity.)
It “explains” relativity? Really?
Listen, TheStandUpPhysicist , you obviously haven’t read their writings because this is what these guys you drool all over had to say about TIME, which all of relativity is based on....
"Time came not from heaven, but from the mouth of man." – John Wheeler
Time does not exist. It is a concept that was “conceived”, came from the mouth of man. Understand?
This is why relativity is debunked and dismissed so easily.
Now if you’d like to argue counter to Wheeler, be my guest......please demonstrate or illustrate this object you call time.
(Folks with undergraduate degrees learn that mass ...is not the same as weight)
Mass = weight = kg (SI).
Eg. Look at all reports of meteorites hitting the Earth. The scientist will report its mass in kg after weighing it on the WEIGHT scale. Then the scientist will weigh herself on the same scale to see if her weight is within the limits of her weekly Jenny Craig weight loss plan.
(The key equation relating mass, energy and momentum)
Equations are descriptive, they only describe subjective observations performed by the very limited human sensory system composed of 5 senses.
Equations NEVER explain any physical phenomena. We usually learn this in on the first day of physics class, but arm-chair physicists usually forget about it after they graduate from high school.
And btw....what is mass, energy, and momentum?
Are they objects or concepts?
(energy and momentum are Lorentz covariant quantities - a very fancy way to say we understand exactly how they change as the velocity difference gets bigger.)
I couldn’t care less if your concept of LOVE changes to the concept of HATE after your girlfriend leaves you at a fast rate of speed.
What I care about is IF your girlfriend’s body acquired MORE ATOMS and became BIGGER as her speed approached ‘c’. If so, please explain WHERE these extra atoms came from and HOW they deposited themselves into your girlfriend’s body in the precise locations to sustain life. My question is very simple!
(Special relativity provides the math tools for determining how energy and momentum increase for an observer.)
The universe couldn’t care less about observers. Only God cares about HIS observers, that they are good for goodness sake! But before God created Adam & Eve, there were no observers, and yet mother nature ran her shop just fine.
Back then.....this is what the universe cared about....
If a nearby planet was accelerated to near-c speeds during a supernova explosion:
1) Will the planet somehow acquire more and more ATOMS as its speed is accelerated to near-c?
2) If so, then how is it possible for these extra atoms to magically materialize from nothing, and yet manage to assemble in their correct molecular configurations within the planet?
3) And where did these extra atoms disappear to, after the speed of the planet decelerated when it was captured in orbit by another massive star?
Can you answer these questions?
They have nothing to do with the subjective OPINIONS of observers, and everything to do with the REALITY of nature.
(Everyone agrees on that value.)
Who gives a crap if everyone agrees that the Earth is flat. Scientific theories are not based on what is popular or what people vote on. Theories either explain rationally or they don’t.
a) Can you explain how MASS, a concept, increases as the object approaches c?
b) Can you tell us whether the object acquires more atoms near c? If so, explain the details I asked above.
(For more than a hundred years, people misunderstand special relativity.)
What is it that I don’t understand? That concepts like hate and mass increase at near-c speed? Is this the nonsense I don’t understand?
I already asked you to give explanations above. If you can’t, then it is you who doesn’t understand.
anon,
(Weight is acceleration of an object due to gravity which varies with mass.)
If you believe that mass is the 'amount of matter', then this has nothing to do with acceleration or with gravity. It has to do with an INTRINSIC property of the object in question. How much matter is a STATIC concept. We determine 'how much matter' by counting atoms and this amount has nothing to do with motion or gravity.
You get confused and think that the weight changes with location whereas the mass doesn't when it is clear that they will again have to MEASURE the 'mass' by weighing! The weight changed, but so did its mass because we determine mass thru weight. Is mass a MEASURE of the amount of matter? Yes, because weight is also a MEASURE of the amount of matter. We still have no idea how much matter. All we know is how much it weighs.
There is no difference between mass and weight.
(This collectively is a force.)
And just what exactly is ‘a’ force? Is it an object or a concept? Can you please reference a picture of this noun you call ‘a’ force anywhere on the Internet?
(if you can find out this acceleration and take it out of the equation, you get the mass. And that's how scientists get the mass out of the meteorite weight.)
Who cares what they take out of equations? What do equations have to do with what you measure when you put an object on a scale?
1 kilogram is equal to 9.8 Newton
When the weight changes, the mass changes,....it’s that simple. It don’t matter if you use lbs, stones, or whatever. Units are irrelevant as they are based on a COMPARATIVE standard. Weight and mass are both determined by comparing the test object against a pre-defined standard.
In fact, if you take the kilogram Standard from France to the North Pole, its weight and, therefore, its mass changes. We measure mass the same way we measure weight. Units are numbers lines, they are irrelevant to the issue.
(therefore mass = 100kg)
Oh yeah....right!
And if humans evolved on Mars, you’d be signing a different tune right now. You’d be telling me that the mass of the meteorite was 37.7 kg, and NOT 100 kg.....understand?
(On the quantum level, the very act of observation affects the outcome.)
Really?
Please explain what observation affected what outcome.
(And mathematics describe)
Who gives a rat’s arse about a description? A kindergartener can specifically describe HOW a ball falls to the floor. The purpose of science is to explain WHY the ball fell to the floor and not to the ceiling.
(What good, pray tell, comes out of nitpicking on technical terms )
There is no nitpicking. We are trying to ensure that we understand what you are saying. What’s the purpose of you telling me that the universe is expanding, when in fact, you can’t even tell me if the universe is an object or a concept? If you want to speak in riddles, set up a meeting with your Pastor.
(Mass is a word to refer to the amount of matter packed in an object.)
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN mass AND weight.
Not a single clown in your Church has been able to define the word mass. Not one mathematician on planet Earth knows what he is talking about when he invokes the word mass.
Do yourself a BIG favor and read the good book recommended by our Expert Physicist who posted earlier: Spacetime Physics by Taylor and Wheeler.
This is what your 2 Pastors had to say about mass:
"Nature does not offer us any concept as the amount of matter. History has struck down every proposal to define such a term. Even if we could count number of atoms or by any other counting method try to evaluate amount of matter, that number would NOT equal mass." -- (E. Taylor, J. Wheeler)
(I can understand that perfectly)
Oh, really?
Then please explain to us exactly WHY mass is the quantity of matter, especially when Taylor & Wheeler specifically say that it is NOT. What do you know that these 2 priests don’t?
I TRIPLE DOG DARE YA!!
(I know "mass" exists)
Let them mumble their own nonsense and it gets even better.....
Great then.......please reference a simple drawing on the Internet of this ‘thing’ you call MASS, which exists, according to YOU.
(why don't YOU give answer, since you're so good at this stuff? Is it an object or a concept?)
It don’t matter what I say......just look at what your 2 priests said in the quote above:
“Nature does not offer us any concept as the amount of matter”
Can you read? Can you understand? They said it’s a CONCEPT! Concepts don't exist, yet your religion goes against your Pastor's religion because you claim that concepts do indeed exist, even though you cannot illustrate them.
(we'll be done colonizing Mars and mining resources from the moon.)
Be careful, because your MASS will automatically CHANGE to 37.7 kg from 100kg. This means that your brain will shrink even more......God help you!
“Nature does not offer us any concept as the amount of matter”
Can you read? Can you understand? They said it’s a CONCEPT! Concepts don't exist, yet your religion goes against your Pastor's religion because you claim that concepts do indeed exist, even though you cannot illustrate them.
Total Ass Kick
Anon how can you reply with anything he said. He used your own holy book against you.
!
what these posters dont understand is that mass is always measured on a bathroom scale. it can be kg lbs N or whatever. note that weight is also expressed in same units. and conversion between units is done with a multiplier factor. thats why mass and weight have the same meaning. it is impossible to measure atomic weight or number of atoms. this is why its all a joke
Surely, mass is a physical object, and can be given in terms of the number of atoms in an object in the most simple case, but on macroscopic levels kg is a more useful unit, where the relationship between g and number of atoms is given using Avagadro's number as I'm sure you all know. Furthermore, using mass spectrometers, the mass of individual atoms has been measured, where one Avagadro's number (a man made number) of Carbon 12 atoms (each with a "real" mass) = 12g (where g is also a man made measure of mass). Therefore, we can express the mass of an atom in terms of our arbitrary units, but also by using an arbitrary conversion factor. Nevertheless, the mass of an atom is fixed when it is at rest, and we can measure mass without the use of scales by using other forces and such.
I would agree that a force is a concept, but in that case, why can we not say that mass is an object, and force is just a concept that is related to the real object of mass and the acceleration (which is directly measurable) that that mass undergoes in the presence of gravity. If anything, I believe that force is the useless concept in terms of a gravitational force.
Also, referring to the question of whether an object moving at some speed actually gains more atoms, I would say clearly not. I would argue that what happens is the mass of each atoms increases by an amount, so that no new atoms are made, only the already existing ones increases in mass. Noone seems to have any problems in nuclear physics where particles become more and less massive depending on the binding energy of the nucleus. These effects are also measurable without referring to weight, and involve mass as a description of the number of atoms and the force that that number of atoms feel in the Earths gravitational field. The question is how to measure this increase in mass. I suppose the best way to imagine it would be to take a pair of scales, and assuming constant gravitational force, measure the new force acting on the mass, and follow through the calculations to acquire a number corresponding to the increase in mass. If this creates problems, claiming this shows mass and weight to be the same, use charged particles, and deflect through a magnetic field, and then calculate mass this way, thereby not envoking the sore issue of weight. This way will also show an increase in mass, without referring to weight. Finally, you claim that were we to live on mars, we would claim our mass to be a fraction of what it is here, but that is only due to the fact that mass was defined in the Earth's gravitational field, we would still contain the same number of atoms. All your counter arguments revolve around claiming that mass is measured by weighing something, but this is not true, as there are magnetic deflections and such that can also give a mass value. Would you argue that electric charge is not an object since there is no instrument that measures charge directly?
In conclusion, I see your point saying that mass is a concept since it cannot be measured directly, but I argue that mass is the fundamental object, even though it cannot be measured without referencing a force. After all, what more fundamental property of an object is there than the number of atoms (each with a mass themselves) that comprise of that object? If you argue that mass is not an object, what is?
Anon,
(Surely, mass is a physical object)
The universe is composed of objects that are wrapped by space. It is a binary system. There is either SOMETHING or NOTHING....there is no other option. There is no in-between or outside of this scope.
Any physical object can be illustrated by a simple drawing on a bar napkin.
Object: that which has shape
If it has shape, then it is an object. Can mass (the quantify of....) be illustrated on a bar napkin? Can anybody point to mass?
Mass is not an object i.e. does not have physical presence. You cannot draw mass and point to it. Mass is inherently conceptual because it requires two or more objects to conceptualize it (an object and an observer). This makes mass a concept. But, we cannot conceive of mass in a universe with a single lonely object. The object itself would not have any mass as there would be no gravitational attraction to any other object.
(kg is a more useful unit)
The unit is irrelevant. It can be lbs, stones, kg, newtons, whatever. They are all based on conversion factors. It is the MEANING of mass that is important. Since mass is concept, it cannot be increased or decreased, unless of course, more metric units are added. In this case, atoms would have to be ADDED or SUBTRACTED from an object in order for its mass unit of measure to increase or decrease.
(where the relationship between g and number of atoms is given using Avagadro's number)
But that is just a guess factor based on the planetary model of the atom. Nobody has counted the number of atoms anywhere. Nobody has even seen a single atom. Nobody on this planet can say with any level of certainty what an atom looks like. We can only hypothesize what an atom looks like and explain its behavior via a Theory. The establishment uses several theories of the atom...Rutherford, Bohr, Cloud, Quantum, String, etc.
(I believe that force is the useless concept in terms of a gravitational force.)
