How to Understand Infinity, Life, and Death

Meditation on Haleakala - The Woman in Yellow

Looking at the Universe by L.A.Cargill
Looking at the Universe by L.A.Cargill | Source

What is death?

First off, nothing is ever really dead. Not even a table or a rock. If you have ever worked in a hospital, you know how hard it is to determine death. Are you dead when the brain dies but your heart keeps on pumping? Are you dead when your heart stops beating on its own but can be artificially pumped? Are you dead when you can no longer breathe on your own but can be kept alive with a respirator? Are you dead when you stop moving? Are you dead when you are finally buried or cremated? Good news! If there is the slightest remote chance that you are still alive in that body, no one wants to declare you dead.

What is life?

Now consider the definition of life. If something can move, is it alive? If something can eat, is it alive? If something can breathe, is it alive? Is your definition of life a human with a soul? Can you define a tree as a living thing? What about a rock or even a whole planet? Is the entire universe alive?

What's the difference?

Answering these questions is not as easy as it appears, is it? Experts have debated for centuries over the difference between life and death. No one really knows the difference or dividing line between biological life and clinical death. They have standards to measure it by, but they constantly debate the standards. No one cares if a rock or a planet is alive. But you better believe they would care if the planet was dead or dying!

What do we believe?

For the most part, religionists (those who practice religion) believe that human beings have a soul that will live forever, hopefully in heaven with a god of some sort. Non-theists (those that don’t believe in a god of any sort) believe that human beings are composed of infinite matter temporarily arranged into a human form. I’ll explain this in more depth in a moment. Non-theists also believe in “energy” that binds everything together like magnetism or gravity. It’s an actual force much like electricity. It does not have “intelligent” design or come from an invisible, omnipotent being. If we were smart enough to measure this force, we would be able to quantify it like we do electricity. In other words it’s an actual physical part of the infinite universe.

The Symbol of Infinity

Infinity Symbol
Infinity Symbol | Source

Infinity.....

Now I have to explain infinity. Infinity is like the national debt. They tell us on the news that the national debt is 100 seventy qua-trillion zillion dollars or some amount close to that. No puny human can even imagine that many dollars being owed to China, social security, or bailouts for big business tycoons. It just staggers our brains. Well folks, infinity is infinitely bigger than that! But I can explain it in simple terms. I’m that good.

… -10 -9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +9 +10…

Do you see that zero up there in that line of numbers? That’s were infinity is measured from. It doesn’t matter if the zero is “right this second” or “some physical place” or “a rock”. But we’ll start with “right this second” and call it NOW.

Immediately before NOW (0) is -1 or one second in the past. Immediately after NOW (0) is one second in the future. Going backwards you can count back to infinity by going back one more second and one more second before that and one more second before that and so on and so on. No matter how many seconds you go back in time, you can ALWAYS go back one more second! Or year, or century, or eon, etc. It doesn’t matter what unit of measurement you use, you can always go back one more.

Immediately after NOW (0) is +1 or one second in the future. Going forwards you can advance to infinity by adding one more second and one more second after that and one more second after that and so on and so on. No matter how many seconds you go forward in time, you can ALWAYS go forward one more second! Or year, or century, or eon, etc. It doesn’t matter what unit of measurement you use, you can always go forward one more. This explains infinite time.

You can take this same simple concept to explain infinite space. The zero point is wherever you are standing. You can physically (if you had the right equipment) walk in any (infinite) number of directions by taking one step in that direction. You could then take another step and another and another and another – and no matter how far you stepped in that direction, you could take one more step. Intellectually this is expressed as +1, +2 +3… and on into infinity. You could stop at any point in space or time and walk backwards into infinity. This would be expressed as -1, -2, -3… and so on. You guessed it, no matter how far you walked backwards (or even up or down); you can always walk one more step!

Now for the hard one, infinite matter. I am of the opinion that matter cannot be created or destroyed. It can change forms. It can even change molecular structure as we know it. Matter has even been known to “wink out” or exist for only micro-micro-micro seconds that we can see. It doesn’t really disappear; we just can’t see it or measure it anymore. At least not until we get a whole lot smarter. Matter does some really strange things as far as we can see. At the small end of matter we have atoms, electrons, quarks, leptons, gluons, dark matter, anti-matter, and possibly some little tiny yet-to-be-named thingy.

So how can matter be infinite? Did you take high school physics class? No? Well, one of the easiest ways to demonstrate infinite matter is to think about cutting an object in half, then cutting the half in half, then cutting that half in half and so on and so on. With the proper tools, you could keep doing this forever. You would never run out of halves to further slice into another half. Yep, those halves would get super spectacular tiny, but they would still be there! And they would get smaller still.

Ok, now look at layering atoms together, or stacking electrons, or whatever you think of stacking. You could stack 400,000 gazillion billion million electrons together, then you could add one more on top of that and another on top of that and so on and so on. Now, in a finite universe, you would actually run out of electrons to stack together. But we do not live in a finite universe, we live in an infinite universe. Remember how I said that matter does some strange things like popping in and out of our vision? It does not disappear, it does not go away. We just cannot see it. But if we could see it, and we had the proper tools, we could just keep on stacking those electrons forever and ever. An infinite amount of matter does exist, it is just very hard to explain and visualize. Matter interacts with energy in a way that we have not grasped yet. Einstein came as close as anyone did with the theory of relativity or E=MC2. Energy equals mass times the speed of light squared (or tripled or quadrupled). Now I have really confused you! No one understands that theory, so do not worry about that.

Energy, souls, spirits, etc. with weight and mass?

Coming down to the wire here…. Noetic science, or the study of thoughts having weight and mass. This new scientific avenue is in its infancy. Do thoughts have weight/mass? Religionists have always believed this (prayers). They also believe that the “soul” has weight and mass (it exists as a tangible thing). They even believe that “God” has weight and mass somewhere. You know what? They could be right! Yes, you heard me. I said it. In an infinite universe, it could happen. I simply believe that the universe has always existed. It was not “created” by some mysterious, jealous, demanding, and harsh invisible being. That kind of being was created in the minds of men. The thing I am calling “God” is the infinite Universe itself!

The answer

If our energy, soul, spirit, essence, holy ghost, psyche, conscience, alma, breath of life, life force, intellect, quintessence, personality, spiritual being, uniqueness has weight and mass then so could God. However, all of these things would already exist, they have always existed and they always will exist. This is called the infinite universe!

We already own it, we already live it, we already are essential part and parcel of the universe. Our essence cannot be created or destroyed any more than time, space and matter can be created or destroyed. It can, however, be rearranged or reassembled into infinite possibilities. It’s Life, the Universe and Everything!

So now, you can quit worrying about where you are going to GO when you “die”.  You will stay right here squarely in the midst of the infinite universe. You will look a bit different than you do right now, but it will still be you!

What do you think?

Did this hub help you to understand infinity?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Maybe, if I think about it for a while
See results without voting

The Infinity Symbol in Jewelry

Infinity Pendant Sterling Silver Infinity Necklace (18 Inches)
Infinity Pendant Sterling Silver Infinity Necklace (18 Inches)

This infinity necklace is made of solid sterling silver, so simple and beautiful. Pendant measures 24mm x 10mm and 1.1mm in thickness. Pendant suspends from a sterling silver link chain connected to both sides of the infinity with 5 choices of length

 

© 2010 Austinstar

More by this Author


Comments, Arguments, Rants, Original Thoughts.... 203 comments

SimeyC profile image

SimeyC 5 years ago from NJ, USA

"100 seventy qua-trillion zillion dollars" - yep it's the national debt, but it's also the amount of different comments you could get to this! No one really understands life or non-life, religion etc, but you really had a great go at trying to explain!

Personally for me - I beleive the whole 'soul' of the universe fragments into beings - when you non-exist you go back to being a part of the whole and then get 're-born' into another fragment - this explains a lot of precognience etc.....

Great hub, Happy thanksgiving....


Nick Burchett profile image

Nick Burchett 5 years ago from IL, MO & KS

Interesting... I completely disagree, but will leave it at that...


tonymac04 profile image

tonymac04 5 years ago from South Africa

I like your train of thought. One difference I have is with your statement that after death, "You will look a bit different than you do right now, but it will still be you!" Doubt that very much. This lump of matter that I call "me" will certainly not still be "me" when I've died. I can only be "me" in so far as I'm conscious of "me" - and after death there is not likely to be any consciousness.

Sure the constituent parts of me at molecular level will no doubt continue - the energy cannot be destroyed - but it will be, as far as anyone can tell, distributed into other forms like soil, will become part of the food chain again.

What can and will continue is the memories people have of me and so "I" will "live" on their memories - they will know it and be conscious of it, but there will be no "I" to be conscious of "me".

As far as anyone can tell, I guess!

And yes, we are, all of us and all of the universe really, in the middle of "eternal life". Eternity is now.

Thanks for a good start to the discussion. Enjoyed it.

Love and peace

Tony


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Very cool hub Austinstar, and I like he rules too!

Right off the bat I noticed that you missed something that I would think to be a very relevant part of such a dialogue, and it sort of screws up part of the infinity observation..."Black holes" are an observable fact because we can see X-ray emissions that are left behind after an object is sucked into (crosses the Swartchild radius radis) one of them.

I noticed you used Einsteins E=MC2, and that is convenient because Einstein failed acknowledge black holes.

We know however that black holes are the evolutionary end of stars that are many times more massive than our own sun. When such stars go "supernova" or explode, they can sometimes leave behind stellar remnants that will collapse upon themselves in the absence of gravity when that occurs the eventuality is a point of zero gravity called the singularity.

The gravitational forces at the singularity are so powerful that not even light can escape them. No information can be extrapolated from this region, and therefore it is called a black hole, with the surface dubbed "event horizon".....A real easy way to think of one is a single bubble from a scuba divers exhale.

Now then, why do I even mention it? Simple, because there are possible things inside of black holes that we cannot even imagine, and anything inside of a black hole is, in point of fact,(trapped) from taking "infinite steps" in any direction.

Additionally, (this rests highly on speculation mind you) their have been some (secular) scientists to postulate that if the big bang were really a stellar event in and of itself. The chain reaction that started expanding the universe as we know it may well be a black hole...Around 1990 Sagittarius A* was determined to be the exact center of the Milky Way, and it is associated with a black hole of 3.6 million solar masses. That of course could mean that we are ourselves are observing our own universe bubble (event horizon) from the inside looking out. Since therefore, like an observable explosion on earth we can see the expansion as it occurs, and we can see a bubble expand as it fills with gas or air. It would also mean that black holes can exist within other black holes...Why not? I've seen bubbles inside of other bubbles. My older sister used to do three or four of them inside of each other with a piece of Bazooka Joe.

In the end what all of that really means to me is simply that no one can wrap it all up in a nice little package with a bow around it and say "there you go for a fact". I view the universe as very complex, and we as humans are so young in the discovery of what may still be out there that each new discovery brings with it more questions than answers.

For (me) it also means that no one can rule out intelligent design. I won't go into the possibility of weight and mass being a possibility of the "energy" inside of living things, as you have already done a nice job of explaining the concept.

Thanks for a great read Austinstar (voted up).


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Well I did mention that matter and energy do strange things. A black hole is doing just that, some very strange things. Someday scientists will figure it out. Not theologans,though. They will continue to call it the invisible god thing.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

I agree Austinstar, no theologian using only the bible as his or her point of refernce has a chance in hell of figuring it out.


christopheranton profile image

christopheranton 5 years ago from Gillingham Kent. United Kingdom

I can see a lot of sense in what you say, but I still prefer to stick with my simple beliefs. If they are wrong I dont expect to know about it anyway. But one thing you did say struck me as particularly right. That was the nature of what is alive. Because we are all made of atoms, as are all the rest of nature, there is no essential difference, on the atomic level, between me and a table, or even between me and a fossil. We are all just a collection of atoms anyway. Interesting hub, but then I expected that it would be when you were writing it.


fred allen profile image

fred allen 5 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

Saw you comment on James Watkins hub. What you contend is that if you arrange atoms just right they will form a functional living thinking human being.What you contend is that lifeless thoughtless atoms nonmiraculously came together and sparked life. What you contend is that matter is eternal and without cause. If what you contend were true then life would be without purpose. It would be the ultimate irony if creatures such as us who are so consumed with purpose, actually had none. Life came from non life? You contend that life had a beginning, but matter did not. I contend that matter had a beginning but life did not. There is evidence that the universe is expanding at a rate greater than the escape velocity of gravity. If true, light will cease to exist when the last star dies. That would reduce the potential window for life to exist to a very small window. Not even a blip on the scope of eternity. There are so mant factors that must be EXACT for life to emerge. We just hit the cosmic lottery? Why would anyone WANT a life without meaning? If that is what you desire, so be it. If you think yourself "smarter" than those who look at things from a different perspective, so be it. I can't stop you, but I can offer a different view. One with hope and purpose. In your world view, Hitler is no worse off than Mother Theresa. There is evidence for faith. Those who refuse to seek it are looking to be excused from their actions. So be it.


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Austinstar,

Nice hub.

One of my questions relates to the geocentric model of the universe and how we understand "knowledge". At the time of the geocentric model, varying hypothesis were developed that allowed the geocentric model to be used, although observations continually challenged that model. It took 2000 years to change the "knowledge" of human understanding that the geocentric model was wrong and the planets revolved around the sun.

We seem to be doing much the same with our current knowledge base. Obervations are subjective, and hence, subject to misinterpretation. As an educated people, we tend to quote our taught knowledge as "truth", when in fact it is only opinion.

How can we accept ontological contradictions as fact? Isn't rationality the starting point, rather than opinion, of what is reasonable and thus most likely?

Redshift, cosmic background radiation, radiation from supposed black holes - isn't a more consistent explanation of these phenomenon that we misinterpreted our own observations, trying to make our models fit the Big Bang model - just like the geocentric crusaders tried to hold the universe together with the earth in the center?

Sometimes the exclamations of the quantum neo-scientists sounds no different to me than the shouts of halleleujah from the theists.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Hi Austinstar…

I’m back to engage momentarily the question that is put forth from AKA asking if it is more likely that we have misinterpreted the cosmic background radiation of a black holes. The only logical answer to this is of course it’s possible that we have misinterpreted it, and that was also my point when I typed that mans observable notions of the universe are so young that more questions are created with each discovery than we have enough attained knowledge to answer other than speculatively in many regards.

The notion put forth in the hub article is not dissimilar to a static universe as once thought to be the case according to Einstein’s theory, and he had calculated into his general relativity theory. The static universe theory postulated that universe was constant in size, and operated as a closed system…This is very close to the idea of the hub, except that your model is infinite, and Einstein’s original static idea did not incorporate an infinite universe, but no matter both theories fall apart when the Hubble “red shift” comes into the field of play, and to put it simple the red shift explains why object colors change as they move away from the point from which they are observed. It is also a perfectly logical explanation from which to deduce that the universe is indeed expanding. The further an anomaly is from the us, the longer ago it occurred in the confines of time. The latter scientific observation, of Edwin Hubble is generally accepted as “fact” by the consensus of scientists today. Moreover Einstein himself abandoned his Static Universe theory, and referred to as the greatest blunder of his entire career.

So, I suppose up may be down, and left may be right, and pink might even be yellow at some point in the future when the latest scientific observations fall apart. It wouldn’t be the first time such things have happened. What’s your the point?

My point is that the mysteries of our universe aren’t likely to be solved in my lifetime. Intelligent Design is as reasonable of an explanation as any other, and God will not soon be abandoned. Get used to it.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

@SimeyC - Thank you for the kind words! I love your description of the soul of the universe fragmenting into beings (Us, I presume).

@TonyMac - {after death there is not likely to be any consciousness.} I think of death being very much like what life was like before we were born - a state of un-consciousness. We live in a time of thought waves now. It feels good, but it's probably a temporary condition. True, if noetic science is correct, we can physically live on as memories as they will also have weight and mass. Again, we won't look anything like we look now, LOL!

@cristopheranton - It looks like you "got it"! But we are really really SPECIAL atoms! (speaking facetiously).

@FredAllen - {You contend that life had a beginning, but matter did not.} I did NOT contend that, please reread the hub. You didn't "get it".

{Hitler is no worse off than Mother Theresa. There is evidence for faith. Those who refuse to seek it are looking to be excused from their actions.} - True, if I hand you a handful of Hitler's atoms and a handful of Mother Theresa's atoms, you will not be able to tell the difference. If you think that I am looking for an excuse to be a smartass and not be excused from my actions, you are quite wrong. Please see the hub by Mark Knowles who explains how non-theists have a better moral code than religionists. But then, you probably think he's a smartass too.

@Winston - You know I love you and your brain! Yes, just because we think we understand something doesn't make it true. {Sometimes the exclamations of the quantum neo-scientists sounds no different to me than the shouts of halleleujah from the theists.} Yes, but we do have to think in contemporary terms. Just as the 2,000+ year old book was written in terms that those of that time period could understand, we are doomed to think and write in the terms of this century. Perhaps 2,000 years from now, words like mine will sound like drivel too. In fact, I expect them to.

@ Coming of Age - Your momentary engagements cause me to write whole hubs :-) But {Intelligent Design is as reasonable of an explanation as any other, and God will not soon be abandoned. Get used to it.} you are correct. The notion of God will hang around a while longer. Unfortunately, life as we know it is probably headed for extinction like the dinosaurs and thousands of other examples of extinction, so I am not too concerned. My energy, essence, etc... will continue to be part of the whole.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

fred allen: "Life came from non life? You contend that life had a beginning, but matter did not."

Hi fred,

When you asked these same questions in my hubs, I pointed you to my hubs which explain in DETAIL why:

1) The idea of “CREATION” is only an irrational and contradictory CLAIM which flies in the face of reason. It is absolutely no different than claiming that: “a circle with 78 triangular sides can travel faster than Wednesday!”

2) Space and matter are IMPOSSIBLE to create; hence eternal.

3) It is IMPOSSIBLE for a God to exist or to have existed.....ever!

You had no counter-arguments or complaints about my hubs. In fact, you clearly stated that you understood them.

But now you come here to ask an atheist these same questions.....

Just what kind of reply are you hoping to get from Austinstar.....that space & matter were indeed created, and in no doubt, by God’s Big Bang?

fred allen: "There is evidence that the universe is expanding at a rate greater than the escape velocity of gravity.”

Fred, I am willing to bet 1 million dollars that you don’t understand that statement you made. You know why? Because gravity has no escape velocity! Gravity is not an object. Again......your statement is no different than: “a circle with 78 triangular sides can travel faster than Wednesday!”


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Oh yes, I thought I recognized that name - Fred Allen.

FatFist, Fred totally misquoted me as well. Perhaps he is lonely and needs to validate his opinions. (p.s. I don't NEED to validate my opinions, I WANT to! That's why I write hubs.)

Hey! you have a million dollars to bet with? We seriously need to run away somewhere together and spend that money! You can't take it with you, I'm just saying.

@ Fred Allen - And where in my hub did I imply --> {There are so mant (sic)factors that must be EXACT for life to emerge. We just hit the cosmic lottery? Why would anyone WANT a life without meaning?}

I meant to imply that Life, the Universe and Everything has always existed, it exists now, and it will always exist. This is meaning infinite enough for me.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(We seriously need to run away somewhere together and spend that money!)

Sure, as long as your husband doesn't find out....I've got a moral code to upkeep ;-)

But the point is....Christians are notorious for singing the "jingles" of their favorite apologists, and without even understanding what it is they are saying.

It blows me away how educated people can accept the unreasonable and often "gibberish" statements of others without so much blinking.

A claim is associated with a consummated event. A claim posits something that "supposedly" happened in the past; an event with a "beginning" and an "end". But in order for a "creation" event (verb) to begin, matter must already exist. Why? Because matterless motion is impossible! Nothing cannot acquire motion and initiate a verb (event).

People really need to review the terms: event, cause, effect, and object,...before they sing their popular jingles that creation is "factual", "supported by evidence", or God forbid..."it has been proven".

It is such Church Logic which prevents people from understanding reality. People are obsessed with parroting what their Pastor taught them last Sunday. But it’s not totally their fault. Both Religion and Mathematical Physics have been incessantly brainwashing people with the notion that “Existence is Created from Nothing”. And this irrational idea exploded in the mainstream ever since Georges Lemaitre conceived of a way to reconcile God’s creation with mathematics in 1927. And he did this to make the Pope happy!

