Xris wrote:Rickoshay76 wrote:IMO, there are two different kinds of physics , pseudo and demonstrable. Psuedo physics is more about theory than practice, has effect with unclear cause. Demonstratable physics can be utilized, has clear cause and effect.
So how do you demonstrate EM radiation using a photon particle as a concept? Bill Gaedes EM ropes are certainly demonstrable without causing ilogical consequences.
Oh, I forget that the word "infinite" is an adjective. In a strict scientific discussion, it is useless to use adjective to describe space because adjective can only modify OBJECT. Nothing (i.e space) is obviously not an object thus it is not finite or infinite. Nothing is nothing. Instead of saying space is finite or infinite, we should say, "if we go beyond the farthest object in the universe, we will keep going and going indefinitely/infinitely, etc. and we will never return to the starting point".
This is the following Bill Gaede's statement about infinity :
"“infinity” ranks among the most irrational words invented by Man, right up there with ‘energy’, ‘point’ and ‘God’.
object: that which has shape Synonym: finite.
Finite and infinite can ONLY be adjectives. For the purposes of Physics, in a scientific context, outside of ORDINARY SPEECH, finite and infinite can only qualify/modify true nouns, which again, for the purposes of Physics, can only be objects. There is no such thing in Physics as finite love or infinite intelligence. Concepts do not have the ability/property of being finite or infinite. The words motion, orbit, itinerary, trajectory, location, distance, energy, love, information… are NOT nouns for the purposes of Physics, one of the two branches of Science. (The other is Philosophy.) First and foremost, Physics studies objects and causes. Philosophy studies concepts and reasons.
ALL objects, without exception, are finite! There is no such thing as an ‘infinite object’. This term is an oxymoron, a self-contradiction and, thus, irrational. It violates the scientific definition of object. The foregoing definition of object is scientific because it can be used consistently, especially in Physics.
What has happened is that the idiots of Mathemagics (he hates mathematics so much, because according to him mathematics is no different from religion) have confused motion and concepts for objects. The ‘point’ is the foundation of this misconception. The mathemagician makes a mark on the board and calls it a point. He tells you in your face that that point is zero dimensional (0D) when it is patently obvious that the dot you are staring at has at least two dimensions: width and height. The mathemagician ‘clarifies’ that the dot is a ‘pictorial representation of a point’.
So what is the point?
The point, he tells you, is a location. The elephant or his weight (which the idiots of Math call ‘mass’ to confuse themselves) is squeezed into a non-dimensional LOCATION which the idiot of Math represents pictorially with a dot. The dot is 2D, but the location is 0D or non-dimensional.
Of course, the idiot of Mathemagics ends his prez by telling you that for some reason he can’t give you a definition of the word ‘point’. If he did, he confesses, it would result in a circular argument, one definition relying on others ‘infinitely’.
We have a similar problem with the word ‘infinite’. The stupid, idiotic moron of Mathemagics has confused adjectives with adverbs. ‘Infinite’ is an adjective and can ONLY qualify an object. ‘Infinitely’ is an adverb and can at best qualify motion. He is not saying that the cheetah runs infinitely or that spacetime expands infinitely. He is saying that the cheetah runs incessantly and that spacetime expands eternally, perpetually, constantly or whatever. The idiots of Math have brought ORDINARY SPEECH into the scientific environment. They converted adjectives into adverbs and lost track of what they were trying to qualify.
But they went a step further. They converted adjectives into nouns. Infinite became ‘infinity’. Now, finally, after all these years, you can tell your mother-in-law to go to infinity instead of to hell! That perpetual trip has to be more boring and more punishing for the damned woman.
Does it make sense to say that space, the Universe, or spacetime is ‘infinite’?
It would if space, the Universe or spacetime were physical objects. Unfortunately, space, the Universe and spacetime are concepts and, as we just held, concepts can neither be finite nor infinite for fear of raping the definition of object.
An infinite object implies that the object is expanding and you cannot visualize its edges, borders, surface or shape. Therefore, you cannot draw such an object because you are inside of it rather than staring at it from a bird’s eye perspective. However, an object is conceptualized and drawn in a STATIC image. An object is NOT a dynamic movie, but a still photograph. The words infinite, infinitely and infinity imply motion. An object is static before we move it. That’s what the proponent is required to draw. He has to draw what he visualizes in ONE frame of HIS movie.
Therefore, we don’t care if his electron bead is moving infinitely or whether his spacetime is infinite. We want to see what is in ONE frame of his movie. We want to see an image of HIS atom, the one he is going to use to illustrate HIS theory. We want to see an electron bead next to a proton bowling ball. Is that HIS atom? Isn’t that what the Standard Model suggests his atom looks like: two discrete balls?
Of course, he denies it and continues to talk about discrete particles.
And spacetime is warped. What does spacetime look like before he begins to bend ‘it’?
I suppose that we’ll never know. It’s too infinite for us measly humans. We’re too infinitely dumb to understand God’s Creation. You have to take Math to 'understand' spacetime. So don't strain your eyes...
I’m off to infinity, folks. I’ve drunk my beers and tomorrow I’m in South America if the plane doesn’t go to infinity. Remember to sign up early for the conference. Don't wait until infinity... "
Btw, do you agree with his statement? Especially the bolded statement.
- By Good_Egg
- By Fried Egg