It takes no belief. You are 100% correct. Gravity is not a force. There is no object that is “forcing” me to stay on this planet rather than float in space. I can force you off your chair with my body. There is no object that is “forcing” or pushing us onto the surface of this planet. Every single atom in this universe is gravitationally attracted to every single other atom. Why? Because there is a medium interconnecting all atoms. That is the only rational explanation. This medium is under perpetual tension by the atoms because each atom is in perpetual motion: spinning, vibrating, e-shell expansion/contraction, etc.
(I would argue that what happens is the mass of each atoms increases by an amount)
If that is the case, then you are saying that an atom has GAINED physical matter. Where did this extra matter come from? Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Mass increase is impossible. Relativity’s assumptions of discrete particles is FLAWED. This is why all their calculations are descriptive, and have nothing to do with how actual reality functions.
But as for time, Einstein was a copycat. He got his ideas from Lorentz, who had developed the time, mass, and length contraction equations because he irrationally opted to warp reality in order to accommodate the PARTICLE HYPOTHESIS for light. Einstein just copied this mistake by assuming that a beam of light should behave like a baseball. When it didn't, he came up with time dilation. If someone pitches a baseball on a moving train, the baseball is already on the train. But a beam of light is not realized until it is propagated from its medium via the torch. The light cannot gain speed from the train because it is never "on" the train. It has no motion imparted from the train. It's not in the torch either. It actually propagates on the medium connecting every single atom of the torch to every single atom of the train. No theory needed to explain why the speed of light is constant for every frame of reference. The connecting MEDIUM for light ensures a constant and consistent physicality of propagation.
(but that is only due to the fact that mass was defined in the Earth's gravitational field)
Precisely. That’s why mass is a concept. All concepts are defined. It is impossible to define an object. How do you define a coconut? Some people use it for food, others for a weapon to ward off headhunters. We only POINT to objects and name them. And mass is defined to some subjective standard. If we were on Mars, our standard for mass would give it different values.
(All your counter arguments revolve around claiming that mass is measured by weighing something, but this is not true, as there are magnetic deflections and such that can also give a mass value.)
That’s irrelevant. Measuring magnetic deflections is STILL measuring. It is still a subjective activity that requires an OBSERVER to define mass. Without a sentient being to conceive it, there is no mass. That’s why mass is a concept, like energy and time. They are not objects. They don’t exist. They are only CONCEIVED using other objects in a relationship. Understand?
The universe is only composed of objects wrapped by omnipresent space. There is either something or nothing. There is no other option.
(Would you argue that electric charge is not an object since there is no instrument that measures charge directly?)
It turns out that 'charge' is an abstract concept. You gotta understand that instruments only QUANTIFY EFFECTS. That is what we call MEASUREMENT. An instrument, ANY instrument does not roll out a tape measure and measure charge, like you would measure the length of your table. Understand? Instruments and humans do not measure objects. It is impossible to measure an object. We can only measure/quantify PROPERTIES of objects. All properties of objects are either static or dynamic (are discerned from effects).
charge: " the susceptibility..." (wiki)
Charge is what something DOES! It is a verb. It is what the atom does during e-shell expansion/contraction. The word 'charge' is a CONCEPT. The mathematicians treat charge, field, energy and other such words as physical objects. They claim to move 'a' charge. They tell you that 'a' field' accelerates 'a' charge. There are no such physical objects in physics. An object is that which has shape. 'A' charge lacks this property. Not one mathematician can draw 'a' charge, 'a' field, or 'an' energy for you. Math Physics is a religion that reifies concepts and then pretends to move them around. The mathematicians go thru the motions of transferring energy, dilating time, and carrying forces. The explanations offered by this most irrational religion are actually quite amusing.
(If you argue that mass is not an object, what is?)
That which has shape (spatial separation from the background).
Fatfist
I see your points, and kinda understand what you are saying. All these quantities such as charge and mass are concepts and so cannot be directly observed.
However, if you are claiming that we are unjustified to use equations to predict the effect of one concept on another, or a concept on an object, I would be inclined to disagree. For without manipulating these concepts, many advances in technology would not be possible, most obviously electrical circuits.
Its all very well to say that these concepts are not physically real since if there were no observers they could not be noticed, but the fact is that there are observers, us. Maybe your physics has a different ultimate goal, to describe the universe devoid of observers, but I am happy to accept the laws of physics as they stand (including relativity) since they do accurately predict the behaviour of the universe (even if only in terms of more concepts) when we observe it. I guess my main point is that even if the reality in physics is questionable, the applications are still based in reality and can further technology which I only see as a good thing. Maybe one day, someone like yourself will be able to describe the universe only in terms of objects, things we can see and touch, but I'm glad its not me attempting to do that.
Anon,
(All these quantities such as charge and mass are concepts and so cannot be directly observed)
Yes, but we go a step further because it is impossible to observe or in any way sense or “physically measure” concepts under any context. Remember, a concept is a “relationship” between objects. An concept must always be DEFINED. If a concept relates to some physical effects that involve the measurement of one or more physical quantities, then the concept relates to the METRIC aspect of the relation. And this metric aspect is arbitrary because it is DEFINED. And because it is defined, it is conceptualized and quantized by a human, and thus, is not a natural object of nature.
For example, energy is an abstract concept. It involves a single object and many relations with other concepts. It also necessarily involves a SECOND object to conceive it, that being, a human. Therefore, energy does not exist. Energy is not a component or object in nature. Energy is an artificially-conceived relation. Energy is a term that came from steam-engine engineers who only observe EFFECTS and map them to mathematical descriptive equations via trial & error. Engineering is a different branch altogether, it is not science. In science, we only explain via the scientific method (hypothesis + theory).
So when somebody says that energy cannot be created or destroyed, they haven’t the clue of what the hell they are talking about. It is matter & space that cannot be created and destroyed.
concept: a word that invokes two objects or two locations of an object
We say that a concept is “abstract”, if it embodies a relation with objects and concepts together.
(if you are claiming that we are unjustified to use equations to predict)
It is not science that uses math and equations or predictions. It is engineering! These trial & error activities are extremely useful for humans to figure out how to engineer technology via observations and descriptions. They are especially useful in Medical Engineering where a drug need to be brought to market ASAP. When thousands of people get sick or get cancer from this drug, do we blame Science for that? No! Science is completely divorced from that.
Do not confuse the sci method with the hundreds of branches of engineering out there. Enginnering involves getting technology out to $MARKET$ ASAP in order to benefit $CAPITALISM$. It is 100% divorced from science. Science only hypothesizes and explains natural phenomena. Mathematics and its equations are only descriptive and not prescriptive. They do not PRESCRIBE how nature must work. That is impossible. Petty descriptions play no role in science....only in engineering.
(the effect of one concept on another, or a concept on an object)
Concepts are not real. Concepts do not exist. Concepts have no effect on other concepts, let alone objects. Causality demands the interaction between objects only! Only objects have shape, a surface, and internal structure to cause effects on other objects.
(many advances in technology would not be possible, most obviously electrical circuits.)
They are possible because of trial & error. Today we have templates of almost every single circuit you can imagine. All you have to do is get out your calculator and plug in the formulas to calculate the values of resistors, capacitors, inductors, etc. based on your application requirements.
But.....when humans first figured out this stuff, they had no such RECIPES. They wound coils of wire and played around with its effects in order to find PATTERNS OF BEHAVIOUR. This allowed them induce a formula that predicts a DESCRIPTIVE BEHAVIOUR. Not a single Ph.D Electrical Engineer or Scientist in the establishment today can explain to you what happens in a simple circuit with just a resistor and a light bulb. They can’t tell you what current is and why it behaves that way. They can only MEASURE physical effects and spit out a formula I=V/R ....just a petty description....but useful nonetheless for building larger circuits and technology.
(but the fact is that there are observers, us.)
Yes, and we are notorious for injecting our own ideas and opinions in nature, and then claim that nature is moving these ideas as real entities. This is pure BS. Nature only has objects (matter) wrapped in space. Nature only moves objects around. It is the MOTION which is INTERPRETED by humans and given meanings.
If someone who was never exposed to religion sees a Muslim kneeling and praying, he will call this activity (concept), as PLAYING CHARADES! While a Christian will call it PRAYING. While a rational person it will call it “acting like a fool”.
Concepts are subject to interpretation and definition. They are all artificial.
(Maybe your physics has a different ultimate goal, to describe the universe devoid of observers,)
No, there is only one physics that is subject to the sci method. And it only EXPLAINS. Descriptions are only applicable in USEFUL applications that have a purpose for marketing potential, like engineering. This is why the space shuttle has exploded several times. Because NASA used trial & error engineering to constantly revise their formulas and alter their methods and results. That has nothing to do with science. And the space shuttle and other rockets they send in space, will definitely blow up again, and again, no matter how much the establishment claims that "science has figured out the secrets to the universe".....that is pure BS. They are only describing what they "sense" with their limited sensory mechanism, and make up formulas based on these opinions.
Anon,
(where you contradicted yourself.)
I give up. Where??
(How can one describe or explain the effects of any of the "fundamental forces" without referring to a concept?)
You need to understand the basics before delving deeper into physics. In physics, which is the study of reality, ALL the NOUNS are without question OBJECTS!
Concepts don’t move in physics. Concepts absolutely move in Religions like Christianity, Scientology, Relativity, Buddhism, Quantum, String Theory, Big Bang, Islam.
Every single term in any language is first and foremost a concept....it is conceived. Certain terms can be resolved into objects which we can either point to or illustrate. These are the NOUNS of physics. Thery are the objects which have shape.
We learn this stuff in Junior Kindergarten! Did you ever play with blocks in JK that didn’t have shape?
A description and an explanation are both concepts which we convey with human language. They certainly aren’t objects. A Theory must use OBJECTS whenever it references a NOUN that is claimed to be real....ie. part of REALITY!
This is basic stuff.....What is it that you don’t understand?
(Even in your (violent) example of a knife, the motion of the knife is a concept.)
Motion does NOT kill......only OBJECTS kill. Are you suggesting that the knife’s motion is VIOLENT?? What could that possibly mean?
If you paid attention to your teacher in JK, you would have realized that motion does NOT make the blocks tip over. An object, like a hand, tips the blocks over.
What don’t you understand about this?
(You cant draw a picture of a movement)
Hallelujah....this is the first rational statement you uttered!
(explain what you meant with the statement: "Every single atom in this universe is gravitationally attracted to every single other atom. Why? Because there is a medium interconnecting all atoms.")
Gravity is a concept. It is the relation or interaction between 2 or more atoms (objects). What is so difficult to understand about that? Gravity is not an object like the morons of Relativity and Quantum assert. If it was, we’d be able to stop gravity like we can stop a flying baseball. The only rational way to scientifically explain gravity is to hypothesize a medium that interconnects all atoms. This medium is an object that is under tension between all atoms. This is why they perpetually attract each other, and we call this phenomenon: gravity. That is the theory.
Prometheus,
(This hub just got interesting.)
Yeah, just stick around, cause Anon is about to explain to us how fatfist reifies CONCEPTS into noun OBJECTS, and moves them from one location to another.
This will certainly be interesting.
You'd better get some popcorn, prometheus.
I can't agree.............relativity....mass increase and length/distance contraction is real!
(I can't agree)
This is not as issue that is dependent upon agreeing, raising your hand, kneeling down and kissing your professor's calloused feet after he removes his Jesus sandals, or voting at the ballot box. This is an objective issue. i.e. it has NOTHING to do with observer's and their stupid opinions.
(relativity....mass increase is real!)
Are you saying that a concept like mass, increased 90,000 quadrillion years ago, when there were no humans to conceive of "mass"?
(relativity....length/distance contraction is real!)
Are you saying that....
1) The STATIC LENGTH of objects increases? How does mother nature increase this concept....does she ask God to do it?
2) The STATIC DISTANCE between objects increases? How does mother nature increase this concept....does she ask God to do it?
Pssssst.....listen up and don't tell anyone.....not even God can do these magic tricks!
