ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Religion and Philosophy»
  • Atheism & Agnosticism

How to Understand Infinity, Life, and Death

Updated on August 17, 2016
Austinstar profile image

Lela earned a B.A. degree in Journalism from Sam Houston University in Huntsville, TX. She has been writing for the online world for years.

Meditation on Haleakala - The Woman in Yellow

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

What is death?

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

What is life?

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

What's the difference?

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

What do we believe?

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

The Symbol of Infinity

Infinity Symbol
Infinity Symbol | Source

Infinity.....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer

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

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

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

What do you think?

Did this hub help you to understand infinity?

See results

The Infinity Symbol in Jewelry

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

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

 

© 2010 Lela

Comments, Arguments, Rants, Original Thoughts....

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • abdussalaam profile image

      Abdus Salaam 2 years ago from Luton

      Definitely interesting :-)

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Ok JOP - your insults are no longer allowed on this hub.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      So, you don't know what languages the original books of the bible are written in then?

      Your comment referenced child pornography and appears to be copied and pasted rhetoric. It is disallowed.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      I have clearly stated that you are NOT presenting scientific evidence! You are making statements, citing rumors, legends, stories and unprovable conjecture.

      Let me ask you a question. What languages were the original manuscripts of the bible actually written in?

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      To what specific scientific and anthropological evidence are you referring to?

      "The same elements found throughout the universe. Even the same elements found in stardust."

      Which explains why there is so much life spread out throughout the universe ... oh ... wait ...

      "It is patently false that all humans were descended from the same first man."

      Nice work there crushing that Strawman. Now, can you refute what I've actually and very clearly stated?

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      The human body is made up of 41 chemical elements? You betcha. The same elements found in every animal on the planet. The same elements found throughout the universe. Even the same elements found in stardust. It is patently false that all humans were descended from the same first man. If they were, we would all be totally identical with the exact same dna..

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Once again, you have not presented scientific evidence. Many scientists have actually proven with geological and anthropological evidence that a world wide flood is completely and totally false. It never happened. And you are also making the clain that a god causes the rain to fall, which by now, you should know that water falls from the sky by meteorological events, not by some mythological god.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      "The human body is made up of 41 chemical elements. These basic elements—carbon, iron, oxygen, and others—are all present in the “dust” of the earth. Thus, as Genesis states, humans truly are formed “out of dust from the ground.”" - http://bit.ly/1AJK6Zp

      “Science now corroborates what most great religions have long been preaching: Human beings of all races are . . . descended from the same first man.”—Heredity in Humans

      “The Bible story of Adam and Eve, father and mother of the whole human race, told centuries ago the same truth that science has shown today: that all the peoples of the earth are a single family and have a common origin.”—The Races of Mankind

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Just about all ancient peoples possess lore telling how their forebears made it through a global deluge . African Pygmies , European Celts , South American Incas—all have very similar legends , as do peoples of Alaska , Australia , China , India , Lithuania , Mexico , Micronesia , New Zealand , as well as regions of The North American Continent , to point out just a few .

      Through the years the legends were , needless to say , adorned nevertheless they all incorporate a number of specific details thus revealing the existence of a well-known source narrative. Specifically : God was angered by mankind’s evil . He caused a great inundation . Humanity on the whole was wiped out . A handful of righteous ones , nonetheless , were protected . These constructed a vessel wherein individuals as well as wildlife were protected . In time , birds were sent off to seek out dry terrain . At long last , the vessel came to rest on a mountain . Upon disembarking , the survivors presented a sacrifice .

      Precisely what does this establish ? This likeness simply cannot be coincidental . The collective evidence of these particular legends corroborates the Bible’s ancient testimony that all people descend from the survivors of a flood that eradicated a world of humankind . For that reason , we need not rely upon legends or myths to learn what occurred . We have the carefully preserved history in the Hebrew scriptures of the Holy Bible .—Genesis , chapters 6-8 .

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      The Adam and Eve story is scientifically accurate? Oh give me a break. Noah's Ark story is scientifically accurate? You would have to be insane to believe that. And no, a world wide flood has never been scientifically verified.

      Just name one 'story' from the bible that is scientifically accurate? Yes, there have been towns with biblical names, but lots of novels are based in existing towns like New York City or Jerusalem. It only proves the cities existed, not the myths and legends told about those places.

      Seriously, the story of angels visiting a guy in town and the townspeople wanting to rape those angels while the guy says, no, here, rape my daughter instead! Scientific? Hardly.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Dr. Tanaka, among many, many others, would disagree. The Bible is absolutely scientifically accurate despite the fact that it was not conceived as a scientific text.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Well, we just have to disagree on the bible being a reliable source for anything. I've read the bible and I find it disgusting. It's full of mean spirited death and destruction, rules for slavery, glorification for rapes and child abuse and more.

      The torture and death of your most precious "leader" of Christianity should be a clue as to the violence and hatred contained in those books.

      The books are not in any way scientific, they are opinions and myths and legends retold by superstitious people trying to make sense of a primitive world.

      It's a bad novel at best.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      Actually it's not. There are a whole host of facts which we know to be true. In fact, the Bible is filled with them which is why it has served as such a reliable guide for so many for thousands of years -

      "To my surprise, I found substantial knowledge and deep insight in the pages of the Bible. I was fascinated with researching the scientific accuracy of the Bible and the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed prophecies applying to events occurring over thousands of years of human history. I was especially impressed by how the integration of multiple Bible prophecies—in the books of Daniel and Revelation—provides a solid basis for determining that we live in “the last days.”—2 Timothy 3:1.

