Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding

Here is a picture of ME after a hard days work. As you can see, my jeans have EXPANDED!
Here is a picture of ME after a hard days work. As you can see, my jeans have EXPANDED!
EXPANSION: WHAT IS THAT BLACK STUFF??  AND WHAT IS THE "EDGE" OF THE BUBBLE MADE FROM...BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC?
EXPANSION: WHAT IS THAT BLACK STUFF?? AND WHAT IS THE "EDGE" OF THE BUBBLE MADE FROM...BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC?
Atheists claim their God/Singularity CREATED the Universe, which has SHAPE. What is the background that gives SHAPE to the Universe??
Atheists claim their God/Singularity CREATED the Universe, which has SHAPE. What is the background that gives SHAPE to the Universe??
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?


Your Jeans Can Expand


Have you ever put on a freshly-washed pair of jeans and noticed how tight-fitting they are? Have you also noticed that by the end of the day, they are not as tight and are actually more comfortable?

In fact, this happens to me every day. Just look at the picture (above) of ME after a long days work. My jeans have clearly expanded, even to the point of tearing.

What is going on?

Let’s first assume that your body didn’t gain or lose any weight during the day.

Your body, due to its motion throughout the day, has exerted “tension” on the individual fibers of the pants. This caused the fibers to “expand” or stretch. This process has made the fibers a little “longer” and a little “thinner”. The total amount of matter comprising those pants didn’t increase or decrease. Your body simply “displaced” the matter (atoms in the fibers) from one location to another.



But The Universe Cannot Expand


As illustrated with the pants example, only physical objects can expand. All physical objects have shape/form/contour.

Is the Universe a physical object? Is the Universe like a pair of pants, or like an apple we can point to?

Early man pointed to all objects and gave them a name. The name is irrelevant. The name is just an association/relation from a concept in the brain, to an object in the physical world. This is how language began. So the word “apple” is a concept, just as all words are concepts. But this concept “apple”, resolves to a physical object hanging from a tree.


Now I ask you: What does the word “Universe” resolve to.....an object or a concept?

First of all, the word Universe is a concept, as all words are concepts.

Now does the word Universe resolve to any physical object? Can we point to ‘the’ Universe?

The answer is unequivocally: NO!



Do you see the problem we have here? The problem has to do with the consistent use of language and comprehension in any scientific context. So let's first clarify the language, which is the key obstacle here. The mysterious word Universe is a concept, which is defined as follows:


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


It's capitalized because there is only one. We are referring to 'THE' Universe.

Although 'the’ Universe is a NOUN for the purposes of ordinary speech, it cannot be treated as a noun in the course of a scientific presentation. We know that atoms may move with respect to each other, but when space or 'the' Universe starts moving, watch out! Someone slipped a “mickey” in your beer!


Concepts don’t move, and they most definitely don't expand. Only physical objects have the ability to move, expand, stretch, dilate, etc.


So what is the object when we make reference to ‘the’ Universe?
The objects are the atoms, which we collectively refer to as 'matter'. The concept Universe embodies matter (something, atoms) and space (nothing).


So when somebody claims that “The Universe is expanding”.....what EXACTLY are they saying?


  1. Are they saying that physical objects (stars, planets, trees, mountains, water, people, cats, dogs) are expanding?
  2. Are they saying that space itself (which is nothing) is expanding?
  3. Are they saying that all the objects and their atoms are in motion and flying apart in the vastness of space?


Actually, Relativity and the Big Bang Theory claim that it is SPACE which is expanding!

But space is nothing. It is not an object. It lacks shape/form. As such, it cannot “stretch” like your pants can, when you consume too many physical objects.


When asked what the universe is expanding into, the Big Bang theorists declare that it is expanding into nothing.

It is ridiculous to claim that the Universe is expanding at many times the speed of light (> c) into nothing, especially when Relativity dictates that the speed of light must be constant. And if the Universe is expanding into nothing, then it is actually expanding into “space”! So this is a total contradiction of terms for Relativity and the Big Bang Theory.


It is impossible for something which is lacking shape, like the Universe and space, to expand/stretch!


For anybody to claim that space itself expands, they are IMPLICITLY saying that space is a physical object, it has shape, and is irrevocably contoured by 'something'.

So here is your Homework:


1) Draw a picture of space.
2) Label the 'stuff' that is on the outside of space and contours it. What is this ‘stuff’ made of....matter or nothing?


Mathematicians claim that the Universe is a finite physical object, such as an ocean, but that there is nothing outside of it providing contour and shape.

Well, we know that the ocean is an object, since it has shape. When we throw a rock into the ocean, the water is displaced and the sea level rises, because there is space (nothing) above the water.

When the Universe is said to “expand”, there must be NOTHING (space) that it is expanding into. But these mathematicians are claiming that it is ‘the’ space itself which is expanding. Again, this is a total contradiction. You cannot claim that space is expanding, and it is expanding into NOTHING, when “nothing” is already referring to space. The “nothing” is already there, and everywhere!



Big Bang Theorists claim that no matter where you are in the universe, all galaxies move away from YOUR location, due to space expansion.

In fact, Big Bang Theory demands such a scenario. Back to the ocean example: If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions!
This is not what the astronomers verify. Andromeda is blue shifted and allegedly on a collision course with the Milky Way, barely 2 million light years away.

This observation alone contradicts and debunks the Big Bang Theory and the alleged expansion of the Universe!




The Universe Has NO Beginning and NO End


In physics, it is irrational to say that an atom began to exist in the past. It is also irrational to say that an atom will cease to exist in the future. In physics, we say that an atom exists (present tense). Matter exists ONLY in present tense.

Otherwise it is up to the mathematician to explain how “nothing”, can acquire Length, Width, and Height, and form into an atom. Also, they will have to explain how an atom can lose Length, Width, and Height, and turn into nothing.


The Universe cannot have an 'end', because such terminology is alluding to an object. The Universe is obviously NOT an object. It is a concept. Concepts don't have an end like a table has an end.


So the correct terminology is:

  1. The amount of matter in the Universe is constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. Space cannot convert into matter, and matter cannot convert into space.
  2. Space has no shape and is therefore neither finite nor infinite (remember: ‘infinite’ is an adjective that modifies objects).
  3. The Universe is a concept that includes matter and space.


You see, the Universe consists only of a bunch of atoms, rocks, gases, light, stars, etc. The Universe has no ability to memorize previous locations. In other words, the Universe does not recognize ‘time’. Time is a figment of the imagination of living entities, such as humans. The reason we perceive time is that we have memory. Without memory, there is no such notion as time. Without memory, there is only the present. Time is a conscious observer phenomenon. The mathematicians never understood this and they never will. Their memory of past events clouds their thinking. As far as the Universe is concerned, the Moon WAS not there and WILL not be over there. The Moon IS there. The Moon can only have one location – the location it actually has NOW.


More by this Author


Comments 272 comments

Winston 6 years ago

The last time someone smart made an error in deduction about an observed natural phenomenon (Aristotle decided the Earch did not move because objects fall straight down), it took us 2000 years of bad plug-the-holes ad hoc theories before we admitted reality.

The inflation, dark matter, dark energy, are all part of the neo-plug-the-holes ad hoc theories about The Big Bang.

The over/under on ignorance is 2000 years. Any under betters?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Well, Aristotle had developed a philosophical argument for the eternal universe (Physics, I, 9; On the Heavens, I, 3). And just for that he gets extremely high marks in my book.

Why? Because nobody was able to reason something so basic and fundamental before him. You need no education whatsoever to reason that the universe must be eternal.

Yes, he did have major screw ups regarding the solar system, gravity, light, etc.

But just look at how far we've gotten today. Hawking takes us back to Biblical times with "creation". Hawking has no clue or Theory about any of these issues:

- universe

- gravity

- light

- magnetism

- electricity

- atom

So really, what do we understand today? What else other than the architecture of the solar system and galaxies do we understand?

It is this lack of understanding, and lack of explanations that ushered in the mathematicians who invented a bunch of conceptual opinionated garbage. And used it to write equations, and then claim that their equations MAGICALLY control the universe. Sounds like another religion to me!

The establishment has no better explanations for the universe today since the days of Newton. There are some people who do, but they will never be heard.

PS. Please don't mind my ripped jeans in the picture. I had to work extra hard that day!


dabeaner profile image

dabeaner 6 years ago from Nibiru

Either concept -- Big Bang or Eternal -- is strange. So picking one or the other on the basis of "less strange" is impossible (to me).

That being said, I disregard the Big Bang Theory for reasons such as you and a few others have mentioned.

Fred Hoyle back in the 1950s or so was in the Eternal camp, but was drowned out by the bangers. More recently, astronomer Tom van Flandern, made a good attempt to reclaim that territory from the bangers, but with no success.

Dark Matter, Missing Planets and New Comets (Paradoxes Resolved, Origins Illuminated) by Tom van Flandern.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1556431554/...

Short book review at

http://booksyouneedtoread.blogspot.com/2007/05/dar...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

dabeaner,

Van Flandern counters the Big Bang by developing what he calls a Meta-Model of the Universe. In this meta-model, Van Flandern begins by creating a theoretical universe of a single particle. From there he posits the introduction of additional particles and then deduces interaction with them by inducing known laws of mechanics and cosmology.

Ok, my questions are:

Where did this particle come from? Was it eternal?

Also, where did all the other particles come from after the first one?

Also, how did these particles become matter (atoms)?

I assume his theory states that space was already there.


tantrum profile image

tantrum 6 years ago from Tropic of Capricorn

I believe, like Einstein ,that the Universe is curved, so it has an end. Why can't the Universe expand within its limits? All words are concepts , so the Universe is a concept, as a chair , or a tree, or the ocean is. Everything is tangible. We are part of the Universe. If you can touch yourself, you can theoretically could touch the Universe,if you were big enough to do so. Your limits don't limit the Universe. What limits the Universe is your concept of it. I think it expands within its limits,but we can't grasp this limits,being the Universe so wide. What we can't measure we call infinity. But I think all has a limit, and all has a beginning and an end. That doesn't mean that it has to be ecstatic. Just like your jeans, the Universe expands. Maybe you have too much body and less brains. That's why you chopped your head ? LOL ! (jk)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tantrum,

(I believe, like Einstein ,that the Universe is curved, so it has an end.)

Since you claim the Universe has an end, a boundary.....then this is the question that I am compelled to ask you:

If I travel to that boundary (the edge), can I put my arm through it? Can I drill through it? Can I blast through it?

If not, then why not?

If yes, then what will I find after that boundary?

(Why can't the Universe expand within its limits?)

Because the Universe is a concept. Concepts are ideas, they cannot expand. Only “physical objects” expand.

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

Would you like to say that either matter, space, or both expands? Relativity claims that space expands. This is impossible.

(All words are concepts , so the Universe is a concept, as a chair , or a tree, or the ocean is.)

Yes! A chair, tree, and ocean, resolve to physical objects made up of atoms.

The Universe does not resolve to a physical object. Only what embodies the Universe, matter, resolves to a physical object, ie. atoms.

Space is not a physical substance, and it does not resolve to atoms.

(What limits the Universe is your concept of it.)

Well, this is the scientific definition that we can use consistently, and it is unambiguous:

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

The reason why the Universe is a concept, is because it embodies 2 or more ideas or relations. If there was no space, then the Universe would be one solid physical block, hence an object.

(What we can't measure we call infinity.)

The word ‘infinite’ is an abstract concept that is only consistently defined and used within the context of abstract mathematics, never in physical reality. It is impossible for anything to be “infinite” in reality. Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.

For example, if matter was infinite, there would be no space. There would only be one solid block of matter, and no life that could move.

If space was infinite, there would be no matter, and hence no life.

In reality, ‘finite’ and ‘infinite’ are adjectives that describe objects. You can try to say that a board is finite or infinite, but you must realize that it is impossible for any object to be ‘infinite’, because all objects have ‘shape’, and thus are always finite. In common everyday speech, people always say that objects, concepts, and verbs are infinite, but this is not only irrational, but impossible. Not to mention that it violates grammar.

In physics, we don’t use common everyday parlance, we are “precise” with our use of terms. It is irrational to say something is infinite, especially the Universe or space. Adjectives like infinite, cannot describe concepts. Only adverbs can describe verbs and concepts. So you can say that, ‘running’ (verb) is incessant (adverb). But you cannot say, ‘running’ is infinite (adjective). Such sentences are meaningless.

If you say that space is “finite”, you are saying that space has shape and that something is TACITLY on the outside of 'it' providing contour! You are saying that space is an object.

If you say that the Universe is expanding, then you are claiming that it is a finite object by default. And it must be surrounded by empty space to give it contour or shape.

Remember, only finite objects, like my pants, can expand.

(Maybe you have too much body and less brains. That's why you chopped your head ? LOL ! (jk)

I’d like to at least keep some parts private.

But you didn’t give me any compliments on my chest, abs, and tattoos...LOL

Thank you for commenting!


dabeaner profile image

dabeaner 6 years ago from Nibiru

FF: It was some time ago I read the van Flandern book. I don't remember that one beginner particle bit. That is no better than a Big Bang, then. Getting more particles out of one would be a problem. If one to start, it would have to be like a bacteria that divides itself when it gets enough to eat. But, what would it eat? Empty space? Souls? Bwah-ha-ha-ha!

BTW, an old, old math book I read many, many years ago described various types (degrees)of infinity. So assuming matter is infinite, it would not have to be a solid block if it was in an infinity of the higher degree of space. Granted, that was a mathematical explanation, as I recall. :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

dabeaner,

(That is no better than a Big Bang, then. Getting more particles out of one would be a problem.)

Yeah, this is what I was gonna say.

(But, what would it eat? Empty space? Souls? Bwah-ha-ha-ha!)

I guess that it would eat the same things asserted by Quantum :-)

QM makes the ridiculous claim that “vacuum fluctuations” create “virtual particles”. Now some people may think that this is similar to Genesis 1:1 where God creates the universe from nothing. But as you will see, Genesis 1:1 makes A LOT MORE sense than QM.

QM is a contemporary religion, similar to the monotheistic ones, which preach that God created the universe for HUMANS! They both preach a human-centric universe with afterlifes in other dimensions, and eternal existence in “heaven”, a dimension which can be visited by travelling forward or backward in time.

Today, the religion of Mathematical Physics is no better than traditional religion. But in many ways, it is MORE irrational & surrealistic.

In Genesis 1:1, we have God, which is an anthropomorphic abstract object that can be visualized. God is a concept that we can “draw” as an image (shape) on paper. Anyway, God waves his magic wand and creates matter. But this is supernatural, and cannot be visualized.

But in quantum fluctuations, the virtual particle is ZERO-DIMENSIONAL (0D). It is impossible for it to exist. It is even MORE ridiculously stupid than God – by a magnitude of 10 to the power of 1000! It is irrational & surrealistic.

I mean, can we even draw, or can we even visualize something with NO physical dimensions? A virtual particle (0D) has absolutely nothing to do with Physics because it is not even an object. And it’s safe to say that 0D particles have nothing to do with religion either. Even somebody who is high on crack cocaine or meth, can’t even “visualize” a virtual particle. We can visualize a 3D Jesus walking on water or raising the dead, but never a 0D Jesus.

And this is why the mathematicians always have the virtual particle as 0D in their equations. It is nothing but an abstract concept, a stupid idea, that is modelled by math – not by reality. It is a place-filler to plug up the holes in their equations.

(math book I read many, many years ago described various types (degrees)of infinity).

Yes! This is all Cantor’s work. Do you know that he went crazy over infinity and was committed to an insane asylum? He was trying to use infinities to get a better understanding of god.

(So assuming matter is infinite)

Well, by the definition of the word “infinite”, if matter was indeed infinite, there would be no space whatsoever. The universe would be one solid block of matter with no individual atoms with space between them. Life would be an impossibility.

( it would not have to be a solid block if it was in an infinity of the higher degree of space.)

I don’t understand what you mean by this. If space was “infinite”, then this would imply that space is an entity with shape. And we are again in the situation where there would be no stars, planets, life, etc, because there would be nothing but “space”.

(Granted, that was a mathematical explanation, as I recall. :-)

Yes indeed! It cannot be illustrated. If we cannot draw a picture or make a movie of it in order to understand it, then it is “irrational”.

And this is what makes God more rational....as least we can google a picture of God. We cannot make a movie of him creating the universe though!

Space is a place as opposed to a thing, a where rather than a what. Space does not continue where matter stops. Space has no relevance without objects. There is no such thing as space; space doesn’t exist. It is matter that exists. It is by treating space as a physical object that relativists and religionists end up talking about the infinity and the existence of space.

The pivotal word infinity that the mathematicians have created is nothing more than a stealthy attempt to morph the adjective infinite into a noun. With such sleight of hand the mathematicians can use the word space both as ‘something’ and as ‘nothing’ throughout their presentation, thus covering all their holes. Of course, if space embodies such irreconcilable properties, we can explain anything and understand nothing. And this is where we are today!

In order to accommodate their ever complex, abstract, and ludicrous theories, the mathematics had to develop many different notions of space, one for every purpose. Relativists talk about one-space, two-space, three-space. They talk about Euclidean space, Hausdorff space, Hilbert space, Riemann space, Minkowski space, topological space, vector space, symplectic space. They talk about inflating space, warped space, and free space. They say that objects occupy space, travel through space, and reach the boundaries of space. How many spaces are there? I thought that there was only one space, you know, that dark one that is up there between the stars and the galaxies! That's the only space that physics recognizes. The rest is nonsense invented by mathematicians.


tantrum profile image

tantrum 6 years ago from Tropic of Capricorn

Hey ! You ask

'If I travel to that boundary (the edge), can I put my arm through it? Can I drill through it? Can I blast through it?

If not, then why not? '

And I answer with this question:

If you travel around the world, when you come back to the point where you started,do you see any boundary where you can stick your arm out ? Is there an invisible wall you have to go through ?

The same with the Universe.

The Universe is not only a concept or idea. The Universe IS. Or do you live in an idea ?

And why only solid objects can expand ? Air expands in a balloon. Thoughts can expand as well. LOL

And for me, the space is curve. And it IS . The concept Nothing doesn't enter in my equation.

But that's me. I'm no Scientist. Just playing here.

You say:

'If you say that the Universe is expanding, then you are claiming that it is a finite object by default. And it must be surrounded by empty space to give it contour or shape. '

And that's exactly what I think.

Finally, I didn't compliment on your pic because you look too much as a man who's going to experiment his 'Big Bang ' ! You're expanding, man ! LOL ;)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi tantrum,

(If you travel around the world, when you come back to the point where you started, do you see any boundary where you can stick your arm out ? Is there an invisible wall you have to go through? The same with the Universe. )

Ok, your question is easy to answer. You are not confined to the surface of the Earth. You can drill into the Earth, go inside, and come out the other side. Then you can build a rocket and blast out of the Earth’s atmosphere in any direction, and travel “incessantly” away from the Earth, and you would never come back to the Earth again. Space encapsulates and confines all matter. Space is everywhere. It has no beginning and no end.

If you claim that you “can” reach the Earth again, please rationally explain how. No mathematician can answer this question. This is why curved space and curved universes are only mathematical models. They cannot be used to explain anything in reality.

You see, tantrum....if a mathematician claims that the Universe is “curved”, they are claiming that the Universe is actually an object, with shape (like a ball). Only something with a boundary can be “curved”. Otherwise, what is it that makes it curved? By their own definition, this means that there must be a “boundary” to the Universe. But in reality, there is always “something” after that boundary. Any boundary can be penetrated.

So really, a curved universe, is irrational and physically impossible.

(The Universe is not only a concept or idea. The Universe IS. Or do you live in an idea?)

You didn’t understand me earlier. I’ll try again with some examples:

Is “rain” an object? Can you “point” to rain? Can you pick up “rain” with your hands? Can you “live” in rain?

Go to the beach. Is a “wave” an object? Can you “point” to a wave? Can you pick up a “wave” with your hands? Can you “live” in a wave?

The answer is “no”, to all questions. A “ball” is an object, since it has shape, a physical boundary. You can point to, pick up, and live in a ball because it is physical.

But “rain” and “wave” are only concepts, just ideas. You can point to, pick up, and live in “water”.....but never “rain” or a “wave”. Rain and waves are dynamic concepts, because they “relate” the physical object, water, with its “motion”. Rain and wave are verbs, not nouns.

Similarly, the Universe is a concept, because it relates physical objects (stars, planets, etc), with their “motion”, and relates them to space.

To say “I live in the Universe”, you are using ordinary speech, not scientific language because it is ambiguous. It is nonsense with no meaning.

Scientifically, you can say, “I live ‘on’ or ‘in’ the Earth”. But it makes no scientific sense to say, “I live ‘on’ or ‘in’ the Universe”. The Universe is not an object. We cannot point to “the universe”. The universe has no physical boundary, and this is why it is not an object, like a box, which you can live in.

If the universe had a physical boundary, we can penetrate it and go to the other side. So what would we find there?

I hope this is clearer now.

(And why only solid objects can expand ? Air expands in a balloon.)

Actually, “air” is a solid object (atoms). Air can blow down a tree. Air does not expand. The molecules that comprise air do not stretch. Only the balloon’s surface expands when we “add more” air inside. The surface of the balloon stretches and becomes thinner.....just like my pants do, when 5 women put their hands inside them..LOL.

(And for me, the space is curve. And it IS . The concept Nothing doesn't enter in my equation. But that's me. I'm no Scientist. Just playing here. )

Sure, come and play any time. But you can try to reason for yourself how you can “bend” and “curve” space. If you can manage to bend space, please put it in a box and mail it to me. I would love to see it for myself :-)

(You say: 'If you say that the Universe is expanding, then you are claiming that it is a finite object by default. And it must be surrounded by empty space to give it contour or shape.' And that's exactly what I think. )

Well then, in this case you are saying that the Universe is a finite object, like a ball, surrounded by “empty space”.

But isn’t that “empty space” ALSO part of the universe? If you say it is, then the universe cannot have shape. Get it?

Also, if the universe has shape (like you believe), then it has a physical boundary (like surface of ball) which I can penetrate. What is this boundary made from: rock? steel?

Either way, whenever anybody claims that the Universe is curved, it always leads to contradictions. Therefore, it is impossible.....I'm sorry, tantrum.

Thank you for the intellectual conversation, tantrum!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi tantrum,

(For me, everything is an object.)

Ok, no problem. This is very easy to resolve.

All you need to do, is please define the word "object", so that it can be used consistently, ie. scientifically.....so that we can apply this word to:

1) To everything inside galaxies: stars, planets, comets, moons, liquids, solids, gases, life, and also "space".

2) To all human concepts, ie. rain, waves, running, eating, happiness, love, justice, ..... basically, ALL words in the English language.

Here you go, fill in the blank.

Object: _______________________________

But first, let me provide you with the unambiguous scientific definition for object.

Object: that which has shape

This definition can be used consistently, so that we "understand" exactly what we are talking about.

If you don't like it, you are welcome to provide your "own" definition that is applicable to every single word in the English language.

(I'm,still disagreeing, I'm afraid.Maybe it's because I'm Latina)

Oh no, don't give me that excuse. Women from Argentina are not only beautiful, but very smart. And only a "little" stubborn :-)

I should know, I've dated several of them.


tantrum profile image

tantrum 6 years ago from Tropic of Capricorn

'Ok, then if there is no wall....but more space....then obviously your Universe has NO shape. It has no boundary. Therefore it is NOT curved!'

My Universe is curved. And it's surrounded by space. See ? Or is it too difficult for you to understand me ?

Planet Earth is curved and surrounded by space. Just as my Universe.

And I don't have any contradiction. I'm crystal clear.

But it's OK for me that you live in another Universe with different concepts and ideas. I will go and visit. Promise ! LOL

Ah, the idiots ! so hilarious ! I love when people get all wind up for nothing ! LOL Virtual retards ! Ha !


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

tantrum,

(My Universe is curved. And it's surrounded by space.... understand me ?)

Yes, I understand you. But you also have to understand the “consequences” of what you are saying. Let me explain:

1) By saying your Universe is “curved”, then it MUST have ‘shape’. Your hips are curved, and they definitely have shape!

2) If your Universe is “surrounded” by space (like you say)....then that extra space MUST be part of the Universe. If you say “no”, then what is this extra space part of?

2 (a) If you agree that the extra space IS part of your Universe, then logically, your Universe does NOT have shape. Understand?

2 (b) If you say the extra space is NOT part of your Universe, then your Universe MUST have a physical “boundary/wall” to give it shape. Then my question is: What is this wall made from? Bricks? Steel? Fishnet stockings?

(Planet Earth is curved and surrounded by space. Just as my Universe.)

But the Earth and the “surrounding space” are both part of the Universe. It is impossible for a concept like a Universe to be curved, just like I explained above. Only physical objects, like your hips, can be curved.

(But it's OK for me that you live in another Universe with different concepts and ideas.)

None of us live in ‘a’ Universe. You are using ordinary speech and poetry to convert a concept into an object. This is not scientific.

This is scientific: "I live in a house, on the surface of the Earth, which is in the Milky Way galaxy."

House & Earth & galaxy are objects since they have shape.

But the Universe is a concept since it lacks shape. If you disagree, then please reference a picture of your Universe so we can see its shape. Then you must explain what its boundary is made from. Bricks? Steel?

This is easy stuff.


tantrum profile image

tantrum 6 years ago from Tropic of Capricorn

GGGRRRRRR!

The space surrounding my Universe it's not part of it. It's part of something bigger that I didn't find out yet what it is. I suppose it's a bigger Universe, which is within a bigger Universe which is within....

And again, the Universe is a physical object, with a lot of physical objects in it.

We are physical, the Earth is physical. Our Solar system is Physical. The Universe is physical.

Your words :

'None of us live in ‘a’ Universe. You are using ordinary speech and poetry to convert a concept into an object. This is not scientific.'

So where are we living ?

And I'm not scientific . And yes, I use ordinary speech. In the end all speech is ordinary. LOL

You want to see my Universe ?

then imagine all the galaxies with their planets and suns, moons and stars, rotating in a curve space, which is within the bigger space I told you before.

This is easy stuff ! LOL ((wink)) ;)


ss sneh profile image

ss sneh 6 years ago from the Incredible India!

Hi! Can the sky collapse if a dog barks at it?

...No...

Wrong!

...Yes! It will collapse according to your understanding!

Look, if can sit on a chair, in front of a laptop and write an article like this

...and if you believe that you did write an article

...then you got to believe in science.

Because it's according to the same laws that you sit on a chair and write on a laptop...

as same as the laws that govern the universe and cause the universe to expand!

Look, science doesn't create universal laws...

but only DISCOVERS them...

which are already existing in this universe in which you and me live. -- cheers


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi ss,

(sky....It will collapse according to your understanding)

Please explain how the sky, which is a concept, can collapse. Do concepts collapse?

(then you got to believe in science)

Science has nothing to do with belief, ss. In science we explain “rationally” with Theories. Belief is what the religious do.

(Because it's according to the same laws ......that govern the universe)

Laws are concepts. The universe is a concept.

Please explain how one concept (law), performs an action (govern), to another concept (universe).

(and cause the universe to expand!)

I’m sorry to break this to you. But concepts don’t expand. Only objects, which have shape expand. Go have a look at the picture of my pants above. Pants have shape. Love and beauty doesn’t.

Is ‘universe’ an object? Does ‘universe’ have shape? Can you point to ‘universe’? Can you please reference a picture of ‘universe’? If not, then how can it expand? We learn this lesson on the first day of kindergarten when we play with shapes.

(which are already existing)

What does “existing” mean? What do you mean when you say a “law exists”?

(in this universe in which you and me live)

Very unscientific. We live ‘in’ objects, like houses. It is irrational to claim that an object can be ‘in’ a concept.

Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

tantrum,

(You want to see my Universe?)

Nobody can see love & beauty. Please go back and re-read points: 1, 2 (a&b). They show your contradictions.

(a curve space)

Space is nothing, so it cannot curve, bend, flex, expand.

Only religion performs these types of miracles on a daily basis.

Thank you!


tantrum profile image

tantrum 6 years ago from Tropic of Capricorn

You say :

We live ‘in’ objects, like houses. It is irrational to claim that an object can be ‘in’ a concept.

So, if the Universe is a 'concept' the Earth, with all our houses can't be in it.

Thus, the Universe doesn't exist, by what you say.

I don't agree. Period.

Space is something. It is 'space'

thank you !!!!!! Thank you for your time and space !


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tantrum,

(So, if the Universe is a 'concept' the Earth, with all our houses can't be in it.)

Exactly! See, you are starting to learn :-)

The Earth can be in a cardboard box, but never in a concept, such as "universe".

(Thus, the Universe doesn't exist)

Exactly! Finally, you are talking rationally tantrum. Objects exist, as they have shape & location. The universe, is conceptualized by us humans. It is a RELATION, not an object. It establishes a RELATION between objects, their motion, and space. We call this relation: Universe.

Tantrum.....you finally understand what a concept is!

(by what you say)

It had better not having anything to do with what “I”, “YOU”, or “GOD” says. This is a scientific issue that is objective.

Something exists if it is an “object” with a “location”.

Object: that which has shape

Location: the set of static distances to all other objects

It is irrational to say that concepts exist. Does rain exist? Does God exist? Not in physics they don’t. Are they objects? Do they have a location?

In religion, “everything” is said to exist, including God. Are you getting religious on me, tantrum? I know these are hard times, and Jesus will be coming in 2012 to establish his Kingdom here,....but please.....do a little more thinking and a little less believing.

(I don't agree)

Existence has nothing to do with what you or I agree or disagree to. Existence is objective. The Sun exists whether it’s night or day in your church, tantrum. If you can’t see the Sun when you are singing inside your church at night, doesn’t the Sun exist? Is the Sun’s existence dependent on what you agree to, and what makes you happy?

(Space is something. It is 'space')

That is a tautology....rhetoric......ie. green is green

Thank you tantrum!!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

I'm tired from reading all this! I think I need some space. Maybe a nap or two.

Could we imagine the universe as an "energy"? It's similar to electricity which we can't see, but we can see the effects.

FF, is energy a concept or an object?

L


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Austinstar,

(FF, is energy a concept or an object?)

I always ask people to draw love, happiness, force, time, running, laughing. They stumble...they look at me funny....they roll their eyes at me and ask what I’ve been smoking.

They I ask them to draw a car. They happily comply.

Finally, I ask them to draw energy. That's when they have an epiphany. They suddenly realize that they've been paying the utility company for nothing all these years. If you can't draw it, if you cannot visualize it, if it does not have shape.....then "IT" ain't an object for the purposes of physics.

"Energy", rationally interpreted, is an abstract concept, specifically a conceptual RELATION. Energy relates matter, its motion, and the distance it has travelled, and how much time it took for it to get there. Energy is not a thing.

Energy is mathematically quantified as follows: 1 J of “energy”= 1 W s = 1 kg m^2/s^2

But yet people will always make the following irrational claims:

- I need to eat cause I’m low on energy.

- I recently had lunch, I’m sorry, but I don’t have any energy to help you move the couch.

- I need to exercise to get energy.

- I’m sorry, I have no energy, I can’t exercise with you.

So I'll ask again. Point to energy. Point to universe. Point to an apple.

When God created Adam & Eve, he pointed to the apple tree and said "tree". This is how human apes first discovered and named all the objects on Earth. We still do the same today. I didn't know what an iPad was, until the store clerk pointed to it. Now I can draw a picture of it.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

(Energy is mathematically quantified as follows: 1 J of “energy”= 1 W s = 1 kg m^2/s^2 )

Math is a concept. I'm pretty sure about that. Ergo, energy must be a concept too.

What is E=MC(squared)? Ok, it's another mathematical concept.

What, exactly, have you been smoking?

I take it that you disagree with most of Einstein's theories about the universe. I do too and have for years. I'm not a physics major, but I have always thought that saying the speed of light was as fast as an object could ever travel was crazy.

Once upon a time people thought you could never travel faster than the speed of sound.

However, my favorite quote is from Einstein, "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the first one."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Austinstar,

(Math is a concept..energy must be a concept too.)

It had better be. Real objects are discrete, in that they have shape, a physical boundary. It is this property of objects that defines their existence. Can anybody demonstrate an object without a boundary? Tantrum tried and tried....but only because she believed what the Religion of Relativity told her. It is impossible for an object to not have shape!!

Is a soccer team an object or a concept? Does a soccer team have shape? Can you point to a soccer team? If you try, what are you really pointing at? A soccer team is concept that relates objects (players, coaches, referees, soccer ball, soccer field), to their actions (running, scoring, penalties), to the rules of the game, etc. It is an abstract concept that relates objects and their actions.

Can you fly a “soccer team” to South Africa so they can play a game? What are you exactly flying....a soccer team?... or objects (humans)?

Can you EXPAND a soccer team? When the players retire, they can marry 18 yr old blond models and live in different countries. You can say that they are separated by space or greater distance. But has the “soccer team” EXPANDED? Has SPACE expanded? Or did the human players do what ALL objects do: move and change location....

Similarly, does the universe have shape? If you say yes, then it MUST have a physical boundary. What is it made from? Bricks? Steel? What is beyond that boundary? God?

Can you point to the universe? If you try, what are you really pointing at? You can only point to objects like stars, planets, etc. The universe is a concept. It relates objects and their actions and space. It is IMPOSSIBLE for concepts and the universe to expand, shrink, move, vibrate, explode, ..... or any other VERB you can think of. Only objects can perform ‘verbs’.

I invite any Nobel Prize Physicist to come here and explain exactly how they expand the Universe. None ever do. They all hide behind their mathematical nonsense, which at the surface, looks overwhelming, intimidating & authoritative.....but once you peel back the layers, there is NOTHING there!

(What is E=MC(squared)? Ok, it's another mathematical concept.)

Yes. Any equation is. Equations only ‘describe’ by quantifying ideas. There is no equation that can explain why a ball falls to the floor.

Is money an object or a concept? You can say that a bill or a coin is an object. But money is an abstract concept that quantifies perceived value, which fluctuates daily. When the world ends in 2012, and Jesus comes to take us back to ancient times, with no electricity, fuel, and Internet....you will wish you had kept all your money as $1 bills under your mattress. At least you can burn them to keep you warm at night. But if your money is represented by numbers (concepts) in the bank’s computer....you are screwed!

(I take it that you disagree with most of Einstein's theories)

Facts are not determined by what anybody agrees or disagrees to.

Is it a fact that space can bend?

Is it a fact that time can bend?

Can you grab space with your hands and push down on it to bend it?

How can they refer to this nonsense as “progress” over what is written in the Bible?

(I'm not a physics major)

Neither was Einstein. He wasn’t even a mathematician. He was a con artist! His published papers are riddled with hundreds of mathematical errors (thanks to the help of his wife), if you care to examine them. Not to mention the many irrational claims, such as the bending of space.

In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, he remarked that his theory was correct. 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)

"Since the mathematicians have invaded the theory of relativity, I do not understand it myself anymore." -- Albert Einstein


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

What do economists mean when they say:

"In today's economy, we must find ways to STRETCH our money further."

Do we take "literally" such statements of ordinary speech? Does it mean to "stretch" money (a concept), like 5 ladies do when they jump on me, pull and "stretch" my pants?

Similarly, do we take literally the poetic statement:

"The universe expands/inflates/stretches, dragging with it the fabric of spacetime."

What can such religious nonsense even mean?

Is this the kind of CRAP that is supposed to compete with the Bible? Are you kidding me? At least the Bible talks about objects we can visualize: Jesus, God, Satan, the seas parting, Noah's Ark!!!!!

And now we have a contemporary priest, like Hawking,.... who uses religious speech to treat the Universe (a concept) as an object..... Then he claims that this object, THE UNIVERSE exists, and that it EXPANDS, like my pants.

And the stupidity goes even further, when Hawking claims that this concept (the universe) was CREATED by an EXPLOSION from nothing, called the Big Bang.....rather than created by the stupid homosapien brain of man.

Well, he is correct about one thing,....the "from nothing" part.....because the theists who conceived of the BB had no brains.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

Gosh, they'll never grasp the concept that the universe wasn't *created* at all. It just is. Always has been, Always will be.

Poor Hawking, he is trapped in such a limited body, but then, aren't we all?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Austinstar,

(they'll never grasp the concept that the universe wasn't *created* at all. It just is)

You know what you mean by that statement Austinstar. But most people, including Stephen Hawking, don’t. So let’s be more “specific” or “scientific”, so the rest of our friends can understand.

The universe is not an object, it is a concept (a relation, a metaphoric container), as discussed above. Think of it as a “set” in Set Theory.

The universe is a relation that is indeed CREATED or conceived by the brain of MAN. Humans invented all concepts, universes, and gods.

So what is it exactly that wasn’t created?

1) Matter (atoms) cannot be created or destroyed. We learn this lesson on the first day of physics class.

2) Matter (atoms) cannot be destroyed (lose Length, Width, Height) and convert into space (nothing).

3) Space (nothing) cannot acquire shape (gain Length, Width, Height) and convert into matter.

4) Space (nothing) cannot be created from nothing. Why? Because all matter is already separated by space. How do you create nothing?

***************************************

So in physics, it is MATTER and SPACE which cannot be created, not the universe.