WELL SAID
"Gravity is a concept. It is the relation or interaction between 2 or more atoms (objects). What is so difficult to understand about that? Gravity is not an object like the morons of Relativity and Quantum assert. If it was, we’d be able to stop gravity like we can stop a flying baseball. The only rational way to scientifically explain gravity is to hypothesize a medium that interconnects all atoms. This medium is an object that is under tension between all atoms. This is why they perpetually attract each other, and we call this phenomenon: gravity. That is the theory."
GRAVITAS (latin) God's Real Attractive Vitality Interacting Thoughout All Space
My work is quite opposite to yours but I do see the mystery of gravity much like you do.
You keep saying weight and mass are the same thing. Mass is how much matter is packed into an object, and weight is the affect of gravity on that mass. Mass doesn't change when you change the amount of gravity affecting it, only weight does.
Guy,
(You keep saying weight and mass are the same thing.)
It is irrelevant what I say. I am not here to twist your arm and make you believe me. I am not putting a gun on anybody’s head.
This is an OBJECTIVE issue; one that you critically think through and reason.
(Mass is how much matter is packed into an object)
This is just a statement without any support or possible explanation. Mass is MEASURED, and NOT counted. You do understand the DIFFERENCE between “measuring” and “counting”, right? The reason I ask, is that MOST so-called “Ph.D scientists” don’t. Just be honest with me and I will explain it to you if you don’t.
Anyway.... In order to measure, you must compare against a standard. The standard for MASS is the Kilogram (kg) in France.....and NOT Newtons (N).
Hence, mass has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with how much matter is packed into an object. If you disagree, you are welcome to justify your claim, but you can’t – absolutely nobody can. Why? Because it is contradictory!
Even Ph.D so-called physicists decorated with Nobel Prizes don’t want to step in here and touch this one!
(Mass doesn't change when you change the amount of gravity affecting it)
Really? Oh my precious Jesus Christ!!!
Guy, you need to read your holy scriptures and attend ‘mass’ every Sunday.
Here....let me fill you in on what your Pastors say every Sunday....
You measure mass by weighing the object. If you take 'Le Kilo' from France to the North Pole, its mass changes. You no longer have 1 kilogram! Got it?
In fact, from the wiki...
"the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 µg over the last century... The reason for this drift has eluded physicists"
So, OFFICIALLY, a kilogram doesn't even have the mass of a kilogram anymore!!!!!!!
You gotta stay up to date with the teachings of the religion of mathematical physics!
(Mass doesn't change when you change the amount of gravity affecting it, only weight does.)
There once was a stupid moronic idiot named Einstein who attempted to prove (in math they always prove) that “inertial” and “gravitational” mass are the same (equivalent). Now YOU come along and tell us that they DIFFER. Oh my sweet Lord Jesus where are you? Are you coming to take us in 2012?
Can the Religion of mathematical physics ever make up its mind? Can Christianity ever make up its mind whether Jesus and God are the same or different?
That is the BURNING question my friend....and that’s what you need to understand.
(weight is the affect of gravity on that mass.)
Mass is a CONCEPT.
Gravity is the attractive effect of OBJECTS, not concepts. Understand the difference?
So weight (a concept), does not depend upon another concept, like mass....it depends upon an OBJECT, like a car or an apple.
In particular, weight depends on the SHAPE of an object. For example, you will always weigh differently depending where you are located on the Earth, as it is on oblate spheroid, not a perfect sphere.
In fact, if you take Le Kilo to a different location, it's weight changes... and coincidentally, so does its mass because the idiots of math physics measure mass by “weighing”. They keep chasing their tails around and around and around and around and ......
Like I said.... Even Ph.D so-called physicists decorated with Nobel Prizes, medals, awards, etc., don’t want to step in here and touch this one. They will get their asses slammed against the wall, and won’t be deserving of “worship” anymore!
fatfist two things
The only rational way to scientifically explain gravity is to hypothesize a medium that interconnects all atoms. This medium is an object that is under tension between all atoms
where is the medium then? say earth and moon-2 objects attract each other. but is there any medium(an object) in between?
please tell me something about this black hole. can't their be something in the universe that can attract light and pull it back so that it won't be visible to us?(agreeing to the fact that even if it can attract the whole existing matter, still it won't be able to "bend" neither space nor time?
Hi jomine,
(where is the medium then? say earth and moon-2 objects attract each other. but is there any medium(an object) in between?)
In order to rationalize what mediates this attractive “effect” we call gravity, we have no choice but to approach the matter via the scientific method (hypothesis + theory). Since gravity is an EFFECT, like sound is an effect, .....then like sound, we need to hypothesize what is the object/substance/entity/mediator which mediates this attractive effect. For sound it is the physical object we call ‘air’. It is an object because it has shape and a 3D atomic surface.
For gravity, can this mediator object be a 0D graviton ball? There is no zero-dimensional beast in the universe. It is a mere mathematical construct (concept) you plug into equations for modelling behavioural purposes. Such notions have absolutely nothing to do with reality.
Can this mediator be a wave? No such beast we can call, ‘a’ wave, exists in the universe. Wave is a verb, it is what an object does when it is in motion: to wave. .ie. water waves require water to move up/down. ‘A’ wave is not a noun, and hence, ‘it’ does not exist. Wave is an effect; a concept which we conceive when we imagine an object performing some specific type of motion.
Is it possible for the Earth and the Moon to attract each other, if say, the Earth pelts the Moon with discrete balls (3D gravitons)? If you get a machine gun and shoot bullets at an object, will the object come closer and closer to you....will it be attracted to its source?
Attraction is completely IMPOSSIBLE via any mechanism asserting discrete entities, like balls, bullets, etc., or via warped space (nothing).
The only possible way we can explain attraction at the atomic level, is to hypothesize that every single atom is interconnected to every other atom in the universe via a physical medium between them. What is this physical medium? A two-stranded dna-like rope, we can arbitrarily call, an EM rope.
An EM rope is an object. Every atom in the universe is bound to all others via EM ropes. This is the scientific hypothesis. The Moon and the Earth are made of atoms and all of their atoms are interconnected. We hypothesize that matter consists of a single closed-loop thread which weaves every single atom in the universe in such a way that each atom is interconnected with 2-stranded rope from this thread. This thread is the fundamental constituent of matter. Why do we do that? Because there is no other rational model of the atom!! Mathematicians have to juggle between the irreconcilable planetary, cloud, and balloon models of the atom in order to attempt to describe the effects of matter. And they still cannot account for gravity, light, magnetism, etc. Reality doesn’t work this way. Reality is consistent and non-contradictory, irrespective of what any mathematician asserts.
The Moon is not attracted by God's angels. The Moon is not bombarded by 0D particles. The Moon does dot slide 'downwards' along warped space (nothing).
The Moon is physically connected to the Earth and is constantly under atomic tension of the EM rope. In a simple nutshell, this is why 2 objects can rationally be explained to attract each other.
( black hole. can't their be something in the universe that can attract light and pull it back so that it won't be visible to us?)
But exactly what is light, jomine?
Is it a 0D mathematical concept, or ‘a’ wave, or BOTH......like the clowns of mathematics claim? Does that make any sense to you? Do you actually believe that mother nature’s reality is composed of contradictions?
Only human beings have contradictions. And they do so because they have an irrational approach on the issues of natural phenomena. And they are FAITHFUL to this irrational approach for the sake of tradition, and for the sake of all the $$$$ they have invested in this bullshit for the past 150 years. Is that what science is about??
Only 3D physical objects can be attracted to other 3D physical objects. And in order for this to happen, these objects must absolutely be physically connected to each other at some fundamental architectural level. There is NO other rational option.
The black hole fails at the very basic fundamental level. A BH is comprised of two concepts: 'a' 0D singularity and 'an' event horizon. These are not objects. So far we have nothing in front of us. Relativists have gone to 'infinity' with their runaway mass thing. They took a physical object known as a star, compressed this ball of gas so much that the pressure disintegrated the object's length, width, and height, and converted the thing into an abstract concept (0D singularity). Next, they claim that this concept swallows clocks, astronauts, and light.
A BH is not only a contradiction of basic logic, but most importantly, it is a physical impossibility. The BH only exposes that the clowns known as mathematicians have never understood the difference between an object and a concept. They will never convince a rational person that a star loses L, W, and H, turns into empty space, and that this empty space can still run around and cause havoc on matter. We must come to terms with the fact that these worshipped scholars of the world are either clowns or priests.
This BH nonsense is no different than the issue of DARK MATTER. These notions were concocted by mathematicians because they are not physicists. They were not able to form a rational hypothesis and theory to explain the physical phenomena associated with the irrational observations they have dubbed: BH and DM. They are no different than the fundamentalist Christian who asserts that God made us because he cannot rationalize the physical effects of evolution.
( still it won't be able to "bend" neither space nor time?)
Space is a concept. Specifically, it is our conception of nothing (no matter). Space is the static distance between objects. It is impossible for nothing to bend. And this is why Einstein was embarrassed of his Relativity in later years, because he was struggling to find ways to assert that space is a physical chunk of matter which was knows as the ‘aether’. The scientific community would not allow him to do that. They wanted space to be nothing, but still have it ‘bend’. Well, isn’t that a crock of crap?
And time is a mere concept. Time is a scalar, a number line, which is used to conceptualize the ‘metric’ of matter in motion. Time is a dynamic concept which requires a sentient observer with memory to remember the previous location of an object and COUNT user-defined ticks (ie. seconds, minutes, etc.) to its present location. Understand?
There is no such ‘thing’ as time. Time does not exist, and hence, cannot bend, warp, dilate, or be travelled on!
Well said fatfish. They measure mass using a beam balance. So this and that kg is just how heavier an object is compared to a standard object. What confuses is that with the same material, the bigger the object, the heavier it is. If mass was counted, then it could have been different from weight.
"If mass was counted, then it could have been different from weight."
Yes, and the scientific establishment has already conceded that it is impossible to measure this conceptual quantity they term 'mass'.....yet they turn the other cheek and claim to:
1) move mass around
2) decrease/increase it
3) destroy it by converting 'it' into space
4) convert space into mass (creation) by a process called "quantum fluctuation", which is the motion of nothing.
etc...
All this fantastical stuff must be from a nightmarish cartoon.
But Fatfist,
Everyone knows this equation:
(The ability to perform work) = (the amount of oomph in an object) X (the speed at which discrete packets of nothing travel multiplied by itself).
And that is why we have the atomic bomb, Amen.
Ha ha!
That was hilarious, Winston
What all these numbskulls who have a physics Ph.D. fail to understand, is that the 'c' in E=mc^2 is a f***ing 0D dimensionless concept. It is not a real object that exists "out there" in nature.
So E = m x c^2 is equivalent to the equation:
Passion = love x beauty^2
(the 'c' in E=mc^2 is a f***ing 0D dimensionless concept.)
Duh-A-uhMn! No wonder my Chevy can't catch up. I better run a little lean around that next lap, not put so much "E" in the tank else I'm likely to run headlong into some M and explode.
Curse you Adolf Einstein - we used to only have to worry about that third turn - but now this!
Sorry I forgot to sign in on my earlier coment. Mathematics is an incomplete language. Always something is left for the reader or the writter to mummer silenty while reading. This 'thing' is not in the equation. When you read; f=ma, you mummer; 'exerted' and 'object' silently otherwise the equation is meaningless.
Kirrui,
"f=ma, you mummer; 'exerted' and 'object' silently otherwise the equation is meaningless."
Yes, you do that now that you understand what an object is....as for all of us.
But as you already know, the establishments of mathematics and science have never defined what an object is. None of these clowns have a clue in heaven or hell. But they use the word as if nothing and expect you to ....nudge nudge....wink wink....KNOW what they mean. No different than when a fundamentalist uses the term "God".
your definition of object as 'that which have a shape' is good. However, I judge you for not going futher. Ask also, why does some things have shape? My intuition says clearly that there is something more fundamental which makes a thing exist and is different from space. Call it a material or substance. There can never be a shape in a void in the real space without any substance. So I define an object as 'that which have a sabstance' and space as that which has no substance. I define 'exist' as to have a substance. Axiomatically, all things that have shape and exists must have a substance. But it is not true that all things that exists must have a shape!sabstance is more fundamental and it causes shape!
