Truth is Timeless

User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:
Savonarola wrote:How many ideas have I espoused here?
1+1=2
Thus, math applies to non-physical things as well.
....
If an idea is not attached to a material thing, math and logic cannot reliably describe it because math and logic are blind without the circumstances of mass.
But I have just shown that this claim is untrue. Ideas are non-physical things with no mass. Your argument's structure has "Mathematics is reliable when limited in its application to physical things" as a premise. With an untrue premise, your argument fails.

You seem to think that the sheep-shearing parable proves that I cannot have 1+1=2 ideas. This is why nobody but yourself can take you seriously.
graybear13 wrote:If an idea is not attached to a material thing, math and logic cannot reliably describe it because math and logic are blind without the circumstances of mass.
Photons are massless particles that carry no charge but carry energy in mathematically measureable, additive, even quantized amounts. So now in your uneducated zeal to deny the Big Bang, you've also denied quantum mechanics.
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by graybear13 »

Savonarola wrote:You seem to think that the sheep-shearing parable proves that I cannot have 1+1=2 ideas.
1 thing + 1 thing = 2 things

1 Idea + 1 Idea = 2 Ideas = 0

Big bang theory of creation (Idea) + LHC (failed experiment/Idea ) = zilch....no thing.

'Massless particle' sounds like a contradiction in terms. Just more unreliable scientific nonsense. :mrgreen:

gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:1 Idea + 1 Idea = 2 Ideas = 0
But the fact that 1 idea + 1 idea = 2 ideas refutes the assertion that math applies only to physical things. Saying that an idea is not a thing only proves my point.
graybear13 wrote:'Massless particle' sounds like a contradiction in terms. Just more unreliable scientific nonsense.
So now we add quantum mechanics to the list of scientific disciplines that graybear rejects.
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by graybear13 »

Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:1 Idea + 1 Idea = 2 Ideas = 0
But the fact that 1 idea + 1 idea = 2 ideas refutes the assertion that math applies only to physical things. Saying that an idea is not a thing only proves my point.
graybear13 wrote:'Massless particle' sounds like a contradiction in terms. Just more unreliable scientific nonsense.
So now we add quantum mechanics to the list of scientific disciplines that graybear rejects.
I did not say that math 'only' applies to physical things. I said that math becomes unreliable when applied to nonphysical things such as ideas...1 + 1 = 2 = o sounds like fuzzy math to me.

I do not reject quantum mechanics but I do reject the notion of a 'particle' with no mass. It is much more likely that the energy of a photon is emergent energy condensing into 'mass' by the influence of gravity;the process of creation. If photons are a part of creation they have mass. The notion that a photon is massless pure energy is hard to swallow...sounds like a cop-out.

gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:1 + 1 = 2 = o sounds like fuzzy math to me.
That's your math, not mine. My math says that 1+1=2.
graybear13 wrote:...sounds like a cop-out.
"I don't get it, therefore it's wrong."
Same as every other conclusion you've shared here.
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by graybear13 »

Savonarola wrote:"I don't get it, therefore it's wrong."
Same as every other conclusion you've shared here.
Your apparent, complete, lack of respect for me as an intelligent human being does not allow you to try to understand any of what I say. Your blind faith in science reminds me of christian blind faith in the 'Law and the Prophets'.

Just because 'you' don't understand what I am saying doesn't mean I am wrong,

"A person with a new idea is a crank
until the idea succeeds." Mark Twain

There is a new day dawning...it's time to wake up!

gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds." Mark Twain
Well then, crank, be sure to get back to me when your idea succeeds.
User avatar
kwlyon
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: The Blind Faith of 'Bang Bang"

Post by kwlyon »

graybear13 wrote: If photons are a part of creation they have mass. The notion that a photon is massless pure energy is hard to swallow...sounds like a cop-out.

gray

It may help to strictly define what you mean by "mass" and "particle". There are actually two "kinds" of mass--inertial and gravitational. Photons do not behave as if they have inertia...if they had inertial mass they would have infinite kinetic energy. However they do have an effect on local space-time curvature. One could say that, in classical mechanics, photons have no inertial mass. However adding a photon into a system certainly does increase the rest mass of the system as doing so increases the energy of the system.