So it’s no wonder that most people will parrot: “Evolution is JUST a Theory!”....without even understanding what the word “Theory” means. They are under the confusion that Theory means SPECULATION (ordinary speech), when it actually means EXPLANATION (scientific context).

Creation is only a CLAIM because it baldly asserts a "supposed event". And it is an irrational claim because it is full of contradictions. That's why it is impossible.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Fatfist-

Gravitational Escape Velocity is the speed required for an object for an object to break free of gravity...We do it right here on our own planet every time a shuttle, rocket, probe, or whatever is launched into space....Please make the check payable Autinstar, pack you bags too (no hard feelings), and I'll meet the two of you in San Antonio for one helluva new years party


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(There are so mant factors that must be EXACT for life to emerge.)

Hello, Fred,

Do us all a huge favor - by all I mean all of mankind - please describe exactly this mechanism of initiation of life because thus far in the history of mankind you seem to be the only one who knows that answer.

Are you a god?

No? Then quite possibly you are simply another noisey Creationist using baseless quasi-information that you believe substantiates your beliefs.

But here is the real deal - unless one knows the mechanisms of the initiation of life, one can never determine its likelihood.

And regardless of how remote a natural chance may turn out to be, it is always exponentially greater than the 0% chance that life was initiated by magical, mystical, mystery tour immaterial nothings - unless you've been popping Judy in The Sky tabs again.

Some people just cannot get over their childhood fear of the dark - and thus need their hand held all the way to the grave - but when I became a man, I put away childish things - and thinking.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I'm ready for the party and I don't care who pays, but I think the bet was that Fred Allen didn't understand his statement - {There is evidence that the universe is expanding at a rate greater than the escape velocity of gravity.}

Escape may be the key word here as it means "to get away from" which is impossible in an infinite universe. No matter how far you travel, or how fast you travel, one can never "escape" infinity.

Yes, FatFist, I too have a moral code, but a girl can dream, can't she?

I wonder sometimes if the fear of CHANGE is really at the core of all this debate. I see it at work every day. People are terrified of changing one little aspect of their mundane repetitive lives. It boggles my mind. I think Winston may have hit the nail squarely when he said that some people just cannot get over their childhood fear of the dark. They have to believe that things will stay the same when they die. They'll still have their binky (god) to hold onto when they change from "life" to "death".


GusTheRedneck profile image

GusTheRedneck 5 years ago from USA

Hi Lela (Austinstar) - Well done article. "But I can explain it in simple terms. I am that good." That one brought a big smile over here. When I was a child of about 14 years of age or so, one of my professors explained infinity this way - "If you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, they will in an infinte amount of time, type out the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica, word for word and letter for letter." Another taught that "a google" was a number one followed by 100 zeroes and that, in the scheme of things, a google was rather small. As is easily understood, vastness if really very vast, while half-vastness is only half vast. All of this good stuff is fun to play with so as to exercise your mind, right? And as to the black hole in the center of our galaxy, I read just the other day that they now recognize two "bubbles" around it, both 180 degrees in direction from each other and having a 50,000 light year distance from the reach of one to the reach of the other. If they could figure out how to fool us about what all of that really means, I am sure that they would offer all sorts of conflicting conjectures that would serve to increase our amusement.

All that I know, Lela, is that Frankenstein's monster had that bolt holding his neck together and that it went from left to right and not from front to back. Yes, there is order in the universe, but who knows what order is, or what the universe is, for all of that.

Gus :-)))

p.s.: I BBQd a big batch of your "Diablos" the other day. My mouth transplant is schedule for next Monday.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Touche Austinstar,

that was his bet, but he also madethe statement: {You know why? Because gravity has no escape velocity! Gravity is not an object.}....I'm just sayin'


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Is gravity an object? I don't think so either. It has no shape or form that I can see. I visualize gravity as more of an energy than an object.

@Gus - you are so funny! I knew the typing monkeys would show up. I heard it as they would type out the entire works of Shakespeare! Well, anything is possible in an infinite universe.

And Vast vs Half Vast? That's an infinite chuckle there!

And after you get your mouth transplant, I'll bet you will want to ruin it right away with some more diablos! They are addicting I tell ya.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

I can't say that gravity is an object specifically, but it definiely does have an escape velocity. That much is certain.

Of course it depens on several factors...Gravitational pull that holding object back, weight of object escaping, etc. So the actual velocity may vary, nevertheless...I'm just sayin'

Equation is...

Ug = -Gm1m2/r

Get on board here with me...You bring your old man, I'll bring my old lady, we'll fix Fatfist up with somebody, and he can pay for the whole kit & kaboodle.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Your facts are well taken, COA. We will have to stipulate that "escape velocity" is a measurement needed to send rockets into space. But escaping the universe is impossible.

I'll bet the 6 of us could have a great time! FatFist already has several sex slaves he can bring along. He's an entertaining fellow. Instead of San Antonio, let's go to Aruba! or Both!


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

"Typing Monkeys"...I love it, that's Hilarious!(LOL)

Of course it does not account for the critical thinking that is required to know where the probable "holes" in any given theory exist...Before you can use Brittanica you must know what to look for.

Does Brittanica still exist outside of the boxes in my attic?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Aruba's nice, we can hit the river walk on 12/31/10, Party till' 1AM. Then leave early w/hangovers the next morning to get our body scans/gropings overwith on 1/1/11, and then it's fly off to the beach...Im all over that!

Speaking of heading out, the boss is beckoning, and I'm outta' here.

It's been fun, Happy Thanksgiving!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(Gravitational Escape Velocity is the speed required for an object for an object to break free of gravity)

Too many errors.

An object can NEVER break free of gravity. Gravity is an effect between objects. It is a concept. Absolutely every single atom in the universe is gravitationally bound to all other atoms. No object in the universe can “block” or “break free” of gravity. It would do you some good to educate yourself on the basics of physics.

(We do it right here on our own planet every time a shuttle, rocket, probe, or whatever is launched into space)

You can launch whatever you want into space as long as you exceed the escape velocity of the PLANET, which is an object. Gravity is NOT an object. Gravity is an “effect” that is mediated by the attraction of at least 2 objects. The bulk of the attraction is between the planet and the rocket, although, every single object in the universe is tugging on that rocket. Gravity has NO escape velocity.

(Please make the check payable Autinstar)

Gravity has no escape velocity, so get over yourself; you're not as good looking as me! So here's what you can do since you lost the bet.....you can donate $10 to your nearest sick children's hospital. Are you “man enough” to do that?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(I can't say that gravity is an object specifically, but it definiely does have an escape velocity. That much is certain.)

Ha! Just listen to yourself.....you have no clue whether gravity is an object or a concept, yet you are 100% certain that ‘it’ has escape velocity? Just what is it that you are going to escape if you cannot draw an IMAGE of it to illustrate it for the audience?

You can escape your house, your place of employment, your mistress’s bed, and the asylum.....but you cannot escape that which has no borders or boundaries.....like gravity!

I’ll tell you what I’m gonna do for ya......just draw an image of this little ‘thingy’ you call “gravity”, or reference one online, and rationally explain how ‘it’ has an escape velocity. ..... and I’ll gladly give you the million bucks! Just what is this little ‘thingy’ supposed to escape from, itself?

And here you are already making preparations for vacations in the surf.....


AKA Winston 5 years ago

(both theories fall apart when the Hubble “red shift” comes into the field of play...The latter scientific observation, of Edwin Hubble is generally accepted as “fact” by the consensus of scientists today.)

Just a deferents and epicylcles were considered "fact" by the geocentrists of the day.

Don't be fooled - redshift and the Hubble Constant are not so secure a belief as you may think.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Fred Allen owes the million bucks, right? Or he never accepted the bet, or something. I'm getting bewildered! Where's the million and who's going where and when and with whom? I know we're not going to escape gravity, but can we at least get weightless? I'd go for that. Especially after this turkey dinner I just ate.

We watched Alice's Restaurant again. Wonderful movie.


FCEtier profile image

FCEtier 5 years ago from Cold Mountain

Arthur C. Clarke (author of "2001: A Space Odyssey" -- and a self proclaimed atheist) commented that if humans evolve to the point where no body is necessary, all that would be left would the soul -- some conscious form of intelligence.

I've often thought about that. Is this relevant here?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Fatfist-

Draw me a picture of oxygen, not a periodic symbol mind you, but the oxygen itself.

No such thing as escape velocity you insist, fine.

There are only a few hundred space vehicle launches to show otherwise, but hey it's much more fun to just say that black is green, and left is up.

To quote your "avatar": {Well it proves one thing sonny boy, it proves you college boys don't have sense to admit when you're wrong.}


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Often quoted:

"If you give an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, they will in an infinte amount of time, type out the entire Encyclopedia Brittanica, word for word and letter for letter."

This is so wrong. Here is my line of reasoning: First this assumes incorrectly that Monkeys are well behaved perfect random action generators in that it's just as likely that the letter e is pressed as is the letter z. This is not true. Any intelligence is incapable of infinitely doing random things. Monkeys have intelligence. Therefore they will not bang on the keys randomly. Also - You are sure to run out of paper! :-)

What would really happen is that a necessarily finite supply of paper would not be used correctly in the typewriters, the monkeys would bash the bezooga out of the machines and break them. Assuming they typed anything, it is most likely going to follow the trend of a real live monkey-typewriter experiment where they mostly hit the letter S for some reason - perhaps because it is snake-like in shape, abused the machines, used them as toilets and generally made a complete mess.

People either forget, or don't realise that infinity is not a number. It really is NOT a number in any sense. Infinity is a concept. It is useful in theoretical arguments as limits. For example, the area under a certain curve "tends to" 1 as x "tends to" infinity. What this does is tell you that the area under that curve is finite DESPITE the mental exercise that you need to consider a x-axis that extends towards infinity. A different curve could have an area that tends to infinity as x tends to infinity. These are important attributes for the respective curves, and give you great insight into the curve's shape and characteristics when used in a practical situation. If the area is a model for say 'money' or 'gas' or just 'energy' then the curve may have a practical application if the area is finite. Otherwise, the practical applications may be limited to certain ranges.

Those monkeys would need to be replaced by a theoretical device - something like "An unbreakable perfect random letter generator that operates without consuming power by sending output to a recording device of unlimited capacity" ... and these are only some of the constraints that must be made.

You should take the monkey-typewriter quote as a semi-joke. It is supposed to underline the characteristics of random events and unbounded experimentation time. Namely that in a true random series, ANY sequence is possible. But this is a very theoretical (and quite deep) concept. I could write pages on random number characteristics (and have done so) but hopefully this is useful to someone.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Fatfist-

I don't think Austinstar will allow links based on the rules for commenting, but a good place for you to start understanding escape velocity would be at a certain space administrations website. Just type the acronym, (+)".gov" into your address bar, and I will assume you'll be able to find your way after that.

Gravity is a force, you know, like the force that keeps your ass glued to that chair...The force be with you, but certainly you may escape it. To escape, just squeeze you sphincter and hope the velocity generated from flatulence of tryptophan will free your mind. For surely if you free your ass your mind will follow. Eventually you will get into space where there isn't just a whole helluva lot of gravity. Once there, it won't take you too much flatulent thrust to head in any direction you want to go becaause of the lack of friction. Then of course if you get close enough to any large mass; you'll get be pulled toward that mass if you're not careful. To escape that gravitional force you may need to pack some beans for the trip, certainly that won't be a problem...You're already full of them.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Arthur C Clark IS a God! Man, I wish I could write (and think) like him. I believe he was (and is) correct in his idea of consciousness without a body and this is very relevant to the science of Noetics. It's also relevant to the hub. I can only dream of such a thing, but that would be heaven to me.

Isaac Asimov is also one of my very favorite authors (Kiss My Asimov!). He wrote many, many words on the subject of Humanism and even created a robot that became human. He was an accomplished Biochemist and Scientist and a wonderful human being. He was friends with Clark and they shared the same amazing view of the universe and passed it along to me and the rest of the world. Someday I hope to accomplish 1/1000th of their success.

COA - {but hey it's much more fun to just say that black is green, and left is up.} It's even more fun to say "a circle with 78 triangular sides can travel faster than Wednesday!"

Manna - I am totally in awe of your grasp of physics. Did you teach it or something? Plus you know how to draw! Amazing. I only dabbled in physics and math, but excelled in the biological sciences. I can't draw, but I can paint and write reasonably well. Total randomness and infinity are perhaps impossible to understand. We can only guess at what it's like. I am still amazed that I "sort of" grasp infinite numbers. Still have a way to go to completely grasp the infinite universe, maybe you and FatFist and Winston and Coming of Age and some other brilliant hubbers here can help me. Thanks, guys :-)

One thing I do know though, "god" isn't a jealous, demanding, harsh being who would stand by and let his own "son/self" be tortured to death to "save" his imperfect "creation" from a "sin" he also "created". That dog won't hunt here. Makes no sense whatsoever.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

COA, you are hilarious! Are you trying to do some male bonding here?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Well, you can never have enough friends, but I thought the bovine excrement was starting to get too deep, so I interjected my own sarcasm.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Ok, here's a picture of oxygen ( ) It's a very, very tiny picture, you might need a spectroscope to see it, but it's there. It's pretty cute too :-)

And I specialize in cow cookies AND sarcasm. I use Gorilla Glue to keep my ass glued to the chair as I breathe in oxygen. No amount of beans will blast me into space, I can guarantee that!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

Don't mean to step into another's battle, but you don't sound to me as if you understand what you are talking about, and you don't seem to listen (or read) what is being said to you.

(Draw me a picture of oxygen,)

All you have to do is use Google images and type in oxygen molecule and you can get all the drawings you want of oxygen. The oxygen molecule is a real object, i.e., it has shape and a location, even if we don't know its exact shape or precise location - it exists objectively, observer independent.

(Gravity is a force, you know, like the force that keeps your ass glued to that chair)

Here, you have said nothing.

"Force" is a concept. A concept cannot hold your ass down in a chair. There must be a physical (read real) means that holds you stationary. The job of physics is to explain how that might be done - not by magical "forces" (which is really no different than saying God's will) - but by a physical (though possibly non-visible) medium that connects your butt to that chair.

When someone starts talking about mythical concepts like force, dark matter, dark energy, and singularities he is doing nothing more than chanting the mantras of a neo-religion.

No wonder the neo-religionists need "the force" to be with them - because rationality ain't.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(Draw me a picture of oxygen)

Ahhhhhh.....you eluded my questions and want to go in the direction of “show me yours before I show you mine!”

No problem, COE, here....let me educate you....wipe the crusty monkeys out of your eyes and READ...

Oxygen is an object because it has shape/form, a border/boundary....it is ‘something’ rather than nothing. This object is what comes in CONTACT with your lungs to facilitate in breathing. This object also comes in contact with a tree during a wind storm, and pushes the tree to the ground. Did you know that?

Science has many hypothesized models for atoms. Here are the most popular models illustrating what oxygen looks like: Thomson berries, Bohr's bead, Debroglie's ribbon, Born's cloud, Lewis shell. Which one did your Pastor teach you in church?

You can google images of atoms from all of these models. The mechanics are still using Bohr's planetary model to describe everything from electricity to ionization to bonding. Here’s how the oxygen OBJECT is hypothesized to look like in Bohr’s model:

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/...

http://www.rkm.com.au/OXYGEN/index.html

The bottom line is.....all atoms are objects because they have shape. You don’t need to “see” them to understand this.

.....and the reason why you CAN’T draw a picture of gravity, is because it is not an object; has no shape. Gravity is a concept. Are you gonna tell the audience that gravity is an object that pelts you on the head and makes you fall towards the Earth? Every single time I pelted the bullies in school, they fell “away” from me, not “towards” me! Comprende?

(No such thing as escape velocity you insist, fine.)

Exactly! Escape velocity is not a ‘thing’, it is not a noun, it does not have shape. It is a concept; a RELATION between objects, like the ‘spaceship’ and the ‘Earth’. It is a relation which embodies the rate of change of ‘location’ between the spaceship and the Earth. What is it that you don’t understand? I mean, we learn this basic stuff in Physics 101.

(There are only a few hundred space vehicle launches to show otherwise)

And what does that show exactly? Are you gonna be like Fred Allen and take the “vow of silence” whenever an audience member asks you the tough questions? I already asked you several times to rationally explain that gravity is an object....you can’t....case closed.

(Gravity is a force)

----BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR COE ----

Gravity is ‘a’ force? Please draw an image of this little critter (noun) you call ‘a’ “force”. This will be interesting!

Listen you clueless ape.....Force is a VERB – to force! Force is what something DOES, not what something IS. Force is a concept, a relation between 2 or more objects.

You really need to get with the program, COE....this is basic stuff!

----END PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR COE ----

You see, COE, the reason why you keep chasing your tail in circles is because you don’t understand the difference between an OBJECT and a CONCEPT. Did you play with blocks in JK? This is where human apes first learn to discern objects (that which has shape) from concepts (relations). If you paid attention to your Kindergarten teacher, you wouldn’t be making a fool out of yourself in public with every post. Were you that kid in the corner who picked his nose and ate it?

In short....you’ve said NOTHING, COE.....absolutely nothing!

Now you are expected to donate $20 to a Sick Children’s Hospital near you. Are you gonna elude this too? Be a man!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Hi Winston! When Fred coughs up the money for losing the bet, are you coming along? I think we might go to Oz instead. And the battle falls on all of our shoulders. We may not be 100% correct or eloquent, but we need to argue our points. Science has a real place in the universe and those that belittle it should be blasted back to the first century. I wonder if they would miss their cars and homes and toys? They could always replace them with joyous adoration of carpenters and watching magic shows. They could take comfort in knowing where they are going to GO when they die!

Until then, I'll choose science. There is so much to learn and enjoy.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

As a child I realised that if you traveled out from Earth, looking for the 'end' of space, then assuming you found it - it might be say, a brick wall, then you would wonder what is beyond that. Of course every scenario ends like this. Today, we also know that space itself is expanding, analogous to the berries on the surface in a fruit bun as is expands, furthermore, the rate of expansion has been observed to continuously increase. So even the idea of reaching some outer limit becomes implausible. As Douglas Adams wrote, "Space is Big."

By observing this expansion, and creating a mathematical model that fits, we wind the equations backwards, and realise that although it looks like there is no 'end' to time, there was a beginning. Despite the highly accepted idea of a past singularity for our universe, space does appear to us as 'infinite'. Certainly, we have an 'observable' universe which must be a sub-set of the rest of it where the observable universe is determined by the speed of light which means that there is stuff out there that we can never observe.

At one time, it was an open question in physics whether our universe would eventually stop expanding, and then start to collapse. But it's been recently thought that we live in a 'flat' universe. And more recently that it is 'open' and will expand forever.

One idea is that of a 'heat death' which means that given a fixed volume of space, the average energy within that volume tends to decrease until there is not enough energy difference between one locale and the next for it to move. In temperature terms this is -273.15 degrees C (or 0 Kelvin).

If life/universe is headed for a heat death, then you could wonder how life would behave as temperatures cooled. As long as there are temperature gradients, then energy and therefore thought processes, and 'life', can exist. But as the universe cools, the rate of exchange of energy must slow. This means that events slow as well, and that is like saying that time slows too. So a consciousness in the far future might take 1 million of our 'years' to raise it's hand. But the fellow conscious beings' mental processing and physical processes would be so slow (by our standards) that in their frame of reference, it looks as normal to them as our actions do to us now.

This is actually a similar idea to spacetime relativity where time itself cannot be universal and absolute, but depends on the relative motion of each party. "time" as a concept may well be defined locally by a consciousness able to note, record and communicate the passing of events, and events are characterized by a movement of energy from one location to another.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

Take this off-topic conversation to my hub "creation is impossible". That's where I responded to you!

You're not gonna run and hide like Fred Allen, are you? He is not able to defend his faith....I hope you can defend your "faith".

See you at my hub....


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Winston,

("Force" is a concept.)

Well said. Standing ovation!

Thank you.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Well hello AKA,

First of all I hope I don't "sound" like anything to you, because if that is the case you're "hearing" something that isn't there...That's a joke of course.

Now, I get the whole "concept" thing but I cannot see what is gained from throwing hundreds of years of science out the window.

Certainly (you) can sit and suggest that when Newton observed gravity that he was only seeing a "concept", but the majority of the world recognizes a physical law.