Kirrui,
“Ask also, why does some things have shape?”
Kirrui, please, you really need to think about this seemingly “innocent-looking” question you are asking, before you even ask it.
Shape is a term which stems from our “conception” or “rationalization” that the universe out there, and anywhere, can ONLY be composed of either “something” or “nothing”. This is an issue of pure dichotomy....a binary one. There is no other option or even an “in-between” something and nothing.
It is THIS discrimination/relation/resolution of something vs nothing which is actually a spatial separation in the universe, irrespective of any observer. It is the contrast or delineation of these two terms (something vs nothing), which we, as sentient beings, call: SHAPE.
Shape is a term which we use to identify and name this delineation of spatial separation.
So to ask WHY “some” things have shape, is irrational. Absolutely ALL ‘things’ have shape. Thing is a synonym for object (thing, something, substance, physical, finite, discrete, entity, particle, structure, being, stuff, body, architecture, medium, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, etc.).
What you actually want to ask, is whether a term (in any language) can RESOLVE to either an object with shape, or a concept lacking shape. We can go thru the dictionary from A to Z and analyze each word and EASILY resolve whether it has shape or not.
“There can never be a shape in a void in the real space without any substance.”
But shape is not a “thing”. Shape is a RELATION which we, as humans, use to convey our rationalization of what contrasts a ‘thing’ form ‘nothing’.
When we say that an apple HAS shape, we are saying that an apple is spatially separated from its background and has a border/boundary.
And “real space” is an irrational clause. Real is synonym for ‘exist’. Space does not exist. Space is nothing.
“So I define an object as 'that which have a sabstance' and space as that which has no substance.”
Circular. Object is a synonym for substance. Look at the synonyms I gave you above. And space is a synonym for nothing. So it is unsensical to define it as having no object. These are very loose and ambiguous definition of ordinary speech.....not precise scientific language.
Kirrui: “I define 'exist' as to have a substance”
Kirrui: “I define an object as 'that which have a sabstance’”
So according to you, exist is a synonym for object. Then you can say:
“circle is an object and it exists”
“ghost is an object and it exists”
“Pegasus is an object and it exists”
“superman is an object and it exists”
Clearly, this does not make sense. Circles do not exist. You cannot give me ‘a’ circle for my birthday present.
Remember, exist and object are 2 different terms which must have a MEANING in language. They need to be defined unambiguously.
“Axiomatically, all things that have shape”
No. Axioms are RULES invented by humans, sentient observers who have decided to decree that:
“WITH THE POWER VESTED IN ME, I NOW DECLARE THAT OBJECTS WILL HAVE SHAPE FROM NOW ON. I DON'T CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS, SO THEY HAD BETTER BELIEVE THIS OR ELSE THEY WILL GET THEIR HEAD CHOPPED OFF OR BURNED ALIVE!!!”
What does this have to do with nature’s realm? What does this have to do with reality?
Nature has no observers and doesn’t give a shit what a stupid human ape decrees and forces down the throats of 7 Billion followers, who weren’t even around 4 billion years ago.
Shape is a term whose resolution is REASONED by analytical critical thinking alone! It is not an axiom/rule.
“But it is not true that all things that exists must have a shape”
Ok, I welcome you to please give me a list of ‘things’ which you say ‘exist’, but do not have shape.
There are two ways of looking at the effect that relativistic objects appear to be more massive. One is to say that the mass increases by the gamma factor. The other is to say that the relation E=m.c^2 should actually become E=gamma.m.c^2 for non-stationary objects - the mass is the same, but it has more energy associated with it. Similarly, F=m.a becomes F=gamma.m.a so it takes more force to accelerate a fast-moving mass. Mathematically it shouldn't make a difference which interpretation you use. But I agree that it makes more sense to think of the mass being an intrinsic property of the object that stays the same, and to instead have the laws change with velocity. You are completely right in that the number of atoms will stay the same no matter what the velocity.
Fatfist,
this is an interesting article, and I like the debate that is going on in the comments. But, I believe the problem here is the definition of mass.
There are two definitions of mass used in physics. There is 'invariant mass' (Mo) and 'relativistic mass' (Mr). Invariant mass is the amount of matter in an object and does not change with speed. This is what most people think of when someone says "mass".
Then there is relativistic mass (which is actually a misnomer and should have been called something else) which is what scientists are talking about when they say mass increases with speed. 'Relativistic mass' is a term used when speaking about the total energy of a system.
Relativistic mass is more of a measure of the net kinetic energy of a body. The faster a body is moving the more kinetic energy it has, thus it has more relativistic mass(yes, I know this is an overly simplified definition :)).
What adds to the confusion is that even noted scientists, like Stephen Hawking, say "mass" when they actually mean "relativistic mass". Even though I know better I also say the word "mass" a lot of the time when I really mean "relativistic mass"....
so then what are the fundamental objects made up of? What does it make an otherwise empty region have shape? Shape is actualy a by product which shows the boundery of this thing called 'something'. So shape does not differentiate something from nothing. It merely shows the boundery of something. (it was you who said the univers is divided into something and nothing)
Hi topquark,
“relativistic objects appear to be more massive.”
Before we can describe or explain phenomena, we need to establish the meaning of our terms which we use to communicate with each other.
Neither Einstein nor a single person of science or philosophy has managed to unambiguously and consistently define the term ‘object’ in the past 5000 years.
An “object” is that (insert any term here) which has shape.
The Sun has shape irrespective of what a human claims to “appear” before his eyes when he looks up in the sky. So whether an object “appears” to be more massive or larger, is completely irrelevant to the reality of nature. Nature has no observers who “decree” what “appears” to be or not to be larger.
The real issue is, whether the Moon is larger in size because it is orbiting the Earth, rather than if God came along and grabbed it with his hand and removed it from orbit. Will the Moon be smaller in size in this situation? If so, why? What physically happened to the Moon to change its size?
Hi sheerplan,
“'Relativistic mass' is a term used when speaking about the total energy of a system.”
Energy: the ability.....
So again, RM is an abstract concept.
“The faster a body is moving the more kinetic energy it has, thus it has more relativistic mass”
Mass and energy are abstract concepts used by mathematicians to “describe” effects observed. When a 1000 lb car hits a building, little damage occurs. When a 5000 lb car does it, substantially more damage occurs.
To say that the 5000 lb car had more kinetic energy is merely an abstract description we plug into an equation. It is not an explanation. It does not say anything about what physically happened between the car and the building at any level of detail, and why more damage occurred.
These mathematical constructs are only descriptive and depend on observation and plotting numbers into graphs alone. They cannot elucidate exactly what is physically occurring in nature.
Hi kirrui,
“so then what are the fundamental objects made up of?”
You mean atoms? There are hundreds of models of the atom offered by mankind over the past 3000 years. Pick one which makes the most sense to you, or come up with one yourself. An atom is a hypothesized entity....it is not a theory.
“What does it make an otherwise empty region have shape?”
When you say “empty region”, you are alluding to an object with an empty region encased by a perimeter......like a donut. The hole in the donut is the empty region which has NO shape. It is the donut itself which has shape contouring the missing donut piece in the void. Shape is a static concept. As such, it necessarily requires an object in order to be conceived and comprehended. The object is the donut, which exists. The hole is a concept. Holes do not exist. If we take the donut away, do we have ‘a’ hole left there?
“Shape is actualy a by product which shows the boundery of this thing called 'something'.”
Shape does not show us anything. You cannot “see” shape. Shape does not exist. It is the object which exists. Shape is a term which encompasses our reasoning of the relation between something and nothing. Shape can only be “conceptualized” by us, even if all humans evolved without eyes. It is a conceptual issue, not one of observation.
“So shape does not differentiate something from nothing.”
You are missing the point. Let’s try again....
Nature either encompasses ‘something’ or ‘nothing’. It is a dichotomy or binary system out there, in the universe. There is no other option or an “in-between” option......right??
I mean, if there is, please tell me right here and now: FATFIST, YOU ARE IRRATIONAL MY FRIEND....HERE IS THE THIRD OPTION I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU...blah blah...
So then, how do we humans convey this rationale SUCCINCTLY without subjectivity when we wish to talk about existence, objects, and space?
We make use of this term we call SHAPE. This term alludes to strictly OUR CONCEPTION (critical reasoning) of the spatial separation of nature.....that is....something vs nothing. Something in reality is unequivocally always wrapped by the nothingness of space....there are NO exceptions.
Everything boils down to this term....shape. It is the end-all term....right at the bottom of the recursive resolution of all the terms in language and understanding. There is no other human conceivable term that is more reducible or below this concept we call ‘shape’.
Without such a primitive basis, we cannot even begin to talk about Physics (the study of objects which exist) without first understanding what we are talking about when we use the word ‘object’.
So when we talk about the shape of an object....we are asking: Does the alleged object X have shape? Yes or No?
We are not asking: What is the shape of the alleged object X.
Understand now?
The hole is a concept. Holes do not exist. If we take the donut away, do we have ‘a’ hole left there?
lol
Gaede is quite brilliant. I'm pleased you're promoting similar ideas here. I think Bill's achieved in science and particularly physics ('objects'), what Stefan Molyneux has achieved in philosophy ('concepts'), especially ethics and self-knowledge.
Two amazing rational minds. Although sometimes I wish Bill would chill out a bit more... ;)
"Although sometimes I wish Bill would chill out a bit more"
Ha ha! But that would take all the fun away. He does like to teach with a baseball bat...LOL
Allow me to challenge you abit fatfish. I am not necesarily against you. It is only so that we may understand more. Many objects have shape. My point is that shape is a static concept. Mass which results from counting is a static concept. Not only does the objects have shape, they have several static concepts like mass, taste, collor etc. If a potato was aproximately elipsoid and we cut it into a rectangle, we do not seize calling it a potato. So what remained the same in the proces? Do so also to the fundamental objects. 'Cut' them in your mind then aske: what does it remain unchanged in the process? This which remains unchanged is not the object but what I termed it as the sabstance of the object. So I didn't use 'sabstance' as a synonyme of 'object'. It is not necessary to call into question the divisibility of fundamental objects because we are just trying to conceptualize. Also the fundamental objects are conceptually made of a single piece for the purpose of this discussion. So we only divide in the mind for the purpose of concepualisation.
Hi Kirrui,
“Many objects have shape.”
Kirrui.....please...please.....when you make statements like this, all you are doing is taking a stick and hitting yourself over the head. Either all objects have shape, or none of them....there is no in-between, or some, or many. Before you can use this word ‘object’ in a sentence, you must define it unambiguously......without “maybes”, “many”, “some”, “little”, “sometimes”, etc.
“My point is that shape is a static concept.”
Yes, any object, like an asteroid, has shape irrespective of any observer being there to “see” it. Nature is what it is, without any observers.
“Mass which results from counting is a static concept.”
No. Please listen and try to understand the difference between Counting & Measuring.
MASS is one of the most retarded words ever invented by mathematicians. Even they can’t tell you what the hell they are talking about when they use this term. It’s just like the stupid God-term ‘energy’. Mass is a synonym for GOD.....it is contradictory and meaningless.
Mass is MEASURED, not counted. In order to measure, you must COMPARE against a standard. The standard for mass is the Kilogram in France which sits inside a sealed glass enclosure.
Shape is not measured. Hence, mass is NOT an intrinsic property (static)......it is a “dynamic concept”. You are welcome to justify your claim, but you can’t....it is impossible.
For example, to determine the mass of my girlfriend’s panties, I must weigh them, and then tell you that Mass-of-panties = 0.05 kg,.... then I have established a “dynamic concept” which I call ‘mass’.
The ONLY intrinsic static concept that all objects had before we experience them is shape. In order to have mass, you absolutely need to experience the object....you need a sentient observer to perform an activity, to measure, quantify, and define a system of standards like Kilograms, which are abstract concepts which support this system of quantification.
