ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Astronomy & Space Exploration

Big Bang: The BIG LIE!!

Updated on February 17, 2014
BB EXPLOSION: WHAT IS THE LEADING EDGE MADE FROM?? BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? AND WTF IS THE BLACK STUFF??
BB EXPLOSION: WHAT IS THE LEADING EDGE MADE FROM?? BRICKS? STEEL? PLASTIC? AND WTF IS THE BLACK STUFF??
WHAT IS ALL THAT BLACK STUFF SURROUNDING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION????
WHAT IS ALL THAT BLACK STUFF SURROUNDING THE BIG BANG EXPANSION????
GEORGES LEMAINTRE:  2000 YEARS AGO WE WERE TAUGHT BY IGNORANT DESERT TRIBESMEN IN THE MID-EAST.  NOW WE ARE TAUGHT BY PRIESTS!!!!!
GEORGES LEMAINTRE: 2000 YEARS AGO WE WERE TAUGHT BY IGNORANT DESERT TRIBESMEN IN THE MID-EAST. NOW WE ARE TAUGHT BY PRIESTS!!!!!
CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT?????????
CAN WE THROW A SPEAR THROUGH THE BRICK WALL AT THE EDGE OF THE UNIVERSE? WHY NOT?????????
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?
THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX! Is the Universe a BOX that encloses you? If so, then WHAT is outside the box?

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

Big Bang: The Universe is NOT Expanding

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

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

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



Does the Universe Have an Edge?


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

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

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


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

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




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


All objects have the intrinsic property of shape.


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

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


Big Bang = Religion!




The Religion of the Big Bang


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

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

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


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


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


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


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



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


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


But what did the singularity explode and expand into?

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

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


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




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



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


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


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



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


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

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

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

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



In physics, we explain it as follows:


Object: that which has shape

Space: that which lacks shape


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

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

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



Conclusion


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



Comments

Submit a Comment

  • Mark Alien profile image

    Mark 2 years ago

    Love your blog...have you seen this? http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S...

  • profile image

    Aloysius 2 years ago

    The big bang is definitely false.

    http://www.bigbanguntrue.blogspot.com/

  • profile image

    Ant K 3 years ago

    ibeleiinGOD, I see you've that you've chosen to assert the existence of, and make a claim about, your comfort blanket belief, instead of directly responding to the content of the article. One would think you have no argument and have put your hands over your eyes to hide from the reality that you're unable to challenge something that destroys your brainless belief system. How sad, but predictable.

  • profile image

    ibeleiinGOD 3 years ago

    GOD cannot be compared for GOD is everything.

  • profile image

    s4ogals 3 years ago

    to all bb theory followers. I dont linke the bullshit ice cream flavour.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Alan, join our fb Physics group "Rational Scientific Method" and raise this topic for discussion.

  • profile image

    Alan 3 years ago

    Would it be out of line to ask you your thoughts concerning the documentry "particle fever"? I watched it and wish that there was someone in the movie discussing the issues the theory has. I know you can shed some light on this in a very clear way, but then again this might be the wrong place to ask this question.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    "How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner?"

    It's called "pull". There are only 2 possible forces in nature. The other is called "push".

    Free will means unpredictable behavior in living entities. They have the ability to choose. Inert objects don't.

    Harris had the ability to write a book and exercised his wish to do so....irrespective of the actual mechanics involved in the brain, which are irrlevant to the definition of 'free will'.

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    I will definitely join this page on Facebook.

    "Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation."

    I completely agree with you there. Its a perfectly rational statment and I cannot see it being any other way.

    "The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated."

    Ok, but how can I be even remotely sure that nothing forced me to comply or otherwise. I am not aware of decision making of my brain (Liebet experiments) and therefore "me feeling" that I made or didn't make some decision means nothing.

    "The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision."

    They sure felt like they had the ability to make a decision but again, feeling something stands for nothing.

    "Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life."

    So, I've read your article on life before and this is the part that is very interesting to me.

    "Inert entities are pulled by other

    entities without offering any resistance to them. Living entities necessarily resist the gravitational attraction from all other entities in the Universe."

    I don't quite get it what is the meaning of the word resistance in this statement. How is this resistance accomplished if all the atoms in this universe are interacting each other in a precise manner? I just don't understand how is this resistance possible. To me it is like saying- all atoms in universe are not able to resist gravity but if you assemble them in the way that they create a human ape or any other living being then they suddenly do. If it is possible for atoms to suddenly accomplish the ability of resisting the gravity then what is mechanics behind that happening?

    "It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best."

    How do you know that Sam had free will to write his book? So what I'am basically asking you what is a so called "free will" and how it functions on a micro level (or any level)?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?”

    Yes it is. All atoms must be interconnected. This is the only way objects can attract each other via gravitation.

    “can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?”

    The text can tell you to move your left or right hand…..but you decided the hell with that, and moved your foot instead. You exercised your free will to do so. Nothing forced you to comply with what the text dictated.

    “ in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision”

    You may have made a different decision after reading an article encouraging you to get the red bike. Your brain will process the data available that that instant and reach some (logical to you) decision. Others won’t even think about it and just pick a bike randomly. The point is that they had the free will to choose whether to use a methodology to make their decision.

    “we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction.”

    Living entities have the unique ability to resist this interaction and move against it. See my article on life.

    It’s hilarious how Sam Harris claims there is no free will in humans…..but yet he had the free will to write such a book. Contradictory at best. And whether or not a human has free will has nothing to do with having the ability to trace the SOURCE of where the thought came from to write a book. That has nothing to do with the fact that Harris did indeed write a book.

    Anyway, if you’d like to discuss this or other Science stuff further, join our “Rational Scientific Method” group on facebook.

    Thanks!

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    "we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there"

    First of all, hello. I cannot argue with this statement, however, isnt every single piece of atom affecting ever other piece of atom in the Universe?

    "Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation."

    I can definitely do what you just suggested but that doesnt mean that I have free will? The mechanics of making decision to move my hand are complex but the core question of this problem is: can I move my hand and be sure that I made the decision, or was it the the atoms and molecules in my body reacting in the only possible way to the text you have written?

    I'm just wondering- is it irrational to think that "human apes" are assembled of atoms and molecules which interact with each other in particular way and that there is only one way of this interaction to give us a result-decision?

    Lets present a little example- few years ago i needed a new bike. So i see two bikes in the bike shop that I really like and they are both similarly priced and have same specs. One was black-grey and the other was white with red details. I took the black-grey one because of the color (I think). I can't say what was the real reason of buying that bike but but I can write this- in the moment of me realising that I want a black bike can I be even remotely sure how that decision was made? Sure, it took me some time to think which one to buy but that thinking time could also be determined by moving atoms. So, in the moment of making that decision (im not sure when that moment occured) if the whole Universe was just the way it was how could I have made a different decision. If human apes have true free will then I can't see how it can function without somehow magically reversing the way that atoms and molecules move (and it doesn't even matter if the atoms are moving in a deterministic or non-deterministic way). As you already said, we can affect the Universe, but if we are being affected by atoms to make affect then it is just simple interaction. In the end, my opinion is that people should't use concepts of free will so freely if we cannot explain it. On the other side, absence of free will seems much easier to explain.

    If you are interested read here about the illusion of free will http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/05/15/An-A...

    Thank you for your time Fatfist :-)

    P.S. - You should start writing a book if you already haven't started. Keep up the good work :-)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter”

    You may say that events involving inert matter are deterministic. But even still….we have living entities in the Universe which physically affect every single bit of matter out there. Just move your hand or blink your eyelid and you’ve pulled on every single atom in the Universe via action-at-a-distance gravitation. Living entities do have free will and they certainly can affect other events. You can move your left or right hand as you wish right now. Nothing in the Universe will determine which one it will be.

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    "It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other."

    I completely agree with you and I think that this claim is very important. If there is a certaint way in which two atoms interact (and if it is the only way) then it would be rational to say that every event is deterministic and can not be changed no matter what is our opinion cause our opinion is also basically a product of motion between atoms and molecules. Even if there is certaint randomness to the way the atoms interact I still cannot see how free will can function. I do not want to bore you with this if you are not interested but you seem to be a person with great knowledge and I am basically just asking you if this kind of thinking is rational or not.

    Thank you :-)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    The fact that you can and do make choices you have free will. That's what the concept means. Nobody has tackled the task to dissect exactly how the brain works, much less how it makes choices. It ultimately stems from atoms sending signals to each other. Check out how the high level neuron works.

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    hey Fatfist,

    it seems to me that the message before this last one was not send to you so I will repeat it. It does not seem possible that a concept called free will can be rational. What is your understanding of free will and if our brain is capable of making choices, how does this happen?

    Peace man :-)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    Already answered ....Don.

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    yo Fatfist,

    I have just read your article called "Olbers Paradox" and after reading it there is no need for you to explain the first question in my previous post cause it seems to me that I found all my answers. However I would still like if you could answer the question about free will.

    Thank you in advance :-)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 3 years ago

    “Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here?”

    Well, what are the options? This is what we need to address first. The options are either creation or non-creation (i.e. an eternal Universe).

    As it turns out, creation is a hypothesis….an assumption which sets the stage for a rational explanation (i.e. a Theory) outlining in detail the process of creation; i.e. a movie depicting how space & matter can be created.