***************************************

In Religion (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Big Bang, Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, String Theory), universes are created and destroyed all the time. And all their priests have “proofs” coming out of their yin-yangs.

It is by using such “ambiguities” that Religions can get away with murder and get you to accept such nonsense as:

- The universe was created (they reify concepts into objects).

- The universe (concept) expands and stretches like my pants.

- God created the universe, time, space, matter, life......but nobody created God.

But we know better than to use the ambiguous terms of ordinary speech. We use “precise” terms and rational explanations so that everybody understands what we are talking about.

So when we pay close attention to what these religions are saying, we see that they all pull the wool over our eyes with the sleight of hand known as: REIFICATION.

Reification is the process by which we conceive of concepts, and treat them as actual physical objects by way of ordinary speech, metaphor, colloquialism. That is, we treat them as NOUNS in sentences. And this makes others “think” that we are talking about real objects.

Examples of such nonsense:

- the “universe” expands

- we live IN the "universe"

- the “force” knocked him down

- I don’t have any “time” left

- my “energy” is drained

And this is why Hawking’s Big Bang, creation, and expansion is nothing but religion


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

So now that we DEBUNKED this expanding universe nonsense, let’s entertain this idea of “expansion” in a scientific manner.

I invite anybody to rationally explain exactly WHAT is “expanding”:

1) Is space (nothing) expanding, stretching, or flying apart, or giving birth to more space?

2) Is matter (atoms) expanding? Does the atom get bigger & bigger? Will humans become giants one day?

3) Are objects stretching just like the fibers in my pants.....getting longer and thinner, with more space between fibers?

4) Are the atoms from every object flying apart from each other? Are molecular bonds stretched or broken in this process?

Which one of these 4 processes realistically describes “expansion”?

I have 2 really expensive bottles (35yr old Port and 30 yr old Scotch) to offer to whomever can rationally explain “expansion”.

I hope that Stephen Hawking is reading this hub, cause he will actually learn something.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Terrific explanation of how reification is used to confound - similar to the alchemist's attempt to turn lead into gold.

The neo-alchemist takes data (redshift) and then creates axioms and systems of logic to explain it. (Big Bang, Expanding Universe) What they don't seem to grasp is that axioms and systems of logic only deal in the conceptual and can lead only to logical necessity, not reality, and certainly not theory, which is a rational explanation.

The neo-alchemist turns science into nothing but a call-in vote winner show, World Idol, and whoever gets the most votes gets his concept used while all rational explanation attempts are marginalized to the back pages of the New York Post.

So now, to fill in all the holes of the BB concept, we have invented (without data) logical necessities of cosmic inflation, dark matter, and dark energy, all to fill the void of space so that the "universe" is no longer empty but full of some mysterious force - and because no one can figure out into what this now "shaped" universe is expanding, the Quantum Crew jumps in to show us how we flip-flop between dimensions attached by strings, the strings presumambly attached to pseudo-universal-fingers so that the different universes will not forget and flip when they should flop and vice versa.

And it is all because of a guy named Hubble - explain redshift in a rational manner that requires no objects to be moving away from a central point and you destroy Big Bang - as long as you can get enough neo-physicist's votes, that is.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

I found this quote on a site called metaresearch.org. I think you will like it:

"The Big Bang, much like the Santa Claus hypothesis, no longer makes testable predictions wherein proponents agree that a failure would falsify the hypothesis. Instead, the theory is continually amended to account for all new, unexpected discoveries. Indeed, many young scientists now think of this as a normal process in science! They forget or were never taught that a model has value only when it can predict new things that differentiate the model from chance and from other models before the new things are discovered. Explanations of new things are supposed to flow from the basic theory itself with at most an adjustable parameter or two, and not from add-on bits of new theory."

No doubt. Imagince how bad it would be if Intelligent Design were being taught in science classes and every pupil passed because of No Child Left Behind!

The Age of Enlightenment has ended - we are now in The Age of Dogma and Denial.


ss sneh profile image

ss sneh 6 years ago from the Incredible India!

Hi Fatfist!

The whole concept of "science" depends on belief!

Each and every theorem has assumptions...

Who has gone passed Alpha centuari?

Does any man made instrument ever reached there?

Never!

We just assume (believe) that the laws of physics are the same there...same every where in the universe.

The basics of science- definitions of mass, energy, space, time, the conservation of energy, speed of light,...all, we just assume that the same as everywhere in the universe.

It's the same with all the theorems...all are depending on some assumptions...some belief...

In the 1930s Neil's Bhor, from his newly found understanding of quantum mechanics, asked Einstein

"Does the moon exist if no one observe it?"

Einstein replied-

"I like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it. ... God does not play dice with the cosmos".

So in your case: According to you...

You live in "OBJECTS" like houses and sky and universe are just concepts.

You differentiate your house as an "object" from a "concept" because you can see it, feel it, understand it....

and sky and universe are "concepts" because you can't see them but only imagine.

Well, just go to an observatory and watch through a telescope.

You will be able to see the universe around you just like the way you see your house when you are inside it!

Sky is not a concept but space- which can expand, contract, bend and curve just like any object that you see like a rubber band in your house!

Laws of physics? Concepts?...

Please try to learn Mathematics...

However I still agree with you... The universe is actually a concept in your brain...

And your "concept" of the universe ends when you cease to exist! -- Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

(The neo-alchemist takes data (redshift) and then creates axioms and systems of logic to explain it.)

Right! The idiots of math have asserted that light departs as a particle, travels as a wave, and arrives as a particle.

By assuming that light travels as a “wave”, these morons are implicitly assuming that there exists an “aether” in the vastness of space that is a physical mediator for the waving motion of light. You see, they extrapolated this nonsense from sound, which is the waving of the physical substance (molecules) of air. Can you believe this stupidity?

Then these morons assert that light has a Doppler Effect behavior, like sound, which they call Red Shift. Even though they already claimed to have “disproven” the aether over 100 years ago with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Do you see their contradictions?

It is this BS that leads them to the irrational conclusion that Red Shift means expansion......more specifically....the EXPANSION OF A CONCEPT – THE UNIVERSE!

What a bunch of dumbasses!

(So now, to fill in all the holes of the BB concept, we have invented...logical necessities)

And more are invented daily to plug up the holes of Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory.

(And it is all because of a guy named Hubble - explain redshift)

It was the Catholic priest, Lemaintre, who initially took Hubble’s data and EXTRAPOLATED it as Doppler Effect data, because he ASSUMED that light was a “wave”, like sound. Hubble refused to accept this Big Bang BS until peer pressure forced him to. Lemaintre had an agenda: to PROVE THE OLD TESTAMENT CREATION STORY. And this data was all the proof he needed to make the Pope happy.

So this theist, Lemaintre, didn’t realize that light needed a PHYSICAL MEDIATOR, like air, which physically “waves” up and down in order to facilitate sound pressure. He didn’t understand that a wave is what something DOES....not what something is. A “wave” is a concept. If he claims that light has wave-like behaviour, then he MUST provide a physical mediator to facilitate it. More specifically, if Lemaintre asserts that light has a Doppler Effect, then it MUST be mediated by a physical “aether”-like substance, just like “air” mediates sound. Well this clearly isn’t the case, because space is not a physical substance. Space is nothing!

So redshift doesn’t indicate squat. It instead showcases the stupidity of the primitive apes we have among us.

(The Age of Enlightenment has ended - we are now in The Age of Dogma and Denial.)

Scary.....but true! Although the age of enlightenment was very very short...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi ss,

("science" depends on belief!)

Absolutely not! Belief and proof are the hallmarks of Religion. Science only explains in a rational manner via Theories. Science has nothing to do with the personal opinions of the idiots, like Hawking and Einstein, or others we decorate with Nobel Prizes.

(Each and every theorem has assumptions)

Science has NO theorems. Only math has such concepts as theorems. Science never proves, like theorems....science only explains. Theorems are axiomatic and always proven within a system of logic. Nature has NO axioms or systems of logic.

Science has Hypotheses, which assume the existence of objects as physical mediators, which are used to explain natural phenomena in the Theory stage.

(mass, energy, space, time)

Please tell us what is this stuff you call “mass”, “energy”, “space”, “time”. Are they OBJECTS or CONCEPTS? If they are objects, please reference a picture of them so we can all see what they look like.

(we just assume that the same as everywhere in the universe)

Unscientific statement! You are using ordinary speech. The universe is a “concept” only. Not an object. The universe does not have shape! Only objects have shape.

(sky and universe are just concepts)

Exactly, they had better be concepts!

Sky is a term that has implicit reference to vertical “direction”. More specifically, it is a term used in relation to the term “ground”. Just like “ceiling” is in relation to the term “floor”. These terms are nothing but RELATIONS (ie. concepts). This is where the term “skyscraper” is derived from.

Is a “skyscraper” an object or a concept? Doesn’t the term “skyscraper” have an implicit relation to “height”? Isn’t the “building” the actual object that we, as scientists, are concerned with?

You are confused. For the concept “sky”, you are inadvertently alluding to the object we call “atmosphere” (Greek: atmos = gases, sphere = 3D round object). The “atmosphere” is the physical object which envelopes the surface of the Earth, not the “sky”. Sky is not an object....but a “relation”. The atmosphere, on the other hand, is made up of atoms, instead of relations.

Similarly, the “universe” is a concept as explained in my posts. I am sorry to see that you are having lots of trouble differentiating a concept from an object. Mathematicians and philosophers treat every single word in the dictionary as an object. Clearly.....this is NOT the case!

Concepts do not exist.....they have no shape. And if they are not physical, they have NOTHNG to do with physics. Physics is the study of objects that exist...ie. have shape and location.

(You differentiate your house as an "object" from a "concept" because you can see it, feel it, understand it)

Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Whether “something” is an object, has nothing to do with what “I”, “YOU”, or “GOD”, can feel, hear, smell, taste, see, believe, know, dogmatically dictate, or prove.

Wasn’t the Moon an OBJECT before Adam & Eve magically appeared on Earth? Whether something is an object has nothing to do with the OPINION of any human being.

An object is that which has shape. Didn’t the Moon have shape before Adam & Eve? Didn’t the surface of an asteroid, which has shape.....interact in a collision with the surface of the Moon, before humans were around?

The existence of objects has no dependency on human opinion!

(and sky and universe are "concepts" because you can't see them but only imagine.)

Are you saying that “sky” and “universe” are objects????

If so, then please be my guest.....draw (or reference on the internet) a picture of this object you call “sky” and another picture of this object you call “universe”. Then BOTH of us, and the rest of the readers will know whether they are objects.

(Well, just go to an observatory and watch through a telescope.)

All objects have shape whether we watch them or not. All objects have a physical boundary that is separated by the static distance of SPACE from all other objects.

This has nothing to do with what primitive human apes can “see”. Existence is objective! Never subjective.

Did you ever “see” the Universe thru a telescope? If yes, then please draw or reference a picture of it so we can all see it. This is how you can show everybody that you know what you are talking about.

(You will be able to see the universe around you just like the way you see your house)

ss.....I am having LOTS of trouble “seeing” this “universe” thing. Can you please draw or reference a picture of this object which YOU call “UNIVERSE” so we can BOTH “see” it?

I can’t wait to see a picture of it.

(space- which can expand, contract, bend and curve just like any object)

Is “space” an object according to you, ss? Does space have shape, a boundary?

Can I grab space with my hands and BEND it? Why not?

What is this nonsense you preach?

Please draw a picture of space, or reference a picture of it on the internet.....then we will both know whether it is an object, like you claim.

(Please try to learn Mathematics)

Is math an object or a concept, ss? Can you please draw a picture of the object “math”?

What does math have to do with existence?

(The universe is actually a concept in your brain)

Yes! All concepts, math, universes, and gods were CONCEIVED by the brain of stupid humans. There was no universe before Adam & Eve, and there will NOT be any universe after the last human dies.

Matter, on the other hand.....is eternal. It cannot be created or destroyed.

And space (nothing), cannot be converted into matter. No verbs (expand, bend, contract, run, jump, etc) can be applied to space.

Do you disagree? If so, please explain in a rational manner.

Thanks for your input.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

The contemporary religions of the Big Bang & Relativity have brainwashed their followers to parrot that:

- they can “see” the universe (effectively reifying the concept “universe” into an object with shape, and performing VERBS on it – ie. exploding, expanding, stretching, etc.)

- they can “bend” space (effectively reifying “nothing”, into an object with shape, and performing VERBS on it – ie. bending, stretching, expanding, etc.)

Meanwhile, they haven’t defined the key terms of their argument. They always refuse to define "object", "space" and "universe".

Some followers of these neo-religions will flatly come out and claim that “space” is a physical object, and the “universe” is a physical object. But most will not do so. In fact, most of these followers will do their best to AVOID such questions.

But when asked to draw a picture illustrating these objects, they all come up with a million excuses to dodge your question. This is the only way they can protect their religion and avoid public scrutiny.

It’s the same situation with Christians....when asked if their God is physical (has shape), they flatly deny it. They instantly claim that their God is spirit (a concept, ie. nothing). But if you read their bibles, their God was indeed a physical object (burning bush, a human public speaker, Jesus, it talks, it loves, it punishes, etc.). They will go back and forth between “spirit” and “being” so they can defend all their arguments and get away with murder.

The neo-religions, like Relativity and Quantum, are no different.

Before you “bend” space, and before you “expand” the universe, you had better illustrate what they look like. You must draw these objects in all their glory – ie. showing their shape, boundary, physical form. You must also be able to describe the PROPERTIES of these objects (space & universe)..... are these objects made up of atoms, or are they nothing?

Physics is the study of real objects and their interactions. All objects have the intrinsic property of shape. Without shape/form, you cannot have an object. Space is nothing, because it lacks shape. Space is NOT a physical substance!

Remember how in kindergarten we all played with shapes? Why do you think we learn about ‘shapes’ the very first day in kindergarten? The reason is so that we don’t make such ridiculous claims, such as bending space/concepts, when we become adults.

It is obvious that many people, like Hawking & Einstein, didn’t pay any attention to this lesson on the first day of kindergarten. And yet they have many followers who blindly believe in their dogma, just like the followers of all religions. Followers cannot think for themselves. This is why they need authorities and idols to worship.

All words in any human language are concepts. The word “apple” itself, is a concept of the English language. When humans first conceived of language, they POINTED to objects and uttered sounds. This sound (“apple”) and its association with the physical object hanging from the tree, resolved the linguistic concept (apple) into a physical object (with shape) in reality.

If a word (like space & universe) cannot be resolved to a real object with shape, then these words remain concepts – nothing but mere ideas/relations....they are not real.....they do not resolve to anything that can be said to “exist”.

This is how we resolve words in language into physical objects in reality.....we POINT to them! What if they are invisible, like air? What if we cannot point to them?

NO PROBLEM: Just illustrate them by drawing a picture.

Can we draw a picture of the Oxygen molecule? It is invisible to us because of our limited sensory system. But it still exists as an object because it has the intrinsic property of shape, and it has physical presence. In fact, we illustrate all molecular configurations with diagrams. These are all physical objects with shape. Just google the picture of the air molecule. It specifically illustrates an object with shape!

It is the surface of air which comes in contact with a tree during a wind storm, and pushes it to the ground. If air had no shape, then it would NOT have a physical surface that could interact with other objects like trees.

And this is the reason why a tree cannot be knocked down by “space” on the surface of the moon. Space does not have a surface that can interact with physical objects. Can space on the moon blow the US flag and “wave” it? Can we use an electric fan on the moon to blow the US flag?? If space was indeed a physical object, then an electric fan would “push” space to the surface of the flag and disrupt it by blowing & waving the flag? Does this happen? Why not???

These are basic concepts that we learn in kindergarten. In fact, rocket scientists ALREADY knew that “space” was NOTHING before the Moon mission. This is the only way they could launch a ship into space and make it travel at such speeds to the Moon. If space was a physical object, it would come in contact with the surface of the ship and destroy it, burning it up....just as it happens to meteors that hit the Earth’s atmosphere daily.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Fatfist

Another good hub.

The picture of the universe expanding is not unidirection in appearance but more like a shaped charge explosion.

This is just an alternative concept.

In the current picture concept the singularity point looks more like a portal. Sort of like shooting a shotgun through a hole in a wall.

The singularity explanation also gave rise to the matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It implies a closed system.

my opinion....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(but more like a shaped charge explosion)

Yeah, even relativists cannot agree with each other on these issues.

But I welcome any of these relativists to come here and set me straight on these matters. They can accuse me of strawmaning their position, but when push comes to shove, they cannot explain what their position actually is.

There are no "official" diagrams of the Big Bang.

(The singularity explanation also gave rise to the matter cannot be created nor destroyed.)

Not according to Quantum. These guys are able to create something from nothing via a concept they call: void fluctuation

They cannot explain it.....they only assert it.

(It implies a closed system)

Of course it does.

But then we are in the situation where we can throw a spear at the edge of the universe.

Then their closed system falls apart with its contradictions.

Thanks for the post ODuck!


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(The singularity explanation also gave rise to the matter cannot be created nor destroyed. It implies a closed system.)

Also, the closed system is perfect for the theist to make one of his favorite arguments about entropy - it wouldn't do to have an "orderly universe", the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and an open system, now would it?

You can track this whole argument back to two ideas, the Big Bang from the Catholic priest and the steady state from Hoyle - isn't it odd that the idea of the priest won out and along with it came a new wave of religionists to preach the truth of its gospel?

The Science Channel last night had a program extolling the virtues of the Big Bang, and how it was PROVED by redshift and the Cosmic Background Radiation!

How can they not know that only logics are proved - science is not in the proving business, only math, religion, and philosophy try to prove.


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Fatfist

Do you have any thoughts on Time Travel

...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

OD,

I hate to spoil it for all of those who think that after they die, their future relatives will visit them when they travel back in time to year 2010.

Just think about what it means ‘to travel’. It means to perform a VERB on an object. The object is you. The verb is the action of moving you, or changing your location. In physics, verbs pertain to movement, and nouns pertain to objects. The only nouns in physics are those which have shape. It’s that simple.

So what is motion?

In order to move, an object has to occupy 2 or more locations.

However, nature does not recognize motion. It takes a biological brain with memory to recognize motion. As far as nature is concerned, objects only have location. A planet can be here or there, it cannot be here AND there.

So in order to conceptualize motion, you need memory. Humans recognize motion because they have a built in data bank of neurons. We remember an object’s previous locations and hence we call this dynamic concept: motion.

Can we travel ‘on’ time or ‘in’ time??

Well....what the heck is time?

Hawking writes a Book called "A brief history of TIME" and nowhere will you find the definition of the subject matter. He states that while he has no evidence of time travel, it is theoretically possible; and that it's possible that we have been visited by more technologically advanced people from the future! Hawking obviously has NO CLUE what time is.

And guess what? Nobody, from Newton to Hawking, has ever defined this word.

This is what we read in wiki about TIME:

‘Time is an essential part of the measuring system used to sequence events, to compare the durations of events and the intervals between them, and to quantify the motions of objects. Time has been a major subject of religion, philosophy, and science, but defining it in a non-controversial manner applicable to all fields of study has consistently eluded the greatest scholars.’

You see, time is a concept, and NOT an object. It is a scalar used to quantify motion. We invented time. Time is a VERB.

Time requires MOTION and MEMORY to be realized. Nature recognizes no such thing as time.

Just like a scale is used by us to conceptually QUANTIFY the force of gravity on an object, by assigning meaning & purpose to a particular number (scalar)......so does a clock with the motion of the second, minute, and hour hands. We conceptually QUANTIFY the motion of the Earth around the Sun, and relate it to the motion of the clock’s hands, and assign meaning & purpose to these numbers (scalar quantities). From this, we can derive purpose to our lives with hours, days, weeks, months, years, etc.

Only biological brains with memory can realize such concepts as time and motion. We have these notions in order to add purpose and meaning to our lives. Nature has no clue what either motion or time is. We remember how to go from location A to location B. This process we call ‘going to work’ (motion). We remember the hour hand moving from 9AM to 5PM. This means it’s quitting time.

So going back to your question: Can we travel ‘on’ time or ‘in’ time??

It’s like asking: Can we travel ‘on’ weight or ‘in’ weight?

Time is not an object we can travel ON or IN.

Time is a VERB we quantify with a scalar quantity. It is nothing but a concept us humans conceived (invented), and only because we have the capability of MEMORY!

Think about it: without memory, can there be any notion of time??

Without memory, can a computer do computations using previous results??

Unfortunately, the only time travel any human will be able to do, is to sit on the hands of a huge clock and go for a nice ride!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Fatfist

I agree and sadly we are in the minority.

The whole concept of time travel to the future is a game perpetrated by "Relativity". Einstein and others preferred to ignore an absolute time and focused on relative time.

As you state time is a monitoring function, and that is how we measure events. The future by its definition is something that has not yet happened, so how can you go there.

Even the use of relative time would require travel back in time. This would be like watching a TV broadcast on Tivo. You can pause while the real time broadcast is stored on disk. Then you can move back and forth up to the real time. There is no known archive of time and events for the universe to make this time shift.

While you may have a different view of my examples, we still believe in the same thing.

That would be a NO for Time Travel.

To distinguish between absolute and relative time, I like to use the example of the time zones.

The twenty four time zones in the world exist to make day and night time relative to the Sun. So that noon is the same all around the world. This is a gross statement but pretty much reasonable for people to understand.

When it is noon in Los Angeles, California, it is 8 PM in London, England. That is an example of relative time. If you could move instantly from Los Angeles to London then you could appear to move forward in relative time. And the reverse would be true going the other way.

However, in absolute time events happening in either place are happening in the same instance.

To actually travel eight hours ahead in time would occur without having to travel at all. But it would require to move ahead to next eight hours that don't yet exist.

The earth would have moved eight hours forward in its path around the Sun, yet it hasn't at the instant you claim time traveled. If you were fast enough you could physically travel to that spot where the Earth would be in eight hours, but you wouldn't be on the Earth.

Unless the universe has a Tivo device, No Time Travel is possible.

Thanks.

I would expand this example to any place in the universe.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hello ODuck!

(I agree)

I always like reminding people that before we “agree”, we must first understand. If the explanation given is irrational, and cannot be “visualized” as a movie with real objects, then it cannot be understood. The only thing we can do with such theories is throw them in the garbage.

(sadly we are in the minority)

I don’t care if I’m the only person on this planet who doesn’t believe in Big Bang, black holes, time travel, stretching time, bending space, etc. What I care about is not having my brain molested by the opinions of other human apes who have evolved for the sole purpose to worship Gods, and authorities like Hawking & Einstein.

People need to wake up and realize that the word “belief” is not even an option in life. Only theories that are rationally explained can even be considered as science. Everything else belongs in the garbage – not even worthy of consideration.

Us human apes are still at a VERY primitive stage in our evolution. Throughout millenia, we have been methodically “domesticated” by having drilled into our brains the notion of “worshipping authority”, whether a God, a Hollywood Idol, or anybody with a “title”. We are NO different than the domesticated dog or cat. We have been bred for the purpose of “worship”. And worship is not limited to traditional religion. It has spread to every single aspect of society: science, government, education, medicine, the legal system, entertainment, business, etc. Essentially, wherever you find human apes, you are guaranteed to find some type of cult worship with a dedicated army of stupid followers.

What do we do when the doctor prescribes medicine which he can’t even explain how it works, or its effects? We shut up, we don’t question, we bend over, we take it in the ass,.....and then say “thank you your holiness!”

(Einstein and others preferred to ignore an absolute time and focused on relative time.)

We need to understand that there is NOTHING absolute or relative in nature. The notions of “absolute/relative” are ideas invented by stupid apes because they “think” the world and the universe revolves around them. So everything must function from “their” perspective - hence relative! Others think that a God has placed them here and created a universe as their personal playground – hence absolute! It is this stupidity that is limiting human progress and ensures that we forever remain nothing but puppets for authority.

Nature has no opinions and recognizes no such nonsense. These are the only activities nature does:

- Makes sure that every object has location. An object is either "here" or "there". Never “here” AND “there”. As such, there is no “time” in the nature. Only stupid human apes can stretch concepts, such as time and space.

- Makes sure that objects never lose their shape and convert into space. Nature is eternal.

- Makes sure that space never acquires shape and converts into an object. Creation is impossible!

Nature is simple. Only human apes conceive of such stupid ideas as: time travel, 11 dimensions, 0D particles, relative, absolute, creation, intelligent design, order, irreducible complexity, morals, etc.

People only use such nonsense to inject their opinions, dogma, authority, and control into society.

(However, in absolute time events happening in either place are happening in the same instance.)

Yes, but “time” is irrelevant in any case. Time is a concept having to do with human memory, and purpose in life, nothing else.

If the Earth blows up right now, then it has blown up for any life that may exist anywhere in the boundless universe. Other life will not know about it until trillions of years from now because they can only receive incoming signals at the speed of light. But such relativistic nonsense has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth has blown up, as a universal event!

Any event that happens now, is an actual consummated event for the boundless universe. So if the Earth blows up in billions and billions of bits of matter, each of those bits of matter will have INSTANTLY established a sparse gravitational connection with the rest of the objects in the universe. So all the objects in the universe will no longer be gravitationally “bound” to some phantom object no longer there. They will instantly be gravitationally bound to all the new spread-out bits of what was once the Earth. Gravitational effect is instantaneous. This is why Relativity is nothing but a Religion, which doesn’t belong in science.

Thanks for the interesting comment!


OpinionDuck profile image

OpinionDuck 6 years ago

Fatfist

Thanks for the detailed comments, and I still agree with you in concept, and I still think it is a shame that we are a minority.

I didn't bring the apes into this because Congress is the King of the Apes. ~:)

Great hubs, looking forward to new ones.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

It seems to me the entire challenge is to understand the properties of light - what exactly is light and what makes it important?

The nonsense preached that light is both a particle and a wave can only be considered drug-induced idiocy, as the particle described has no mass (and is thus nothing) while the word wave does not describe an object but describes movement through some medium. Light cannot BE a wave. It may be possible if light has mass that it could move though some medium in waves, but if light had mass it would bounce off our heads.

Maybe this is what happened to young Einstein - whomped upside the head by some fierce stray light.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi Winston,

(It seems to me the entire challenge is to understand the properties of light)

As far as the Big Bang religion is concerned, red-shift and light are completely irrelevant to the issue of CREATION. They can’t even illustrate this object they call “universe” in their Hypothesis. So what are they claiming to create anyway? They can’t even make it past this initial stage, so expansion and red-shift are not even applicable to the BB Theory.

The creation of anything is impossible. Atoms only move from one location to another and can ASSEMBLE into other objects – not create them. Creation in this context means “out of nothing”.

Anybody who claims that the UNIVERSE was “created”, doesn’t know his ass from a hole in the wall.....literally!!

The “universe” is a concept that is conceived by a human brain. The word “universe” does not resolve to any object, like the word “apple” does.

Similarly, anybody who claims that “space” was “created”, doesn’t know his brain from his ass. Space is not an object, it is boundless, it has no shape. Space is nothing. Even if there was no matter, there would still be nothing, ie. space/void.

So really, the issue of “creation” has to do with MATTER (a physical object), and not with the UNIVERSE (a concept), and not with SPACE (nothing).

For those who claim there was some “physical object” they wish to call, a singularity, primeval atom, point, pea, dot, etc......they are conceding that “matter” AND “space” were ALREADY there!! Why? Because this singularity/point is surrounded by space. Without space, it would not have shape/form and it would NOT be an object. It’s that simple!

And to claim that this singularity/point exploded into a “universe”, a concept, is dumber than dumb. Or that it exploded to create space and matter, is pure stupidity. Such nonsense is self-refuting. Matter and space were already around for eternity. Space (nothing) cannot acquire shape and morph into an object.

So when we peel back all these layers of abstraction from the BB, what do we find? We find that this singularity/point, is not what it is claimed to be. It is in fact the Universe. Yep, the singularity is a concept that represents the Universe.

Singularity = Universe

This means that all matter and space were ALREADY there!

(what exactly is light)

The only rational theory we have for light and other issues comes from bgeade’s Thread Theory. Check him out here on HP.

(Light cannot BE a wave)

Try telling that to the mathematicians. They reified the abstract concept, the mathematical sine wave, into an object in reality which they call: light wave.

A wave is not an object. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a wave to exist anywhere in nature.

Remember: ‘wave’ is a VERB – to wave. It is a dynamic concept.

Only objects can perform actions/verbs, like ‘waving’ – not concepts.

Therefore, you cannot treat ‘wave’ as a NOUN like the mathematicians do....ie. ‘a’ wave. There is no ‘a’ in front of any verb.

Waves do NOT exist!! Only objects with physical presence exist.

Does an ocean wave exist? Is an ocean wave an object? NO. You can say that water exists. And you can say that the water is ‘waving’. But it is unscientific to say: a wave exists.

Similarly, does “rain” exist? Is rain an object? NO. Rain is a dynamic concept. Water is the object.

And for those who stayed awake through all this, should have no trouble understanding why it is IMPOSSIBLE for the Universe to “expand”.

Expand is a verb. Verbs can only be performed on objects. My pants can expand. But the “universe” cannot because it is a concept!

So.....what remains is objects & space. Which one of these two expand? Anybody who even attempts to answer this question, should realize by now, that he will make himself out to be the biggest fool...LOL

Thanks to these religions, the public has been brainwashed to believe that the following are objects: universe, wave, singularity, black hole, time, space, spacetime, and photon.

I love these posts, we have some nice discussions going on here.

Thanks Winston.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

Time is a construct of the human brain, although what we measure as time surely is an actuality as represented by the rate of decay of carbon 14. But the way we use time is as a measuring guage. For that to be accurate, there needs to be a constant.

The idea of a constant speed of light is nothing more than an axiom; other theories project a VSL, or variable speed of light, as their axiomatic starting point. It seems our species has trouble unless they can find order, absolutes, and constants on which to pin their hopes - even some pretty bright minds.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

So how can people who supposedly have a BRAIN in their head, make the unfounded claim that time can STRETCH like a pair of panties?

Not only that, but they also claim that time FLOWS, like a river!

I would like them to tell us the following:

1) Where can I find this object time? Can I grab it with my hands and stretch it?

2) Please point to the direction in which time "flows".


person 6 years ago

Interesting thoughts everyone.

to fatfist,

I have a comment on the noun-verb thing.

I'm pretty sure, grammatically, that something doesn't have to be an object to have a name (to be referred to by a noun: proper, pronoun, or general noun or whatever).

can't words like 'wave' be a noun in one way and a verb in another? For example, yes, it is a verb when it is used to describe the motion of someone waving, or water moving in a wave. But it is a noun when we speak of that movement as a concept - so it is a name (hence a noun) for that which we are referring to, (in the case of the ocean 'wave' it is a name for the event of the 'waving' motion). Take the example of ship. the word 'ship' is a noun used to name those big objects that float on the water. The word 'ship' can also be used verbally by adding the modifier 'to' in front of it (in context) to make it function as a verb, eg., 'We need to ship these goods over to such and such...' (or other modifiers, eg, past tense 'I have shipped the goods on a ship ').

Indeed, the universe is simply a concept, and so the word universe is a noun, but not (as you are right to say) an object. It is a noun we can use to talk about the entirety of all that exists. You seem quite knowledgeable about many things, and i wanted to comment for the sake of grammatical and syntactical clarification.

I don't agree with the big bang myself either.

Which blog or web page etc has your explanation of the universe's origin and development? I'm interested about what your observations have led you to rationally conclude.

I posted something on the absolute truth hub, sorry i haven't got back to your reply. I thought it might be worthwhile thinking a bit more first and also reading some of your other posts to see what you have written so that i don't waste time with something that you have extensive responses to elsewhere.

I believe that The almighty, Holy, just and merciful God, is the one who has no beginning or end and made all things out of nothing. Theology and science are very different subjects, one dealing with the spiritual mainly and the other with the physical. I'd like to add that in my worldview they do not go against each other, since i can make observations and experiments based on the assumption that God made things to function according to 'laws' (a concept again - for the rational explanation stuff and how it functions and so forth [please correct this definition of 'laws' as it relates to matter]). I think about science with the assumption that God made these laws as he made matter - and i can still do science and experiments (obviously for me, within the ethical boundaries of my spiritual beliefs - eg. So that not any kind of experiment is morally permissible in my mind. For the atheist I don't see how there is any basis for saying what is right and wrong since it is all just relative - and who cares, if once you're dead that's it, why does it matter what you did or said anyway, once you are dead your mind is no more and it will be as if you had never lived anyway. What is the point of doing or saying anything really? If one believes there is no meaning or truth to it all, I can hardly see the point for expressing that view or the need to convince others about it either. I don't say these things as an attack, I actually do want to know what your convictions are about these questions. Call me names if you like - any abuse (verbal or otherwise, [your 'pants' picture is somewhat daunting]) I'm not particularly worried about.

I mean no harm to you and i say this because i genuinely care about you as a person made in God's image, and i will gladly say that God has made you and me and every human for many good purposes, the greatest is to enjoy a perfect relationship with Him and He has bent over backwards for all of us - we, who are his enemies by our own fault for rejecting him and wanting to live our own way - Jesus, God the Son became one of us and and died on a cross and suffered the death and condemnation we deserve and rose to glorious resurrected life, conquering sin and death and becoming the Ruler and Judge over all and the Saviour/Rescuer and giver of glorious, eternal life to all who repent of their rebellion and trust in him. I might annoy you or make you scoff by writing this, but I can't hold back from gladly passing on the message of hope and God's free gift of grace that is so awesome and undeserved and so free!

I'm not saying I'm better than you because I believe these things, for, as the apostle Paul wrote, 'Christ died for sinners, of whom I am the worst' and that's my opinion of myself also.

I'm sorry for the way a number of Christians/Creationists carry on and are very arrogant and grace-less in their language, and I apologize if anything I've said comes across in such a way, because that is not the 'tone' i intended as i wrote.

We'll thanks for reading, fastfist, (and others viewing this) i look forward to your reply and i hope you have time to respond to at least some of my questions -

1. the grammar technicality (a trivial one!)

2. your thoughts about (according to your well expressed view of eternal matter) how things got to be how they are and where you hing they are going regarding the matter that exists that we can observe - i know what your refutations of the big bang are and of Creation, but what is the view that you have instead, precisely? {its probably another post, so redirect me there if that's the case}

3. The morals / meaning of life question

4. The good news of the gospel (I'd be so happy for you if you believed it, because i sincerely have in mind your eternal well being).

5. I'm sure you'll have other things to say in addition.

Have a great day! keep exercising!

(how many pushups can you do? I'm doing the hundredpushups.com challenge. Best I've managed after a doing weeks 3-5 is 50 consecutive pushups. I'm definitely going to have to repeat a few weeks, but I hope to hit 100 sometime later this year. Its good fun- the humble pushup).

Thanks and Regards,

person.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hi person,

(I'm pretty sure, grammatically, that something doesn't have to be an object to have a name)

Ok, where do I start............

It’s not my intention to single you out, but when it comes to scientific matters, people think that it’s business as usual. They think that they can use every-day ordinary speech, along with its metaphors, colloquialisms, and poetry, to give a scientific presentation. This is what happens when people don’t understand the scientific method – and most do not.

So this issue of grammar has nothing to do with “dictionary correctness”, and nothing to do with nouns/pronouns/verbs etc. as used in the sense of ordinary speech or even English essay writing.

This is a FAR more critical issue. It is an issue of SCIENTIFIC CONSISTENCY which demands that there are NO ambiguous terms in a presentation, such as a Theory. Any key term that makes or breaks your argument MUST be consistently and unambiguously defined BEFORE you give your presentation. Such terms are defined in the Hypothesis stage, and used in the Theory stage.

(can't words like 'wave' be a noun in one way and a verb in another?)

Not in science!!

In the English language, especially in most dictionaries, almost all words are treated as nouns....even adjectives, adverbs, verbs and all concepts. And understandably so, because all languages treat these terms as ARTICLES of linguistic expression.

Science will have NONE of that! Science is the study of existence, whose phenomena is explained by Theories. In particular, physics is the study of objects that exist. Without objects, we can do no physics. So the nouns of physics MUST be all objects that exist.....3D! The adjectives of physics “describe” the objects. The verbs of physics specify the actions that can be performed on objects. The adverbs of physics “describe” the actions performed on objects.

In physics, all nouns are objects, and everything else, including verbs, are concepts!

There is no such thing or object as ‘a’ wave in nature. This is extremely easy to verify. Please go find one and pick it up with your hands. All objects have shape. They are encapsulated by a physical edge. So it would be no problem to pick up a wave if this monster actually existed in nature.

When you go to the beach, does a WAVE knock you down, or does the WATER knock you down? Water is the object of nature, wave is the dynamic concept and has nothing to do with nature. Waves do not exist in nature. It takes a biological brain to judge an action and deem it as ‘waving’. Nature only moves atoms from one location to another. Nature has NO CLUE what ‘waving’ or “a wave” is.

(word 'ship' is a noun .....can also be used ......to make it function as a verb)

Never in science. The word “ship” will only have ONE consistent and unambiguous meaning in your Hypothesis & Theory.

We leave multiple meanings to Religion....ie. God is anthropomorphic man AND an incorporeal spirit. This makes sure that our God Theory can use the word “God” cover all contexts and interpretations. This allows us to get away with murder and have an ambiguous theory that is CORRECT under ALL interpretations, so that nobody can disprove it.