In order to disprove the physical law, I would (speaking of magic) like to see you levitate....Not in an airplane, not, in space, or a vacuum, but right here on good old planet earth. If you can't do that, then I can only assume it is you who doesn't know what you're typing about.

Gravity is still recognized by prominent non-theists today, so because you don't personally don't want to accept it, I would have to ask what do got that's better? From what I can tell just the old static universe theory, buteven it observes gravity. The static universe theory isn't new, and in fact theists have used that theory as a foundation for creation before also.

I thought we were having a dialogue about the universe here, so this idea of magic that you keep trying to bring into the dialogue is old hat...In fact you aren't talking physics once you start throwing all of the laws of physics out the window. You're talking meta-physics, and abstract thought.

I can't keep up with that sort of mental masturbation for certain, and don't even intend to try. If it makes you feel good to stroke your grey matter in a rapid, and repetative fashion however, then have at it.

By the way, stick with your theory. I'm not the one bringing a magical being into it, for if I were, I would only be able to say that (you're) making me believe in miracles...I mean come on, a supernatural could surely make a donkey talk, if he can make an AKA ASS type on a keyboard.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Fatfist-

I am afraid that I will be disapointing you. I did not come to this hub to "defend" my faith. I have no intention of subjecting myself to an inordinate amount of abstract thought that is nothing short of mental masturbation to stroke your ego.

I am not an authority in chaos and anarchy, but aparently you are.

I'll stick with the traditionally recognized Newton's and Hubble's, but thanks anyway.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

So, let me get this straight - COA is asserting that gravity is an object and FatFist and Winston say it's a force.

COA, I have to agree with FatFist and Winston. It even used to be termed "gravitational force".

Oxygen is an object as it is physically viewable and has weight and mass.

Gravity is like magnetism as it must act or be acted upon to visualize.

I think I'm straight now. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Wrong Austinstar....I'm asserting that gravity is a force and a physical law.

Winston, & Fatfist are asserting that gravity is a concept.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(Newton observed gravity)

More gibberish and nonsense. Newton mathematically described gravity....that is all. He had no hypothesis (hypothesis non fingo) because he did NOT understand how gravity was mediated. And he certainly did not observe gravity. Get educated and learn the basics....especially what an object and concept is.

I drew Oxygen for you.....but you ran with your tail between your legs!

Your turn.....draw gravity....especially since Newton already observed it (according to you).

(I am afraid that I will be disapointing you.)

Actually, no. I already knew you were full of caca from your very first post. No disappointment for me at all. The only disappointment is yours, because you finally realized that you haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about.....”blue escapes gravity faster than Wednesday”.

(I'll stick with the traditionally recognized Newton's and Hubble's, but thanks anyway.)

You don’t understand any of it. You don’t even understand what Newton did.

(masturbation)

Oh, sorry to have interrupted you......please continue or go back to sleep.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Okay, force is a concept? Like time is a concept?

Is masturbation a concept? Or a force? I'm confused.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

You know for a non-theist you really like to jump on the jedi mind tricks quite rapidly.

I use the word "observe", and you immediately attract your mind to it like a magnetic FORCE...Semantics (mental masturbation)! Newton observed the gravitational force of the earth as the apple fell to the ground! The law is Gravity! The force is Gravity! It's quite established, maybe you've heard of it?

Dude you really need to quit asral projecting and come back to this plane of existence.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(I'm asserting that gravity is a force...)

----BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR COA ----

Gravity is ‘a’ force? Please draw an image of this little critter (noun) you call ‘a’ “force”. This will be interesting!

Force is a VERB – to force! Force is what something DOES, not what something IS. Force is a concept, a relation between 2 or more objects.

You really need to get with the program, COA....this is basic stuff!

----END PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR COA ----

So now you AGREE that gravity is a concept!!

(... and a physical law.)

Laws are concepts too!

The term physical is a synonym for OBJECT since it alludes to shape/form.

Physical = object

Law = concept

So gravity is an “object concept” now according to you? Can you ever make up your mind?

Please lay off the masturbation so you can talk coherently, COA.

(Winston, & Fatfist are asserting that gravity is a concept.)

Wrong! No assertion at all. Gravity is a relation between objects. Gravity is an attraction (verb/concept); the attractive “effect” (verb/concept) between all objects. That NECESSARILY makes gravity a concept! It is you who is irrationally asserting gravity to be an “object” AND a “concept” AND an “object concept”. Very delusional and contradictory to say the least.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

It's a concept until it becomes a forceful reality.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Gravity is a force. A force is what physicists call an observation that fits into a theory and yet is not explained or derived from first principles. We KNOW that it is there, but cannot explain it. We also make use of it to make predictions, conduct experiments, and test the theories. We know that gravity is a property of an object that has mass.

There used to be an 'electric force' and a 'magnetic force' but these are now combined into a single force: the 'electromagnetic' force. This is not just a semantic convenience, it's the unification of two separately developed theories which negate the need for an independent magnetic and electric force. The electromagnetic force is known to be carried by the photon. However, as yet, we have no complete explanation for the gravitational force. At present, we have a hypothetical 'graviton' as a candidate for the force-carrier for gravity, but it has not been experimentally observed. This is because, at our epoch, and scale in the present universe, detecting a graviton is very difficult since it is so weak. Hopefully some of the experiments at CERN at LHC will go some way towards an explanation for gravity.

Gravity is not like the other forces. Gravity is everywhere. There is no way to shield it or oppose it, otherwise you could levitate on Earth, and build vehicles that did not require energy to move, and also create perpetual motion machines. None of those are possible.

There are four fundamental forces in physics: gravity, electromagnetism, weak nuclear and strong nuclear force. The latter three are unified into a single theory known as the standard model. Gravity has so far resisted attempts to be unified with the standard model.

Oxygen is an object because it is an elemental molecule consisting of a nucleus of 8 protons, 8 neutrons, two electron orbits, the nearest with 2 electrons, and the outer with 6. It is reactive. It has rest mass, you can weigh it, you can accelerate it.

At -182.96°C you can pick it up and look at it because it takes on a liquid form.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(Is masturbation a concept?)

Isn't it a relation between 2 objects....hand and xxx, vibrator and xxx, etc?

Of course it's a concept!

COA cannot draw an image of masturbation either. At best, he can draw a picture of a hand, and either a peepee or a weewee.

He cannot draw an image of gravity either. Gravity is a concept, has no shape. At best he can draw an image of the Earth and a rocket. Too funny!


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Hey Austintar...Thanks for the hub, it's been fun.

I'm gone now though, there's no sense hanging around when all recognized known physical law is thrown out the window.

The dialogue has degenerated at this point to anarchy with no basis in reality.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Last comment...I'll take my physics 101 class with Manna in the Wild at the instructor helm.

Goodnight


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

Hello.

I don't know if you are being clever or if you simply refuse to understand - but I think you are being clever or a smart ass.

However, I have met people so self-centered as to be unable to grasp opposing thought, so I can't be sure...

I am pretty certain you understand that "gravity" is not a thing like an "apple" is a thing, so it would have been impossible for Newton to observe gravity - what Newton saw was the apple. So far, so good?

What Newton observed was the effects of gravity upon an object - in truth, he watched as the relationship between two objects, a big object (earth) and a smaller object (apple) changed.

It is that changing relationship between real objects that we term gravity - we conceptualize the action as being caused by a "force" which we name "gravity". But what we are really doing is simply describing the movement, the change in relative positions of two objects - as if watching a movie.

Reality occurs one frame at a time. When we discuss multi-frame events - an apple falling to the ground - we can only conceputalize, envision, think, express as an idea, as reality is not multi-framed and thus concepts that express multi-framed ideas such as gravity cannot be a reality. It would be like saying movement is a thing I can hold in my hands - no, movement is a concept, just as gravity is a concept.

It is only in the philosophical realm that non-objects such as concepts are said to exist. In the real world - in nature - only objects that have location can exist.

So, in a sense, the description of the action of the concept gravity is accurate, in that apples and balls fall down instead of up - but the question remains: what physical medium causes the ball or apple to move in that direction?

I only know this: it's not the will of gravity.

Hope that helps.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna - thank you for introducing solid science to the discussion.

(Gravity is not like the other forces. Gravity is everywhere. There is no way to shield it or oppose it, otherwise you could levitate on Earth, and build vehicles that did not require energy to move, and also create perpetual motion machines. None of those are possible.)

I'm going to have to say someday we will understand it and be able to do the impossible. Once it was thought that faster than sound travel was impossible. Now it is thought that faster than light travel is impossible. You explained why, but I did not understand the terms and math. Still I think that someday it will be possible to travel faster than light, just as we broke the sound barrier, we will be able to break the light speed barrier. I don't pretend to know how we will do such a thing, but I see it happening. I think we will understand gravity at some point also.

Now if I could only get nurses to learn how to screw the top down properly on the urine cups...

COA and FatFist - Draw an image of a rocket ship blasting off and say goodnight. Time for me to get my beauty sleep.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Yes, thank you Winston. I prefer the soft language and simple illustrations. Manna is way smarter than me and he scares me. (We always fear what we do not understand).

FatFist makes me laugh and he is a rough one! But I feel that I am laughing with him, not at him.

COA gave me a few chuckles today too. He's pretty smart too.

Great discourse!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Hi Austinstar. There is a fundamental difference between the sound 'barrier' and the speed of light. Sound travels in a medium like air or wood or metal. It is an energy wave caused by molecules bumping into others onto others and so on. So this energy travels IN the medium. It cannot travel through a vacuum.

Sound travels FASTER in a dense medium compared to a sparse one. You can do the experiments quite easily. So it's not even a 'barrier'.

Light is electromagnetic energy which does not require a medium for propagation. In fact when light enters a medium, in aggregate, it is slowed down. c (the symbol for the speed of a photon in free space) is roughly 3x10^8 meters per second. In the early days, light was thought to travel through an aether. But an experiment disproved this conclusively (Michelson–Morley experiment performed in 1887). It's quite easy to measure the speed of light in a vacuum but no one has ever measured anything going any faster. That a photon has no rest mass means it cannot accelerate. Therefore an individual photon can ONLY travel at c - even in a medium. But in aggregate, a light beam consisting of many photons takes longer to bump its way through something like water or glass. Each individual photon travel at c, bumps into an atom, get absorbed, disturbs the atomic structure which re-emits a new photon (because of the law of conservation of energy) in a different direction. This explains scattering and refraction and phase shifts. To see this, just poke a long stick into water.

You can measure the speed of light with a chocolate bar and a microwave oven.

Take out the rotating tray. microwave the chocolate and measure the distance between melted areas - probably about 0.122m. This is the wavelength. The frequency that the microwave oven runs at is printed on the back of the oven (It's about 2.4GHz). Then use this formula:

2450*10^6 times 0.122

Oh and sorry for being scary - it's not my intention. You deserve the attention for being open minded and sensible and willing to learn.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

(I'm gone now though, there's no sense hanging around when all recognized known physical law is thrown out the window)

Wow! That is the most formidable argument you have posted to date. I am speechless. You have brought fatfist to his knees with such a powerful argument. So based on your above statement, can you please give me your real name so I know who to write the million dollar cheque to?

I mean, based on your childish behavior here, I was gonna write it out to “Daddy’s Little Princess”.

Oh, btw, please let me know how I can THROW around this concept you have personally named, “physical law”. Do you use your hand to grab it by its edge and throw it like a Frisbee? Must be fun. So that’s how all the inmates of the asylum entertain themselves.

You know COA, there's this joke where a reporter goes to interview the most famous psychiatrist in the world, who happens to run an Insane Asylum. In the middle of the interview, an aide rushes in and yells, "Dr. Jones, Johnny has escaped again and has climbed a tree. He doesn't want to come down."

The reporter follows Dr. Jones to see the famous psychiatrist in action.

Dr. Jones (standing below the tree, shouting): "Johnny, come down from there."

Johnny: "No I won't."

Dr. Jones (a little frustrated): "Johnny, come down from there, now!”

Johnny: "No I won't!"

Dr. Jones (exasperated): "Okay Johnny! That's it! (The doc pulls out his comb and shows it to Johnny.) You see this comb? I will start sawing the tree if you don't come down. And you'll come crashing down and hurt yourself. You hear?"

Johnny (scared to death): "No, no, doc....don't do it! OK. I'll come down. Don't cut the tree, PLEASE!! (Johnny comes right down with his pants all peed.)

Reporter (amazed): “You are truly wonderful Dr. Jones! What technique! What an incredible masterpiece of psychology that got him to comply without using any force.”

Dr. Jones: "Technique? Psychology? Are you kidding me? If Johnny didn't comply, I would have indeed cut the tree down with my comb!"

P.S.

Here, I’ll make it real easy for you, COA, so you don’t have to use your comb to cut down trees.

1) If you, or anyone else, can rationally explain why gravity is not a concept, I will PayPal you $10,000 in cold hard cash! We have a deal? Remember, I am on the record! I can’t back out now.

2) If you, or anyone, can refute any of my hubs, I will PayPal you another $10,000. So let it be written, so let it be done!

And this is not a bet. If you can’t do it, at least you’ll feel safe in knowing that it won’t cost you anything. The odds are 100% in your favour.

If you feel man-enough, come and post your answers to either 1 or 2 in any of my hubs. Bring your most intelligent friends too. See you there!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna, I was just being silly when I said you scared me. I'm usually pretty fearless.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Hi Austinstar…

Well, I’ve had a good nights sleep and now I’m ready to let you know why your infinite universe is too damn small. I will let you know as best I can, and under the rules that you set forth, but failed last night to enforce. Your rules went out the window when the first quote of typing monkey’s was allowed to become part of the post, I myself broke the rule when I quoted Robert Shaw to throw some sarcasm in Fatfists direction. My only defenses being that you allowed the box to be opened first, it was not part of the overall subject matter dialogue, and let’s face it was funny…I’m just sayin’

Okay, now that I have my coffee….Have you ever heard the term “educated idiot”, and are you fully aware of its meaning. Educated idiots are like people that go the pine forest to fine a pine cone, but see them because the trees are in the way. If you show them a pinecone falling from a tree and say to them “there’s one” they are too preoccupied with what caused the pinecone to fall in the first place, and forget what they came to the forest for. They still cannot see the pinecone itself falling to the ground, or surely they would know to simply reach out and catch it. This analogy illustrates the same problem with a universe that is so infinite and so vast that it has room for everything in it, except that one thing, a supernatural being.

It’s interesting that last night gravity became the subject of so much superfluous nonsense because it serves to illustrate the point very well…Manna has the vocabulary of physics in his tree of knowledge to explain why gravity is a “force”. It was painfully obvious that I do not. What I do have however is an understanding of the principle. I know the principal, but lack the language of physics in my vocabulary to expound on it ad infinitum. The reason that that an atheist cannot make room for a supernatural being in an infinite universe is just the opposite. That’s right…They know all of the language, but understand nothing of the principle. Winston, Fatifist are you with me?

Winston, you particularly are a glaring example of this. In at least one of your articles you quote biblical text with an intellectual knowledge of the definition of the individual words, but you are unable to grasp the overall meaning. Let me put it to you this way; that supernatural being that you fail to imagine in an infinite universe (God) is a force, or if you prefer, then a concept. I think Winston knew this at one time, but for what ever reason lost touch with God. I’ve seen it before, sometimes this is anger, or sometimes it is simply arrogance. We lose someone, or something very important to us and become angry with God. Maybe we think we have become so smart that we can rule the possibility of God.

Fatfist, I know that I pissed you off last night, but I did in a jocular way that you should have been able to understand because you do it so very often when someone that believes in a supernatural being comments to you. Too bad if you didn’t like it, learn to lighten up man, your so busy trying to be right, that you have no idea how to be civil. All you want to do is bash someone else for their belief. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.

How open minded is science that starts from a position that rules out the possibility of God?

Okay I’m gonna’ tell you now how to make room in an infinite universe for a supernatural being. Go somewhere as far away from the city as possible. Take your favorite physics book with you and read a couple chapters from it quietly. Put the book down, and start imaging all of the things (you) don’t know, and all of the things that (you) will never possibly know. Open up your mind to the INFINITE possibilities. I know that the idea of something that can’t be explained makes some uncomfortable, but that’s just the way it is, not everything can be explained. To think you know it all is narcissism.

Finding that supernatural being is another matter, and it is equally simple, but infinitely harder to do until you reach a humbled desire. The supernatural being is right in front of your nose, and that being will make its presence known to you when you’re ready, but you will never be ready until you let go of anger, arrogance, and narcissism.

Austinstar…Thanks for the hub, you’re a true Texas Rose. I hope you have room in your intellect to understand that I think what separates us from other organisms in the universe is a divine spark from a supernatural being. The reason I think it is simple, and that is that no other organism that we know of is self aware. You can lead a porpoise, or a monkey, or any other supposedly intelligent mammal to it’s own “death” time and again after they have witnessed others of their own species go to their demise, and they will not protest , run, or struggle until violence touches them individually. The reason for this is that they have no “concept” of their own mortality. They do not have the conscientiousness that is inside of you. Sure they’re alive, but as you have already illustrated so poignantly, the definition of life itself varies.

Mankind cannot now, nor has it ever been able to create…We can put to use the elements we know of, and we can even manipulate them with cold, or heat and so on to invent, but we will always be limited to the raw materials of the universe. Other than that we can only replicate, forge, or counterfeit, but we cannot make something from nothing. Life is not an accident.

Peace Out!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Austinstar: I know that :) I was jus' playing the game too.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

{Finding that supernatural being is another matter, and it is equally simple, but infinitely harder to do until you reach a humbled desire. The supernatural being is right in front of your nose, and that being will make its presence known to you when you’re ready, but you will never be ready until you let go of anger, arrogance, and narcissism.}

COA- In this hub I did actually make room for a supernatural being. (They even believe that “God” has weight and mass somewhere. You know what? They could be right! Yes, you heard me. I said it. In an infinite universe, it could happen.)

Supernatural things are possible. We don't know everything. The thing that most religionists believe in, the thing they call god, just could NEVER win me over. By virtue of the First Commandment, I would never trust "him". "I am a jealous god", oh come on, Really????


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Yes Austinstar you did, and I read that...You however take the position of an agnostic from what you have typed elsewhere, and that position of course does not conclude the absence of a supernatural being, but only states that there is not way for us to know for sue...Did I get that right?

Anyway, your point is made, but since I had in a way initiated this hub by asking you a couple of questions, I thought it only fair that I let you know why my thinking on deity is different, and why I feel that you are much more than an evolved mammal.

Trust is a a big issue for many people. I didn't come here to try to defend God, and I respect your opinion and you have right to think and feel as you do.

I'm outta here, going fishing in the snow, one of the best times...No Tourists!

Have a great weekend.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Fatfist-

Quickly I will tell you why your challenge soesn't interest me or likely anyone else for that matter...Manna already demonstrated in the language of physics that gravity is a force, and why...That means it is not an idea, or a hypothesis becuase as he stated we know it's there, but I know you want to define "concept" differently than Webster, so the rules are out the window to start with.

Otherwise put $10K in PayPal for Manna...I think he proved you sooooo wrong! It's like Gravity...Sucks!


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

You seem to have the same blind eye many theists have in that they only read what fits their beliefs. If you remember, the discussion was about concepts verses objects, and Mana said this:

(Gravity is a force. A force is what physicists call an observation that fits into a theory and yet is not explained or derived from first principles.)

A force is a concept, a description "of an observation that fits into a theory", and it is not a "thing" (think apple). Gravity and force are both concepts.

(Oxygen is an object...)

Exactly. It has shape and a location.

Mana also went on to say this:

(We know that gravity is a property of an object that has mass.)

Again, gravity is a property of an object. Only objects can exist. Without objects, there is no gravity. Gravity is not a thing - it is a description of a property of an object.

And you, Coming of Age, said this:

(Let me put it to you this way; that supernatural being that you fail to imagine in an infinite universe (God) is a force, or if you prefer, then a concept.)

Again, you do not listen (or read) or perhaps it is a comprehension problem. I most clearly have stated that concepts "exist" in philosophy; the problem you have is you don't like to accept that distinction and try to force an actualized world view. There is no object God. There is only the concept God. Therefore, God cannot be actual - or real. God is a philosophy.

God is a thought, a concept, an idea, or a force. He only lives in the mind - or within the confines of philosophy.

The LNC states If P then not-P. Either anything is possible or anything is not possible. If an immaterial being (a concept) can exist in the actual world, then you have to also believe that a round square is possible in the actual world.

