Big Bang: The BIG LIE!!

BB EXPLOSION: WHAT IS THE LEADING EDGE MADE FROM?? BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? AND WTF IS THE BLACK STUFF??
BB EXPLOSION: WHAT IS THE LEADING EDGE MADE FROM?? BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? AND WTF IS THE BLACK STUFF??
WHAT IS ALL THAT BLACK STUFF SURROUNDING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION????
WHAT IS ALL THAT BLACK STUFF SURROUNDING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION????
GEORGES LEMAINTRE:  2000 YEARS AGO WE WERE TAUGHT BY IGNORANT DESERT TRIBESMEN IN THE MID-EAST.  NOW WE ARE TAUGHT BY PRIESTS!!!!!
GEORGES LEMAINTRE: 2000 YEARS AGO WE WERE TAUGHT BY IGNORANT DESERT TRIBESMEN IN THE MID-EAST. NOW WE ARE TAUGHT BY PRIESTS!!!!!
CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT?????????
CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT?????????
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?

Much to the dismay of many followers of religion, in my previous hub,

Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding

http://hubpages.com/hub/Big-Bang-The-Universe-is-NOT-Expanding

I explained why the universe is a concept, rather than an object. And since concepts cannot expand, then it’s obvious that the universe cannot expand.

In this hub we will discuss the myth of creation, which is known as the Big Bang in many religious circles.



Does the Universe Have an Edge?


The only way the universe can be classified as an object, is if it has an edge, a border....it must have shape!

Many thought experiments for creation and universes were proposed throughout the middle ages, and can be found in antiquity too. One of the most beautiful early examples was proposed by Lucretius.

Titus Lucretius Carus (ca. 99 BC – ca. 55 BC) was a Roman poet and philosopher. His only known work is the epic philosophical poem on Epicureanism De Rerum Natura, translated into English as: On the Nature of Things.


In this work, Lucretius reasons that space is, by his own words, ‘infinite’. His reasoning is: if there is a purported boundary to the universe, we can toss a spear at it. If the spear flies through, it isn't a boundary after all; if the spear bounces back, then there must be something beyond the supposed edge of space. Either way, there is NO edge to the universe; space is boundless. This means that space cannot be contained like an object can be contained in a box. Space is indeed not finite, not physical; space is nothing.

Lucretius also reasoned that nothing comes from ‘nothing’, and nothing can be destroyed. Matter exists in imperceptible objects (atoms) separated from one another by space. The atoms are solid, indivisible, and eternal.




So is the Universe an Object? Is the Universe finite?


All objects have the intrinsic property of shape.


For those who parrot that the Universe is an object or finite, all they have to do is draw a picture illustrating this object they call THE UNIVERSE.

Then they would have to explain what the border or edge of their universe is made from? Bricks? Steel? Plastic? Nothing?

Finally, they need to account for the STUFF outside the edge of their universe that gives it contour.

Is this STUFF nothing? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!

Is this STUFF something? If yes, then that’s part of their universe and their universe HAS NO EDGE!


No matter which way they go, the only conclusion they will arrive to, is that their universe is NOT an object. Their universe, like ANY universe, is always a CONCEPT! Concepts do not expand, and certainly DO NOT get created from singularities. Concepts are only conceived (invented) by human apes.


Contemporary & traditional religions always treat concepts as NOUNS in sentences, in the hopes that the public believes that they are dealing with objects. This is a logical fallacy we call REIFICATION (fallacy of misplaced concreteness).


Either way, the stupidity of the notion of CREATION, whether Big Bang or Biblical, is contradictory, it defies all logic and reason, and is instantly debunked!!


Big Bang = Religion!




The Religion of the Big Bang


The Big Bang theorizes that 13 to 18 billion years ago, all matter in the universe was concentrated into one very dense, very hot point that was infinitely small. This point is called the ‘singularity’. For some unknown reason, the singularity exploded. The problem with this theory is quite clear. It is suggesting that "nothing" exploded and created "everything." A bit contradictory, to say the least, and yet widely accepted. It states "In the realm of the universe, nothing means nothing...from this state of nothing, the universe began in a giant explosion" (Prentice Hall General Science, pg 362), and goes on to say "After many billions of years, all the matter and energy will once again be packed into a small area. This area may be no larger than the period at the end of this sentence. Then, another big bang will occur...A big bang may occur once every 80 to 100 billion years." (pg 63).

The concept of the Big Bang did not originate with Edwin Hubble, but from a Catholic Priest, Georges Lemaître. In 1927, two years before Hubble published his observations of the Red Shift, Lemaître presented his Big Bang theory on the creation of the universe. This BB theory arose because the Catholic Church, which was active in science, was seeking for a “scientific” proof for many centuries that God created the universe. They wanted to cross the line from belief into science. Only then could they claim bragging rights that their theology was the truth.

The lunacy is realized when one understands that the BB Theory claims the medium for creation was "nothing". It is creation ex nihilo!


There was an initial uproar among some of the well noted scientists of the time. Hubble didn't want to accept this theory because it doesn't explain why there are so many blue-shifted galaxies. Einstein didn't want to accept it either, because the 'singularity' violates Special Relativity. Special Relativity explicitly forbids point-masses like singularities. Both Hubble and Einstein knew the BB was bunk, but they ultimately succumbed to peer pressure. It was either that, or be ousted by the community.


It is quite obvious, that those who believe in the Big Bang theory cannot have it both ways. They cannot harp on religion and creationists, when they are actually pushing their OWN religion with creation out of NOTHING! They have no rational explanations for anything they preach. Their position is hilariously stupid at all levels. The BB is nothing but religion dressed up as pseudo-science!


Relativists claim that the universe used to be a 0D singularity that had no size.


"At the big bang itself the universe is thought to have had zero size (p. 117) a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface eventually shrinks to zero size" (p. 49 A Brief History in Time – Stephen Hawking)



Perhaps in the religion of Relativity there can exist spirits that have zero size, but not in physics. Whatever is alleged to have a zero size can only be classified as nothing! So how did this 0D singularity (nothing) create space and matter?


In Science, we use Theories to explain. Before we explain, we must first make an assumption, the Hypothesis. In the case of the Big Bang, the Relativist makes the assumption that there was a mathematical 0D singularity. This singularity, a concept, is reified into an object so that the miracle of creation can ensue. This abstract concept exploded and morphed into space and matter. And not only that, but it created an object they call: The Universe.


But what did the singularity explode and expand into?

The singularity has 'nothing' (i.e., space) contouring 'it'. It's funny because the singularity ALREADY includes space. So the idiots of this Big Bang Theory have space contouring space, nothing around nothing. Can you believe this nonsense?

So then WHAT gives shape to the Universe? Is it space (nothing)? It is obvious that the universe has no shape or border; hence it is not an object as claimed. And since it is not an object, then the universe cannot possibly expand! The universe is only a conceptual relation of matter and space.


It looks like these guys borrowed the singularity explosion idea from the book of Genesis, which claims that a magical God created matter by converting space into atoms. This is exactly what Lemaître did on behalf of the Pope at the time. Now everybody has bought into the idea that the story of Genesis is supported by hard scientific evidence and proof!




THE BIG BANG CREATION MYTH IS NO DIFFERENT THAN CREATION EX-NIHILO



Both the ‘Singularity’ and ‘God’ are asserted by some fanatics to be: non-physical, immaterial, incorporeal, intangible, of no substance, dimensionless, spiritual/conceptual.


And to add insult to injury, the priests of the BB Theory also claim that TIME was created by the BB. How can ‘time’, which is a concept, be created? It takes a biological brain to conceive of time. Such surrealistic fantasy belongs in Harry Potter storybooks, not in science.


And what is funnier still....is that many Protestant sects are quick to dismiss the Big Bang Theory, because they don’t want to be associated with those Catholic Virgin Mary worshippers. So I’ll give the Protestants some brownie points for dismissing the BB nonsense. But I’m not letting them off the hook because they are still asserting the irrationality of the creation myth.



These are the tough questions we ask anybody who claims Creation:


1. Explain to us where the first bit of matter came from? Did your God create it from his loins?

2. Explain how “nothing” (0D singularity) can acquire Length, Width, and Height in order to form into an “object” with shape.

3. Better still; explain how ‘nothing’ can create space, which is already nothing!

4. What was the ‘void’ before creation? Was it nothing (i.e. space)?



In physics, we explain it as follows:


Object: that which has shape

Space: that which lacks shape


Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an object.

An object cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

Since space has no boundaries, matter cannot escape space. Matter is eternal. It has always been there and will continue to be there after humans are gone.



Conclusion


Creation in all of its forms, whether under the guise of God or of the Big Bang, has no place in science. Only those who are pushing a religion will believe and claim that the universe (concept), space (nothing), and matter (atoms) exploded from mathematical singularity (nothing). Anybody who believes that space is a physical object capable of expanding and carrying the stars and the galaxies with it, has to have his head examined.



More by this Author


Comments 252 comments

OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

fatfist

I like it.

You didn't mention the String Theory with all of its invisible dimensions that some scientists try to duct tape the super small to the super larger object together.

Great Hub and viewpoint.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Thanks for the comment ODuck.

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

A string is 1D.

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

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


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Another excellent hub.

You are doing a great public service by showing the fallacies in the thinking behind our newest great minds. I don't so much blame Hawkings, et al, for Mr. Miyagi spotted the problem years ago in the The Karate Kid: "No such thing as bad pupil. Only bad teacher. Teacher say. Pupil do."

It appears our greatest colleges are now teaching that a theory is valid if the holes in it can be patched with duct tape ideas and bailing wire additions.

The latest Big Bang patch is heralded by The Smithsonian as the greatest mystery ever, but the needed invisible "dark matter" and "dark energy" that are necessary for the BB theory to operate are only new bits of bailing wire and duct tape on a bad cauberator that is badly sputtering and about to die.

Maybe the Big Bang just needs some dark gasoline and a Cosmic Background Sparkplug - and a tune up.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is how religion protects itself in modern society.


dabeaner profile image

dabeaner 6 years ago from Nibiru

Yes... "The problem with this theory is quite clear. It is suggesting that 'nothing' exploded and created 'everything.'"

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

Some things are just unexplainable. A lot of useless effort spent by religions and philosophers to explain the unexplainable. Existence exists. It just is.

Part of the reason that religions and philosophy exist is that most people just cannot accept that existence and life have no purpose. That their individual lives have no purpose (other than what THEY carve out for themselves). But, in the end, it doesn't matter, as we die. Most people don't like that thought, so they adopt and cling to their religions of false hope for a "hereafter".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

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

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

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

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


ss sneh profile image

ss sneh 6 years ago from the Incredible India!

Hi fatfist!

It's SS again. I truly appreciate your thoughts as you sincerely "believe" in them.

One has the right to question everyone. All intellectual minds do so and that's the beginning of all Sciences.

I just add a link here as I feel it's appropriate to do so here. http://hubpages.com/education/How-Anyone-Can-Prove...

Your valuable comments appreciated... -Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hello ss,

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

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

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

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

(Your valuable comments appreciated)

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

The Big Bangers have a huge problem with quantized redshift. Whatever will they do with all that invisible dark matter they dreamed up now that redshift isn't a Doppler Effect and the universe is not expanding?

Do you think they might hold a Matter of Fact sale or something?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

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

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

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

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

HOW you ask?

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

Isn't that amazing?

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

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

If morons want to believe that:

- morality exists

- love exists

- language exists

- and other concepts exist

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

Stupidity is bliss!

Now do you understand why I call atheists morons?


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

(Just a heads up.....whenever you attempt to intellectually converse with fundamentalist theists, like secularists, they will take your comments and weave them into straw puppets)

Thanks. I made the mistake of thinking that one who could reason that morality depends on humans could also see the logical progressions from that starting point.

My impression now is that one who refuses to think critically is one who relies on teachings from some Holy Book of Thought, even if the author was Richard Dawkins.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

(In fact, the more gases light passes thru, the more redshifted it becomes.)

That must mean that the Big Bang's Invisible God Dark Matter farts in our general direction in order redshift distant gallaxies and keep High Priest Hawkings in business. :-))


robertb 6 years ago

I have enjoyed reading your hubs, but I am a bit confused by this one.

There is not an edge to the universe. For conceptual purposes, think of yourself as a 2 dimensional being living on the surface of a 3 dimensional sphere. Where is the edge?

You asked the question, "What does the universe expand into?"