We don’t allow such nonsense in science. But the Big Bang religion allows such nonsense in its theory. This is why it has NOTHING to do with science, and is so easily debunked!

(Indeed, the universe is simply a concept)

Indeed.

(and so the word universe is a noun)

No, not in physics....never! It is a VERB – a dynamic concept. The word Universe represents a movie of all objects and their motions in space. It’s just like the word “rain”. These are not nouns for the purposes of physics.

(It is a noun we can use to talk about the entirety of all that exists)

No. It is a relation (concept) of objects, their motion, and space. Motion and space do not exist. Only objects exist.

It can only be used as a noun in unscientific daily speech you have with your grocer or milkman, eg. “I live in the universe”.

But such a statement is pure nonsense as far as physics is concerned. Objects cannot reside in concepts.

(Which blog or web page etc has your explanation of the universe's origin and development?)

Sorry again, I don’t mean to pick on you.....but that is the “wrong” question. It is begging the question.

The “Universe” was invented by humans, and it will vanish as soon as the last human becomes extinct. Remember: Universe = concept, so let’s be precise here.

Matter (atoms) and space (nothing), on the other hand, have NO origin. It is irrational to talk about origin with regards to existence. Existence is factually defined, never proven. An object exists if it has shape and location with respect to all other objects. It’s that simple.

Here are the key issues:

1) Atoms and space cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an atom.

3) Atoms cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

4) Space is unbounded or limitless. Space cannot vanish or disappear – it is already nothing!

5) Matter cannot escape space. We are all trapped in “here” for eternity. Not even God can escape!

This is all you need to know about “the universe”, which is a concept that encapsulates/relates these ideas. There is NO physical object that has shape or a physical border, which you can call: the universe.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

person cont...

(I posted something on the absolute truth hub, sorry i haven't got back to your reply.)

Ok, now I remember you! Hope you’re doing fine. Don’t worry about that; you don’t have to reply. But feel free to ask any questions or clarifications :-)

(I believe that The almighty, Holy, just and merciful God)

That’s fine.....I have no problem with people who claim belief. It is the people who assert that their beliefs of God, Big Bang, Black Holes, spacetime, warped space, dilated time, etc. are proven or factual or scientific, that I respond to.

(I think about science with the assumption that God made these laws)

Theists claim that God made the laws of nature.

Atheists claim that nature made these laws.

But the fact of the matter is, laws are made by humans. A “law” is a concept, an idea of what we as humans, subjectively agree upon to be deemed as “law”. This has nothing to do with how nature runs her business. The only thing we as humans can do, is to explain in a rational manner.

Forcing LAWS upon nature is not only unscientific, but has no bearing on how nature works. We can merely “explain” these laws, not force them, like we do in the legal system.

(I don't say these things as an attack, I actually do want to know what your convictions are about these questions)

Sorry, but I don’t get involved in such subjective issues of opinion which have no objective means of resolution. You can join HP and discuss these issues with the theists/atheists in the forums if you like. You’ll have lots of fun there.

So I would appreciate it if you would please not preach in here. I like to keep the discussions on topic and not get into people’s personal beliefs.

(your thoughts about (according to your well expressed view of eternal matter)

See points 1 to 5 above. If you have questions, just ask.

(but what is the view that you have instead, precisely)

Please go read some of my comments in my hub: My discussion with god, primitive brains cannot think.

(how many pushups can you do?)

Ahhhhhh.....I used to have push-up contests in my high school days. I think I almost hit 100. Nowadays I do free-weights and some cardio. I can do 25 wide-grip pull ups tho......and around 17 pull-ups behind the neck. This is what impresses the young girls at my gym...LOL

Thanks for posting.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

@ person,

(For the atheist I don't see how there is any basis for saying what is right and wrong since it is all just relative)

This is the error made by non-atheists. Morality is not relative - it is subjective. Morality only exists as a concept of cultures, and as such it can only be defined by those cultures. In reality, morality is like a television show where the audience gets to call-in and vote for its favorites: let's name it American Morality.

Understanding that there is no afterlife, no second chance, no reward for servitude, the atheist lifestyle actually has more freedom than the religious one to make the best of each day - and the nature of consequences determines the actions taken each day.

Many theists seem to think only they can do "good" deeds, but the consequences for "good" actions is a reward of a more fulfilling life for the atheist. Probably even more fulfilling as the atheist does not expect any eternal reward for his actions. His actions are solely for the reason of feeling better about himself in the here and now.

The atheist above all others understands forgiveness, for it is in the realms of atheism that understanding grows that we all all human, that we all succumb to human weaknesses, and no one is better or worse than another. If you can grasp that screwing up is a natural and normal human behavior, then you don't have to beg forgiveness for screwing up, and there is no need to judge anyone else for his screw-ups, either.

There is no need to bash yourself for being human, and there is no reason to bash others for the same faults.

I don't have to forgive a scorpion for being a scorpion, or a wasp for being a wasp. Likewise, we are all simply humans - screw-ups. What is the need to forgive that?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Person,

I will address some of your other points I missed earlier:

(If one believes there is no meaning or truth to it all)

What does ‘belief’ have to do with anything?

Just by your very own usage of the word, you demonstrate that ‘belief’ is a double-edged sword whose other edge will slice & dice all of your personal statements. This is why you take a file and make the other edge dull so it doesn’t CUT you. You only use YOUR edge of the sword – the edge that you have personally sharpened for the purposes of thrusting your statements of belief upon others.

Do you believe that Allah wants you to cut off the heads of infidels? Why not?

Do you believe that the Virgin Mary is holy, just like Jesus, and in many ways, MORE important than Jesus? The Catholics do.....why don’t you?

Do you believe that consumption of fat & cholesterol will cause you heart disease? Why do you believe this?

Do you believe that space is a physical object composed of tiny infinitesimal 0D particles that the religion of Relativity calls SPACETIME?

Do you believe that time is a physical object that can be stretched like bubble gum?

Do you believe that space is a physical object just like an ocean?

What separates APES from HUMANS on this planet, is ‘belief’.

Apes have evolved to BELIEVE, WORSHIP, OBEY, NEVER DOUBT.

Apes are still at a VERY primitive stage in their evolution. Throughout millenia, they have been methodically “domesticated” by having drilled into their brains the notion of “worshipping authority”, whether a God, a Hollywood Idol, or anybody with a “title”. They are NO different than the domesticated dog. They have been bred for the SOLE purpose of “worship”.

Once an ape has the capability to blindly WORSHIP & BELIEVE, it benefits those who have devised a way to gain something from these suckers,......whether it is their money, their rights, their freedoms, their votes,......from one generation to the next!

Rational humans on the other hand do not believe – they can either explain or they seek for rational explanations. But they don’t give up and succumb to the con artists out there who wait at every corner of society, like PIMPS, ready to take over your brain and your body.

As for meaning? This is yet another human-contrived concept having to do with PURPOSE. Nature has no meaning or purpose. It just makes sure that every atom has location; either here or there.

And as for truth? Truth is yet another human-contrived concept having to do with ones opinion. Everybody and their farting aunt has TRUTH & PROOF coming out of their asses. And it all depends on WHO you are willing to BELIEVE. So here we have a vicious cycle of circular reasoning having to do with truth & belief, both of which DO NOT EXIST.

The only objective truth is that which is circumscribed to a system of logic that is founded on a set of rules we call axioms. That’s it. There is no object called ‘truth’ that exists.

(i know what your refutations of the big bang are and of Creation, but what is the view that you have instead, precisely?)

My personal view, your personal view, Einstein’s personal view, etc.......are completely irrelevant to any issue. Personal views and opinions do not have any effect on matter & space out there. And they certainly have no place in science.

This issue you are raising is an objective one. As such, it can only be discussed in a scientific context that can explain issues in a rational manner.....without surrealistic and supernatural conceptual mediators.

Any form of CREATION, whether Big Bang or God is irrational, for reasons 1 to 5 outlined above. Before you can even begin to talk about creation, YOUR Hypothesis must describe the initial setting.

Since the GOD THEORY claims that matter, space, and time were created from nothing, you really need to describe what this NOTHING actually is. And how is this NOTHING is different from SPACE??

This is the initial setting you must account for in your Hypothesis before you can even go to your Theory stage to explain how ‘nothing’ acquired Length, Width, and Height to convert into matter. Or even how 'nothing' was converted into SPACE!

And this is exactly where the God Theory and the Big Bang Theory fail – at the Hypothesis stage. So really, both have NO Theory.....just FAITH!

The word THEORY means EXPLANATION, and not SPECULATION. Scientific theories only explain. They have no other purpose.

Thanks


asald 6 years ago

the universe is expanding indeed, haven't you seen the work of carl sagan?, he explains why it is expanding bcs while sending a ray of light to the black space the spectrum of the wave changes color over the time,and that means the light wave travels all the time further, it is a known phenomenon of the light waves known as red-blue .. i dont know the word but something like that, also there a re theories of another universes together


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

Check out this lecture if you have a spare hour; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

In it Laurence Krauss explains how there is no such thing as 'nothing', and otherwise empty space contains constant quantum activity.

To the questions of whether or not space can expand, and what the universe is expanding into, I would say that the intuitions of the human brain were not evolved to deal with these questions. Common sense has no place here, as it doesn't make sense on an intuitive level, it seems wrong, but if the maths work and the theories hold together then we should accept it as true. Those are judgements I have to leave to the professionals.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Oh, I already have seen his lecture, Dgerrimea. It is a joke! It is worse than any traditional religion pushed by the most ignorant desert-dwellers on this planet.

(Laurence Krauss explains how there is no such thing as 'nothing')

That makes sense! “Nothing” does not exist. “Nothing” is NOT a “thing”.

Thing: real, physical object, being

Exist = object having a location

(and otherwise empty space contains constant quantum activity.)

This does not make sense because it is contradiction.

The term “empty space” is rhetoric. Space is already empty. Space is a synonym for “nothing”.

When you say “empty space” CONTAINS, you are treating space as a “container”, like a cup, or a box. You are necessarily implying that space has a PHYSICAL BOUNDARY which encapsulates NOTHING, so that it can hold SOMETHING, like “constant quantum activity”.

You should understand, that the clause, “constant quantum activity” denotes a VERB, which is a concept.

So really....you are saying that: “space contains nothing”

Any action (verb) is mediated by a real object. An object is that which has the intrinsic property of “shape”. A “real” object, in addition has the extrinsic property of “location”. And only an object that passes BOTH of these criteria with flying colors can be said to EXIST!

(To the questions of whether or not space can expand, and what the universe is expanding into, I would say that the intuitions of the human brain were not evolved to deal with these questions.)

Nonsense! That’s like saying:

“To the questions of whether or not God exists and created the Universe together with his son Jesus, I would say that the intuitions of the human brain were not evolved to deal with these questions.”

This is the kind of BS that theologians invent in order to protect their religion from public scrutiny. The Scientific Method works via a Hypothesis and a Theory.

The BB has an invalid Hypothesis, and an irrational Theory. This violates the Scientific Method. This is why the BB is a religion.

(Common sense has no place here)

Is this the nonsense that your Priests made you memorize by rote? Do you gawk & drool at whatever they spoon-feed you in their churches?

(it doesn't make sense on an intuitive level)

And if it doesn’t make sense, then the idiots who promote the BB haven’t the slightest clue of what they are talking about. They are pushing their own version of religious “creation”. And yet they are quick to state that they have PROVEN the BB, just like theologians have proven God. And you buy into this crap?

(but if the maths work)

Math has absolutely nothing to do with physics. Math is a rule-based language that can only “describe” whatever the mathematicians want it to describe. Math has NO explanatory power whatsoever! Math only deals with CONCEPTS. The reality of mother nature deals with OBJECTS. Mother nature never went to school to get brainwashed. She doesn’t know any maths.

She only ensures that each object has SHAPE and LOCATION.

And she ensures that space (nothing) cannot be converted into matter (atoms). And that matter cannot be converted into space.

(and the theories hold together)

Absolutely NOT! Did you read this hub, or are you just preaching like a Christian?

The BB Theory fails at the conceptual level. It doesn’t even have a valid Hypothesis. It is completely irrational.

The odd thing about people like you, is that you harp on Traditional Creationists, but yet you are a Creationist yourself!

Is “The Universe” an OBJECT, Dgerrimea??

If so, then please illustrate for us or reference a link on the internet.

If it is not an object, then it CANNOT expand. We’re done!

(then we should accept it as true.)

You have quite the RELIGION there, Dgerrimea!!

In science, there are NO true or false Theories. There are only rational or irrational ones. TRUTH & PROOF is the hallmark of Religion. There is nothing that can be proved in the reality of nature. If you want truth, just stick with Christianity and you can’t go wrong.

(Those are judgements I have to leave to the professionals.)

You should know that arguments from authority are contradictions!

So why is it that you don’t leave these judgements to William Lane Craig, Phd? He has a whole website on the physics of how God created the universe. He has the same credentials as your Pastor Krauss does.


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

"(it doesn't make sense on an intuitive level)

And if it doesn’t make sense, then the idiots who promote the BB haven’t the slightest clue of what they are talking about. They are pushing their own version of religious “creation”. And yet they are quick to state that they have PROVEN the BB, just like theologians have proven God. And you buy into this crap?"

The human brain evolved to cope with a specific environment and nothing more. That is why it is so easy to fool, eg. optical illusions.

I'm sure your intuition can cope with the size of an apple without much thought, even the size of a car. Try telling me how many apples would fit in a car without much thought.

Some questions are obviously beyond our intuition and to rely on common sense instead of education is a mistake.

If you can't accept that point, then you just don't know how to think.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

(Some questions are obviously beyond our intuition and to rely on common sense instead of education is a mistake.)

If that's the case my dear Dgerrimea.....then how can you possibly come here claiming that:

- you KNOW the universe (a concept) was created

- you KNOW the universe (a concept) expands

- and you KNOW all these things because somebody named Lawrence Krauss told you so

Do you see your fatal fallacies, Dgerrimea? Your statement above applies to the Big Bang Religion espoused by the Pastors of your church....but yet you ignore that contradiction.

You have the EXACT SAME arguments as the Christians: I KNOW because the Bible told me so!

I'll ask you again:

Please illustrate a diagram of the "universe" so we can at least understand that it IS an OBJECT like you claim it is. Or just reference one online.

If anybody can "see" this object which you illustrated in your Hypothesis, then OF COURSE it can EXPAND!!!

If neither you nor Krauss can illustrate it, then I'm sorry Dgerrimea, but neither of you have the slightest clue of what you are talking about.

And of course you guys don't. Because neither of you have any clue that the Scientific Method requires a HYPOTHESIS!!!!!!!

The Hypothesis MUST illustrate ALL objects BEFORE it expands them.

Please take a High School Intro course in physics before you attempt to converse about topics you don't understand...ok?

(If you can't accept that point, then you just don't know how to think.)

I will accept it when I see you illustrate your universe as an OBJECT.....ok?

And when you do, I will make a hub about me titled: Fatfist cannot think!

We got a deal?

In the meantime, it is YOU who cannot think...got it?


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

"If that's the case my dear Dgerrimea.....then how can you possibly come here claiming that:

- you KNOW the universe (a concept) was created

- you KNOW the universe (a concept) expands

- and you KNOW all these things because somebody named Lawrence Krauss told you so

Do you see your fatal fallacies, Dgerrimea? Your state"

I make no such claims.

"You have the EXACT SAME arguments as the Christians: I KNOW because the Bible told me so!"

You don't understand the fallacy of the argument from authority.

"Please illustrate a diagram of the "universe" so we can at least understand that it IS an OBJECT like you claim it is. Or just reference one online."

You've already done this for me in your hub.

You have to be able to accept the point that human intuition has limits if you want to understand the big bang.


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

Also, chill out.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

(I make no such claims.)

Then just what sage knowledge are you here to bestow upon us?

You come here using fallacious arguments from authority (Pastor Krauss), to say that stupid moron Krauss knows what he is talking about, and nobody else does.

Then when I challenge you to any of these claims, you RETRACT all your statements just like the typical theist does.

Just like a theist, you have eluded the questions that make or break your case.

Is the Universe an object? Yes or No?

Is the Universe a concept? Yes or No?

Please answer!

You have quite the religion, Dgerrimea.

(You have to be able to accept the point that human intuition has limits if you want to understand the big bang.)

That is a self-refuting statement, Dgerrimea.

You contradict yourself when you claim that human’s have limitations.......and then you assert that your authoritative Pastors actually KNOW!

Please do yourself a favour and take an intro course in logic.

(Also, chill out.)

Are you here to have an intellectual and rational discussion, or are you here to use your psychic powers and mind-reading skills?


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

"You come here using fallacious arguments from authority"

Again, you don't understand the argument from authority.

"Then when I challenge you to any of these claims, you RETRACT all your statements just like the typical theist does."

The only claim I have made is that human intuition has limits, and you seem to rely on it too much.

"Is the Universe an object? Yes or No?

Is the Universe a concept? Yes or No?

Please answer!"

'The universe' is the name we use for the aftermath of the big bang. I wouldn't call it an object because it contains intangible elements, such as energy.

"That is a self-refuting statement, Dgerrimea.

You contradict yourself when you claim that human’s have limitations.......and then you assert that your authoritative Pastors actually KNOW!"

No I don't, and no I didn't.

Stop making things up.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

('The universe' is a concept)

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.

So you understand and can reason that the term “Universe”, can only possibly resolve to a concept.

That makes sense to a rational human!

If there was any possibility of it resolving to an object, then we could illustrate this object on a bar napkin, right?

(which describes the aftermath of the big band.)

Absolutely not.

The word “Universe” has nothing to do with the BB. This word was used before the Catholic Priest Lemaintre conceived the BB. In fact, the Greeks used the word Cosmos (syn. Universe) for over 3000 years.

The word Universe has to do with a conceptual relation that humans conceived in their brain.

concept: a word that invokes or embodies two or more objects. A concept is a RELATION between objects. Humans invented all concepts. Mother Nature does not recognize a single concept.

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

So the BB has to with the Scientific Method which embodies a Hypothesis and a Theory. It has nothing to do with the word “Universe”.

The BB is a description and an explanation of a hypothesized consummated event!

BB Hypothesis: blah blah

BB Theory: blah blah

So Dgerrimea, if you want to talk about the BB, you cannot “describe” it using the word Universe. The word Universe is an abstract term only that embodies a RELATION!

You DESCRIBE the BB in your Hypothesis.

You EXPLAIN the BB in your Theory.

This is how it’s done in science.

So there you have it, Dgerrimea. You now understand that the “Universe” is a concept. We conceived it.

So you must understand by now that the “Universe” CANNOT EXPAND.

No way! Not in hell.....I don’t care if Jesus returns or God makes another flood.....the Universe will remain a concept as long as humans exist.

And I don’t care what any clown like Krauss says about this issue!!

So, the only issue remaining......is WHAT expands?

1) Is it matter (atoms) that expand? Will we one day become giants?

2) Is it space (nothing) that expands?

3) or both?

Which is it, Dgerrimea? And please EXPLAIN the process of ‘expansion’.

So this has nothing to do with the nonsense of human limitations, and crap like that.

This is SCIENCE.....and NOT Religion!!

In science, we hypothesize in our Hypothesis, and we rationally explain in our Theory. Understand now?

So please, Dgerrimea,......pick 1, 2, or 3 from above as part of your Hypothesis.

Then please rationally EXPLAIN how it would happen.

Remember.....this has absolutely nothing to do with knowledge, wisdom, truth, proof, belief, faith, opinion, authority, technology, or human limitation.

This has to do with the Scientific Method.......we first hypothesize a scenario (event + description).......then we rationally explain it. All of science is founded on this. Anything else is just religion!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

When I first copied your comment to reply to it, you had the following verbatim:

"'The universe' is a concept which describes the aftermath of the big band."

Now it seems you have changed it to:

"'The universe' is the name we use for the aftermath of the big bang."

You are trying to get away with murder!

But it doesn't matter, because ALL "names" are CONCEPTS.

Some names resolve to objects, while others are just relations.

I like to have honest conversations. I hope you want the same.


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

"('The universe' is a concept)

Ok, now we’re getting somewhere.

So you understand and can reason that the term “Universe”, can only possibly resolve to a concept."

I edited my post to remove the statement you quoted because I decided I didn't agree with it. Of course a concept of the universe is created whenever anybody thinks about the universe, but the external universe itself is more object-like. Concepts aren't as tangible as planets.

"The word “Universe” has nothing to do with the BB. This word was used before the Catholic Priest Lemaintre conceived the BB. In fact, the Greeks used the word Cosmos (syn. Universe) for over 3000 years."

Of course the universe has something to do with the Big Bang, the Bag Bang was a part of the universe. It might even have been the beginning of the universe. It doesn't matter when the idea came into circulation, it always has and always will be relevant.

"1) Is it matter (atoms) that expand? Will we one day become giants?

2) Is it space (nothing) that expands?

3) or both?"

It is said that space is expanding. The 'nothing' you refer to would be quantum activity.

"So this has nothing to do with the nonsense of human limitations, and crap like that."

Do you accept that there are limitations to human intuition, and that common sense and gut instinct are not applicable to every mental task?

"Then please rationally EXPLAIN how it would happen."

I can't explain in any detail, I can only report what the professionals have said to me. I don't understand it because I haven't put the time in. I'm only here to express my concern that you are miss-applying 'common sense', and rejecting counter-intuitive ideas just because your intuition rejects them.

"I like to have honest conversations. I hope you want the same."

Of course.


XxMr.TripsxX profile image

XxMr.TripsxX 6 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

I enjoyed reading this a lot even though I don't agree with any of it. I encourage you to look up dark matter. And the thing about andromeda is wrong. It isn't moving away from us because it's in our same cluster of galaxies therefore it's gravitationally bound to us.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

XxMr

(I enjoyed reading this a lot even though I don't agree with any of it.)

Glad you enjoyed reading it. We can agree to disagree, unless of course you want to rationally explain what is in error with this hub.

(I encourage you to look up dark matter)

Dark matter is a concept which the mathematicians invented because Einstein’s field equations have failed again at “describing” the motion of galaxies. Notice that I said “describing”. You know that math equations cannot possibly explain anything, right?

Well, as luck would have it.....not only Relativity’s equations cannot explain, but they cannot describe either.

Here, let me show you 2 extremely easy examples where Relativity, Quantum, and String Theory completely FAIL:

1) They cannot account for WHY a ball falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Explain with Relativity, Quantum, or ST what happens to the ball when you let go of it.

2) They cannot account for WHAT would happen if Earth’s orbit was suddenly stopped by some external mechanism. What would the Earth do in this case according to Relativity, Quantum or ST?

Can you answer these 2 basic questions? I invite you to educate yourself and find out. Otherwise you are coming here to push a religion on me.

(andromeda .. It isn't moving away from us because it's in our same cluster of galaxies therefore it's gravitationally bound to us.)

Every single atom in your body is “gravitationally bound” to every single atom of every single object in the Universe. I hope you understand this basic fundamental behaviour of gravity.

You don’t believe me??

Fine......then please do the Cavendish experiment in the privacy of your own home. Hang a string from the ceiling close to the floor balancing a piece of wood. Balance 2 weights on either side of wood. Put 2 massive 150lb weights on the floor on opposite sides of weights on wood.

Now please tell me what happens?

Why doesn’t the Andromeda galaxy pull that whole apparatus in its direction, like YOU claim?

So according to you, all galaxies and all objects should be coming closer to each other because they are “gravitationally bound”.

Any object coming closer to another object VIOLATES Expansion Theory. Have you watched the youtube video by the BB expert, Lawrence Krauss? Relativity explicitly states that every single object moves away from each other – no exceptions!

You don't believe me?

Fine.....please take a look at the Field Equations for the BB expansion and please point out to us exactly what parameters in the equations allow for any provision for an object to move CLOSER to another object during expansion.

Please post it here, ok?

Thanks for your comment


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

......and before you begin to make your case for EXPANSION, you should at least tell us exactly WHAT is expanding.

Is it:

a) The Universe

b) Objects

c) Space

d) All of the Above

e) None of the Above


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

(you didn't leave room in your thinking for forces)

What is ‘a’ force? Can you please draw a picture of whatever you envision it to be in your brain? I’d like to see it.

Force is a VERB – to force!

Force is an ACTION which an object does to another object. i.e. I can “push” you away from me. That VERB, that action I did, which we call “push”, is a specific name of the generic ‘force’ concept.....so clearly, ‘force’ is NOT a ‘thing’.

Force is NOT a separate object. Forces do NOT exist! Only objects exist.

(If you want to get technical)

We are talking about Science, not engineering. This means that we are talking about EXPLAINING and not DESCRIBING! Any fool can technically describe what they “see” with their own subjective detail. But explaining requires the Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Rational Theory. The SM is observer-free.

Do you understand the difference between an explanation and a description?

Do you understand the difference between observer-free (sci method) and observer-dependent (technical description)?

This stuff is from Physics 101.

(concepts are neurological events in the brains)

You haven’t said anything here. All you’ve said is that concepts are X, where X is another concept (neuro event). Is this what you call “technical”? What could this even possibly mean??

“their physical make up is partially chemical and partially electrical”

What is this “partially” crap? Can a female ever be “partially” pregnant? Please explain your assertions with the luxury of detail.

Is ‘chemical’ a physical object or an ACTIVITY (concept) mediated by physical objects?

Is ‘electrical’ a physical object or an ACTIVITY (concept) mediated by physical objects?

You have yet to identify the PHYSICAL OBJECTS which are the actors in your dissertation.

(So they count as objects as well.)

Where are they? Please show them and NAME them!

What is an “object” in your religion? Here you go.....define it:

Object: ________________________________

I will give you the scientific definition...

Object: that which has shape

Concept: that which doesn’t have shape. A “relation” between objects. A human idea.

All relations require a human observer. Before your God created Adam & Eve, there were NO concepts. No way!!

Are you gonna tell us that there were NO objects and NO space at that time too, Dgerrimea??

If you don’t like the scientific version of object & concept....you are welcome to provide your own unambiguous definitions which can be used consistently, i.e. scientifically.....for the purposes of explaining YOUR theory of the Big Bang......please do.

(it is a sea of quantum activity)

A sea? Which sea, the Mediterranean?

What is ‘a’ quantum activity? Is it an object or a concept?

You have said here that: SPACE is an OBJECT (sea) of VERBS (quantum activity).

So SPACE is an object (sea) AND a verb (activity, action)?

Does this sentence make any sense to you? It violates English Grammar first of all. What is this nonsense you preach? What could all this possibly mean??

You are using ordinary ghetto speech. Are you able to speak in scientific terms?

(So space counts as an object as well.)

Dgerrimea: space... it is a sea of quantum activity

Ohhhhhh.....so now you are saying SPACE is an object as well......how cute is that?

Can you please illustrate all this stuff you just said in a diagram?

Please draw a diagram of this object AND concept AND space which you call UNIVERSE.

It doesn’t look like you are cut out for Science, Dgerrimea. I mean, you just keep chasing your tail around in circles because don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept.

(physical particles)

Are you telling us that the 0D particles of quantum which have NO length, width, nor height....are physical? That is some religion you have there. Jesus was physical, he had L,W,H....and people touched him, and crucified him. How do the priests of YOUR Religion touch a non-existing 0D particle?

Can you please draw a picture of ANY of these critters you call Quantum Particles?.....please... just show me a picture of ONE anywhere on the net and explain what it does.

If you can’t do this simple baby task.....you are preaching a RELIGION that is MORE surrealistic & supernatural than Christianity. Christianity can at least show you a picture of God and Jesus and all of the 12 disciples, and the Devil. All of these are actual objects!!

All the nonsense that YOU have proposed here is only concepts – the products of YOUR imagination. Fails all of logic and rationality.

Christianity is WAY MORE rational than your religion, Dgerrimea.

(with measurable)

Dgerrimea, please explain with the luxury of DETAIL how anybody would go about measuring 0D quantum particle in your religion. Do they get out an imaginary tape measure and put it against the non-existent length, width, and height of that imaginary 0D critter? Then they read off imaginary numbers?

Remember: The Christians were able to take physical observations/measurements of Jesus 2000 years ago. And this evidence is documented. Please show me YOUR documentation of observations/measurements of 0D particles.......oh, I can’t wait to see this!

(physical effects)

What physical effect is there when a 0D nothing collides with a particle of beach sand? Does the non-exiting surface of the 0D particle somehow TOUCH the sand particle? Please explain this surrealism you propose!

(So my choices are a) object, b) object, c) object.)

Fatfist: Does this word which YOU call ‘Universe’, resolve to either: a, b, or c?

Dgerrimea: So my choices are a) object, b) object, c) object

So let me get this straight......you say the word ‘Universe’ resolves to an object AND nothing AND a concept?

Holy cow man! This is reification and duality combined.....All those 3 terms are irreconcilable. How can anything be all 3??

Please draw a diagram of this beast you envision in your brain.....I would love to see it please!

You are effectively saying that no objects (matter, atoms) exist because you equate them to space (nothing) AND a concept (nothing).

You are saying that the Sun did NOT exist before man evolved on Earth!!

I suggest you see a psychiatrist. Sorry, but that is quite the wacky talk.

(But the universe is a group of ... forces)

So let me get this straight.....you claim the Universe is a group of VERBS? A group of actions?

Can you please draw a diagram of ANY group of actions?

I’ll make it even easier for you......just draw a diagram of ONE action, anyone you like!

So please, resolve these issues I raised above with illustrations AND rational explanations......otherwise you are preaching a very wacky religion that rivals all of the religions to have ever been invented on this planet.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

(limitations to human intuition)

Let’s get scientific here, Dgerrimea, cause you are trying to get away with MURDER!

You are doing your best to avoid a scientific discussion because it exposes your religion. I will not let you do that. My hubs are NOT a place of supernatural worship.

Please explain exactly what this INTUITION is. Is it an object or a concept?

INTUITION is a VERB. It is an action that beings with biological brains do/perform/act – to INTUIT!

All verbs require a physical MEDIATOR to perform the action....i.e. a human

So.....my dear Dgerrimea.....if you are LIMITING your action/participation in this verb which YOU call INTUITION, then what does this subjective activity have to do with science?

If you enlisted to run a marathon, but half way there you decided to QUIT, then what does that have to do with the marathon process? And what does it have to do with YOUR COMPLAINTS that the process was UNFAIR to you?

If you were hired to write the Hypothesis + Theory of the Big Bang Theory, but you decided that ...

a) you couldn’t formulate a VALID hypothesis

b) you couldn’t formulate a RATIONAL explanation for the Theory

....then WHAT does that have to do with science? How was the Sci Method UNFAIR to you?

If you are hired by your employer to do a job, and you cannot do it, should your employer STILL employ you? NO! You will be replaced by someone who can. How is this UNFAIR to you? How is this LIMITING to you?

Only YOU are limiting to YOUR respective self. There are people who can indeed run marathons.

So clearly, your subjective & opinionated actions are of NO concern to science. If you cannot produce a VALID hypothesis and a RATIONAL theory, then you are NO scientist. You have NO business writing BS theories and forcing the public to believe that your nonsense is ‘TRUTH’ and ‘PROVEN’. And when someone like ME comes along challenging your nonsense, you take the 5-th AMMENDMENT.....and claim that human intuition is limited, and that we don’t know, and contradict all you’ve said prior.....WAY TO GO TO PROTECT YOUR RELIGION.....hilarious!!

This is why my hubs are EASILY able to DEBUNK this nonsense!!

No religion is safe from me!

Science doesn’t care what verbs/activities YOU or ANYONE performs, and whether you perform them in a LIMITED or UNLIMITED fashion. Science is a concept, a VERB, that circumscribes a disciplinary activity where a human explains consummated events using the process of the Scientific Method = Hypothesis + Theory.

Whatever extra-scientific activities YOU do or not do, limit or not limit, observe or not observe.....is of no concern to science. Got it?

(common sense and gut instinct are not applicable to every mental task?)

Whose common sense? YOUR common sense?

Whose gut instinct? YOUR gut instinct?

Why not the common sense and gut instinct of a MUSLIM?? Are you gonna say that a MUSLIM is not a human being, that a MUSLIM should not be taken seriously? That a MUSLIM does not have common sense? That a MUSLIM does not have gut instinct? Who are YOU to make such decisions, God?

Do you see you fallacious argument here?

Are YOUR mental activities (verbs) which you call TASKS, exactly the same as somebody else’s? How could they be when you don’t understand the difference between an object and a concept?

Such subjective criteria that are based on YOUR opinions belong exclusively to Religion, and do NOT concern Science. Science is ONLY concerned with the Scientific Method:

First and foremost, you MUST form a VALID Hypothesis. A hypothesis is comprised of 5 ingredients:

1) unambiguous definitions

2) the physical objects which will be the ACTORS in your Theory

3) statement of the facts

4) illustrations of all physical objects and their interactions

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

Then your Theory will use the 5 ingredients of the Hypothesis to rationally explain the consummated event.....i.e. Big Bang.

The Scientific Method has NO provision for knowledge, wisdom, limitations, intuition, opinion, faith, belief, truth, proof, testimony from human observers, your emotions, your feelings, what is fair or unfair to you, religious dogma, authority, Nobel Prizes, Beauty Pageants, censorship, ......and all other human subjective activities. All of those subjective criteria belong exclusively to Religion.

A Theory can either be said to be RATIONAL or IRRATIONAL......never ‘true’, ‘false’, ‘believed’, or ‘proven’.

A Theory which .....

- the main actors are NOT physical objects

- cannot be illustrated with a movie WITHOUT any missing frames

- cannot be understood by the audience (violates grammar syntax or context)

- does NOT follow directly from the Hypothesis, or contradicts the Hypothesis

- reifies concepts into objects (fallacy of hypostatisation, concretism, or misplaced concreteness)

- uses ambiguous terms

- proposes objects with dualities (i.e. something is both an object AND a concept)

- performs VERBS on concepts, rather than on physical objects

- concepts perform VERBS (i.e. the ‘forced’ moved the ball)

- proposes surrealism (defies logic, reason, rationality)

- proposes supernaturalism (creation from nothing, or invokes supposed objects as mediators that cannot possibly exist – i.e. 0D particles, space)

.....is NOT rational, and consequently, has absolutely nothing to do with science.

You BB theory violates absolutely ALL of the points above......AND, it has NO valid hypothesis to boot!

Do you understand the Scientific Method, Dgerrimea? We learn this in Physics 101.


Dgerrimea profile image

Dgerrimea 6 years ago

I'm sorry fatfist, I don't normally say this, but for the moment at least I've lost patience with you, your repetitive digressions.

If you insist on not understanding then I'll have to leave you for another time.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Dgerrimea,

You are confusing Science with Religion.

Science is the study of existence via the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory).

The hypothesis proposes the physical actors (objects), and the theory rationally explains the consummated event with those actors.

Physics is the study of OBJECTS, more specifically, objects that exist.

Without objects, you can't even begin to do physics.

YOU, Dgerrimea, are proposing concepts as the actors of your theory, and NOT objects. This is what Religion does. Only in Religion do concepts perform ACTIONS like walking around in the middle of the night and scaring you.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: that which doesn't

Exist: object having a location (physical presence)

Hence, concepts, spirits (0D or otherwise), actions, "The Universe", Black Holes, photons, gravitons, mass, energy, force, time, field, warped space, timespace, chronons, solitons, Higgs, waves, wavicles, dark matter, dark energy, quantum fluctuations, 0D quantum particles, singularities, points, lines, planes, space, etc.....ALL DO NOT EXIST!!

If you don't like any of these scientific terms of physics because they destroy your personal Religion, you are welcome to define your own unambiguous terms that can be used CONSISTENTLY, i.e. scientifically!

Then maybe you can rationally explain your theory without violating all logic and reason....not to mention English Grammar!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

(I'll have to leave you for another time.)

No problem, Dgerrimea. But please.....gather your thoughts, re-read my responses, form a rational argument that doesn't reify concepts into supernatural objects, and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE...talk to me in SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE.

Otherwise your posts will be regarded as Religious Preaching, rather than physics.


TechnicallyADream profile image

TechnicallyADream 6 years ago

great info, very usefull and informative, thanks for publication, some really good knowledge about the big bang


XxMr.TripsxX profile image

XxMr.TripsxX 6 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

forgive me if you already answered this, i just don't feel like searching through all these comments, but what exactly do you believe regarding to the origin of the universe?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

xxMr

(what exactly do you believe regarding to the origin of the universe?)

That is a VERY loaded question, xxMr.

Let me explain to you why such a seemingly “innocent” question, violates all of logic, reason, the Scientific Method,..... and its connotations are purely Religious and completely divorced from science.

I will dissect your question into 3 parts. Please read each part very carefully....and please don't get offended by what I say...nothing personal.

1) “WHAT EXACTLY DO YOU BELIEVE”

In science we don’t believe. This peculiar and irrational habit of believing in “objects” and in “events” originated from Superstition & Religion. Perhaps that's what your pastor told you, "Please believe, my son. Without belief we have nothing in this life."

But belief is definitely divorced from Science. What sense does such hogwash as, “do you believe”, make?

Science has nothing to do with “belief”. Science is a discipline which uses the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory) to rationally explain consummated events. Belief plays no role whatsoever in the Scientific Method.