I do not accept that. Some things are not possible, in my view. For example, a married bachelor is not possible. Neither is an immaterial being that is real and can interact with real objects.

Odd seeming, but mine is the more consistent view. The "anything is possible God crowd" will pooh-pooh the childhood belief in Santa Claus, but there if you accept the irrational (an immaterial being God) then you cannot rule out Santa (an immaterial being Santa) without contradiction. You might think you can PROVE Santa doesn't exist, but then you are in the same boat as the atheist trying to PROVE there is no God.

Myself, I like things simpler. I prefer a rational world -one where I don't have to pretend there is either a God or that there is an invisible closet monster ready to eat me at night (both of which must be possible, btw, if anything is possible.)

In my world, I separate fantasy (irrational) from reality (rational). Can the theist really make that claim or is he simply expressing opinion?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Has anyone else noticed that the religionists are avoiding this hub? They're not usually shy to comment. Perhaps I have offended them in some way?


qwark profile image

qwark 5 years ago

Hi Austin:

Great "hub."

I left you a comment in my "hub:" "It was a helluva ride."

Qwark


AKA Winston 5 years ago

Coming of Age,

I think I can cut to the chase of this argument with some simple cut and paste - not to create a new view but to eliminate unnecessary verbage. Here is what has been said and agreed to:

(Gravity is a force.)

(A force is a concept)

(We know that gravity is a property of an object that has mass.)

And you, Coming of Age, said this:

(Let me put it to you this way; that supernatural being that you fail to imagine in an infinite universe (God) is a force, or if you prefer, then a concept.)

Therefore, by agreement, God (a concept/force) is a property of an object that has mass (the human brain).

As Kant explained, only real things can have properties, and properties of themselves are not things.

Ergo, no human brain, no God.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Winston, by your definition God is a force, and a concept.

Every Sunday (other days too) something that can neither be drawn, seen, touched, or observed compels millions of people around the world to go to their choice of temple, and worship a supernatural concept.

By the way, why do you need to quote Manna directly to try make your point. He didn't use the word "concept", that's your interpretation, and I am still playing by the rules, but maybe you didn't read them?

At any rate Winston, I'm shaking the dust off my feet and moving from this point.

Austinstar...Thanks for the hub, I'll check out your next one.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

COA,

(By the way, why do you need to quote Manna directly to try make your point.)

You are in LOVE with this guy, aren't you? Even though you haven't the faintest clue of what he is saying.

You have a background in practicing idolatry, right?


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Given the statement, "Only objects can exist. Without objects, there is no gravity. Gravity is not a thing - it is a description of a property of an object." [ Winston ].

I stated that the photon is the carrier for the electromagnetic force. You can see photons (visible light). You can feel photons too (heat). You can indirectly hear them (via a radio - radio-waves), and you can measure the pressure on a target as a laser hits it. It's pretty clear that a photon is an object. It's a 'packet of energy', and by the mass-energy equivalence equation you can interpret mass as energy and energy as mass by applying the conversion factor of c^2 [ the speed of light ]. Don't argue with that one if you watch TV, use a GPS, have a solar cell or note that something goes 'ding-dong' when you pass into a shop. All those devices rely on photons and e=mcc. A photon is energy is light is mass, and can do things like a little particle. It's an object ok? [ For those who know - I am purposely omitting wave-particle duality as it would only confuse at this time. ]

Here is a question for those who care to tackle it:

If we find a way to measure a graviton (and this would necessarily be indirectly - it's so NOT easy compared to the photon!) it would then be illustrated as the force carrier for gravity so by analogy with the photon, could the graviton behave as an object?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

FatFist, Is it possible to accept that gravitons MAY exist as an object that we cannot see or measure at this time? Photons were concepts at one time I believe.

And you know I think highly of you, but please dispense with the name calling. BTW, I'm not sure what the comment about your neighbors religious views have to do with this train of thought.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Good Morning Fatfist,

For all of the brains that you possess, you lack something much more important in the scheme of things, and unfortunately you can't get it out of a book, no matter how you study.

You friend lack wisdom. I could type for an eternity on this keyboard and would not be able to impart it to you, because your a fool...Did you get that? Not stupid, I can tell that you're intelligent, but a only fool can realize something intellectually, and still not be able to grasp it's meaning. You're the kind of guy that thinks if he just watches hard enough eventually he can beat that 3 card monty player on the street...You're too big a fool to realize that you've been cheated.

You may have an IQ to better than all of the others at HubPages combined, but you just can't reach out and catch the pine cone....Why? Because by your definition God is a concept, Okay, I've already admitted that by your definition God is a concept, so why are you too foolish to conceptualize?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Winston & Fatfist,

I would suggest that you both read my comments again, becuawse you have both missed some very important words, or you choose to ignore the ones that are simply inconvenient to acknowledge, I'm not sure which is the case,

God=Concept....(Your words) I typed "if you prefer", I typed again "by your definition"

You're too used to dealing with with people that haven't the ability or desire to fight back...Like a playground bully, but I'm sorry you can't have my lunch money.

Tail between my legs...Hardly!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(Is it possible to accept that gravitons MAY exist as an object that we cannot see or measure at this time?)

A graviton is a Hypothesis posed by quantum. A graviton is ASSUMED to exist by the quantum folks in order to facilitate their theories.

Whether a graviton exists or not has nothing to do with what we can “see/touch” or “measure”.

Does your arm exist because you can “see/touch/measure” it? What if you go into a coma and cannot “see/touch/measure” it, does it stop existing? What if you come out of the coma, does it begin to exist again?

The Sun exists irrespective of whether there are humans around to give their opinion on the issue. It exists because it is an object having a location – it has physical presence.

Existence is not dependent on the subjective opinion of the observer. And those who claim it is, are selling nothing but a RELIGION. This is how all religions got started. People “saw/touched/measured” Jesus and his dad Yahweh, and the holy ghost.....and let’s not forget the Virgin Mary. Why aren’t all the observations in the Bible scientific?? They are no different than the claims of quantum mechanics.

Anyway.....quantum proposes that you are pelted by gravitons thrown at you from Earth. If that is the case, then you should be flying off in outer space. When I pelted bullies in the jaw in high school, they ALL fell away from me......NEVER towards me. When somebody is pelted by the bullets of a machine gun, their body is pushed away from the source.

That’s why the graviton is a fictitious “assumed” particle framed by an IRRATIONAL hypothesis. It is contradictory. And that’s why it is IMPOSSIBLE for gravitons to be a part of reality.

If the folks of quantum WANT them to be possible......then they must reframe their hypothesis and rewrite their theories. But they won’t. Why? They already have tons of taxpayer $$$$ invested in this BS.

(I'm not sure what the comment about your neighbors religious views have to do with this train of thought.)

It was an example to help COA understand why his claim of “knowledge” is nothing but his personal opinion. A scientist is able to rationally explain his theories. COA is no scientist.

For example:

I “know” that I am surrounded by 100 naked cheerleaders right now.

How come you guys don’t know it? Perhaps your brains are lacking?

You see, Austinstar, people always claim to have some divine knowledge about reality. Knowledge is a subjective activity that is not a part of Science.....only Hypotheses and Theories (rational explanations) are.

If you cannot rationally explain WHY a graviton bullet makes you fall towards the source when it hits you, then you are obviously pushing a Religion.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Ok, FF, I agree that currently a graviton is a concept that is probably incorrectly described by quantum mechanics or folks. But as we currently do not understand gravity at all and we are still guessing at what it is, then it could meet the requirements of an object when we do discover exactly what it is.

Even Einstein got some things wrong. Heavens to Betsy Bob, even I have gotten some things wrong! I know, it's hard to imagine. I have to keep a diary and write it down when I do.

Some theories have been proven true.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Hi Austinstar, & Fatfist...

You're right Fatfist about your 100 cheerleader analogy, but let put it to these terms.

I have never personally witnessed on the street a car car accident with my own eyes as it occurred. Many people have not, but some have.

Simply because I have not, by your reasoning therefore no one has. How can that possibly be?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(a graviton is a concept that is probably incorrectly described by quantum ...... we are still guessing at what it is, then it could meet the requirements of an object when we do discover exactly what it is.)

Sorry, Austinstar, but you missed the point entirely. A graviton is a contradictory Hypothesis in the scientific method. A single contradiction shows what is impossible. There are many contradictions with this graviton hypothesis and its underlying theory.

The nail in the coffin is that a graviton is claimed to be dimensionless i.e. 0D. It has no length, width, or height. It has no shape. This means that it is IMPOSSIBLE for this graviton to refer to an object.

A graviton is nothing but a concept, and an abstract concept to boot! You see, no matter how you slice it, gravity is always a concept......whether you give the name “force”, “attraction”, “graviton”, “foobar”, or whatever.....these are all concepts.

(Some theories have been proven true)

Proofs and truths are subjective opinions and never part of science. Proofs and truths are only part of Religion. Jesus was proven to have been resurrected by his kind-hearted dad. Baby Jesus was proven to have created the universe; and so did his dad. In science, we do it differently.....I hope you can appreciate that.

The Scientific Method consists of:

1) Hypothesis: all the referenced objects are “assumed” to exist. Let us assume an object (3D) with shape, a graviton, exists.

2) Theory: a rational explanation of a consummated event. The rock fell to the floor instead of the ceiling because the Earth pelted it with 3D graviton objects.

It is impossible to pelt another object with 0D or 3D graviton objects, and have it fall towards the source. And this has nothing to do with what we can “discover” in the future. It is simply a hypothesis and theory and is irrational, contradictory, and thus impossible.

In science, theory means “rational explanation”......it doesn’t mean “truth” or “proof”.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

So going back to being a realist and needing rational explanations there is no room for gravity to be an object? I get that. But I think we are crossing over into philosophy. Especially the part about the sun existing whether or not there are humans around to see it. But doesn't gravity exist whether or not humans are around to be affected by it?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(being a realist)

That’s the kicker.....either we are going to be a realist and talk about reality and objects,..... or we are going to be a Religionist, and talk about how concepts buzz around our heads and tell us to run planes into buildings because some infidel “insulted” our concepts.

(there is no room for gravity to be an object?)

Any hypothesized discrete object that can mediate gravity will always lead to contradictions. This is not an issue of observation or experiment. This is an issue of critical thinking and analysis. Can we ever hope to discover a round square with 23.78 triangular sides in the future? Why not? Anything is possible in the future, right?

Physics deals with unambiguous and consistent definitions and rational theories. Any hypothesis & theory that embodies ontological contradictions, is impossible by “definition”....not by anybody’s opinion on the issue, like mine, yours, Einstein’s, God’s, etc.

(But I think we are crossing over into philosophy.)

Let’s get this issue straightened out because we are liable to talk in circles......

Philosophy is the study of concepts.

Religion is the study of contradictory concepts. Religion imposes surrealism because it specifically deals with the MOTION of concepts and the reification of concepts into objects.

Physics is FIRST AND FOREMOST the study of objects. Without objects you can't even begin to do Physics. More precisely, Physics is the Science of Existence. Physics ONLY studies those things that exist. Physics does NOT study concepts, specifically, the irrational 'motion of concepts' (i.e., reification).

Physics hypothesizes objects without ontological contradictions. And it theorizes rational explanations of events, again, without ontological contradictions. If it can’t be visualized or rationally explained, then it has nothing to do with physics.....it has crossed into the realm of Religion, pseudoscience, or even the mental ward of the asylum.

(Especially the part about the sun existing whether or not there are humans around to see it.)

Anyone claiming the existence of an entity has knowingly or inadvertently encroached into Physics. Did the Sun not exist before God created Adam & Eve? Anyone claiming it didn’t, has a lot of explaining to do.

(But doesn't gravity exist whether or not humans are around to be affected by it?)

Gravity is a concept. Gravity does not exist. Only objects exist because they have physical presence, form/shape/structure. What exists, are the atoms which attract (verb/concept) each other.

Does rain exist? Rain is a concept, specifically, a dynamic concept, which embodies the object we call “water” and its change (dynamism) of location. Rain does not exist. Nobody can draw a picture of rain. At best, they can draw an image of water droplets (objects). That is NOT rain! Most people do not understand the difference between an object and a concept because of their use of ordinary speech and reification.

Does “running” exist?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

(What exists, are the atoms which attract (verb/concept) each other.)

What "causes" the objects to attract each other? Just by being an object, are other objects "attracted"?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

1918...Police Accident Report

I Didn't see the car accident occur, so did it happen?Most certainly there must be evidence left behind suggesting that it did. I don't have film of it occuring, the car has been towed away, and long since gone into the incinerator...I only see a couple of signatures on a police report.

It must be a only a concept of a car accident, there was never a car accident at all because I don't have the car to touch?

That's some good science you got there...Surely it's based in reality but the car accident is a figment of the imagination. Why are nearly all of yor hubs in Religion & Philosophy?

There is an Education & Science subject header on HubPages, but maybe you haven't seen that?

Oh yeah, I remember, it's because religionists have {inadvertently encroached into Physics}

Or maybe it's because you wish to "enlighten" the world to the religion of Fatfist?

Afterall the U.S. Supreme Court (Brilliant Minds in their own right) have declared that Atheism is a religion? You say their wrong because ther is no diety, but I say it does have a doctrine, thus a religion it is!

It doesn't seem that minds are what you wish to enlighten to the scientific principals of the universe, but God that you want to destroy as a "concept". Rid the world of all thought of God

Of course then the obvious (philoshophical) questions are...Why would you feel the need to do that? What do you personally have to gain?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Oh, COA, I fear you have opened the door for another FatFist Challenge! I think you are going to cause me to write another hub just to contain the comments. I've been looking for another hub subject.

(It doesn't seem that minds are what you wish to enlighten to the scientific principals of the universe, but God that you want to destroy as a "concept". Rid the world of all thought of God)

Minds can always be enlightened to science, but getting rid of the indoctrination of God is a worthwhile goal to me. I can imagine no religion, but 98% of the world cannot. Therefore we have constant problems and death over a "concept". It's very confusing to children, and they have no defense. I know this from direct experience and so does FatFist. We fight the hypocrisy of religion. Currently, our weapons are found in scientific principles. We haven't found a better way to fight.

It's useless to try to persuade religionists to give up their addiction to their "concept", but we try. We do it for the future of mankind. Religionists keep using fear and pressure and ignorance to fight their battles, and it falls to us to use knowledge and science to fight ours.

Religion is a painful thing to me. It used to cause me great strife. I only found relief when I realized that there is no big being in the sky, no Santa, Easter Bunny, no omnipotent God. If I could abolish religion with a keystroke, I would most assuredly do it. It would put an end to untold suffering.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Austinstar-

I see your point, but lets look at a couple of your comments...

(Santa) Well, the pain caused here is when we realize their parents have lied to us about a fictional? being that doesn't exist.

(Easter Bunny) Same pain/same cause, fictional entity?

The problem here Austinstar is that the facts of these (actual) entity's have become clouded in folklore, which when analyzed in historical data is usually based in some sort of historical fact to one or a lesser degree.

We know for instance that St. Nick was a man who handed out gifts to children.

The easter bunny is also based in pre-christian celtic or druid? tradition. Due to the appearance of many bunny rabbits in the springtime it (bunny) became associated with symbol for fertility.

So we call these things superstitions, but are superstitions proven fake.

Well while I can agree that many are, I can also give you examples of those that aren't. The first that comes to mind that would be in you area of expertise is the vampire superstition...."Blood gives life"

Let me ask you...Does it? I had a transfusion after an accident about twenty five years ago, and according to the doctors I might have died had I not received the transfusion, so you can understand that from my point of view...Blood gives life.

The vampire "superstition" is partly proven. It's only Mary Shelley that has twisted the reality into a lie?


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Understood Austinstar,

Thanks again for the hub, it has caused me to think, and Fatfist & Winston are undoubtedly intelligent guys, that I thank as well.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

COA, if blood saved your life it is because the hemoglobin molecules carried oxygen to your cells and removed CO2. No fairy tale there.

All of the tales you mention are made up fantasies about actual objects.

So is "god" and that's my point.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

COA,

(1918...Police Accident Report)

Give it up, COA....just admit that you don’t understand the Scientific Method, ok? That’s nothing to be ashamed about. You wanna talk to me about art & literature.....I will admit to you outright that I cannot participate in such discussion... I would have no clue. I am not ashamed to admit that. But you, on the other hand.....have LOTS OF PRIDE.....you want to PROVE YOURSELF.....no matter if you even make yourself look like a fool in front of the audience. Is that rational, COA? Give it up already, ok? Enuff is enuff.

Austinstar,

(Oh, COA, I fear you have opened the door for another FatFist Challenge!)

No. Fatfist will cease and desist all challenges to COA. He hasn’t answered a single question I have asked him....I give up!

(We fight the hypocrisy of religion. Currently, our weapons are found in scientific principles. We haven't found a better way to fight.)

Standing ovation to you, Austinstar!!!!!!!!

Are you sure you are not single?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Sometimes I wish I were. Would you believe Bob and I have been married 20 years and he just last week realized I was a non-theist? It's true. That's what I get for choosing a guitarist. But after all, marriage is only a concept :-)

Why are you still single? Go find yourself a fun-loving free-spirited musician, have some fun!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(What "causes" the objects to attract each other? Just by being an object, are other objects "attracted"?)

Absolutely all atoms are attracted to each other. Is there any reason why....when I cut a rock into gazillon pieces, that each peace would not be attracted to all other pieces? How about if I cut it down to the atomic level.....is there any reason why an atom would not be attracted to each other? What is the rationale behind any such statements?

The only rational explanation of WHY atoms, and hence, all objects attract each other....is because all atoms are physically connected to each other and are under perpetual tension from the connective web of physical connections. This fully complies with all of the experiments of gravity and with Newton’s mathematical description of gravity. This also explains the physical behaviour of quantum entanglement, which has absolutely no rational explanation from the priests of quantum mechanics.

Do humans have any other rational explanations (not irrational assertions) for the behaviour of gravitational attraction between objects? No! And that’s what the Scientific Method is all about......a Hypothesis & Theory which uses objects that “can” exist.....not irrational assertions like gravitons or bent space, which have been thoroughly debunked.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

You gotta be kidding me. You've been keeping your atheism a secret from your husband? Were you ashamed to tell him? I can't understand why people in this day and age are closet atheists.

Yes marriage is a concept It is something that modern man conceived.

Before biblical times, we hit women over the head with a club and claimed them our own.

During biblical times, we kept women as ignorant and uneducated slaves who cooked our meals, and moped our floors.

Today, women want to take your money and go after the next victim. That's why I'm single and loving it. Almost all of my friends have go thru bitter divorces and lost everything. No thanks. Girlfriends come and go.....but my assets had better stay where the are ;-)


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Fatfist, your idea of what a graviton might be if it is ever observed is so wrong it's hard to know where to start. However one thing you note is very important and that is how gravity is a repulsive force. Furthermore, it is a long-range repulsive force, and this makes it special. The possible existence of a graviton is strongly suggested by symmetries in the mathematics. One particular area of mathematics involved is a quantum gravity field theory:

A quantum gravity field theory is a good theory because it is testable. An example experiment that can test it is to detect gravity waves. If gravity waves are detected, then this validates a huge chunk of mathematics and the graviton can be elevated from a hypothetical particle to an observed particle.

Since gravity has no range limit, it's clear that the graviton (like the photon) will have no rest mass.

If a QGFT is validated then one of the most beautiful transformations in mathematics will show that QGFT which deals with the very small "reduces" to Enstein's General Theory of relativity as the scale increases, and we already know that Newton's laws are contained within relativity.

Also - gravity is real and you can feel it. This is so fundamental to our body that astronauts suffer bone degradation after living in a free fall environment or near 0G.

A person's IDEA of gravity is a CONCEPT, but gravity is real. In contrast, a person's IDEA of a god is a CONCEPT, but an actual god is not real.

By the way, yesterday I calculated the mass of a hypothetical god under hypothetical ideal conditions. It's upper limit appears to be 0.00024 Kg assuming you can linearly accumulate every one of 6 billion people's simultaneous concept of god. In any given individual, that person's god appears to be no more than 4x10^-14 Kg

in the form of heat. Unfortunately heat is random motion, so the hope of linearly accumulating different heat sources is somewhat hampered.