    But is the concept of eternal Universe a hypothesis? Can it possibly be an assumption? If so, then just what is it we are going to explain…..how space & matter were never eternal (i.e. they were created) at some time in the past….and magically became eternal? Does this even make sense? No! This is contradictory reasoning. Hence, eternal Universe is the DEFAULT scenario and creation is the CLAIM a human posits. Only a claim can possibly be amenable to an explanation. Eternal Universe is definitely NOT a hypothesis or claim….contrary to what some believe. The bottom line is that if you don’t like the Universe being eternal, you had better explain the process of creation.

    On creation, can space be created? Space is nothing. It’s impossible to create nothing. Nothingness is eternal. How about matter…..how does nothing acquire shape and morph into matter? If there was nothing there to begin with, then matter can’t be created. Creation is clearly impossible. Matter is eternal and is perpetually recycled into new objects.

    “what is your view on determinism?”

    All that determinism tells us is that there are unavoidable outcomes. Humans can individually have all the free will they want and exercise it in any way they wish. This individual free will cannot prevent some guaranteed (deterministic) outcomes. If you jump off a cliff you have the free will to wave your arms. But you do not have the free will to fly upwards or avoid your death. We do not have the free will to avoid aging and death as they are both deterministic.

  • profile image

    Don Mon Ster 3 years ago

    hello Fatfist,

    I've read almost all of your texts and I have to say your writing is brilliant. You're the main reason why I've joined this page and you really motivated me to ask you a few questions that aren't really connected to this topic but I hope you will be kind enough to answer them. Are there any other scientific models about Universe that propose explanation that would seem rational except for the model you presented here? Also, what is your view on determinism? Looking forward to your response.

  • profile image

    nicholashesed 4 years ago

    Lol! Well my God created the EM ropes. That's all that matters.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    The boneheads of Mathematics create from nothing and they believe in God too. So you have some pretty stiff competition there, Nicholas! Should we believe in your God...or their Deistic God?

    From the video: The Big Bang - Lawrence Krauss and Michio Kaku

    “In the beginning, there is nothing. No matter, no energy, not even empty space, because space itself doesn’t exist!”

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

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible.” – Pastor Lawrence Krauss

    "A serious case could be made for a deistic God." – Richard Dawkins

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Yes, and Craig would probably argue from:

    Hebrews 11:3

    3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

    King James Version (KJV)

    Romans 4:17

    17 (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

    Although not considered part of the cannon, there is specific mention of creation ex nihilo in II Maccabees 7:28: I beg you, child, to look at the heavens and the earth and see all that is in them; then you will know that God did not make them out of existing things.

  • profile image

    nicholashesed 4 years ago

    I am certain that in Genesis One bara means to shape, or to form. Genesis One was written long before any formulated dogma. Subsequent to the Hellenistic invasion the verb may have been used a little differently, i.e. semantic evolution. But even the Jewish woman living during the Maccabees said God created all things from nothing. She didnt simply say God created all things implying ex nihilo. Ex nihilo is a conceptual figuration. God does not use nothing to create something.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Creatio ex Nihilo: From the Christian perspective, Creation is the dogma of the Catholic Church, as they declared that the universe was created by God, in ‘time’ and ‘out-of-nothing’. The Fourth Lateran council in 1215 pronounced CREATION FROM NOTHING as an official teaching almost 800 years ago.

    "We believe that God needs no preexistent thing or any help in order to create, nor is creation any sort of necessary emanation from the divine substance. God creates freely ‘out of nothing’" -- Catechism of the Catholic Church 296

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    The Mormons argue for creatio ex materia and WL Craig argues for creation ex nihilo. I'd pit Craig against the Mormons anytime, ;)

    As for Judaism: "...there is no clear consensus on what actually happened in the beginnings of the universe or how to interpret the Torah’s message. Not only is the matter not a simple “open and shut” case, but it seems from time immemorial that the only thing that the Sages could agree on was to disagree. "

    " The account of creation is ambiguous enough to uphold all three theories."

    Referring to creation out of god, creation out of existing material, and creation out of nothing.

    http://thinkjudaism.wordpress.com/tag/ex-nihilo/

    Anyways, clearly there is overlap with bara, asah, and the third less common word, er uh yasera or something like that. So, bara can not be said to always refer to creation out of nothing.

    It's been a very long time since I have read about or considered any of this...but there is no consensus among Christians or among Jews.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    bara (בָּרָא, to create)

    Compare bara (create) to the word asah (make) in context of Genesis and see bara is created from nothing.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Some say it is, others say it isn't. But if you are certain, then I will fix it just for you. Thanks for pointing it out!

  • profile image

    nicholashesed 4 years ago

    also fatfist I just wanted to mention a problem in this article. The Hebrew verb bara does not mean creation ex nihilo. Hebrew language scholars would laugh at that. In Genesis 1:1 it means to form, or to shape.

    Creation ex nihilo is a conceptual figuration. The Hebrews had no concept of creation ex nihilo prior to the Hellensitic invasion which plays in duality. Genesis One was written prior to the Hellenistic invasion.

  • profile image

    nicholashesed 4 years ago

    I'm going to make it one of my life projects to take down the Big Bang out of revenge for having wasted so much time and thought with it.

    Even if I fail it will eventually destroy itself just like it predicts. Muhahaha

    I really like the whole religion metaphor. The Mathematicians have reverted to paganism. They deify concepts like the pagans. And the public offers monetary sacrifices to their gods through tax dollars to pay for COBE and WMAP as well as baby-men's salaries.

    Grrrrrr.

  • profile image

    Lynne Atwater 4 years ago

    Excellent piece. Well done and well explained. Indeed, the idea of creation is Man's most embarrassing oxymoron. Lynne Atwater

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Hope we hear more from Rui. Come on over to Rational Science forum on Facebook.

    http://www.facebook.com/groups/Rationalscience/

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Hi Rui,

    “People 'consumers' can feel assured that there is a purpose to their lives that can absolve them of responsibility and avoid understanding or recognizing the mess around us.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself!

    “ Energy does not exist - rather potential and expended energy qualify the interaction between objects.”

    Yes, energy is not a WHAT….energy is what something does; a process, motion...

    “The Universe does not exist - there is only a collection of objects.”

    Yes, the objects exist. The universe is a mere concept. The term “Universe” has no use in Physics. Physics is the study of real objects (that exist). We cannot move ‘the’ universe like we move a ball. This term is only used in ordinary speech around the water cooler.

    “the notion of objects in the universe moving further apart on the macro scale because of inflation is conjecture.”

    It’s at best contradictory because there is no physical medium to expand. It is ridiculous to say that just because we shoot a rocket in space that moves away from the Earth…that ‘the’ space between us is expanding. ‘The’ space is only a grammatical noun for syntactical correctness….not a real noun (i.e. object that exists). This is where people get confused and start to reify concepts into objects. That’s why Physics is in such a mess today.

    You really know your stuff, Rui. How are you liking the weather in Toronto so far? Warm spell this week.

  • Rui Pereira profile image

    Rui Pereira 4 years ago from Toronto, Ontario

    Hi Fat Fist,

    I came across this thread today and I am glad you make such strong points against the BB. You should be a bit more concise but the logic is very strong.

    The BB has become a popular movement - especially in the media - it tends to pacify the masses into accepting a false order. People 'consumers' can feel assured that there is a purpose to their lives that can absolve them of responsibility and avoid understanding or recognizing the mess around us.

    My back ground is as an architect - my experience has been with concepts and conceptual tools. These tools range from drafting software - physical models - to sketch paper to rulers.

    My point is that these are tools and concepts much like space and time - they are not real.

    The push for the BB theory is similar to taking the architectural tools and qualifying them as the reality of a built form.

    The notion of the BB and its surrounding qualifiers as being counter initiative is disturbing. Serving only as a means of obfuscating conjecture that the universe started from a single point - the universe, time, matter, space - everything. That somehow we are inside this - everything - and there is no outside.

    1. Time does not exist - it is only a conceptual tool

    2. Energy does not exist - rather potential and expended energy qualify the interaction between objects.

    3. Space does not exist - only the qualifier of distance and position exist between objects - ie an infinite Cartesian grid.

    4. The Universe does not exist - there is only a collection of objects.

    5. Space does not expand - space is nothing - and the notion of objects in the universe moving further apart on the macro scale because of inflation is conjecture. The Doppler Effect and Red Shift are not the same thing - it is a huge leap to claim that galaxies with extreme Red Shift that are traveling away from us at relative (faster than light) speed are doing so because of 'space inflation'. If the term was 'space inflation' instead of just inflation it might actually shed some light on how deceptively the term is used.

    At the end of the day it all comes down to what you have outlined - peer review - that kills all non conforming thought. The Big Money is in the BB so why question this gravy train.

    Ps – Georges Lemaître was a Jesuit – as a Catholic I see the Jesuits as a fifth column within the church. The Catholic faith is about faith – God is inifinte and so is the universe – there is no start and no end – my point is that if you chose to have faith there is no need for long winded fantasy explanations like the BB.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Luis,

    ‘ instead of trying to find the origins of the white dot in space?’

    You gotta understand the Scientific Method in order to understand this question, Luis. The Singularity (aka white dot) is nothing but a hypothetical mathematical concept. It doesn’t exist and never existed. It is all metaphor and no substance.

    If you like to understand these issues better, I urge you to join the rational science facebook group where we discuss this stuff daily. Just click join and we’ll let you in.