Nevertheless, in Science, we don't believe in hypotheses. In Science, we postulate them. A theist is a person who believes in the existence of God. An atheist is a person who believes there is no God, or one who doesn't believe in the existence of God, or one who “lacks belief”....ALL of these nonsensical positions logically resolve to BELIEF.

This is why both theists & atheists have been arguing without resolution for the past 2000 years, and will continue to argue until both of these slow-witted species become extinct. These clowns have been using the exact same church logic to form their irrational arguments. What both of these groups lack.....is brains!

But a scientist is a person who defines 'exist'. Then, it follows that God exists (or doesn't) pursuant to the definition of exist. Belief plays no part in the entire matter.

Do you believe in the existence of your right arm, xxMr?

Well, I sure hope that your faith remains strong. I wouldn't want you to lose your arm the day you stop believing in it.

What does this nonsense of belief have to do with anything in reality?

a) In science, we don’t believe in objects. We postulate them as part of our Hypothesis.

b) In science, we don’t believe in events. We rationally explain them as part of our Theory.

Which part of the Scientific Method did you confuse with Religion, xxMr?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

xxMr,

2) “REGARDING THE ORIGIN”

It is even more irrational to “believe” or to claim to “know” that existence had an origin!

The scientific definition of ‘exist’ is “physical presence”:

Exist = object + location

Object = that which has shape

Location = the set of static distances to all other objects

Please explain to me: WHERE in the definition of ‘exist’ is there provision for the ‘origin’ of an object?

Please explain how “nothing” comes together to form a physical object, along with its surface, thus giving it “shape”.

HERE IS HOW YOUR “ORIGIN” ARGUMENT FAILS PHYSICS:

In order for anything, like objects (matter) and space (nothing), to have “an ORIGIN”, there must necessarily be an ORIGINATING “interaction” to facilitate such a formidable event. This interaction (verb) necessarily requires a PHYSICAL mediator....i.e. an OBJECT!!!!!!

You do realize, that the ORIGIN of interactions, events, actions, verbs, etc,.....are ALL IMPOSSIBLE without a PHYSICAL mediator which MEDIATES the event, right?

I mean, are you gonna tell me that a SPIRITUAL 0D mediator would facilitate such an originating event?

This PHYSICAL mediator is matter. So matter must be eternal, to act as a mediator for an event.

This means that matter AND space are ETERNAL!!

Why is SPACE also eternal? Because space gives “shape” or “form” to objects. Shape makes provision for a “physical surface” so objects can physically interact with each other. Without space, there are NO objects....not even one!

So your ORIGIN argument, is what Religion calls the “First Cause” argument. And with it they have dogmatically proven that God created the universe, which is the EXACT same argument that YOU have about “THE ORIGIN”. The Big Bang is another dogmatic version of Creatio ex Nihilo (Genesis 1:1), re-packaged in authoritative pseudo-scientific clothing, with all the surrealism and supernaturalism to go along with it. There is not a single rational explanation provided.

HERE IS HOW YOUR ORIGIN ARGUMENT FAILS LOGIC & REASON:

Your ORIGIN clause is explicitly specifying that the Universe “already” ‘HAS’ an origin. It makes it very clear and definitive: ‘THE’ ORIGIN.

I mean, the issue is not even debatable....it’s a done deal according to YOU!

Such a clause is nothing but a Logical Fallacy (Begging The Question). The answer to the question is ALREADY presupposed and dogmatically decreed in the question itself.....and there will be NO debate about it, according to YOU!!!

Not to mention that the word “ORIGIN” implies PURPOSE....an ORIGINATOR acting as an intelligent mediator of events. It is IMPOSSIBLE for an event or an object to have an ORIGIN without an intelligent mediator, such as a God, to originate the event or to create the object.

All matter and space is eternal. There is NO first cause and there is NO origin!

If you disagree, then please explain just ONE case which refutes what I just said.....ok?

You are implying, by logical necessity, that the universe has a purpose and is goal-driven, as determined by an intelligent CREATOR and ORIGINATOR, let’s call it God (or you can call it a 0D Singularity).

Such implied “purpose” pertains only to biological organisms with a brain and memory. One "perceives” that only living entities have the state of “goal directedness” (purpose). And such implications are necessarily invoking an intelligent being, God, who creates the universe and life for “HIS” purpose.

So clearly, that clause in your question is PURELY FALLACIOUS. It violates logic and reason by necessarily asserting bald assumptions which have NO merit and NO explanation. And it decrees these assumptions dogmatically as “undebatable”.....just like Religion does!

Here are similar questions which fall into the same category of “logical fallacies” because they make an implicit assumption, which is called: begging the question.

- “Why is there a universe full of matter in the first place? (assumes intelligent being with a purpose)”

- “Where did the matter come from? (assumes intelligent being with a purpose)”

- “Why is the universe created? (assumes intelligent being with a purpose)”

- “Why is the universe made to support life? (assumes intelligent being with a purpose)”

- “Did you stop beating your spouse? (assumes you beat your spouse)”

The answer is presupposed in the question itself. No matter how you attempt to answer such questions, you cannot avoid the implicit answer – you cannot even debate it!

So you see, xxMr, the grand cosmic question beginning with ORIGIN, is already answered in your question.....even before I had a chance to open my mouth and answer it myself. I mean, WHAT ELSE could I say? YOU have said it all. I would have to AGREE with you that the universe had an origin, because the way your question is phrased, the issue is NOT debatable!

But the kicker here is: NEITHER YOU, NOR ANYBODY ELSE CAN PROVIDE ANY RATIONAL EXPLANATION FOR THIS “ORIGIN” YOU DOGMATICALLY ASSERT.

The universe has NO origin. Mother Nature just makes sure that every atom in the universe cannot escape space, because space has no boundary. Mother Nature also ensures that matter cannot convert itself into space (lose Length, Width and Height), and that the amount of matter in the universe remains constant. Matter cannot be created or destroyed (day 1 of high school physics class). Matter (atoms) and space (nothing), have NO origin. It is irrational to talk about origin with regards to existence. Existence is factually defined, never asserted, believed, or proven. An object exists if it has shape and location with respect to all other objects. It’s that simple.

The word “Universe” refers to a CONCEPT that was invented by humans, and it will vanish as soon as the last human becomes extinct. Remember: Universe = concept, so let’s be precise here.

In physics, here’s how we analyze this concept or relation we call, “The Universe”:

1) Atoms and space cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into an atom.

3) Atoms cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

4) Space is unbounded or limitless. Space cannot vanish or disappear – it is already nothing!

5) Matter cannot escape space. We are all trapped in “here” for eternity. Not even God can escape!

There you have it, xxMr. If you disagree, then please provide a rational explanation for whatever you want to preach.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

xxMr,

3) “OF THE UNIVERSE”

Let’s be objective here. The word “Universe” refers to a human conceptual relation, not an object.

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

As such......it is IMPOSSIBLE for “The Universe” to expand/stretch (insert any VERB here), be created, have an origin, etc.

So the onus is on YOU to rationally explain in DETAIL how MATTER and SPACE can be created from “nothing”......specifically, how is “nothing” any different than “space”.

Any attempts to elude or circumvent these basic primary questions, is a clear indicator that the proponent just wants to protect his Religion from the voice of REASON!

I urge you to read this hub and the other one (Big Bang – The Big LIE). They both rationally explain why CREATION/ORIGIN is impossible.


brad 6 years ago

fatfist

this is an excellent article that makes lots of sense.

I'm shocked at the ludicrous claims your posters make that the universe is an object. do they even have a clue, have they even passed elementary school? I wonder.


XxMr.TripsxX profile image

XxMr.TripsxX 6 years ago from Columbus, Ohio

Fatfist:

Well first off I never had a pastor to tell me anything, because I am very unreligious. I do accept the theory of the universe being eternal, but i also accept the "big crunch" theory. Meaning the universe is eternal, the big bang really happened and the universe is expanding, but this is not the only universe has existed. At some point in a universes life the matter contained becomes too much and begins to collapse into itself until it's the size of a electron and when the universe is at this state then given the time need it will birth another big bang. All the matter that ever was is still there just in an umimaginably dense place.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

xxMr,

(the big bang really happened)

It is irrational to claim that any “supposed” consummated event "really happened". The “past” and the “future” are not available for you to deduce anything from. In fact, the “past” & “future” are only concepts, so they do not exist. So your statement is as pure BELIEF as it gets!

Now do you understand why I ask you whether it was your Pastor or Mullah who gave you such irrational information?

(I am very unreligious)

This is a very famous claim made by “atheists”....but yet they are not ashamed to come here and profess their BELIEF in the religion of the Big Bang.

The collection of writings of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and String Theory now the Bible for all atheists today. Poor Jesus is completely out of the picture.

God is now called The Singularity.

Genesis is called Big Bang.

Revelations is called Big Crunch or Oscillating universe.

The Pentateuch is now known as Solvay 5.

The Acts of the Apostles has now been replaced by the new minstrels: Newton, Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Hawking.

(At some point in a universes life the matter contained becomes too much and begins to collapse into itself until it's the size of a electron)

Well, that nonsense comes from amateurs who haven’t read their scriptures.

One of your priests who goes by the name of Rutherford, established that the proton is a ball, in other words, what everyone and their mother understands by the word 'particle'. Its diameter is a CONSTANT 10^-15m. It is ALWAYS drawn as a sphere.

A hypothetical star has gazillions of H atoms each with one proton. So when the star collapses unto itself in the Big Crunch, and compresses all these protons one against the other:

1) Do the protons in the star shrink? Does their CHARGE shrink?

I mean, either the diameter of the proton is a universal constant or it ain't. This BC nonsense propounded by the math establishment suggests that the proton shrinks, thus, invalidating the 'constant' diameter hypothesis, and making Rutherford out to be a complete idiot! So who should we believe?

2) Do the protons lose their Length, Width, and Height at some point: get squashed out of existence? They would have to....how else would they fit in the size of an electron? So by what physical process? Do they lose W before H, or all three Ds simultaneously? Does this proton also lose its CHARGE,...you know....the little + symbol, or does this ghost stick around together with that soul you call MASS in order to participate in the next Big Bang explosion?

No poetry, metaphor, or speaking in tongues, xxMr! Please be honest and give it to me straight, ok?

(the universe is expanding)

Please illustrate a simple diagram of this object you call “THE UNIVERSE”. Then we’ll both know whether it can expand or not!

I mean, if you cannot even illustrate this object you apparently envision in your mind, then you are in no position to religiously decree that ‘it’ is expanding....got it?

You should know that the Christians can illustrate both of their gods, Jesus & Yahweh.....just google image them!

So if you cannot illustrate yours....then boy oh boy.....you really have some funky twisted religion happening.....and the Christians have every right to make fun of you.

(it will birth another big bang)

Ouch....that must hurt!

Now I understand what women mean when they say: “It’s like forcing a watermelon through your nostril”.

But God is “all powerful”, so I’m sure he can handle it without a midwife!

Here, xxMr, let me show you how we do things in SCIENCE:

BB Hypothesis:_____________

BB Theory:________________

Big Crunch Hypothesis:_____________

Big Crunch Theory:________________

Now after you fill in the blanks, we will both understand whether this supposed BB event or this supposed BC event, are even a rational possibility. If you cannot rationally explain them, then you do not understand them. And if you do not understand them, they are nothing but BS that some idiot invented when he got drunk with Priest Lemaintre.


Hell N0 6 years ago

Maybe I missed it, but what is your take on redshifts?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

Before a rational human can understand and use this term “redshift”, he must first understand its context. So this has nothing to do with “MY” take. It has to do with what is rational. Remember: to maintain objectivity in science, testimony from observers is prohibited!

The idiots of mathematical physics have asserted that light departs as a particle, travels as a wave, and arrives as a particle to its destination. Does this make sense to you, Hell N0? I mean, when was the last time your threw a baseball that travelled as a “wave” and arrived as a ball?

Hold on, it gets better....

By assuming that light travels as a “wave”, these idiots are implying that space is a physical substance (an object) that has SHAPE. They are saying that space is composed of the infamous “aether” conceived in the 1800’s, which provides a physical medium for space to be a physical mediator for the waving motion of light. They claim that space is a SOLID physical block of matter that undulates up and down, just like you can undulate your arm up and down and make it “WAVE”.

You see, they extrapolated this nonsense from sound, which is the waving of the physical substance (molecules) of air. Can you believe this stupidity, Hell N0? The only reason why AIR molecules and the WATER of the ocean can undulate up and down is because there is EMPTY SPACE that acts as a backdrop in order to facilitate the motion of physical objects, like air and water. Without space (nothingness), motion is impossible!

Then the Dodo-Bird Einstein came along and agreed that space was composed of a physical aether for the purposes of his General Relativity theory. Relativists claim that space is billions and billions of times harder than steel. This is why it is able to hold onto and roll planets in orbits around the sun. So why then aren’t we squashed here on the surface of the Earh? I mean, we come in contact with this physical block of space that grabs hold of the Earth....so it should squash us soft humans to pancakes when the Earth rolls on it....right?

Then these math idiots assert that light has a Doppler Effect behavior, like sound, which they call Red Shift. Even though they already claimed to have “disproven” the aether over 110 years ago with the Michelson-Morley experiment. Do you see their contradictions? Do you understand their stupidity?

The Doppler Effect is only applicable to a physical undulating medium, like AIR which supports sound waves, and like WATER which supports ocean waves. And the only reason why AIR and WATER waves are even possible, is because there is a “backdrop” of nothingness (space) that allows air and water to undulate in motion.

It is this BS that leads them to the irrational conclusion that Red Shift means expansion......more specifically....the EXPANSION OF A CONCEPT – THE UNIVERSE!

Concepts, like the UNIVERSE and SPACE (nothing) cannot expand!!

I don’t care what anybody says....I don’t care what fits of rage anybody has....it is IMPOSSIBLE for “concepts” and “nothing” to expand. If they disagree, the onus is on THEM to rationally explain their position....good luck!!

This is why whenever fans of Relativity and physics novices come here trying to argue FOR BB EXPANSION, they always end up putting both feet in their mouths, and make themselves look like fools.


Hell N0 6 years ago

So in other words, with nothingness, waves are impsossible? Well, that's probably why the idea of ether was invented. Let's remember that Einstein changed some of his formulas in his GTR to accomodate the eternal universe. Called it his biggest mistake. Perhaps he wasn't so smart after all. But why is it that his phylosophical ideas involving "space fabric" turn out to predict gravity better than Neuton's physics would have us believe? There is no fabric. But space seems to work that way. The problem is, is that red shifts do in fact exist. They also have blue shifts.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

(So in other words, with nothingness, waves are impsossible? )

It is impossible for a WAVE to exist.

The scientific definition of exist is physical presence, which necessitates an object having a location.

Wave is a VERB – to wave!

Only objects can perform verbs (motion), like “waving”: water, rope, your hand, etc.

This means that waves do not exist. Only objects exist. Motion does not exist. Motion is the change of location of an object. And this change of location can be conceptualized as “waving”. But it takes a biological brain to discern that.

(But why is it that his phylosophical ideas involving "space fabric" turn out to predict gravity better than Neuton's physics would have us believe? )

Gravity is not predicted better with Relativity. Actually gravity is not even predicted by science at all. Science does not make predictions. Science only has theories which explain rationally.

It is engineering & technology applications which model equations to describe (ie. predict) motion.

Newton’s gravitation formula F = Gm1m2/d^2 is what NASA has always used for all its space missions. Newton’s equations describe instantaneous action at a distance. Whereas Relativity describes warped space, and there is no such thing. Space is nothing.

Relativity claims that if the Sun were to disappear, the Earth would feel the warped space gravity effect 8 mins later because warped space travels at the speed of light. What a bunch of BS!

Newton was correct in that the effect of gravity is instantaneous, because each atom in the universe is physically connected to every other atom. And this ensures instantaneity.

(There is no fabric.)

Of course space is not a physical substance. For if it was, the whole universe would be a physical block of matter. No motion would be possible and no life would be possible.

(But space seems to work that way.)

Aha! The key word is “SEEMS”. When people inject their opinions and observations into the Scientific Method, they are divorcing themselves from science and delving into religion.

It is dogmatically decreed that space is an object. And it is a complete contradiction in terms as I have explained above.

(The problem is, is that red shifts do in fact exist. They also have blue shifts.)

We observe frequency shift of light. But what does that have to do with an object approaching or receding? Nothing!

Not only is there no clear scientific reason to link the Doppler Effect of sound with the Red Shift of light, but it is well known that light is easily red shifted by simply passing it through gases, plastics, or any transparent medium. The Compton Effect is a very well known cause for shifts in light frequency, and has nothing to do with the motion of the light source. And as any astronomer knows, distant starlight is relayed through billions of light-years of various gases, plasmas, and is even relayed by other objects within our Milky Way galaxy before arriving at our telescopes. Is it any surprise that the further away a galaxy is, the more Red-Shifted its light?

I can red-shift sunlight with the sapphire crystal of my watch. Does this mean that I just moved the Sun farther away from Earth? According to the mathematicians, it does!!


Hell N0 6 years ago

Yes, a wave is a verb. Not sure if that takes away the noun aspect. Gravity has been shown where light is concerned, to be more specific than what Neuton's laws would suggest. I'm not a physisist and all that I can contribute is what I've heard from other scientists, and I don't get much of that. It has been shown that there are stars just enough behind our sun where it would not be visible to us according to Neuton's law. However, the "space fabric" of which our planet supposedly sits in, produces the necessarry gravity for that light to be pulled into visibiltiy. We can see light that shoots out away from us. So it should anyway. Again, I don't know any more about the doppler affect than what I have understood through science. And if there are both red and blue shifts, something besides stagnet distance and space chemicals has to be the cause of it. Besides, there is also cosmic background radiation that is said to be a couple points above absolute zero. It seems that if this temperature is constant with all BR, we can deduce that it comes from the same source and was probably damn hot billions of years ago. But that's just my observation. BTW, don't you think that science would have wanted to squash the BBT if it wasn't credable?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

(Yes, a wave is a verb. Not sure if that takes away the noun aspect.)

We have to be specific, otherwise we’ll chase our tails around in circles and none of us will understand what we are talking about.

Since “wave” is a verb, it is irrational to use the term: ‘a’ wave.

There is no such “thing” as ‘a’ wave.

Waves do not exist, thus they cannot represent nouns.

Only objects exist which can bend/deform themselves in order to “WAVE” (undulating motion).

Therefore, the NOUN is the “object”, and the VERB is “wave”.

The only actors of Physics are the NOUNS of physics – physical objects! Concepts only perform actions in religious settings – never in science.

(It has been shown that there are stars just enough behind our sun where it would not be visible to us according to Neuton's law.)

Newton was actually the first to postulate the deflection of starlight from the Sun. But he didn’t theorize why. Einstein claimed that gravity bends the path of massless 0D photons, like gravity pulls a shot bullet down in an inverted parabolic path. But photons have no mass and no physical representation. So how can these 0D non-existent concepts move, let alone bend their path? They can’t! Einstein’s theories are full of contradictions.

Light deflection from the Sun is rationally explained just like we explain light REFRACTION from one medium to another. The Sun’s corona has gases and other emissions which will “relay” light’s path from one direction to another, just as in refraction.

This is nothing mystical. This happens to light reaching Earth from outer space all the time, even when it doesn’t pass through the corona’s of stars. Light passing thru gases, nebulas, dust, etc. will always refract.

We can even simulate this in the lab with gas. By simply shooting a laser beam at the gas, the path of the beam is refracted and relayed elsewhere.

Now does this mean that light bent? Absolutely not. In order for light to bend and take a circular itinerary, it must necessarily slow down. If that is the case, then what physical mediator makes it speed up again? The hand of God?

(And if there are both red and blue shifts, something besides stagnet distance and space chemicals has to be the cause of it.)

Any gas, vapour, or transparent medium will redshift and blueshift light. Just try the experiment yourself. Does that mean that the light source moved? Absolutely not.

Redshift and blueshift does not necessarily have anything to do with the motion of the source. Even Carl Sagan and other scientists in the establishment stated this decades ago. Here he is talking about it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU&playnex...

Even the light from quasars debunks the establishment’s theory of redshift & blueshift. This is why they never like to talk about their observational results of quasars!! Just try posting about this in their online forums, and you will immediately be banned and your posts censored.

(there is also cosmic background radiation)

Radiation is a concept. What do the scientists say is the physical material object that is supposed to be represented by “radiation”?

They don’t even have a clue. This is why they don’t understand what they are talking about. So what sense does ANY statement about “background radiation” make?

All the atoms in the universe are motion. Hence they all generate what the establishment calls “EM radiation” by torquing signals to each other. Even our own bodies do this continually.

So what the hell does this have to do with the Big Bang nonsense? They will use any lame excuse to confuse the lay person and get them to believe their religion.

(don't you think that science would have wanted to squash the BBT if it wasn't credable?)

No way!

It was conceived by Catholic Priest Lemaintre who wanted to prove God’s creation of the universe. It was forced down the throats of Einstein, Hubble, and other scientists who never really accepted it. But they HAD to publicly claim to accept it. Way too much tax dollars have been invested in the BBT. Do you honestly think it can ever be dropped?

My 2 hubs on the BBT have completely refuted it. It is ripped to shreds. It is a complete contradiction in terms.

So what? Who cares? In fact, NOBODY cares! People will continue to believe whatever the hell they wish, whether it makes sense or not.

So it is business as usual. Politics ALWAYS wins over reason & rationality. This is what life in a society of human apes is all about. Life is never fair.....we need to understand it.....accept it.....act accordingly.....and move on.


Hell N0 6 years ago

The term Big Bang got its name from mocking scientists. Last I checked, science wasn't trying to promote ID. You sort of lost me there and well, I can't really refute you anyway. By the way, does it even make sense that light travels through space? Ether has been disproven. So why?


Hell N0 6 years ago

What is your purpose in your describing space. First off, cars aren't surrounded by literal space. There are a multitude of air molecules surrounding cars. Sound does not travel through space yet light does. That's all I was saying. Ether in space was thought to be about 1/1000 the density of our air. Yes, astroids would eventually deteriorate but they wouldn't move as quickly. As far as ID, I haven't made an argument for it. But an eternal universe would do nothing to hurt ID. It wouldn't even hurt the concept of the biblical God. It may rape recent scientific discovery but it wouldn't change the unlikelyhood of this creation being purly natural. Besides, how can gallaxies continue to form when the energy has been eternally decaying? I realize that you aren't suggesting that the universe hasn't gone through changes, but it still sounds like an abandonment of entropy. How can gallaxies running out contribute to new gallaxies? You can't start a fire with smoke. But if you wish to debate ID, let me know. Right now I'm not.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

(First off, cars aren't surrounded by literal space. There are a multitude of air molecules surrounding cars.)

Yes, and the car DISPLACES air molecules out of the way so the car can have shape & location. Otherwise the car would not exist.

(Sound does not travel through space yet light does.)

Sound does not “travel”. It is the air molecules that vibrate in motion, which causes our ear drums to vibrate. Just as in ocean waves, the water does not travel from one location to the other. It only undulates (waves).

Similarly, light does not travel “through” space, like a submarine travels through the water by displacing it. Space is nothing, and it cannot be displaced. Light is a signal that propagates along a physical connection between atoms, and stimulates the other atom to propagate the signal as well.

(Ether in space was thought to be about 1/1000 the density of our air.)

Density is irrelevant. If there was an ether in space, sound would also be possible in space.

But you are saying that ether is on top of space....just like air or like water vapour in space.

But Einstein was saying that space = ether. That they are one and the same. That space is a physical substance and NOT nothingness. This was the only way for him to salvage General Relativity. But it still injected the contradictions I posted earlier.

(But an eternal universe.... it wouldn't change the unlikelyhood of this creation being purly natural)

Eternal universe and “creation” are contradictory. Impossible. Never the two can reconcile!

(how can gallaxies continue to form when the energy has been eternally decaying?)

Energy?

What the heck is this thing you call energy?

Energy is a concept: the ability....

Concepts don’t decay.

Galaxies form because atoms attract each other due to gravitation.

(entropy... How can gallaxies running out contribute to new gallaxies?)

This is a description, and an irrational one at that. The morons of Math say that heat can be transferred and that entropy can be increased. Can you believe such idiocy? Maybe one day they can join us in Physics and describe their 'law' in rational terms. ONLY idiots transfer and increase CONCEPTS! In Physics we deal with OBJECTS ONLY. Words such as heat and entropy (whatever that garbage is) are NOT a part of physics.

In Science, we do not use the same language as in ordinary speech. Mathematical physics relies exclusively on ordinary speech and thus gets away with nonsensical statements such as 'transfer heat.' In Science, we can ONLY transfer objects. Heat is NOT an object. Heat is a concept. Only idiots transfer concepts. In Science, it is irrational to say: increase entropy, transfer energy, carry a force, move the center of mass, accelerate a charge, go through a field, dilate time, contract length, travel through or in space. Get it now? Your entire language is unscientific. You use EUPHEMISMS, figures of speech, poetry, analogy. They are all, without exception, Ptolemaic descriptions.

(But if you wish to debate ID, let me know)

What is there to debate? That an intelligent being “CREATED” ‘the’ universe?

My 2 hubs on the Big Bang debunk ALL forms of creation, not just from traditional religion, but from contemporary religion such as the Big Bang.

Creation is impossible. You cannot create from nothing, as this even contradicts your Thermodynamics laws which you quoted earlier on entropy/energy.

Nothing is created from nothing. All objects are assembled from existing matter.

Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) are eternal.


Hell N0 6 years ago

Debunked? I don't think so. First off, heat is the result of light. The light is generated with energy, or atoms vibrating. I think what you are saying is that even though the atoms of hydrogen and helium have run their course, they will reamerge when the gravity compresses these decayed and burned up atoms. But as far as God? The only thing debunking the BB does is lengthen the age of the universe. Perhaps its trillions of years old instead. It aint eternal. The physics involved in this universe are still way too fine tuned to be by chance. As far as mutations being the force that drives evolution? I'm afraid it is the Earth that would need to be eternal, because whatever scientific hypothesis you have for the universe, DNA is far more complicated. If you want to talk about non science and absurd scientific thinking, I'll talk about what is clear to any lay person with the ability to think. DNA is the most sophisticated code in existense and did not happen through mutation. In fact, mutation doesn't produce much of anything. Perhaps evolution does, but the mechanism driving evolution would have to be several times more complicated than even DNA. I'd say the proteins for life and all would be about as complicated as space dust forming gallaxies. But DNA blows everything else to space dust.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hello N0,

(I think what you are saying is that even though the atoms of hydrogen and helium have run their course)

Atoms of H and He will run their course? Do they run around the track?

You gotta start speaking in unambiguous scientific language if you want to make sense.

(they will reamerge when the gravity compresses these decayed and burned up atoms.)

What is a “decayed and burned up” atom?

Please reference a picture of one anywhere on the Internet. Otherwise you’re talking gibberish!

(the age of the universe. Perhaps its trillions of years old)

Wow, you don’t say....

Can ‘the’ universe be created? Yes or No?

Is ‘the’ universe an object or a concept?.....which is it?

Object: that which has shape.

Concept: that which doesn’t (relation/idea).

If you claim that ‘the’ Universe can be CREATED, or that it is an OBJECT, then this logically implies that what YOU call “THE UNIVERSE” has shape. Therefore you should have no trouble either drawing a rough picture of the universe, or referencing a pic of it on the Internet.

What do you say.....can you do that?

Here is how we rationally account for the eternal matter & space in Physics:

1) Matter (atoms) and space (nothing) cannot be created or destroyed.

2) Space cannot acquire Length, Width, and Height and convert into matter.

3) Matter cannot lose Length, Width, and Height and convert into space.

4) Space is unbounded, unlimited, and borderless. Space cannot vanish/disappear – it is already nothing!

5) Matter cannot escape space. We are all trapped in “here” (space) for eternity.

6) If there is some dude you call God, “He” is serving an eternal prison sentence here too, as not even “He” can escape this unbounded prison which has NO walls to break out of. So he'd better work hard and earn his keep, just like all the other inmates.

This renders creation in any form, completely impossible!

If you disagree with any these points, please rationally explain your grievances.

a) So you’d better start by explaining in detail exactly how an ATOM pops into existence from the void in zero time. Please explain the physical process of how a 0D nothing converts into a 3D atom!

b) Better still.....explain with the luxury of detail how 0D SPACE is created from a 0D void.

Once you can rationally explain that ‘THE’ universe is an OBJECT that can be CREATED, then we can entertain your DNA theory. Otherwise it is a moot issue.

How about it.....are you up for this simple task?


Hell N0 6 years ago

Nope. Not to your satisfaction. And I guess you can't make sense out of incorrect wording I use to remind you that energy always remains, although in a lesser form. Example, when fuel burns, it becomes exaust. Don't know the exact term, but you aint going to be able to burn gas that has already become exaust or smoke or whatever. And I have no interest in giving theological explanations to you. I don't need to explain that the universe was not made from nothing, rather, it came out of God and is part of God as are we. By the way, did you mention somewhere what your credentials are for undermining Eistein and every scientist that suports the Big Bang Theory? Which accredited university did you earn a PHD in astrophysics? Or any of the applied sciences? Just wondering?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Fatfist: If you disagree with any these points, please rationally explain your grievances.

Hell N0: Nope. Not to your satisfaction.

It has nothing to do with MY satisfaction. Whether ATOMS & SPACE can be created or not, has nothing to do with my, yours, or God’s subjective tastes. It is a purely conceptual issue that can instantly be explained, as I already did.

(energy always remains)

Does it remain like my dog remains when I tell it to “sit”?

You didn’t draw a picture, or reference one on the Internet, of this ‘thing’ you call “energy”, so you will never know whether it can “remain” or not. It’s just more gibberish talk.

(Don't know the exact term, but you aint going to be able to burn gas that has already become exaust or smoke or whatever.)

Here…..let me help you out…

The following is a description of the combustion of common gasoline fuel.

2 C8H18 + 25 O2 --> 16 CO2 + 18 H2O

The complete combustion of gasoline produces as “exhaust” (as you coin the term) what is on the right side. Notice that absolutely ALL the original input atoms are present on the output. No additional atoms were CREATED.....and NO atoms were DESTROYED!!

In an incomplete combustion, they will also be other molecules that have combined with atoms in the combustion environment, like oil, lube, extra carbon in the combustion chamber, coolant, etc.

Absolutely nothing is created or destroyed!!

All the input atoms have regrouped together to form other molecules.

Therefore, these output molecules can be participate in other reactions which can recombine them to form gasoline yet AGAIN!

You see, absolutely all atoms in nature are RECYCLED eternally. The Universe is the only perpetual motion machine, that eternally moves every single atom from one location to another.

All atoms have the "intrinsic" property of shape, and the "extrinsic" property of location. This is why they exist eternally.

Got it now?

(I don't need to explain that the universe was not made from nothing)

If you can’t explain your claims then that’s fine,...I prefer when people are honest. But please don’t come here pushing your beliefs as facts, especially when you can't answer any of the questions posed to you. I expect a lot better from educated people such as yourself.

Nobody has been able to refute eternal matter & space since Aristotle first published his rational explanation 2500 years ago. Any attempt to refute it always leads to contradictions and gibberish talk.....as you have seen here today.

(By the way, did you mention somewhere what your credentials are for undermining Eistein and every scientist that suports the Big Bang Theory?)

You can’t refute any of my hubs so you think you can bring up the argument from AUTHORITY, which is a logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam). You are instantly shooting down all your very own arguments every single time you post here. All I do is sit back and watch....

You can recognize a clueless Religious individual because he doesn't care about your rational explanations which cannot be refuted. He already knows everything and has proven everything. He already has evidence that God exists, the universe is created, atoms die out and magically vanish, space is warped, time is dilated, and that there are 0D particles. There is nothing more to argue. So how can anyone question his Religion?

He instead asks for your credentials. He wants to know whether he should believe your rational argument on the basis of “authority”, and he certainly will if you have a Nobel Prize, or you were blessed by God and baptized by Jesus. That's all the proof he needs....

Well, Hell N0... in science, we don't care how many beauty contests you won. We don’t care if you warmed a seat all your life in your monastery. We don’t care if you can speak in tongues.

We only care to understand your theory. And before the crowd can understand it,... it had better make SENSE by being RATIONAL! If your theory alleges that the Universe is an OBJECT that is CREATED, then it doesn't matter where you studied or whether you have a PhD or a Theology Doctorate. We only care to understand your rational theory. So here you go,... since you are so supporting of the rigorous Scientific Method, ....please enlighten us:

Creation Hypothesis: Assume the Universe is an object. I will illustrate a picture of it as follows ___________

Creation Theory: Given my hypothesis, I will now rationally explain how the universe was created as follows_____________. I will also explain how space and atoms were created as follows_____________.

Go ahead....fill in the blanks. Remember, this is your presentation.

In science, your OPINIONS don’t become facts when all the members of your congregation vote for them. In science, all theories are rationally explained. The ones which are irrational, such as all of yours, we put them where they belong.....in the trash!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

Let me give you a VERY important piece of advice so you don't go thru life chasing your tail around in circles and not understanding anything....

Before you parrot the arguments of big name IDOLS with hundreds of PhD's coming out of their butts, like William-Lane Craig,.....please ask them to rationally explain their theories, rather than gawking & drooling at them before you ask for their AUTOGRAPH!

Remember: Matter & space have NO authorities. Only stupid human apes have evolved to worship authorities!


AKA Winston 6 years ago

Fatfist,

If you are lucky, Hell No will explain to you how science has proven that man cannot excercise free will. (See comments, Contradictions in the Bible - if for no other reason that a gander at the A+ cleavage of the hub's author.) When I pointed out his determinism argument was not science, but logic, and then logically refuted it, he pulled out his DNArgument, and I knew then he was only another addled religious creationist pretending to be something else and having no luck catching any dimwitted fish with his obvious trolling methods.


Hell N0 6 years ago

But first AKA Corpse Hole, you must answer your summons:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/Its-Time-t...

I know you're not a heller AK but we could use some dim witted psudo intellect there to set everyone correct as to why there is no God, and the only hell there is looks at you in the mirror every morning.


Hell N0 6 years ago

But Fatfist, I do respect your views and studies. I may not agree but what do I know? Anyway, I assume you also don't consider radio signals to be waves either. They obviously "travel" through space at about the same speed as light. I believe it is the opinion of most scientists that light "can be thought of as a wave". They are shown to have wave lengths varying in size, longer for blue and shorter for red. What do you think?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Hell N0,

(But Fatfist, I do respect your views and studies.)

Hopefully I’m not providing you with MY views. Otherwise what is the point to all my posts if I am just giving you my OPINIONS? Opinions and views are subjective and a dime a dozen. I am not providing you with dogmatic viewpoints. I am providing you with rational explanations.

(I may not agree but what do I know?)

Same with “knowledge”. Everybody and their aunt claims to “know” everything under the Sun. I can claim all I want that I “know” what I’m talking about, therefore you *should* believe me. But what sense does that make?

A rational human does not “know”, and does not give their “views”, “opinions”, or “beliefs”. A rational human will come to the conference and get up in front of the crowd and rationally explain to everyone his Theory or claims. That is the best that any human can do.

(consider radio signals to be waves)

Radio signals, light, UV, IR, X-rays, microwaves, etc., are all part of what is coined: the EM spectrum. For the purposes of science, we can collectively call all of the EM spectrum “light”, as it is generated by the same physical medium. It don’t matter if it’s not visible to the human eye. Lucky for us, our eyes can only respond to a certain frequency bandwidth of the EM spectrum: visible light!

Like I explained before, there is no such thing as ‘a’ wave. Waves absolutely do not exist. What exists, is the physical medium (connection between atoms) which imparts motion (torque signals) in order to transmit signals which humans have interpreted as “wave-like” motion. Hence the irrational term: waves.

Anybody who is under the impression that waves exist, should be able to reference a picture of a wave, any wave,.....I don’t care if they call it an “ocean wave”, it does not exist – only the water exists. Does it make sense now?

(They obviously "travel" through space)

You can travel THROUGH an object, like water, air, smoke, house, etc.,... but it is impossible to travel “through” space. Space is nothing. It has NO borders to travel through. People think they can encapsulate space, but mother nature has FOOLED them! It is actually space which encapsulates YOU. Nothing can ever escape space, not even a God.

Boundless space humbles the most arrogant of gods and, nevertheless, God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons and simultaneously be unable to escape it. It is a complete contradiction in terms.

If space necessarily encloses God, this makes space at least as formidable as the Almighty! God could not have created the vacuum because the vacuum necessarily precedes Him. Space is there without God, but God can’t exist without space. Space must necessarily contour God. Had God even attempted to escape the prison we call space, He would have lost His most precious superpower: form.

If space doesn’t have a border, God can be as all-powerful as He wants, but He cannot cross that which has no boundaries. It is absurd to propose that God is outside of space (or time) looking in at the Universe from a bird’s-eye perspective. Therefore, God cannot do without the background that grants Him finiteness (i.e., space), for what would He be otherwise? Nothing!

(it is the opinion of most scientists that light "can be thought of as a wave".)

Yes, it is indeed their personal opinion. But they cannot provide a single rational explanation. Yet they continue to hold on to their Religion even though it has been thoroughly debunked by the simple diffraction experiment, and hundreds of others.