The universe does not necessarily "expand into" anything. What we do observe is inflation within the universe.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi robertb,

(There is not an edge to the universe.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BB religion is more surrealistic than Christianity!

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

It makes NO difference what anybody observes!!

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

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

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

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

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

----- OR -----

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

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

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

Thanks for your comments.


robertb 6 years ago

Do you believe that the purpose of theories is to explain the facts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

(Do you believe)

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

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

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

If you make a movie of the BB Theory:

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

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

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

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

And so on....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their God is actually an object!!

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

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


robertb 6 years ago

You have mistaken my common usage of the phrase "Do you believe...".

Replace it with, "Is it you understanding..."


robertb 6 years ago

You said:

"If you make a movie of the BB Theory:

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

This seems to be a misunderstanding of inflation theory, on your part.

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

It is almost like you are saying that someone could look at the "big bang" from outside the "big bang". That sounds like a theistic misunderstanding of the actual theory.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

("Is it you understanding...")

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

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- in Frame 1 we have God.

- in Frame 2 God waves his magic wand

- in Frame 3 the universe is already there

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

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

1. unambiguous definitions

2. objects

3. the statement of the facts

4. illustrations

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

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

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

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

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

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


robertb 6 years ago

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

You asked "where does the matter come from"?

The answer to that question is not part of inflationary theory so is irrelevant, just as how life initially began is irrelevant to evolutionary theory.

Again, I am confused by your responses to this question.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

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

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

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

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

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

Do you see the irony here?

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

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

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

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

We have movies that show molecules morph into dinosaurs.

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

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


robertb 6 years ago

Your argument is nonsensical.

Just as Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the ToE, the question of where the initial matter came from is irrelevant to Inflationary Theory.

You wrote:

"A scientific theory must THEORIZE how the first bit of matter came to be"

This statement is simply false. A scientific theory must explain specifically what is is meant to explain, nothing more, nothing less.

Inflationary theory, or Big Bang Cosmology says nothing about the universe prior to the Plank scale, nor should it, as that is not the intention of the theory. Just as the mechanism for abiogenesis is irrelvant to the Theory of Evolution.

Understand?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

(Your argument is nonsensical. )

And what is MY argument, robertb?

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

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

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

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

(Just as Abiogenesis is irrelevant to the ToE)

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

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

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

What does Inflationary Theory have to do with anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely!!

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

(prior to the Plank scale)

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

Please talk science instead of parroting the mistakes of others.

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

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

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

Here is how we do it in science:

BB Hypothesis:

The universe is a _________________

The initial scene before creation is __________________

BB Theory:

I can now explain creation from the void as follows _______________

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


rwoodin profile image

rwoodin 6 years ago

Ha! I really enjoyed reading this comment thread for it's refreshing refusal to accept that 'what is said is so because it is said to be so - amen' The older I get the less I rule in or out any possible explanation for the workings of 'the universe'. So you are saying (you hypothesze) that space is nothing and goes on forever. Space is a 'concept' for the distance measured between 2 point locations. Everything - all matter and energy - have always been and will always be and that there is no expansion of distance between actual objects? If I have that completely wrong please excuse...I read through this comment thread and the preceding article - but not REAL carefully.


robertb 6 years ago

You said this:

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

Apart from being somewhat amazed at your understanding of my position, as it seems that you are actually speaking to someone else, you are still missing the point.

As simply as possible:

The question of the initial formation of matter, if such was the case, is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO THE BIG BANG THEORY.

You are arguing against yourself when you speak about creation, or what came before, or whatever. The theory only accounts for the matter in the universe once it has surpassed the Plank scale.

Additionally, I really do not know how to respond to this gem:

"What does Inflationary Theory have to do with anything?"

Isn't this article entitled "Big Bang The Big Lie"?

That you continue to harp on irrelevancies, put words into my mouth and generally misconstrue what is being discussed is interesting, I guess.

Are you sure that you are not really a Christian just trying to confuse skeptics with incoherent arguments?

I wonder...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

rwoodin,

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

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

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

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

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

NO!

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

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

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

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

Do we need mathematical EQUATIONS to PROVE our hypothesis true?

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

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

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

A rational human conceptualizes this issue as follows:

- space is nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

No.

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

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

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

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

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

There is NO such ‘thing’ as energy!

Only matter (atoms) are eternal.

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

Absolutely!!

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

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

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

Thanks for your comment.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

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

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

So matter & space as ALREADY there!

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

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

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

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

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

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

(you continue to harp on irrelevancies)

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

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

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

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

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

robertb Big Bang Hypothesis:__________________________

robertb Big Bang Theory:_____________________________

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


robertb 6 years ago

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

Why are you so fixated on arguing about anything but Big Bang Cosmological theory.

Please, go an actually study what the theory is, because your continued strawmen are making you look bad.

Do you understand the difference between a scientific theory and a scientist giving possibilities for occurances that fall outside the theory itself?

The fact that you continue to conflate this simply tells me that you really do not understand the theory that you are trying to debunk.

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

robertb,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

robertb Big Bang Hypothesis:__________________________

robertb Big Bang Theory:_____________________________

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

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

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

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


rbosak 6 years ago

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

Once more and, as you seem fairly stuck in your creation strawman, I'll give you the last word.

The Big Bang Theory is only concerned with the inflation of the universe after the point that the universe was large enough (larger than the Plank scale) for us to be able to make any comment about it.

What happens to our physics and ability to observe at sizes smaller than the Plank scale?

Secondly, our universe is not an object. Our universe is all objects.

Of course, some people are trying to model an outside, (if such a thing even exists and is even coherent in reality), but this has absolutely nothing to do with cosmic inflationary theory, again, just as abiogenesis has nothing to do with the theory of evolution.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Rbosak,

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

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

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

(the inflation of the universe)

Please define the word ----> UNIVERSE

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

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

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

(after the point)

A point is this -----> .

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

Can you please talk scientifically for once?

(larger than the Plank scale)

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

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

(our universe is not an object)

FINALLY!!!!!

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

(Our universe is all objects.)

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

What kind of nonsense is that, rbosak?

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

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

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

Why? Because it is only a CONCEPT!

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

An object is: that which has shape

A concept is: that which lacks shape

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

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

That was from your post 2 days ago.

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

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

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

Only objects, like balloons, can INFLATE.

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

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

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

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

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

(cosmic inflationary theory)

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

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

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

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

Only in Religion do they inflate concepts.

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

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


itech profile image

itech 6 years ago from New Delhi, India

I don't have any big comment to write but You've done a good presentation to prove your thoughts, and I too believe in yours......, But all it takes the full knowledge about every concept of life before concluding such points... Interesting!!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hello itech,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for posting


itech profile image

itech 6 years ago from New Delhi, India

Yes, Everything is based on assumption and historical knowledge we've gained till the last second of Time. Every one has it's own method to prove anything as like mathematicians, Scientists, Believers of God, Philosophers... And In many cases all get success ass people start accepting it, But at one point all there theories reach the point of 'Research In Progress'.

No one could explain the exact mechanism as because of very short life span of nearly 70-80 years on average and in such a period it is impossible to attain so much knowledge which can explore the universal facts of existence and non-existence of space or matter.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

Thanks. Btw, you might like to know that someone calling himself Allan Bogle repeated the claim that Fatfist and AKA Winston are the same person. Here: http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/47912#post1098101


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

Back on topic, the crucial observed phenomenon for BB is still redshift, although redshift has been found time and again to be inconsistent with simply a Doppler Effect.

It all goes back to the nature of light. Bill was right that being unable to solve that problem, mathematical physics simply abandoned the task and skipped ahead to modeling results on assumptions - and plugging holes along the way.

When did they take science out of the word scientist?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

(the crucial observed phenomenon for BB is still redshift)

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

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

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

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

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


AKA Winston 6 years ago

ROFLMAO.

Oh, Man, you really need to be selling tickets.

"The band begins at ten to six, When Mr. K. performs his tricks without a sound, And Mr. H. will demonstrate ten somersets he'll undertake on solid ground"

You have done mankind a great service, Fatfist, as you have shown two separate propositions of the ages to be true: 1) The Greatest Show on Earth is still circus, and 2) A sucker is born every minute.

If I were you I would go for the trifecta with: 3) A fool and his money are soon parted.

You are the bee hive of rationality to the bears of foolish reasoning - they can't wait to get here and be get stung.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Oh it's a BIG LIE alright!

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

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


oliver 6 years ago

I am very much intrigued by your arguments, fatfist.

I must admit straight away that I am not a physicist or anything like that.. but if I may ask, are your objections to Big Bang cosmology (which strike me as good)in play in the relevant peer-reviewed literature? Why is it that is it usually assumed that the consensus of physicists is that the Big Bang is true if the theory has the problems you outline?

I am very curious, and at the same time fascinated by what I am reading here! Please keep it up.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Oliver

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

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

(in the relevant peer-reviewed literature?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for commenting


Creation Theories 6 years ago

Excellent post... And who says science isn't a form of religion? Oh, wait a minute... Isn't claiming rationality also a much dreaded "opinion" that the rationalists often uses against others? I mean really, to be rational you must first have a basis for rationale that often spawns from the teachings and lessons from others. Without all of this so-called "study" in "science" a person is left to either fall into other peoples' beliefs or the grand vastness of one's own imagination, but hopefully they'll mostly be gauging life by their own personal experiences. Oh, I get it... We suppose to believe that human life is meaningless, sort of like a pile of rocks floating in the cosmos amid nothingness.

Either way, creation theories set aside, the big bang is a load of bull-shit!

Thanks for the useless information and the highly entertaining comment field! ;)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Creation Theories aka "Creative"

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

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


Creation Theories 6 years ago

When is it ever going to get through your thick skull, that I'm way more diverse than that?

I have many areas of interest, and I let you slide on the "alien thing" because I'm shocked that you think I'm actually insane. I mean, do you really think I'm some loco lunatic who ponders about aliens on a daily basis?

I gave a critique/editor's comments about an "alien story" on a creative writing site of mine...and you realistically think I'm nuts for doing so? Ha-ha!

Obviously, anyone can argue about either side of a fence, or that the fence even exists or how it exists or if it even has sides, but when it comes down to it, where are you at - the sidelines?

Damn, here I was, being all nice and shit, giving props to your "hub" and there you go, bad mouthing me as usual.

Go grab a beer or something 'cause ya got some catching up to do with my illogical-logical, irrational-rational self. Cheers now!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

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

Find another forum to push your Alien Religion.

Maybe the Roswell Area 51 forum.

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

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

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


ssssss 6 years ago

to Creation Theories: dont worry man, fatfist thinks he is a ''smartass'' using logic but he really is a stupid guy anyway


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

asald aka ssssss,

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

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


Loco 6 years ago

There is a flaw in your writings here.

True that the big bang theory IS widely accepted in science, but accepted as a theory until its either proven/disproven or another theory can take its place. And even tho most of the science community accepts the way things went about after the initial "bang" itself, no one claims to know how it all started and why. Nor how it will end.

I encourage everyone to be critical to everything in a way to push for evidence and research and discussion, but when you lay out your arguments you are also putting out lies. Thats called propaganda.

And it doesnt make for a serious discussion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Loco,

(the big bang theory IS widely accepted in science)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your statement above has committed 2 of them:

1) It assumed existence ALREADY HAD a beginning.

2) It assumed existence WILL DEFINITELY have an end.

And you did this without even realizing it!

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

(I encourage everyone to be critical to everything)

Agreed!!

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

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

(And it doesn't make for a serious discussion.)

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your comment


Baileybear 5 years ago

what is the likely explanation? Matter & energy always existed?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Bailey,

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

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

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

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

1) Matter is something.

2) Space is nothing.

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

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

object: that which has shape.

space: that which doesn't

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://hubpages.com/education/CREATION-is-IMPOSSIB...

http://hubpages.com/education/UNCAUSED-FIRST-CAUSE...

http://hubpages.com/education/INFINITE-REGRESS-Arg...


AKA Winston 5 years ago

baileybear,

To clarify, "energy" is a descriptive word that encompasses an idea, i.e., it is conceptual. It is not a physical object. We cannot draw a picture of "energy".

Energy is simply a mathematical shortcut. Energy is usually defined as the ability to perform work,(it takes 7 tons of coal to move this train 1000 miles, or "x" units of "energy").