    ‘all those powerful minds and phds ‘

    Ha! Once you understand the sci method, you will understand why they are all a bunch of stupid clowns.

    ‘spontaneous energy’

    These clowns don’t even understand what this magical word even means.

    "It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is." – Richard Feynman, www.amazon.com/Feynman-Lectures-Physics-V¬ols-III/dp/B000P1PWCK (p. 4-1)

    ‘pictures of the universe and it proves it is expanding’

    LOL, space is the void. Space cannot expand. Space does not exist. Only objects exist and can possibly expand. Are you expanding, Luis? Again, stupid human apes will make outlandish claims to protect their Religion of Creation. For more detailed info, please join our fb group.

  • profile image

    luisfersm 4 years ago

    fatfist,

    i have another question, why all the investigations, after taking the bbt as a fact are all about the universe expanding instead of trying to find the origins of the white dot in space? if the main question is the origins of universe, i cant understand why all those powerful minds and phds dont even care about what caused an spontaneous energy ,matter or whatever it was to concentrate in a very small dot that spontaneously exploted and created everything we know this days.? in case the bbt was truth it would just be a step in the creation process of the universe, just a simple clue, not the real answer, the real answer would be what created the small matter dot and why.

    also my friend replied to me saying they already took pictures of the universe and it proves it is expanding and it has a curved shape.. when i heard that the firs thing that came to my mind was the concept of me trying to take a picture from the hole city of new york from a street inside new york . it would be required for me to be out of the city on a plane to take a picture of the city .but i don know if it make any sense to you.

    sorry if i bother you , but whenever i get more information about this type of subject it generally makes me ask more questions.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Helooooooooo my friend, Fred!!! Hope you are doing well.

    ‘Or put another way, whether it was once concentrated in one specific location or whether it was always scattered, how can existence NOT have a beginning?’

    Because the void (i.e. nothing) cannot acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into an atom in a single frame of the universal movie. Consider frame 22 of the movie ....just void. Now at frame 23 there is an atom. This is impossible....cannot happen. Matter cannot spring from the void.

    ‘If you take God out of the big bang equation what the singularity was composed of was without beginning ‘

    I think we discussed this before, so you can re-read our discussion to refresh these ideas again. But, like I’ve always said....the singularity is only a mathematical 0D concept they plug into variables. I will give you a huge gift, Fred.....I will tell you that not even these mathematicians can explain their alleged creation via the big bang. In fact.....they MUST use God if they want to have a creation. There is NO other way possible. And they have conceded this.

    My gift to my buddy, Fred:

    William Lane Craig ate a Mathematician for lunch! Lawrence Krauss said a lot of stupid things in his debate with William Lane Craig, specifically, that Mathematical Fizzics is COMPATIBLE with a God who is not monotheistic and who didn’t write Bibles:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijQYW8cQuBE

    ‎@1:39:20 In typical atheist fashion, Krauss hates the God of the Bible, but admits that a god of a divine intelligence is plausible for the creation of the universe. He claims that Science is compatible with Deism, but not with Monotheism.

    “I actually think Deism, the possible existence of a divine intelligence is not an implausible postulate. And I won’t argue against it. It could be. I mean, the universe is an amazing place! The question is, is there evidence for that? That’s what we tried to debate. So I think the possible existence of a divine intelligence is perfectly plausible and addresses some of the perplexing issues associated with the beginning of the universe. And it may, it may indeed, ultimately, we may find that it’s required. But the relation between that and the specific God that some people believe in here, and the specific God that other people believe in here, is obviously a problem, because not everyone can be right. And everyone believes this fervently, most people who are fundamentalists in their religion, believe this fervently, that their religion is right and everyone else is wrong. And they can’t all be right. And the point is that they’re probably all wrong. In fact, I should say it more clearly: science is incompatible with the doctrine of every single organized religion. It is not incompatible with Deism. But it is incompatible with Christianity, Judaism, and Islam... ”- Pastor Lawrence Krauss

    Well, you heard it from the horse's mouth: Science is not incompatible with a Creator God and Intelligent Design. But it is incompatible with a specific theology.

    The ONLY difference between Krauss and WLC is that Krauss believes there may be a Deistic God who is not obsessed with our daily affairs and hasn’t given us a Bible.....yet! Pastor Lawrence Krauss cannot understand the God of the Bible...in fact....he HATES the good Lord...go figure. So Pastor Krauss uses his ignorance to decree that the Big Bang was caused by a God who never gave us a Bible.

    Enjoy.....

  • fred allen profile image

    fred allen 4 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

    Good morning old friend. Since our last exchange I have studied to exhaustion looking for clarity on how we came to be and if matter is indeed eternal. I understand WHY the default position is that matter is eternal and without beginning, it's just that it's so difficult to wrap my mind around. The idea that NOTHING does not need a beginning is perfectly logical. When you include the reality of SOMETHING, the default position (which assumes no beginning), the logic begins to break down in my finite sense of reason. Like the aforementioned "white dot" wouldn't ALL matter pose the same dilemma? What I mean is, IF at one point in time ALL matter existed in one concentrated location as the big bang presupposes, and you contend that it was the mathematicians that put it there, doesn't the belief that it was scattered throughout the cosmos eternally pose the same question? Or put another way, whether it was once concentrated in one specific location or whether it was always scattered, how can existence NOT have a beginning?

    If you take God out of the big bang equation what the singularity was composed of was without beginning (using the same default position). The eternal state of matter, whether concentrated or scattered defies explanation. The default position ( that matter can neither be created or destroyed, therefore is eternal) is still just our best guess based on observation and limited understanding isn't it? In the end, if it IS just our best guess, couldn't we be wrong?

    I spent close to 30 minutes trying to formulate my question and posing it in such a way as to elicit the explanation I seek. Not certain I succeeded but I trust that your instincts will make up for my lack of succinctness.

    I hope I am asking the right question in the right way. Your ability to think, reason, and explain absolutely fascinates me. To me, you are a trusted source for information and understanding. I truly value your input.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Awesome! luisferms you really are on to something big (with the white dot in a black background). Stay with it!

  • profile image

    luisfersm 4 years ago

    well thank you very much for ur quick response.. i ll check the links, and as i do in many subjects i ll recommend this website to my friends to open their minds to the Internet, which is the last media that hasnt been entirely corrupted or manipulated for political , religion, or economic purposes.

    nice job

  • profile image

    luisfersm 4 years ago

    dear fatfist,

    sorry for my english or grammar i m from mexico . i was looking for some information or different points of view about the bb theory, because i have a friend who is very interested in the subject and he is a science student.

    last weekend we where watching a history channel documentary about the bb, and told my friend i didn't believe such crap. personally i do not know a thing about science. i simply get all the information i can from any subject and take whatever works for me, but my friend and i got into a debate about the subject and my argument where simple.

    In the documentary they even showed a 3d animated example showing a very smal white dot in a black backgroudn. my first question was how did the white dot got in there? my second question was, isnt the black background space? if they say the universe was compressed in a supper little spot it means it had a size. it was little , to me in orther to have a size it means there is space surrounding you otherwise you wouldnt be able to tell if its little or huge. and my other argument were somoof the facts you mentioned in your hub.. if universe has a size it means it has a border , if so what is beyond..??

    But my friend answered to me saying that those questions are the kind of questions stupid ppl ask, i guess he meant regular ppl (ppl not related to the scientific community) then he said that all those theories where deducted by sophisticated math equations and at the end it made me feel like probably i didn't know what i was talking about. but i know he didn't either. the problem with ppl is that they tend to believe on what they see on TV, or they give more importance to others ppl ideas than their personal ideas, whatever Einstein says its got to be truth because Einstein said so (lol). so he was like look at those Cambridge dr.s explaining the universe to you , how do you think you can come here and tell them they are wrong.

    So, i would appreciate if you could give me simple but strong arguments you can use in a debate. to let my friend know that to question the BBT is not stupid, and the fact that those Cambridge drs appear on History channel documentaries, dosnt mean they cant be totally wrong.

    p.d thank you for your time. again, i m an ignorant and i m not pretending to get in to complicated details and terminologies. any of your subscribers know a lot more than me abour this subject. but you make it look so easy , that called my attention.

  • profile image

    Roman 4 years ago

    I absolutely agree with you here. Only objects perform actions on other objects. Have you read the document I uploaded? In there the compression of the net of linked "atoms" or fundamental particles is what causing two objects to come closer to each other. The imbalance of pressure gradient - Earth and Moon are pushed, not pulled together by these particles.

  • monkeyminds profile image

    monkeyminds 4 years ago from My Tree House

    Sorry, a field is a region. A where not a what. One can not compress a location. Energy is what something does, not some'thing' that can have varying density.

    The universe consists of matter and space. Space is borderless, and does not contain matter like a box can contain unobtanium.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 4 years ago

    Roman,

    Brownian motion is just a description of a phenomenon. It doesn't have an explanation for gravity i.e. what comes in contact with a ball to pull it to the floor after you let go.

    You cannot use concepts like field, force, free-fall, warped space, graviton, derivative, etc. as mediators that can pull a ball to the floor. Concepts don't exist. Only objects can perform actions on other objects.

  • profile image

    Roman 4 years ago

    https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B6vCK9vjv9VseDh0b...