When light diffracts behind a simple needle (or a pole), the needle shows us that light can NEITHER consist of a stream of particles NOR is 'a' wave. The proponent of such rubbish as particles and/or waves must address the issue of how the wave and/or particle bounces off the needle and INWARD, rather than outward.

1) Particles will always bounce OUTWARD from the needle, never straight ahead or inward. And they cannot produce interference fringes. Shoot as many bullets as you want at the sides of a light pole, absolutely none of them will bounce off the pole INWARD or straight ahead!

2) Waves (like water waves) spread out when encountering a needle, and do not cause any interference fringes whatsoever. Put a stick in a pond and make some waves. You will NEVER get interference/diffraction when the water undulates thru the stick – absolutely impossible!

Neither particles or waves can produce diffraction interference. Therefore light is NOT a particle or a wave. Understand now?

(They are shown to have wave lengths varying in size, longer for blue and shorter for red.)

Ahhhhhh.....but this is what people do not understand.

They are “shown” to be WAVE-LIKE!!

Absolutely all objects in the universe can be shown to be wave-like,.....don’t you agree?

Take a long stick and move it up and down. Doesn’t the stick bend in wave-like motion? Doesn’t it also have a frequency that can be measured?

Take a taught rope and torque one end at regular intervals. The torque signal received on the other side can be interpreted as “wave-like”,.....right? And we could measure the frequency of signals coming in, right?

Take any object in the universe and bend it or move it in a periodic motion. The signals you receive from it can be interpreted as “wave-like”. And a novice is inclined to call these signals: waves. But it is actually the medium (physical object) that is in periodic motion. There is NO wave....waves do not exist.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

Just as God couldn’t have built this largest of prisons we call SPACE, and simultaneously be unable to escape it. In like manner, we could say that God cannot be omniscient without denying us free will. We are free to do as we please because God is not. As even ‘He’ cannot escape this space prison that ‘He’ is so irrationally credited for building!

But what is the point of discussing free will, sin, morality, evil, DNA creation, intelligent design, or how God conceivably interacts with everything in the universe?

Unless we can FIRST establish a rational explanation for the existence of God, then all these points are moot. This explanation can encompass the supposed “creation” of atoms & space, or any other natural phenomenon that is said to be accomplished by God.

But notice that I said “rational explanation”. This does not mean proof, truth, evidence, or other subjective and opinionated nonsense that atheists ask theists to provide.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(The theory is a “rational explanation” which logically follows from the hypothesis.)

Fatfist,

So help my thinking, then. If the hypothesis equates to a postulate, and the explanatory theory equates to a logical necessity, then it follows that science is an a priori exercise, doesn't it?

Yet when we define object as that which has shape and existence as shape + location, then the emphasis seems to be on a posteriori realities we call facts, although the definition itself is axiomatic.

It would seem that the duty of science is to explain a posteriori understandings utilizing a priori logical constructions. In other words, what it seems to me is that the differences between say string theory and another definition of physics lies in the factual basis (empirical evidence or a posteriori evidence) of the underlying defined axioms.

Would that be a fair assessment or have I screwed it up again?


Hell N0 6 years ago

You two need to get a room.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(You two need to get a room.)

Hell No,

How? That would be a choice, and you said no free will. Remember?

Will you please make up your mind? Either we can or we can't. We can't do both. Sheesh!


Hell N0 6 years ago

Well, assuming you aren't gay as my weak joke was implying, with a free will you could become gay. You could make yourself want to be gay. Are you starting to see the absurdity of this mystical and impossible concept? That's really what the term means. It's bad enough to hear christians spouting off about their supposed free will. But then so many atheists are sucked right into their illogical world views.


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(You could make yourself want to be gay. Are you starting to see the absurdity of this mystical and impossible concept?)

Frankly, hell no, Hell No.

Under your definition, I could make myself a lollipop or a tedddy bear if I wanted. Or a football star in the NFL or a clone of George Clooney. Again I must remind you that free will is not synonymous with after-the-fact omnipotence.

Although I have no choice in gene pool, that has no bearing on free will. Your argument would have to have a cause of the gene pool choice, and where is determinism in that choice?

Whether or not an ova is fertilized and produces is not the product of determinism but a product of chance. If I follow the logic of your argument you are saying that a cause of the gene pool is the fertilization of the ova, with its subsequent effects, but your argument fails to explain the lack of fertilization as a cause of a non-gene pool and its subsequent non-effect. If it is determinism that causes the gene pool affect, then it must also be determinism when the sperm and ova don't meet and that non-fertilization causes a non-gene affect.

But that's not the case. Fertilization occurs randomly, by chance.

A male and female human can exercise free choice by attempting to procreate, but whether or not they are successful has nothing to do with either free will or determinism. It's a random event.


Hell N0 6 years ago

From your first sentence, "under your definition" you lie. What you stated describes an even lesser form of the false free will. But you didn't actually read what I wrote. It has nothing to do with wanting something, rather making yourself want something that you don't want at the moment. This is why it is a nonexistent ability. But in your arrogance you read right over what's being explained. Has nothing to do with determinism. The idea of free will was invented for the sake of religious dogma. By the way, the gene pool has alot to do with our choices.

By the way, could you freewill yourself to believe in God? No bull crap here. To "really believe"?


AKA Winston 6 years ago

(It has nothing to do with wanting something, rather making yourself want something that you don't want at the moment)

Hell No,

I understood you perfectly. You are claiming free will is omnipotence. You are making a circular argument. You create an absurdly impossible definition for a term and then claim the term is absurdly impossible because of your definition.

By the way, I agree that omnipotence is a ridiculous improbability, but as we must rely on inductive reasoning in this realm, we can never assure 100% impossibility.

Btw, I think you are missing a point, i.e., cause and effect is by its nature a deterministic claim.


Hell N0 6 years ago

That it is. I was thinking of determinism as our actions being caused or inspired by God or an omnipotent being. Which I do believe. But that's not the point. The fact is, is that free will shouldn't even be a word used in English or it's equivalent in any other language. We have the ability to do or try to do anything we please. That just isn't free will. By the way, I don't believe God even has free will. So my reasoning is not circular at all. But to suggest that we have such an ability would be circular reasoning. In fact, free will is an oxymoron. We are not able (free) to choose our own desires.


Hell N0 6 years ago

By the way, this subject has nothing to do with the Big Bang Theory. Go ahead with your last response so that we will be done with this.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

(If the hypothesis equates to a postulate, and the explanatory theory equates to a logical necessity, then it follows that science is an a priori exercise, doesn't it?)

Science is a conceptual discipline (Hypothesis + Theory) that allows us to study existence. It is the collection of rational theories.

Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects! Without objects we can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those ‘things’ (ie. objects) that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification). It is Philosophy which studies concepts (ie. good vs evil).... and religion which deals with the motion of concepts (i.e. free will, Jesus walking on water, God creating universe).

The hypothesis is not just ANY postulate, and not similar to a blind axiom we set as a RULE in order to ENFORCE a strict descriptive methodology that leads us to a systemically-derived proof of sorts.

Nope. The hypothesis is comprised of five ingredients:

1. unambiguous definitions

2. the physical objects which will be the ACTORS in your Theory

3. statement of the facts

4. illustrations of all physical objects and their interactions

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

Systems of logic, geometry/formulas/mathematics are human inventions. Matter & space don't care what formulas or idealized figures we use. Physics is the study of objects, particularly concrete objects (having shape and location, i.e. 3D). So first we need a hypothesis, one or more physical objects. Then we must conceptualize how these objects interact. Then we explain how these interactions produce the observed phenomena. If the hypothesized objects are incapable to be used in explaining observations then a new hypothesis is required.

When you demand equations/formulas you are making the same mistake as the establishment, who don't care about ludicrous and absurd "explanations" involving moving concepts, carrying concepts, duality, self-contradiction, etc. as long as the equations can get the numbers right. The problem with an equation without a valid physical hypothesis is that nobody actually understands anything.

The point is that the hypothesis must be based on 3D objects that exist and we can POINT to, or that can be CONCEIVED to exist and we can illustrate without contradictions. That is the foundation of a valid hypothesis. Whether it is capable of explaining any observations is another matter that has to do with the theory.

A scientific hypothesis and theory doesn't come from Revelation or random happenstance. Science is the study of existence. As such, before we can “study”, we MUST decide upon unambiguous/consistent definitions, hypotheses, and theories which explain phenomena in a rational manner, based on the physical objects “assumed” in the hypotheses.

However, when we state our definitions and hypotheses, we cannot demand that a conscious observer "confirm" these. Of course, the definitions must be agreed upon by all parties, otherwise we will be chasing our tails around in circles. The hypotheses are generally what we call the "assumptions" and the statements of the facts. They pertain to "what is" in the absence of the observer, and induced from the observer's presence/experience in the universe. This is the metaphysical stage.

What Bill is saying when he states that we must "kill all observers and witnesses”, is that you and I have to agree on our metaphysics BEFORE we can talk about physics. Metaphysics and ontology have to come first. Physics is about explaining a phenomenon of Nature. This explicitly requires an observer to have experienced the phenomenon. But we have been observing for the past 3000 years, so really, there is nothing new here. However, before I can explain my theory of a phenomenon, I have to state my metaphysics and ontology, which are observer-free. An observer-free Scientific method (Hypothesis + Theory) ensures Primacy of Existence over consciousness. And this is what differentiates Science from Religion, Philosophy, Logic, Mathematics, etc.

This is why we don’t falsify hypotheses in science (as Karl Popper irrationally asserts), we instead FORMULATE & APPLY them. But before we can apply them, they had better be valid (use objects as ACTORS performing verbs, not concepts).

Examples of invalid hypotheses:

- 0D quantum particles (nothing)

- warped space (nothing)

- dilated time (concept)

- contracted length (concept)

- expanding Universe (concept)

- light waves (concept)

- 0D light photons (nothing)

- 0D black hole (nothing)

- energy, force, field, mass, time (all concepts)

Mathematical physics doesn’t have a single real object in any of its hypotheses – NOT ONE!!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Winston,

(Yet when we define object as that which has shape and existence as shape + location, then the emphasis seems to be on a posteriori realities we call facts, although the definition itself is axiomatic.)

The definition of exist has nothing to do with ‘axioms’.

A definition is first and foremost conceptual. It provides an unambiguous and consistent way for us humans to achieve “rational discourse” among each other. If our statements are subject to interpretation, then we are practicing religion and not science. Remember.....the bible can be interpreted as God being a man, spirit, and both man & spirit. And this is useful for theists so they can cover all their bases and win all arguments with atheists....and they do win....cause atheists have their own irrational religion.

Theists say God created the Universe. Atheists say a 0D singularity created it.

Theists say that sin, morals, free will, etc. exist because God created them. Atheists agree they “exist”, but they were not created by God, they were ultimately created by the Big Bang.

Theists say DNA was created by God. Atheists say DNA was created & evolved from the Big Bang creation.

And BOTH of these idiots will argue over their religious BS until they become extinct. And thank God for that, because this planet needs intelligent life, not a bunch of brain-dead followers with opinions coming out of their orifices!

Shape is a concept and location is a concept. They certainly aren’t “real” objects. At the metaphysical level we must “conceive” what a real object is. If we can’t conceive it, then how can we UNDERSTAND reality? How can we communicate in an unambiguous manner?

We conceive that a real object must ultimately be made up of matter, whether it is invisible to humans is irrelevant. Matter is substance. Substance has a surface and form, whether we see it or not. We conceptualize this as SHAPE, which is the only intrinsic property of matter and of any object. Can anybody conceive of any object which has no shape?

Same with location, which is a concept, that is conceived as a set of static distances between objects. There should be a static distance between your nose and God’s nose, right? If there is, then both you and God are objects that exist, .....and whether God is invisible is irrelevant to the definition of ‘exist’.

So as you can see, exist, shape, and location have nothing to do with axioms or rules. They have to do with what we can reason and understand, ....with what is unambiguous, rational, .....and having the ability to be used consistently in an explanation. This obviously has nothing to do with axiomatic systems of logic.

A definition is actually part of a scientific hypothesis. It HAS to be, otherwise we won’t understand what somebody means when using the words ‘object’, ‘concept’, ‘exist’, ‘motion’, ‘time’, ‘energy’, ‘force’, etc. This is not akin to an axiom or a rule as in mathematics for example, where we can prove a complex differential equation just by following the axiomatic steps, and in the end we haven’t understood or “explained” anything,....but we got the correct ‘descriptive’ derivation.

A VALID hypothesis ensures that our explanations are unambiguous, consistent, rational, and not surrealistic or supernatural.

(It would seem that the duty of science is to explain a posteriori understandings utilizing a priori logical constructions.)

If String Theory wants to be classified as a “Scientific Theory”, then it better have a valid hypothesis and a rational explanation. Otherwise, it has nothing but “axioms”, i.e. dogmatic rules which establish its own system of logic. And of course, this is what ST has: a supposed 1D object.

Well guess what?......there ain’t no such ‘thing’ as a 1D object in the universe. No freakin’ way!

So ST is crippled because it cannot explain anything “a posteriori” in the universe. All ST can do is “describe” logical constructs which are derived from its axiomatic necessities that are rooted in mathematics. ST will forever remain in the axiomatic logical realm of human concepts, and never be applicable in mother nature’s reality.

When all humans die, so will all their concepts. Only objects will remain!


TellusFuture profile image

TellusFuture 6 years ago from Sweden

A lot of BS here, I'm sorry to say. The expansion refers to expansion of space, or more precisely the growth of the scaling factor a(t) with time. It follows that the physical distance between distant galaxies increases with time, and the expansion rate is even accelerating according to SN observations. These are hard, cold facts which do not depend on anything human. The Andromeda galaxy is approaching since it's affected by our galaxy's gravity. All galaxies in a cluster are gravitationally bound and do not participate in the expansion.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

Tellus,

(The expansion refers to expansion of space)

Please explain with the luxury of detail how NOTHING can expand in your worldview?

Nature’s space is a void; the static gap between objects.

When was the last time you grabbed “nothing” with your hands and stretched it?

( the growth of the scaling factor a(t) with time.)

Which part of the universe do you live in? The south part or the north part?

Cause where the rest of us reside there are no such ‘things’ as “scaling factor a(t)” and “time”. You’d better go back and ask your Pastor what he meant by these terms and then post it here, ok?

(the physical distance between distant galaxies increases)

DISTANCE: A static concept relating to the space separating two surfaces.

PHYSICAL: That which has shape; synonym: object

Is ‘distance’ a physical object in your religion?

(...with time)

Oh, so ‘time’ increases too, along with “distance”?

Time is a concept, a scalar quantity, a number line. This means that time is a VERB.

It is impossible for a verb to “increase”. And nature certainly doesn’t perform such irrational events.

You really need to take an entry level Physics Course because you have no clue what you are saying. Not only are you violating physics, but also basic grammar!

(according to SN observations)

And Jesus walked on water according to SN observations.

You can make all the petty observations you want. When you come here to present your theory, you had better be able explain exactly how NOTHING can be expanded, like a pair of pants....understand?

( The Andromeda galaxy is approaching since it's affected by our galaxy's gravity.)

Every single galaxy is affected by the Milky Way. Please explain WHY all the galaxies are not approaching!

(All galaxies in a cluster are gravitationally bound and do not participate in the expansion.)

Is this what your Pastor told you?

Well, YOUR Pastor is NOT as authoritative as this Pastor: Lawrence Krauss

/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

watch the Utube video at 10:30

Professor Krauss clearly proved with his BB expansion math model that EACH GALAXY IS MOVING AWAY FROM EVERY OTHER GALAXY. No exceptions! Absolutely none!!

Krauss stated that no matter where you are in the universe, absolutely ALL galaxies move away from YOUR location, due to space expansion.

In fact, Big Bang Theory demands such a scenario. If the ocean increases between the boats AND outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other. So if space is expanding, as YOU irrationally claim, then absolutely ALL space EVERYWHERE would expand. No exceptions!

What prevents the space in a cluster or between your ears from expanding.....God?

Regardless...This is not what the astronomers verify. Andromeda, and tons of other galaxies are blue shifted.

All galaxies in the universe are gravitationally bound, not just Andromeda.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

TellusFuture

"A lot of BS here, I'm sorry to say. The expansion refers to expansion of space"

You are telling fatfist space is expanding into space. wtf


fatfist profile image

fatfist 6 years ago Author

In fact, there are many Pastors of mathematics who don't "believe" in the preachings of other Pastors. This circus atmosphere in math physics is no different than the 22,000 sects of Protestantism, and various other Christian sects who completely disagree with each other on many issues.

So who is right? And who is wrong? Let's flip a coin!!!!

Even the good Pastor, Carl Sagan, God rest his soul,... and many other scientists had their doubts about the Big Bang and said that the Doppler Effect may NOT be applicable to light. Here is Sagan himself talking about this issue:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=34-1W_9BhoU&playnext_from=TL&videos=IqQU3RY9r_A&feature=grec

Well....duh! That makes sense! Is space a physical object? Does space have a border we can cross to the other side?

If so, what will we find there? God?

According to the Big Bang Apologists....YES...the 0D singularity!

If not, then how could light possibly be Doppler-shifted without a physical medium for propagation??

Well Einstein was subjected to the same ridicule with his warped-space nonsense. That's why he officially declared that space is an AETHER, much to the dismay of the scientific community. And this is one of the reasons (along with his dissent of Quantum) why Einstein was ousted from mainstream science and treated as a CLOWN until his death....at which point he became famous once again.

So those who believe in the Big BS 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 clownish at all levels.

The BB is nothing but religion dressed up as mathematical gobbledygook pseudo-science. Otherwise how else could they convince the mindless math geeks to follow them?


Baileybear 5 years ago

Is there a valid alternative, or is it a mystery?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Bailey,

There are no mysteries in the Universe. Mysteries occur when humans become lazy and don’t put any critical thought into their theories. We humans want to take the easy route and introduce surrealism and supernaturalism into our hypotheses & theories in order to give them public appeal, or to fulfil a pre-established agenda.

The agenda is that the Roman Catholic Church had its hands in science all along, for centuries. Priest Lemaitre finally found a way to prove that God created the Universe in the early 1930’s by making use of supernatural mathematics. Almost all the scientists back then were theists and they loved this novel idea.

Einstein, Hubble, Sagan and many others didn’t buy into this nonsense. Scientists back then already understood the universe to be eternal before Lemaitre conjured up his equations. But they had no choice. They had to bow down to peer pressure from the establishment and PRETEND to accept the Big Bang.

The Universe is a "name" we give to the relation of matter (atoms) and space (nothing). This relation we call “Universe” is a concept. Concepts do not expand! Only objects, like a rubber ball can expand.

Space is nothing, it does not move and it certainly does not expand. Matterless motion is impossible.

So these clowns claim to have seen galaxies move apart (and they haven’t), and magically claim that space is expanding. Can you believe this nonsense?

(Is there a valid alternative)

Absolutely ALL objects in the universe move, even at the atomic level. Galaxies move in all directions depending on who wins the gravitational tug of war. Light does not exhibit a Doppler Effect, only SOUND does because air is the background medium.

Light does not have a background medium. Space is not a medium, a substance, or an object. Light itself is the medium. Light is an object. You can stop light with your hand. Light is not a wave, you cannot stop waves (medium compressions) with your hand. Light is the object that interconnects all atoms in the universe. Therefore, it is impossible for light to Doppler shift. Light can exhibit WAVE-LIKE behavior, just like my arms & body do whenever I go to a baseball game and the whole crowd does the WAVE! Have you seen one of these in a game? Are people waves? Then how can light possibly be ‘a’ wave? Waves are concepts. Waves do not exist. Only objects exist.


Baileybear 5 years ago

maybe that's why I never understood these theories - if they were all made up by pseudo-scientists trying to "justify" creation. I found physics concepts quite hard to understand (because more theorised concepts, not concrete objects, I guess?)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Yeah, well you will be shocked to discover that not a single mathematical physicist understands the Big Bang. Even Stephen Hawking himself REFUSES to answer specific questions so that he can protect his job from ridicule.

When Hawking used to make appearances in conferences, they always censored people asking questions about the Big Bang. Security even threw some people out of the conference.

Hawking would always say that their questions don't make sense because it's like asking: "What's north of the North Pole?"

Well space and stars and other galaxies are north of the North Pole!

Only in Religion do they use cliches to protect themselves. Theist do that all the time. They say that it doesn't make sense to ask "Who created God".

Don't confuse math-physics with Physics, Bailey. It's closer to a Religion than to real traditional Physics.


Indeed 5 years ago

I started reading this thinking I had a good grasp on reality... Now I realize I don't know shit.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Indeed! You're not alone.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(I don't know shit.)

Indeed,

Shit is an object. It has shape and location. There, after just two easy lessons you now really know your shit. :-))


agentmarmite 5 years ago

Quick query fatfist; you stated earlier in the comments:

[quote]

"Go to the beach. Is a “wave” an object? Can you “point” to a wave? Can you pick up a “wave” with your hands? Can you “live” in a wave?"

"The answer is “no”, to all questions. A “ball” is an object, since it has shape, a physical boundary. You can point to, pick up, and live in a ball because it is physical."

"But “rain” and “wave” are only concepts, just ideas. You can point to, pick up, and live in “water”.....but never “rain” or a “wave”. Rain and waves are dynamic concepts, because they “relate” the physical object, water, with its “motion”. Rain and wave are verbs, not nouns."

[/quote]

So, what shape does water have? Wouldn't water be a concept, or perhaps an abstract object (location without shape)? I mean, I can point to water, but it doesn't really have a shape until I put it in a glass or something.

Please help me clarify this tricky one inside my mind! Thanks in advance...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi agent,

You have asked a very important question which mathematicians should have asked 400 years ago.

“So, what shape does water have?”

First things first.....the only way we can answer “WHAT” questions concerning objects of nature, is by formulating a Scientific Hypothesis. Your question alludes to what matter looks like. This issue is easily resolved by a rational model of the atom. I’m sure that you are aware that there are literally hundreds of models of the atom proposed by humans. Mainstream science goes back & forth between 3 irrational models of the atom: planetary model, e-shell model, cloud model. All of them are contradictory and incompatible with each other.

You can google an image of hydrogen & oxygen or H2O based on any of these models and see what the “shape” of H2O is proposed to “look like” according to their hypotheses of matter.

But as it turns out, the point of my quoted comments had nothing to do with the “shape” of water. The crucial issue before us is whether water has shape. This is a YES or NO question. I mean, if you go to the beach and you get knocked down by a conglomerate of water, then obviously, it was SOMETHING (object) rather than NOTHING (concept) which came in surface-to-surface contact with your body, and pushed you over.

This is purely a conceptual issue, not an issue of observation or evidence. I don’t need to go to the beach to critically reason that water will knock me down or even break my neck or my spine. I don’t need to physically enter a tornado....I can critically reason and rationalize that air molecules can rip my body to shreds within a tornado.

If this was an issue of observation/evidence, then I can claim that I saw my fat aunt (who loves to eat!!) at the beach get hit by a large conglomerate of water, and it didn’t even budge her at all. Therefore I now conclude that WATER IS NOT AN OBJECT, BUT RATHER,... A CONCEPT!!!

Does that sound rational to you? This is exactly what the Religion of Mathematics is doing today and coming to such fantastical conclusions about atoms, light, gravity, magnetism, electricity, universe, creation, etc.

Object: that which has shape

Concept: that which doesn’t have shape; a relation between 2 or more objects

The universe is either comprised of something (that which has shape) or nothing (that which doesn’t; i.e. space).......there is NO other option....ever! I will say it again.......EVER!!!

This is a conceptual issue that is critically reasoned. Even if all the humans evolved to be BLIND, we can still easily reason what reality is composed of.....something or nothing.

Think about it......I mean, you have to be “open-minded”, suspend the irrational ideas which we were all brainwashed with in school.....and really think about it!

“Wouldn't water be a concept, or perhaps an abstract object (location without shape)?”

Water is definitely an object for reasons I explained above, because it has ‘shape’. But does water ‘exist’?

Exist: object with a location

So does water have location?

Yes, there is a static distance between the water and my body. That is how the water was able to come in contact with me and knock me over.

Therefore, water has location and it is an object that exists!

All objects have shape, even abstract ones. An example of an abstract object is a ‘circle’. Circles have shape, but circles do NOT exist because they have no location.....they are not part of reality/nature.....they are only part of CONCEPTUALITY.....they require a human observer to conceptualize them using abstract thought.

“I mean, I can point to water, but it doesn't really have a shape until I put it in a glass or something.”

Our issue of concern is whether a single water molecule (H2O) has shape.....not the container of the water. It is strictly a YES or NO issue.

If only mathematicians asked these types of questions, we wouldn’t have such stupidities as the self-creation of the universe in this day and age.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

I forgot to make one important point....

Observation and evidence has absolutely nothing to do with science!

Only in religion do we observe God's penis and decree that it is bigger than the Universe.

Reality has no observers. Reality is only critically analyzed, hypothesized without contradictions, and ultimately, rationally explained. Whenever you inject the opinions of observers into reality you are doing Religion, not science.


agentmarmite 5 years ago

First, thanks so much for your excellent and insightful explanations. I think I've almost got it and what you said has helped a LOT.

So, when I picture water, unlike a TV or table or leprechaun or circle — I can't picture a SPECIFIC shape. But clearly it must be an object if it can knock someone over.

Clearly an H2O molecule must have shape, and in turn be comprised of atoms and so on, also with shape. Yet I previously thought water was a concept which described relationships between said water molecules?

I'd rather use water as a physical object itself for sure. I'm just struggling that last few steps before getting it... I can see, feel, touch, and be impacted by water... and all objects must have shape... yet the water itself doesn't appear to have specific shape (i.e. it's in constant motion, it's everywhere, it's twisting and winding, splashing, etc), yet it MUST do to be a physical object that knocks me down.

Thanks again, so sorry for my slow brain on this one!


agentmarmite 5 years ago

Braniac moment...

Actually I CAN in fact see a shape to water in my mind if I see a single pool or puddle of it, or if I point at "THIS water" on a map (i.e. the world's interconnected ocean, on the entire globe). Or, cup-shaped water in my cup.

BUT, it's architecture is it's true shape, i.e. the shape of the bits making up this moving "wet stuff".

So... am I using 'water' as a general *concept* until I enquire about its underlying shape/architecture? Is that where I'm getting lost, between it being a conceptual abstraction and a question of physics?


Rudimental profile image

Rudimental 5 years ago

Yeah, I agree with many of the comments, as well as much of the hub. The really cool thing to me is this:

Looking with intense focus at the concept of eternal or infinite; whether time or space, in either direction, infinitely small or infinitely large, eternally in the past or eternally in the future. This always startles me at some point during the process of doing it. There is such an overwhelming feeling of futility in trying to understand it that a sudden sense of "stop looking at this concept" occurs. Having said that, I do believe that there is no end and that there was no beginning, as neither of these concepts hold any merit; otherwise, we are not having this conversation, and we never will.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Agent,

“Clearly an H2O molecule must have shape, and in turn be comprised of atoms and so on, also with shape.”

Actually, for the purposes of a specific theory (like WHY my fat aunt was knocked over at the beach), it is completely irrelevant what an H2O molecule is comprised of. Mereology belongs exclusively to Religion, where God is said to be comprised of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The only relevant question we need to answer is: “is H2O an object or a concept?”

It is the Hypothesis of matter/atoms which will answer such questions as what makes up the fundamental H atom.

“Yet I previously thought water was a concept which described relationships between said water molecules?”

We point and name/label all objects. Can we point to water spilled on the floor? Does it have shape or spatial separation between the floor or space? If yes, then we have just pointed to an ‘object’. It is irrelevant whether we name it “water” or “abcd”. The issue at hand is whether it qualifies as an object with shape. Names & labels have no meanings. Only concepts have meanings.

Every single word in ANY language is first and foremost a concept. But......some of those words can be resolved to ‘objects’ in reality......like water, apple, dog, ......since they allude to an object with shape.

So to be more succinct.....this is how we address the term ‘water’:

a) water-the-concept: a substance that behaves as a liquid or as a .......blah blah

b) water-the-object: an object with shape

“I'd rather use water as a physical object”

Physical is actually a synonym for object.

“I can see, feel, touch, and be impacted by water... and all objects must have shape... yet the water itself doesn't appear to have specific shape (i.e. it's in constant motion, it's everywhere, it's twisting and winding, splashing, etc), yet it MUST do to be a physical object that knocks me down.”

It is irrelevant what you can see/touch. We resolve what an object is at the conceptual level – using critical thinking only!!

People’s opinions are irrelevant to what reality is about. It is irrelevant whether the water APPEARS to have shape or not. The only question you need to answer is:

Does water have shape? Yes or No?

If water is in motion, like waves, then the term WAVE is becomes a concept....specifically, a dynamic concept.

Wave is what something (i.e. water, your hand, paper, flag, my girlfriend’s panties, etc.) DOES....not what something IS. Wave is a verb, not a noun of reality. Objects precede ALL concepts. Wave is a relation between objects.

If there are static distances between this object you named “water”, and all other objects in the universe, then “water” is said to have LOCATION. Therefore water has no choice but to exist!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Agent,

“Actually I CAN in fact see a shape to water in my mind if I see a single pool or puddle of it, or if I point at "THIS water" on a map (i.e. the world's interconnected ocean, on the entire globe). Or, cup-shaped water in my cup.”

In physics we do not run experiments to confirm or deny whether an alleged object has shape. If you can point at it, utter a word and name/label it, then it is an object for the purposes of physics.

But, we cannot point to an ‘atom’ and name it. Does this mean that an atom is NOT an object?

No!

An atom is a HYPOTHESIZED object in accordance with the Scientific Method!!!

The Hypothesis stage is where the scientist will illustrate an name all the objects which will take part in his theory (explanation of a natural phenomenon). We do not need to actually see/touch them in order to declare them as objects. We only need to illustrate them.

Is God an object? Yes or No?

I don’t give a shit whether you can bring God to the Physics Conference for a “Show & Tell”. That is NOT the issue!! And this is what stupid theists & atheists get their panties in a knot about. They are both fools who don’t understand SCIENCE.

The issue is whether God is an object for the purposes of your Theory on Creation of space & matter. If so, then you must ASSUME that God exists in your Hypothesis, and then proceed to RATIONALLY EXPLAIN in your Theory how this alleged object you call “God”, created space & matter.

That is what the Scientific Method is all about......nothing else!

“So... am I using 'water' as a general *concept* until I enquire about its underlying shape/architecture? Is that where I'm getting lost, between it being a conceptual abstraction and a question of physics?”

No. Water is an object irrespective of YOUR inquiry, opinion, or any underlying structure, etc, etc, etc. Such activities are irrelevant and are only circumscribed to Religion & Mathematics.

The term ‘water’ is a concept, from a linguistic perspective ONLY.

If this term ‘water’ can ALSO resolve to an object with shape, and we can illustrate it on paper and point at it and conceptualize the image, then it is an object.

If in addition, water has a static distance between ‘it’ and your nose, then it is a REAL object which exists because it has ‘location’. Otherwise, it is an abstract object,...... unless of course,..... your theory can use ‘it’ to rationally explain a phenomenon in nature. If it can, then ‘it’ MAY exist.....it is possible!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Rudimental,

“whether time or space, in either direction, infinitely small or infinitely large, eternally in the past or eternally in the future. This always startles me at some point during the process of doing it. There is such an overwhelming feeling of futility in trying to understand it that a sudden sense of "stop looking at this concept" occurs. Having said that, I do believe that there is no end and that there was no beginning, as neither of these concepts hold any merit”

You are rational when you say there was no beginning or no end. We call the universe ‘eternal’. Any statement of “creation”, belongs exclusively to religion because it can be very very very easily debunked right here and right now!

But you need to understand the difference between the words ‘eternal’ and ‘infinite’. Almost nobody does, especially mathematicians. Infinite is an irrational word which was invented by Religionists. This word has absolutely no rational usage in any sentence which any human or alien can ever conceive.

I dissect both of these words in detail in my hub on Infinite Regress. If you have time, I suggest you read it. Once you do, you will never use this nonsensical word ‘infinite’ again in your life.

Thanks for posting.


Rudimental profile image

Rudimental 5 years ago

@fatfist Well, I will read your hub on Infinite Regress when I have opportunity. I suspect though, that it will most likely be a semantic and inconclusive argument rather than a substantiated "doctrine". I don't think the human mind can rationally understand the concept and this is where we we caught in a loop of intellectual limitations, and we then often look to explain away what we cannot comprehend. But, I look forward to hearing what you have to say. Whether I agree or disagree with someone's opinions, my motto is "due respect to all".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Rudimental,

“I suspect though, that it will most likely be a semantic and inconclusive argument rather than a substantiated "doctrine".”

There are no semantic arguments or substantiated doctrines. We don’t ask the High Priests of Planet Earth to give us their substantiated blessings on issues. All they’d be giving us are substantiated opinions. Nobody can dictate anything about reality. We can only rationally explain reality, without ambiguities or ontological contradictions.

Before we can do that, we must unambiguously define the terms: object, concept, space, exist

If we cannot do this without ambiguities or contradictions, then we have no business talking about reality......I mean, just what is it that we are going to understand from our exchange?

Human communication is ALL about understanding .......and understanding only. We don’t play with words and PRETEND to understand them when the High Priest “nods” at us from across the room!

“I don't think the human mind can rationally understand the concept”

You really need to understand the irrational claims that you are making here, Rudimental.

Human minds conceived/invented absolutely all concepts. These all began with some human ape using his grey matter to think, .....and then utter sounds, which we call “words” and attach meanings to them. If a stupid human ape cannot define in no uncertain terms what he means by the word he just uttered, .....and if he cannot UNDERSTAND this CONCEPT which he just thought of......then we just take this fool and throw him off a 20 storey building. Simple as that.....we don’t even ask any further questions!

Words without meanings have no understandings to be had.....not even by the fool who invented the original word, because even he could not understand it. Why are you having so much difficulty with this basic stuff?

“and this is where we we caught in a loop of intellectual limitations, and we then often look to explain away what we cannot comprehend.”

Nonsense. There are NO intellectual limitations. Only in Religion do we not understand God’s ways. Only in Religion do we not understand why God eternally loves us, and then turns around and commits a mass genocide and kill us all, ......except for our next door neighbour, who is a DRUNK, who was told by God to build an Ark and save his drunk ass.

Out here, in reality, whenever we invent a word, we DEFINE it in no ambiguous terms and use it consistently across ALL contexts of communication. Whoever cannot do this, should not be using this word to make any sort of argument.....ever.

This is basic stuff....

“Whether I agree or disagree with someone's opinions”

What makes you think I am giving you “opinions” here? Opinions are the hallmark of Religion and they can be easily debunked......easily.

Mother Nature doesn’t care about the opinions of apes.

A rational human is able to understand and explain what they talk about......always.

So let’s test your Theory that “I am giving you opinions”, Rudimental.

Is the word ‘infinite’ an adjective or not? Yes or No?

Infinite is the context-opposite of ‘finite’. It is an adjective.

The nouns of reality are all objects. Adjectives only describe nouns.

Is there such a ‘thing’ as an infinite object? I mean, can such an alleged beast have spatial separation and be classified as an object?

As it turns out, it is only an irrational abstraction/concept stemming from a human.

Brain-dead human apes who use ordinary speech have also reified this ‘adjective’ (infinite) into a ‘noun’, and called it INFINITY.

Can you please illustrate this alleged ‘noun’ which the brightest apes of our planet have termed ‘infinity’?

BTW.....the brightest apes of our planet officially call themselves Mathematical Physicists, and they have beauty pageants where they decorate each other with Nobel Prizes for explaining nothing!

“my motto is "due respect to all"

Mother Nature could care less about the activities of human apes, like “respect”, “morals”, “love”, or “coveting thy neighbor’s wife”.

Reality is objective and observer-independent. Opinions play no role when rationally explaining anything in reality.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Water is a shapeshifter. Ow-ooooooh, werewolves of London.


agentmarmite 5 years ago

Thanks again. Right, I *think* I'm getting it now.

I was having an issue attributing shape to certain objects. For example I was imagining myself swimming in an ocean, but being unable to visualize the entire ocean's specific magnificent shape in such vastness of water and with all the waves and movements; thus falsely concluding that it had trouble being an object!

(Object: that with shape)

Yet I can point at a puddle, or the ocean, or a raindrop, or a waterfall, and utter a relevant word. They each MUST have some specific shape regardless of whether I know what it is!

So these all must be objects and they exist because I can point at them. All these objects (waterfall, ocean, puddle) are also made of the same "stuff" called water.

I can certainly visualize the shape of "an" ocean by seeing it on a globe or a map. "It" exists when I point at the real thing, or swim in it, knowing it has shape even if from close up I cannot ascertain it.

Hope that "I did good" third time around... :D


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Agent,

“unable to visualize the entire ocean's specific magnificent shape in such vastness of water”

This problem is extremely easy to solve. You gotta remember.....in science we kill all observers and their opinions. Whether this alleged object we term “ocean” is actually an object or not....has nothing to do with a person’s attempt at grasping its vastness. The question you need to ask yourself is:

“Does this ‘ocean’ object have a border/boundary?”