Baileybear 5 years ago

Makes more sense that matter was always there. I studied chemistry and biology - physics and maths didn't make a lot of sense to me with all the intellectual gobbi-te-goob


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

(Makes more sense that matter was always there.)

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


Baileybear 5 years ago

well creationists say "God was always there" - and that's a pretty lame statement


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

Space was there before God.

Matter in motion was there before God.

That's why a Creator God is impossible.

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


Andor 5 years ago

Fatfist....mmmmmmmmm I feel sorry for you man!!!

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

(mmmmmmmmm I feel sorry for you man!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(well creationists say "God was always there" - and that's a pretty lame statement)

Baileybear,

Actually, it depends on how you define God. If God is a natural god and is all matter that exists in the universe then it is not an unreasonable claim.

Is it simply a substitutional claim: God=Matter. God is eternal. Matter is eternal.

Of course, god-matter does not forgive sin or have sons, but he IS in that peyote button you just ate. :-))


AKA Winston 5 years ago

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

Fatfist,

I never thought I would say it but...I think he's got you. How can you ever PROVE a negative (Oh yeah, no he doesn't)? What is your EVIDENCE that you are 1 GAZILLION times more insightful than an 8-year-old? A million times is a TRUTHFUL claim. But if you say a billion or a jillion or a GAZILLION, you just sound like you're making it all up.

No doubt - you have been asserted plum near to death. I don't see how you can recover from the claim.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

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

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


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

Better yet, go live with your Uncle Balls and Aunt Dick. :-))


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

LOL!!!


f_hruz profile image

f_hruz 5 years ago from Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Questions regarding the shape of the universe may be best answered with an analogy. If the universe contains various life forms as we know to exist on this planet, can we not say, the univers is alive? If the degree of diversity of life on earth is any indication, it maybe quite possible, on a quite different scale of things, for various forms of universes to exist simultaniously.

Take the analogy of life on earth. We all know, for life to exist, it has to pro-create and over time evolve, mutate and change. If we see in each living thing we can observe around us a miniture universe, would such an analogy be too far fetched to possibly relate to the enormity of nature in all its various forms of energy and matter?


rafken profile image

rafken 5 years ago from The worlds my oyster

It is easy to denounce a theory. I see your logic in denouncing it. However, What is your theory? If you can disprove the probable and the improbable, then you must consider the, once thought, impossible.

You may like my hub Do scientists Believe in God


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

rafken,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(What is your theory?)

Huh?

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

(If you can disprove the probable and the improbable)

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

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

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

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

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


meteoboy profile image

meteoboy 5 years ago from GREECE

Excellent hub !!!! Much of knowledge and aspects of theories for the cosmogony and the universe. Thank you for sharing with us . Really is a pretty beautiful and priceless article and the comments as well.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Euxaristo para poly, meteoboy :-)


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

I'm guessing this hub is a joke? Please say it is!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

superwags,

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

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

You know that big bang is an accepted theory, right? The pyhsics of the process were worked out long ago. the same physics that keeps your TV working or SatNav running.

I wasn't been facecious, I genuinely thought you were joking. What on earth makes you think that the big bang didn't happen?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

Are you for real, man?

Reality wipes its ass with your petty papers.

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

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

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

Are you for real, man?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are like the Fundamentalist Christian who asks:

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

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

Is the circus in town?

“I genuinely thought you were joking.”

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

I bet you collect the autographs of your favorite mathematicians.


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

No, the onus is very much on you actually to provide evidence to the contrary. In fact its absolutely on you to show where you think there are holes in the theory; I notice with amusement that you haven't even tried. You haven't even said why you don't "believe" (I'd prefer accpet) the theory.

It might turn out we were wrong, but it's a pretty established fact. But science is fairly self deprecating and people are always out there looking for data which points us in another direction.

Either way you've not really provided anything but kind of "haha, can you believe this crap" kind of arguments in your hub. I suspect that's actually what an ancient believing in flat earth would have said in biblical times (actually a lot of people by then thought the world was a sphere).

A lot of physics is very counter-intuitive, but it is based on very good science. The same science that underpins your techology; the ones I picked are because they need to take into account the doppler effect to work; the same reason that we kow redshift indicates a galaxy moving away from us due to expansion.

I suspect that given what you've written you're not going to listen to reason or evidence on this one, but if you want an enjoyable book on the topic then "Big Bang", by Simon Singh is a good introduction and pretty easy going.

And science isn't a democracy, not everybody's opinions are valid or proportional and thank god for that. If, heaven forbid, you had a serious medical problem; would you ignore the doctors' advice and just go on a hunch? I wouldn't.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

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

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

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

“A lot of physics is very counter-intuitive”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

As you know I have been going round and round on another hub with a nice-enough guy, but one who is so convinced of the fundamental righteousness of his faith in mathematical physics that he appears like the Mullah for Math.

I simply had to share his parting thoughts. He explained this after pointing to quantum as evidence that nature is not binary: "Existence is physicality. Energy is physical. It exists not as an object, but in all objects. It is a property of all objects. An object would not exist without it."

He simply couldn't get simplicity through his head because he believed so deeply in the holy power of reification, that the god Quantum could make an apple and an idea both exist.

In that last line, he defined his religion: Energy is the son of god - Energy is the way, the truth and the light, nothing can exist except through it. Amen.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

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

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

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

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

- Existence

- exists

- Physical

- Object

- Energy

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


AKA Winston 5 years ago

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

Fatfist,

He was doing exactly that. First energy was mass. And then energy was agreed to be an abstract concept, but it was real because the brain thinking it was real, as were the neurons, and phosphates, etc. that were engaged during the action of thinking.

Then he went so far as to say energy and matter (things) were inseparable, that existence depends on energy. This would mean that if energy is removed, the thing doesn't exist. Therefore, the claim is a mathematicl one that rock=energy and energy=rock.

The cart once again went where the horse ought to be. Instead of definitions first, it was assertion first: energy exists.

Me: What is energy?

A. Something that exists that is in everything.

Me: I see. Like god.

A. No, nothing like god. God is imagined. Energy is real.

Me. Oh, well that's helpful. (spoken into the microphone) Energy clean-up, aisle two. Cancel god clean-up.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston,

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

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

fatfist,

I don't know why you're being so rude; it's clear you have no manners or understanding of the scientific process or how to treat evidence.

I'm way out of high school - I have a PhD in thermodynamic processes.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

"it's clear you have no manners"

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

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

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

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

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

"I have a PhD"

Yes, all priests do.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

It might turn out we were wrong, but it's a pretty established fact.

superwags

I smelled a Contradiction.

When I get some time, I will write a controversial hub exposing these religions.

Fatfist

Fatfist is going to unleashed Armageddon and destroy Atheism and Theist at the same time.

I found a picture of fatfist

http://greenewable.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/gru...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author


AKA Winston 5 years ago

This should be a good movie: Fatfist versus Quantum Monster


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

This conversation has genuinely depressed me, and I'm not sure why I'm wasting more time on it. Having said that, I'm pretty bored so hey-ho.

I don't really understand your last comment, it's sensless. You can't accuse me of being in high school one minute, then telling me that a PhD is worthless next; make up your mind. The scientific process is what allows you to have what you have today.

Are there ay other established scientific theories you don't "believe in" on a hunch too: Gravity? Evolution? Gene, Meme, DNA, quantum, relativity? Magnetism? Continental drift? The none existence of faries?

If you could include a list in your next answer I'd be grateful.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

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

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


AKA Winston 5 years ago

...established scientific theories....

...believe in...

Uh oh, Fatfist. A Quantian. That's tough. If you pin him down, you won't know how fast he is talking. As soon as you realize he's rambling on at breakneck speed, you won't be able to pin him down.

Also, don't let him look after your cat. Quantian's have a "thing" about cats.


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Ok, I described physics as counter-intuitive in nature because it is, to us as human beings. It is very difficult to describe the process of many aspects of physics using every day terms. I mean, in terms of the universe; just the scale of the distances of which we are talking, the relative size of galaxies or other stellar objects compared to what we are used to, the speeds involved and the underlying science which tells us that the universe is expanding. I think a lot of the confusion or refusal of acceptance of theories is down to this.

I mean, this isn’t exactly fresh off the press! But expansion; in answer to your question (and this harks back to the last paragraph about the inability to understand based on scale); no, you moving ten feet away from me would not represent expansion as you have done it under your own volition, nor would you be moving away from me at 600,000 metres per second. Or would you have been doing for millennia. The universe is WHAT is expanding; space and time. These are fairly fundamental to all understanding of cosmology and if you don’t understand what space and time is then you shouldn’t be posting at all.

There is no video footage of this happening, of course, that’s just a logically flawed argument; ipse dixit. It’s a dull argument trolled out by fundamentals all the time; i.e. “we can’t see it happening, therefore it isn’t”. You can’t masquerade as an open minded person, then use the old clichéd tricks of the fundies!

The evidence I can provide is more subtle, but it all points to the big bang or super-expansion, if you prefer the term.

Firstly, if redshift isn’t caused by the movement of galaxies away from us, then what does cause it, and why is it happening in contradiction to the Doppler effect? Why, conversely, does blueshift happen?

Secondly, can you give an explanation to CMB; a phenomena that was predicted long before its discovery.

Thirdly, explain the relative abundance of elements in the universe; particularly helium, lithium and deuterium, if big bang nucleosynthesis was not the cause.

Science has the characteristic of constantly evolving. I’m not saying that the theory is perfect, but I’d be surprised to see any evidence against big bang; you certainly haven’t mentioned any other than a vague feeling you seem to feel in your bones. I started with why I think you think what you do, but further than that, I really don’t understand why you wouldn’t accept the theory.

If you want something more modern to get your teeth into then investigate the holographic principle or write a hub on what may have come before the big bang or whether you think parallel universes may exist; that way there is room for speculation. But I’m afraid on this one the science is pretty damning of your hub.

And please, just reply in sensible language instead of employing this kind of faux WWE speak when discussing quite serious and fascinating subjects; accusations about my education or my herd instinct aren’t really as valid as just answering the questions I’ve put before you; I’ve done my side of the bargain.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“theories you don't "believe in"

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

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

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

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

superwags,

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

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

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

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

2) WHY is light so fast?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

11) WHY does light travel rectilinearly?

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

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

14) WHY does the EPR effect happen?

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

16) Explain the Mossbauer Effect: recoilless emission.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Ok, now respond to my last post, and stop contradicting yourself and talking in this aggressive, and odd, way. Talk like somebody should in a debate about science, not a 14 year old.

You have made absolutely no sensible point. I'm off to bed so take your time and address the last post carefully and thoroughly.


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

You beat me to it.

This is ridiculous, I did you the curtesy of answering your question, if you don't understand the way a scientific debate takes shape then you shouldn't be having one. You shouldn't be writing about science either.

I'd urge you to do some reading or else you'll go nowhere with this.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

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

Universe: ____________

Space: _____________

Time: ______________

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

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

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

EXACTLY!

Thank you!

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Go and hide in cave, what are you? twelve?

18. The universe, broadly speaking is a term to define all matter and energy, basically everything. What the fundmentals of the universe is, is an open discussion. Recently, evidence from black hole thermodynamics suggests it may actually be a hologram.

19. Space is what's known as a fundamental quality and therefore is impossible to define in terms of other qualities. It can't simply be described as a vacuum as it has some particles in it at low densities. It can be measured though. And let's not forget that humans have travelled through space; it's not exactly a way out idea, but it is a fundamental concept of physics, as i have previously stated.

20. Time is the seemingly none reversible from past to future in a non-spacial continuum. Spacetime is just the combination of time with space in physics to broadly simplify the models because of their inextricable link.

Here's a brief and casual video about the fundamental reason that you can't travel backwards in time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkCWywO93b8

If you have an hour to kill; here's a full (but fun) vid dedicated to the concept of time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3aYKAJEVfQ

These are really fundamental concepts which physics has used in one way or another since before Newton in the 17th century. Is your point, "ahhh, but what are they reeeeallly?" because if it is, then this is going to be a very long-winded discussion and I'd prefer you to do some reading.

If you don't understand common and essential physics terms then don't post hubs on the subject or you end up looking like a tool.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

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

Matter: all the atoms

Everything: all objects

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

Atoms are objects since they have shape.

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

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

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

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

Excuses are irrelevant!