    The RATIONAL explanation of gravity very similar in concept to "rope theory". To make a long story short is states that gravity is akin to Brownian motion of small particles in the suspension of a medium (air, water). But in the case of gravity, the medium has the property of cohesion, i.e its 'atoms' are bound together as if in a piece of rubber.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    dada,

    “"matter is eternal" seems to me that all arguments fall apart when one has to accept this as fact or assumption”

    But eternal matter is neither a fact (i.e. empirically verified truth) nor an assumption (i.e. Hypothesis of the Scientific Method). How can you possibly verify that matter is eternal? You can’t. And it doesn’t even make sense to think this way. You need to put your question in the correct context.

    That matter is eternal is the DEFAULT position because there can be no Theory about it. There is no Theory for an eternal universe. You need to understand the scientific method, specifically what a Theory is. A Theory is a rational explanation of a CONSUMMATED EVENT. There is no event that can make matter eternal. Only creation of matter can be an alleged event and thus must require a Theory to rationally explain how this process can happen.

    Guess what? There is no Theory which explains how nothing can create matter. Not Big Bang, not the Bible,....nada. They all contradict themselves.

    That the Universe is eternal is not asserted....it is critically reasoned. This is the difference. And this is a conceptually analytical issue only....not one of observation, fact, truth, proof or other Religious nonsense.

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

    object: that which has shape.

    space: that which lacks shape

    An object cannot spontaneously lose Length, Width and Height. Space cannot spontaneously acquire Length, Width and Height. An object cannot leave that which has no boundary (i.e., space). Not even God can escape from space.

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

    Matter exists ONLY in present mode, at the cutting edge of universal events (again to use language you can relate to). If matter exists ONLY in present mode, it is definitely perpetual! We cannot even conceive of matter appearing from the void or disintegrating and becoming void (unless we’ve snorted 30lbs of cocaine).

    The idiots at SLAC, Fermi, KEK, CERN, etc., claim that they produced matter from the void. When push comes to shove, they restate and claim that a positron and an electron combine to form 'energy' (a concept) and that, conversely, a particle of space may split into a positron and an electron. The insinuation is that matter can indeed come out of the void. This is magic, not Science. This has NOT been proven (since in Science, we don't prove except to gullible idiots).

    This explanation of the establishment is simply IRRATIONAL. You cannot make a movie of it. You cannot illustrate it because it is inconceivable. Frame 343 of this movie would show space and Frame 344 (0 time) would show two particles. No one can imagine let alone explain such a miracle of how 2 particles came from space. It is simply a Religious assertion without any explanation.

    Matter cannot pop into existence. Exist is NOT a verb for the purposes of Science. It is an adjective. Exist is a static, not a dynamic concept. Matter exists in a cross-section of universal events. The existence of matter is not circumscribed by any event.

    You cannot create an atom from NOTHING. This would require creating something (i.e. Length, Width and Height simultaneously) in ZERO TIME! Creation in all of its forms is irrational, whether the hypothesis is God or the Big Bang singularity.

    Conclusion: The Universal Film has no First Frame! The Universe is ‘infinite’ in both directions of ‘time’. 5000 billion Earth years ago, the Universe looked just like today. 5000 quadrillion years ago, it looked just like today, 10^99999999999999999999 quadrillion years ago the Universe looked just like today... etc.....eternally!

  • profile image

    dada 5 years ago

    you use the word eternal frequently,yet offer no explanation for the eternal.. "matter is eternal" seems to me that all arguments fall apart when one has to accept this as fact or assumption..if i start an argument or theory this way,i can work backwards to the assumption and make it work...what do you think?

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Any human with half a brain can reason that space is nothing; not a substance. If space was a substance, then no motion would be possible as there is no void to displace objects and allow for movement. Fish can move underwater because they displace it....and they displace it because there is a void.

    If space was a substance, then the whole universe would be one single infinite block of matter. Life cannot arise from such a scenario because there would be no other objects possible or their motion. Besides, infinite blocks of matter are impossible....they have no shape or border. Similarly, if space was a substance (object) then it should have shape and a border. What is outside this border? More space? God perhaps? There has to be "something". Clearly, such proposed scenarios are contradictory and impossible.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Allen,

    Yes, this is the sad part of our educational system. We are taught by Priests and brainwashed to worship authority and never think for ourselves. We call this: education – the cherry picking of information to shove down our throats, no different than Religion.

    People think that Einstein was one of the brightest humans to ever live. They even preserved his precious brain in a vat so other generations can worship it. As it turns out, he was one of the most dumbest humans to ever walk this planet. He didn’t know any math.....all of the Relativity papers he submitted were full of math errors, even though his wife did all the math for this ignorant idiot.

    In science it is said that the Einstein’s relativity theory proved that aether doesn't exist. Einstein was hailed as a hero because he did away with the ether. This is totally not the case and the critical information has been suppressed on purpose and never taught in any school or university. This non-ether situation lasted a few years only. Einstein had to adopt the ether again in order to support the physical properties of space in his General Relativity.

    Einstein tried at one point to claim that space is an object....an aether ocean which can bend and warp. The Scientific Community told him to go f*** himself and go climb a mountain at the time, because any notion of aether was a big no-no after the Michelson-Morley experiment proved there is no aether.

    In his articles in 1905 Einstein did not fully reject the existence of Ether. He only suggested a mathematical treatment of some relativistic problems. In 1920, after he developed the General relativity, he arrived to the conclusion that the ether MUST exist, otherwise there is no physical mechanism for gravity under GR. This fact is of enormous importance and is always ignored/censored when the scientific community cites the contributions of Albert Einstein. The Einstein statement from 1920 is DELIBERATELY MISSING in academia’s physics textbooks, where only his articles from 1905 are mentioned. The physics establishment did not want to associate itself with the ether, but yet wanted to be able to account for gravity and spacetime using GR in some MAGICAL NON-PHYSICAL METAPHORICAL WAY. And this is a complete contradiction in terms. They cannot have it both ways. Either space is a physical substance, an ether, which is capable of physically restraining planets within their orbits, or space is nothing, meaning that GR fails.

    Einstein converted the 19 th century aether into the 20 th century “spacetime”. Einstein concluded (Einstein, May 20, 1920, University of Layden):

    “Recapitulating: we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of measuring rods and clocks, nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. “ -- Einstein

    In 1919, in reference to Eddington’s alleged confirmation of his theory, Einstein remarked that his theory was correct....true....proven! However, he wasn’t as cocky by the time he died. The punchline is that Einstein died an atheist in his own religion, writing to his friend Besso in 1954 that:

    “All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question, ‘What are light quanta?’ Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken. … I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.” -- Albert Einstein (p. 467) [1]

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

    Anyone who half read Einstein's struggle to find the Holy Grail in his last few years concludes that Einstein lost his faith in his own theories, indeed, in all of Math Fyzics. He was at least aware that he and all the mathematicians were 'wrong' (i.e., that their theories were contradictory). Maybe that qualifies him as the most intelligent mathematician... but that's not a whole lot. He never made it past warped space, and he certainly disagreed with all of Quantum.

  • profile image

    Allen 5 years ago

    @Fatfist:

    I happened to be re-reading the Wiki about Nicola Tesla and found these quotes about Einstein's theory of relativity:

    "...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ..."

    And:

    "I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Robotix,

    The Logical Empiricism (Logical Positivism) movement was an attempt for philosophers to divorce themselves from the theological overtaking of philosophy. Remember, philosophy was taken over by theologians, who used its inherent weaknesses/flaws to formalize, validate and push forward their religious agendas.

    But the empiricists fell on their asses with this ridiculous movement because it was predicated on a single human activity: observation. It was based not only on the OPINION of an observer, but also on their AUTHORITY as well.

    For example: If I have a university degree and you don't....if I have been elected into a recognized committee and you haven't....if I have thousands of intellectuals standing behind my statements and you don't.....then I can decree that I saw a leprechaun turn the rainbow into gold, and this now becomes a scientific FACT!

    It is irrelevant if YOU disagree on the issue, because you have certainly been outvoted by 1) observation, and by 2) authority!!

    And what's worse....is that Logical Positivists can discount all the OBSERVATIONS from Christians (Jesus walking on water, resurrected, the talking snake, the burning bush, etc...) because those observations were not made by an AUTHORITY. You see, Logical Positivists claim that their God gave them better eyes than someone else's God.

    This is exactly what has been done by Karl Popper and his Religion of Logical Positivism. Instead of leprechauns, they assert black holes, spacetime, photons, 0D quantum particles, energy, time, forces, fields, dark matter... (i.e. nothing).

    Assertions and dogma and opinionated observations belong exclusively to Religion. Reality can only be rationally explained with the scientific method. We hypothesize an actor/agent responsible for the phenomenon of light. Then we use this agent to explain why light is so fast, constant, slit experiments, etc. There is no other objective and reliable method.

  • profile image

    Robotix 5 years ago

    Would you say that Empiricism (or logical empiricism) was/is just a philosophical attempt to formalise trial and error, i.e. pragmatism and technology?

    (And thus cannot explain, only produce blueprints for logic systems, processes, methods, etc).

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Precisely, Winston. Mathematics is a symbolic language that is used to quantify dynamic relations. This means that math can only describe. It is impossible for math to explain anything in the universe.

    Explanations are qualitative, just like Physics is. Math is of use only in engineering/technology, never in physics.