The concept of a "particle" is likely the most poorly defined concept in all of physics. Classically, a particle is that which carries momentum and is spatially localized...but waves certainly can also carry momentum and be spatially localized. I am not sure there is a single classical attribute of a "particle" that can not also be an attribute of a wave. All I can come up with is what particle DONT do. Particles don't exhibit interference phenomenon. So particles seem to be nothing more than waves in a regime where diffraction and interference are negligible. Thus one could argue that "particles" only exist as a classical approximation. I know a fella who loves to assert that particles are simply "quanta of fields". This is a compelling idea and may well be right on.

Also, everything that exist, so far as we can tell, can ultimately be described as "pure energy". Also, I still owe you that chapter of Griffiths...I just flat forgot about it. I will scan it as soon as I get the chance.

Kevin
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by graybear13 »

Hi Kevin, :D mass is local gravity. When the pure or emergent energy slows down just enough for condensation/gravity to take hold it becomes what we can see and measure so far, it becomes "quanta of fields" (I like that) or particles.

Particles are electronically organized emergent energy.

All of what I am talking about precludes bbt, and shows creation to be much older than 13.7 billion years. Even if the bb happened 13.7 billion years ago, which it didn't, where did that energy come from? What caused that bb ? One fine day science will look past the bbt and see the gravity of our situation, :) and see emergent local gravity as the source of creation; this is what is causing the CBR.

gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:Particles are electronically organized emergent energy.
How can a particle's energy be "electronically" organized?
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by graybear13 »

Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:Particles are electronically organized emergent energy.
How can a particle's energy be "electronically" organized?
That really 'is' the question isn't it?

The fact that a particles energy 'is' electronically organized leads me to hypothesize that the 'condensation of emergent energy' (local gravity) is the cause of the particles or mass of this universe. Local gravity is only a part of the process.

This understanding of gravity is consistent with sciences measurements of gravitational influence; the more energy that is condensed into a mass the stronger the gravity.

Back to the question; 'How can a particles energy be electronically organized?' There is, some, dark energy blowing through the universe faster than the speed of light, just 'how' it goes from that to local gravity I don't really care. My interest is in gravity; that's as far back as I care to go. Once we can understand what gravity is , we will be able to lessen the effect of its incessant pull.

gray
User avatar
David Franks
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2011 1:02 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: Outside Fayetteville, Arkansas

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by David Franks »

graybear13 wrote:The fact that a particles energy 'is' electronically organized leads me to hypothesize that the 'condensation of emergent energy' (local gravity) is the cause of the particles or mass of this universe. Local gravity is only a part of the process.

This understanding of gravity is consistent with sciences measurements of gravitational influence; the more energy that is condensed into a mass the stronger the gravity.

Back to the question; 'How can a particles energy be electronically organized?' There is, some, dark energy blowing through the universe faster than the speed of light, just 'how' it goes from that to local gravity I don't really care. My interest is in gravity; that's as far back as I care to go. Once we can understand what gravity is , we will be able to lessen the effect of its incessant pull.

gray
Raymond Chandler wrote:Did you ever read what they call Science Fiction? It's a scream. It is written like this: "I checked out with K19 on Aldabaran III, and stepped out through the crummalite hatch on my 22 Model Sirus Hardtop. I cocked the timejector in secondary and waded through the bright blue manda grass. My breath froze into pink pretzels. I flicked on the heat bars and the Brylls ran swiftly on five legs using their other two to send out crylon vibrations. The pressure was almost unbearable, but I caught the range on my wrist computer through the transparent cysicites. I pressed the trigger. The thin violet glow was icecold against the rust-colored mountains. The Brylls shrank to half an inch long and I worked fast stepping on them with the poltex. But it wasn't enough. The sudden brightness swung me around and the Fourth Moon had already risen. I had exactly four seconds to hot up the disintegrator and Google had told me it wasn't enough. He was right."