If yes, then it has shape.....it is an object.

If no, then how could it possibly be an object? There necessarily has to be spatial separation between an object and its contouring background. The alleged 'infinite' objects of mathematics are impossible in reality.

“All these objects (waterfall, ocean, puddle)”

Actually, the term ‘waterfall’ alludes to motion. Without motion, we cannot conceptualize a waterfall. So ‘waterfall’ is a dynamic concept. The object is the ‘water’.

Q: If we take a still photograph what do we see and point at?

A: The water object. Not the alleged ‘waterfall’object.

Waterfalls can only be conceptualized when we watch a movie of them. This is what our brain does for us when we see water at different locations, which we term 'motion'. Objects on the other hand, can be conceptualized by a static photograph alone. No movie is required.

All objects must be able to be “pointed at” and given a name/label......even the ones we can only illustrate on the blackboard, and cannot bring to the physics conference for a show-and-tell.....like God.

You did perfect this time around ;-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Rudimental,

I was looking forward to a reasonable response to my last post to you, regarding my alleged semantics, inconclusive arguments, and opinions about the meaning of the term INFINITE.

I have rationally explained why the terms 'infinite' and 'infinity' are self-contradictory, and are absolutely impossible to be applicable in any context having to do with reality.

If my explanation is unreasonable, I would like to hear why.

Thanks


agentmarmite 5 years ago

I'll give myself 2/5 ... getting there slowly! Thanks for your help.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

I have a rational theory for everything: tequilla


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@agent......I give you 5/5 for just even being here and asking these types of questions. If it was up to me....I would give you a NOBEL PRIZE for simply ASKING: what is an object?

@winston.....pull up a seat for me, and make sure you have a nice Premium tequila :-)


AKA Winston 5 years ago

You can tell the degree of irrationality of the theory produced by the number of l's in its required tequila - quantum theory requires tequillllla. My theory of everything only needs tequilla.

Fatfist, you notice, is a tequila man.


ekempi profile image

ekempi 5 years ago from west coast of Atlantic ocean Africa - Bight of Biafra

The universe is not expanding it is just been upturned backward to a coil grid harmonic form of power in air form central core fluid intelligent system atmosphere with anew ring of engagement framework zero dimension circle that is quite different from breakup image world framework divided mind control environment.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Aha! A tequilllllllllllllla drinker!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

WTF

wow


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

ekempi,

You know, my next-door neighbor is away on business all this week, and me and his wife had waaaaay too much to drink last night over at her place. We partied till 3AM.

We also knocked down and broke some vases and picture frames as I stumbled while carrying her from the family room all the way up the stairs into the bedroom.

Anyway, after I woke up this morning with a massive headache and a hangover, and read your comments....they made total SENSE to me. I have never ever seen such fine poetry in my life!

I would like to thank you very much for such a fine coherent and rational contribution to my hubs. You put everyone else to shame.

My only concern right now, is how we will replace the 2 broken vases and 3 broken picture frames before her husband comes back on Sunday night.

@Winston

"Aha! A tequilllllllllllllla drinker!"

That's why his post makes sense to me right now.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

@Prometheus

I am willing to bet you any money that you can't get this kind of a shock even if you put your weenie into an outlet.

You ain't seen nuttin' yet....stick around.


William H. Depperman 5 years ago

This update is added in order is to address a recent sophisticated yet simultaneously clumsy attempt to try to discredit the Theory of the Big Bang/Big Crunch Infinite Cycle of the Universe and to render confusion in a paper and book by Stephen Hawking crony, Robert Penrose, plus some political updating:

Materialist Analysis of Theoretical Astrophysics

The Capitalist Dictatorship Deliberately Falsifies Basic Science!

Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Wendy Freedman, Dennis

Overbye, Nicholas Wade, Brian Greene, etc. Are Exposed as Liars!

Self-Described Neo-Creationists Hawking and Kaku Are

Leading a Takeover Attempt of Theoretical Astrophysics!

Today basic medicine, science including climatology, astrophysics and even both Einstein’s Special Theory and General Theory of Relativity are brazenly and routinely falsified at the direction of genuinely Fascist elements for political/religious reasons. These scientifically fabricated and bizarre distortions are mixed in with some actual science and are passed off as “the new science” in exhaustive mesmerizing falsifications lasting for hours on NOVA, FRONTLINE, National Geographic Channel, CUNY TV, “Discovery Channel” and even the so-called “History Channel.” There is also a simultaneous attempt to create a sense of panic in order to help generate the Mass Psychology of Crisis based on falsely claimed imminent threats from space from rogue asteroids to Stephen Hawking’s alarmist claim of future invasions by inevitably hostile space aliens. See section below on UFOs and Extraterrestrial Life. In addition, the above-mentioned so-called “cosmologists” publish an endless stream of books, videos and magazine and newspaper articles, not to mention the new textbooks, to try to popularize their fiction and pass it off as good coin. The media, including the science media is simply a privatized arm of the U.S. “intelligence agency,” an actual army of legions of professional liars in every area of politics and academic discipline and includes even so-called “comedians” working in service to the capitalist dictatorship of millionaires and billionaires. The U.S. media is very similar to Blackwater, Dyncorp, Custer Battles and Triple Canopy, etc. the armed military contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, except that the media has always been privatized. Can you say Total Brainwash of the youth? Not to mention the adult population! Note that Stephen Hawking and Michio Kaku, who are leading the takeover attempt of theoretical astrophysics and “cosmology,” now both openly describe themselves as neo-creationist/”intelligent design” advocates and are campaigning through their statements to make neo-creationism the default belief taught in schools, colleges and universities! (See below.) Although Hawking simultaneously tries to deny this all his statements are contrived to lead to the same “conclusion.” The title and contents of Hawking’s book: “The Grand Design” is an example.

There is also a maximal attempt to confuse the masses in order to keep them susceptible to the constant stream of lies originating from NASA and the U.S. government. These lies include but are not limited to multiple false theories of the origin of life which include: 1.) so-called “panspermia,” 2.) evolution of life from submarine vents and now preposterously 3.) hypothetical civilizations based on arsenic (!) not phosphorus, all of which are fully disproved below. NASA first threatened to ram through a revisit of the Moon and a Mars mission before Obama under some public pressure temporarily cancelled the Moon and Mars ventures and made asteroids the first priority in order to lay the groundwork for an asteroid fear campaign to help reinforce the Mass Psychology of Crisis partially achieved by the “War on Terror,” complete with multiple U.S.-government-assisted and/or instigated mass provocations. U.S. “intelligence” has increased the number of these provocations in order to manipulate support for the Final Stage of Capitalism: Permanent War and State Terrorism! See below. There is also no possibility that a manned trip to Mars would ever return. Rocketry is a primitive form of space travel and there is no acknowledged attempt of efforts to develop the nuclear powered electromagnetic anti-gravity engine used by so-called UFOs, which are documented to have visited the Earth for Millennia. Such “space missions” along with “Supply-Side Economics” and the $4.7 trillion bank bailouts (!), are another fraudulent pretext to divert money from social spending and to decrease the U.S. living standard in accordance with Globalism, while trying simultaneously to try to boost U.S. patriotism from its nadir. The widespread academic opposition to these far-ranging falsifications of science in order to manipulate the public consciousness is never given equal time! We demand and will take some time to refute the U.S.-led capitalist dictatorship’s lies.

The Capitalist Dictatorship’s Attempt to Falsify the

Age of the Universe to Help Provide False Belief in “god”

The capitalists have tried to falsify the actual age of the Universe and the infinite cycle of a Big Bang followed by a Big Crunch, meaning a closed rather than an open Universe, because the reality of a closed Universe does not fit with the religious brainwash of a single creation and belief in a supernatural fictitious “god.” (The statecraft of capitalism’s alliance with religion and belief in “god” and other superstition is exposed further below.) The reality is that the process of contraction of the Universe began soon after the Big Bang, which began the process of expansion. The process of contraction began with the first condensations of gas after the Big Bang. At first the process of expansion was dominant, but the processes of expansion and contraction exist simultaneously from shortly after the Big Bang until finally the process of contraction becomes dominant and all galactic matter is finally drawn into Supermassive Black Holes, which today form the centers of all spiral galaxies and elliptical galaxies in the process of becoming spiral galaxies. These Supermassive Black Holes, which are growing larger continuously, finally link up all existing matter of the Universe at one spot, one huge super-maximal Black Hole known as the Singularity in the Big Crunch, at which time Critical Mass in the true and ultimate sense is reached for another Big Bang Cycle and the beginning of another Universe. This analysis clearly and conclusively demonstrates that THERE WAS NO “MOMENT OF CREATION” because all the matter for this Universe already existed in its pure nuclear form in the Singularity from a previous Big Crunch which preceded the Big Bang which began our present Universe. And the origin of matter is PROVED to be an unknowable. (See below.) This is the ONLY explanation which fits the facts! See below for comment on Roger Penrose and his recently published paper and book where he invents a highly contrived but easily disproved counter “theory” to the Big Bang Big Crunch Cycle of the Universe in order to try to discredit the cyclic nature of the Universe.

Ninety-five Percent of Matter in the Universe Exists in the Form of Energy According

To Einstein’s Formula E=mc2! Black Holes Completely Reverse that Relationship and

Solve the Equation for Mass: m=E/c2 thus Supplying the so-called “Missing Mass”!

The critical mass density required for the Big Crunch to occur is 1 x 10 to the negative 29th of a gram per cubic centimeter (approximately 5 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter), according to the calculation from the General Theory of Relativity, which predicted Black Holes. Neutrinos are now known to have mass which may be sufficient to supply the supposed “missing mass.” (See below.) But probably even more significant is the recent paper in Science, November 21, 2008, (Vol. 322, 5905:1198-1199 and 1124-1127), which shows that 95% of matter in the Universe exists in the form of energy according to Einstein’s formula E=mc2. This relationship would reverse in a Black Hole and the so-called “missing mass” would gradually appear as the contraction of the Universe allowed the energy-mass relationship to


poignant 5 years ago

Above commenter needs to go easy on the caffeine/LSD ...


scowie 5 years ago

I have done a lot of reading in the field of comsmology recently and I now reckon that there was no Big Bang and the universe is not expanding. Also, it seems that the study of cosmology in the modern age has become woefully unscientific, especially in America where such creationist theories are religiously defended by the scientific community with scant regard to the scientific process.

This youtube video is a good example of this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yTfRy0LTD0

also... http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf098/sf098a05.ht...

The Top 30 Problems with the Big Bang:

http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.as...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Thank you for your post, scowie.

I'm glad to see that more and more people are using their brains to reason out all these dubious claims posited by the High Priests of Mathematics.


MissTreacleTart 5 years ago

Hey Fat fist,

I wondered if you could give me your scientific analysis on the "Law of Attraction"?

Your thoughts create your reality, and there are an infinite number of alternate realities, by applying enough emotion and belief to what you desire, you can "attract" it into your reality. You collapse all possible realities leaving the one you experience.

I have done this with birds flying past, try it out and see what you make of it. I am interested in hearing what you have to say.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Miss,

“scientific analysis on the "Law of Attraction"?”

Laws have nothing to do with science, Miss.....only human apes create Laws in order to force conformity to those mindless apes we call “followers”.

The Universe has no such “anything” as this so-called “Law of Attraction”....just as it has no laws against wife abuse. All “Laws” are invented by human apes.

“Your thoughts create your reality”

Ummmm...Miss....how do you create something from nothing??

Creation under any context is impossible! I have several hubs explaining this in extreme detail. Do yourself a favour and spend a few weeks reading them. It’s worth it.

“by applying enough emotion and belief to what you desire.....leaving the one you experience.”

Ummmmm....Miss....let me tell you something.....and please try to understand my manly DESIRES....ok?

I’ve been trying for many years to get my neighbor’s wife to go to bed with me. And I’ve been doing this with all the emotion, belief, and desire my pour soul could muster.

Guess what?

Nada! I never got to “experience” her!

I’ve been sitting here all alone in my home for years without my neighbor’s wife in my bed, much less any woman for that matter!!

Guess what happens to your “Law of Attraction”?.......Yeah that’s right.....down the toilet it goes.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Abstact concepts cannot interact with the physical world - thoughts cannot push or pull objects.

Aka Wiston

I was wondering what winston said according to winston, thoughts cant move objects. But dont humans move there hands or feet with thoughts. So i assume that ideas are also concepts, but this concepts could turn into objects for example.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mickey_Mouse.svg

http://desktopnature.com/4376-2/Bay+Bridge_+San+Fr...

http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/201...

They were all thoughts/ideas/concepts.

Or maybe thoughts are neurons what do I know.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Prometheus....listen....for years I've been using thoughts, emotion, belief, desire, lust, passion, love, etc...to get my neighbor's beautiful wife to move into my bedroom. As a last resort, I've even pranced around naked in my backyard, blowing kisses and waving $100 bills in front of her....

None of these concepts, including, "prancing", "blowing" and "waving" had any effect on her. I could not manage to move her towards me at all.

So much for this Law of Attraction....


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Fatfist,

I think I have figured out the mystery. The universe is not expanding; the space surrounding it is shrinking!

This is giving space a blueshift because it is rushing toward us because man is, after all, the central piece of the universe, which is what makes us so humble.

And because I thought of this, it must be happening.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(None of these concepts,including, "prancing", "blowing" and "waving" had any effect on her)

Fatfist,

You obviously are an amateur, as anyone who has studied the Egyptian Book of the Dead Minds would know that only "energy" or "gravity" could impart the desired "force" that would cause your neighbor's wife to swoon.

Show her your wallet - it is chock full of potential energy, and then say Mass - not with the bread and wine - but with the kilograms. This magic word "mass" will convert your wallet into "kinetic energy", and whoosh, just like that, the old girl will be stripped of her earthly belongings and stand naked before you.

I swear it works because the high priest Hawkings said it would.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston.....I think you've got something there. Perhaps my wallet doesn't have enough "potential" for this woman.....either that, or my manhood doesn't have enough potential. That is something I need to work on...


Miss Treakle Tart 5 years ago

Hi there

I will answer your points as best I can but recommend you read up on the phenomena mentioned!

"Laws have nothing to do with science, Miss.....only human apes create Laws in order to force conformity to those mindless apes we call “followers”."

I am well aware that "Law" is a label homosapians give to the phenomena they observe. I can not speak for others but I can assure you I do not conform to anything - I make my own mind up on everything I think, feel, say and act on - I do not believe objectivity exists.

"The Universe has no such “anything” as this so-called “Law of Attraction”"

Subjective.

"....just as it has no laws against wife abuse."

We are the universe, the universe is us. We are one and one is all. We give laws and systems to the phenomena you describe. The universe gives laws to itself. We give meaning to ourselves. The Universe gives meaning to 'it' self.

"No of course not, we as tAll “Laws” are invented by human apes."

See above.

"Ummmm...Miss....how do you create something from nothing??"

Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed. Energy is transformed. Matter is transformed. Change. Ebb and flow. Seasons. Whatever label you want to give it. When I say "you create your reality" I mean you can pull in matter (which is energy) via your thought energy. (which is matter). Imagine yourself as a magnet - you attract whatever you think about. Remember in School, you had the jocks together, the geeks together, the cheerleaders together. Like attracts like.

"Creation under any context is impossible!"

I agree.

"I have several hubs explaining this in extreme detail. "

Yes, I've read them.

"I’ve been trying for many years to get my neighbor’s wife to go to bed with me. And I’ve been doing this with all the emotion, belief, and desire my pour soul could muster."

The Law of Attraction works on belief. You have to believe in the law itself. Of course "stupid human apes" have labelled 16 sub laws that you must follow for it to work as well.

"Nada! I never got to “experience” her!"

Did you strongly visualise her? You have to be specific - what emotions did you feel when visualising? Lust? You must remove all limiting thoughts and beliefs and feelings and only feel a positive emotion - positive energy - raise your vibration so that you are "alligned" with what you desire. Courage, Acceptance and Peace are the three main positive feelings. Courage is the best to use to manifest for me because of all the courageous music availible. John Murphy's Surface of the Sun for instance is a cracking piece.

"I’ve been sitting here all alone in my home for years without my neighbor’s wife in my bed, much less any woman for that matter!!"

Yes, that won't work if you do not apply ACTION. (8th Sub Law: Law of Action) Other labels "stupid human apes" have given it are: Law of Causality, Causality, Action-Reaction.

"Guess what happens to your “Law of Attraction”?.......Yeah that’s right.....down the toilet it goes."

It is a 'neutral' law which will not work if you do not cultivate a participation in all of the laws for it to work.

If you do not believe you can get your neighbours girl, you won't get her.

If you believe you can, and comply with the laws, you can.

Did you know inside your mind, there exist billions of neurons. Attached to these neurons are 'strands'. These strands contain a protein - inside the protein is a quantum particle.

In an ordinary computer two states are required to hold information (data) - a positive electrical charge and a negative electrical charge. These are represented you probably know as 1 and 0. An ordinary computer calculates every possible answer until it reaches the correct one.

A quantum computer, however, compiles and compares ALL possible answers at the same time and then "collapses" all the ones that are wrong, leaving only the correct answer.

Now, "stupid human apes" evolved self awareness - and the ability to visualise.

You see, we are observers. One way to observe something we can't yet see is to visualise.

Now, with enough emotion, you collapse all probabilities of anything else happening - leaving only what visualise, what you observe.

To collapse those probablities, you need a quantum computer.

And you carry one around with you every day all long, right between your ears!

I have a guide to make this happen if you wish to try it out - a guide to Law of Attraction, a guide to the 16 sub laws, and a guide to releasing negative beliefs and feelings.

All I would need is your email.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Everyone is talking about Thoughts And yet we know not when that Thought comes, nor what it is.

Maybe is just a concept but how can Thoughts move matter?

Maybe I should join Atheist and say thoughts come from neurons or maybe I should join Theist and say God gives me Thoughts.


Miss Treakle Tart 5 years ago

A thought is energy PrometheusKid. Everything is Energy.

Energy is a label we give it. A label the universe has given it. It is also labelled as Ki, Chi, "The Force" in Star Wars, Potentiality and Actuality by Aristotle.

Everyhing is this 'stuff'. Everything just 'is'.

I have labelled myself as Aethist, Agnostic, Christian, Islam.. pretty much all religions and science. I no longer define myself by my beliefs - but by my choices in those beliefs. (And I believe in the Unity or Oneness of Nature - of which Law of Attraction is a fundemental force working either for you or against you, depending on how you think).


Miss Trackle Tart 5 years ago

I would also like to say that I believe everything is subjective on the observer, there is no objectivity at all.

You are the universe and the universe is you. In this sense, you ARE the god of your universe.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Hi Miss,

“I make my own mind up on everything I think, feel, say and act on”

Please don’t take what I say the wrong way.....but I hope you understand that reality has no bearing on your personal subjectivities of what you think or feel or act on. Reality just is. The best that any human can do is to rationally explain certain aspects (i.e. phenomena) of reality.

“I do not believe objectivity exists”

Objectivity is a concept....it had better not exist. Only objects exist.....nothing else. All concepts are invented (i.e. conceived) by sentient beings....whether human or alien.

Fatfist: "The Universe has no such “anything” as this so-called “Law of Attraction”"

Miss: “Subjective”

Ok, Miss....here is your chance to shine......please give us the OBJECTIVE version.....please illustrate this object which you call Law of Attraction.....does it exist?

Exist = physical presence

Only objects are physical because they have shape. Only objects exist because on top of shape, they have location (i.e. presence)....whether you are there to see/touch them and give an opinion about it or not.

This is OBJECTIVE! If you disagree.....then please either point out the contradictions in my reasoning .....or show what YOU regard as objective and I will point out all your contradictions.......are you ok with that??

“We give laws and systems to the phenomena”

Utter nonsense!!! Your personal concepts that you attribute to phenomena are YOUR personal opinions!!

Why?

Because you have not rationally explained anything!

Please explain EXACTLY WHY every single atom in the universe eternally attracts each other. If you cannot accomplish this formidable feat....then you’ve said nothing.

“Nothing can be created or destroyed, only transformed.”

This is pretty basic stuff, Miss......nothing means just that.....NO THING. Nothing cannot be created or destroyed. We learn this before we begin to walk and talk.

Nothing is that which lacks shape. Nothing cannot surreptitiously acquire shape. If you disagree, then the onus is on YOU to rationally explain the process.

“The Law of Attraction works on belief. You have to believe in the law itself.”

Yes, Miss......I have BELIEVED in the Law of Attraction.....but my neighbor’s wife did not come to me. Yes I DID visualize her and wanted her so bad. I even saw her in my dreams sever times. Nothing happened. Your subjective laws have nothing to do with reality!

“These strands contain a protein - inside the protein is a quantum particle.”

Oh Miss.....please be a sweet dear and draw this alleged quantum particle of yours. Before you do that, you might want to educate yourself with QM and learn that a quantum particle is an alleged (fictitious) mathematical concept which is 0D (zero dimensional).....that is... IT DOES NOT EXIST!

“Now, with enough emotion, you collapse all probabilities of anything else happening - leaving only what visualise, what you observe.”

Did the Earth exist before humans evolved??

If not, then please explain the process by which humans evolved without the Earth present, and when they opened their eyes, the Earth magically was created in ZERO TIME.....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Miss,

"I would also like to say that I believe...."

Miss....do you believe that your arm exists?

Is the existence of your arm dependent on your "belief" of it?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

You are the universe and the universe is you. In this sense, you ARE the god of your universe.

Simple and cool.

So we alone are responsible for are own actions. Not the devil or God Miss Trackle Tart.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(Perhaps my wallet doesn't have enough "potential" for this woman.....)

Fatfist,

The only question I've ever known a woman to care about is: how tall are you when you stand on your wallet?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

Winston.....yes...ha ha...the story of my life...I am never tall enough when I stand on my wallet.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

Boring is a concept.


Spacekid profile image

Spacekid 5 years ago

The universe -in a way- does expand, but not with size, but with the creations and formations of the planets, stars, quasars,etc. into what we have learned about today through the scientific studies and interesting mythology that could inspire some people to look beyond the exact world we live in, and the most important variables like gravity, size, substances, orbit, and the many types of energy and rays that shape all of the information and stories throughout the ages they were found and told. But i must say that this article helped a lot for what i have been working on. Thanks


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago Author

spacekid,

"The universe -in a way- does expand, but not with size, but with the creations and formations of the planets, stars, quasars,etc."

It's not that the universe expands, but rather that atoms are recycled and come together to form new objects. The atoms comprising our solar system and our galaxy will be recycled forever. There is no end; just as there was no beginning.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 5 years ago from Heaven

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k38AsdAhHZg&feature...

My hero imagine if you dared fatfist if everything was flat?

Used your imagination believe fatfist believe.


Jake Archer profile image

Jake Archer 5 years ago from Great Britain

Good work Mr FF, I think you have a truly revolutionary perspective/approach, mostly what I see is recycled myths and rampant anthropomorphism in the practice of mainstream science! We need more! ;-)


Kirui 4 years ago

Ff,

According to the notion that an object is conceptually a single piece and that it is a black and white issue, then even an object cannot expand as well! Infact we can as well do away with the concept of expansion and only have dispersion! I can only conceive of expansion of an object made of a single piece if there is a mid point 'gray' region somewhere. It will be incongruous to say "an object expand" we should rather say "molecules disperse"


Kirui 4 years ago

Then there is this notion of portions. You can say a drop of water is an object. Then also it being made up of smaller atoms such that the drop of water as an object is also the collection of entire atoms. Then it is just a piece of cake to imgine a scenario where no matter where I am located, I am surrounded with such small atoms equidistant from each other. Also nobody should give a shit on either the shape of such particals or the distance separating them. Then consider a special shape, cube and a special 'distance,' zero then actually, the cubes are in contact with each other no matter where you are. My question is simple to you ff, am i making a picture of a scientifically valid initial scene?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Kirui,

“It will be incongruous to say "an object expand" we should rather say "molecules disperse"

You are referring to the “cause” of what mediates the expansion. This is another context....the context of molecules. Our initial context was of my object “pants”. My pants did actually expand after a hard day’s work....especially after the big lunch I had. We are not concerned about molecules in this particular context of discussion....just the primary object of interest.

“My question is simple to you ff, am i making a picture of a scientifically valid initial scene?”

You can use the sci method to make a valid initial scene of whatever context you choose....be it molecules, water drops, oceans, ...whatever. But just stick to that context and explain all the object-to-object interactions. If you later want to move to another context, ...fine! But you cannot tell me that a molecule made contact with an ocean. This is irrational as it spans different contexts of objects.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Fatfist make a new hub I am getting bored. I think I am turning atheist, they have been preaching me with big bang theory I must get away ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Stay free kileer7.


Philanthropy2012 profile image

Philanthropy2012 4 years ago from London

Wow. From this hub It is clear to me that your scientific knowledge was founded on the back of cereal boxes.

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.

All of this pseudo science is sickening, please actually bother learning the things you are talking about before refuting them and the geniuses who created them.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Hi Philanthropy,

“scientific knowledge”

An oxymoron!

There is no provision for knowledge or wisdom in the Scientific Method (Hypothesis + Theory). Peoples assertions of knowledge an emotion do not concern science. Science is predicated on objectivity only....not on what a Philanthropist like YOU thinks warms his heart & soul...understand?

You should take an introductory course in Science 101.

“Is space infinite?”

Infinite? Do you even understand what the term “infinite” means or alludes to? Do you like to open your mouth and spout irrationalities without even understanding anything?

Infinite is an adjective....the context opposite of the term “finite”. As such, it only applies to objects, not concepts, like ‘space’. But as it turns out, it is impossible for an infinite object to exist. So anybody who uses this antiquated Religious term ‘infinite’, has no clue of what they are talking about, got it?

Space is a synonym for nothing.....it has no shape, no borders, no boundaries, no color, no taste, no temperature, etc. Space is a concept....akin to a WHERE, rather than a WHAT.

“the Universe is infinitely big and has been for the 13.7 billion years since it sprang into existence.”

I hope you didn’t get your knowledge from cereal boxes. Please educate yourself about the term ‘infinite’ before spouting irrationalities, ok?

The Universe is a concept (matter and space). Concepts don’t “spring” into existence....they are conceived.....they don’t exist, much less created.

You need to learn the basics. Even kindergarteners understand that concepts don’t exist.

“But language throws much confusion into the picture. “

Of course, when you spout terms which you cannot define nor understand, then language will confuse you into believing in God’s, ghosts, spirits, souls and creation.

“refuting them and the geniuses who created them.”

Wow, look at you.....coming here to assert democracy, authority and confirmation bias... the last resort of those parrots who have no rational explanations.

In Science, we don't care how many beauty contests you won. We only care to understand what your theory explains. If your theory alleges that space and matter are created, then it doesn't matter where you studied or whether you have a PhD.....you are nothing but a Religionist!

Your amusing replies are a consequence of all that brainwashing people undergo in schools run by the mathematical establishment. No one questions anything. They just warm a desk and nod at authority. People like you think they are intelligent. They infer this from the fact that they attended a monastery and got a sealed scroll that certifies knowledge and intelligence. Then they come here and make fools of themselves.

Introducing ‘authority’ in an argument is a tactic which consists in relying on an old cliché to induce gawking, impressionable and drooling readers to divert their attention from the issue at hand, which is that the presenter can’t explain squat of what they parrot!

Did, you ask the Nobel Winner for an autograph? I mean, really... And for God's sake, please close your mouth. You're drooling all over your shoes.


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

Philanthropy2012 epic troll.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Yeah, he sounds exactly like braudboy after drinking 15 beers!


El Dude 4 years ago

Maybe he had an INFINITE beer, or just infinite beers? That'd be a LOT, wouldn't it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Philo,

This article deals with Science, only!

Your TROLLING will not be tolerated here, got it? If you wish to troll with trash talk about your Religious ideologies just go into the Religion forums where you belong.

Either provide scientific definitions for your terms and rationally explain your position, or get lost!


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Fatfist,

Although I'm not sure what point it makes, I can visualize a universe where there is an imaginary ring that indicates the border of matter and beyond that point is emptiness with no matter.

In this sense, it is irrational to say the universe is expanding but it would not be irrational to claim that all matter is moving away from a central point and into nothing.

Of course, working backwards from there would mean that all matter at one time was a single clump surrounded by space - but that is not a singularity nor does it explain what caused all matter to break apart and start moving away from the center.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Hey, you guys are self-professed smarties... Where do black holes come from and what is it like to get shit out of the other side of one and where do you end up?

Have you guys made any artificial wormholes yet, or am I in the wrong sector of the HubPages universe for such answers? I don't know why, but I just really feel like being enlightened by some of y'all mad scientists, as I'll come back tomorrow and jot down your notes and perhaps build a time machine in the process; rock on!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Winston,

"it would not be irrational to claim that all matter is moving away from a central point and into nothing."

Actually, it is irrational for anyone other than God to say that all matter in the universe is moving away from each other. It is impossible for any living entity in the universe to discern, test or reason why all matter would be moving away from each other.

Only an outside observer, like God, can make such grand scale observations.

Light has NO doppler effect because its frequency is independent of the speed of its source. The frequency of light is only dependent on the type of atom which relays the light signal to another atom.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Insane,

"Where do black holes come from"

You can figure it out with a simple experiment. Just pull down your thong panties, spread your legs and get a mirror. Then you'll see the black hole.

"what is it like to get shit out of the other side of one and where do you end up?"

Again, a simple experiment will clear this confusion for you. Put one end of a garden hose in the black hole, and the other end in your mouth. Now suck really hard. Did you notice where the sh*t ended up?


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 4 years ago from Heaven

fatfist is being nasty.


El Dude 4 years ago

Black holes are a faery story. A work of voodoo from the mathematicians.


El Dude 4 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect

"For waves that propagate in a medium, such as sound waves, the velocity of the observer and of the source are relative to the medium in which the waves are transmitted. The total Doppler effect may therefore result from motion of the source, motion of the observer, or motion of the medium. Each of these effects are analyzed separately. For waves which do not require a medium, such as light or gravity in general relativity, only the relative difference in velocity between the observer and the source needs to be considered."

The whole "propagate in a medium" rhetoric they use is horribly vague. Either matter moves "IN" space, or objects push and pull on each other.

Light is a mechanical torsion signal moving along entwined fibres connecting atoms.

Sound is the moving and vibrating of atoms and molecules themselves.


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

@ El Dude:

Black Holes are not a fairy tale, however, the name is really misleading. Perhaps they should change the name, but either way, if you don't think they are real, what do you think is at the center of spiral galaxies? Have you ever noticed how spiral galaxies appear to be flushing down a toilet. If it wasn't for "black holes," are Milk Way galaxy most likely wouldn't have formed.

Then again, I haven't been cruising around the universe lately. Now, if one exploits the "hole" in this theory, you end up with lots of cool science fiction and multiple dimensions or perverted concepts like FatFist has with that garden hose experiment of his; ha-ha!

Wormholes, on the other hand, wouldn't act as a garbage can or recycle bin or galaxy creator like black holes would, but wormholes are another thing that is easier to apply in science fiction, as there is still much to learn before one speaks about such matters with confidence.

Alas, El Dude already knows the inner-workings of the universe, although that has already been proved wrong, the rest of the scientific world just has to catch up to El Dude and his Google searches... LOL!

Okay, I have a question that actually somewhat relates to this hub: I could care less if the universe or invisible space is or ain't expanding, but is it possible for all of the matter within it to keep moving away from each other, as it continues to do, until it eventually collapses on itself due to gravity and explodes back into a refreshed universe with recycled atoms?


El Dude 4 years ago

"if you don't think they are real, what do you think is at the center of spiral galaxies?"

Exactly, that's the entire question you nitwit.

The establishment say black holes. But BHs are both irrational AND self-contradictory. So, what else can we use to explain the problem?

That's SCIENCE! Explaining it rationally. A black hole is a non-explanation, a non-object, a non-concept even.

"El Dude already knows the inner-workings of the universe"

Knowledge is irrelevant. We make assumptions in order to explain ourselves. You can come up with whatever assumptions and explanations you want, as long as they're rational. Some say a giant space rock ended the dinos. Some say it was ecological collapse and cannibalism.

You ask who KNOWS?! Irrelevant to science! No-one knows the past or future. We only experience the present. We ASSUME what MIGHT have happened. The scientific method demands rationality. Is evolution PROVEN? Do I KNOW it as a fact?! No! A theory either makes sense or doesn't, that's it.

Anything else is the hallmark of religion. Black holes are religion. Knowledge and proof is religion.

"I could care less if the universe or invisible space is or ain't expanding"

Don't even get me started on this one!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@Insane,

"black holes"

I'm sure that the aliens you worship explored your black hole when they abducted you. Now you drool whenever you hear of Scientology, Thetans and e-meters.

So tell us, Insane, how many Thetans have been occupying your body ever since your alien friends landed in Area 51?


El Dude 4 years ago

Amazing how in that entire rant of his, nothing of what he said made sense, and there wasn't a single explanation. Just vague appeals to authorities and texts.

What a moron. He probably thinks Od electrons exist too, and that God loves him.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Dude,

Our senile friend "Insane" used to worship the consciousness of God. Ever since he read some books about aliens, Area 51 and Ron Hubard's stories, he started to worship the consciousness of Aliens. He is a Scientologist who thinks he found the one TRUE religion. "Insane" is quite the fitting name!

This guy is actually a TROLL who has been trolling hubpages for many years trying to recruit people onto his online Alien and Scientology websites. He goes under many aliases as he has been banned from HP plenty of times. His IP is on the troll list.


AKA Winston 4 years ago

Gonzo Commenting: We can't stop here - this is troll country!


Insane Mundane profile image

Insane Mundane 4 years ago from Earth

Space equals nothing? What is expanding? Your guess is as good as mine... LOL! Check out this scientific verbiage: "An ingenious experiment in which tiny parcels of light, or photons, are produced out of empty space has confirmed a long-standing theory that a vacuum contains quantum fluctuations of energy.

In a landmark result published in the journal Nature, an international team of researchers has demonstrated for the first time a strange phenomenon known as the dynamical Casimir effect, or DCE for short.

The DCE involves stimulating the vacuum to shed some of the myriad “virtual” particles that fleet in and out of existence, making them real and detectable. Moreover, the real photons produced by the DCE in their experiment collectively retain a peculiar quantum signature that ordinary light lacks." [...]


El Dude 4 years ago

Photon "parcels" out of empty space?! Virtual ones too, whatever that means. Hilarious stuff! Their "experimental" movie plays out something like this:

--------

Frame 1: Space, nothing, emptiness. [ ]

Frame 2: [ God?!! ]

Frame 3: Photons! [ . : . ]

Explanation?

"Oh er... you know... er... Black magic, creationism, voodoo, math, energy. Shut up, don't question us, we have expensive PhDs and need more tax money!"

---------

What did we learn? Nothing. Or maybe that math-phys is utter bullshit.


Alan 4 years ago

Fatfist

What do you think about the multiverse theory? Have you written anything about this that I could read?

Also, I am talking to a theist about origins of the universe, and he refuse all other theories outside mainstream science. Is there a good site to direct him to so he can learn why these theories are not correct?

One last question. I am having a hard time understanding why logical truths work and why they are not subjective if they are not absolute. I know the words I am using are silly, but I don't know how else to ask this. Why is the tool called logic constant the way reality is consistent if it is not absolute? Is there a better word or way to describ these tools and their consistencies without using the useless word, "absolute"?

Thanks for your time as always.


Ollie Halsall 4 years ago

What is light? Is it a verb, like a signal?

Or is it a static object?

I just got into Bill's stuff. Trying to grasp if light is a movie or a frame.

Thanks!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Ollie,

Light is what "something" does....like, "light up" your room.

Light is a phenomenon, like gravity is.

Light has a mediator, an object, which mediates this phenomenon (action/verb).

Light is indeed a "signal". It is a torque signal stemming from every single atom in the Universe. That's how your cell phone carrier knows exactly where you are when they want to ring you with a new incoming call. There is no magic or spirits involved.


Ollie Halsall 4 years ago

Yes that makes sense: light (the signal / movie) must indeed need a mediator (static object).

Just wanted to be sure I was understanding you and Bill's articles correctly!

Thanks again.


Alan 4 years ago

Thanks fatfist. I understood what you wrote. What is the proper place for logic? Would you say not need logic to achieve rational discourse, just clearly difined words and arguments? Fallacies are not violations of logic, like many would have us believe?

Also Are there any peer reviews of bills work I can read, that are worth while? What could be done to cement bills work in the scientific community, or is it making head way outside of mainstream science? I just dont understand why i can't find people further pressuring this theory. Is this just a matter of prejudice?

Are the "threads" in bills theory the thing that give objects mass? I can't remember him talking about this. Maybe I am asking an ill formed question.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

Alan,

“What is the proper place for logic?”

Logic’s domain is within the conceptual “system” that is built upon it. A system is a set of pre-defined rules of inference/engagement. They are known as axioms. For example, math has its pre-defined rules of arithmetic, irrational numbers, complex numbers, infinite numbers, geometry, calculus, etc. There are no numbers in reality. These concepts are only of use to us humans who deal with abstractions in our daily lives and require a rule-based system of inference (i.e. logic) in order to make DERIVATION-BASED decisions from these abstract relations we invent.