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Fatfist,

    The following quote comes from someone I know from another website - he is a 70+ year old Ph.D. in mathematics. It is difficult to be any more accurate or succinct than this quote from him:

    "Few if any mathematicians would (or so I think) contest the assertion that mathematics strictly on its own cannot, by its very nature, tell you about the real world. Those of us in the business might bristle a little at calling it a tool, but I certainly believe that if you want to learn something about the real world you have to go examine the real world. Another way of putting it: Mathematics is really good at establishing 'If...Then...' statements. If gravity obeys an inverse square law then the planets will move in elliptical orbits. You need input from reality to decide if this mathematically correct statement has relevance to the world we live in, and how close the model is to reality."

    From the horse's mouth - mathematics is not reality, but a model.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Awww Fred, you're awesome man!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Fred,

    Thanks for coming to my hubs and offering your perspective in a civil manner. I'm not sure that you have been set free from the matrix by merely reading my hubs....only you really know that. Some people have a wake-up call and do it overnight. But for the majority, it takes a very long time to understand the issues and what they wish to do with their life. Everybody is different.

    And be assured that it's not my business either way. I have nothing to gain by "converting" people, nor do I care to do so. My hubs are only informational...and for those who are interested. They challenge authority, tradition and conventional wisdom, not just in religion, ...but in philosophy, science and mathematics.

    “ even IF there were no such thing as God, I would not love my wife any less, nor would it change my desire to be a good person.”

    I certainly hope not. You need to remember that it is people who put these fears upon you. Setting aside all the biases associated with both theism and atheism.....at the end of the day it is YOU who is in charge of your life. Nobody can label you “good” or “bad”. It is your choice of actions in your life which allows YOU to place these labels on yourself as you see fit.

  • fred allen profile image

    fred allen 5 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

    I understand. I knew when I commented you would put things into a perspective that would sort out the nonsense. The question is loaded. It assumes causation. If it were to be answered with logic and reason based on what we can know for certain (that matter exists) the only reliable answer to the question "why is there something instead of nothing?" is "because there is something instead of nothing". Both you and Winston were right about another thing too... even IF there were no such thing as God, I would not love my wife any less, nor would it change my desire to be a good person. I feel as though I have been set free from the Matrix and that you and winston gave me the choice to swallow the blue pill which would put me back into the matrix or the red one so I could see how far the rabbit hole really goes. For this I am in your debt. I have asked my wife if there were no God would she wish to know this If it were true and she was quick with her response and said "no". I remember when I felt the same. I'm now glad I chose the red pill. Thank you for your part.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    El Dude,

    “I can't see why it'd be irrational to ask such a thing (why is the sky blue)”

    Color is a tautology... it is defined to be the case. We observed sensory stimulations via our eyes and defined them ‘blue’ or ‘green’ or whatever.

    Color is a STATIC relation, like pi, for instance. Color is not a theory for which you can give an explanation about. A theory is about something that HAPPENED. Did color “happen”? If so, who or what made it happen....was it God or was it the Devil? I mean, it couldn’t have just happened all on its own, like the Big Bang allegedly did, right? It was either God or the Devil...there is absolutely no other option...guaranteed.

    You see....these types of questions are very very loaded. They make dangerous assumptions of Begging the Question. And to people who can’t reason them through, they are very precarious because they can spawn a whole Religion out of such a simple innocent-looking question.

    Case in point: Why is there something instead of nothing?

    A: Because God was bored and decided one fine day to create matter and space, good and evil, morality and immorality, and put us on a planet, and see if we sin or not, and see who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t....even though He is omniscient and knows the outcome of every single event....including the outcome of this “game” He allegedly staged.

    When you convince the masses of this nonsense, then you have what is called “Religion”. If only the masses were critical thinkers and were able to understand that this is nothing but a YES or NO existence type of question that is unwittingly morphed into a question of 'causes'....then all Religions would die in an instant and there would be no tax breaks for the con-artists who run these enterprises.

    Nothing “caused” matter to exist. And nothing “caused” color to happen because color is what we refer to as the frequency (i.e. motion) of a medium (i.e. a dynamic property of objects). All matter is in eternal motion. There is no start to motion.....so color cannot possibly happen or arise from either God or the Devil. A medium can vibrate at frequency X or Y or whatever.....the point is that the medium has vibrated eternally and will never stop vibrating. There is no possible explanation for this relation. The only explanation that can arise.... is out of explaining WHY the sky changed from color grey to color blue. And this is the Theory of this dynamic event of change. If the whole universe was blue, there wouldn't be a notion such as blue. Blue has relevance only in the context of other colors (vibrational frequencies) because we need to compare/relate them.

    Static relations of nature, we “discover”. There is no theory about them, no explanation of WHY, what happened, or 'what caused it' (did God make it so?). Color in and of itself (just like matter in and of itself) is not an event or an occurrence. It is more like stating that the elephant is pink. Is this 'true'? is the elephant pink? Can we have an opinion about it?

    No way....there is no scientific rationality for this. We establish what wavelength gives us the color pink and agree that only that wavelength = pink. Then, it's straight forward. We don’t need expert witnesses to testify at trial. We need not take anybody's word for granted. Either the elephant's skin has the matching wavelength or it doesn't....yes or no.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    "Why is the sky blue?"

    Wouldn't this just be asking for an explanation (movie of events) though?

    I can't see why it'd be irrational to ask such a thing. Obviously it would probably be a long movie clip but still...

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    Reality is a crutch for those who can't handle drugs - Lily Tomlin.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Hi Fred, long time no see. Welcome.

    "why is there something instead of nothing?"

    Because God commanded it to be so???

    I think we already discussed this “seemingly innocent” question before. You need to ask yourself....is this really an innocent or valid question, or is it loaded or tainted in some way?

    As it turns out, such an innocent looking question is extremely tainted....it is phrased in such a way as to sway people who are gullible...people who don’t understand the difference between facts and theories. It commits the fallacy of Begging of Question. It already assumes a higher being who commanded it to be something....who commanded existence.

    Remember Fred....existence is an issue of fact....NEVER a theory.

    It is irrational to ask, 'WHY does a chair have 4 legs?' or 'WHY is a leaf green?' Does a chair have 4 legs because the carpenter couldn't find a 5th one? Is a leaf green because God waved His Magic Wand and made it so?

    In order to become a rational question, the issue under consideration has to be phrased in terms of a DYNAMIC event, phenomenon, or occurrence! A theory is a movie, NOT a photograph. 'Ice = slippery', 'leaf = green', 'chair = 4 legs'... are NOT movies. They are as much theories (movies) as 'pi = circumference/diameter' is a theory. You are not explaining anything with this WHY question....you are just making an irrational ASSUMPTION that God did it. We don't explain facts. We explain theories. We don't explain WHY a chair is. Likewise, we don't explain WHY the sky is blue. And we certainly don't explain WHY matter exists. It is Religionists and Mathematicians who confuse these types of WHY questions with mechanisms and causes. Existence has no mechanism or cause....existence is STATIC...hence, no “why” question to be asked in any conceivably rational way.

    The obvious answer to ANY question of EXISTENCE (am, is, to be, exist, why are the laws that way?, why does the chair have 4 legs, why is the sky blue?, etc),....is because God made it so! So whomever asks these questions, all they have to do is check their Bible and they'll 'prove' to themselves that God dunnit.

    My dear Fred, let’s review this again....slowly this time: Questions of existence are YES or NO type of questions (does space have shape? Can a photon move? They either are or aren't! All questions that invoke 'IS' or its variants, are questions of existence, not of causes. Questions of existence are exclusively embodied in the HYPOTHESIS. Causes are exclusively dealt with in the THEORY....ok?

    Therefore, how a question is phrased is extremely important if we are to objectively understand it. The famous: "Why is the sky blue?" is a good example of a poorly asked question.

    Whataya mean WHY is the sky blue??? The sky 'IS' blue!!! This is a yes or no type of question. And the person is not asking, "What CAUSED the sky to be blue?" There is no action involved, nothing to explain. A diff question is, "Why did the color of the sky change from grey to blue?"

    An explanation (a theory) is a MOVIE, not a photograph. "Why is the sky blue?" is a photograph, not a movie. On the other hand, "Why did the color of the sky change from grey to blue?" is an OCCURRENCE (event) that demands an explanation. We can only possibly offer explanations for events....not facts. And we don't explain objects either. Understand? Only Religionists and Mathematicians will attempt to 'explain' facts and chairs....and fall flat on their face doing so!

    So again, "why is there something instead of nothing?"...is a yes or no, existence type question that is unwittingly morphed into a question of 'causes'. Nothing CAUSED matter to exist. It is impossible to get shape from no-shape. It is impossible for the void/space/nothing to magically acquire shape....to magically acquire Length, Width and Height and morph into an atom.

    Existence is eternal. Creation from nothing is an irrational claim with absolutely no possible explanation...not now, and not ever.

    “I have not completely abandoned creationism, however I have determined that I would rather know the truth than believe a lie.”

    Fred, I have neither truths nor lies, or any such opinions to offer you.....all I can do is to try and help you understand reason and rationality. Belief is a personal subjective position which is divorced from reality. You are free to believe what you like.

    “I wish to go to where the evidence leads even if it means the end of faith. “

    There is NO such thing as evidence. What is clearly evident to you, is a LIE to your neighbor....and vice versa. EVIDENCE = OPINION.....whereas explanation = rationality.

    “I just can't wrap my head around matter NEVER having a beginning.”

    I’ve tried, but I can’t help you, Fred...sorry.