Double "by the way" - that last para is just a bit of fun, not a serious proposal. :-)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Nah, I haven't kept anything a secret, LOL. He just finally "realized" it when I started writing these hubs!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Hmmm,

I wonder if anyone will pick up a silly error I think I made in my last post.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I thought Manna was a physicist, but he's one of those Mathematicians! There may be a pill for that now, I'll check.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

In 'gravity is a repulsive force. Furthermore, it is a long-range repulsive force', replace repulsive with attractive. Sorry about that!

Austinstar, my background is Electronics, mathematics and computing.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Allright, someone please explain to me why two atoms, JUST by virtue of being atoms are attracted to each other?


akirchner profile image

akirchner 5 years ago from Central Oregon

Are you talking about Bob and I? We were attracted to each other because of liquor, lust and dancing. Does that explain anything about what happens to us when we die? Probably not - unless of course there is liquor and dancing. Seriously, you opened a can of worms girlfriend but you sure got the comments!!!!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

"no other organism that we know of is self aware."

I don't think this is true. Reasonably recent experiments showed that Dolphins could be self aware (Marten and Psarakos(1994))

"You can lead a porpoise, or a monkey, or any other supposedly intelligent mammal to it’s own “death” time and again after they have witnessed others of their own species go to their demise, and they will not protest , run, or struggle until violence touches them individually."

Sadly, that too is not correct. If you ever had the misfortune to witness caged dogs awaiting their demise in the streets of China, it would be painfully obvious that they know from observation exactly was was going to happen.

I've personally witnessed something very remarkable with two mice we once kept. I kept them in a rich environment, part of which was a low barrier that they had to climb over to get from one side to the other. One of the mice developed a huge tumor, and became heavy and incapable of pulling herself over the barrier. Without a word of a lie, I saw the other mouse actually HELP her over the barrier. It seems even EMPATHY is not necessarily a unique human trait.

I abhor the idea that humans are uniquely elevated compared to the rest of the animal kingdom. Such arrogance is inexcusable. I note that any animal that sneezes has an awful lot in common with the apes we call humans as a sneeze is such a complex operation (and weird!). Perhaps without such arrogance we could all get along better and stop devastating the rest of life.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna, yes if you've ever been loved by a dog and loved him back, you know they are probably just as intelligent as most 2-5 year olds and quite probably even smarter than that. A guide dog is simply miraculous to me. Dogs and cats sense death quite easily. I just don't know where these homo sapiens get the idea that animals are not intelligent.

Animals have purpose as well. Sometimes their purpose is to hunt and eat food. Sometimes it's to mate and produce offspring, but it is definitely purpose. Are human animals just blind? or what?


GusTheRedneck profile image

GusTheRedneck 5 years ago from USA

Lela (Austinstar) - Ate the last of the Diblos today - see you in court.

Gus :-)))


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Ah Gus, I'm not going to sue you for using my recipe. But you can send the check to my PayPal account :-)


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Manna,

(Fatfist, your idea of what a graviton might be if it is ever observed is so wrong)

Right & wrong are the hallmark of religion, manna. In Science, we rationally explain. That means without contradictions. In Science, we don’t force our opinion of right & wrong down other people’s throats. The graviton is not even an object...it is 0D dimensionless concept. It is IMPOSSIBLE for it to exist. Get over it, ok?

(The possible existence of a graviton is strongly suggested by symmetries in the mathematics.)

A suggestion is irrelevant. Where is the rational explanation to back up the CLAIM?

Math is only a LANGUAGE. Math is descriptive. Math is no different than English or Pig Latin......it just uses symbols. All languages are built upon axiomatic rules which are human assumptions. Math is a concept. Math does not exist anywhere in the universe. Mother Nature never went to school. She is ignorant of math. She only knows how to move atoms from one location to another. That’s the only activity that the Universe has been doing for eternity.

The universe is a BINARY system. It either has SOMETHING (with shape) or NOTHING (lacking shape). This is a white or black issue.....yes or no....on or off. Understand?

If you disagree, please be my guest and tell me what else the universe has other than something (object) or nothing (space).

(A quantum gravity field theory is a good theory because it is testable.)

Here you go, manna.......drop a pen to the floor and test it a thousand times. What have you learned? How about after 10 million tests?

Please explain to me WHY the pen fell to the floor instead of the ceiling.

In Physics, we could care less what subjective tests anybody performs. When you come to the Physics Conference where I speak, you had better be able to explain WHY a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling in a rational manner. Otherwise, security will lead you down the hall where you can brag about all your tests in the Philosophy, Religion, and Astrology Convention.

(experiment that can test it is to detect gravity waves.)

There is no such ‘thing’ as ‘a’ wave. Wave is a verb, a concept – to wave! Wave is what something DOES.....not what something is. A background medium is necessarily required to exist so that it can exhibit wave-like motion of its component objects......like ocean water, for example. Waves do not exist. Only the background medium, like water,....or even air atoms, exists.....Understand?

(If gravity waves are detected, then this validates a huge chunk of mathematics and the graviton can be elevated from a hypothetical particle to an observed particle.)

No! An observed particle is an object that is evident.....like a car.....an apple.....a human.....etc. You are reifying ‘a’ wave, which is a concept that does not exist, to an object (particle). You are committing the Fallacy of Reification, also known as hypostatisation, concretism. This is what they do in Religion. This is why we have Jesus and Allah as reified objects that are “proven” to exist. Do you not understand the difference between the Scientific Method and Religion? This is basic stuff.

(the graviton (like the photon) will have no rest mass.)

Mass is a concept. Nothing has mass. Mass does not exist. Please see my hub on Relativity Mass Contraction. I explain in detail.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

(Also - gravity is real and you can feel it.)

Oh, boy......please tell the audience what gravity “feels like”, manna. I mean, do you “feel love” too? Do you “feel happy” as well? What does that have to do with Physics?

Physics is not a religion or a subjective discipline. Physics is the study of objects which exist....i.e. have physical presence. You can only feel objects via surface-to-surface contact. You cannot “feel” gravity. Any human emotion associated with the concept of gravity is only that.....an emotional opinion stemming from a hormonal experience.

(astronauts suffer bone degradation after living in a free fall environment or near 0G.)

Yes, because the human body has evolved under the influence of the resistance of being perpetually tugged on top of a solid surface we call the Earth.

(but gravity is real.)

The term ‘real’ is a synonym for ‘exist’. Physics studies REAL objects.....ones that exist.....not objects like circles & squares, which don’t exist, and only are studied in Geometry, a branch of math. Physics studies real objects only.....never concepts.

Gravity is not real. Gravity does not exist. What exists are only the objects which work together to “mediate” gravity between themselves. Just like a pile of humanity works together to “mediate” an ORGY. Orgy is not an object. Orgy is not real. Orgy does not exist. Only human bodies are real and exist. Orgy is a concept/verb, requiring the motion of objects.....just like gravity.

(a person's IDEA of a god is a CONCEPT, but an actual god is not real)

God is a Hypothesis. God is an OBJECT (with shape/form) that is assumed to exist by religionists. It also has an associated theory......called CREATION. Both the God hypothesis & theory are irrational as I have explained in laborious detail in my hub: “creation is impossible”.

The God hypothesis is NO different than the Graviton hypothesis.....both are on EQUAL footing as far as contradictions go!

(By the way, yesterday I calculated the mass of a hypothetical god)

Like I said before......you can calculate and measure what you like. But when you come to the Physics conference, you had better be able to explain how space & matter were created by God.....or how a 0D Graviton object makes the pen fall to the floor instead of the ceiling when the Earth pelts the pen with supposed gravitons. This is what differentiates Physics from the fantasy of Religion.

But I understand where you are coming from, Manna. I was once in your shoes. You have obviously studied what the establishment has been pushing down our throats for the last 100 years, and so have I. Do you like to swallow assertions without a rational explanation to back them up? Don’t you think it’s about time us humans started to wake up and point out the contradictions of the Religion of Mathematical Physics?

Remember.....a contradiction always tell us what is impossible. It tells us that the human who made the CLAIM does not understand what they are talking about. No disrespect to you. You are a student of the establishment.....just like the rest of us.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Austinstar: "Allright, someone please explain to me why two atoms, JUST by virtue of being atoms are attracted to each other?"

I'm not sure that anyone really knows the answer to this important and insightful question at the most fundamental level. There is promising work in string theory which would go some way to answer it. In string theory, matter (particles/energy) exists in different forms as different modes of tiny vibrating strings - yes it's "out there" as far as theories go... might be impossible to test as well which is a nail in the coffin for most theories, but nevertheless, some interesting ideas come from it and string theory has great promise.

But back into the land of what we can test, observe and use to make predictions is quantum theory. In quantum theory, we have particles that are called Bosons, and particles that are called Fermions. The important difference between these two is that Fermions are anti-social. They can only exist with a limited number of other fermions at the same energy level depending on the atomic structure under study, and absolutely cannot co-exist in the same quantum state. This is called the Pauli exclusion principal and is what keeps the electrons in the electron cloud around an atom from falling forever into the nucleus. It is what makes matter hard, and it is what allows things like billiard balls to bounce off each other. At a quantum scale, the balls can't actually touch each other, but they get close and repel, exchanging energy as they do.

Bosons, on the other hand (like the photon) can co-exist in the same quantum state which is what allows things like lasers to work.

Ok - each atom nucleus has a certain number of protons and neutrons. These are bound together by one of the forces that we spoke of. The strong nuclear force is very short range, but extremely tenacious. Depending on the number of protons (positive charge), and electrons (negative charge), there exists only a certain number of quantum states at various energy levels from the atom.

Electrons cannot permanently occupy non-integer conditions around the nucleus and to get from one shell to the next, they do so instantaneously.

The Pauli exclusion principal disallows more than the certain allowed states to be filled at any time, but there can be available slots. When there is an available slot, an electron at an outer orbit 'falls' down in energy terms to fill the gap. This requires less energy, and a photon is emitted because of conservation of energy. Now the shell that the electron came from has a vacant "slot" which can be filled.

ONE type of attraction between atoms is where two adjacent atoms can share an electron to naturally satisfy occupation of these vacant quantum states. This is called covalent bonding. It takes an INPUT of energy into the system to pull them apart because doing so raises the overall energy requirements of each atom.

So atoms both repel AND attract, finding the minimum energy level as a balance between the two which dictates how close they get, and how hard it is to pull them apart.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

@fatfist: Whatever.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna - I can actually see that! Thank you.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna, I actually HEARD you say that! I am still laughing.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

@Manna...I have seen exceptions in the animal kingdom myself that are interesting too observe, but how do you know the emotion the mouse was feeling was empathy?

There are certainly instinctive self protection mechanisms in place in most animals in the animal kingdom, especially the strong maternal instincts of most animals.

I have personally seen pigs have their throats cut, and these are generally considered to be intelligent animals (more so than a dog). Three in a row they went without a fight. Of course they had been raised by the rancher that did the deed, so I suppose since he had been the one to feed them it could be argued that they trusted him.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

@Coming of Age:

You are right, there is no way that I could know the mouse felt empathy, but it was remarkable nonetheless, and I take your point about instinct too. As for the pigs, that's also a valid point. It might come down to senses other than sight that would alert one animal to another that something threatening is happening. In the case of those dogs, they were probably handled badly and in great fear while being led the the kill, and put out non visual signals recognized by the remaining dogs. I guess the question is whether the animals in the killing queue are capable of working out a possible future event based on observation of present and past. It seems possible to me.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Manna-I read about a 1995 mirror test performed with bottlenosed dolphins by Marten & Psarakos, and while the tests produced some compelling results they could harldy be considered conclusive that the dolphins were self aware...Some of the dolphins displayed activity the indicated they might realize that they were viewing themselves, but others had to be enticed to the mirror over and again.

I think dolphins are extremely intelligent, and certainly have capabilities that a human normally would not, like echo location for instance, but self awareness remains unproven.

They seem to act more in a cohesive unit as a pod and will follow the pod to their own individual deaths.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Manna,

(@fatfist: Whatever)

Thank you for the intellectual response. I am speechless!

Austinstar,

(someone please explain to me why two atoms, JUST by virtue of being atoms are attracted to each other?)

This is not an issue of “knowledge”, or “observations”, or “testing”, or “proof”, as is done to 100% confirm the existence of Jesus. Science works differently. This issue falls squarely on the Hypothesis level of the Scientific Method.

It would take a few pages for me to explain it to you. If you want details, just open a discussion in any of my hubs....but very very briefly....

There are hundreds of models of the atom. None of them have built the dynamism of “attraction” into their hypothesis & theory. But we can hypothesize our own model, just like the Priests of Quantum Mechanics do, but only rationally. Let us hypothesize that all atoms are interconnected by a physical medium, like a web of dna-like rope. All atoms spin, vibrate, shake, rattle & roll....they have eternal motion. The motion of the atoms is what keeps this interconnected web of atoms under perpetual “tension”. This mediated tension is what attracts absolutely ALL atoms together. Tension is "attractive". Force is "repulsive". When you apply "force" on an object, it absolutely repels it away. That's why gravity is NOT a "force". In order for two objects to pull themselves together, they must necessarily connect with each other and "pull" themselves perpetually. Only a permanent connection can do that. Discrete objects can only push each other away. It is irrational to hypothesize atoms as discrete (disconnected) objects. Such atoms cannot resolve any of gravity's issues, much less for light or magnetism.

And this is the reason why it is IMPOSSIBLE to block the effect of gravity. All atoms are interconnected through every single object in the universe. You cannot build a sci-fi anti-gravity machine.

Remember.....light is an object because you can block it with another object and cast a shadow. If gravity was an object, it would be easily blocked, just like light. Only concepts cannot be blocked. Why? Because they have no shape or structure. They don’t exist!

And this is why the Religion of Quantum Mechanics is no different than Christianity & Islam. It also comes with its own army of devout followers who are eager to prosthelytize and convert everyone to the “truth”. Some will even make threats to you......just visit my hubs and you’ll see how some of the loonies of MathPhyz are no different than Pollyannanella and VenomFangX.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Oh, I believe you FatFist. Just one error though - (You cannot build a sci-fi anti-gravity machine.) Through Science FICTION, it is possible to build anti-grav machines! Or square circles, or whatever! Just don't forget that in Jules Verne's day it was impossible to put a man on the moon.

@COA - to me it looks like you never had a pet! How sad. I think all animals are self-aware. Maybe even insects too. Probably the whole planet is a living organism. Probably even the infinite universe is alive and self aware. You say you can see God, but I don't think you can. I think your mind is closed to the universe and all its infinite possibilities.

It always seems like religionists are so convinced that they know where they are going to go when they die, ie - heaven, yet they do whatever it is they must do to keep themselves alive. Perhaps animals do know where they are going when they die and therefore just follow their friends and family straight into death because of it. I don't claim to know what animals think or appear to think, but I have had the pleasure of working with many animals and they know things that I can never fathom in my limited homo sapien form. I don't understand the universe, but I live it. I don't understand many things, but I do "get" the concept of infinity and it seems to me that many people don't.


brotheryochanan profile image

brotheryochanan 5 years ago from BC, canada

It can, however, be rearranged or reassembled into infinite possibilities. It’s Life, the Universe and Everything!

I didn't quite understand who rearranged all this stuff again?


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

( Manna,

(@fatfist: Whatever)

Thank you for the intellectual response. I am speechless! )

Meh. No problem. You earned it.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

OK I'll bite. Once, and once only for the benefit of rational thinking people.

( There are hundreds of models of the atom. )

There are three different models: The Rutherford Model ,The Bohr Model ,The Cloud Model.

(None of them have built the dynamism of “attraction” into their hypothesis & theory. )

All three models are useful to describe attraction between atoms.

(All atoms spin, vibrate, shake, rattle & roll.)

This is correct although a distinctly unscientific approach.

(The motion of the atoms is what keeps this interconnected web of atoms under perpetual “tension”)

Motion produces tension? This is weak and meaningless babble.

( Tension is "attractive" )

True

(Force is "repulsive".)

False. Gravity is attractive you can do your own experiment: Look at the moon, or lift your leg.

Positive and negative charges attract.

Positive and negative magnetic poles attract.

( When you apply "force" on an object, it absolutely repels it away. )

False unless it's repulsive. See above.

( That's why gravity is NOT a "force" )

This line of reasoning is known in the UK as "bollox".

( In order for two objects to pull themselves together, they must necessarily connect with each other and "pull" themselves perpetually. )

My 6 year old said something sililar once. So what?

( Only a permanent connection can do that. )

Bull. This says, "Non permament attraction was never attracted." You may as well say "Lion ford can" or something.

( Discrete objects can only push each other away )

OH! You mean like a discrete magnet and a discrete Fridge.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Hi Austinstar...

I have two dogs, and two horses right now, and have always had animals. I grew up with dogs, cats, and horses. I love animals, and I know of very inspiring incidents where dogs have saved lives and so on. My wife worked as a veterinary assistant from high and through college, because of her love animals.

The pig story that I relayed earlier was because of a rancher/pig farmer that put on a BBQ every 4th of July at his place down in your neck of the woods. I remember the incident so vividly because I was amazed at how easily it was for the guy to first of all kill the animals, but more because they seemed to march to their own demise so easily. After reading what Manna wrote back about fear in the eyes and how animals might react to other stimuli, I read some more about why the pigs may have reacted as they did. What I have decided about the incident is that the pigs were responding to the smell of blood. It turns out that pigs are apparently very cannibalistic, and the smell of hemoglobin puts that instinctive behavior into overdrive, but it makes my point very well at least for that species.

If a pig is so driven for the taste of blood that they will forget a desire for self preservation, then are likely not self aware.

As per the dolphins...I have swam several times with them, so I know how social they are, and have seen first hand their intelligence, but those two things in and of themselves do not prove self awareness. The cohesive unit behavior is a great example of how social these creatures are, and that is also relevant to the point. They act as a unit in many respects, like when they trap fish in a tight area by herdng the fish in much the same way that three sheepdogs might tend a flock. However, they will also stay together and be herded like cows might be. Now don't misunderstand, I am not comparing them to cows; they're much more intelligent than that.

The point is that because they will stay together and be herded to certain demise time and again, they do not seem to be able to grasp the idea that where survival is concerned, individual survival can mean species survival.

I am thinking about the criteria for self awareness and searched around a bit on the subject, but biologists are not coinvinced that outside of human beings any species of animal is self aware. There are many individual examples that are extraordinary, but seemingly little consistency to indicate self awarenes.

Thinking that animals are not self aware is not the same as not having compassion for them, I abhor the practice of killing whales, and dolphins, surely they feel pain, have compassion, and are a greater contribution to our world alive than what I see as their certain extinction.

Okay, now back to what you infer about me seeing God. I have never experienced a theophany, neither visual, nor audible. When do you think I "said" otherwise?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

@brother yo - I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a WHO!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

@COA - I thought you were referring to a "theophany" when you said, "Go somewhere as far away from the city as possible. Take your favorite physics book with you and read a couple chapters from it quietly. Put the book down, and start imaging all of the things (you) don’t know, and all of the things that (you) will never possibly know. Open up your mind to the INFINITE possibilities. I know that the idea of something that can’t be explained makes some uncomfortable, but that’s just the way it is, not everything can be explained. "

I must have interpreted it wrong. It sounded like you wanted me to go and have the kind of theophany you had experienced.

But anyway. I live far away from the city - out in the hill country and I have studied a minute amount of astronomy. I dabble in Aztec and Mayan history so I have to be aware of the sky. Although you can see infinity in looking at the stars, I see it too in atomic structure. From the infinitely huge, to the incredibly infinite small. There is room for all things. Including self-aware animals and jealous super-beings. I have much more comfort believing in the intricate mechanism of the universe, than I do of a really big bad bully in the sky who will punish me if I don't worship at his feet.

You sound like a really cool guy, and your wife must be super! She loves animals. Did you catch a lot of fish the other day? I am crazy about horses, used to take care of them, never owned one though.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Actually Austinstar the whole go to the country and "imagine" thing was directed not at you, but elsewhere...I was an agnostic for a very long time in my life, but was "raised Catholic". I was shooled by nuns, and priests. My parents didn't really attend church, but my father made enough money to send me and my sisters to private school.

I was turned way off to an angry judgemental God that was all about fire and damnation too, so you aren't alone on that point.


Coming of Age profile image

Coming of Age 5 years ago from Rocky Mountains

Sorry....No, I only caught two Rainbow, but the scenery was nice. I don't keep the fish anyway. Catch and release, but you know the saying; "a bad day fishing is better than a good day at work."