For example, money is an abstract relation....a mere concept. A 100-dollar bill is just a piece of paper, no different than toilet paper. We attach an abstract and artificial VALUE to this paper and call it currency/money. We know it’s artificial because its value fluctuates by the second. It may be worth nothing in a few years. And there are global financial rules of logic which dictate what value this currency has at any given time.

“Would you say not need logic to achieve rational discourse”

If we are going to have a RATIONAL DISCOURSE ABOUT MATH, then our discourse most certainly MUST abide by the logical rules/axioms of math, and not violate them. Otherwise we are talking trash. Similarly about discussions regarding global currencies.

But, if we are going to have a RATIONAL DISCOURSE ABOUT REALITY, then WHAT logical rules or axioms are there to dictate what reality is all about? Who is the authority to write these rules? God? Einstein? Hawking? Matt Slick? Who were the idiots who voted this High Priest as an authority in matters of reality?

Bottom line....reality has no authorities. Reality has no rules which we can discover, much less decree. Reality just is. Reality’s phenomena can only be rationally explained using the sci method.

“Fallacies are not violations of logic, like many would have us believe?”

They can be. But the word fallacy can be used outside of logic as well. For example, Fallacy of Reification can be used to bash someone over the head when they decree that a concept is an object i.e. when they decree that ‘wave’ is a thing that knocks you over when you go to the beach: “Duh, I was hit by a wave!”

“Also Are there any peer reviews of bills work I can read?”

He has published his theory via IEEE in mainstream science. Please visit the Rational Science group on facebook and ask Jake Archer to sign you up. You can read about Bill’s work there, see his published work, and participate in many discussions.

“I just dont understand why i can't find people further pressuring this theory. Is this just a matter of prejudice?”

Humanity has spent billions and billions in taxes over the past 100 years to pursue 0D particles, Relativity, the Big Bang creation, Quantum Bullsh*t, and other crap. It is inconceivable to admit they were wrong this late in the game. Humanity will keep marching forward with these religions just as the traditional religions have been doing for thousands of years. Only a revolution can make them stop this nonsense. And it doesn’t help that we are brainwashed from school to believe in Big Bang’s God-less creation and Einstein’s warped space. We are already brain-dead from all this brainwashing by the time we get out of school. Only the very few, like yourself, will understand the core issues and contradictions well-enough to abandon these religions. Essentially, there is nothing that can be done. Just be glad that you understand this universe you live in.

“Are the "threads" in bills theory the thing that give objects mass?”

The thread is the fundamental unit of matter. This is the hypothesis. Matter must necessarily be composed of an ultimate entity which cannot be further reduced or divided any further. This is what we call the “thread”. All matter in the universe is made up of a single closed-loop thread which twines into an EM dna-like rope and rolls each atom into a ball of yarn-like structure. Now we have a situation where every atom is interconnected to every other atom in the universe. Now we can explain all natural phenomena. The EM-spectrum is a torsion wave via atomic quantum jumps from one atom to another. This is how your cell phone “knows” where you are and can receive your incoming call. There are no particles SEARCHING for your phone in order to collide with its antenna. Your phone’s antenna is already CONNECTED to the cellular transmitter by gazillions of EM ropes....which connect to the atoms of walls....and hence can relay the signal to your phone inside buildings.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

And remember, mass is a concept which relates the weight of an object to a pre-DEFINED and agreed upon standard (the kilogram in France). Mass is a concept that humans invented. Atoms have nothing intrinsic to them which can be called “mass”. Nothing has mass.

If you take 'Le Kilo' from France to the North Pole, its mass changes. You no longer have 1 kilogram.

In fact, from the wiki...

"the mass of the IPK lost perhaps 50 µg over the last century... The reason for this drift has eluded physicists"

So, OFFICIALLY, a kilogram doesn't weigh a kilogram any more. Its mass has mysteriously CHANGED!!

Like I said....mathematical fyzics is nothing but a RELIGION. They have no explanations for anything.....it’s all voodoo.


neo@theskepticarena 4 years ago

Reading your debate with Matt Slick made me feel like I was watching 2 bozos mutually masturbating each other.

Perhaps bozos wasn't the right word.

Morons. There, that's the right word.

As always, replies are encouraged

neo


fatfist profile image

fatfist 4 years ago Author

@neo,

Care to elaborate/explain ....or is this your final argument, just more faith-based assertions coming from you?

BTW....you didn't answer the showstopper questions I asked you about YOUR Religion. If you think of yourself as a man who can justify his case, please go over to that article and attempt to answer those simple questions I asked.

If you are not a man.....well....just pull up your skirt and go home to your faith.

"As always, replies are encouraged"

I've been replying but you haven't answered any question. Do you wish to participate in an intelligent conversation or did you come here to troll??


Jmstar 3 years ago

This is one long discussion


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Yeah, too many Religionists (i.e. atheists & Mathematical Fizzicysts) believe in the BB. What do you expect from ex-theists?


Jmstar 3 years ago

@fatfist

I see I wana get in on this ok lol

here are my thoughts (im a theist btw)

Back in one of your early remarks you said :

(It is impossible for anything to be “infinite” in reality.Why? Because if there was, we would not exist, as it would take up everything.For example, if matter was infinite, there would be no space. There would only be one solid block of matter, and no life that could move. If space was infinite, there would be no matter, and hence no life.)

I noticed that you said Matter cannot be infinite therefore matter is finite. But when it comes to space you claim that it could never be infinite, and then instead of viewing space to be finite, you go on to say:

(If you say that space is “finite”, you are saying that space has shape and that something is TACITLY on the outside of 'it' providing contour! You are saying that space is an object.)

The problem I see with this statment is that you are thinking of space incorrectly. You say that it cannot be infinite and then you say it cannot be finite and you somehow mply this to the whole universe.

The universe is a concept that embodies matter and space. And so nothing in our phyical reality and or the relative universe can be infinite which includes the past of this physical reality we live in. There cannot be an infinite number of past events. The past is not just an abstract concept it is a part of our reality. The universe is not eternal nor is space or Matter eternal..

If I were then to imply that the universe was like an object and had a shape, then I would assume the boundaries of this shape would starts with its coming into existence and finish with its end. Unlike objects found in space, the 'shape' the universe would have could be observed possibly from the fourth dimension: time. (assuming there was such an observer during it beginning and end). So an object in the sense shape and boundary in time instead of space. Now try to draw that on paper lool

I think all objects are finite but not all finite things are objects. I think the universe is "object-like" because of the finite nature of our physical reality.

What do you think?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

"you are thinking of space incorrectly. You say that it cannot be infinite and then you say it cannot be finite and you somehow mply this to the whole universe."

Before you can qualify space with either adverbs or adjectives, you must define this KEY term that makes or breaks your argument, right? When people do not define their key terms, they surreptitiously insert loopholes in their arguments for the purposes of validating their argument across many irreconcilable contexts.

For example, if I say that God is 'love' an a 'being', I have summarily excluded God from existence.

Why?

Because God cannot be a concept, like 'love' or 'justice'. Concepts are just relations we invent between objects for the purposes of understanding some process an object performs. God is indeed a being (i.e. object) as proposed by Theologians.

Space is not an object. Space is our conception of nothing....the void!

space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).

Hence, it is utterly meaningless to qualify space with the adjectives finite or infinite. Adjectives only qualify OBJECTS. You cannot qualify or describe 'nothing'. Space has no color, temperature, shape, length, border, etc. Space is the only word that can only be described using negation....because space is nothing.

"nothing in our physical reality and or the relative universe can be infinite which includes the past"

Again, you must watch your words in a Scientific Context. The term INFINITE is an ADJECTIVE. Hence, it can only qualify objects. The 'past' or 'time' are CONCEPTS, not objects. You cannot qualify them with 'infinite'. In fact, the term infinite is an oxymoron....a self-refuting term, because no object can ever be infinite. The term 'infinite' cannot be used in any sentence in any coherent manner.

"There cannot be an infinite number of past events."

Infinite regress is addressed in detail here:

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

"The past is not just an abstract concept it is a part of our reality."

Reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists. Only OBJECTS can possibly be said to exist.

object: that which has shape

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Does the 'past' exist? Is the 'past' an object? Plug in the word 'past' in the above definitions and see what you get. You will realize that 'past' is only a concept....a mere idea. Nature has no past. Nature only has objects: stars, planets, atoms, living entities, etc.

"If I were then to imply that the universe was like an object and had a shape, then I would assume the boundaries of this shape would starts with its coming into existence and finish with its end."

The universe is a concept only. To imply the U is an object, implies that it has a border and that it is surrounded by an environment. What is this environment....space? If so, then space is already included in the Universe....hence, universe is not an object.

"the fourth dimension: time"

You need to understand the terms which make or break your argument. Time is a concept, not a dimension.

Dimension is an adjective that describes the architecture of OBJECTS, namely, that their vertices face in 3 hypothetical mutually orthogonal directions.

Time is NOT an object.....time is NOT a dimension. The dimensions are LENGTH, WIDTH, HEIGHT.

"I think all objects are finite but not all finite things are objects."

You need to define your key terms so that they make your statements Scientifically coherent. Only objects can be qualified with the adjective FINITE. Concepts cannot. Also, the term 'infinite' is a self-contradictory adjective as explained above.

I don't mean to beat you up with semantics, but everyone needs to understand the terms of their arguments. So yeah, Scientific discussions are necessarily dependent on semantics so everyone can understand what the proponent is presenting to the audience.


Jmstar 3 years ago

Wow that sure is a lot of semantics lol. It was an interesting read but now it is time for my response.

First of I see quite a number of problems with some of your semantics and also the conclusions you reached depending on those semantics.

I'll start with this:

(Space is not an object. Space is our conception of nothing....the void!

space: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, void, vacuum).

Hence, it is utterly meaningless to qualify space with the adjectives finite or infinite. Adjectives only qualify OBJECTS. You cannot qualify or describe 'nothing'. Space has no color, temperature, shape, length, border, etc. Space is the only word that can only be described using negation....because space is nothing.)

The problem here is how you define space. You seem to think space and nothing are synonyms which is incorrect.

What is Nothing?

To get to a real form of "NOTHING", we need to go into outer space. Imagine that you go to the farthest, emptiest corner of the universe. This is as close to nothing as we are ever going to get. What we are looking for is a section of space that contains zero atoms. No atoms at all -- it is a perfect vacuum. That is the best approximation of "NOTHING" that we have in our universe today. But here's a deeper question : Is a section of space that contains zero atoms really "NOTHING"?

Not really. Space, even if there are no atoms in it, is "something." For example, photons can move through space even if the space contains zero atoms. So can gravity. So can radio waves. So can a magnet's field. And we can measure space -- a chunk of space has a length, a width and a height. And time elapses. In other words, empty space is a measurable framework that has the ability to transmit certain types of energy.

"TRUE NOTHING" would be truly nothing -- no space. This is hard to get a grasp on, because we cannot imagine this kind of nothing. We have never seen it. It is, presumably, what existed before the universe existed. Apparently, at the creation of the universe, there was truly nothing. Space, with its ability to transmit different types of energy, was created when the universe was created. Then energy in this space condensed into matter -- the atoms that we find all around us today.

"TRUE NOTHING" is that immeasurable, zero-energy, non-existent thing that did not exist before the universe, and all the space in it, came into existence. Who knows what that was like?

A significant point to raise here is that nothingness should not be misconstrued as the nothingness that some physicists talk about. The term nothingness in this context refers to the absence of anything physical, in other words there is no pre-existing ‘stuff’. In light of the beginning of the universe, there was absolutely nothing before it began to exist, which is why physicists have explained the universe as having a space-time boundary.

However, nothingness as defined by some physicists relates to the quantum vacuum. This is misleading because the quantum is something. In quantum theory the vacuum is a field of energy pervading the whole of the universe. That is not ‘nothing’; it is a structured and highly active entity, a sea of fluctuating energy, which is still part of the cosmos and it did not pre-exist the universe.

Next, I see an issue with the way you defined Eternal, why don't you try this

Eternal as an Adjective:

1. Lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning. Valid for all time; essentially unchanging.

There is nothing to suggest it is only an adverb of the time metric of motion only.

You then said:

(‘infinity’ implicitly alludes to the sizes of objects (having a beginning of construction, but no end))

Infinite is an adjective which means: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate: like "an infinite number of stars" so it alludes to more then just size but also a potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number. So the concept of the actual infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and doesn’t make sense

For example Take the distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the ‘infinitieth’ part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualized. The infinite is just an idea and doesn’t exist in the real world.

So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.

You said:

(Reality is a synonym for existence. What is real is what exists. Only OBJECTS can possibly be said to exist.

object: that which has shape

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Does the 'past' exist? Is the 'past' an object? Plug in the word 'past' in the above definitions and see what you get. You will realize that 'past' is only a concept....a mere idea. Nature has no past. Nature only has objects: stars, planets, atoms, living entities, etc.)

I disagree because what is real does not necessarily have to be an object, nor are objects the only thing that can possibly be said to exist. It seem you are alluding to Physicalism which is a philosophical theory holding that everything which exists is no more extensive than its physical properties; that is, that there are no kinds of things other than physical things. I think that reality as a whole encompasses more then just objects which are comprised of matter for example awareness/consciousness, minds, and information which exist but are neither objects. Most of your premises stem from a perspective on reality known as materialism. I don't really care if you hold materialism as your philosophical viewpoint, but the way you define words like 'reality' and what can be said to be real or exist should not be restricted to your personal perspective on reality and then labelled as scientifically coherent.

Oh and regarding concepts, both concepts and abstractions certainly exist as an objective, reality-based form of awareness, but they do not have any existence independent of the mind that is using them. So I go back to the broad nature of existence when I bring this up...

I hope this isn't too long of a response hahaha.. I look forward to your response.

take care.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“and what can be said to be real or exist should not be restricted to your personal perspective on reality”

Exactly!!!!

Reality is not dependent of observers and their opinions. Reality is like the mafia….it rubs out all the witnesses and their opinions. Hence, reality can only be reasoned via your brain’s intelligence using your God-given critical thinking faculties. If you cannot define your terms objectively (i.e. WITHOUT INVOKING OBSERVERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION ITSELF)…then you injecting YOUR personal perspective on reality! I am glad you finally understand this, jmstar.

“Oh and regarding concepts, both concepts and abstractions certainly exist as an objective, reality-based form of awareness”

Abstractions are concepts…..and NO….they do NOT exist in any way, shape or form. Concepts are RELATIONS BETWEEN OBJECTS. Humans invented all concepts by associating objects in relations. Please educate yourself on objects vs concepts, jmstar….I beg you!

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object


Jmstar 3 years ago

fatfist,

Hahahaha how bold divorced from reality eh...

look once again reality is not as simple as you try to explain, physics is a limited study all together and yet you assume that you have understood reality with those simple semantics..

Let me simply thing for you a bit. Just bare with me for a bit. You said the runner exists but not the running... simple to understand, but how can you prove the runner exists in the first place without relying on your subjective experience of the runner. How can you prove that he really does exists and is real beyond your subjective perceptions of him?

Ok now think about information does it exist anywhere in the universe or reality? I know that this invokes observers and so without them one may be tempted to so say no but because there are the observes we can't deny its existence and our experience of it.

This is probably my last post.. I enjoyed this discussion, semantics aside lol

take care


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"This is probably my last post"

One can only hope.

Because, if you are going to come back with stuff like, "the thinker, the thot, and the thing" you'd be better off at Philosophy 101, down the hall on the far left of physics.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“reality is not as simple as you try to explain”

Of course….to brain-dead Religionists who have the incessant fetish to belong in EMOTIONAL GROUPS utilizing the suffix of “-ism”; i.e. atheism, theism, materialism, physicalism, spiritualism, Big Bangism, Creationism, etc……they don’t even understand that we systematically DEFINE ‘reality’ and EXPLAIN phenomena.

Reality (existence): An object having location

Only the clueless Bimbos known as atheists & theists will unwitting attempt to explain a definition….LOL! The rest of us will use our God-given brains to simply define our key terms.

“physics is a limited study all together and yet you assume that you have understood reality with those simple semantics”

Brain-dead Bimbos who are divorced from reality haven’t the slightest clue that only OBJECTS can have LIMITS. Concepts, like Physics, have no physical limits because they are predicated on human study via intelligence (a concept) which has NO physical limits whatsoever. Here, Jmstar….please educate yourself on the basics of intelligence:

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENCE...

“the runner exists but not the running... simple to understand”

Praise the Lord! Thank you for starting to talk rationally, Jmstar!

“how can you prove the runner exists in the first place without relying on your subjective experience of the runner”

Exactly!!!!!!

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you, Jmstar,…. maybe I was wrong about you……maybe you are not like those brain-dead atheists & theists out there. Unlike those clowns, you seem to grasp this basic kindergarten-level reasoning.

The term PROOF refers to an activity of VALIDATION us humans must perform in order to decree a proposition to be valid (i.e. true, right, correct, certain, etc.) And you have obviously used your brain’s critical thinking faculties to REASON that ‘proof’ is predicated on a human’s subjective and extremely limited sensory system. Hence, proof is an impossible task to achieve by any living entity. Ergo, PROOF=OPINION!

And now you understand why this Religious ritual known as PROOF is divorced from reality, and hence, is not part of the Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory). The sci method can only conclude what is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE…..and not what is allegedly ‘proven’ or ‘disproven’.

And that’s why it is impossible to prove existence. I mean, you can’t even prove that Michael Jackson existed…..you can’t even prove that your hand exists. Don’t believe me??? Just try to prove any of these and you will finally come to terms with all this in a jiffy!!!

READ MY LIPS: There is NO provision for PROOF in the definition of ‘exist’.

Exist: something somewhere (an object with location).

Object: that which has shape

Where do you see the word ‘proof’ in the definition of exist????

Where do you see humans or any observers performing opinionated rituals in the definition of exist????

Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT! It doesn’t depend on the opinionated rituals of us petty humans.

Ergo, the runner is a living entity that exists BY DEFINITION of the word ‘exist’, only! He may exist “out there” independent of our knowledge, as long as the runner is an object and is located somewhere. Knowledge or proof has nothing to do with existence.

Existence is part of the Hypothesis and is always hypothesized by us in our field of study (i.e. let’s hypothesize that a runner exists). Now, our Theory of why those footprints were found in the woods, will use the runner from our Hypothesis to explain the phenomenon or causation of those footprints.

If our theory is rational without contradictions….the runner is POSSIBLE to exist. Otherwise, impossible to exist as proposed by the theory.

This is how we resolve all issues of existence in reality without the opinions of proof….Understand??


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

"This is probably my last post"

Oh, this is very predictable & understandable, Jmstar. All atheists, mathematicians and theists alike will always run away from the argument because their Religion has been destroyed by rationality. None of these Bimbos will ever stay here to defend their faith of Big Bang Creationism because they have ZERO arguments.

Atheists & Theists were obviously created by God for the purposes of incessantly arguing with each other until the human race goes extinct. God likes to have fun by watching these brain-dead primates duke it out with purely EMOTIONAL arguments....ha ha, it's very funny!

It is when these Bimbos known as Atheists & Theists come here, that they realize it’s not “business as usual”. Their arguments are destroyed in an instant, right before their very eyes. They don’t even know what hit them!

So yeah.....running is the best option at their disposal.


Jmstar 3 years ago

Hahahahaha how condescending fatfist..

before I leave I want to understand your position..

You claim that you do not have a personal perspective on reality.. and that Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT! and that it is impossible to prove anything. Therefore you simply try and

define your key terms objectively (i.e. WITHOUT INVOKING OBSERVERS WITHIN THE DEFINITION) ...and so entities like the runner or objects exist BY DEFINITION of the word ‘exist’, only! Not by proof or opinion or knowledge just BY DEFINITION.

Now the terms you claim to define objectively are:

Reality (existence): An object having location

Object: that which has shape

Exist: something somewhere (an object with location).

According to the way these terms are defined something like information ( ex. information in a letter, or software codes, produced from conscious activity) is not be an object (that which has shapes or physical limits) and so because, it is not an object it does not have a location, which means it is not a part of reality and does not Exist BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist' only! nothing else, not your opinion, or knowledge, or even your personal perspective about it.

Information is not of standalone entities in our environment. It would be a concept and so concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought. They can only be thought about or referenced by means of the name we assign them. The name is what we call a “word”. Words are labels for concepts;

So if I am to understand you correctly; the way the terms 'reality' and 'exists' are defined; there can only one way something can be a part of reality (as you defined it)... and that is, if it is a stand alone entity in the environment . So this has nothing to do with truth and ultimate reality...physics it is just the study of stand alone entities or objects (that which has shape) first and foremost which fundamentally exist only BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist'. Physics or the scientific method does not deal with stuff like the phenomenon of experience which we have all throughout our lives nor does it even address the experiencer even though the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the experiencer itself, in other words ourselves. But that is subjective and not an object so no scientific conclusions can be reached about them because you said, that your role was to simply define key terms like 'reality' and 'existence' and use them as possible hypothesis + theory (if it is rational without contradiction) to reach a conclusion on what is POSSIBLE or IMPOSSIBLE, only!

lool I think monkeyman is right im am wasting my time here...

By the way fatfist defending faith you say...? Listen if I believe in God how would you expect me to scrutinize him under the scientific method since that is the ONLY way you resolve all issues of existence in 'reality'..( as you have defined: an object having location) Empirical evidence' seems to be the only valid way YOU think conclusion can be reached rationally...

If your asking me what conclusions through rational deduction gives me good reason to BELIEVE in God... Now that would be a more valid question to ask... but I think monkeyminds is right im wasting my time here...


ScienceOfLife profile image

ScienceOfLife 3 years ago

"Their arguments are destroyed in an instant, right before their very eyes."

"they have ZERO arguments"

Actually Fatfist, their arguments are zero-dimensional! So they are there, you just need a special Large Bullshit Collider to see them. I mean, everyone in the biz knows this. It's all very technical and you probably wouldn't be able to fathom the zero-dimensionality of the arguments with such a puny 3d brain. But I assure you, the arguments exist! So when you think atheists and thiests all run away, actually they're still there because they can travel through time and win the argument any time (argument particles are made of pure information you know).


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“Information is not of standalone entities in our environment. It would be a concept and so concepts are associative, they relate objects, and only result from thought.”

Bingo! Now ya learnin’.

“ the way the terms 'reality' and 'exists' are defined”

They are synonyms, as I explained in detail earlier. Bottom line: all words have meanings. If you cannot define YOUR term unambiguously and use it consistently in your dissertation without contradictions….then you haven’t the SLIGHTEST CLUE what the word means, got it? There are no words without meanings!

“So this has nothing to do with truth”

TRUTH = OPINION. What is truth to you….is a LIE to your neighbor! Whom shall the audience believe? How do know who is telling the truth? Do we ask your Pastor to decide? Do we ask Richard Dawkins to decide?

Please educate yourself on 'truth' before making a fool out of yourself:

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

“ Physics or the scientific method does not deal with stuff like the phenomenon of experience which we have all throughout our lives nor does it even address the experiencer even though the ultimate reality that we know from any experience is the experiencer itself, in other words ourselves.”

Exactly!!!!

It is the Psychology and Mental Illness departments of the Insane Asylum which deal in the study of your Emotions, Personal Experiences, Grievances, Attitude Issues, Panic Attacks, Personality Disorders,….and all other subjectivities.

“ God how would you expect me to scrutinize him under the scientific method “

Huh? Ya mean….you don’t even know???

Listen, Jmstar…..you really need to learn the intricate details of YOUR Religion before posting such nonsense in public forums and embarrassing yourself and your peers. Listen and listen well: The Theologians of YOUR Religion have Hypothesized God to be an object…..God has shape/form!!!!

Here, read your Bible and educate yourself:

Numbers 12:8 -- “With him I speak face to face, clearly and not in riddles; he sees the FORM of the LORD.”

Job 4:15-17 -- “A spirit glided past my face, and the hair on my body stood on end. It stopped, but I could not tell what it was. A FORM stood before my eyes, and I heard a hushed voice: 'Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?”

See how simple that was? Just read your Bible....and not just the cherry-picked verses which your Pastor forced you to memorize by rote in Sunday school.

Even God cannot elude His objecthood and structure to His being, which gives Him shape. Those who disagree that all entities/objects have shape/form, whether invisible or not (including God Himself), have a LOT of explaining to do! God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘something’, God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!

See….God is a Hypothesis of the sci method because God allegedly performs events (i.e. Creation).

Now, you need to explain the Theory of Creation using God. How did God create space & matter from the void, especially when space is the void??

Also, ...how can God possibly have shape/form AS THE BIBLE DICTATES if there is NO void? What background gives shape to God if not space? God cannot exist without space. Ergo…space is MORE powerful than God!

You have a lot of contradictions to resolve, Jmstar!

“Empirical evidence' seems to be the only valid way YOU think conclusion can be reached rationally”

OMFG!!!

I never said that. Why are you putting words in my mouth and strawmaning me?

Jmstar…..you were talking rationally up to this point. Now you bite your tongue by asking for evidence (an OPINION!).

The Scientific Method is a conceptual field of study: Hypothesis + Theory are used to EXPLAIN the evidence provided by natural phenomena. You need to EXPLAIN the process of creation in your Creation Theory. Explanation is CONCEPTUAL only!!!! Explanation has nothing to do with evidence. We can explain the physical mechanism that makes a car work without even having the evidence of a car right in front of us for analysis. PLEASE EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THE BASICS, ok?


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

"I think monkeyminds is right im wasting my time here..."

Not what I said. Precision is precious, JMstar. What I said was:

'... if you are going to come back with stuff like, "the thinker, the thot, and the thing" you'd be better off at Philosophy 101, down the hall on the far left of physics.


Jmstar 3 years ago

Fatfist,

"Listen, Jmstar…..you really need to learn the intricate details of YOUR Religion"

First of all, you don't even know what my Religion is!... So how can you talk to me about the details of my Religion in the first place?..... And then you quote verses of the Bible to teach me about my Religion hahahaha.

You seem to be confusing yourself and your peers by the way you seem to think you understand things like God, shape/form, space, universe...

I am going to try and get you to understand the irrational absurdity of your claims and illogical reasoning.

Let start with conceptual differentiation, this concepts includes space, distance, form, and physical features. The reason you can perceive two objects is due to differences like colour, size, and shape, including their placement, in other words there is a distance between them. In absence of these concepts could you perceive the two objects or any objects at all? No, You could not, because these concepts are required to perceive any number of entities. Your probably thinking what this has to do with anything.....Just bare with me

Now since the cause responsible for creating the sum of all matter in the natural world (assuming there is such an entity*) is beyond the physical natural world, you can safely assume that there are NO CONCEPTUAL DIFFERENTIATORS such as distance (i.e space), shape, colour and size; that can ever be associated with the unnatural reality of such an entity; because these concepts ONLY MAKE SENSE WHEN RELATING TO OBJECTS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD!! (exclusively applicable when relating to objects of nature, but nonsensical to associate with an entity existing as an unnatural reality.)

Now try and see how illogical it sound when you say:

"how can God possibly have shape/form AS THE BIBLE DICTATES if there is NO void? What background gives shape to God if not space? God cannot exist without space. Ergo…space is MORE powerful than God!"

See your forgetting that, there would be an absence of conceptual differentiators such as distance (space), shape, colour and size beyond the existence of the material world (again assuming there is such an existence) ; because these concepts only make sense when applied to the natural reality of the material world. To even try and make sense of the shape/form, or structure of an entity that exists beyond the physical material world; is illogical as that would place the entity within and apart of the the natural reality of the material world and.. So this would lead to an absurdity as it would imply that the whole of the material world was created ( or brought into existence) by itself..The cause of the material world must exist in a unique state of exists independently and with the absence of any and all conceptual differentators such as the concept of shape/form, and even space which can ONLY and I mean ONLY make any sense when speaking about objects of the nature. It would be meaningless and illogical to even try and apply these concepts to an unnatural immaterial entity like God.

Think about it!.. God is an immaterial entity because he created the sum of all material ( i.e Objects).. So now you have an entity that gives rise to another entity besides itself with a completely different nature and reality from itself..God is the only entity that exists independently, and uniquely from any other entity and with no limits. So while he brought into existence a different entity altogether with a different reality and nature (i.e Objects) which also includes its dependent reality on space because objects have limits and are finite. Like you said a concept that embodies Objects (matter/Atoms) and space is what we call the Universe.Remember an Object like Atoms can not exist without space which is because of the finite reality of the material world in which that Atom exists as an object; that type of reality is not the same reality of God's unique independent existence as an entity with a different nature from the material world and who is 'beyond' it. Not "outside" cause that simply just extends the boundary of the material world (not physically speaking but mentally).

"All entities/ Objects have shape/form, wether invisible or not (including GOD)"

Uum.... You mean MATERIAL OBJECTS are the only type of "entity" in the material world that must have shape/form. But be carefull to not assume that ONLY material objects are the ONLY TYPE of 'entity' in existence because objects (i.e matter, atoms) are simply just be A material 'entity', which is simply 'said' to exist but not the 'ONLY TYPE'. and remember you agreed that objects are not proven or disproven to exist; but just simply exist BY DEFINITION of the word 'exist'.

Entity: is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence.

Now Concerning God, whether or not you think in God can be a possible entity is not my concern but I hold the view that entities are of two types but first lets defined entity:

"have a LOT of explaining to do!"

..explained the existence of an immaterial entity in a study like physics which only excepts and words with a only material existence view of reality, deriving key term in accordance with that... is pointless.

Now concerning God, whether or not you think in God can be a possible entity is not my concern, but I hold the opinion that reality is better made sense of by having two types of entities:

1. Material/Physical (objects: that which has shape such as Atom, rock, Humans)

2. Immaterial ( God, soul etc...) Not an object if you the way defined 'Object' (that which has shape/form in the physical world)... but still a "something" nonetheless.

you said,

"God is hypothesized by theologians to be an entity that is ‘something’ rather than ‘nothing’. In order to be ‘ God must absolutely have shape/form, and structure to His being. Only ‘nothing’ lacks shape/form!"

Your right God is an entity that is 'something' rather than 'nothing' But don't jump to the assumption that entities must have a material existence or assume that things with Shape/form (i.e Material entities) can only be said to be an entity....But yeah sure, if a material entity (i.e an OBJECT) like Atoms, and rocks lack Shape/form... Then we are no longer talking about an object...and so what then is left within the observable natural world; when you don't have a material entities such as Atoms present?....Open space!.... which you call NOTHING...but wait remember God is not nothing, but is rather something, a completely immaterial unique entity!.. So what parts of nature would you look for a Non-physical or immaterial entity such as God? Surely not somewhere in open space...any location at all. So where is he? The most rational answer is simply be to say 'as an independent and immaterial unique state of existence.. with the absence of conceptual differentiator...Therefore if there are no knowable conceptual differentiators we cannot claim a multiplicity in any manner, as I have explained above the impossibility of perceiving plurality or multiplicity in absence of these concepts.. In other words no space which means he would take up everything as an entity ALONE and as one reality limitless by contrast to the natural reality of the finite objects of material existence.


Jmstar 3 years ago

monkeymind your probably right about that hahaha


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

^^^"God...is a complete non-physical immaterial unique entity."^^^

Kewl! I think you just said God is Space. In Him we live and move and have our being.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“First of all, you don't even know what my Religion is!”

You confuse Religion with Theology. Do you know the difference? I don’t need to know or understand YOUR Theology. But I have already demonstrated that you have a Religion….not to mention that you admitted to believe in a God (irrelevant what Theology He belongs to).

“you understand things like God, shape/form, space, universe”

We only understand CONCEPTS….and we do so by defining them. All words are lexical concepts with meanings. You should ask your parents to drive you to school a few days a week so you can learn that, ok?

We cannot understand OBJECTS…..we point at them, illustrate them and name them. Please tell the audience WHAT you personally understand about the object ‘coconut’. Can you? Just try and watch the audience throw eggs at you!

God IS an OBJECT! God is necessarily something (has shape) instead of nothing (no shape)…..there is no other option.

Space and universe are concepts we define in no ambiguous terms.

Can you parents afford to send you to school, Jmstar???

“The reason you can perceive two objects”

Irrelevant!

Your subjectively personal biased observations have nothing to do with reality, much less with Physics. Reality is NOT dependent on observers. The Moon exists whether an ape like you perceives it or not. Period!

Reality can only be Hypothesized and Rationally explained with the Scientific Method as I explained to you in spades earlier.

Your argument is moot.

“OBJECTS IN THE MATERIAL WORLD”

You are a Religious Philosopher, aren’t you? Your Priest must have raped you pretty damn hard with these contradictory ideas, right?

Listen…..there is NO “material” or “immaterial” world…..no “natural” or “unnatural” world….whatever the heck that nonsense means.

There is only REALITY.

The Universe is a binary system…..space (nothing) and matter (atoms)…….something or nothing. There is NO other option.....neither material, immaterial, natural or unnatural (whatever the heck that nonsense means).

Either YOU are part of reality…or you are divorced from it, as you seem to indicate with your nonsensical gobbledygook.

“God is an immaterial entity”

Oxymoron…a Linguistic Contradiction!!

Entity: that which has shape (Synonyms: material, object, exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

Immaterial: that which lacks shape (synonym: nothing, space, void, vacuum)

Material is object. Immaterial is concept. Only objects can possibly exist. Concepts are RELATIONS between objects. Relations don’t exist! Do you understand this much, Jmstar???

See…..you don’t even understand your own sentences….that’s why you chase your tail in contradictory circles.

You need to learn Linguistics & Grammar 101. Jmstar, do you live in the ghetto? I mean, can your parents afford to send you to Primary School??

“Entity: is something that exists by itself, although it need not be of material existence.”

A clown like you should learn the basics, Jmstar.

A circle is an entity…..a 2018 Corvette is an entity….but they don’t exist! Your definition is refuted!!

Objecthood and existence are two different concepts……not synonyms, as you assume.

Entity: that which has shape (Synonyms: material, object, exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“Your right God is an entity that is 'something' rather than 'nothing'”

It is irrelevant whether you label my statement right or wrong. What is relevant is whether it is rational. God is necessarily SOMETHING (an object) because THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS NOTHING! Of course….the Theologian does not want His precious God to be ‘nothing’.

There is only something or nothing….there is NO other option. If your God is a concept, like IMMATERIAL…..than you summarily excluded your God from existence.

Ha ha ha! Now you’ve told the audience that your God is a concept i.e. nothing! You've told us that YOUR God is impossible to exist. Nice!


Jmstar 3 years ago

"God is necessarily SOMETHING (an object) because THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS NOTHING!"

......your so hopeless, you just can't think outside of the box eh...

God is something but not an Object the term object is defined (that which has shape) and so because he is not an Object the only other CONCEIVABLE OPTION is nothing... but remember what you are able to conceive of is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with objective reality. We can't conceive of a something, that has no shape or location (i.e not an object) in reality, so the only other conceivable option remaining is nothing...but is that all there is to reality NO!..that is only what we try and conceive of as an objective reality... because even objects which is (that which has shape), invokes subjective observers like the concept of shape which is nothing but a concept that we humans have invented therefore it does not exist?

See you said: If your God is a concept, like IMMATERIAL…..than you summarily excluded your God from existence.

and you define these terms as such:

exist: something somewhere (an object with location)

Object: that which has shape/form

So the objects are understood with concepts.. like shape/form and if all concepts are just ideas from subjective observers How are you defining your key terms objectively when the definition of the term 'object' involves concepts that subjective observers like us are required to understanding first.. this is then subjective and so the term 'exists' which an object with location also invokes subjective observers? But remember you said Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“God is something but not an Object”

Oxymoron…a Linguistic Contradiction!!

An object is ‘some-thing’….not ‘no-thing’. They are synonyms!

something: that which has shape (Synonyms: object, material, , exhibit, physical, thing, something, stuff, body, structure, architecture, substance, medium, particle, figure, essence, element, point, item, it, island, statue, bulk)

“ what you are able to conceive of is irrelevant, and has nothing to do with objective reality. “

Nonsense! Only INTELLIGENCE can be used to reason and rationally explain reality…..and NOT the human SENSORY SYSTEM (i.e. perception). Do you understand the difference, or is this above your reasoning capacity, Jmstar? Intelligence has NO limitations….whereas the sensory system is extremely limited. Here, educate yourself on the basics:

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-INTELLIGENCE...

“We can't conceive of a something, that has no shape or location”

We can most certainly conceive of circles, superman, a 2018 Corvette…..none of which have location, but nonetheless are ‘something’ i.e. objects!

Just because you are uneducated enough to understand the difference, doesn’t mean nobody else can’t conceive it.

But nonetheless….we can easily conceive of the void/space/vacuum which has no shape AND no location. If you can’t, then you should either learn what a CONCEPT is….or….ask God to give you a refund on your non-functioning brain, got it?

Space/void: that which lacks shape.

There….I just conceived it!!! Space/void is a concept. Every single word in any language falls in either the categories of OBJECT or CONCEPT. There is no other option….ever.

LOL, either you are brain-dead or just trolling…..which is it?

“but is that all there is to reality NO!”

You are welcome to tell the audience what your personal THIRD option is, aside from OBJECTS (i.e. something) or CONCEPTS (i.e. nothing). What is the other option between SHAPE and NO-SHAPE???