There were no Kilograms before God created the first fundamentalist ape, which we regrettably have to call: a human.
Remember: Mass is a synonym for WEIGHT. They are the exact same concepts, with the same process to determine and resolve their quantities.
If you take the Kilogram from France to the North Pole, its mass changes, correct? You no longer have 1 kilogram!
In fact, from the wiki...
"the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 µg over the last century... The reason for this drift has eluded physicists"
So, officially, a kilogram doesn't have the mass of a kilogram any more.
MASS = WEIGHT, and WEIGHT = MASS.....they are synonyms......people need to wake up and stop swallowing the bullshit they are fed by mathematicians and religionists.
“Not only does the objects have shape, they have several static concepts like mass, taste, collor etc.”
No. Color is a dynamic concept since it depends on the motion of an object to vibrate at a certain frequency. The EM spectrum from UV to IR has different vibrationally dynamic frequencies, right?
Light is an object, right? I mean, it is impossible to vibrate ‘nothing’ and produce a frequency, right?
Taste requires an observer to perform motion....so it’s dynamic. And there was no taste before God created Adam & Eve.
Shape is the only intrinsic property that an object has. If the universe consisted of a single object, that object would still have ‘shape’, but it wouldn’t have any other dynamic property, like mass, color, weight, taste, etc.
Any object has shape irrespective of any observer. Shape is the only intrinsic property an object can have.....there is no other....nada.....impossible! Shape is clearly not a property that a rock can do without.
The devil’s advocate will say: “How do you know? Have you seen every object in the Universe?”
This is not an issue of validation, knowledge, or proof. This is strictly an issue of critical analytical thinking. We define object rationally & critically and away we go. Besides, the devil’s advocate could simply produce an object which doesn’t have shape......can he do it??? How about if I offer him 1 million dollars?
We cannot conceptualize motion without shape. If I want to show a movie of a ball flying thru the air, I must have the ball at different locations with respect to other objects in the vicinity. There must be shapes on the screen!
On the other hand, if you define an object as “that which has mass”, aside from the fact that mass is already a dynamic concept, we certainly can't put kilograms on the screen to simulate motion.....now can we?
“If a potato was aproximately elipsoid and we cut it into a rectangle, we do not seize calling it a potato. “
Nonsense. What you call it is irrelevant. Names have no meaning whatsoever.
Objects have no meaning or definition. It is impossible to objectively define what a potato, apple, car, or any other object is. We only point to and name/label objects. We can only define and give meaning to concepts.....nothing else.
Remember: the only way to communicate or convey an object to another human being, is to illustrate it or help him visualize it in his brain. The only way to present an object is by pointing to Exhibit A and uttering a word, like “apple”.....or visually describing Exhibit A and helping the person to get a mental image of the apple. Until then, the word ‘apple’ is only a concept. Only AFTER we resolve this word by illustrating something (with shape), are we dealing with an object.
Fatfist,
One of the difficulties in getting our heads around these ideas is that we tend to think experiencially. In some ways the ideas are too simple to fit our experiece (meaning mostly those things we have been taught)
Perhaps this explanation will aid the discussion.
Question: Prior to Galileo, did the moons of Jupiter exist?
Discussion: Before Galileo, no single person on Earth knew moons orbited Jupiter - yet they were there regardless of our knowledge.
How do we explain to each other about similar non-seen objects that are real but we may not be aware of? What made these moons a reality before we knew of them?
They all had shape (our descriptive word) and they each had location (again our word to describe a static place).
When reality is described unambiguously, as existence based on physical presence, shape + location, then reality has been stripped to its essence, to the relationship reality has with Nature, a simply yes/no binary system of real, not real.
The human action of abstract thought occurs within this reality, but Nature does not read minds or bend spoons with mental energy on national t.v., so the thoughts and ideas themselves are not recognized BY NATURE as real.
It is only we humans who get confused thinking, why, if I am real, and I think about something, why isn't that thought real?
It is real - to us. But it is not real to nature.
And remember, the object of rational discourse is to unambiguoulsy explain natural phenomena.
It is quite a lot like the statement that the fictional character Sherlock Holmes made: When you eliminate the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true.
If you substitute "real" for "true", and then understand that the "elimination of the impossible" occurs by means of precise definitions of key words, you get an understanding that whatever is left, no matter how simple, is reality - as seen by Nature.
Any other discussion of another type of reality can only occur in religions and philosphies, within the realm of metaphysics.
Nature's got your metaphysics hangin', Bubba. And it's got shape and location.
Winston,
“One of the difficulties in getting our heads around these ideas is that we tend to think experiencially.”
Bingo! That’s the problem right there. And to make matters worse.....the religions of Atheism, Mathematics and Quantum have officially decreed that there is no reality out there.....nothing exists until you see it.
But at the same time, these religious clowns will reject Christianity on the basis that what people “saw” 2000 years ago, was simply their imagination......but what we (the Ph.D scientists) “see” today, like 0D particles, black holes, warped space, stretched time, etc.....is all real because we SAW it.....and if you can’t see it.....well.....you don’t have the IQ, Ph.D, and Nobel Prize like we do.....so too bad for you!
Can you believe this circus show?
“What made these moons a reality before we knew of them?”
Reality is a synonym for existence. Reality just IS.....regardless whether anybody is there to provide a limited sensory account of it.
Students of Quantum Mechanics accept 0D photons and 0D electrons as real......but not a 3D Jesus being. What retards
On another forum, I created quite a row among mathematicians by asking why and how (-2)x(-3)=+6. I explained that if you were standing in a hole (a dirt debit) 6-feet deep, and two creditors forgave you 3-feet each of dirt, you would still be standing in a hole. Even if they physically brought 3-feet each of dirt and poured it in the hole, that would still only fill in the whole, so the answer should be zero, not +6, as you would still need 6 more feet of dirt above ground level to have +6 feet.
One really good mathematics professor, trying to be helpful, showed that if you had 3 debits were removed twice, you would be 6-dollars richer.
That is true, but that is not what the equation says happens, is it? The equations says (-2)x(-3), so it is saying that the 3 debits were removed a NEGATIVE 2 times, in other words, NOT removed at all. In fact, grammar suggests that I if I owe two 3-dollar debits that are multiplied by not removing them twice, I could be -24 in the hole.
See, I owe you 6 bucks, but this other guys is supposed to give me 6 bucks to pay to you, but he doesn't do it, so now I am short your 6 bucks + the 6 bucks I didn't get, and another guy is going to help me get out of the hole and give me the total 12 bucks I am missing, but he doesn't show up, either, so now I am out his 12 plus the other guy's 6 plus the 6 that I owe you = 24 bucks.
But, of course, the mathemaician "knows" that (-2)x(-3)=+6 because of the axioms of mathematics, the rules.
And these are the same people explaining reality to us - according to their rules. LoL.
Winston,
Math is nothing more or less than a "tautology". It is a defined symbolic language predicated upon dynamic concepts....not objects.
Every conclusion proposed by math is true "by definition"....and by definition alone. The numbers are defined to produce those results. If I include the axiom "xk + zt' = 7.2", then this is automatically true by definition, and anything which predicates it.
Now....the real issue is....who should we get to interpret those results and use them to make a conclusion which applies to reality?
Should we get our good Pastor, Ph.D mathematician, Nobel winner, Hawking, Einstein, Bohr, Rutherford, Benny Hinn, Lady Gaga, Mother Teresa, OJ Simpson, Kato Kailin, Vanilla Ice?
As it turns out....all of their opinionated interpretations are on an equal footing. Not a single one stands out in any objective manner.
Fatfist,
As I was replying once again to the philosphers on another hub, it occured to me that what you and Bill describe is reality from the perspective of nature, a binary reality which then allows a resolution to be made. Without this binary reality, we collapse into parlor what-if games.
As I was explaining that nature does not recognize time, I had an immediate flashback to The Karate Kid - "First stand, then learn fly. Not my rule, Daniel-san. Nature's rule."
It thought that fitting so I borrowed part of it as the reason for strict definitions and the use of a binary perspective. "Not my rule. Daniel-san. Nature's rule."
Winston....I'm glad to hear you're having fun with these clowns. LOL
Haha, that's awesome Winston! Nature truly rulez! :D
Just a heads up to any intelligent person who finds themselves here and feels the need to argue with what is written here. Don't bother. After arguing with the author for a number of comments (which are all conveniently missing after a certain point) the author stopped allowing my comments to be seen.. maybe a sign of defeat? Anyway, I doubt anyone will read this before it is removed by the author, but if you are reading this, leave this page. You will get no satisfactory answers here, only vague arguments which are contradictory in their own rights. Anyone who stays and puts up with this nonsense after reading this comment, you have been warned.
Welcome back, anon. Trolls have a hard time staying away from my hubs. You see, they can't sleep at night because they finally discovered that Santa does not exist. So they need to let off steam.
So, if by your next comment you don't post an argument that is on-topic with this hub, your trolling crap will be deleted again.
Don't say that fattie ain't nice to you. He might be fat, slow, lazy, and desirable to married women, but at least he is nice.
"You will get no satisfactory answers here, only vague arguments which are contradictory in their own rights."
Oh, here we go anon....
1) what is mass, an object or a concept?
2) does mass exist?
let's hear your side of the story
I'm still waiting to hear your argument with this hub, anon.
I mean, I've got better things to do, like being with my neighbor's wife before he gets home in a few hours.
I'm not going to reply again after this comment. Not because you are right, but because I have better things to do. I returned here to see if intelligent people were still fighting this nonsense you spew.
Firstly, a little education for you on internet vocabulary. A troll is someone who insults, and argues pointlessly about a particular article, video etc on the internet. Since we were discussing the topic in hand, I would hardly call that trolling.
Secondly, I would like you to admit publicly that you have deleted a large number of my comments. I know you wont do this, in fact, this comment will probably be deleted for even saying that, but as I say, this is my last comment so if you delete it, it looks like I've left you hanging and all riled up. Poor fatfist not getting the fight he wanted.
And by the way, all this reference to being with people's wives, its kinda pathetic. I mean, either you are with other people's wives, or you're bullshitting to satisfy your ego(probably this one), either way, I dont really care, and I would prefer it if you could stay on topic
Anyway... onto the physics.
I wont answer your questions. I have already stated that I agree with you in that mass is a concept. I see all your points of view, but your argument has one huge flaw:
You can't EXPLAIN, DESCRIBE OR PREDICT (or any similar word you care to think of) the universe any better than any modern physics, even with all your amazing insight into how it is all wrong.
Rather than offering alternatives that are consistent with your own arguments, you say things like "physics must be explained in terms of objects" and "can you show me a picture of ___". Well, fatfist, one thing I can see from these comments is that you believe (or you think you KNOW) that gravity occurs because all matter is interconnected by a medium (that you can't draw for me) or some sort of interconnecting invisible undetectable "strings" (?). For someone who is obsessed with theories based on objects, and moving objects around, this seems a big flaw in your theory (what you believe is fact).
Hmm, yes fatfist, I'm going to drop everything I know about hundreds and thousands of years of scientific development and believe your tenuous guesses based on no observation whatsoever.
The fact that your medium cannot be seen or drawn, or detected at all puts it on a par (using your own criteria) with Newton's action at a distance, and Einstein's warping of space-time. But with one big difference. Your theory seems to have no predictive power. So while we can say nothing about the nature of the gravitational force for certain, these established scientific theories have a huge advantage. Sure, all three (including your own) cannot be DRAWN (which you yourself love to emphasize), but two of them are able to quantatively predict the gravitational force.
Maybe your tiny mind will have to comprehend that due to evolution, our bodies can only sense what is useful to us. That means that non-useful things (for example 4d space time) cannot be drawn or perceived fully by us humans. Why should we live in a universe in which (as you believe) everything is "drawable".
The universe I would like to think (and is backed up by experimental research) is a richer, more full place than just "heres an object which I can see, nothing but objects that can be seen directly can exist". It seems a very narrow minded point of view.