    The only way to wrap your head around it and understand it .....is to understand the basics of human language, definitions, reason....and apply them to understanding theories vs facts/hypotheses, and objects vs concepts. It’s that simple...there is no magic!

    “the boundlessness of space, it doesn't make sense to me”

    Again, I can’t help you. If you can reason or justify in any way why space is bounded and has a border....then I am willing to hear it. But the onus is up to you. And remember, if space is bounded, then you need to tell the audience what is outside the bounds of space....is it more space?

    “can matter be fininte while space is boundless?”

    Of course it is. There is a constant amount of matter in the universe. If there was an UNLIMITED amount of matter, then the universe would be a single infinite block of matter with absolutely NO space! Do you understand the reasoning behind this very bold and very crucial statement?

  • fred allen profile image

    fred allen 5 years ago from Myrtle Beach SC

    Hello old friend! I call you that because it was your logic and reasoning that caused me to truly embark on my journey of discovery to understand why anything exists. I am grateful to you for that. While I have learned quite a bit since the last time we interacted, I am still firmly stuck with the questions "why is there something instead of nothing?" and "how could matter not have a beginning?" My search for answers has me spinning in circles, always leading me back to those 2 questions. I have not completely abandoned creationism, however I have determined that I would rather know the truth than believe a lie. I wish to go to where the evidence leads even if it means the end of faith. You have been a beacon of logic and reason for me. I just can't wrap my head around matter NEVER having a beginning. Following the logic that states matter cannot be created nor can it be destroyed, adding in the concept of eternity and the boundlessness of space, it doesn't make sense to me that after the infinite eternity that transpired before the present time, given that celestial bodies are moving away from each other why are the galaxies still so close to each other as to be seen? Is boundless space fully littered with eternal matter? If that is so, can matter be fininte while space is boundless?

  • profile image

    El Dude w/autocorrect OFF 5 years ago

    *** Correction: "... come up with a single explanation." ("up" not "upon")

    Damn you, autocorrect

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    No cap for you; you're actually asking all the important questions. You've earned a medal in my book. It's the mathematicians that get a Special Dunce award. They arrogantly pretend to know what they're talking about, intimidate newcomers, and don't even have the basic humility (which you show in spades) to admit when they can't even define their terms, let alone come upon with a single explanation!

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 5 years ago

    Thanks Dude and FF,

    I should know this! Creation-concept-damn-it! Okay, okay... I've got the dunce cap for this weekend, but I think I can pawn it off on to someone else before next weekend. Both of your explanations were enlightening. Thanks again for the the assist, guys. Talk atcha later!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    confuscience,

    "is existence an object AND a concept?"

    Only words which can resolve to an entity with shape are objects....like apple, rock, star, dog.

    The word exist is only a concept because it DESCRIBES objective presence; that is, an object having location.

    Hence exist is an adjective, not a verb like the stupid dictionary claims. Existence is static, not dynamic. We can take a photograph of an object that exists, we don't need a movie of Big Foot to say he exists...a pic will do fine. Hence exist cannot possibly be a verb. Objects do NOT need to perform actions in order to exist. Objects exist by definition only...and at an instant....hence static (i.e. adjective).

    Thanks for your comments confuscience and El Dude.

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    All words are concepts my friend. Some concepts/words however resolve to objects; others do not. Existence is thus only a matter of careful, precise definition.

    Location is the set of distances that separate one object from others. Location is conceptually a photograph (i.e. static).

    Location is one of the two necessary qualifiers for a rational definition of existence.

    Exist = physical presence (object + location).

    Physical = object.

    Presence = location.

    Now we can be objective when we speak of existence. An object is that with shape, period! (Shape is basically synonymous with object.) Some objects do not exist, like the illusory 2d entities you see whizzing around on your screen. They do not have true location, only shape.

    With the shape + location criteria we can finally answer age old questions, without invoking opinion, evidence, prediction, knowledge, proof, experiment or faith - i.e. UNAMBIGUOUSLY - as to whether or not my house, God, Vishnu, energy, THIS car, space-time, leprechauns or atoms exist. It follows only from the definition we use.

    youstupidrelativist.com/04Exist/03Exist.html

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Aww Fattie beat me to it... darn it, Fattiie!

    Shouldn't have gone for that second Guinness.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Confuscience,

    “I was wondering if you might explain what the dilemma is with discrete objects.”

    We cannot explain gravity, light, 'fields' and other invisible phenomena rationally with discrete objects/particles. The discrete particle is a mere hypothesis which has no rationally theory to support it. It should once and for all be abandoned. It has no place in physics.

    Case in point: how can 2 atoms attract each other? How can a ball fall towards the Earth if the ball and Earth were discrete (i.e. DISCONNECTED)? Are there spirits between them pulling them together? Surely you jest. You can only PULL your dog when there is a rope connecting you and the dog. There must be an entity connecting the objects if they are to attract (i.e. pull) each other. Attraction without a mediating entity (i.e. connecting object) is impossible!

    And there are tons more arguments which debunk the mathematician’s particle hypothesis. We can write books and books. Here is just a small taste....

    1. When you get an X-ray, why does the technician leave the room? Why don’t the X-rays just shoot from the gun, and through your body, and onto a plate and get absorbed? How hard is it to absorb and collect X-ray particles, or even redirect them outside the building and shoot them into the atmosphere or into a radiation barrel and bury it like they do in nuclear reactors? The X-rays from the gun are pumping torsion signals to every single atom in that room....and not only that....but to every single atom in the universe via their connecting ropes.

    2. Particles and waves fail the Principle of Ray Reversibility (PPR). They cannot retrace their path back to the source during reflection, refraction, and diffraction. Especially when the source or target are in motion.

    3. It is impossible to explain diffraction (0 slit, 1 slit, 2 slit, etc) with particles. Any attempt to do so is absolutely hilarious!

    4. Refraction does not involve a change in the speed of light. What changes is the freq and wavelength (i.e., link length under the rope).

    Again, the onus is on them to answer the question: "What accelerates light back to c after it refracted thru a prism? What physical object compels the alleged photon particle to speed up instantaneously (in zero time) after it comes back out of the glass into air?" If they can't answer this question then the refractive index theory along with the photon and particle theory is total bunk!

    There are no such things as discrete particles. We cannot explain any phenomenon of nature with particles. That's why the mathematicians have decided that it is best to regard muons, photons, electrons, and Quantum particles , as point particles (i.e. 0D). If any of these particles has shape, the mathematicians could not get away with their supernatural explanations. They are doing physics with metaphors, not objects.

    Thanks for asking interesting questions :-)

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    What a charming, sharp-minded fellow! A breath fresh air such people.

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 5 years ago

    Thanks Fatfist and Dude,

    As I continue reading your posts and responses I'm sure I'll have other questions and queries, but thanks for the timely explanation. I think I'm starting to get a handle on this rational physics... Especially considering I didn't study it in college.

    There was another post you responded to earlier regarding Sting Theory, Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I understood the objections to ST, but R & QM where baffling. In your response to R, you stated it presupposes "discrete objects" able to attract one another, and that this posed an impossibility. I'm not sure what this means... As far as the objection to defining "space=bendable object", that I get. I was wondering if you might explain what the dilemma is with discrete objects. I again understand your time is valuable and your response is greatly appreciated.

    Thanks again Fatfist, and keep up the great work!

  • profile image

    El Dude 5 years ago

    Also worth mentioning there are two TYPES of force in rational physics: PUSH and PULL. That's it.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Confuscience,

    “I understand energy is not an object, so it must be a concept, a relation between objects”

    Of course it is. That makes sense.

    We need to remember that in reality (out there in nature) every word we can conceive of will either resolve to an object or a concept. There is no other option. Specifically, all the nouns of reality are objects, and as we know, objects can only perform verbs. Energy is a verb and has always been a verb until the mathematicians unwittingly reified it into a noun in the 1800’s because they never understood the difference between an object and a concept.

    Energy is a verb (origin: Greek “energia”, which means ACTIVITY and nothing else). Energy is what an object DOES, not what an object IS. For example....an object A weighing ‘w’ kilograms moves ‘d’ meters with respect to object B, in a time of ‘t’ seconds, as measured by an observer. This is the relational ACTIVITY (i.e. energy) object A performed with respect to object B. We give a unit of measure, Joules (J = kg x m^2/s^2), to this “activity”. Without an observer to establish this relation between objects A and B, there is NO energy!

    The litmus test for this energy nonsense is to imagine the universe consisting of a single lone object. This single object has NO energy because it cannot even move from one location to another. It cannot move a distance of ‘d’ meters. It doesn’t even have any weight ‘w’ kilograms because there is no gravitational pull to it. Also, in this scenario, there is no time ‘t’ seconds because time is a concept that requires a minimum of 3 objects to be realized. For example, 2 objects could be the Earth and the Sun, where one moves relative to the other. The third object must be an observer with MEMORY......like a human who counts, or a computer that keeps a running total (i.e. memory) of the “ticks” from an arbitrarily-defined unit we call the second.

    As you can see, energy is NOT something that can exist. Energy is a concept, more succinctly, a verb! Energy is a concept that necessarily requires at least 2 objects to be defined.

    Mathematicians have reified the verb energy into a noun. Now these clowns claim to transfer it from one location to another, or even conserve it. They even tell us that we need to eat more energy after rigorous exercise. And the education system forces us to parrot this nonsense like a mantra.

    Energy is to an object, like walking is to a human being.

    “energy, is not real?”