“even objects which is (that which has shape), invokes subjective observers like the concept of shape which is nothing but a concept that we humans have invented “

Nonsense! You don’t know your brain from a hole in the ground.

Shape is an intrinsic and observer-independent property of all objects. In fact….SHAPE is the ONLY intrinsic property that any object has. The Moon has shape, it doesn’t blend with space to become nothing…. irrespective of any life evolving here to give an opinion on the issue.

And yes, we invented the word ‘shape’ to describe this property of objects. But we did not invent the intrinsic property of shape. Why? Because shape is observer-independent! Love and justice, otoh, are observer-dependent concepts. We actually invented love and justice….but not shape.

Learn the basics before chasing your tail with the ignorance your Pastor bestowed upon you.

“if all concepts are just ideas from subjective observers”

No! You still don’t get it. Here, I will write s-l-o-w-l-y so you can perhaps understand:

There are observer-independent concepts which don’t invoke an observer WITHIN their definition (i.e. shape, object, exist, location, distance, length).

And there are observer-dependent concepts which DO invoke an observer within their definition (i.e. love, justice, virtue, happiness, money).

Please get a basic education, Jmstar. How much does one cost in your neck of the woods? Here….I am compelled to whip out my wallet and pay for it so as not to see you being an ignoramus all your life! What a shame.

“Existence is OBSERVER-INDEPENDENT!”

Exactly! Keep repeating it until it sinks in. Maybe you can undo all the brain damage your Pastor did to you all your life. I can only hope that there is HOPE for you.


Jmstar 3 years ago

Fatfirst, I do believe in God but I have my own reasons for that..which would be a waste of time to mention here because like you said "who cares what a human ape like you thinks".... anyways back to the topic

"SHAPE is the ONLY intrinsic property that any object has."

Shape is the ONLY understandable intrinsic property that any object is 'SAID' to have and so for that reason it is considered to be observer-independent, and 'SAID' to 'exist',it is all in the linguistics, but to ASSUME that it is impossible in reality for there to be an existence without the property of shape or an object in reality without the normal intrinsic property of shape for us to describe it with , would just be your OPINION. Of course there would be no way to ever describe it or even rationally or reasonably explain it using your god given intelligence. It is in this manner that human intelligence is limited with regards to understanding the full dimensions of reality.

We only can think about an object as some-thing with the concept of shape as an intrinsic property and so that then leaves us if we are to talking "rationally" according to you, with only one option left no shape = no-thing . But reality is not dependent on our what, or how we can explain things rationally or not.

NTELLIGENCE can be used to reason and rationally explain reality…..and NOT the human SENSORY SYSTEM (i.e. perception). Do you understand the difference, or is this above your reasoning capacity, Jmstar? Intelligence has NO limitations

"Shape is an intrinsic and observer-independent property of all objects."

and so you assume that an object with


Jmstar 3 years ago

I never said you should use human SENSORY SYSTEM......


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“ I do believe in God but I have my own reasons for that”

It doesn’t matter what your opinions/beliefs are. The only thing the audience wants to know is your Hypothesis and Theory.

Your Hypothesis = God with no space and no matter.

Your Theory = God created space and matter and …..blah blah.

“shape…..'SAID' to 'exist'”

You gotta be kidding me, right? Shape is a concept….the property of an object. Concepts don’t exist. Only objects exist. You are still struggling with the basics, Jmstar…..I don’t know what to do with you. Did you read the article on ‘concepts’ I gave you?

“ But reality is not dependent on our what, or how we can explain things rationally or not.”

Exactly! Reality is not dependent on humans and their opinions (i.e. God exists and hides in the 27 th dimension).

Reality can only be critically analyzed and defined…. and phenomena in reality can only be rationally explained by humans. That’s it….there is no other rational option. And this is what I have done for you.

“I never said you should use human SENSORY SYSTEM”

Good! Then I’m glad you rationally understand that only our INTELLIGENCE and critical thinking/reasoning faculties can be used to rationally conceptualize reality and rationally explain phenomena.


Jmstar 3 years ago

“shape…..'SAID' to 'exist'”

I meant an object is 'SAID' to 'exist' when I said that...anyways regarding truth

I get the feeling that you don't think there is an ultimate truth to your life with regards to things like purpose or meaning... but anyways that is probably irrelevant ..but what you do seem to think, is that truth=opinion...

If a thought about a truth like "Every Human will die someday"... that would be a universal truth about the future of all humans, which would NOT depend on anyone to validate it as truth in order to actually happen.

"What is truth to you….is a LIE to your neighbor! Whom shall the audience believe? How do know who is telling the truth?

...would it really even matter at all if I thought a statement was THE TRUTH like the one I mentioned about death...? Would that truth really depend on my neighbor or the audience to believe in it.... Truth is NOT dependent on what humans think or believe.

Let me give you another example... lets say God himself created us humans for a purpose, and also but a soon to occur consequence for those who don't fulfill this purpose.

Now remember God as a concept is not subjective, therefore having God as the basis from which our purpose is derived from, would make it binding and objective because God transcends human subjectivity.

That being said, the TRUTH about our purpose in this case would not require any human to validate it inorder to be OBJECTIVE truth, including the neighbor who thinks of it as a lie hahaha

Truth is not just a mere opinion but apart of our reality.


Jmstar 3 years ago

I think i'm going to leave things there and so since that is all I have to say, I am off to the edge of the universe lol

I came across this page by accident, but I never expected to stay on it for this long. I learned quite a bit from our discussion, especially in the game of semantics we played lol

Until next time, Bye


El Dude 3 years ago

Jmstar your dumb brain didn't learn anything, you just repeated your bible propaganda about Truth and God.

Truth is a concept, how can it be "part of" reality?! Concepts don't exist by definition. But here's a test for you, since you know so much. Define truth unambiguously.

Truth: _______________

"having God as the basis from which our purpose is derived from"

This doesn't make any sense. I cannot derive purpose from a potato or a cloud, can I? Tell me how that works, please. I love me some good old deriving.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Jmstar,

“you do seem to think, is that truth=opinion”

This discussion is not about entertaining what I or you or anyone else “thinks”. Opinions are irrelevant in any discussion of reality. It is extremely easy to justify that all truths are subject to the sensory system of an individual…ergo, all truths are none other than opinions. Here is how we justify this in a way that is impossible to be contradicted by anyone…..and I mean anyone!

http://hubpages.com/religion-philosophy/There-is-N...

“a truth like "Every Human will die someday"

That’s not a truth. It doesn’t even fall within the CONTEXT of truth; be it “universal truth” or “absolute truth”, or any other nonsensical truth that a human ape can invent by magically pulling it out of his ass!

That is a propositional statement about the future, and it cannot be proven (i.e. validated) as either true or false. All truths are necessarily about the PRESENT as they are proven (validated) in the PRESENT by an observer…..not in the past or in the future where there are no “present” observers to validate them, understand?

That proposition is either a ‘guess’ or a ‘prediction’. In Physics we don’t do guesses or predictions….that stuff is for the cultish Bimbos we call Astrologers & Mathematicians. In Physics we can easily explain why all living entities age and cannot replicate their molecular structures forever as they shed and acquire atoms during their lifetime.

Every single atom in our bodies is interconnected to every single atom out there in the universe. This means that we are nothing but puppets that are bound to the effects of gravity and EM radiation. We cannot escape these processes no matter where we are located. The persistent effect of the whittling of a DNA here ….or the pulling of a cell atom out of alignment there, within our bodies…..is a destructive process until our bodily system is overcome (i.e. damaged based aging). These cumulative effects are proportional to age: the longer you live, the more you will accumulate this damage. The gravity of the Earth is the strongest in our vicinity and is essentially tearing us apart minute by minute. Just look at what happens to women’s breasts as they age….or how our bodies sag as a whole. At some point, cells and organs begin malfunctioning, and eventually throw in the towel. Also, the immune system starts failing us or we undergo hormonal changes – again, due to the atomic stresses within every cell and molecule in our body. On top of this destructive process, we also add the high frequency torque signals from space known as ‘cosmic rays’ (i.e. radiation) suddenly disrupting every molecule in our body by torqueing all its atoms. Now you can begin to understand what is happening to you as you age. In general, this is what is causing us to shed and acquire atoms (via food) in our body to repair these effects and to live another day….until our body cannot repair them any longer. Every single object in the universe is being disrupted by gravity (tension) and radiation (torque signals). It’s unavoidable. Gravity and radiation cannot be blocked with any shields.

No object, whether a star, planet, rock, living being, etc. can ever stay as is forever. The Universe is essentially a perpetual atomic recycling machine. All the atoms in the Universe have been recycling themselves for eternity….and will continue to do so forever more!

“the TRUTH about our purpose in this case would not require any human to validate it inorder to be OBJECTIVE truth”

All alleged truths stem from propositional statements. All statements must be validated by a human BEFORE they are decreed as true or false. You need to understand these basics. Without proof, there is no truth. Ergo, “objective truth” is impossible. All your alleged truths are only YOUR opinions/beliefs (i.e. subjective truths). You cannot objectively justify any proposition to be “objectively truth”…..nope, no way…impossible!

“ the game of semantics we played”

Yes, you did play lots of semantic “games” by avoiding to DEFINE any of your terms that make or break your arguments. When you don’t define, you create loopholes that are stealthily used to give ambiguous meanings to your terms for the purposes of winning every argument using deception. We call this: intellectual dishonesty!

You cannot play these games here. I hold everyone accountable for their statements. If you cannot define your terms….then you are nothing but a Priest who wants to brainwash people in order to create a following, like Theism, Atheism, Relativity, Quantum, String Theory, etc.


El Dude 3 years ago

Smackdown.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 3 years ago

Hey FatFist,

I'm not well versed in the intricacies of physics or cosmology, but one rebuttal to the 'Eternal Universe" model is the darkness of the night sky. If the universe did not begin to exist, then the night sky would be incredibly bright.

I have briefly tried to look up if light 'dims' over distance, but have not found anything significant. "Expansionists" have said that light doesn't diminish over distance, only spreads out over that distance (?). Does this mean light is in perpetual motion, never slowing down or ending?

They then say, that we don't see all the light in the night sky because space is expanding at a faster rate than light moves.... WHOA!?! This is were they lose me. And here I've always been told, nothing is faster than the speed of light... Except if we jump to "ludicrous speed" and save Princess Vespa from Dark Helmet.

Anyway, just wanted to get your input on the whole "night sky would be too bright" response.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Yer talking about Olber's Paradox. Ever heard of iron poor tired light?

It's not red-shifted light. The sky is dark in places, and it's not a matter of no stars being there. It's a matter of stars being so far away that the light is too faint to reach us. The reason the tired light hypothesis has lost traction, is because the mathemagicians can't think of a physical mechanism to explain it, and because of time dilation and other impossible nonsense.

There is a simple physical explanation and it involves the Rope Hypothesis. Look it up. For now just realize that space is nothing. Care to explain how nothing can expand?

Understand that the light frequency is below the visible threshold.


confuscience profile image

confuscience 3 years ago

MonkeyMinds,

Thanks for the response. But what's the 'tired light hypothesis'? Sorry, but my knowledge of physics and its theories is very limited, though I find FatFist's demand for rigorous definitions quite refreshing.

My background is in contemporary philosophy (though I'm not published or work in academia), and I find most philosophic arguments, in fact, revolve around definitions. I snicker when someone accuses me of debating semantics; most often, it does.

Anyway, is this 'tired light hypothesis' related to how light diminishes in space, and therefore, why we don't experience a flood of light from distant stars? Sorry for being so inquisitive, but I would like to know more...

Regarding the expansion of space, yeah, I've always thought it was awkward, at best. In order for space to 'expand', it would have to be something rather than nothing, but as you remarked, space is NOTHING, merely a concept we created to distinguish the distance between separate objects. Besides, if space DID 'expand', tension would be necessary, like hands stretching a membrane taut... THAT'S IT! The Universe is God's "dental dam", stretching around His girlfriend's nether-region! He's just practicing safe-sex!.... Let this be a lesson for us all; if you think she's spunky, cover your monkey!!!

Cheers!


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Hi Confuscience,

As for tired light, as I said it is a theory that has been disguarded by mainstream physics. It is related to redshift and opposes space expansion, so they had to drop it. GIYF!

Yes, DO argue semantics. Definitions are important. Stick to your guns. I admire any philosopher that defines his terms! Very unusual indeed.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 3 years ago from My Tree House

Awesome explanation!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Hi Confuscience,

“I have briefly tried to look up if light 'dims' over distance, but have not found anything significant. "Expansionists" have said that light doesn't diminish over distance, only spreads out over that distance (?). Does this mean light is in perpetual motion, never slowing down or ending?”

Light is not a ‘thing’. Light is not in motion. Light is not an entity/object. Light is a phenomenon. Light is a concept. Light is what an object DOES. There is an object that mediates this phenomenon we call light.

Light, in and of itself, has no speed. What has speed is the rate at which an object moves to mediate the phenomenon we call light.

“They then say, that we don't see all the light in the night sky because space is expanding at a faster rate than light moves”

We already established that it is impossible for light to ‘move’. It is also impossible for space (i.e. nothing) to move (i.e. expand). Concepts are not amenable to motion. Mathematics is a Religion and nothing more.

“Anyway, is this 'tired light hypothesis' related to how light diminishes in space, and therefore, why we don't experience a flood of light from distant stars?”

Mathematicians have no explanation of the Tired Light Theory. Only a Physicist can explain this phenomenon which is predicated on a rational hypothesis for a mediator of light.

To understand the phenomenon of light you need to understand that it is impossible for there to be any discrete standalone particles in the universe. Why? Because discrete particles cannot mediate the phenomenon of attraction we call gravity. Case closed!

All atoms in the universe are necessarily interconnected via some mediating entity that is responsible for the phenomena of gravity, light, magnetism and electricity. Only a rope can pull a dog towards you (i.e. gravity) and only a rope can simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles.

This is sooooo important, that it warrants repetition:

Only a rope can simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light - nothing else; and certainly not particles, waves or wavicles.

There is no other object that can possibly simulate the c = frequency x wavelength property of light....only the rope!

All atoms are interconnected via a 2-stranded rope-like entity. When an atom torques the rope (just like you torque a clothesline), a torque signal is sent down the rope to all the atoms in another galaxy. This torque signal physically affects the receiving atoms (inducing motion); be it the atoms comprising our retinas or the atoms comprising a rock. It is this phenomenon we call LIGHT.

As objects like stars and galaxies move closer or apart, they respectively compress or stretch the links of the two-stranded rope. This is what physically happens to a two-stranded taught rope when it is pushed together or pulled apart while torque signals are sent from either end of this medium. This changes the wavelength and hence the frequency of the torque signals we call light. But c always remains constant because the medium (i.e. transport highway) for light hasn’t changed. The speed of light, c, is necessarily medium-dependent! Since many of these torqueing frequencies are OUTSIDE our visible spectrum (i.e. our retinas have a limited bandwidth response to stimulus), we cannot SEE most of these resulting effects of light in the night sky. This is only an illusion that makes the sky “APPEAR” dark “to us”. Our sensory system has certainly fooled us….big time! Obviously, this doesn’t mean that these torque signals aren’t reaching us. In fact, they are stimulating every single atom in our bodies as we speak; not to mention all the atoms in the Universe. We can detect this background EM radiation which has NOTHING to do with an alleged Big Bang or any mythical Creation. This phenomenon we call “background radiation” specifically has to do with all the atoms in the Universe torqueing the two-stranded ropes which interconnect them; i.e. the sender sends a torque signal to the receiver and the receiver sends it back to the sender, simultaneously! This simultaneous ping-pong effect is called the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PPR) of light.

Again, since many of these torqueing frequencies are beyond our visible spectrum, we cannot SEE most of these stars in the night sky. Hence we are fooled into thinking that most the night sky is devoid of light from distant objects…but it’s not. The effects of light and color are the result of the motion (i.e. torque signal frequency) of the mediator of light. Obviously, most of the portion of the EM spectrum is not detected by our petty retinas. But this doesn’t mean these torque signals of light are not being sent to every single atom in the Universe. The Universe goes about its business irrespective of what a petty human ape can observe or detect with his limited senses and technology. Reality is indeed observer-independent!


Luis 3 years ago

Hi fatfist,

just trying to wrap my head around the notion that time isn't real. If it indeed isn't real, what's the proper way to talk about phenomena/processes that are deemed to have a 'temporal component' (like, say, biological evolution or cognition)? For example , if we're assessing a claim about the split between two lineages of dinosaur, how do we go about addressing 'when' it happened? What's the proper language to use if we want to get away from (what appears to be) the shorthand convenience of time-talk?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“If it indeed isn't real, what's the proper way to talk about phenomena/processes that are deemed to have a 'temporal component'”

Look at your watch….or a calendar or something. Time conceptually relates the memorized motion of objects. Look at the last posts of my article on entropy for an explanation of time.

"What's the proper language to use"

Canada: English, French and Mandarin

USA: English and Spanish


Wolfy 3 years ago

First off, you seem to not know that "space-time" is demonstrably evident, and you seem to think that space itself cannot expand. This is fundamentally inaccurate. Space can and does expand, and this knowledge informs general relativity which has been demonstrated many times, and is demonstrated every day in satellites. Space as the layman term is very different from the physical term. No-one claims space is expanding into "nothing", they claim it is expanding. Period.

Space does not need to expand into anything. Just as the surface of a balloon, as a two dimensional object, can expand nevertheless.

Next point. Space can have shape, related to what the sum of interior angles of a triangle is, or the value of pi. Look up hyperbolic space, or draw a triangle on a balloon. Our space just happens to be relatively flat. You keep coming back to this. Space is not a normal 3 dimensional object, it's hard to picture in your head. It is infinite and unbounded.

Relative motions between nearby galaxies does NOT disprove the Hubble flow. The farther away from earth you go, the less blue shifted galaxies there are, this is because the larger the distance is, the more Lambda in Friedmanns equations matters. There is a distance beyond which there are NO blue shifted galaxies. The father you look the slower the regression is, indicating that the universe is accelerating in it's expansion, the Nobel prize was awarded for this.

Third point: particles are formed all the time, and we can show under exactly which conditions atoms are formed, as well as neutrons, protons, photons, neutrinos, etc. You misuse both mater and space, and matter does form spontaneously in "empty space". You come close to a good point when you talk about the perception of time, but you fail to acknowledge that it is a dimension, only slightly different from any other dimension in physics.

Last point: seriously, a bad illustration in a first year astronomy textbook is not proof of anything. Clearly the illustration is representing either a portion of the universe, or the observable universe. The universe CAN expand faster than light, and if you need proof, go look at a map of the CMBR. The universe is infinite, yet in TIME we "see" an edge. The universe goes beyond that, but light has not reached us from it yet.

Space: the 3 coordinates which define relative position. Time: the coordinate that defines relative change. Knowledge: The quality generally given to things that are both demonstrable, and falsifiable, that have not been demonstrated false. Nothing: in the physical sense, this is like Absolute Zero. It does not exist. Object: something observable. Concept: something imaginable. Mathematics is the language of physics, and it is demonstrable to have relation to reality.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Wolfy,

“Object: something observable.”

Failures:

1) Something is a synonym for object. This is circular, rhetorical, meaningless and unscientific.

2) Your definition necessitates a SECOND object, the observer to detect an object. You are saying that an object requires 2 objects. Equivocation and contradiction. So the question still remains: what is an object?

3) A definition which invokes an observer within the definition itself, is subjective and unscientific.

In Physics, this is how object is defined rationally, unambiguously, without observers and without contradictions.

Object: that which has shape. (Synonym: physical, particle, thing, body, architecture, substance, finite, anything, something, discrete, entity, stuff, medium)

The Moon has shape before any human evolves to observe and give an opinion on the issue.

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

.

“Concept: something imaginable.”

Failures:

1) Something is a synonym for object. A concept is not an object. Fatal category error! This is contradictory and unscientific.

2) Concepts are conceptualized…..not imagined. The term ‘imagine’ comes from ‘image’ which necessarily invokes shape and visualization of an object. To conceptualize is to imagine objects in a RELATION, not merely a lone object! A relation necessarily invokes a minimum of 2 objects. You only invoked 1. This is contradictory.

Here’s how we rationally define concept without contradictions….

Concept: a relation between two or more objects.

http://hubpages.com/education/The-Ontology-of-Lang...


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Wolfy,

“First off, you seem to not know that "space-time" is demonstrably evident, and you seem to think that space itself cannot expand”

To settle this matter objectively, all you gotta do is define the key term which makes or breaks your argument about space expanding: SPACE! Your definition is:

Wolfy: “Space: the 3 coordinates which define relative position.”

So the definition of space DEFINES another concept you call position? Ummm…Wolfy, this is a recursive and ambiguous attempt at a definition. A Scientific Definition only gives us the meaning of the term in question without committing the Fallacy of Equivocation or going off into tangents to attempt to define other terms. Here, educate yourself on what a SCIENTIFIC DEFINITION is all about:

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/What-is-a-Scientif

Sorry, Wolfy….You haven’t defined space….your definition is unscientific.

But let’s further dissect what you have so you can get a better understanding of what your proposal is up against.

The “coordinate” concept is used in the context of location. The three coordinates are known as longitude, latitude, and altitude. Coordinates have two properties: direction and orthogonality. In Physics, coordinates have to do with LOCATION and point towards the test object. We need 3 coordinates to specify any location on or in a sphere: longitude, latitude, and altitude. Without an object, there is are no coordinates and no location. Physics 101!

The “position” concept is used in the context of an object (i.e. architecture). Position is the 'site' or volume the object 'takes up'. Position is the object itself. Physics has no use for the term ‘position’ because Physics explicitly uses the term OBJECT. Now, if by “position” you are alluding to where an object is located, then Physics uses the term LOCATION….so you gotta get your terminology proper. It is in Religion & Mathematics where they confuse Position for Location.

Now…..despite your failed definition, I will assume that you are attempting to define space as an object. So you are telling the audience that we can use the 3 coordinates (longitude, latitude, and altitude) to locate a test object WITHIN this object you call SPACE. Just like we can use 3 coordinates to locate a rock WITHIN the Earth. So naturally, just like we can illustrate the Earth, you had better be able illustrate this alleged object you call “space”. An internet link will do.

You need to justify your proposal by showing the audience an image of this “space” object and illustrating and labeling what is OUTSIDE this “space” object. Only then can we understand whether space is an object that is amenable to motion and actions, like expansion.

I mean….it is YOU who claims that an object is what you OBSERVE. So please…don’t keep us in suspense….illustrate this space object you observed, its shape, its border and please label what is outside its border. Please and thank you!

If you can’t illustrate this, then your whole argument about expanding this alleged space object is moot!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Got any picture of that space you observed, Wolfy? I am very anxious to see its edges or perimeter and very curious as to what is outside that space object. Perhaps Lawrence Krauss' and Richard Dawkins' DEISTIC GOD ??

Hi there, Deistic God....I'm fatfist....I'm fat around the edges....pear-shaped and a lardass of sorts....but I've been a good boy this year. Will you please relay that message to Santa, just as you do for all the other bonehead Atheists out there?


nicholashesed 3 years ago

I cannot believe I'm saying this but you have irrevocably convinced me that the universe or more precisely space simply does not and even cannot expand!!! I've been reading modern cosmology for years and never understood the concept and never found a reasonable explanation. Why? Because it is simply impossible for nothing to stretch. Thank you fatfist!!! You have a certain acquired wisdom which I appreciate.

And I agree with you about criticizing BB and other modern scientific ideologies as pseudo-religions. After years of reading this stuff my understanding as a practicing Roman Catholic was that some scientists turned the universe into their god. Idol worship. Their universe is in some ways more mysterious than God Himself!!! How does space expand? Miraculous foam. Particles continually appear and annihilate each other. Dark energy. Not only does it expand it accelerates! The idea that the universe expands has even found its way into Biblical interpretation, e.g. when Isaiah says, "He who stretches out the heavens as a tent". They say that this is inerrant because of the ideas of modern cos.

I kept thinking to myself (from my Roman Catholic view) that in order for some of these ideas to be true; God would have to be accomplishing a continuous miracle just to keep everything held together. Or some people say everything is a miracle. But that is non-sense. We live in the age of blind leading the blind, even in religion.

God created nature to exist on its own. But I still think matter had a beginning. God miraculously created something. Prior to something their is only God. God adopted mankind, etc. Everything was created for God. Etc.

Still just understanding this one point is truly precious.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

Space is a noun in language because we have conceptualize it. But mathematicians never made it past the syntactical grammar stage. They treat space as a substance that can bend, stretch and hold a planet in orbit. It can hold a planet in place and yet doesn't even mess up your hair when it pushes against the planet. Funny!

Space is reasoned rationally at the critical thinking stage....something which the mathematicians try to dismiss as petty semantics.

space: that which lacks shape


nicholashesed 3 years ago

very good. I am going to read all your stuff even the comments.

Btw. In your other hub you speak of syntactical grammar and contextual grammar as if you have texts or are involved in teaching. Do you have any recommended reading other than what you have here? I want to get to the point where I can discern words at a higher level like what you are doing. This will help me in life and more especially reading the Bible.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 3 years ago Author

“Do you have any recommended reading other than what you have here? “

What I present in my articles comes from my university courses of study in Natural and Formal Languages. It’s pretty standard stuff in the field of Linguistics. I haven’t had the need to investigate other sources.


nicholashesed 3 years ago

maybe I should have gone to university after all ;)

Nah.

I'm a quick learner. I can start applying what I learn here.


Percy Titsham 2 years ago

"In fact, Big Bang Theory demands such a scenario. Back to the ocean example: If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions!

This is not what the astronomers verify. Andromeda is blue shifted and allegedly on a collision course with the Milky Way, barely 2 million light years away.

This observation alone contradicts and debunks the Big Bang Theory and the alleged expansion of the Universe!"

No it doesn't. You're assuming that the boats on the surface of the water are static relative to each other. They're not! They are free to move however they wish. The boats are independent of the water even though they float on it. The clue is in the very analogy you present.

You also lack an understanding of how we measure space (even if space doesn't exist, as you are so eager to point out).

Our universe only expands according to how we observe it. Whether it is actually expanding or not is irrelevant when discussing with people like yourself. I personally prefer the 'shrinking atom' theory which supposes an infinitely small universe which is perpetually forced out of existence in the presence of the mathematical property of infinity.

Does the 'mathematical property of infinity' make a difference? Yes it does. As you (fatfist) have already asserted - the concept of infinity is not just a concept - it is fact!

Any finite object existing inside an infinite realm is always almost non-existent. And that is our universe!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Percy,

“we measure space (even if space doesn't exist, as you are so eager to point out).”

How can you measure nothing which doesn't exist, you fool? If a term in language doesn’t resolve to an object, then it resolves to nothing. That’s why what that term alludes to doesn't exist and cannot possibly be measured…..unless you’re snorting Zoloft and smoking crack cocaine of course! You need to enter a drug rehab center so you can talk rationally for once in your life.

When you graduate with a clean bill of health, you can begin to educate yourself on the difference between OBJECTS & CONCEPTS so you can live in reality like the rest of us:

.

http://hubpages.com/education/What-is-an-Object

http://fatfist.hubpages.com/hub/The-Ontology-of-La...

.

“Our universe only expands”

‘Universe’ is a CONCEPT, not an object. Only objects can possibly expand, like your pants!

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

Concepts like Universe, love, justice, virtue, tranquility, etc. have no shape, no architecture, and are NOT amenable to ‘expansion’, stretching, shrinking, etc. We learn this on the first day of Junior Kindergarten. Did you learn anything in JK, Percy, or were you just picking your nose and playing hooky? Regardless….learn the diff between objects and concepts and you’ll get back on track.

It’s IMPOSSIBLE for a concept like ‘the’ Universe to expand!

“the concept of infinity is not just a concept - it is fact!”

LOL, not according to YOUR Priests! For the first time in your life you should read their published Scriptures, instead of just gawking & drooling over their likeness in photos, framing their autographed pictures on your wall, watching their Sunday specials on TV, parroting their “cherry-picked” verses from their Scriptures….and buying their used undergarments on eBay so you can sleep with them under your pillow!

.

“The infinite divisibility of a continuum is an operation which exists only in thought. It is merely an idea which is in fact impugned by the results of our observations of nature and of our physical and chemical experiments. Our principal result is that the infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought — a remarkable harmony between being and thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.” -- David Hilbert (Mathematician Extraordinaire), On The Infinite

“the infinite certainly doesn’t exist in the same sense that we say ‘There are fish in the sea.’ Existence in the mathematical sense is wholly different from the existence of objects in the real world.” -- Kasner & Newman (Mathematicians Extraordinaire), Mathematics and the Imagination

.

There you have it right from the mouths of YOUR experts on the subject: infinity is just a delusionary thought stemming only from human apes high on crack cocaine and Zoloft. There are NO infinities in reality!

I hope you attend that rehab center real soon…..your sanity depends on it!


onekleverG 2 years ago

Hey ff I enjoyed this very much! Although I haven't had enough time to read all the comments it was extremely interesting & educational thank you! I was trying to explain to someone why the universe doesn't expand here is there reply. So lemme explain you, since atleast you're open minded and want to listen to theories, best theory is the big bang, now why does it makes sense?. The universe coming out of nothing is stupid right, no if you were thinking like that then you may be a tad wrong. Now what is nothing, it is zero(0) and this was the time when singularity was there, meaning nothing but can't you write 0 as -1+1?it's the same thing right, so in the universe the +ve 1 indicates the matter which occupy space and there is gravity around them which is the - ve part cause all matter in the universe hav gravitational force directly proportional to the product their mass. -1+1 us too small for the ratio of universe, there representation for universe would be -infinity+infinity. But the wonder in them is that when you add them you get zero but they exist as well cause everything so far has an equal and opposite to maintain neutrality and the reason for nothing to exist in such bizarre state accounting for all the very thing around us as well as the opposite is the big bang. Hope you could understand :)


onekleverG 2 years ago

Okay :P, imagine a stretched cloth sheet, now place a rock on it, doesn't it bend the area around it. This is what gravity is, it bends space and time around it and the one causing it is matter, matter a +ve energy came into existence by many subatomic particles joining together.origin of Life is a whole new lot of things to explain and the thiest and athiest wannabes interpret the whole thing wrong and go fuck around with the misinterpreted info and spread some bizarre facts which aren't even real and i explained origin of the universe in previous comment. Nt knowing an answer means god exists, it can definitely not be possible, when you get into the field of science, you'll realize the very minute perfection of detail ti complex stuff. You'll realize that you are part of the living system rather than thinking


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

This is funny stuff, onekleverG, and has to do with Math, not with Physics. Math is a tautological system of Formal Logic founded on man-made rules (axioms) and premises. Any conclusion reached by Math is none other than a DERIVATION directly from the axioms and the input premises. Like in any System of Logic, what you put IN is what you get OUT. There is no other option.

Ergo, Math has nothing to do with reality. Reality is not tautological and not subject to man-made rules or other subjective opinions. Reality can only be critically reasoned and rationally explained. Even most PhD Math Professors are SHOCKED to discover this for the first time in their lives. I mean, these clowns warmed up a seat in University for 7+ years and still don’t understand what Mathematics is about. I pity these fools as I see tears in their eyes whenever I educate them about the trials & tribulations of Bertrand Russell.

Russell eventually realized this about Math when after decades of failing to show that Mathematics is absolute and having to do with reality; he became mentally ill and almost died like his buddies Turing, Cantor and Godel. He finally realized that Math cannot prove anything in reality and was a huge proponent of this fact.

“Mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.” - Bertrand Russell


Percy Titsham 2 years ago

Thanks for the compliments!

Okay, if we stick to your point about "If the ocean increases between the boats and outwards, ALL the boats should be moving away from each other as the ocean rises. No exceptions"

If the boats are free to float wherever on the ocean they do not necessarily all move away from each other.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

Percy,

If the ocean Universe increases between the boats and outwards (i.e. as in BB expansion), the boats have no choice but to follow suit and move outwards with the flow.


Percy Titsham 2 years ago

But the only reason boats (galaxies) exist is due to gravity and, in this case, boats attract each other. So it is only natural that, eventually, boats will begin to move towards each other. Some will move away from each other, but they will end up moving towards other boats.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

C'mon Percy....let's make sense here. Take any explosion or expansion, say a bomb. All the pieces fly off away from each other.

In the case that space is alleged to expand, this necessarily implies that space is an object and has a surface. This expanding surface will pull all the galaxies apart. Try it on your bedsheet (i.e. the fabric of space). Put objects on it and get 4 people to pull on each corner of the sheet, even expanding it. The objects will move away from each other because they are in CONTACT with the fabric.....just like the galaxies are alleged to be in CONTACT with space during expansion. This is what the Mathematicians are saying. You're smart, Percy. How can you swallow this nonsense?


Percy Titsham 2 years ago

So what you're saying is that because we live in an expanding universe we could never hold hands?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

I couldn't care less if the universe is expanding or not....if you're cute, all I wanna do is hold your hand. Perhaps I can find some diamonds in this vast universe that are worthy of your hand....


Percy Titsham 2 years ago

I'm cute, yeah. But it's more of a bromance - let me get that straight from the off.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 2 years ago Author

There shouldn't be anything wrong with that. This is after all a politically correct forum. Just don't make me nervous cuz my hands start to sweat...


grock 20 months ago

You say, space: THAT which lacks shape

Can you define "that"?


grock 20 months ago

This all makes sense to me, I just want to try to define some terms so I can try a hypothesis/theory combination.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

"Can you define "that"?"

Here's the definitions....

space: that which lacks shape

object: that which has shape

space is the antithesis of object.....nothing vs something. There is no other option or category. It's like ON or OFF.


grock 20 months ago

Oh, I meant the definition of the word, "that".


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

You can easily look it up yourself. In Science, we only define the key terms of the hypothesis and theory.

But since you're new at this stuff, I’ll show you just this one time how you, your friends and family can go about finding the definitions of common every day terms of ordinary speech.

You can use google to find a dictionary. Alternatively you can go to the library or a book store. Sometimes if I'm close to a University, I'll pop into the English department and ask a PhD Professor of Linguistics and Grammar, especially an expert in Contextual Grammars.

For instance, dictionary.com says:

that: used as the subject or object of a relative clause.

In the context of the definition of object, ‘that’ is used as the subject in question. It can’t be an object because that’s what we’re trying to define. Specifically, the term ‘that’ alludes to the referent used to evaluate its ontological context to determine whether it has shape or not. If that referent does, then it’s an object.


monkeyminds profile image

monkeyminds 20 months ago from My Tree House

Ha hA! AND that my friend is that!


grock 20 months ago

I didn't know if we should use dictionary.com since we are wanting to define terms rationally.

Dictionary.com says, "That:used as a SUBJECT or OBJECT..."

We know the word "that" is not an OBJECT, because space is not an object.

But according to dictionary.com, here is the definition of "Subject" :

"THAT which forms a basic matter of thought,discussion, investigation, etc".

So now we still have a circular reference.

I don't think we can use dictionary.com for our definitions.

How about this definition:

Space: no object

If so, should we all use this from now on? If not, what should we use?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

"So now we still have a circular reference."

No circular reference at all. A "subject" is the topic in question in the sentence, be it an object or a concept. When we apply the definition of object to that subject, we resolve the ontological context of the referent to determine if it has shape or not.

"Space: no object"

no object = not that which has shape = that which lacks shape


Bruce Quint 20 months ago

All words, on a screen or page, are composed of letters..letters are objects- for they have SHAPE. You can even use one letter-shape to stand-in for the hypothetical object called the universe(like the letter U). Human practice has it, that objects like numbers and letters in combination can even stand in for non objects like time or length. It is irrational to confuse the number or letter for the concept of time or length. But I get ahead of myself, I have not understood your definition for the word, 'concept'..?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

".letters are objects- for they have SHAPE. "

You confused the object 'A' one can illustrate on paper with the alphabetic units of language we call letters or graphemes. The former is an object while the latter is a concept that ascribes meaning in language. Never the twain shall meet.

object: that which has shape

concept: a relation between objects

The OBJECT 'A' you illustrate on paper is related to other objects (i.e. B, C, D...) to form the CONCEPT we call "letter" for the purposes of ascribing meaning in linguistic use for human communication and understanding.


Bruce Quint 20 months ago

This shape--U--, is not an object? Call it a letter or a grapheme, or whatever, it matters not, it is still an object.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 20 months ago Author

"This shape U...Call it a letter or a grapheme, or whatever"

Make up your mind already regarding this 'U' you drew on the board in the Physics Conference. In the context of YOUR presentation, what does that chicken-scratch represent?

Is it 'a' shape?

Is it 'a' letter?

Is it 'a' grapheme?

Is it an object?

Is it ‘a’ whatever?

Which is it? It can’t be everything under the Sun, for that commits the Fallacy of Equivocation: using ambiguity to cover all your bases so you can win every possible contradiction you propose. Remember, this is a Physics Conference, and the audience is smart enough to call you out on your fallacies/contradictions. They ain’t gonna let ya get away with murder.

The audience awaits your answer so we can understand what you are talking about....but more importantly, to see if YOU understand what you are talking about.

Submit a Comment
New comments are not being accepted on this article at this time.
Click to Rate This Article
working