Anyway, if this actually makes it to the comments on the page, well done fatfist for not just deleting my comment.
I shall be off now, to continue my physics education. I dont believe myself superior to you, I would just hate to be you when you realize, as one day you must, that these attempts at usurping established theory with flimsy nonsense have been a huge waste of your own time. However, if it turns out you are right, and SR and GR and atomic theory etc are all wrong, I will admit defeat and graciously accept you as the greatest genius who ever lived. Until that day, goodbye fatfist, have a good life with your neighbors wife.
Anon is not even trying.
anon,
fatfist: "So, if by your next comment you don't post an argument that is on-topic with this hub, your trolling crap will be deleted again."
anon: "I would like you to admit publicly that you have deleted a large number of my comments."
Which part of my public statement of "deleted AGAIN" are you having trouble understanding?
So you are not trolling, huh?
Do you even understand that my neighbor's wife is sitting all alone in her bed right now while I'm here wasting my time with you.....huh????
Anon,
“You can't ....PREDICT”
I’m sorry to disappoint your delusional fantasies.....but I can’t do it. It is impossible for me or anyone else. Does that make me any lesser of a human than Sylvia Brown? I mean, Sylvia Brown was on TV 2 days before the 9/11 attacks and she made all sorts of predictions. Not a single one was realized, and not even a HINT of the 9/11 attacks under her nose, 2 days later.
This is an issue you need to resolve with the Priest who PREDICTED that he was going to molest you while you were in the bathroom stall with him after your Sunday Service.
Do you know that the James Randi Foundation will give $1,000,000 to anyone, including a Mathematician, Sylvia Brown, and YOUR Priest, if they can make even a SINGLE prediction??
Anon: “you believe (or you think you KNOW) that gravity occurs because.....”
Anon: “The fact that your medium cannot be seen or drawn, or detected”
And this is the reason why your trolling comments were DELETED.
In Physics we don’t BELIEVE, THINK, or KNOW that a natural phenomenon occurs. Nature performs its business whether an unevolved human ape like you is around to give his opinions, dogmas, and decrees of what he believes, thinks, or knows.
And of course.....you can SEE and DRAW: 0D gravitons, 0D electrons, 0D photons, 0D quantum particles, 0D black holes, 0D dark matter, 0D energy, 0D magnetic fields, 0D electricity, 0D tachyons which are FASTER than light, 0D warped space, 0D stretched time, 0D space-time, God’s Big Bang CREATION,....etc.....right?
You have finally put me in my place, anon. I publicly concede defeat since you can obviously draw all of these alleged objects. You WIN!!
I apologize for ever doubting you.
“The universe I would like to think (and is backed up by experimental research) is a richer, more full place than just ..heres an object”
YOU ARE RIGHT!!!!
According to the Priests of your Math Religion, there is God, Jesus, Allah, the holy ghost, the holy spirit, the father, the son, the trinity, lost souls, evil spirits, Lucifer, The Devil, Satan, Demons, ghosts, consciousness, intelligence, morals, free-will, love, evil, heaven, hell, the holy grail, judgement day, ......all of which are 0D objects!!!
“well done fatfist for not just deleting my comment.”
No worries, I promise I won’t delete your LAST trolling comment. A promise is a promise. But any other comments from a Religionist like you will be deleted.....I won’t even bother reading them. Besides, my neighbor’s wife gave me HELL last night.....I arrived late in her bed and her husband almost caught us when he came home!
“I dont believe myself superior to you”
I am happy that least your FAITH allows you to retain your innate BELIEFS.
“I would just hate to be you when you realize, as one day...”
Yes, the Fundie Christians have warned me about Judgement Day, and the Pearly White gates where I will face St. Peter. I know I won’t make it thru those gates.....and thank God! Instead, I will be spending eternity with YOUR wife in Hedonistic Hell. Please tell your future wife to exercise regularly at the gym and maintain a nice slim figure with a V-shaped upper body, ok?
Oh....and could you please do me a HUGE favour.....when you get a job and make good money....please pay for some nice breast implants, a tummy tuck, plastic surgery, and a whole-body laser hair removal for your wife.....the gal will need it if she wishes to hook up with me in Hell.
Obviously you don’t understand the Sci Method, anon. Your trolling posts are worthless. Please stop wasting my 0D time.
THANKS TO YOU.....My neighbor’s wife has put me on NOTICE: “either spend less time on HubPages, or I’m getting together with the 24-yr old cub across the street....which is it?”
“Until that day, goodbye fatfist, have a good life with your neighbors wife.”
Thank you....I hope you sincerely mean that from your sweet heart, anon. Is it ok if I show her that we both have YOUR blessings to continue sinning??
'nonsence, what you call it is irrelevant names have no meaning whatsoeve'
fatfish,
hypocrite, it is squarely you who say language is important in science. So you are among those who deny themselves to escape every hook.
Names are important if language is important and scientific names should resemble those of biology. That is we should say a rectangular potato instead of calling it a complftely different name. Rectangular for 'genus' and potato for 'species'.
Don't think that 'ordinary language' is entirely wrong. So, answere my question which you dodged it; what does remain unchange when you change the shape of a potato?
Kirrui,
“Names are important if language is important”
Kirrui, You are still struggling with the basics.
Names and labels are of NO importance or significance. Names & labels have absolutely NO meaning whatsoever. We point to objects and utter a sound from our mouth. That sound now represents the name/label we reference that object by. ANY name/label will suffice. I can decide to point to a coconut and call it “foobar” right this very second, and everyone knows what the object is. The words ‘coconut’ and ‘foobar’ have no meaning or importance whatsoever in their usage....scientific or otherwise.
Kirrui....if you disagree.....please be my guest and tell us what the importance, meaning, definition or significance is of the name “COCONUT”.
The word ‘Universe’ is not a label or a name; it is an abstract concept. All concepts have meanings. The word ‘coconut’ is a name/label. Labels and names are the only words with no meanings at all. They refer to objects ONLY. The name "tree" doesn't mean anything, it refers to an object. The reason why tree doesn’t mean anything, is because there so many different types of trees with vastly different properties and any supposed meaning you attach to it would be purely SUBJECTIVE. This is why “tree” is just a generic label. OTOH, the word ‘Universe’ has an OBJECTIVE meaning. They don't teach this stuff in elementary school, so it is perhaps why many are not aware of this.
“That is we should say a rectangular potato instead of calling it a complftely different name. Rectangular for 'genus' and potato for 'species'.”
What you decide to call it is SUBJECTIVE to YOUR particular human tastes, hierarchy of ordering/organization/etc.....and is irrelevant from an OBJECTIVE position. And by doing so, you have instantly converted the “potato” to a concept which you now call “rectangular potato”. This concept must now have meaning/definition, so it can no longer be an object we can point to. You have instantly converted into a concept for the purpose of attaching a definition to it.
But.......the word “potato” is not a concept, and has no meaning whatsoever. It resolves to an object we point to.
In science, we NEVER give meanings to names/labels since they represent objects. It is impossible to objectively define any object. In science we only give meanings and definitions to CONCEPTS.
“Don't think that 'ordinary language' is entirely wrong.”
Ordinary speech is neither wrong nor right. It is purely subjective and cannot be used as a basis for any objective/unambiguous/consistent (ie. scientific) discussion.
“So, answere my question which you dodged it; what does remain unchange when you change the shape of a potato?”
What the ACTUAL SHAPE of a potato is....is completely irrelevant. The issue before us is whether that potato HAS shape. Does it? It is a Yes or No issue. Is it an object or a concept? That is all we concerned about so we can establish our Hypothesis in a valid and non-contradictory manner.
Now, if the shape of the potato changes when it interacts with a rock, then you are no longer alluding to objects, you are alluding to a PROCESS. This is part of our Theory. When you say the potato became rectangular when it was bombarded by rocks, you are now using objects in a relation....elliptical vs rectangular. The relation is the center of attention and not the objects per se. Our focus is now on the relationship and not on the object itself.
It is in this sense that objects 'become' concepts. For instance, the word basketball (the game) is a concept. It embodies objects, motion, and qualifiers all in one word. Basketball is a complex concept that invokes players, court, ball, hoops, rules, running, dribbling, shooting, etc. It's a mixture of nouns, verbs, and adverbs.
It would be ludicrous (other than in a facetious or metaphorical sense) to say that 'basketball moved to the other side of town'. This is ordinary speech and not scientific (literal) language.
Likewise, the word energy is a complex concept. It invokes objects, motions and relations. It would be ludicrous to take the statement 'transfer of energy' literally.
What part of the word did you transfer? The capacity? The ability? The velocity of light squared?
But with the rock and the potato you don't run into the same predicament. The rock and the potato alone are photographs (objects). The act of shaping the potato with a rock is a movie (concept). The former belongs to the hypothesis (objects, definitions, statement of the facts). The latter is an integral part of the theory (explanation). It answers such inquiries as, "Why has the potato lost matter (atoms)?"
Idiot Kirrui,
You said in Fred Allen's Infinte Regress hub the following:
"The shape argument against God's existence is just a poor one. A child can debunk this."
OMFG....what a stupid moron you are!!!!
Here is your chance, idiot Kirrui.....please debunk it!!!
I will PayPal you $20,000 US if u can do what you are preaching.
You are a typical religionist....you can't answer a SINGLE question I have posed to you in this and in my other hubs....so what does a stupid idiot like u do??....Yeah, you go to a Christian Priest to peddle your ignorance.
Fatfist,
I have been enlightened by the empirical evidence of the greatness of religion - mass certainly can increase - the priest at the local parrish heard your argument and decided to add 15 minutes to morning mass by making a guacamole dipping sauce for the host - this is my body, and this green stuff is god's gift to Mexican food - so mass ran over by 15 minutes.
He challenges you to prove him wrong - either mass expanded or time shrank, as if the 75 minute mass only took 60 minutes, then the guacamole didn't exist.
I think I have that right, anyway. It's hard to understand exactly what he is saying when he starts groaning those prayers of "Oh, god!" in my ear in between the explanations.
Yeah Winston, once stupid religionists are brainwashed with God, Heaven, 0D particles, energy, square potatoes, black holes, asshole priests, etc.....there is no hope. Very few make it out with their brain intact.
guacamole dipping sauce is god and this is truth. You cannot deny his greatness.
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_uPjFnd3mwRs/S7FgTaeu2vI/
My lord and Savior.
I thought hard on this post over a cup of delicious coffee in order to offer up an educated and well organized rebuttal against the claims of known physics, and all I could think of is the guacamole comment by Mr. AKA Winston.
Damn you.
(all I could think of is the guacamole...) - Jaydeus
(guacamole dipping sauce is god...)- PrometheusKid
Jaydeus,
It is good to see you spent your time in quiet comtemplation of god...
Btw, Starbuck's lattes are sons of god - just not as green.
Hahahaha omg, just got linked to this comment thread
This is the funniest load of nonsense I've heard all day
I feel sorry for you anon, I can't fathom why you even bothered to stay in this argument
inB4 my comment is deleted
No short cut, a relativist should be able to illustrate how a fish become fatter by merely swiming at a high speed!
I didn't mension your name there, I didn't dis you there. I gave my opinion to those who visit those hubs after we agreed that i keep to myself for a while and you come and dis me in your hub! What i post in other hubs are non of your business! Here get me clearly, fatfish and try to understand me.
Object; that which has a shape.
Exist; to have shape and location.
We are doing physics and is completely o.k. I was guided by these definitions from bill, who taught, me all the way to you! Priests have there own things! They have their own beer and i have mine! What does my conversation with priest got to do with physics and you? I am kirui drunk and kirrui sober! What does my wisky got to do with you? Did you know my intent? Now my beleives as you say are non of your business! Why do you care if i am a religionist if i don't bring religion to physics and this is exactly what i did. I ceased presenting it here and i went to the church an preached. I never knew you were following me behind!