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

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Matter in this instance is used to describe mainly sub atomic particles; photons, plasma and quarks; so actually atoms is not what is meant. The common way of visualising this for mainstream phsics is as an expanding bubble. Expanding into what, we don't know. But expanding because of the "big bang" a phenomenom that occurred 13.7 billion years ago. I have no reason to dispute the view, I have no evidence contrary to it, they have millions of pieces of data for it.

I think, again this may be where the confusion lies; perhaps a matter of semantics. Why does an object need a shape? A subatomic partical is often seen as a probabiltity function rather than an object.

Energy describes these particles and others. Ocillators; Phonons, photons etc all have potential and kinetic energy. e=mc2 tells us this in itsmost basic interpretation. Again, though I think you might be getting this wrong because of semantics, rather fully understanding the physics.

You've refered to "reality" and then accused me of making excuses for saying interpretation of the universe are open to discussion. They are inextricably linked. Reality is a far more difficult term to define than you would imagine. As I say, these are difficult terms to explain in every day language.

Look, this has been fun and everything, but I'm still left with the sense that you could learn a lot more froma far better source by doing some reading (or viewing). I am not an expert in cosmology.

Just following up on that bit about reality, this video is excellent and succinct.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XO1UJXS2o34

and another about the origins of the universe and what happened pre-big bang, it starts with the problems to the theory, as easy to understand information about the big bang -worth watching;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bGx3UB-Slg


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Universe: ____________Recently, evidence from black hole thermodynamics suggests it may actually be a hologram. WTF

Space: _____________Space is what's known as a fundamental quality and therefore is impossible to define in terms of other qualities.WTF

Time: ______________Time is the seemingly none reversible from past to future in a non-spacial continuum. WTF

Is this guy trolling or does he really believe the Pastors.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Superwags,

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

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

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

“Why does an object need a shape?”

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

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

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

Object:________________

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

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

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

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

Energy:_____________________

Is ‘energy’ an OBJECT or a CONCEPT?

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@prometheus,

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Superwags,

PLEASE LISTEN TO ME VERY CAREFULLY!

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

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

1) Universe

2) Object

3) Energy

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

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

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

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


sheerplan profile image

sheerplan 5 years ago from United States

Another very interesting article fatfist. But, I don't quite understand everything you are positing. It's definitely possible that I just don't have the intellect to do so. If you wouldn't mind would you give me your definition of 1)Universe, 2)Object, 3)Energy.

My problem is that when I read superwags comments I completely understand what he saying, however when I read yours it seems to be pure sophistry. I am going to assume that it is a failure of intellect on my part to grasp what you are saying, so I am hoping that you can put your response in layman's terms so that I can understand.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

"If you don't understand common and essential (beliefs) then don't post hubs on the subject"

FIFY

Fatfist,

This is almost identical to what I hear on some of my hubs when I challenge belief in bible inerrancy - uncanny.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Sheerplan, and welcome.

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

Finally, a rational human!

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

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

1) Universe: _____________

2) Object: _______________

3) Energy:_______________

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

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

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

“can put your response in layman's terms”

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

My hubs are strictly about Physics.


sheerplan profile image

sheerplan 5 years ago from United States

Thank you for the reply fatfist,

After sitting here for a few minutes trying to define those words I have found that I can't give an answer that is not ambiguous in at least some small way. So I believe I am mistaken thinking that I COMPLETELY understand what superwags is saying. But, then again, I don't think I need your answers either. If I need an answer to my question I will just find it on my own. So, thanks for the disscussion, I have found it enlightening.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi sheerplan,

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

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

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

No problem, sheerplan. Suit yourself.

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


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Thanks for the warning fatfister. see you later.

I'm so sad that you'll spent the rest of your life being a god squader. Shame.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

You're welcome, superwags.

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

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

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

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

How sweet is the poetry you post.

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

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

Fatfist will learn 'ya!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

You are lucky the witch doctor superwags forgot to shake his tiger-tooth necklace at you. He did remember to snarl, paint his face, wear a mask and headdress, make a puff of smoke, order you off the property in Swahili, and rattle his spear.

Still, that tooth-rattling thing can flat shake a guy up, unless you are Tarzan, of course.

You're not Tarzan, are you?


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Refering to yourself in the third peron is a start. Try and put forward some ponts of view,

And don't believe your own hype


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

And what are your mates on about?! Haha!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

LOL, Winston.

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

Pathetic...


superwags profile image

superwags 5 years ago from UK

Well, you did't listen to a word I said. You gave no evidence to advance your feeling; and wont.......................................................................no? nah? no? didnn't think so, CU next Tuesday....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

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

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

dammmmmmmmmmmmmmmm fatfist own this guys. Fatfist i stay quiet the whole time do i deserve a cookie.

Universe is a place were there is space and objects and it all started with a point. And this point had Zero dimension and it takes up no space.

Objects which have shape like energy.

Energy is and objects which has shape and it has 1d and it does not take up space.


kirrui 5 years ago

Well said fatfish, expanding space is manifest nonesence ment for fools. Only an object can be conceived to expand. Space cannot be put in a laboratory so what are they saying they have profed?

They say big bang created space. So we should conceive expansion prio to space!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Kirrui,

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

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

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

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

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

Not even God can impart the very first motion.

Why?

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist has 76 followers and 17 gospels dont be fool KIRRUI this guy is preaching realigion.

People that have followers are priest real intelligent people like Stephen Hawking, dont talk to apes like us. There beyond are human intellect.


kirrui 5 years ago

Prometheuskid

What? In a matter of seconds time came into being? Inside a black hole is very dense and very small infact it does not even exist? To ask; what happened before big bang is like to ask; what does it exist at the north of north pole? If this is intelligence, then donnot bother about me being a fool. Indead if Hawking is an intelligent scientist and fatfish is a preacher, then preach is better than science. Apes are certainly better than scientists!


jomine 5 years ago

i was under the impression that you get fanatics only in religion. but now i have doubts. what you elaborate is very simple and easy to understand. is it that people accept only if it is complicated and beyond comprehension?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

jomine,

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

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

If a foolish ape cannot unambiguously define these terms:

1) Universe

2) Object

3) Concept

4) Space

5) Energy

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

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

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

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

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

is very simple and easy to understand. is it that people accept only if it is complicated and beyond comprehension?

jomine excatcly

That is what makes fatfist so good. Because his logic is simple. And i agreed people think that if something is complicated, and only people like einstein understand it, there conclusion is that it must be truth and no one can challenge it.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

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


Anonymous 5 years ago

again. Sorry for not reading your post all the way through. I read the comments. I have to say, it makes sense that scientists respect other scientist's work more than opinions of laymen in a peer review process though. I'd expect some kind of standard in any profession (whether it be engineering or health services). You wouldn't want scientists to direct there research, formulate their theories, and run their experiments by the dictates of the general populace that hasn't even studied the topics in question, many of which don't even know the proper definition of theory. A peer review system is needed. All scientists are on equal footing when critiquing each other work. The review system is also anonymous. I'm not sure that I could even imagine a better built in check than the peer review system. I don't think that the Big Bang theory involves the idea of a beginning though. I might need to check. That being said I think the balloon analogy to be a good one. It seems extraordinary but reality could very well not agree with my sensibilities. I just don't know, and that's what I say, I don't know. Quantum Theory certainly makes highly specific testable predictions though as does relativity. I'm going to have to go with Rbosack on this one. Although it can be aggressive, and the biases should be taken into consideration richarddawkins.net actually has physicists who are members and not foreign to systems of logic. I'd love to see you post this on there website and see how the discussion turned out. I'm not being sarcastic or trying to be insulting here I'd genuinely be interested in that discussion. I like your posts. I think you have to sign up to post or comment though on their website.


Anonymous 5 years ago

Love your posts by the way. I agree it is good to investigate the claims and predictions made from scientific inquiry. I'd like to mention that science has progressed beyond Einstein or Hubble though. Both these men and Hawking can get things wrong which is why we have peer review, to catch their mistakes (yes the consensus can be wrong as well). I get a little suspicious when people level claim against the entire scientific community. Sounds a little to much like a conspiracy theory. It would be good to discuss this with a physicist and see if they can source relevant testing of predictions made by the theories. I'm not sure if the Big Bang addresses a medium though or even is proposed as a beginning. I don't know. What about the steady state universe hypothesis? I'd be curious if that possibility been investigated fully. I don't know what predictions it would make. I'd have to do some research.


Peter 5 years ago

Hi fatfist.

Your posts have really shocked and pushed me into intense curiosity! I can't believe I've never ever considered some of the things that you argue, such as how 'energy is a concept', or 'the universe is a concept', or 'if the universe is an object, then does it have form; and if it does have form, what exists outside of it to help give it that form?'. I'm very much someone who likes to get to the bottom of things, and so in a way, you're helping me get there.

I have a few questions that I wonder whether you could help me with though?

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

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

I've heard some scientists theorise about anti-matter, dark energy, and dark matter. Do you think that these are at play at all?

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

If you get a chance, I'd really appreciate your comments on these questions.

Thanks in advance :)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This means that creation is impossible.

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

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

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

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

Thanks for dropping by.


Peter 5 years ago

fatfist - thank you for your quick and clear responses. I'm enjoying reading what you have to say.

"Time does not exist."

That has completely gone over my head. I'm just so used to thinking that time does exist in some way (although I don't really know how or why I think that). So if time is just a concept, what causes objects to exist? Isn't existence dependent on something to exist?

"The universe is a closed, isolated system."

I'm not sure I understand - if the universe is a closed system, then it can't be a concept can it? What about the 'space' or 'void' surroung this closed system that helps define it AS a system?

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

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

Many scientists claim that the theory of evolution is a fact. I don't really understand what that means though...can you help?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Did anyone see Pastor Richard Dawkins and Pastor Lawrence Krauss suck each other off in the beginning. lol


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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


Peter 5 years ago

Hello again, fatfist.

I've just watched a documentary called 'Everything and Nothing', and the narrator/scientist explained why it gets dark at night.

I wonder what you think about what he had to say:

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

But it's not. And here's why.

Imagine the universe was much smaller than it is today. A beam of light on the other side of the universe begins a journey towards our vantage point. But as space expands, the distance the light has to cross keeps getting bigger and bigger. Fast-forward to today, and this light still hasn't reached us. So no matter how hard we look into the sky, we simply won't be able to see it. We can only see the stars whose light has had time to reach us in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang. This region is known as the 'observable universe'; and there are not enough stars here to light up the night sky. So we only really see the stars and galaxies because the light has had a chance to reach us, and that's why it gets dark at night."

Thanks in advance :)


Peter 5 years ago

fatfist, you said:

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

Here's what someone else has said on another forum:

"Darwin’s theory is indeed only a theory, but one with strong evidence. However, it is a theory about how evolution works, positing natural selection. That evolution happens is simple fact. We have entire industries based around that simple fact."

Do you agree with this statement?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

This is total bullshit!

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

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

"but one with strong evidence. "

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

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

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

Any questions?

"That evolution happens is simple fact."

Absolutely not!!

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

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

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

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


Peter 5 years ago

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

It seems to me that your definition of what a fact is dependent on subjective observation and validation of real objects. Is this correct?

Another commonly held view (I think) is that a fact is an objective validation of real objects. Here's an example I've quoted from:

"The first edition of The American Heritage Dictionary defines a fact as "1. Something known with certainty. 2. Something asserted as certain. 3. Something that has been objectively verified. 4. Something having real, demonstrable existence." The 3rd and 4th definitions are what scientists mean by "facts."

Here is a statement of fact, in the scientific sense:

* Under normal circumstances, if a piano is dropped from a height, it will fall.

This is true no matter how many times the piano is dropped and no matter how many different people drop it. They can all agree that the piano will fall. This is so even if they don't personally drop it, or even see it drop. In other words, they have "objectively verified" that the piano will drop. The piano itself is a tangible, measurable object, which means it has "real, demonstrable existence."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

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

1) Truth

2) Proof

3) Fact

4) Knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

“a fact is an objective validation of real objects”

IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE, IMPOSSIBLE!!!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

No it is NOT true!!!!

Want proof???

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

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

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

Only Religionists base their arguments on TRUTHS and FACTS.

In science we only explain rationally!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pT0NygCKPzA

And personally, I had seen a piano fall to the ground. So according to ME....it is TRUE!!

I and Peter agreed that the piano does fall. Science is a democracy majority decides who is right or wrong.

Piano does not fall = 1 vote

Piano falls = 2 votes

Making the statement of a piano following truth.