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Manna,

Manna: “There are three different models: The Rutherford Model ,The Bohr Model ,The Cloud Model.”

Nonsense. Those are the 3 popular versions...like Christianity, Judaism and Islam. There are thousands more religions. Like I said before....there are literally hundreds of models conceived by humans.....google is your friend.

Fatfist: “None of them have built the dynamism of “attraction” into their hypothesis & theory.

Manna: “All three models are useful to describe attraction between atoms.”

Face it...None of your 3 beloved models can explain “attraction”. You’ve said nothing, manna. Usefulness & petty subjective descriptions have nothing to do with Science. The Scientific Method (hypothesis + theory) has NO provision for subjectivities like “usefulness” & “descriptions”. Science is an objective discipline.

1) You can “describe” how a fast a pen falls to the floor with equations and g=9.8 m/s^2

2) You can even say that the speed of the pen is “useful” for the purposes of the Secret Service to covertly assassinate Islamic Leaders by dropping pens on their heads from high buildings.

3) But when you come to the Physics conference, you can throw your petty descriptions and usefulness in the trash. You had better be able to explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM that makes this magic of Mother Nature happen? If you can’t answer, then security will lead you down the hall into the Astrology & Religion convention where you belong. Got it?

Do you understand the difference between “description” & “explanation”? If not, don’t be ashamed to ask, ok? There is no shame in simply saying: “I don’t understand”. We are all human. It is worse to “pretend” to know something because someone like me will call you out on it.

Science only explains, and it does so rationally. Your 3 models above have absolutely no explanation for the dynamism of “attraction” of gravity....NONE.....you know that very well.....otherwise you would have posted it by now. Case closed.

Manna: “Motion produces tension? This is weak and meaningless babble.”

Strawman. Read again, that’s not what I said.....here’s what I said: “The motion of the atoms is what *keeps* this interconnected web of atoms under perpetual “tension”.

The motion of the atomic objects tugs & pulls on the interconnected web of atoms and keeps the whole system under perpetual tension. Atoms are eternally in motion and eternally under tension. There was never a “start” to the motion of atoms. If all the atoms cease their motion, the whole interconnected web becomes “slack” and there is no attractive effect.

If you cannot conceptualize this, try this experiment in order to understand (not prove) the concept: Hold a taught string between you and your buddy. There is tension effect between you two. Any motion you produce with your arm will tug at the connective medium and your buddy will move towards you ALWAYS.....even if it is a gazillionth of a nanometer. It is impossible for any of you to push and repel each other. You are perpetually attracted. If one of you dies, he has no motion, so the other will reel in the dead body while maintaining tension effect. If both of you die, all motion ceases, then the tension effect ceases and becomes slack. This is basic entry-level Physics.....what is it that you don’t understand?

Fatfist: “Force is "repulsive".”

Manna: “False. Gravity is attractive you can do your own experiment: Look at the moon, or lift your leg.”

Ahhhhhhhh.....but you haven’t rationally explained gravity to be mediated by “FORCE” between objects, my dear manna......understand? Nice try, but you fool no one, manna.

Don’t conveniently elude the issue any further.....enuff is enuff, ok?

Please explain WHY a pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling. Does the Earth physically come in contact with the pen and FORCE it to the ground??? That is the only possible way that “force” can be imparted on the pen by the Earth. There is no other option. Or are you gonna tell the audience that the Earth shoots 0D “graviton” bullets at the pen, which curve behind the pen and hit it in the back, thus “forcing” it to the ground instead of the ceiling?

Your wife can FORCE you off your bed by momentary surface-to-surface contact between you and your wife. You will fall away, never towards her. This is WHY force is ONLY REPULSIVE! Only tension is attractive because objects are permanently connected with each other via a physical medium with shape/form.

Please, you need to think before you respond with nonsense.

(Positive and negative charges attract.)

Religious gibberish! Only OBJECTS attract each other.....nothing else.....ever! Only in Religion do charges, like “love” & “spirit”, attract. If you disagree, please explain how a concept attracts another concept.

The following are concepts: positive, negative, charges.

Concepts do not attract. Concepts do NOT move! You are pushing a religion on the audience that is more contradictory than Christianity. Only in Religion do concepts “attract”, move, shake, rattle, roll. Matterless motion is impossible. Talk rationally, please.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

manna,

Fatfist: “That's why gravity is NOT a "force"

Manna: “This line of reasoning is known in the UK as "bollox"

You’ve said nothing.....manna.....absolutely nothing. You are not fooling anybody with your act. You are just eluding the issues I raised because they destroy your religion.

----BEGIN PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR Manna ----

Force is a VERB – to force! Force is what something DOES, not what something IS. All verbs are concepts. Force is a concept, a relation between 2 or more objects requiring a sentient observer to “conceive the verb”. Object A (Earth) comes in physical surface-to-surface contact with object B (the pen) and FORCES it to the ground. Is this what happens with your gravity “force-effect”, manna? There is no other option....that’s why neither you or anybody else on the planet can ever offer one.

There is no such thing as ‘a’ force. ‘A’ force does not exist; it has no physical presence, no shape/structure. Force is not a noun for the purposes of Physics; otherwise you’d be able to illustrate it like I’ve been asking for the past week. Case closed!

You really need to get educated, mana....this is basic stuff! Even a kid in Kindergarten knows that he can only bounce a “ball”....not ‘a’ force.

----END PHYSICS 101 LESSON FOR Manna ----

Fatfist: “In order for two objects to pull themselves together, they must necessarily connect with each other and "pull" themselves perpetually.”

Manna: “My 6 year old said something sililar once. So what?”

You have a 6 year old that is smarter than you! All kids understand this stuff. It is when they become adults and get brainwashed by Religions like Quantum, Relativity & String Theory, when they begin to babble and chase their tails in circles with irrationalities. All they can do at this stage in their lives is make bald assertions by quoting authorities, and can never “explain” anything. This is what we call: Religion!

Well, here’s the “so what”, manna......it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for 2 objects to perpetually attract each other without them being physically connected and under tension effect, and “at least” 1 of them tugging on the other via their connective physical medium.

Do you DISAGREE, manna?? Ohhh.....I was hoping you would. This would make your “positive claim” a candidate for a rational explanation (aka burden of proof in “ordinary speech”).

Here’s your chance to redeem yourself, manna........please rationally explain how 2 objects can perpetually attract each other if they are NOT permanently physically connected (i.e. are discrete) by some medium.

I would love to read your rational explanation on this one.......please.

Don’t run away with your tail between your legs, manna......if you don’t answer any other question I ask.....please answer this one ok? Otherwise we both agree that you haven’t a clue of what you’re talking about.

I will PayPal you $10,000 US if you can rationally explain this one, manna......I am on the record! So please educate me. Feel free to bring into my hubs a Nobel decorated Ph.D from the establishment to set me straight. I have already emailed most of them myself, but they all ran with their tails between their legs.....ohhh did they ever :-)


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Let's reduce those three models down to just one.

Rutherford's model is no longer used as it cannot explain why electrons don't fall into the nucleus within a few orbits, emitting photons as they do. i.e. all the universe would have glowed brightly and then collapsed.

Bohr's model is illustratively useful and predictive for some chemistry but in attempting to solve the problem with the Rutherford model by introducing quantization, the perceived fixed orbits cause an internal inconsistency. This model is no longer used except in very basic illustrations.

The cloud model is a description of functions from the solution of the Schrödinger equation for electron-waves in atoms. Today we call these not orbits, but "orbitals" to be very sure that we don't think of electrons going around an atom like planets around a solar system.

These orbitals (or clouds) take on various fuzzy shapes a bit like donuts or dumbbells depending on the particular element and we have actually managed to PHOTOGRAPH these orbitals. Here is a link to what one looks like: http://www.tutorvista.com/chemistry/different-atom... and here-> http://www.insidescience.org/research/first_detail...

Since the cloud model PREDICTED these shapes, and THEN we photographed them, it's a very good reason to continue using the cloud model. We abandon the other two in favor of this one.

So not really 3 models - but one for the atom. A model is an approximation. Each of those models is a better approximation than the last. It's inconceivable that there are thousands of models except perhaps in the mind of a raving lunatic.

Everyone agrees that gravity is not understood so there is no point beating that horse.

I've already explained covalent bonding.

As for something being 'physically connected' this is as difficult as it is to touch anything. Sure - at a macro scale you put your finger onto some surface and 'feel' it being connected, but a close and closer and closer look reveals that the atoms at the boundary cannot host electrons which can co-occupy the same quantum state. I've already explained that in terms of quantization, wavelengths, these orbitals, and the Pauli exclusion principle. If physics allowed Fermions to occupy the same quantum state, then you would be able to make a laser made from a collection of buses or billiard balls.

When you put your finger on a surface, what you feel is the electro-static repulsion of the like charges (electrons and electrons which cannot be forced to occupy the same quantum state simultaneously). Your finger is not physically connected to the surface. If it was, then you would be something like a shape-shifter being, capable of melding into objects.

About the closest I can think of, off the cuff for a physical connection is what happens in an atomic bomb.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Force in physics/applied mathematics is perfectly defined: Force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time.


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 5 years ago from Chicago

You have done an excellent job of describing your view of reality. I did have one query: you mention an infinite universe? I thought the expanding universe had demolished that idea long ago. No?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

No, the expanding universe did not demolish my idea of the universe. There is currently some evidence that the universe is not expanding. Some scientists even say that it is contracting.

But, once again, even if it were expanding, what would it be expanding into? More universe?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Manna,

(Everyone agrees that gravity is not understood so there is no point beating that horse.)

And here is where you contradict yourself.....you are on the record making 2 irreconcilable statements about gravity.

1) That gravity is a noun; an object which you call ‘a’ force. I already explained force is a VERB, not a noun. Go and re-read my last post and understand it. I asked you several times to illustrate a picture of ‘a’ force object.....you cannot. You are done.

2) That gravity is a noun, a supposed 0D “graviton” object with no length, width, height, form, or structure. This is NO different than God! Such a beast is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE to exist, ever! This is just a delusionary assertion of a mere irrational “idea” conceived by mathematicians who are not Scientists. Graviton = nothing.

3) From 1 & 2, you contradict yourself because gravity cannot be both a “verb” AND an “object”, at the same time. Only objects (like rocks) mediate actions (like hit/force) upon other objects (like people). And they only do so via surface-to-surface contact.

****** Q: Does the Earth impart surface-to-surface contact on the pen and FORCE it to the ground, instead of the ceiling? Cause this is exactly what you are alluding to when you say “gravity effect” = “force”.....as in “touching and forcing” the pen to the ground.

So now you shift the tables and chase your tail in circles. Now you claim that nobody “understands” gravity, except of course.....YOU, as per your statements 1 & 2 about gravity being ‘a’ force AND a 0D non-existent graviton object. So you claim to understand, but yet nobody else does.

You are talking to the mirror, manna. Really.....enuff of this nonsense.

(I've already explained covalent bonding.)

No you didn’t. You merely made the following irrational statement: “ONE type of attraction between atoms is where two adjacent atoms can share an electron to naturally satisfy occupation of these vacant quantum states. “

This is NOT an attractive effect. Covalent bonding has absolutely nothing to do with “attraction” or with “gravity”. An atom of Hydrogen located on Pluto is already physically attracted to an atom of Hydrogen here on Earth. There is no “covalent bonding effect” established until those 2 atoms are physically moved together to establish physical “surface-to-surface” contact.

The establishment has absolutely NO physical explanation for the phenomenon known as “covalent bonding”. They only offer petty “descriptions” with math and their 3 irrational atomic models. They have no explanation as to WHY this “effect” occurs between two atom objects. So please, manna, just stop saying that you have an explanation, ok?

(When you put your finger on a surface, what you feel....)

Don’t push your religion upon others. Physics has absolutely nothing to do with what you can touch/feel. These are subjective human activities that depend on the extremely limited human sensory system.

Ok manna.....here you go......over 6 billion people on the planet have “seen”, “touched” and “felt” God/Jesus/Allah/Yahweh/Zeus/Krishna/Bhudda/etc. This is what they offer for proof of their observations and tests, just like you do for your observations about “force” & “gravitons”. Therefore, according to YOU, God must exist. Or, are you gonna tell the audience that YOUR observations are somehow “better” than the observations of 6 billion people?

You don’t make any sense. Physics is the study of objects that exist (have physical presence). Physics is not about Religion (what you can feel/touch/sense, etc.). The Sun & moon exist irrespective of whether you can see/touch them. They exist because they are objects with location ie. they have physical presence. Existence has no provision for human observers.

Your graviton AND ‘a’ force ideas are your personal religious ideologies since they are only dependent on your subjective experience (see/touch) using your limited sensory system. And this is why I was able to easily explain why they are contradictory, and hence, impossible!

You don’t understand the difference between Science and Religion, nor do you understand what the Scientific Method is about. You think that Science is about “bird-watching” using the limited human sensory system, and then “proving” what you “felt” was real. If that was the case.....then we’d have to take the observations of every single claim posited by humans as fact. This is irrational and has nothing to do with Physics.

BTW.....you completely dodged my question asking you to rationally explain if it is possible for 2 objects (atoms on Pluto and on Earth) to perpetually attract each other without a physical connective medium between them. Therefore, you can now drop your irrational assertions about GRAVITONS and FORCES.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

manna,

(Force in physics/applied mathematics is perfectly defined: Force is the derivative of momentum with respect to time.)

That is no definition, manna. Derivative, momentum and time are all concepts. This makes your definition of “force” and ABSTRACT CONCEPT since it references no objects. This is has nothing to do with reality and Physics. Such ambiguous and nonsensical definitions are found in religion.

In Science, all definitions are unambiguous and consistent. There are NO derivatives, momentum, or time in the universe. Such beasts do not exist. A derivative is a “math language construct”, it is an ADVERB and hence a ‘concept’.

I told you before......the universe only has objects (something) and space (nothing). There is no other option. And it’s quite funny how you keep pushing your Religion by inventing spirits which move (matterless motion).....just like theists do.

Math can only DESCRIBE because it is a language. Math has absolutely no EXPLANATORY power. You don’t understand the difference between a “description” and an “explanation”. Math deals exclusively with motion, specifically with HOW MUCH an object moves. Math is ONLY a language-based discipline that deals with adverbs, and only quantitative at that. It has no power to tackle WHY questions (e.g. why did the pen fall to the floor instead of the ceiling). Only human critical thinking & reasoning with the Sci Method (hypo + theory) can tackle such WHY questions.

Time does not exist, period! Time is a concept (specifically a verb) that requires a sentient observer with memory to conceive an arbitrary counter, a scalar, in order to realize this concept. Time is a number line, like whole numbers is a number line. Time is useful in quantifying motion, and only referenced for that purpose.

What the clowns of Math never figured out is that there are NO “static” concepts in their beloved field. Math ONLY deals with “dynamic” concepts. Math does not deal with adjectives at all, which is the domain of Physics. Math is exclusively a language of ADVERBS....Specifically, quantitative adverbs. Physics is a qualitative discipline, as it deals directly with the study of reality i.e., the existence of objects.

This is why there is not a single real object to be had in Math. This is why Math has absolutely nothing to do with reality and Physics. There are no numbers, derivatives, equations, etc. in the universe. There are only objects wrapped by space.

Physics is the study of OBJECTS which exist. Physics answer WHY questions by offering rational explanations.

Math is the study of DYNAMIC CONCEPTS which do not exist. Math only offers petty descriptions of subjective human observations. Mathematicians embody these descriptions in equations so that they look “important-enough” to confuse the general public and politicians to give them Tax Research Dollars (like religions do with tax-exemptions). They fool no one......equations are only dynamic concepts (adverbs/verbs). Not a single mathematician can explain the WHY’s of gravity, light, magnetism, atomic behaviour, or any other phenomena in nature. They only provide their religious “asserted” opinions on the existence of concepts, like “force” & “0D gravitons”, just to name a few.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Hi Austinstar,

This is a rough analogy. All analogies are flawed and there are problems with it, but it should help you get an idea how space can be just 'expanding' without expanding 'into' or 'from'.

Imagine a balloon. On that balloon you draw many dots. On that balloon is an ant which is the fastest thing on the balloon. The ant has no knowledge of the third dimension. Perhaps you can think of him for these purposes as being as thin and flat as you need.

The ant can run from dot to dot in so many steps. Now start to blow up the balloon. The dots move apart, the ant can still only run at the same top speed, but he counts ever more steps between dots. In his world, "space" is expanding. From the ant's perspective it's not expanding 'into' anything, neither does the balloon surface have a 'center'.

If you had another ant sat at one dot, watching this ant travel towards him, he could count the steps the ant takes to arrive. When this experiment is repeated, the ant needs to make more steps than before and so on. The ant's world is expanding.

You can try to extrapolate that two-dimensional analogy into a three-dimensional version where we live on planets (dots) and count how long it takes light to arrive from distant stars. This evidence says space is expanding - we actually say 'stretched'. I'd have to check recent references, but I think the latest evidence suggests that not only is space expanding, the rate of expansion is accelerating.


gsteele.ican profile image

gsteele.ican 5 years ago from Georgia ,USA

Glad to see someone else out there has a grasp on the 1st law of thermodynamics unraveling the mystery of the univers....


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Fatfist: ANY noun can be verbed - Google it!

Your last two posts in particular really have exposed you as a complete fraud.

I've said nothing contradictory. You are claiming that I said things that I didn't. Not ONCE for example have I claimed 0D in relation to gravity. You did that all by yourself without any help from me.

You are completely misunderstanding covalent bonding which is electrostatic and absolutely attractive. I never confused gravity with covalent bonding.

You say, (Don’t push your religion upon others.) What religion? I never claimed anything religious.

You say (Math can only DESCRIBE) Rubbish complete total utter rubbish. There are many pure mathematical ideas that later got adopted into practical applications that made wonderful predictions which were later experimentally verified. See last paragraph for example.

You say (You don’t understand the difference between Science and Religion) How could you possibly know that? You are wrong again by the way.

You say (In Science, all definitions are unambiguous and consistent.) Whoops - wrong again. If that were true then we would know everything and we don't. But that does NOT imply we know nothing. The scientific method depends on forming a theory, testing the theory, looking for ambiguity and inconsistency, then refining the theory or finding a better one. As a result, the established and most tested theories have become very solid, weak ones are left behind. The body of knowledge as a whole becomes more powerful and more accurate. How accurate is QED in terms of decimal places with practical experiment? Go look it up. It's astoundingly accurate, yet we know is likely to be incomplete despite the amazing accuracy and predictive power.

You say (You don’t understand the difference between a “description” and an “explanation”) This again is something you just made up.

Typing words like: "clowns of math" into a computer connected to the internet using trillions of transistors, and the accumulated knowledge of mathematics and physics over many many years smacks of idiocy, but I love the irony.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna, I don't agree with the ants on a balloon explanation of the "expanding" universe. Or the bubble universe theory either. I tend to agree with FatFist on the "fact" that everything in the universe is either an object or space.

Concepts are fun to play with, but atoms are atoms and that's what we ARE.

Where I tend to disagree with FatFist (I think) is that I believe that energy is also an object and it's the "glue" that keeps the universe in some semblance of structure.

"Force" is not the correct word for this energy and maybe we have yet to discover and name it. But it doesn't matter.

All that matters is here now, has always been here and will always be here. I call it the infinite universe because it has no boundary, no time, no beginning, no end. Religionists totally disagree with me and that's ok.

Whether or not we have a soul, spirit, essence, conscience, life force, personality, spiritual being, etc. is totally irrelevant. We would like to think so, but these things are concepts only.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

"Manna, I don't agree with the ants on a balloon explanation of the "expanding" universe."

That's good, because it is a flawed analogy as I said, but your objections show you are thinking. It's a tool often used to help people over the difficulty of imagining a universe without a center, and expansion but not 'into' anything. If you get it, it helps, if not, then try something else.

Energy is all we have, it's all we see, feel, infer, its all we are. Everything is energy in different physical patterns. Energy and matter are different forms of the same "stuff".

Everything is about patterns... not my words - but those of Prof Brian Cox - and it makes a lot of sense.

All this babble about verbs, concepts, the interpretation of a force as an object, and everything being physically connected etc like Pluto and Earth is just a way for fatfist to try and confuse, incite and anger educated people. He has presented no theory. Unlike yourself, he is clearly not genuinely trying to learn.