Ff you claim that i answered 0 of your qs but why is it that you quickly resorted to insulting me 'nonsense, bullshit idiot, nonsense bullshit, nonsense bullshit idiot, nonsense bullshit idiot' you didn't seem to realise that in science, a challenge is necessary even that offered by your own brain. It reinforces understanding. I even don't beleive in infinite objects! I just wanted to see if you crossed all ts and dot all is. Do you realy know scientific method? We don't simply brush away an hypothesis. More importantly, 'bullshit nonsense idiot moron' is not a scientific language Or should you only say halleluya and we say amen?
What relativists hypothesise as mass increase is actually an increase in the force needed to accelerate an object (worst is this increase is from observers perspective and not an actuality). Now, they donnot yet understand why an object resists change in velocity and yes, the object's resistance to change in velocity increases with the size of the object but it is just because each particle gives a contribution to the overal resistance thus Newton was correct to some extend in saying f=ma where m is the quantity of matter conceptually counted. The problem came when physicists to equal sign as equivalen sign and aserted that whenever there is a change in force needed to accellerate an object, it must be due to an increase in m. M here almost act magically. If we consider a so called charged particle in the vicinity of a magnet, it can experience change in resistance to chang in velocity by merely intensifying the magnetism. In the same way, an object can experience an alteration in resistance to change in velocity by for instance mere realignment of molecules. All these are brushed away because Einsteinians are just mathematicians! They are concerned with the correctness of equation, f=ma.
In the same way, relativists forget that mathematics deals with amounts and apply it to qualitative issues and say that E=mc2 implies that everything is made up of energy. They magnetise mathematics and mathematise magnetism!
To understand what i mean, consider my room. I always have ten nails, five pieces of wood and five billiard balls. So nails=woods+balls is correct if every where there is an 'object,' we start with 'amount of' but obviously nails are not made of objects in my room. More importantly, the equation is a statement that cries for an explanation. We equate only amounts and equations demand that we already know what we are counting. Indead, equations should play a minor or no role at all in physics. We see today a physicist inserting a completely meaningless number to equations e.g. h, c and fourth dimension then say they have mathematical meaning. But mathematics should at best be a counting tool and thus there is actually nothing called a mathematical meaning!
The problem with this blog post is that it's mostly a man philosophising on why the theory of relativity is wrong. I thought you'd be sensible with your anti-religious stance, but you've proven that you think science is religion too. If you've been trying to make it so all thought systems are dogma's, then you have your own. You assert that mathematics is wrong, you assert that the second most popular theory of physics is wrong, but you don't have any evidence, just your ramblings. You appear to be attacking something in the language of how it is explained, but you have no proof that it is actually wrong. Mostly you appear to be someone who thinks you are 100% percent right about everything when you don't appear to know all that much in the first place. Science is not religion, it is tested over and over again, and when an element of it is shown to be false, they remove it and build a better theory, just as basic darwinian thought and mendelian genetics was replaced by a modern evolutionary theory that accounted for both, relativity stepped in for newton's laws. BTW, Newton was key in developing Calculus, so if what you're saying is true of math, then what goes up doesn't go down?
The theory of relativity may not be complete, and Einstein wasn't the best mathematician, but he demonstrated that his theory can account for issues like the fact that the planet Mercury would be showing up in a place different from where it was supposed to be according to newtonian physics. People have been repeatedly using relativistic work to demonstrate the validity of the calculations, people have checked it over and over. Not only has this theory been proven, it has been applied in normal life. Relativity improves the ability of GPS systems that have to account for their times being off by fractions of a second, in areas where they have to be as accurate as possible. Atomic clocks have to account for their movement in space. Quantum physics has been used for the development of integrated circuits, the basis for your computer cpu. Mathematics has been used over and over again, from probability theory, to the trajectory of artillery, to the timings and sizes and masses of millions of devices. Now, if what you're saying is true about mathematics, relativity and quantum physics, wouldn't those everyday things be impossible? Now, surely science isn't complete yet, but considering the state of things as they are, they know what they're talking about.
For this, I dare you to make a video and put it on youtube and get people to pay attention, and not censor them. I don't want you using just the crap you learned from logic and philosophy class(or wikipedia), I want you to make a real experiment, and demonstrate a real alternative set of theories that would explain how the world works, and show why the current theories are weaker. That is science. You should consider yourself a peer reviewer of science, so you should be willing to act in the name of science to improve it, by taking those theories down with. Can you do that without more wordgames and philosophy crap? And can you do it without insulting the intelligence of people who actually study this stuff? I don't get the impression you are a real academic, just the sort that receives a check from the social security administration and thinks "Zeitgeist" is completely true.
BTW, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass read the part about how mass and matter are two different things. Then you'll realize how wrong you are.
@Can't Agree, Need Proof
Proof is the purview of religion, not science. If I say I ate love for breakfast, you would say that is nonsense. How would you react if I said you have no proof or evidence against my claim? You would say there is no need for proof, because what I have claimed is absurd on its face: love is not an object, hence it doesn't even mean anything to speak of eating 'it.'
Fatfist,
The very idea of relativity seems to be that there is a relationship between objects, that the only thing that is of importance is the viewpoint of the observer. Relativity almost has an exenstential quality to it, in that reality depends on the definition supplied by the observer. Relativity appears to be a description of events from various perspectives, not an attempt to explain reality objectively.
For example, mass increase sounds like an attempt to describe the affect of a bullet being hurled by hand at 10 miles per hour verses one shot from a pistol at 1000 feet per second. The fact that the slow bullet bounces off your skin but the fast bullet penetrates skin and bone must be due to m=fa, where m=magic.
Winston,
‘The very idea of relativity seems to be that there is a relationship between objects’
Actually, there are absolutely no objects in Relativity. Relativity is completely comprised of concepts. Relativists don’t have a clue what an object is, nor can they even define it for the audience. Relativity is just another Religion, that’s it!
‘that the only thing that is of importance is the viewpoint of the observer’
Exactly, so when the observer (i.e. Relativist) is drunk after 15 beers, he can see time stretch before his eyes, and space warp like a hammock. What is ‘Scientific’ about that? Any drunkard can see ghosts and concepts stretch....and so can the patients of the insane asylum. Should we praise and worship these stupid morons?
‘Relativity almost has an exenstential quality to it, in that reality depends on the definition supplied by the observer.’
You are giving them too much credit. Relativity has absolutely no definitions. It is definitions which destroy Religions. So the Priests of Relativity will do anything to AVOID definitions.
‘mass increase sounds like an attempt to describe the affect ...’
And here is the kicker....a lone object in the universe has absolutely NO mass!!
Remember, mass is a relationship between objects, in that you absolutely NEED a reference standard for which to compare objects in order to decide that they have mass. A lone object has no such reference. References and standards are rules (concepts) invented by man to please man. Mother Nature recognizes no rules, no standards, no mass.....and definitely no energy.
Since mass is a concept, it rationally follows that mass is impossible to increase by any stretch of the imagination....except perhaps after the observer has 15 beers!
"Quantum physics has been used for the development of integrated circuits, the basis for your computer cpu. Mathematics has been used over and over again, from probability theory, to the trajectory of artillery, to the timings and sizes and masses of millions of devices. Now, if what you're saying is true about mathematics, relativity and quantum physics, wouldn't those everyday things be impossible?"
What a retarded non-argument. Science and technology are totally different things. We can make fire without or without math. I can play with magnets without knowing WHAT magnetism is. What does making stuff have to do with coming up with a theory?! I totally GUARANTEE you that my house or car or computer aren't made of a single piece of warped-space, wave-packet, or 0d electrons! In fact, I personally assure you that there are no such things in the entire Universe!
We can debunk quantum in two seconds with any one of hundreds of questions and arguments.
Oh, and to boot, only a TINY fraction of all the tons of useless abstract crap that gets invented by tax-funded morons in the establish and academia, actually has any practical application whatsoever!
Hey Fatfist... I can PROVE you wrong without having to THINK about anything! Watch:
Are you using your computer? YES! So, by doing so you're PROVEN WRONG so HELP ME GOD!
Now you have to believe in faeries and ghosts. Sorry, but my argument is water-tight.
Now, I'll have to ask Apple and Intel execs how many 0d electrons they've used in their iPad. I wonder if it's a billion or a trillion? Maybe they warped space in the 11th dimension to keep the production costs down?
Hang on wait... iPads are 3d! OMG! Maybe the whole of math-phys is COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.
Don't trip over any MASS on your way out!
Well, this is what happens when people don't understand the difference between Math (description) and Science (explanation).
"Einstein’s Theory of Relativity posits the ridiculous claim that a concept, such as “mass”, increases with the increasing speed of an object. But when its physical interpretations are analyzed, it is irrational to claim that concepts increase, or that even objects magically acquire extra atoms during motion. Relativity is a Religion that posits surrealism in the reality of nature, and thus has absolutely nothing to do with Physics."
"We can do anything, now that science has invented magic!" - Marge Simpson
"And because there is no evidence, the foolish atheist says that he doesn’t believe it. Do you see the stupidity of this argument, Winston? The atheist does NOT challenge the theist on the basis that a spirit is a concept. Nope! This fool challenges him on the basis of evidence.....something that is EQUALLY SUBJECTIVE AND BASED ON OPINION!"
I was trying to explain this to my wife and she asked me, "so what do you call yourself now, a materialist?"
No....If I have to have an ist call me a rationalist! Otherwise monkeymind is fine!
Monkeyminds,
"so what do you call yourself now, a materialist?"
How about a 'critical thinking human', for a change?
Government, society, schooling and our grandparents have brainwashed us throughout millennia to think that this world only consists of theists (the good), atheists (the bad) and agnostics (the ugly). This is a beyond primitive Neanderthalistic mindset. Even apes and monkeys don’t think this way. This makes humans the most brain-dead species to ever walk this planet, regardless of their inventions.
And when these ridiculous labels weren’t enough, they invented more: materialist, nihilist, solipsist, existentialist, Christian, positivist,.....all BS labels invented by man to identify people’s belief systems. A rational human, otoh, is a critical thinker who has no beliefs. If a rational human has something to say, he doesn’t look behind him to see how many idiots are there to support his statements and back him up with loud cheers. A rational human can explain and justify his statements with reason....not with authority (which is always a fallacy).
"How about a 'critical thinking human', for a change?"
I hear ya' but I had already been calling myself a critical thinker with the sub title "agnostic atheist."
Defined as: I don't know but I believe there is/are no god(s).
Going along with the in-group at a particular forum and trying to fit in somewhere. Traded one "belief" for another and didn't even realize it.
I've just finished reading all your hubs. Except the 2 about Jesus and God, so I can move on to WGDE. First I'll read all BG's hubs and watch all his vids, then read the book.
Thanx! for the fresh view on "stuff."
Now, I would like to add two things:
thing + thing = things (or stuff)
Fatfist:
"Relativists have gone to 'infinity' with their runaway mass thing. They took a physical object known as a star, compressed this ball of gas so much that the pressure disintegrated the object's length, width, and height, and converted the thing into an abstract concept (0D singularity)."
Recently, the braniacs at CERN had thot they tracked a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light. Funny this, their concepts were traveling faster than their concepts could keep up! Turned out they had a loose cable, or a loose nut on the steering wheel!
"To Infinity and Beyond!" - Buzz Lightyear
FATFIST:The belief that mass increases with velocity can be traced back to an almost forgotten experiment published in 1901 by Walter Kaufmann. Kaufmann showed that when electrons are accelerated to velocities close to the speed of light, the ratio of charge to mass, e/m, does not remain constant, as had been expected, but decreases.
Doesn't the equation E = MC^2 indicate an infinite amount of energy needed to accelerate mass to the speed of light? Would this be why the mathmagicians created the zero mass photon?
monkeyminds,
Yes, the idiots of Mathematical Physics have been desperately trying to plug up the holes and contradictions of their Religion for the past 110 years. They always invent some nonsense to plug up their previous nonsense....and so on.