I just rationally explain it, Eat it fatfist.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploads18/cute+milf...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

piano falls = 2 votes

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

Therefore, MY version is truth!

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Democracy Rules I Loose.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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


Peter 5 years ago

fatfist, you said:

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

&

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

But aren't you using your "limited sensory system" to "know" that the sun exists whether we notice it or not? I mean, everything is subjective from our point of view, even theories of matter, space and motion. They still come from our "limited sensory system", rationally or otherwise. It sounds like a contradiction to say that because we are subjective beings who construct systems of logic, we can still make a claim that existence is unprovable because existence JUST IS. This is a subjective statement, is it not? But it 'seems' like a subjective statement that is trying to objectify.

I think I understand your argument: that objects exist whether we notice them or not. But even that (proposition?) is subjective...we could be wrong...our "limited sensory system" could be lying to us that objects like the sun exist independently of our noticing them. We cannot get away from our subjectivity no matter how we try...

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


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

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

Exist = object + location

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

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

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

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

No! You missed the point entirely.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creation under ANY context is IMPOSSIBLE.

What? You didn’t hear it correctly?

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

Any questions??

I have several articles explaining this in EXTREME laborious detail.

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

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

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

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist I have coverted to the law of seven.

I believed

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/The-Ray-of...


Peter 5 years ago

fatfist, thanks for responding and explaining clearly.

Another question.

Going by your logic, would it make sense to say that the ancient Greeks once existed based on evidence? Or would one say that there's no way of finding out. We can only assume or use a theory to explain that the ancient Greeks existed before, at present, we exist right now.

Does that make sense?

If existence is a default definition, then we cannot ever say that anyone (any other object) from the past existed before we did, can we? We can only use systems of logic and scientific method to theorize and prove that objects or people(s) from the past existed.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Peter,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Carol 5 years ago

Brazilian Physicist seems to have debunked de Hot Big Bang Cosmology:

Brazilian physicist seems to have solved the cosmological problem. In a paper published by the american journal of Physics Progress in Physics [Assis, Armando V.D.B. On the Cold Big Bang Cosmology. Progress in Physics, 2011, v. 2, 58-63]:

www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2011/PP-25-14.PDF

, the author seems to solve the Einstein field equations with one extra postulate in which he argues that the Dark erergy arises from an illusion due to a persistent Heisenberg uncertainty claiming that the energy content os the universe is totally due to Heisenberg fluctuation. With this, he obtains the correct value of the black body background temperature of 2.7 Kelvins as well the fitting of the cosmological data.

Also, the author seems to go via an alternative route in which the conservetion of energy is weakened by a lack of application of the Noether's theorem (in author's words). Since the subject is important and connected to the entropy problem and to the energy problem, I think this claimed results should have some further comments within the Big Bang subject.


Kamrom 5 years ago

Fatfist: our universe is expanding. its a function of ever increasing entropy. Its increasing because of dark matter/energy: Everything everywhere is moving away from everything else.

You know we can see very very far back right? Heres where we can see: We are completely, utterly, totally able to determine exactly what happend in the past 13.7 billions years..

But then something happens. You see, we cant observe the beginning. We can see allll the way back to 10^-47. That is an unconted zero with a decimal point (0.0) and a decimal point, followed by 43 zeroes. And then the number 1.

We can absolutely confirm then, everything that happend in our universe EXCEPT for the first 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds of its existence. Unless you think that spot is magic, theres not a lot more that it could be.

Our universe is not one that can produce absolutes. We can never reach Absolute Zero (0K) because any outside event would raise the temperature above absolute zero.

an easier way to think of the big bang is this: There is void and there is stuff. Void is where the universe is not (ie, totality.) As a result, the vacuum forces would be always pulling at the universe, since a void MUST fill itself.

If that void is infinite, then it would never be able to fill and it would result in our universe sperading farther and farther and loisng more and more heat.

And thats just how it is.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Kamrom,

“our universe is expanding”

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

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

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

So what’s it gonna be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Void is where the universe is not”

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

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

Vacuum force???? WTF is that??

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

I mean, we learn this stuff in Junior Kindergarten.

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

“a void MUST fill itself”

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

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

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

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

"And thats just how it is."

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist: our universe is expanding. its a function of ever increasing entropy. Its increasing because of dark matter/energy: Everything everywhere is moving away from everything else.

lol

What about purple, pink, yellow energy kamrom?

You should just become a Christian there arguement is more rational.


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

Its seeing the Square ... as a Ball ... !

My friend ... Its a Ball Game all the way, to Believe in a Universe, Theorized to be Existent in a Catalyst- less Big Bang ... Thus, self occurring ... Unless ... It occurs in another Theoretical Universe, composed of Pre-Matter and Pre-Antimatter Symmetries ... and such a Theory fetching the Nobel Prize, in such bargainings.

But where would you place the Big Crunch, as the Product-Reaction, of the Big Bang's ... Product ?

Itys a Ball game of the Elite Physicists ... making a living out of Nonsense.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Shahid,

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

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

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

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


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

The steps of the scientific method are to:

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

The test hypothesis is where all Religions die including Big Bang, Evolution, Creation. Hey creator lovers maybe the DNA is the creator. And the Intellegent designer is the DNA.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Fatfist: our universe is expanding)

Prometheus Kid,

And one would think that after the fall of the Soviet Union and East Germany that communist redshift would be on the decline, slingshotting the universe back towards its capitalist singularity source, thus crushing Obamacare and National Public Radio by the increased mass of achusetts.

This is proven by the guacamole hypothesis: anything that tasty when used as a dipping sauce for a host must be from god.

You need a refresher course in REAL science.


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Gravity travels in waves?

(Sorry, I stopped reading after that)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

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

Look at the second graphic at the top of your article: 'Gravitational Waves Escape From The Earliest Moments Of The Big Bang'


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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

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


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

sigh.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

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


nicomp profile image

nicomp 5 years ago from Ohio, USA

Uncle.


avr 5 years ago

From zero dimention (0D) to a cosmos with supposidly 15 billion light years in radius (hence 30 billion light years in diameter)?!

The problem is in the fact that cosmology is dominated by mathematicians, not real physicists.


Reasonable1 5 years ago

One "professional" physicist posted the following CRAP on a forum recently to "explain" how a universe pops itself into existence. He says:

"To elaborate on what is happening here, let me mention a few things about quantum field theory (which is the framework on which all of this stuff is based)...

The stuff we see around us is made of particles. But particles, in quantum field theory, are the "excited states" of a field. So if you want your theory of the universe to include, say, electrons, then you postulate an "electron field" which exists everywhere. The lowest energy state of this field is called the "vacuum state," and this represents the state you would ordinarily think of as "no electrons are present" -- but the field itself is still there! And the field in the vacuum state is still very definitely "something" -- the vacuum state has some very measurable, very non-trivial properties, which famous experiments have confirmed (for one example, the vacuum state can exert a measurable pressure on metallic plates -- see "Casimir effect").

So, I don't mind calling the vaccum "nothing" if the audience already understands this concept (I'm sure I've done this in certain papers myself -- it does have a certain cool sounding ring to it), but if one is selling deep philosophical implications based on the word "nothing," then one really needs to fully disclose what is meant by "nothing," and in this case it refers to a specific state of a specific field with specific properties, living on a pre-existing spacetime."

Amazing how these idiots get up in the morning!

From: board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/31097/238686.aspx#238686


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

"nothing," and in this case it refers to a specific state of a specific field with specific properties, living on a pre-existing spacetime."

lol


Kirui 5 years ago

You know, all this question of big bang is easy to answere. If there was nothing, no space, no time, then there was nothing to bang, no where to for the nothing not to bang, and no moment for the nothing not banging not to bang! So, just let there be a big bang in empty brains!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 5 years ago

Hi Mr Fist. I have enjoyed your hubs so far, in particular your refutation of the comedian Reverend Lane Craig.

I think I read that you said 'balls' are objects and have 'boundaries' or 'edges'. From memory I think you gave us soccer balls or the Earth as examples. (Please correct me if this is not what you said or meant.) I think you may have contradicted yourself by your very own definition of 'object' (shape, form etc). Soccer balls, billiard balls, the earth, even neutron stars, are concepts, not objects. Zoom in close enough (atomic scale, or subatomic scale in the case of a neutron star) and there is no edge or boundary to be found. 'Edge' is conceptual. Your thoughts if you please? Thanks.

Best regards.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Spastic,

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

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

Object: that which has shape

Concept: a relation between objects (has no shape)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“'Edge' is conceptual.”

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


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 5 years ago

I thank you for your reply fatfist, interesting.

I will definitely get back to you soon. It may be a week or two as I'm working long hours everyday for the next couple of weeks. Talk soon and best regards.


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 5 years ago

fatfist, my bad. I originally thought you were trying to say that a soccer ball is an object which exists, end of the line. Thanks for clearing that up.

fatfist: "We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we have converted the word butter into a concept, and introduced a new object called “molecule”. In this new context, the prosecutor can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....but he is now only dealing with the molecule object."

That right there is the key point I'm interested in here. Even with molecules, we can dissect them into atoms, then a nucleus, then protons and neutrons, then quarks etc. So would you agree that even in physics we use the terms 'concept' and 'object' interchangably depending on what scale we're working at (how far we zoom in)?

Also, I'd be interested to hear you expand on your definition of 'object': "that which has shape". Shape' is a concept, yes? If I were an annoying theist who asked "How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!"

My response would probably be that the claim that an object has shape is simply a case of ease of use of language and scientific communication. Or am I way off base?

I appreciate your input fatfist. I hope I'm not annoying you. Just tell me if I am and I won't post anymore. It's just that I find this interesting.

Just off topic, I'd dearly love to see you do a page on the repugnant Matt Slick's TAG. I simply don't have the time. It's really child's play. Straight out of the gate TAG fails by reifying concepts into existing objects. Transcendental objects no less!

Best regards.


Spastic Ink 5 years ago

Woops, I meant-

If I were an annoying theist who asked "How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!" What would your response be?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Spastic,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Spastic Ink profile image

Spastic Ink 5 years ago

Thanks fatfist! Mostly makes sense but there'still a few things I'd like to ask which are unclear to me. So much work and so little time ...

Will get back to you.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

I asked you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. You really should do this. In addition, you should check out Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity. In response to what you said in the description of the video, nothing works when you divide by zero, which is essentially what a black holes is. Zero volume divided by any nonzero mass.? I could explain it all for you instead of redirecting you, but I'm not here to write a book. You could also check out Wikipedia's article on Black Holes if you wish. There's no need to worry about Wikipedia- if you still don't trust the credibility you're welcome to check out the sources that are cited.

Educated yourself fatfist lol


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Is space infinite?

Current models (supported by experimental evidence) assume the Universe is infinitely big and has been for the 13.7 billion years since it sprang into existence.

But language throws much confusion into the picture. We can only see part of the Universe ¯ only within a sphere, cantered at Earth with a radius the distance light travels in the 13.7 billion-year age of the Universe. The rest of the Universe is invisible to us.

There is scientific proof that galaxies are moving away from us, the further ones moving faster, so it is reasonable to assume that the Universe is expanding, I don't think that the geniuses who believe in it need their heads examined... But maybe the people that read a wikipedia page and refute the geniuses do...

As for AKA Winston, I am ashamed of you man, I thought you knew better.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

Do you enjoy posting the same questions on multiple hubs?

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

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


AKA Winston 4 years ago

The Onion.com:

(MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA—Organizers of the Australian Open canceled the highly anticipated Grand Slam event Wednesday night after admitting they were unable to prevent tennis balls from falling off the underside of the planet and into the sky)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ha ha, I love the onion network!


confuscience profile image

confuscience 4 years ago

Hey Fatfist,

Love your posts... incredibly simple, penetratingly elegant... Which might attest to my intellectual slowness, but nonetheless, I had some questions regarding some definitions and what they entail.

I understand the definitions of UNIVERSE, MATTER, SPACE, OBJECT, CONCEPT, TRUTH,... as well as becoming more acquainted with the purpose of the Scientific Method, Hypothesis, Theory, Statements of Facts. I was curious about the definition of ENERGY and what it entails. I understand energy is not an object, so it must be a concept, a relation between objects... does that mean a concept, and specifically energy, is not real? Maybe I am confusing "experienced" with "real"... I get confused about how energy operates within scientific language. I feel heat and see fire... I feel pain when a golf ball smacks into my head (which may have caused my slight retardation). Are forms of energy like forces (direct and non-direct contact forces) and heat just experienced, but do not exist? I could use your or AKA Winston's help on this. Hope I'm not wasting your time...