On whether something is an object or space:

What is space? Have you heard of the 'quantum foam'? Again, a theoretical idea that has observational validity. If you like, search for 'quantum vacuum', quantum foam', and 'casimir effect' and hopefully you will learn how 'space' is not as empty as you might think.

I'm happy to try and answer any questions that might cause you trouble.

At some point, I'll get back on topic too! Your original hub has some interesting ideas which would be interesting to explore.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Well, that would be different if we all got back on topic! It's like James' hub on Darwinism - the comments are all over the place. Even mine, LOL!

I have resigned myself to forget about trying to fix the errors on that hub. It's not going to happen. I know James is intelligent, but he sure is stubborn.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Second chance:

fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?

Let's make is a reasonable question then...

What is the most rigid object known and why?

Or are you running away with your vestigial tail between your legs?( Said tail inherited from a "monkey ancestor" of course.)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Ok, I looked up the Casimir effect and found this "Although the Casimir effect can be expressed in terms of virtual particles interacting with the objects, it is best described and more easily calculated in terms of the zero-point energy of a quantized field in the intervening space between the objects."

What is a "quantized field"?

And I'm curious to know what is the most rigid object known and why. I would guess some sort of titanium metal because the atomic structure is so dense? But then it may be my son's attitude about life, because he is NEVER going to change.

PS - FatFist hasn't participated in James' Darwinism hub to my knowledge and therefore would not get the reference to the "monkey ancestor" LOL!


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Manna,

(ANY noun can be verbeb)

You don’t understand the diff between a noun and a verb. This is basic Kindergarten-level stuff. No wonder you don’t understand Physics. Only in Religion can an apple be both an ‘object’ and a ‘concept’. This is called the Fallacy of Reification. Ever heard of it? But I am willing to entertain your explanation for some laughs. Please rationally explain how an “apple” can be BOTH a ‘noun’ and a ‘verb’. If you can’t by your next post, then we both agree that you have no clue what you’re saying.

(Not ONCE for example have I claimed 0D in relation to gravity. You did that all by yourself without any help from me.)

You don’t have to. And this is the nail in the coffin for you. This is what makes you put your own foot in your mouth. It is Quantum Mechanics which defines a graviton to be 0D, a zero-dimensional infinitesimal point-particle with no length, width, height and no shape/form and no structure. It is NOT physical and NOT an object. GRAVITONS DO NOT EXIST because they are defined to be contradictory! Which part didn’t you understand?

Manna, please go and re-read the scriptures of your Quantum Religion before coming here and showcasing your ignorance. Ask your Pastor to interpret them for you. Only in religion can an irrational concept (graviton & god) exist.

(I never claimed anything religious.)

You claimed that impossible objects like 0D gravitons move. You are claiming that these concepts have motion. Only in Religion do concepts move, like God, who moves his hand to create space & matter. You are pushing a religion on the audience.

(You say (Math can only DESCRIBE) Rubbish)

Great! For the 100 th time.......please EXPLAIN why the pen falls to the floor rather than the ceiling. Math cannot do that. It can only give you a dynamic equation that “describes” an itinerary like y=2x. This is basic stuff. You are no mathematician and no physicist, manna.

(made wonderful predictions)

The Scientific Method has no provision for subjectivities like predictions or prophecy. Those belong in Astrology and in Religion! After you rationally explain your Graviton Theory of WHY the pen fell to the floor, you can use your own personal time to get together with Sylvia Brown or Benny Hinn and make all the predictions you want. Such subjective activities have nothing to do with Physics (hypothesis + theory).

(You say (In Science, all definitions are unambiguous and consistent.) Whoops - wrong again. If that were true then we would know everything and we don't.)

What do definitions have to do with the subjective activity you call “knowledge”? Science is not about knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, opinions, authorities, prophecy ...and other subjective activities. These are the hallmarks of Religion where 6 billion people KNOW that a God exists and loves us. You have confused Science with Religion!

Science ensures objectivity via the sci method. Physics only hypothesizes objects, and in the THEORY it rationally EXPLAINS consummated events (in the past, not the future) using the objects of the hypothesis. Science only explains.....it doesn’t do fortune-telling.

A Scientific definition is one that is unambiguous and consistent. Do you even understand what that means? It means that we don’t mindlessly copy definitions of “ordinary speech” from the dictionary or from google. That ensures that the proponent understands nothing. A Scientist uses critical thinking and analysis to define all his terms. That’s why you cannot even define force, object, and concept. All defns in Science have only ONE consistent meaning, and they use Scientific Language (non-contradictory), and not Ordinary Speech (ambiguous layman’s terms), like you do.

(the established and most tested theories have become very solid, weak ones are left behind.)

Nonsense. Gibberish. In Science, a Theory can only be “rational” or “irrational”. We learn this on the first day of science class. Your Graviton hypothesis & theory are irrational because they are full of contradictions.

(How accurate is QED in terms of decimal places with practical experiment? Go look it up.)

Irrelevant! Decimal places have to do with Engineering and practical applications. Science is not engineering nor practical. Science only EXPLAINS in the Theory stage....and it does so rationally. Please go calculate ‘g’ and ‘G’ to 5 Billion decimals places. What the hell have you learned? Will this subjective activity allow you to explain WHY the pen fell to the floor instead of the ceiling? NEVER!

NASA sent man to the Moon without having the slightest clue how Mother Nature makes the gravity effect work. And they did this via Engineering, trial & error, math, guesses, etc....which are all “descriptions”. That has NOTHING to do with Science. Not a single person in NASA can explain to you why a pen falls to the floor.

(You say (You don’t understand the difference between a “description” and an “explanation”) This again is something you just made up.)

Nope. You gave a petty description of covalent bonding and you called it an “explanation”. Face it....you don’t understand the diff between these 2 terms. Be honest for once in your life man.

(trillions of transistors)

Again, you have confused Science with Engineering trial & error. Read above. Transistors were invented by trial & error, just like Edison invented the light bulb. Science only explains natural phenomena with the Sci Method....that’s it! That’s why you cannot explain any of your ridiculous asserted claims. I called you up on these issues.....but you ran with your tail between your legs.

(the accumulated knowledge)

Who gave you this divine knowledge....God, the Bible? Again, you have confused Science with Religion. Only in Religion do we KNOW some proposition to be true, like “Jesus walked on water”, for example. Religion deals with subjective human activities we call knowledge, wisdom, truth, lies, proof, opinions, observations, predictions (prophecy), authorities, etc. That’s why they KNOW that Jesus exists.

In Science we do things much differently. In science we don’t know. In science we only explain. Science only uses the Sci Method to explain....and it does so rationally. Anything else is extra-scientific for the purposes of engineering, math, or usefulness....and it certainly doesn’t concern science the least bit.

I asked you 100 times WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling and you ran with your tail between your legs. Please use your divine knowledge, wisdom, truth, proof, observations, experiments, predictions, authorities, etc. to answer my question once and for all, ok?

(I love the irony.)

That’s why you keep posting it. But I’m willing to educate you about Science, so not all hope is lost for you.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Manna,

(fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?)

And what does your petty trivia have to do with Science, manna? Will you redeem yourself with pissing contests?

I can EASILY answer the question for you. But first, you need to answer a simple question for me which I asked you before....remember?

Q: Can you explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling in your scenario where atoms are not physically connected?

If you can’t, then be a man and say so. This means that you personally acknowledge that your “force” and “graviton” nonsense instantly goes in the toilet. There is no shame in this.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

First you need to understand 'field'. It's a mathematical term. Every field must have at least two elements. Examples include the complex numbers , rational numbers, and real numbers, but not the integers, which form only a ring.

e.g.

Here is a complex number: (3 + 4i)

Here is a rational number: 1/2

I need to think harder to clearly explain without confusing you why real numbers - like 2.5 for example is a field. but it won't matter too much at this time.

"quantization" of a field is to have a limit on an apparent continuous nature when you consider ever smaller snippets of the field. When something is quantized, it is made up of discrete things.

The vacuum of "space" is quantized. The maths involved uses a field and it's called a "quantized field". So instead of a smooth continuous never broken field - the quantum field is full of little bits and gaps. The energy is quantized. As an illustration, energy levels of (say) 3.5 4.3 5.6 are allowed but never 3.51 or 4.39 and if you push the energy level of a particle upwards or downwards, then it has to jump instantaneously from one allowed level to the next. All the while, you have to imagine this happening at a very very tiny scale. On a big view of it, this quantization can't be seen.

In the Casimir experiment, you can actually measure the pressure between two plates if they are extremely close together. If the quantum fluctuations were not there, there would be no pressure to measure.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Dude, that's just way over my head! I did not even understand the first sentence. A mathematician I am not.

Now I do deal with covalence in bio-chemistry so I get some of that. I'm fairly well versed in genetics. And I can tell you anything you want to know about transfusing compatible or non-compatible blood and what happens in vitro and in vivo, but I don't get the math. It's like some other language. I suppose Immunohematology would sound like a foreign language to you.

Although I would like to learn to speak math, I think I'm too old!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Immunohematology would indeed be rather opaque for me so I get your point.

The crux of it is that 'quantized' means discrete which means not continuous - like stepping stones, you hop from one to the other, not slide. Between those plates only whole stepping stones are allowed, not 3.2 stepping stones, so as the plates are brought closer together, it's like you need to push a bit before 4 stones 'pop' to 3 stones. That's the pressure you can measure and it's a consequence of the quantized field.

Sorry - that's the best I can do at present.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

That's better :-)


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

So space is not as 'empty' as people first thought. It's got stuff happening there. But you can't pull energy from space and keep it.

ok - we discussed energy conservation, mass-energy equivalence, the zero point energy of space, the Pauli exclusion principle and how it affects fermions and hence what gives matter it's structure. We discussed the quantized electron cloud model of the atom and explained that it has to be that way to prevent electrons collapsing into the nucleus within a few orbits. Hence we now talk of orbitals. We discussed covalent binding which is an electro static effect. Energy levels around an atom tend towards a minimum. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, but may be converted from what we perceive as energy to mass and vice versa, and because of mass-energy equivalence, the whole universe is made of patterns of energy. We admit that gravity is still tenaciously hanging in there in the realm of the unexplained as it has yet to be unified with the other forces. However a decent contender is the graviton. With the graviton we gain the particle which mediates the force between two massive bodies that manifest at our scale as gravity.

With all that your hub seems quite interesting. Let's get back on topic. The brain uses energy, converting about 10 to 20 watts of chemically stored energy into heat while re-arranging its connections - i.e. patterns. These patterns might for some people be interpreted as 'god'. That's fine. These patterns, may be in some cases interpreted as a sole, and so on. Whatever happens, these patterns took energy (from matter) from the local environment to form them. This appears to be a 'self organisation' which might be interpreted as 'life'.

The thinking process also produces heat which adds to the overall entropy of the universe. Thinking about a god (or anything for that matter) de-organises a little bit of the organised bits of the universe. Where does the energy come from that we consume? On Earth, it is delivered from fusion processes within the Sun. All the while, the Sun is putting trillions of watts into the universe, further adding to the entropy of the universe. No matter what you do, what you think, or how you reason, the entropy of the universe increases. Life appears as local pockets of organisation at the expense of more entropy to the system. Space is expanding and therefore the average density of energy is falling - remember you cannot destroy of create energy. The universe is inexorably cooling down and becoming less organised. This, by current accounts appears to be the ultimate fate of the universe.

What happens to your thoughts? Well, thoughts use energy to create patterns in the brain. When a brain dies, it no longer gets the energy to maintain the patterns and connections, so those patterns disperse (this is entropy by the way).

Now you could imagine that it might be possible to reverse the dispersion and recreate the thought, and if you did that, it would take more energy and thus add to the entropy of the universe.

During your lifetime, the lifetime of your friend's brains, a thought (an idea/concept/philosophy/sole/god) may be copied. Of course this takes more energy which contributes to the entropy of the universe.

So if a person thought really really hard about his/her god for 1 hour, then the number of joules consumed to do that would be equivalent to about 4 x 10^-14 Kg of matter. Luckily, thinking about god does not disrupt the universe very much. Even 6 billion people doing so for one hour would only accumulate to the equivalent conversion of about 0.00024 Kg.

Conclusion: god does not matter much. (Pun massively intended - twice!). But he/she/it is important for some people. That's perfectly fine.

A really REALLY deep question is what happens to 'information'. Where, for example does information go when something falls into a black hole? This is a famous debate which occupies a lot of smart minds and it's too long to try and sort out here but very interesting.

If you need a god - go ahead - it's not a big deal. If you don't then that's fine too. But whatever you do, and however we got here, the human condition is rather special, and temporary, so make the most of it. Cut the wars, but the bickering, cut the insults, cut the cruelty, cut the disrespect for the entire animal and plant kingdom. We might not be the only self aware beings on this planet, and we may or may not be the only life in the entire universe. Make the most of it. Be nice!


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

(fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?)

You say """ And what does your petty trivia have to do with Science, manna? Will you redeem yourself with pissing contests?

I can EASILY answer the question for you """

Go on then.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Mana,

Ahhhh...But first, you need to answer the simple question you have been eluding and hiding from for many days now....remember?

Q: Can you rationally explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling in your scenario where atoms are not physically connected?

Google, dictionaries, math, prophecy, Sylvia Brown, and your Pastors won’t be able to help you out with this one.

If you can’t, then be a MAN and say so. This means that you personally acknowledge that your “force” and “graviton” nonsense instantly goes in the toilet. The audience already understands this, but they would like to see if you’re honest enough to admit it. There is no shame in this. Otherwise, should the audience just blindly trust the nonsense you have posted here?

C’mon, you can do it....I’ll hold your hand, ok?


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

"Q: Can you rationally explain WHY the pen falls to the floor instead of the ceiling in your scenario where atoms are not physically connected?"

It's a minimum energy configuration. It takes energy to hold the pen away from the ground. Energy is conserved, and there is not an infinite amount of energy available to hold it there, so the minimum energy configuration must be the most stable and most likely and most common configuration. This is a geometrical consequence of the way matter is made up.

Answer my question.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

My description of a mathematical field was not good. Sorry about that. Here is a better one: A "field" is an algebraic set with two binary operators with certain properties. Complex numbers, Rational numbers and Real numbers satisfy those conditions. The set of integers is a ring not a field because it does not satisfy closure for the operation "1/x"... i.e. 2 is an integer, but 1/2 is not, ergo integers are not a field. However, 4/1 is a rational, 1/4 is also a rational. There is no point in describing the other conditions here. I just wanted to make a clarification.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Hi Manna,

(It takes energy...)

What is this little critter you call “energy”? Is it an object (something) or a concept (nothing)?

The Christians have already proven that “God is energy”. Is this perhaps what you are referring to? Is energy ‘a’ spirit, or is it an object?

(...to hold the pen away from the ground.)

I thought it was “my hand” that is holding the pen and letting it go. Am I actually “dreaming” that I’m holding the pen in my hand? Is it an ‘energy’ spirit that is actually holding the pen for me while I am a brain in a vat?

How does ‘energy’ HOLD the pen.....does it use its hands, or does it perhaps stand on its head and use its feet to hold the pen above the floor? Is the audience supposed to be “touched in their hearts” by your use of poetry?

(Energy is conserved)

Is energy conserved like I conserve $100 bills under my mattress for a rainy day? My $100 bills are objects, they have length, width, height and form/structure. They have physical presence. They are real...i.e. exist. Is this little critter you call ‘energy’, real? If so, I would love to see an illustration of it with my own 2 eyes.

Is this ‘energy’ critter perhaps an invisible object like God? If so, then you should have no problem illustrating how you hypothesize ‘it’ to be. I mean, the Christians have shown us illustrations of God and Jesus for the past 2000 years. So they are indeed “hypothesized” objects. They only have problems illustrating the “Holy Spirit” in their Trinity because it is 0D. Is it perhaps that energy = “holy spirit”? Is that what you are alluding to?

(there is not an infinite amount of energy available)

I certainly hope not. I mean, ‘infinite’ is an adjective, the context-opposite of ‘finite’. Amount is a verb. It is total gibberish to use “infinite amount” in a sentence. Not even grade-school children abuse grammar and reality in this way. They just excessively use the word “like”.

(the minimum energy configuration)

What does that even mean? Are you stacking up some invisible ‘energy’ spirits all in a row configuration, from the floor, all the way up to the pen which I am holding?

(must be the most stable .... configuration.)

Well if it must stable, then I’ll make sure I hold my hand real steady for you, so as not to tip over and collapse this tower of ‘energy’ spirits which you are building from the floor to the pen I am holding, ok? So don’t say I’m not cooperative!

(and most likely .... configuration.)

Don’t worry....there is no “chance” involved here. When I do a job, I do it right the first time. I will rest my hand over the edge of a table so as to keep it real steady. Then I will place my hand in a vice so it has no lateral movement. I guarantee that you will have no problem building this stable tower of invisible ‘energy’ spirits from the floor to my hand. Maybe we can go out for a few beers later....whad ‘ya say?

(and most common configuration.)

Well.....I don’t know about that. I mean, you won’t find that many numbskulls doing these kind of crazy experiments like we will be doing. Perhaps in the asylum, as the patients there also claim to use invisible saws to saw down trees,... so anything is possible I guess. I hear that human knowledge is quite limited in this day and age....so it could be possible in the future to saw down trees using only concepts.....don't you agree?


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Manna,

(This is a geometrical consequence of the way matter is made up.)

Absolutely not!

Geometry is the study of shapes. Without shapes, you can’t even begin to do geometry. All objects have shape. The nonsense which you have posted here did not reference a single physical object with shape. You did not provide a single physical mechanism which explains why the pen falls to the floor. You claim that the Earth and the pen are discrete objects. But you failed to explain what physical object (with shape/structure) is in surface-to-surface contact with the pen, so as when my hand lets go of the pen, it gets pulled to the ground.

1) Did the pen fall to the floor because a 0D shapeless spirit you have called ‘energy/force/graviton’ pulled it or pushed it down?

Or

2) Did the pen fall to the floor because a physical object came in physical contact with the pen and pulled it or pushed it down?

Are you doing Religion or are you doing Physics?

You fool no one, Manna! Your use of surrealistic figures of speech, farfetched euphemisms and extreme poetry, is not scientific. They belong strictly to Religion, and not in a scientific presentation. I enjoy poetry too, manna, but I don't confuse it for reality. There's a time for metaphor and a time for scientific explanations. The problem with contemporary physics is that it is all metaphor & poetry and no science.

The main actor in a Physics Theory must be a physical object. This is the real object which mediates the “effect”, we call gravitational attraction, between the Earth and the pen. Concepts cannot perform actions, just as concepts cannot be actors in a James Bond movie....I mean, what is it that we are supposed to watch...nothing? Only a physical object can come in contact with the pen and either pull it or push it to the floor. Spirits cannot perform any actions. Spirits cannot move and come in physical contact with the pen, and pull it to the floor.

The religion of mathematical physics is plagued by these dualities where concepts acquire life of their own. The mathematician moves a concept and claims to be explaining reality. When you grab him by the neck and put him up against a wall, he tells you that this is extremely complicated abstract math stuff and only a select few individuals blessed with Nobel prizes are able to understand it (wink, wink,...nudge, nudge). I guess God does play favourites and blesses his devout followers with divine knowledge.

Mathematicians cannot explain reality because they deal exclusively with “dynamic concepts”, while the universe is composed only of objects. The latter exist while the former does not.

In physics, it is impossible to move, transfer or conserve intangibles. These are figures of speech that people have extrapolated into scientific contexts. It's gobbledygook talk. No wonder you don't understand anything and you cannot offer a single physical rational explanation for any physical phenomenon. All your attempts have been, without exception, philosophical & religious Ptolemaic descriptions.

Here’s an example of a rational explanation of WHY a person was killed when he drove his car into a building.: The physical contact of the car with the building caused the front components (objects) of the car to physically collapse and break apart and move into the cabin, where they came in physical contact with the driver, slicing, crushing, and ripping his body into many pieces.

Here’s an example of an irrational explanation using spirits and poetry: The person was killed because the energy of the impact was transferred to the driver, killing him instantly.

Gobbledygook! Why did the driver die....because a non-existent spirit “transferred” itself to the driver? This is no different than Demon Possession in Christianity....and I hear a lot of people die from that as well.

You’ve said nothing, manna. So no more poetry, metaphor, religious speech, or playing hide & seek around the bush, please. Just give it to me straight, manna:

1) Your CLAIMS of ‘force’, ‘gravitons’, ‘energy’ are not real objects and are impossible to exist, right?