But with reference to E=mc^2, energy and photon, they have several problems which they can never sweep under the carpet:
1) Energy is a concept. There is no such thing as energy. Energy does not exist. Energy is a VERB which describes a process....specifically, the motion of an object. Energy is actually NOTHING...ZIP...NADA!
2) There are NO such things as photons. Photons are not real because they don’t have shape. Physics demands that in order for the subject of a sentence (i.e. photon) to be real (i.e. exist), it MUST be an object with location. All objects have shape. In addition, all existing objects have location. Photons are 0D (dimensionless) and lack shape, thus have no location. And this is why the morons of mathematics can ever capture or measure this magical spirit which they call ‘photon’. They can’t even draw an image of it because it is not an object. It is a concept. A photon is actually a VERB – a process that matter goes through which we call an EFFECT i.e. the phenomenon of light. PHOTON = PHENOMENON = VERB!
3) With photons they cannot explain the slit experiments....in particular, the ZERO-slit, SINGLE-slit, DOUBLE-slit....N-slit.
4) With photons they cannot explain why 2 beams of light do NOT interfere when aimed at each other i.e. laser beams crossing each other have NO interference, no hot spots and NO collisions of alleged photon particles.
5) They cannot explain why light goes right through solids....even though the frequency has changed, it still goes through them.
6) With photons they cannot explain the Ray Retraceability of light. Light will always retrace its path right back to its source, even if its source has moved by quadrillions of light years from its original position! How does light do it? Does God perform this magical task?
7) Photons cannot explain WHY the speed of the light is constant. Does God impose a speeding limit on His cosmic highways? The morons of Mathematics will make you think so....this is how dumb they are!
How ironic is it, that at the end of the day, the Religion of Christianity is more rational than the Religion of Mathematical Physics by exponential orders of magnitude. The Christians have a real object they call Jesus. Jesus has shape. A photon does NOT have shape. Jesus is THE light....a photon can NEVER be light!
SO E=MC^2 says that as an object accelerates towards the speed of light energy increases infinitely and mass also increase infinitely. Yet light, which has no mass and therefore no energy, travels at an incredible speed which can not be met or exceeded by any object (which has mass and energy).
It was far easier to buy into the BuyBull than this relativity religion!
Monkeyminds,
“SO E=MC^2 says that as an object accelerates towards the speed of light energy increases infinitely and mass also increase infinitely.”
No one, not even the clueless mathematicians can’t rationally answer this question for you. Especially since they cannot tell you WHAT an object is. They will tell you that a 0D photon is an object.
But when you ask them to define object.....they tell you: Ummm...well....duhhh...you know what I mean by object!
And since energy is a concept, it does NOT increase. You can only increase an object, like a penis, for example. You cannot increase love, justice, virtue or energy.....not even God Al Mighty can accomplish such an irrational task. And the words infinite/infinitely/infinity are irrational adjectives which are not applicable in the context of concepts, like energy or speed or mass or time.
“Yet light, which has no mass and therefore no energy, travels at an incredible speed”
Light is actually a phenomenon. Light is not something that can move or travel. What moves, is the mediator which mediates the phenomenon of light. Light is an event....just like “wave” is an event.
Understanding the difference between an object and a concept allows one to bypass the confusion and/or just blindly accepting what the expert(s) say(s). It allows us to make decisions about the relevance of hypotheses or theories at the conceptual level and saves us from wasting valuable time on useless ideas. This also gives us confidence that others are not superior in their "knowledge" and understanding of reality and puts us all on equal footing.
The revelation has given me new eyes with which to view the world. I am grateful master Fatfist!
Monkeyminds,
“blindly accepting what the expert(s) say(s)”
Ahhhh, but there are no experts....not one...nada. We are all born here on Earth. And when we came out of the vaginal canal, there was no God present to bless us with special brains, IQ, enroll us in the Brainiac Club, or give us a Certificate of Expertise. We all use our sensory system to explore the world. So I dare anybody to come here and explain why Stephen Hawking is smarter or “knows” more about the world than a shoe shine boy or even a beggar on the street. I bet nobody will dare step up to the plate and defend such an argument.
People are brainwashed from a young age to worship authority and scorn those who dare to question these Celebrity Priests. So when someone is making sweeping statements without offering a rational explanation, all they are doing is expressing their confirmation bias which is based on their emotional reactions to stimulus stemming from authority. Such a people have no supporting arguments....they are not thinkers, they are followers. They just tell us to remove our hats and curtsy to their favourite celebrity who has won the Beauty Pageant arranged by the High Priests. And this is one of worst possible arguments anybody can make.....it commits almost every fallacy in the book.
These people are nothing but puppets manufactured in the assembly line. They are pre-programmed to use their hearts & beliefs instead of their brains. Only a very FEW of us will actually put in the effort to use our brains for critical thinking to reason and understand the world. The rest of us are content to being tape-recorders....mere followers.
“others are not superior in their "knowledge" and understanding of reality”
You got it man!
There are no superior beings anywhere in the universe. I dare anybody to come here and offer an argument why any of their favorite Nobel-decorated celebrities is smarter or has superior knowledge, more than the average housecat. They will quickly realize that they haven’t a clue of what they are talking about.
Man has evolved to have the highest reasoning ability that nature can ever offer to any being out there. The problem is that man has also been domestically forced to evolve into a follower; a sheep that worships its master and will do anything it is told....even go to the slaughterhouse. Just like we have forced the evolution and domestication of farm animals.....man is NO different. Only very few us will disobey the farmer and his rules by jumping the fence and thinking for ourselves. These people are called rational humans.....the rest are called SHEEP!
The conditioning from birth is powerful. We are taught to listen to the experts, the authorities, the professionals. You must believe..."There it is in black and white!"
When I was 9 I was kicked out of Vacation Bible School for "disrupting" the class by asking, during a story about the Garden of Eden, "Where are the dinosaurs?
When I was 11, I was kicked out of school for disrupting the class by asking too many "unrelated" math questions.
As an adult I got forced out of the military for asking too many questions about dangerous LOS microwave equipment (and refusing to trust the official "explanation").
For many years I found it easier, and the sailing smoother, by not rocking the boat. I was never really happy with that.
More recently, I was nearly banned from a forum for merely presenting different ideas contrary to the party line (both atheist and theist).
It's not easy bucking the system. It is always easier to go with the flow...but I always end up feeling like I have lost my personal integrity.
I suppose I am getting too old to give a crap what others think now, and so here we go ...Stranger In A Strange Land all over again!
Ha ha....your story is very similar to mine :-)
The teachers were always pissed at me in high school because I questioned everything. But yes, life is smoother when you are a brain-dead vegetable who does whatever you are told....like 99.99999% of the population!
Just be glad that you are able to understand and reason your way though all these things. Most can't....and they don't care. They are too comfortable in worshipping authority and parroting the party line.
If you really wanna piss off those who banned you from the forums, just come here and write some short articles. HP automatically indexes them at the top of google search lists. You were banned because you destroyed their Religion. They will never come here to intellectually challenge you. They will only come here to troll.
In essence, all Einstein had to say was that things look different from different observer's perspectives. Motion is relative in relationship to the observer but the observer does not alter reality.
Reality is the part he missed.
Winston,
The only good thing Einstein had going for him was his crazy hair. It was because of his hair....and his hair alone, that his Relativity Bullsh** got published and accepted by the layperson. He had that "smart professor" look. Surely, his crazy hair looked that way because of his immense brain activity. It must have sent electrical signals down each hair shaft and prevented it from being combed properly. Hence the "genius look".
Yeah....it was the hair!
BTW....here is the latest article from Bill which relates to our current discussion:
Fatfist,
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is my personal favorite - that uncertainty of the observer is used as an excuse to let imaginations run wild instead of as a governor that exposes the limitations on sentient methodologies.
What they miss is this: we can't "know", so we must reason. Reasoning is a rational process that excludes ontological contradictions.
Oh yeah, the HuP is such an acutely special kind of bullshit!
DId you know that old braniac Heisenberg discovered not only that a ball doesn't move while it's stationary, but that a ball isn't stationary while it's moving!
Can you believe such incredible things?!
Stunning! No wonder he was awarded a Nobel.
Relativity in 100 words or less: things look different from different perspectives. Amen.
The Heisenberg Uncertain Mother Principle: Will you two stop wiggling!
Quantum for old hippies: Far out, man.
Let me see if I understand this quantum entanglement thing.
OK so 2 neutrinos, bump into each other (well not really) er…interact with each other (How are you today? Fine, Thank You.) and then get separated (See yaaaaaaaaaaa!) by a certain distance,probably huge (whatever that is in the grand scale of things).
They have an indefinite speed, spin, position and polarity. Then Steven Weinburg catches one and Brian Green catches the other in specialized butterfly nets. When observed, it is seen that one is moving very fast and the other is moving very slow. Well,you know one is going slightly over the speed of light and the other is going slightly less than negative the speed of light. One is spinning clockwise, and the other is spinning counter-clockwise.
One is here . The other is not here .
And finally, one is negative and one is positive (Hey I don’t think either of these guys gets it. Ah, give them time man, these guys are brilliant. Haven‘t you watched Nova? OK, but I don‘t have much time. I’ll give ’em a pico-second).
Somehow Weinberg and Green get some Black Crystals and power their quantum Walkie-Talkies. Weinberg says “yes” and a pico-second before he does that, Green hears “No” coming out of the microphone of his Talkie.
Before that happens, W and G get in an argument over who said what. The ensuing discussion ripples back through time and in 1905 Einstein starts babbling incoherently never coming up with E is equal to MC Squared. Quantum entanglement is never thought of and I don’t write this about quantum entanglement.
Nah…I don’t understand, and I think my brain cells are entangled!
Monkeyminds,
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any discrete (i.e. not connected) entities, like the alleged photons, to be "entangled" in any way....whether PHYSICALLY or SPIRITUALLY.
So, let us put on our “critical thinking” caps and reason through this for our feeble-minded brain-dead Mathematicians, whose only claim to fame is that they won a Beauty Pageant....err, I mean....Nobel Prize.....
If the alleged discrete particle (i.e. photon) is ENTANGLED with another discrete photon, then EITHER:
a) The photons are PHYSICALLY CONNECTED to each other. And entities can only be physically connected via some extended physical entity (mediator)....like a “rope”, for example. Therefore the alleged photon is NOT discrete. It is necessarily interconnected to all other photons.
OR
b) The photons are SPIRITUALLY CONNECTED to each other. And entities can only be spiritually connected via God’s will. God has dispatched His countless of 0D, shapeless, massless spirits from Heaven above, and sent them to monitor each photon and act as MEDIATORS to physically interact with each photon. But.....how can a 0D, massless, shapeless, objectless, non-entity (i.e. nothing) spirit, physically grab hold of a photon and spin it clockwise or counter-clockwise, as God demands???
As you can see, when rational people reason through all this BS....the Mathematicians will grab their Quantum Scriptures, put them under their robes, and run with their tail between their legs back to their Monastery. Once they complain to their High Priest that a worldly non-believer has insulted their Religion, the High Priest will quickly make them feel better by asking them to kneel before him while he disrobes and gives them communion!
Bottom line....
1) Matter is not comprised of discrete entities.
2) The phenomenon of Entanglement can be rationally explained with the EM rope. All atoms are physically interconnected with each other via extended EM ropes. When one end of the rope spins clockwise, the other end spins counter-clockwise. This makes sense!
3) Never believe in Priests. They will always SCREW you!
AKA Winston Level 5 Commenter 22 months ago
Although is it certainly correct to define relativity as a religion, it is most likely not the best use for spreading an understanding - the religious think they are being criticized, while the new-wave mathematical "scientists" react with easily predicted defensiveness over being categorized in the same breath as "the faithful", "the believers" and the "witnesses for ideas".
In order to resolve this problem and capture the more modern concept of using sound bytes to impart understanding, I now propose that from here on out we simply call these new mathematical religionist "SciFientists" who practice "SciFientology".
We don't offend the religious, we confuse and baffle the mathematicians, and we might even capture the Star Trek demographic.
What do you think?