Anyway, gotta drink a nice porter and think a little less about it... Cheers!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Confuscience,

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

Of course it is. That makes sense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“energy, is not real?”

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

“I feel heat ... I feel pain “

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

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

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


El Dude 4 years ago

Also worth mentioning there are two TYPES of force in rational physics: PUSH and PULL. That's it.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 4 years ago

Thanks Fatfist and Dude,

As I continue reading your posts and responses I'm sure I'll have other questions and queries, but thanks for the timely explanation. I think I'm starting to get a handle on this rational physics... Especially considering I didn't study it in college.

There was another post you responded to earlier regarding Sting Theory, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I understood the objections to ST, but R & QM where baffling. In your response to R, you stated it presupposes "discrete objects" able to attract one another, and that this posed an impossibility. I'm not sure what this means... As far as the objection to defining "space=bendable object", that I get. I was wondering if you might explain what the dilemma is with discrete objects. I again understand your time is valuable and your response is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again Fatfist, and keep up the great work!


El Dude 4 years ago

What a charming, sharp-minded fellow! A breath fresh air such people.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Confuscience,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for asking interesting questions :-)


El Dude 4 years ago

Aww Fattie beat me to it... darn it, Fattiie!

Shouldn't have gone for that second Guinness.


El Dude 4 years ago

All words are concepts my friend. Some concepts/words however resolve to objects; others do not. Existence is thus only a matter of careful, precise definition.

Location is the set of distances that separate one object from others. Location is conceptually a photograph (i.e. static).

Location is one of the two necessary qualifiers for a rational definition of existence.

Exist = physical presence (object + location).

Physical = object.

Presence = location.

Now we can be objective when we speak of existence. An object is that with shape, period! (Shape is basically synonymous with object.) Some objects do not exist, like the illusory 2d entities you see whizzing around on your screen. They do not have true location, only shape.

With the shape + location criteria we can finally answer age old questions, without invoking opinion, evidence, prediction, knowledge, proof, experiment or faith - i.e. UNAMBIGUOUSLY - as to whether or not my house, God, Vishnu, energy, THIS car, space-time, leprechauns or atoms exist. It follows only from the definition we use.

youstupidrelativist.com/04Exist/03Exist.html


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

confuscience,

"is existence an object AND a concept?"

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

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

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

Thanks for your comments confuscience and El Dude.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 4 years ago

Thanks Dude and FF,

I should know this! Creation-concept-damn-it! Okay, okay... I've got the dunce cap for this weekend, but I think I can pawn it off on to someone else before next weekend. Both of your explanations were enlightening. Thanks again for the the assist, guys. Talk atcha later!


El Dude 4 years ago

No cap for you; you're actually asking all the important questions. You've earned a medal in my book. It's the mathematicians that get a Special Dunce award. They arrogantly pretend to know what they're talking about, intimidate newcomers, and don't even have the basic humility (which you show in spades) to admit when they can't even define their terms, let alone come upon with a single explanation!


El Dude w/autocorrect OFF 4 years ago

*** Correction: "... come up with a single explanation." ("up" not "upon")

Damn you, autocorrect


fred allen profile image

fred allen 4 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Hello old friend! I call you that because it was your logic and reasoning that caused me to truly embark on my journey of discovery to understand why anything exists. I am grateful to you for that. While I have learned quite a bit since the last time we interacted, I am still firmly stuck with the questions "why is there something instead of nothing?" and "how could matter not have a beginning?" My search for answers has me spinning in circles, always leading me back to those 2 questions. I have not completely abandoned creationism, however I have determined that I would rather know the truth than believe a lie. I wish to go to where the evidence leads even if it means the end of faith. You have been a beacon of logic and reason for me. I just can't wrap my head around matter NEVER having a beginning. Following the logic that states matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, adding in the concept of eternity and the boundlessness of space, it doesn't make sense to me that after the infinite eternity that transpired before the present time, given that celestial bodies are moving away from each other why are the galaxies still so close to each other as to be seen? Is boundless space fully littered with eternal matter? If that is so, can matter be fininte while space is boundless?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Fred, long time no see. Welcome.

"why is there something instead of nothing?"

Because God commanded it to be so???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“can matter be fininte while space is boundless?”

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


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Reality is a crutch for those who can't handle drugs - Lily Tomlin.


El Dude 4 years ago

"Why is the sky blue?"

Wouldn't this just be asking for an explanation (movie of events) though?

I can't see why it'd be irrational to ask such a thing. Obviously it would probably be a long movie clip but still...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

El Dude,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


fred allen profile image

fred allen 4 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

I understand. I knew when I commented you would put things into a perspective that would sort out the nonsense. The question is loaded. It assumes causation. If it were to be answered with logic and reason based on what we can know for certain (that matter exists) the only reliable answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" is "because there is something instead of nothing". Both you and Winston were right about another thing too... even IF there were no such thing as God, I would not love my wife any less, nor would it change my desire to be a good person. I feel as though I have been set free from the Matrix and that you and winston gave me the choice to swallow the blue pill which would put me back into the matrix or the red one so I could see how far the rabbit hole really goes. For this I am in your debt. I have asked my wife if there were no God would she wish to know this If it were true and she was quick with her response and said "no". I remember when I felt the same. I'm now glad I chose the red pill. Thank you for your part.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Fred,

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

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

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

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


El Dude 4 years ago

Awww Fred, you're awesome man!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

The following quote comes from someone I know from another website - he is a 70+ year old Ph.D. in mathematics. It is difficult to be any more accurate or succinct than this quote from him:

"Few if any mathematicians would (or so I think) contest the assertion that mathematics strictly on its own cannot, by its very nature, tell you about the real world. Those of us in the business might bristle a little at calling it a tool, but I certainly believe that if you want to learn something about the real world you have to go examine the real world. Another way of putting it: Mathematics is really good at establishing 'If...Then...' statements. If gravity obeys an inverse square law then the planets will move in elliptical orbits. You need input from reality to decide if this mathematically correct statement has relevance to the world we live in, and how close the model is to reality."

From the horse's mouth - mathematics is not reality, but a model.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

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

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


Robotix 4 years ago

Would you say that Empiricism (or logical empiricism) was/is just a philosophical attempt to formalise trial and error, i.e. pragmatism and technology?

(And thus cannot explain, only produce blueprints for logic systems, processes, methods, etc).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Robotix,

The Logical Empiricism (Logical Positivism) movement was an attempt for philosophers to divorce themselves from the theological overtaking of philosophy. Remember, philosophy was taken over by theologians, who used its inherent weaknesses/flaws to formalize, validate and push forward their religious agendas.

But the empiricists fell on their asses with this ridiculous movement because it was predicated on a single human activity: observation. It was based not only on the OPINION of an observer, but also on their AUTHORITY as well.

For example: If I have a university degree and you don't....if I have been elected into a recognized committee and you haven't....if I have thousands of intellectuals standing behind my statements and you don't.....then I can decree that I saw a leprechaun turn the rainbow into gold, and this now becomes a scientific FACT!

It is irrelevant if YOU disagree on the issue, because you have certainly been outvoted by 1) observation, and by 2) authority!!

And what's worse....is that Logical Positivists can discount all the OBSERVATIONS from Christians (Jesus walking on water, resurrected, the talking snake, the burning bush, etc...) because those observations were not made by an AUTHORITY. You see, Logical Positivists claim that their God gave them better eyes than someone else's God.

This is exactly what has been done by Karl Popper and his Religion of Logical Positivism. Instead of leprechauns, they assert black holes, spacetime, photons, 0D quantum particles, energy, time, forces, fields, dark matter... (i.e. nothing).

Assertions and dogma and opinionated observations belong exclusively to Religion. Reality can only be rationally explained with the scientific method. We hypothesize an actor/agent responsible for the phenomenon of light. Then we use this agent to explain why light is so fast, constant, slit experiments, etc. There is no other objective and reliable method.


Allen 4 years ago

@Fatfist:

I happened to be re-reading the Wiki about Nicola Tesla and found these quotes about Einstein's theory of relativity:

"...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ..."

And:

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Allen,

Yes, this is the sad part of our educational system. We are taught by Priests and brainwashed to worship authority and never think for ourselves. We call this: education – the cherry picking of information to shove down our throats, no different than Religion.

People think that Einstein was one of the brightest humans to ever live. They even preserved his precious brain in a vat so other generations can worship it. As it turns out, he was one of the most dumbest humans to ever walk this planet. He didn’t know any math.....all of the Relativity papers he submitted were full of math errors, even though his wife did all the math for this ignorant idiot.

In science it is said that the Einstein’s relativity theory proved that aether doesn't exist. Einstein was hailed as a hero because he did away with the ether. This is totally not the case and the critical information has been suppressed on purpose and never taught in any school or university. This non-ether situation lasted a few years only. Einstein had to adopt the ether again in order to support the physical properties of space in his General Relativity.

Einstein tried at one point to claim that space is an object....an aether ocean which can bend and warp. The Scientific Community told him to go f*** himself and go climb a mountain at the time, because any notion of aether was a big no-no after the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no aether.

In his articles in 1905 Einstein did not fully reject the existence of Ether. He only suggested a mathematical treatment of some relativistic problems. In 1920, after he developed the General relativity, he arrived to the conclusion that the ether MUST exist, otherwise there is no physical mechanism for gravity under GR. This fact is of enormous importance and is always ignored/censored when the scientific community cites the contributions of Albert Einstein. The Einstein statement from 1920 is DELIBERATELY MISSING in academia’s physics textbooks, where only his articles from 1905 are mentioned. The physics establishment did not want to associate itself with the ether, but yet wanted to be able to account for gravity and spacetime using GR in some MAGICAL NON-PHYSICAL METAPHORICAL WAY. And this is a complete contradiction in terms. They cannot have it both ways. Either space is a physical substance, an ether, which is capable of physically restraining planets within their orbits, or space is nothing, meaning that GR fails.

Einstein converted the 19 th century aether into the 20 th century “spacetime”. Einstein concluded (Einstein, May 20, 1920, University of Layden):

“Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of measuring rods and clocks, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. “ -- Einstein

In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein remarked that his theory was correct....true....proven! However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own religion, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:

“All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) [1]

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." -- Albert Einstein

Anyone who half read Einstein's struggle to find the Holy Grail in his last few years concludes that Einstein lost his faith in his own theories, indeed, in all of Math Fyzics. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were 'wrong' (i.e., that their theories were contradictory). Maybe that qualifies him as the most intelligent mathematician... but that's not a whole lot. He never made it past warped space, and he certainly disagreed with all of Quantum.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Any human with half a brain can reason that space is nothing; not a substance. If space was a substance, then no motion would be possible as there is no void to displace objects and allow for movement. Fish can move underwater because they displace it....and they displace it because there is a void.

If space was a substance, then the whole universe would be one single infinite block of matter. Life cannot arise from such a scenario because there would be no other objects possible or their motion. Besides, infinite blocks of matter are impossible....they have no shape or border. Similarly, if space was a substance (object) then it should have shape and a border. What is outside this border? More space? God perhaps? There has to be "something". Clearly, such proposed scenarios are contradictory and impossible.


dada 3 years ago

you use the word eternal frequently,yet offer no explanation for the eternal.. "matter is eternal" seems to me that all arguments fall apart when one has to accept this as fact or assumption..if i start an argument or theory this way,i can work backwards to the assumption and make it work...what do you think?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

dada,

“"matter is eternal" seems to me that all arguments fall apart when one has to accept this as fact or assumption”

But eternal matter is neither a fact (i.e. empirically verified truth) nor an assumption (i.e. Hypothesis of the Scientific Method). How can you possibly verify that matter is eternal? You can’t. And it doesn’t even make sense to think this way. You need to put your question in the correct context.

That matter is eternal is the DEFAULT position because there can be no Theory about it. There is no Theory for an eternal universe. You need to understand the scientific method, specifically what a Theory is. A Theory is a rational explanation of a CONSUMMATED EVENT. There is no event that can make matter eternal. Only creation of matter can be an alleged event and thus must require a Theory to rationally explain how this process can happen.

Guess what? There is no Theory which explains how nothing can create matter. Not Big Bang, not the Bible,....nada. They all contradict themselves.