    Real is a synonym for exist. What is real is what exists. So no, energy is not real. Concepts do not exist....only objects do.

    “I feel heat ... I feel pain “

    Yes, what you feel is what your sensory system does. Atoms on your flesh are in perpetual motion. When their motion is synchronized in some specific way, they stimulate your sensory system. That is what you feel.

    “Are forms of energy like forces (direct and non-direct contact forces) and heat just experienced”

    Forces and heat are not real. They are not objects and don’t exist. What exists is an object A which comes in contact with object B to either push or pull it. We call this activity (verb) FORCE. Similarly, heat is a concept relating the motion of atoms to our sensory experience of them. For example, put your hand over the stove top and high motion of the atoms in the air will induce the atoms of your hand to move much faster. Your sensory system responds to this and you feel it has heat/pain. Remember, heat is a verb!

  • confuscience profile image

    confuscience 5 years ago

    Hey Fatfist,

    Love your posts... incredibly simple, penetratingly elegant... Which might attest to my intellectual slowness, but nonetheless, I had some questions regarding some definitions and what they entail.

    I understand the definitions of UNIVERSE, MATTER, SPACE, OBJECT, CONCEPT, TRUTH,... as well as becoming more acquainted with the purpose of the Scientific Method, Hypothesis, Theory, Statements of Facts. I was curious about the definition of ENERGY and what it entails. I understand energy is not an object, so it must be a concept, a relation between objects... does that mean a concept, and specifically energy, is not real? Maybe I am confusing "experienced" with "real"... I get confused about how energy operates within scientific language. I feel heat and see fire... I feel pain when a golf ball smacks into my head (which may have caused my slight retardation). Are forms of energy like forces (direct and non-direct contact forces) and heat just experienced, but do not exist? I could use your or AKA Winston's help on this. Hope I'm not wasting your time...

    Anyway, gotta drink a nice porter and think a little less about it... Cheers!

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    Ha ha, I love the onion network!

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 5 years ago

    The Onion.com:

    (MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA—Organizers of the Australian Open canceled the highly anticipated Grand Slam event Wednesday night after admitting they were unable to prevent tennis balls from falling off the underside of the planet and into the sky)

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 5 years ago

    @Philo,

    Do you enjoy posting the same questions on multiple hubs?

    Do you think this action will validate what you parrot....i.e. "prove" it?

    And why are you ashamed of Winston? Did he break one of your 10 Commandments? Did he "sin" according to YOUR scriptures?

  • Philanthropy2012 profile image

    DK 5 years ago from London

    Is space infinite?

    Current models (supported by experimental evidence) assume the Universe is infinitely big and has been for the 13.7 billion years since it sprang into existence.

    But language throws much confusion into the picture. We can only see part of the Universe ¯ only within a sphere, cantered at Earth with a radius the distance light travels in the 13.7 billion-year age of the Universe. The rest of the Universe is invisible to us.

    There is scientific proof that galaxies are moving away from us, the further ones moving faster, so it is reasonable to assume that the Universe is expanding, I don't think that the geniuses who believe in it need their heads examined... But maybe the people that read a wikipedia page and refute the geniuses do...

    As for AKA Winston, I am ashamed of you man, I thought you knew better.

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

    I asked you to read "A Brief History of Time" by Stephen Hawking. You really should do this. In addition, you should check out Exploring Black Holes: Introduction to General Relativity. In response to what you said in the description of the video, nothing works when you divide by zero, which is essentially what a black holes is. Zero volume divided by any nonzero mass.? I could explain it all for you instead of redirecting you, but I'm not here to write a book. You could also check out Wikipedia's article on Black Holes if you wish. There's no need to worry about Wikipedia- if you still don't trust the credibility you're welcome to check out the sources that are cited.

    Educated yourself fatfist lol

  • Spastic Ink profile image

    Spastic Ink 6 years ago

    Thanks fatfist! Mostly makes sense but there'still a few things I'd like to ask which are unclear to me. So much work and so little time ...

    Will get back to you.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    Spastic,

    “Even with molecules, we can dissect them into atoms,”

    And there lies the problem. You are now attempting to define what a molecule is. You are saying that a molecule is made of up atoms which are in a specific configuration, somehow bonded together, in motion, etc. This right there is a RELATION, ....a concept, not an object. You are attempting to define an alleged entity you call “molecule”. Objects cannot possibly be defined in any objective manner. Only concepts can be defined. Objects are only pointed at or illustrated and given a “name”....that is it.

    We point that entity hanging from a tree and call it “apple”. We don't care (yet) about what it is made of, who made it, whether it will change its form in the next few seconds, whether it weighs a lot, whether it's big or small, or whether it will move. The very first step before we can do any physics is to determine what an object is. And we do that be defining it. Afterwards, we can form hypotheses and theories about the building blocks we call ‘matter’ or ‘atoms’ for all objects. The initial stage is the most crucial one which determines whether we are doing physics (objective/rational).

    An object of physics is an entity considered to be a single piece....not a relation of entities and ideas. When this single-piece entity partakes in motion, collisions with other objects, etc., then we are doing physics by explaining natural phenomena or consummated events with that single piece. What the object is composed of is irrelevant to the instant context. In physics, relations between objects and forces and energy, and motions do not hit you over the head....they do not have any physical effect in nature. Only an object like a hammer can hit you over the head.

    Similarly, when someone says that God is a man-like being with a big penis, love, consciousness, spirit, etc,. they are not talking about an object. They are talking about a concept only.

    “....then a nucleus, then protons and neutrons, then quarks etc.”

    When we are talking about these alleged entities, then we must be able to illustrate to the audience what they are HYPOTHESIZED to look like. If we cannot do this, then these alleged entities are not objects....they cannot possibly exist. They are only concepts. As it turns out, nobody in mathematical physics has been able to illustrate a proton, electron, neutron, etc. These names allude to a specific behaviour or configuration of the atom.....not to a ‘thing’ which can exist. These names allude to relations, i.e. concepts.

    Just like the famous “wave” of math physics. They claim that light is a wave. Well, there is no such thing as a wave. Wave is what an object does, like water, which undulates up/down. Water is the object. Wave is the motion of the water....it’s relation which depends on the motion and configuration of the rest of the water.

    When people don’t understand the diff between an object and a concept, then we get these ridiculous notions of concepts acquiring motion and knocking us down at the beach. We call this: Religion.

    “So would you agree that even in physics we use the terms 'concept' and 'object' interchangably depending on what scale we're working at (how far we zoom in)?”

    No we don’t, not in physics. Butter is an object. A molecule is an object. An atom is an object. We can illustrate them rationally as part of our hypothesis. And we can use them in our theory to explain some phenomenon in nature in that specific context...whether it be butter or atoms....but not both at the same time. So, individually, they can never be concepts. The moment we start to relate them together, their bonds, their configurations, their behavior, etc....and claim that these relations (i.e. energy) perform actions, then we are talking about concepts and doing religion, not physics.

    "How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!"

    Objects do not “possess” qualities or concepts....of course this is nonsense when taken literally. Objects can only literally “possess” other objects. A lady can possess a purse on her.

    By “has” shape, we are using the limited power of our language to say that shape is an intrinsic property, and not a separate entity or idea or observer-dependent relation. We are saying that objects are spatially separated. We call this shape or form. Shape cannot be possessed....it cannot be something that an entity literally “has”. Any word in any language can either allude to ‘something’ which is spatially separated or not. If it is, then we say that it “has” shape. We say that an apple has shape, while love doesn’t.

    Shape is unavoidable and irreducible. This is why shape cannot be broken down into sub-components or sub-properties. It is observer-independent. It is in its very own category. It is an irreducible root word. And this is why we conceivably call it an ‘intrinsic property’ of an object. Objects have no other intrinsic property that can possibly be conceived.

    Shape is the fundamental irreducible word which distinguishes something from nothing. So yes, this word is a concept.....it describes a very important notion. It alludes to our conceptualization of spatial separation i.e. SOMETHING vs NOTHING. The universe consists of something and nothing....there is no other option or category. For if there is, then all I have said about shape and object, and the definitions I have given,... would be all bunk....they immediately go in the trash and we must start over.

    “My response would probably be that the claim that an object has shape is simply a case of ease of use of language and scientific communication.”

    It is not a “claim”. It is a rational definition, as I explained above. And yes, because shape is a root word, it is simple and easy to understand in any type of communication, whether scientific or layman’s terms.

    “I appreciate your input fatfist. I hope I'm not annoying you. Just tell me if I am and I won't post anymore.”

    You are welcome. Ask whatever question you want. My only requirement is that we have a rational discussion.

    “Matt Slick's TAG. .....fails by reifying concepts into existing objects. Transcendental objects no less!”

    And this is the reason why Slick has to define what an object is or what a “logical absolute” is before giving his presentation. Otherwise he said nothing.

    But according to Slick, logical absolutes are concepts, not objects. Therefore, concepts cannot be transcendental....they cannot transcend anything. Only objects can transcend. I can transcend the boundaries of my home. Only that which has “shape” can transcend another entity which must have “shape”. It is the spatial separation which gives objects the ability to have boundaries that can be “transcended”.

    You see, once we rationally define our key terms, there is NO place we can hide. Either we talk rationally or we talk nonsense. This is why religionists refuse to define anything. It allows them to get away with murder.

    Slick’s argument fails instantly. I refuted it in his youtube, but he deleted my comments.