2) Consequently, ‘they’ are IMPOSSIBLE to be PHYSICAL MEDIATORS for gravity, right?

3) Therefore, your religion has no rational explanation for gravity, right?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

FatFist, I disagree. I believe there is an object called "energy". I suspect that's a terrible name for it, but I believe Manna is correct in that atoms contain "energy", not just mass. Without some sort of "energy" or "glue" (which could be a verb or a noun), there would be no repelling and attraction which is what gives an object some structure. Your pen could not fall anywhere as it wouldn't even be a pen without "glue/energy" to hold in in the form of a shape.


fatfist profile image

fatfist 5 years ago

Austinstar,

(I believe there is an object called "energy".)

How about if a person does not believe in this claimed energy object....does it not exist? What sense does it make to “believe” that a claimed object exists or doesn't exist? Do we take people's statements at face value without a rational explanation? I thought people only did this in religion.

Does God not exist because you don’t “believe” in Him? Will God suddenly pop into existence if a Jehovah’s Witness comes to your door and brainwashes you to believe in Him?

Is belief the criteria for existence? Or does God exist or not by definition of ‘exist’.

Exist: physical presence. God must be an object with a location if He wants to exist. Otherwise He is a concept (nothing).

In Physics we don’t believe in existence. We “assume” a hypothetical object to exist in the hypothesis stage of the sci method. Then the Theory will use this object as an actor to rationally explain a phenomenon in nature. Science is based on explanations....not belief.

An object exists by definition irrespective of what anybody believes or claims, because it has physical presence. The Sun is SOMETHING (object) rather than NOTHING (concept/space). The Sun exists whether you are confined in an underground colony all your life and have never heard of it.

In science, we use the Hypothesis stage of the sci method to “hypothesize” how our claimed ‘energy’ object looks like. And it had better have spatial separation (shape) from the background of space, otherwise it is nothing.

God is indeed an object. God has shape/form. Even the Bible says so. God is ABSOLUTELY a valid object of Physics! But God is impossible to exist because it is impossible for Him to create space & matter, as I have explained in detail in my hubs. Any attempt to “theorize” God as a creator, instantly renders God an impossible object...ie. a concept that is only based on faith alone.

Otoh, energy is not an object. It has no shape/form. There is no Hypothesis for an energy object anywhere in science. Energy is an abstract concept. It is the output of an equation which embodies many concepts and ideas. That’s how it’s defined. Without a human observer, there is no concept of energy, much less an object.

People can believe in spirits, forces, gravitons and energy all they want, ....this does not concern Physics. So unless they have a valid hypothesis and a rational theory to explain gravity, they are just impossible “claims”....no different than God and triangular circles which travel faster than Wednesday!

It is the responsibility of the proponent who so desperately wants energy to be an object, to be able to illustrate this supposed object. Then it will become an “actor” in their Theory. For example:

HYPOTHESIS: Let us assume a real object with shape exists, and let’s call it ‘energy’. Here is an online illustration on how it would look like.......

THEORY: I will use the ‘energy’ object as an “actor” in my physical explanation of the gravitational attraction phenomenon. I can now rationally explain that energy objects emanating from atoms in the Earth, come in surface-to-surface contact with the atoms of the pen, and .........blah blah............the pen is pulled (or pushed) to the floor.

The proponent must illustrate this supposed ‘energy’ object, and fill in the “blah blah” rationally.

If anybody can accomplish this task without contradictions, they will have rationally demonstrated that a claimed ‘energy’ object MAY exist.

Any takers?

(I believe Manna is correct in that atoms contain "energy")

Again this is not based on belief, correct/incorrect, right/wrong, truth/lies. This issue falls squarely on the hypothesis (assumption & illustration) and Theory (rational explanation). Belief & faith, knowledge & wisdom, correct & incorrect, right & wrong, truth & lies, proof & prophecy,...are the hallmarks of Religion and don’t concern Physics.

Atoms can only “contain” physical objects, just like my mattress contains $100 bills.

(which could be a verb or a noun)

It is impossible for atoms to contain “verbs” or “actions”, just as it is impossible for my mattress to contain “love”.

All verbs/actions are mediated by a minimum of 2 objects. For example: object A moves towards object B and makes surface-to-surface contact with it. This EFFECT is what we call action/contact/force/hit/punch....a verb!

It would take a minimum of 2 objects to mediate a “supposed” verb called “energy” inside an atom. One could be the atom, and the other a separate object called X residing within the atom. Or they could be 2 objects called X and Y residing inside the atom. Take your pick.

I’m sure you can appreciate, Austinstar, that in science we do things objectively. Faith & belief play no role.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

fatfist, You seem to have gone into an ever decreasing circular argument of nonsense. Hopefully a few more orbits and you will fall into your own nucleus and turn into a 0D "something" since there is no energy or force to prevent it.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Austinstar: You are so close to understanding. Atoms *are* energy. Everything is energy since energy and matter are equivalent. What changes is the configuration. I know string theory has been controversial, and it was nearly chucked out a few years back but it's now considered a serious contender. In string theory, the basic 'stuff' of everything is inconceivably tiny vibrating open strings or loops. That's all there is to the basic premise. From this, each vibrating string can vibrate only in certain configurations (geometry :- fatfist is correct to admit that geometry is the study of shapes). These vibrating strings can, by virtue of their geometry vibrate only in certain ways. Each configuration manifests itself as a different particle. The fact that only certain shaped vibrations are possible give rise to the well tested quantum nature of matter. Energy is quantized. Particles in certain configurations can either get together or not. When they get together it's an easier more stable system (lower energy level) when this happens a little packet of energy is ejected from the new system because energy is conserved. When their shapes are in other configurations where they can't get together, this is repulsion. It's what gives matter it's rigidity.

You might wonder why only certain modes of vibration are possible. To get an idea, a classical analogy can help. If you take a string, and attach it taught between two points, then pluck the string, it will vibrate at a certain frequency. Now if you put a finger in the middle of the string and pluck it again, you get a different shape - a predicable shape - not a random shape. In fact this is a harmonic of the first frequency exactly twice the frequency of the first.

Another example: take a string and anchor it to the wall, leave it slack and take the other end in hand. rapidly raise and lower the loose end and you will see a wave travel from the loose end to the wall. Some of this wave will be absorbed by the wall, and some will be reflected. A wave will return. The wavelength (a parameter of the geometry of the wave) will be different depending on the speed that you raised and lowered the end. The shape will be a decaying sinusoid.

If you take a flat loop and vibrate it, you will be able to fit one wavelength around its perimiter, two wavelengths, three wavelengths, or a superposition of those. But you cannot fit 1.1 or 1.01 or 1.00005762 wavelengths around the loop.


kfassett profile image

kfassett 5 years ago

Nice Hub!

I'm curious about energy. I am a material atheist, and I haven't really been able to accept "life energy" theories into my personal philosophy because I don't understand them very well yet. But I am fascinated by ghost stories and other paranormal stories, and I'd like to think that we could explain phenomenon like that with "life energy" theories. But like I said, I don't really know very much about what I'm talking about. What do you think?


VOICE CIW profile image

VOICE CIW 5 years ago

Austinstar, first of all our soul according to the Bible is energy, spirit, essence, conscience, life force, personality, spiritual being. This shell we live in is just our earthly body. When we die our earthly body goes to the grave, our soul moves on, either to heaven or hell, depending on how we lived this life. You really did not need to do a study on infinity, and those numbers with minuses and pluses, all you had to do was read the Bible and it would have told you all you need to know about this life and the next life, and where your soul goes after death. God Bless You!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

No joke? All I had to do was read the bible? Well, boil me in oil and call me Shirley! I'm done.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

Hi Austinstar. I am about to drop off the map for a few days. In the meantime, good luck! You sparked a great debate. Your ideas are highly entwined with the laws of thermodynamics, what is energy (and matter) and by extension the four fundamental forces of nature.

My "explanation" of gravity could be a lot better of course -- especially that all scientists know that gravity is not understood.

Hopefully, fatfist will tell you what is the most rigid known object. If not P.M. me and I'll follow up.


Manna in the wild profile image

Manna in the wild 5 years ago from Australia

"No joke? All I had to do was read the bible?"

Oh! Is it that simple? How convenient.


VOICE CIW profile image

VOICE CIW 5 years ago

Austinstar, and you are done.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Manna, I always wonders what string theory was. No one ever explained it to me before. Thanks. Hope you have a good vacation/holiday or walkabout, whatever it is you're going off the map for :-)

FatFist, are you going to answer the question?


Shahid Bukhari profile image

Shahid Bukhari 5 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

The Human's Awareness in Being, is Life ... This Awareness Survives the body's transformations ... this Awareness is the Record of our doings ... and is the one Judged, on judgment Day.

Once we lose the Awareness of Truth ... everything is lost, we are dead... as said by the poet ...

"Breathes there the man with soul so dead..."


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Shahid, there is no judgment day. It's another biblical fallacy. We are far too busy judging each other to bother some invisible being with that.


Micky Dee profile image

Micky Dee 5 years ago

Yo Austin! It's so far down here where I can comment I forgot what the subject was. Oh- where are we going? Well - I guess my answer is I really don't know. I just need to try to love and serve people as I can and read hubs that make me think like this one. Like Quark says- it's already a hell of a ride. Raising our brothers and sisters up just greases the skids.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Great idea, Micky! Yes, raising everyone up does make the world go round better doesn't it. And you, my friend do a fine job of that! Love and Peace,

Lela


Kirui 5 years ago

Definition of life; any entity that can change the components making it up without changing the manner in which the components are arranged. Reproduction is just but a special case of this. If an atom can exchange its electrons with similar electrons then in turn change protons with similar protons, then neutrons etc, then the atom is alife by definition. The resultant atom is the 'son' of the former. The 'father' is dead if it disintergrated in the process.

Before you were born, you existed as a jigsaw puzzle in the soil. So you were simply thorougly asleap. So it does when you die.

Lastly, if a brain like yours is assembled somewhere, no matter how far in space and how long in time, using different atoms you can as well become conscious there. So consciousness can be omnipresent. So given an endless time in future and infinite universe in space, there is a never ending hope of coming back to life yet we can't tarry waiting for it. What a beautiful existence.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Kirui, you have seen the light and understand life. What a beautiful existence indeed.


RealHousewife profile image

RealHousewife 5 years ago from St. Louis, MO

You are too smart! I feel like I just took physics again:-). I always learn something from you and the comments are terrific. Now I'm going to find Alice's Restaurant. I hope no one took you up on the offer to boil you in oil LOL!


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

No one has boiled me yet! They'll have to drag me kicking and screaming! Thanks for the encouraging words.


RealHousewife profile image

RealHousewife 5 years ago from St. Louis, MO

Ha! Like you need encouragement from the lowly likes of me! LOL! You're lucky you didn't get boiled in that volcano!


linda 5 years ago

people please your mind is what controls your thoughts and memories your body movement and so on...when you die and your blood stops flowing, your heart stops and brain function is gone, thats it, your gone...The bible states the dead no nothing at all.... Wake up people live your life because its your last..... Live love and be happy....What ever energy you have stored up in that body floates off it knows nothing...


Leo 4 years ago

That is not entirely true.wat do u say about hell nd heaven.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Heaven and Hell are reward/scare tactics used to recruit religionists. They are concepts only and do not occupy real time/space/matter. In essence, they do not exist. They are thoughts and imagination only.


tugbo200-5 4 years ago

Well ,whatever,if I being infinite matter come back as a light-bulb I'd be a light bearer.... imagine that.

interesting hub


manatita44 profile image

manatita44 4 years ago from london

Well written and thought-provoking Hub. Got a bit 'heady' lower down but still interesting. Continue to ask others to seek.


eddiecarrara profile image

eddiecarrara 3 years ago from New Hampshire

Quite an interesting hub, and the continuing conversation got quite deep, a little too deep for me, I like to keep things simple, but I enjoyed reading the hub, it definitely makes you think!

I have always thought of life as being energy, when the body dies, the energy is released (free). I guess I never really thought about what happens to the energy once it was free, something to ponder :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Actually, Eddie, that is a great analogy. We are energy. Energy holds our bodies together. When our body dies, our energy remains behind as part of the universe. It cannot be destroyed.


eddiecarrara profile image

eddiecarrara 3 years ago from New Hampshire

That was my thought, (our energy cannot be destroyed) but what happens to it? Does it coalesce into another being or living organism or does it just float around as part of the universe? I guess that question can only be answered after we're dead! Thanks again Austinstar, it really makes you think :)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I suppose it's like the energy contained in an electrical outlet. You can only see it when the switch is 'on'.


Sam 3 years ago

To the grave or crematory,ash's and dust,

that's it your finished/


manatita44 profile image

manatita44 3 years ago from london

Peace.


Kukata Kali profile image

Kukata Kali 2 years ago

Love this explanation! Voted up~


La Critique 2 years ago

Where does Austinstar get this "great knowledge" of what happens when we die? You are correct that everything lives forever, and changes. You are wrong about human death--physically, we are dead when our heart stops beating, and the line is flat. Spiritually, we are all dead, unless we accept Jesus as our savior. The bible is pretty clear in what happens to us when we die. Accept it or not.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

La Critique - And all the other 'Holy Books' and Physics books are totally wrong. The Christian Bible is the only one you will believe or listen to.

Just tell me where EXACTLY heaven is then, since you seem to know.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

The premise that all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it, “the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.”

Emphatically, then, the fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe.

This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared here: http://bit.ly/SSsy8x. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of All Loving God.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

So, you base your god theory on the age of the universe as measured by microwave background radiation from 1965?

The current model of the universe does support an infinite, ageless universe. ( http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-... ) and this is announced in February of 2015. This announcement by physics.org "Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

And as "something cannot come from nothing", there can be no god (something) because this god cannot have come from nothing.

The only way a god works is that there was ALWAYS something. And why must you insist on ascribing human modifiers to this something?

Even if you equate the universe to equal what you call god, it is a thing, NOT a "transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good thing". None of those words would apply to a description of the energy/matter/space in which all things exist.

BTW - TIME is a man made invention developed to measure the way the universe interacts within itself. It's not a thing, it's a concept. And time doesn't have human emotions either.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

It's not a relevant model until it's been tested and proven true. Until then it's all just speculation.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

And you think the big bang isn't speculation? Weird. In fact, everything in life is just one big guess for us humans. We don't really have written history going back to the first humans. All that matters is to enjoy our current lives. And know that our matter and energy are part and parcel of the universe. Infinitely.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

Actually it's not. There are a whole host of facts which we know to be true. In fact, the Bible is filled with them which is why it has served as such a reliable guide for so many for thousands of years -

"To my surprise, I found substantial knowledge and deep insight in the pages of the Bible. I was fascinated with researching the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed prophecies applying to events occurring over thousands of years of human history. I was especially impressed by how the integration of multiple Bible prophecies—in the books of Daniel and Revelation—provides a solid basis for determining that we live in “the last days.”—2 Timothy 3:1.

In studying the Bible, I was unknowingly in excellent company. I later learned that Sir Isaac Newton, regarded as one of the greatest scientific geniuses of all time, admired and intensely researched the Bible. Like Newton, I focused on prophecies in Daniel and Revelation that foretold major historical events and developments that have actually occurred. However, I had the distinct advantage of living during and after the realization of the many prophecies that have been fulfilled since Newton’s day. I discovered that these prophecies are amazingly diverse and extensive as well as unerring and undeniable. It was an eye-opener to realize that the entire Bible, penned by more than 40 men over a period of 1,600 years, contains an internally consistent, coherent, and compelling message concerning the major issues facing humankind and its future.

Letting go of my belief in evolution did not come without resistance, however. I respected the substantial weight of scientific authority backing up this theory. Nevertheless, I discovered that all Bible statements about the physical world are entirely consistent with known facts and cannot be disproved. I came to appreciate that in order to achieve a complete, cohesive understanding of the Bible’s extensive, interrelated contents, one cannot discount a single teaching, including the creation account in Genesis. I therefore discerned that acceptance of the entire Bible as truth was the only reasonable conclusion." -Dr. Kenneth Tanaka - Former Atheist (http://bitly.com/1ebIe05)


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Well, we just have to disagree on the bible being a reliable source for anything. I've read the bible and I find it disgusting. It's full of mean spirited death and destruction, rules for slavery, glorification for rapes and child abuse and more.

The torture and death of your most precious "leader" of Christianity should be a clue as to the violence and hatred contained in those books.

The books are not in any way scientific, they are opinions and myths and legends retold by superstitious people trying to make sense of a primitive world.

It's a bad novel at best.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

Dr. Tanaka, among many, many others, would disagree. The Bible is absolutely scientifically accurate despite the fact that it was not conceived as a scientific text.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

The Adam and Eve story is scientifically accurate? Oh give me a break. Noah's Ark story is scientifically accurate? You would have to be insane to believe that. And no, a world wide flood has never been scientifically verified.

Just name one 'story' from the bible that is scientifically accurate? Yes, there have been towns with biblical names, but lots of novels are based in existing towns like New York City or Jerusalem. It only proves the cities existed, not the myths and legends told about those places.

Seriously, the story of angels visiting a guy in town and the townspeople wanting to rape those angels while the guy says, no, here, rape my daughter instead! Scientific? Hardly.


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

Just about all ancient peoples possess lore telling how their forebears made it through a global deluge . African Pygmies , European Celts , South American Incas—all have very similar legends , as do peoples of Alaska , Australia , China , India , Lithuania , Mexico , Micronesia , New Zealand , as well as regions of The North American Continent , to point out just a few .

Through the years the legends were , needless to say , adorned nevertheless they all incorporate a number of specific details thus revealing the existence of a well-known source narrative. Specifically : God was angered by mankind’s evil . He caused a great inundation . Humanity on the whole was wiped out . A handful of righteous ones , nonetheless , were protected . These constructed a vessel wherein individuals as well as wildlife were protected . In time , birds were sent off to seek out dry terrain . At long last , the vessel came to rest on a mountain . Upon disembarking , the survivors presented a sacrifice .

Precisely what does this establish ? This likeness simply cannot be coincidental . The collective evidence of these particular legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all people descend from the survivors of a flood that eradicated a world of humankind . For that reason , we need not rely upon legends or myths to learn what occurred . We have the carefully preserved history in the Hebrew scriptures of the Holy Bible .—Genesis , chapters 6-8 .


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

"The human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements—carbon, iron, oxygen, and others—are all present in the “dust” of the earth. Thus, as Genesis states, humans truly are formed “out of dust from the ground.”" - http://bit.ly/1AJK6Zp

“Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—Heredity in Humans

“The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—The Races of Mankind


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Once again, you have not presented scientific evidence. Many scientists have actually proven with geological and anthropological evidence that a world wide flood is completely and totally false. It never happened. And you are also making the clain that a god causes the rain to fall, which by now, you should know that water falls from the sky by meteorological events, not by some mythological god.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

The human body is made up of 41 chemical elements? You betcha. The same elements found in every animal on the planet. The same elements found throughout the universe. Even the same elements found in stardust. It is patently false that all humans were descended from the same first man. If they were, we would all be totally identical with the exact same dna..


Joseph O Polanco profile image

Joseph O Polanco 18 months ago

To what specific scientific and anthropological evidence are you referring to?

"The same elements found throughout the universe. Even the same elements found in stardust."

Which explains why there is so much life spread out throughout the universe ... oh ... wait ...

"It is patently false that all humans were descended from the same first man."

Nice work there crushing that Strawman. Now, can you refute what I've actually and very clearly stated?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

I have clearly stated that you are NOT presenting scientific evidence! You are making statements, citing rumors, legends, stories and unprovable conjecture.

Let me ask you a question. What languages were the original manuscripts of the bible actually written in?


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

So, you don't know what languages the original books of the bible are written in then?

Your comment referenced child pornography and appears to be copied and pasted rhetoric. It is disallowed.


Austinstar profile image

Austinstar 18 months ago from Somewhere in the universe Author

Ok JOP - your insults are no longer allowed on this hub.


abdussalaam profile image

abdussalaam 12 months ago from Luton

Definitely interesting :-)

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Austinstar profile image

    Austinstar1,080 Followers
    193 Articles

    Lela earned a B.A. degree in Journalism from Sam Houston University in Huntsville, TX. She has been writing for the online world for years.



    Click to Rate This Article
    working