That the Universe is eternal is not asserted....it is critically reasoned. This is the difference. And this is a conceptually analytical issue only....not one of observation, fact, truth, proof or other Religious nonsense.

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

object: that which has shape.

space: that which lacks shape

An object cannot spontaneously lose Length, Width and Height. Space cannot spontaneously acquire Length, Width and Height. An object cannot leave that which has no boundary (i.e., space). Not even God can escape from space.

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

Matter exists ONLY in present mode, at the cutting edge of universal events (again to use language you can relate to). If matter exists ONLY in present mode, it is definitely perpetual! We cannot even conceive of matter appearing from the void or disintegrating and becoming void (unless we’ve snorted 30lbs of cocaine).

The idiots at SLAC, Fermi, KEK, CERN, etc., claim that they produced matter from the void. When push comes to shove, they restate and claim that a positron and an electron combine to form 'energy' (a concept) and that, conversely, a particle of space may split into a positron and an electron. The insinuation is that matter can indeed come out of the void. This is magic, not Science. This has NOT been proven (since in Science, we don't prove except to gullible idiots).

This explanation of the establishment is simply IRRATIONAL. You cannot make a movie of it. You cannot illustrate it because it is inconceivable. Frame 343 of this movie would show space and Frame 344 (0 time) would show two particles. No one can imagine let alone explain such a miracle of how 2 particles came from space. It is simply a Religious assertion without any explanation.

Matter cannot pop into existence. Exist is NOT a verb for the purposes of Science. It is an adjective. Exist is a static, not a dynamic concept. Matter exists in a cross-section of universal events. The existence of matter is not circumscribed by any event.

You cannot create an atom from NOTHING. This would require creating something (i.e. Length, Width and Height simultaneously) in ZERO TIME! Creation in all of its forms is irrational, whether the hypothesis is God or the Big Bang singularity.

Conclusion: The Universal Film has no First Frame! The Universe is ‘infinite’ in both directions of ‘time’. 5000 billion Earth years ago, the Universe looked just like today. 5000 quadrillion years ago, it looked just like today, 10^99999999999999999999 quadrillion years ago the Universe looked just like today... etc.....eternally!


Roman 3 years ago

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6vCK9vjv9VseDh0b...

The RATIONAL explanation of gravity very similar in concept to "rope theory". To make a long story short is states that gravity is akin to Brownian motion of small particles in the suspension of a medium (air, water). But in the case of gravity, the medium has the property of cohesion, i.e its 'atoms' are bound together as if in a piece of rubber.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Roman,

Brownian motion is just a description of a phenomenon. It doesn't have an explanation for gravity i.e. what comes in contact with a ball to pull it to the floor after you let go.

You cannot use concepts like field, force, free-fall, warped space, graviton, derivative, etc. as mediators that can pull a ball to the floor. Concepts don't exist. Only objects can perform actions on other objects.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Sorry, a field is a region. A where not a what. One can not compress a location. Energy is what something does, not some'thing' that can have varying density.

The universe consists of matter and space. Space is borderless, and does not contain matter like a box can contain unobtanium.


Roman 3 years ago

I absolutely agree with you here. Only objects perform actions on other objects. Have you read the document I uploaded? In there the compression of the net of linked "atoms" or fundamental particles is what causing two objects to come closer to each other. The imbalance of pressure gradient - Earth and Moon are pushed, not pulled together by these particles.


luisfersm 3 years ago

dear fatfist,

sorry for my english or grammar i m from mexico . i was looking for some information or different points of view about the bb theory, because i have a friend who is very interested in the subject and he is a science student.

last weekend we where watching a history channel documentary about the bb, and told my friend i didn't believe such crap. personally i do not know a thing about science. i simply get all the information i can from any subject and take whatever works for me, but my friend and i got into a debate about the subject and my argument where simple.

In the documentary they even showed a 3d animated example showing a very smal white dot in a black backgroudn. my first question was how did the white dot got in there? my second question was, isnt the black background space? if they say the universe was compressed in a supper little spot it means it had a size. it was little , to me in orther to have a size it means there is space surrounding you otherwise you wouldnt be able to tell if its little or huge. and my other argument were somoof the facts you mentioned in your hub.. if universe has a size it means it has a border , if so what is beyond..??

But my friend answered to me saying that those questions are the kind of questions stupid ppl ask, i guess he meant regular ppl (ppl not related to the scientific community) then he said that all those theories where deducted by sophisticated math equations and at the end it made me feel like probably i didn't know what i was talking about. but i know he didn't either. the problem with ppl is that they tend to believe on what they see on TV, or they give more importance to others ppl ideas than their personal ideas, whatever Einstein says its got to be truth because Einstein said so (lol). so he was like look at those Cambridge dr.s explaining the universe to you , how do you think you can come here and tell them they are wrong.

So, i would appreciate if you could give me simple but strong arguments you can use in a debate. to let my friend know that to question the BBT is not stupid, and the fact that those Cambridge drs appear on History channel documentaries, dosnt mean they cant be totally wrong.

p.d thank you for your time. again, i m an ignorant and i m not pretending to get in to complicated details and terminologies. any of your subscribers know a lot more than me abour this subject. but you make it look so easy , that called my attention.


luisfersm 3 years ago

well thank you very much for ur quick response.. i ll check the links, and as i do in many subjects i ll recommend this website to my friends to open their minds to the Internet, which is the last media that hasnt been entirely corrupted or manipulated for political , religion, or economic purposes.

nice job


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Awesome! luisferms you really are on to something big (with the white dot in a black background). Stay with it!


fred allen profile image

fred allen 3 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Good morning old friend. Since our last exchange I have studied to exhaustion looking for clarity on how we came to be and if matter is indeed eternal. I understand WHY the default position is that matter is eternal and without beginning, it's just that it's so difficult to wrap my mind around. The idea that NOTHING does not need a beginning is perfectly logical. When you include the reality of SOMETHING, the default position (which assumes no beginning), the logic begins to break down in my finite sense of reason. Like the aforementioned "white dot" wouldn't ALL matter pose the same dilemma? What I mean is, IF at one point in time ALL matter existed in one concentrated location as the big bang presupposes, and you contend that it was the mathematicians that put it there, doesn't the belief that it was scattered throughout the cosmos eternally pose the same question? Or put another way, whether it was once concentrated in one specific location or whether it was always scattered, how can existence NOT have a beginning?

If you take God out of the big bang equation what the singularity was composed of was without beginning (using the same default position). The eternal state of matter, whether concentrated or scattered defies explanation. The default position ( that matter can neither be created or destroyed, therefore is eternal) is still just our best guess based on observation and limited understanding isn't it? In the end, if it IS just our best guess, couldn't we be wrong?

I spent close to 30 minutes trying to formulate my question and posing it in such a way as to elicit the explanation I seek. Not certain I succeeded but I trust that your instincts will make up for my lack of succinctness.

I hope I am asking the right question in the right way. Your ability to think, reason, and explain absolutely fascinates me. To me, you are a trusted source for information and understanding. I truly value your input.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Helooooooooo my friend, Fred!!! Hope you are doing well.

‘Or put another way, whether it was once concentrated in one specific location or whether it was always scattered, how can existence NOT have a beginning?’

Because the void (i.e. nothing) cannot acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into an atom in a single frame of the universal movie. Consider frame 22 of the movie ....just void. Now at frame 23 there is an atom. This is impossible....cannot happen. Matter cannot spring from the void.

‘If you take God out of the big bang equation what the singularity was composed of was without beginning ‘

I think we discussed this before, so you can re-read our discussion to refresh these ideas again. But, like I’ve always said....the singularity is only a mathematical 0D concept they plug into variables. I will give you a huge gift, Fred.....I will tell you that not even these mathematicians can explain their alleged creation via the big bang. In fact.....they MUST use God if they want to have a creation. There is NO other way possible. And they have conceded this.

My gift to my buddy, Fred:

William Lane Craig ate a Mathematician for lunch! Lawrence Krauss said a lot of stupid things in his debate with William Lane Craig, specifically, that Mathematical Fizzics is COMPATIBLE with a God who is not monotheistic and who didn’t write Bibles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE

‎@1:39:20 In typical atheist fashion, Krauss hates the God of the Bible, but admits that a god of a divine intelligence is plausible for the creation of the universe. He claims that Science is compatible with Deism, but not with Monotheism.

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

Well, you heard it from the horse's mouth: Science is not incompatible with a Creator God and Intelligent Design. But it is incompatible with a specific theology.

The ONLY difference between Krauss and WLC is that Krauss believes there may be a Deistic God who is not obsessed with our daily affairs and hasn’t given us a Bible.....yet! Pastor Lawrence Krauss cannot understand the God of the Bible...in fact....he HATES the good Lord...go figure. So Pastor Krauss uses his ignorance to decree that the Big Bang was caused by a God who never gave us a Bible.

Enjoy.....


luisfersm 3 years ago

fatfist,

i have another question, why all the investigations, after taking the bbt as a fact are all about the universe expanding instead of trying to find the origins of the white dot in space? if the main question is the origins of universe, i cant understand why all those powerful minds and phds dont even care about what caused an spontaneous energy ,matter or whatever it was to concentrate in a very small dot that spontaneously exploted and created everything we know this days.? in case the bbt was truth it would just be a step in the creation process of the universe, just a simple clue, not the real answer, the real answer would be what created the small matter dot and why.

also my friend replied to me saying they already took pictures of the universe and it proves it is expanding and it has a curved shape.. when i heard that the firs thing that came to my mind was the concept of me trying to take a picture from the hole city of new york from a street inside new york . it would be required for me to be out of the city on a plane to take a picture of the city .but i don know if it make any sense to you.

sorry if i bother you , but whenever i get more information about this type of subject it generally makes me ask more questions.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Luis,

‘ instead of trying to find the origins of the white dot in space?’

You gotta understand the Scientific Method in order to understand this question, Luis. The Singularity (aka white dot) is nothing but a hypothetical mathematical concept. It doesn’t exist and never existed. It is all metaphor and no substance.

If you like to understand these issues better, I urge you to join the rational science facebook group where we discuss this stuff daily. Just click join and we’ll let you in.

‘all those powerful minds and phds ‘

Ha! Once you understand the sci method, you will understand why they are all a bunch of stupid clowns.

‘spontaneous energy’

These clowns don’t even understand what this magical word even means.

"It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." – Richard Feynman, www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-V¬ols-III/dp/B000P1PWCK (p. 4-1)

‘pictures of the universe and it proves it is expanding’

LOL, space is the void. Space cannot expand. Space does not exist. Only objects exist and can possibly expand. Are you expanding, Luis? Again, stupid human apes will make outlandish claims to protect their Religion of Creation. For more detailed info, please join our fb group.


Rui Pereira profile image

Rui Pereira 3 years ago from Toronto, Ontario

Hi Fat Fist,

I came across this thread today and I am glad you make such strong points against the BB. You should be a bit more concise but the logic is very strong.

The BB has become a popular movement - especially in the media - it tends to pacify the masses into accepting a false order. People 'consumers' can feel assured that there is a purpose to their lives that can absolve them of responsibility and avoid understanding or recognizing the mess around us.

My back ground is as an architect - my experience has been with concepts and conceptual tools. These tools range from drafting software - physical models - to sketch paper to rulers.

My point is that these are tools and concepts much like space and time - they are not real.

The push for the BB theory is similar to taking the architectural tools and qualifying them as the reality of a built form.

The notion of the BB and its surrounding qualifiers as being counter initiative is disturbing. Serving only as a means of obfuscating conjecture that the universe started from a single point - the universe, time, matter, space - everything. That somehow we are inside this - everything - and there is no outside.

1. Time does not exist - it is only a conceptual tool

2. Energy does not exist - rather potential and expended energy qualify the interaction between objects.

3. Space does not exist - only the qualifier of distance and position exist between objects - ie an infinite Cartesian grid.

4. The Universe does not exist - there is only a collection of objects.

5. Space does not expand - space is nothing - and the notion of objects in the universe moving further apart on the macro scale because of inflation is conjecture. The Doppler Effect and Red Shift are not the same thing - it is a huge leap to claim that galaxies with extreme Red Shift that are traveling away from us at relative (faster than light) speed are doing so because of 'space inflation'. If the term was 'space inflation' instead of just inflation it might actually shed some light on how deceptively the term is used.

At the end of the day it all comes down to what you have outlined - peer review - that kills all non conforming thought. The Big Money is in the BB so why question this gravy train.