  • profile image

    Spastic Ink 6 years ago

    Woops, I meant-

    If I were an annoying theist who asked "How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!" What would your response be?

  • Spastic Ink profile image

    Spastic Ink 6 years ago

    fatfist, my bad. I originally thought you were trying to say that a soccer ball is an object which exists, end of the line. Thanks for clearing that up.

    fatfist: "We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we have converted the word butter into a concept, and introduced a new object called “molecule”. In this new context, the prosecutor can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....but he is now only dealing with the molecule object."

    That right there is the key point I'm interested in here. Even with molecules, we can dissect them into atoms, then a nucleus, then protons and neutrons, then quarks etc. So would you agree that even in physics we use the terms 'concept' and 'object' interchangably depending on what scale we're working at (how far we zoom in)?

    Also, I'd be interested to hear you expand on your definition of 'object': "that which has shape". Shape' is a concept, yes? If I were an annoying theist who asked "How can an object can have (possess) the quality of a concept, in this case 'shape'? Nonsense!"

    My response would probably be that the claim that an object has shape is simply a case of ease of use of language and scientific communication. Or am I way off base?

    I appreciate your input fatfist. I hope I'm not annoying you. Just tell me if I am and I won't post anymore. It's just that I find this interesting.

    Just off topic, I'd dearly love to see you do a page on the repugnant Matt Slick's TAG. I simply don't have the time. It's really child's play. Straight out of the gate TAG fails by reifying concepts into existing objects. Transcendental objects no less!

    Best regards.

  • Spastic Ink profile image

    Spastic Ink 6 years ago

    I thank you for your reply fatfist, interesting.

    I will definitely get back to you soon. It may be a week or two as I'm working long hours everyday for the next couple of weeks. Talk soon and best regards.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    Spastic,

    “Soccer balls, billiard balls, the earth, even neutron stars, are concepts, not objects.”

    The words themselves, yes, they are concepts. All terms are conceptual. We conceive of what word to assign to ‘that’ which we “resolve”. In reality, the ‘that’ can either be “resolved” to an object or to a concept....there is no other option or category. Since we have reasoned 2 categories, the onus is on us to scientifically define them.

    Object: that which has shape

    Concept: a relation between objects (has no shape)

    In short, objects have shape and concepts don’t. This is a black or white issue. There is no other option.

    So now, it is very easy to test your words.

    Do the words ball, Earth and star resolve to ‘that’ which has shape? Even if we are born and raised in an underground society all our lives and never seen them; can we conceptualize these “alleged” entities? Can we illustrate them on the blackboard? If so, then they have no choice but to be objects.

    Note: we haven’t even talked about existence at this point, which is another issue altogether.

    “Zoom in close enough (atomic scale, or subatomic scale in the case of a neutron star) and there is no edge or boundary to be found. “

    Conceptually, we critically reason that the concept known as object invokes two 'things': the object itself and whatever surrounds and gives shape to it. Objects are necessarily spatially separated. In physics, all objects are ASSUMED to be made of a SINGLE PIECE. When you point to a table and say "table" there is no second guessing that it is made of pieces. And that it “may” be made of pieces is irrelevant in the instant context of its reference. This is how we distinguish one object from another. Mereology is not a part of Science. It is a branch of religion, i.e. God is made of up the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit. This is irrelevant. The critical question which must be answered is: Is God an object, yes or no?

    In Physics, an object is your exhibit in your Hypothesis which will be an actor in your Theory. The only requirement for a valid exhibit is shape. All matter nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to a gold bar and call it gold, and we point to a stick of butter and call it butter. The ET does not yet know whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts and he is not comparing the designated object with anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word. We can later discuss that the butter is made of molecules, at which point we have converted the word butter into a concept, and introduced a new object called “molecule”. In this new context, the prosecutor can only refer to the “concept” butter which is now a ‘relation’ between specific molecular objects....but he is now only dealing with the molecule object.

    The word ‘ball’ refers to the entire object, not to its parts. From one edge to the other, the ball is taken to be PHYSICALLY CONTINUOUS (made of a single piece) (not the 'continuous' of Math which means the opposite: discrete, segmented). Hence, there is no 'distance' between the two edges. There is only length: continuous material.

    “'Edge' is conceptual.”

    Yes, ‘edge’ is a concept, not an object. When we conceive what separates an object from its background, we call this RELATION: edge. Of course, the object ‘ball’ does have a surface which is physical (an object) and is real. Surfaces are 3D. The spatial separation is what we refer to as shape or form.

  • Spastic Ink profile image

    Spastic Ink 6 years ago

    Hi Mr Fist. I have enjoyed your hubs so far, in particular your refutation of the comedian Reverend Lane Craig.

    I think I read that you said 'balls' are objects and have 'boundaries' or 'edges'. From memory I think you gave us soccer balls or the Earth as examples. (Please correct me if this is not what you said or meant.) I think you may have contradicted yourself by your very own definition of 'object' (shape, form etc). Soccer balls, billiard balls, the earth, even neutron stars, are concepts, not objects. Zoom in close enough (atomic scale, or subatomic scale in the case of a neutron star) and there is no edge or boundary to be found. 'Edge' is conceptual. Your thoughts if you please? Thanks.

    Best regards.

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

  • profile image

    Kirui 6 years ago

    You know, all this question of big bang is easy to answere. If there was nothing, no space, no time, then there was nothing to bang, no where to for the nothing not to bang, and no moment for the nothing not banging not to bang! So, just let there be a big bang in empty brains!

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

    "nothing," and in this case it refers to a specific state of a specific field with specific properties, living on a pre-existing spacetime."

    lol

  • profile image

    Reasonable1 6 years ago

    One "professional" physicist posted the following CRAP on a forum recently to "explain" how a universe pops itself into existence. He says:

    "To elaborate on what is happening here, let me mention a few things about quantum field theory (which is the framework on which all of this stuff is based)...

    The stuff we see around us is made of particles. But particles, in quantum field theory, are the "excited states" of a field. So if you want your theory of the universe to include, say, electrons, then you postulate an "electron field" which exists everywhere. The lowest energy state of this field is called the "vacuum state," and this represents the state you would ordinarily think of as "no electrons are present" -- but the field itself is still there! And the field in the vacuum state is still very definitely "something" -- the vacuum state has some very measurable, very non-trivial properties, which famous experiments have confirmed (for one example, the vacuum state can exert a measurable pressure on metallic plates -- see "Casimir effect").

    So, I don't mind calling the vaccum "nothing" if the audience already understands this concept (I'm sure I've done this in certain papers myself -- it does have a certain cool sounding ring to it), but if one is selling deep philosophical implications based on the word "nothing," then one really needs to fully disclose what is meant by "nothing," and in this case it refers to a specific state of a specific field with specific properties, living on a pre-existing spacetime."

    Amazing how these idiots get up in the morning!

    From: board.freedomainradio.com/forums/p/31097/238686.aspx#238686

  • profile image

    avr 6 years ago

    From zero dimention (0D) to a cosmos with supposidly 15 billion light years in radius (hence 30 billion light years in diameter)?!

    The problem is in the fact that cosmology is dominated by mathematicians, not real physicists.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

    Uncle.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    I know, nicomp....you're confused like everyone else. Here's a tip for ya: stop kneeling down to those priests & pastors who want to molest your brain, and start thinking for yourself...amen!

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

    sigh.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    Yeah nicomp, that's the crap you get from Religion. In this particular case...the Religion of Mathematical Physics.

    Magical waves emanate from objects just like spirits. The mathematicians have replaced Jesus' spirit resurrecting into Heaven, with spirits resurrecting from stars and planets....they call them gravity waves...go figure.

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

    "And where did you read that, nicomp? Not in here you didn't. Did you take your medication today?"

    Look at the second graphic at the top of your article: 'Gravitational Waves Escape From The Earliest Moments Of The Big Bang'

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    And where did you read that, nicomp? Not in here you didn't. Did you take your medication today?

  • nicomp profile image

    nicomp really 6 years ago from Ohio, USA

    Gravity travels in waves?

    (Sorry, I stopped reading after that)

  • profile image

    AKA Winston 6 years ago

    (Fatfist: our universe is expanding)

    Prometheus Kid,

    And one would think that after the fall of the Soviet Union and East Germany that communist redshift would be on the decline, slingshotting the universe back towards its capitalist singularity source, thus crushing Obamacare and National Public Radio by the increased mass of achusetts.

    This is proven by the guacamole hypothesis: anything that tasty when used as a dipping sauce for a host must be from god.

    You need a refresher course in REAL science.

  • PrometheusKid profile image

    PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

    The steps of the scientific method are to:

    Ask a Question

    Do Background Research

    Construct a Hypothesis

    Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

    Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

    Communicate Your Results

    The test hypothesis is where all Religions die including Big Bang, Evolution, Creation. Hey creator lovers maybe the DNA is the creator. And the Intellegent designer is the DNA.

  • fatfist profile image
    Author

    fatfist 6 years ago

    Shahid,

    The only Big Crunch I know of is the kind you get when you bite into a Crunch chocolate bar....and the "crunch" is unbelievably BIG....unlike the one purported by the Church of Mathematical Physics.

    http://alexdesignz.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/cru...

    "Elite Physicists ... making a living out of Nonsense"

    They started doing this with the invention of the word "Energy" in the 1800's along with the mathematical modeling of abstract concepts......it all went downhill from there.