They pay brisk money for this crap?
(Raymond Chandler letter to H.N. Swanson, March 14 1953)
"Debating with a conservative is like cleaning up your dog's vomit: It is an inevitable consequence of your association, he isn't much help, and it makes very clear the fact that he will swallow anything."
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:
Savonarola wrote:How can a particle's energy be "electronically" organized?
That really 'is' the question isn't it? ....
Thank you for confirming that you don't know what "electronically" means. Perhaps you should look it up. Hint: Find the root word.

It seems like we've already had this discussion. If the only progress being made here is graybear's mental masturbation, I'll be locking the thread.
graybear13
Posts: 203
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 10:45 am
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by graybear13 »

Savonarola wrote:
graybear13 wrote:
Savonarola wrote:How can a particle's energy be "electronically" organized?
That really 'is' the question isn't it? ....
Thank you for confirming that you don't know what "electronically" means. Perhaps you should look it up. Hint: Find the root word.

It seems like we've already had this discussion. If the only progress being made here is graybear's mental masturbation, I'll be locking the thread.
Mental Masturbation....really??? Sounds like you went to the Carl Rove school of political attacks..."always accuse your opponent of what your weakness is." Pretty much all I see around here is MM; At least I am able to enjoy the liberty of freethinking without having to become a 'freethinker', what ever that is. It sounds like you have become the very thing that you rebel against.

It would be just like you to lock out 'Timeless truth' because you see no truth in what is being said..."Don't confuse me with truth, my mind is made up." Savonarola

I thought you understood 'electronic organization' of mass/matter.
Electronic--Of or pertaining to electrons.
Organized charges.

Sorry...I was just feeling a little bit "cranky" :mrgreen:

gray
User avatar
Savonarola
Mod@Large
Posts: 1475
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 10:11 pm
antispam: human non-spammer
Designate the number of cents in half a dollar: 50
Location: NW Arkansas

Re: Truth is Timeless

Post by Savonarola »

graybear13 wrote:"always accuse your opponent of what your weakness is."
I accused you of not knowing what "electronically" means. You respond with:
graybear13 wrote:Electronic--Of or pertaining to electrons.
Organized charges.
But "organized charges" is not a valid definition of electrons. There are particles that carry charge in the same way that electrons do but are not electrons. Moreover, if we're going to use the vague descriptor "organized," it could certainly be argued that electrons in superposition are not "organized" into a point particle. You have successfully described nothing and rendered the characteristic you call "electronically organized" meaningless.

You think that it sounds good, but it describes nothing and means nothing. (Note that this was my original objection, and you have not overcome this shortcoming of your model in multiple "attempts.") This is precisely what I mean by mental masturbation. Throw in purposely flawed definitions and the only thing we have here is a colossal waste of time.
graybear13 wrote:Pretty much all I see around here is MM.... It sounds like you have become the very thing that you rebel against.
But earlier, you wrote,
graybear13 wrote:"always accuse your opponent of what your weakness is."
Your approach is so conspiratorial, even your conspiracy theory is "refuted" by it.

And finally,
graybear13 wrote:"Don't confuse me with truth, my mind is made up." Savonarola
No, you don't get to literally fabricate quotes and attribute them to me -- especially a quote about being close-minded when I have purposely responded with pointed questions designed to force you to explain your model with precision.
Much like your "gravitational vortex" theory 25 years in the making that crumbled upon just a tiny bit of critical thinking, these random thoughts about matter are not only baseless in both theory and practice but also are not even internally consistent.

If you'd like to continue communicating with kwlyon via email, that's between you and him. We're done with this topic here.
Locked