Ps – Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit – as a Catholic I see the Jesuits as a fifth column within the church. The Catholic faith is about faith – God is inifinte and so is the universe – there is no start and no end – my point is that if you chose to have faith there is no need for long winded fantasy explanations like the BB.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Hi Rui,

“People 'consumers' can feel assured that there is a purpose to their lives that can absolve them of responsibility and avoid understanding or recognizing the mess around us.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself!

“ Energy does not exist - rather potential and expended energy qualify the interaction between objects.”

Yes, energy is not a WHAT….energy is what something does; a process, motion...

“The Universe does not exist - there is only a collection of objects.”

Yes, the objects exist. The universe is a mere concept. The term “Universe” has no use in Physics. Physics is the study of real objects (that exist). We cannot move ‘the’ universe like we move a ball. This term is only used in ordinary speech around the water cooler.

“the notion of objects in the universe moving further apart on the macro scale because of inflation is conjecture.”

It’s at best contradictory because there is no physical medium to expand. It is ridiculous to say that just because we shoot a rocket in space that moves away from the Earth…that ‘the’ space between us is expanding. ‘The’ space is only a grammatical noun for syntactical correctness….not a real noun (i.e. object that exists). This is where people get confused and start to reify concepts into objects. That’s why Physics is in such a mess today.

You really know your stuff, Rui. How are you liking the weather in Toronto so far? Warm spell this week.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Hope we hear more from Rui. Come on over to Rational Science forum on Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/groups/Rationalscience/


Lynne Atwater 3 years ago

Excellent piece. Well done and well explained. Indeed, the idea of creation is Man's most embarrassing oxymoron. Lynne Atwater


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I'm going to make it one of my life projects to take down the Big Bang out of revenge for having wasted so much time and thought with it.

Even if I fail it will eventually destroy itself just like it predicts. Muhahaha

I really like the whole religion metaphor. The Mathematicians have reverted to paganism. They deify concepts like the pagans. And the public offers monetary sacrifices to their gods through tax dollars to pay for COBE and WMAP as well as baby-men's salaries.

Grrrrrr.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

also fatfist I just wanted to mention a problem in this article. The Hebrew verb bara does not mean creation ex nihilo. Hebrew language scholars would laugh at that. In Genesis 1:1 it means to form, or to shape.

Creation ex nihilo is a conceptual figuration. The Hebrews had no concept of creation ex nihilo prior to the Hellensitic invasion which plays in duality. Genesis One was written prior to the Hellenistic invasion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Some say it is, others say it isn't. But if you are certain, then I will fix it just for you. Thanks for pointing it out!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

bara (בָּרָא, to create)

Compare bara (create) to the word asah (make) in context of Genesis and see bara is created from nothing.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

The Mormons argue for creatio ex materia and WL Craig argues for creation ex nihilo. I'd pit Craig against the Mormons anytime, ;)

As for Judaism: "...there is no clear consensus on what actually happened in the beginnings of the universe or how to interpret the Torah’s message. Not only is the matter not a simple “open and shut” case, but it seems from time immemorial that the only thing that the Sages could agree on was to disagree. "

" The account of creation is ambiguous enough to uphold all three theories."

Referring to creation out of god, creation out of existing material, and creation out of nothing.

http://thinkjudaism.wordpress.com/tag/ex-nihilo/

Anyways, clearly there is overlap with bara, asah, and the third less common word, er uh yasera or something like that. So, bara can not be said to always refer to creation out of nothing.

It's been a very long time since I have read about or considered any of this...but there is no consensus among Christians or among Jews.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Creatio ex Nihilo: From the Christian perspective, Creation is the dogma of the Catholic Church, as they declared that the universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced CREATION FROM NOTHING as an official teaching almost 800 years ago.

"We believe that God needs no preexistent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely ‘out of nothing’" -- Catechism of the Catholic Church 296


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I am certain that in Genesis One bara means to shape, or to form. Genesis One was written long before any formulated dogma. Subsequent to the Hellenistic invasion the verb may have been used a little differently, i.e. semantic evolution. But even the Jewish woman living during the Maccabees said God created all things from nothing. She didnt simply say God created all things implying ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is a conceptual figuration. God does not use nothing to create something.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Yes, and Craig would probably argue from:

Hebrews 11:3

3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

King James Version (KJV)

Romans 4:17

17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

Although not considered part of the cannon, there is specific mention of creation ex nihilo in II Maccabees 7:28: I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

The boneheads of Mathematics create from nothing and they believe in God too. So you have some pretty stiff competition there, Nicholas! Should we believe in your God...or their Deistic God?

From the video: The Big Bang - Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku

“In the beginning, there is nothing. No matter, no energy, not even empty space, because space itself doesn’t exist!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MFhAoUUmQ

“I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible.” – Pastor Lawrence Krauss

"A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins


nicholashesed 3 years ago

Lol! Well my God created the EM ropes. That's all that matters.


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

hello Fatfist,

I've read almost all of your texts and I have to say your writing is brilliant. You're the main reason why I've joined this page and you really motivated me to ask you a few questions that aren't really connected to this topic but I hope you will be kind enough to answer them. Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here? Also, what is your view on determinism? Looking forward to your response.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here?”

Well, what are the options? This is what we need to address first. The options are either creation or non-creation (i.e. an eternal Universe).

As it turns out, creation is a hypothesis….an assumption which sets the stage for a rational explanation (i.e. a Theory) outlining in detail the process of creation; i.e. a movie depicting how space & matter can be created.

But is the concept of eternal Universe a hypothesis? Can it possibly be an assumption? If so, then just what is it we are going to explain…..how space & matter were never eternal (i.e. they were created) at some time in the past….and magically became eternal? Does this even make sense? No! This is contradictory reasoning. Hence, eternal Universe is the DEFAULT scenario and creation is the CLAIM a human posits. Only a claim can possibly be amenable to an explanation. Eternal Universe is definitely NOT a hypothesis or claim….contrary to what some believe. The bottom line is that if you don’t like the Universe being eternal, you had better explain the process of creation.

On creation, can space be created? Space is nothing. It’s impossible to create nothing. Nothingness is eternal. How about matter…..how does nothing acquire shape and morph into matter? If there was nothing there to begin with, then matter can’t be created. Creation is clearly impossible. Matter is eternal and is perpetually recycled into new objects.

“what is your view on determinism?”

All that determinism tells us is that there are unavoidable outcomes. Humans can individually have all the free will they want and exercise it in any way they wish. This individual free will cannot prevent some guaranteed (deterministic) outcomes. If you jump off a cliff you have the free will to wave your arms. But you do not have the free will to fly upwards or avoid your death. We do not have the free will to avoid aging and death as they are both deterministic.


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

yo Fatfist,

I have just read your article called "Olbers Paradox" and after reading it there is no need for you to explain the first question in my previous post cause it seems to me that I found all my answers. However I would still like if you could answer the question about free will.

Thank you in advance :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Already answered ....Don.


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

hey Fatfist,

it seems to me that the message before this last one was not send to you so I will repeat it. It does not seem possible that a concept called free will can be rational. What is your understanding of free will and if our brain is capable of making choices, how does this happen?

Peace man :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

The fact that you can and do make choices you have free will. That's what the concept means. Nobody has tackled the task to dissect exactly how the brain works, much less how it makes choices. It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other. Check out how the high level neuron works.


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

"It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other."

I completely agree with you and I think that this claim is very important. If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter what is our opinion cause our opinion is also basically a product of motion between atoms and molecules. Even if there is certaint randomness to the way the atoms interact I still cannot see how free will can function. I do not want to bore you with this if you are not interested but you seem to be a person with great knowledge and I am basically just asking you if this kind of thinking is rational or not.

Thank you :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter”

You may say that events involving inert matter are deterministic. But even still….we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there. Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation. Living entities do have free will and they certainly can affect other events. You can move your left or right hand as you wish right now. Nothing in the Universe will determine which one it will be.


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

"we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there"

First of all, hello. I cannot argue with this statement, however, isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?

"Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation."

I can definitely do what you just suggested but that doesnt mean that I have free will? The mechanics of making decision to move my hand are complex but the core question of this problem is: can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?

I'm just wondering- is it irrational to think that "human apes" are assembled of atoms and molecules which interact with each other in particular way and that there is only one way of this interaction to give us a result-decision?

Lets present a little example- few years ago i needed a new bike. So i see two bikes in the bike shop that I really like and they are both similarly priced and have same specs. One was black-grey and the other was white with red details. I took the black-grey one because of the color (I think). I can't say what was the real reason of buying that bike but but I can write this- in the moment of me realising that I want a black bike can I be even remotely sure how that decision was made? Sure, it took me some time to think which one to buy but that thinking time could also be determined by moving atoms. So, in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision. If human apes have true free will then I can't see how it can function without somehow magically reversing the way that atoms and molecules move (and it doesn't even matter if the atoms are moving in a deterministic or non-deterministic way). As you already said, we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction. In the end, my opinion is that people should't use concepts of free will so freely if we cannot explain it. On the other side, absence of free will seems much easier to explain.

If you are interested read here about the illusion of free will http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/05/15/An-A...

Thank you for your time Fatfist :-)

P.S. - You should start writing a book if you already haven't started. Keep up the good work :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

“isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?”

Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation.

“can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?”

The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated.

“ in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision”

You may have made a different decision after reading an article encouraging you to get the red bike. Your brain will process the data available that that instant and reach some (logical to you) decision. Others won’t even think about it and just pick a bike randomly. The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision.

“we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction.”

Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life.

It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best. And whether or not a human has free will has nothing to do with having the ability to trace the SOURCE of where the thought came from to write a book. That has nothing to do with the fact that Harris did indeed write a book.

Anyway, if you’d like to discuss this or other Science stuff further, join our “Rational Scientific Method” group on facebook.

Thanks!


Don Mon Ster 2 years ago

I will definitely join this page on Facebook.

"Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation."

I completely agree with you there. Its a perfectly rational statment and I cannot see it being any other way.

"The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated."

Ok, but how can I be even remotely sure that nothing forced me to comply or otherwise. I am not aware of decision making of my brain (Liebet experiments) and therefore "me feeling" that I made or didn't make some decision means nothing.

"The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision."

They sure felt like they had the ability to make a decision but again, feeling something stands for nothing.

"Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life."

So, I've read your article on life before and this is the part that is very interesting to me.

"Inert entities are pulled by other

entities without offering any resistance to them. Living entities necessarily resist the gravitational attraction from all other entities in the Universe."

I don't quite get it what is the meaning of the word resistance in this statement. How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner? I just don't understand how is this resistance possible. To me it is like saying- all atoms in universe are not able to resist gravity but if you assemble them in the way that they create a human ape or any other living being then they suddenly do. If it is possible for atoms to suddenly accomplish the ability of resisting the gravity then what is mechanics behind that happening?

"It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best."

How do you know that Sam had free will to write his book? So what I'am basically asking you what is a so called "free will" and how it functions on a micro level (or any level)?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

"How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner?"

It's called "pull". There are only 2 possible forces in nature. The other is called "push".

Free will means unpredictable behavior in living entities. They have the ability to choose. Inert objects don't.

Harris had the ability to write a book and exercised his wish to do so....irrespective of the actual mechanics involved in the brain, which are irrlevant to the definition of 'free will'.


Alan 2 years ago

Would it be out of line to ask you your thoughts concerning the documentry "particle fever"? I watched it and wish that there was someone in the movie discussing the issues the theory has. I know you can shed some light on this in a very clear way, but then again this might be the wrong place to ask this question.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Alan, join our fb Physics group "Rational Scientific Method" and raise this topic for discussion.


s4ogals 2 years ago

to all bb theory followers. I dont linke the bullshit ice cream flavour.


ibeleiinGOD 2 years ago

GOD cannot be compared for GOD is everything.


Ant K 24 months ago

ibeleiinGOD, I see you've that you've chosen to assert the existence of, and make a claim about, your comfort blanket belief, instead of directly responding to the content of the article. One would think you have no argument and have put your hands over your eyes to hide from the reality that you're unable to challenge something that destroys your brainless belief system. How sad, but predictable.


Aloysius 22 months ago

The big bang is definitely false.

http://www.bigbanguntrue.blogspot.com/


Mark Alien profile image

Mark Alien 19 months ago

Love your blog...have you seen this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working