      In studying the Bible, I was unknowingly in excellent company. I later learned that Sir Isaac Newton, regarded as one of the greatest scientific geniuses of all time, admired and intensely researched the Bible. Like Newton, I focused on prophecies in Daniel and Revelation that foretold major historical events and developments that have actually occurred. However, I had the distinct advantage of living during and after the realization of the many prophecies that have been fulfilled since Newton’s day. I discovered that these prophecies are amazingly diverse and extensive as well as unerring and undeniable. It was an eye-opener to realize that the entire Bible, penned by more than 40 men over a period of 1,600 years, contains an internally consistent, coherent, and compelling message concerning the major issues facing humankind and its future.

      Letting go of my belief in evolution did not come without resistance, however. I respected the substantial weight of scientific authority backing up this theory. Nevertheless, I discovered that all Bible statements about the physical world are entirely consistent with known facts and cannot be disproved. I came to appreciate that in order to achieve a complete, cohesive understanding of the Bible’s extensive, interrelated contents, one cannot discount a single teaching, including the creation account in Genesis. I therefore discerned that acceptance of the entire Bible as truth was the only reasonable conclusion." -Dr. Kenneth Tanaka - Former Atheist (http://bitly.com/1ebIe05)

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      And you think the big bang isn't speculation? Weird. In fact, everything in life is just one big guess for us humans. We don't really have written history going back to the first humans. All that matters is to enjoy our current lives. And know that our matter and energy are part and parcel of the universe. Infinitely.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      It's not a relevant model until it's been tested and proven true. Until then it's all just speculation.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 2 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      So, you base your god theory on the age of the universe as measured by microwave background radiation from 1965?

      The current model of the universe does support an infinite, ageless universe. ( http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-... ) and this is announced in February of 2015. This announcement by physics.org "Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end."

      And as "something cannot come from nothing", there can be no god (something) because this god cannot have come from nothing.

      The only way a god works is that there was ALWAYS something. And why must you insist on ascribing human modifiers to this something?

      Even if you equate the universe to equal what you call god, it is a thing, NOT a "transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good thing". None of those words would apply to a description of the energy/matter/space in which all things exist.

      BTW - TIME is a man made invention developed to measure the way the universe interacts within itself. It's not a thing, it's a concept. And time doesn't have human emotions either.

    • Joseph O Polanco profile image

      Joseph O Polanco 2 years ago

      The premise that all matter and energy began to exist 13.70 billion years ago is not a religious declaration nor a theological one. You can find this statement in any contemporary textbook on astrophysics or cosmology. And it is supported by the vast majority of cosmologists today.

      The Borde-Vilenkin-Guth Theorem, for instance, proves that any universe, that has, on average, a rate of expansion greater than one ** must ** have a ** finite beginning **. I'm not making this up. Read the paper in full or watch Vilenkin himself invalidate and impugn beginningless universe models like Eternal Inflation, Cyclic Evolution and Static Seed/Emergent Universe on youtube.

      As such, Vilenkin had this to say regarding the beginning of the universe, "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. *** There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning ***. (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176) (Emphasis mine.)

      As Theoretical Physicist and Cosmologist Stephen Hawking put it, “the final nail in the coffin of the Steady State theory came with the discovery of the microwave background radiation, in 1965.”

      Emphatically, then, the fervent belief that the universe is infinitely old, beginningless, or eternal has no basis in any respected mainstream scientific theories of the universe.

      This creates the necessity for a first uncaused-cause. After all, something cannot come from nothing as I've already shared here: http://bit.ly/SSsy8x. I've also explained that this first uncaused efficient cause must also, by necessity, be transcendent, beginningless, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, unchanging, omnipotent, personal and good. As it turns out, such is the very definition of All Loving God.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 3 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      La Critique - And all the other 'Holy Books' and Physics books are totally wrong. The Christian Bible is the only one you will believe or listen to.

      Just tell me where EXACTLY heaven is then, since you seem to know.

    • profile image

      La Critique 3 years ago

      Where does Austinstar get this "great knowledge" of what happens when we die? You are correct that everything lives forever, and changes. You are wrong about human death--physically, we are dead when our heart stops beating, and the line is flat. Spiritually, we are all dead, unless we accept Jesus as our savior. The bible is pretty clear in what happens to us when we die. Accept it or not.

    • Kukata Kali profile image

      Kukata Kali 3 years ago

      Love this explanation! Voted up~

    • manatita44 profile image

      manatita44 4 years ago from london

      Peace.

    • profile image

      Sam 4 years ago

      To the grave or crematory,ash's and dust,

      that's it your finished/

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      I suppose it's like the energy contained in an electrical outlet. You can only see it when the switch is 'on'.

    • eddiecarrara profile image

      Eddie Carrara 4 years ago from New Hampshire

      That was my thought, (our energy cannot be destroyed) but what happens to it? Does it coalesce into another being or living organism or does it just float around as part of the universe? I guess that question can only be answered after we're dead! Thanks again Austinstar, it really makes you think :)

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 4 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Actually, Eddie, that is a great analogy. We are energy. Energy holds our bodies together. When our body dies, our energy remains behind as part of the universe. It cannot be destroyed.

    • eddiecarrara profile image

      Eddie Carrara 4 years ago from New Hampshire

      Quite an interesting hub, and the continuing conversation got quite deep, a little too deep for me, I like to keep things simple, but I enjoyed reading the hub, it definitely makes you think!

      I have always thought of life as being energy, when the body dies, the energy is released (free). I guess I never really thought about what happens to the energy once it was free, something to ponder :)

    • manatita44 profile image

      manatita44 5 years ago from london

      Well written and thought-provoking Hub. Got a bit 'heady' lower down but still interesting. Continue to ask others to seek.

    • profile image

      tugbo200-5 5 years ago

      Well ,whatever,if I being infinite matter come back as a light-bulb I'd be a light bearer.... imagine that.

      interesting hub

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 5 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Heaven and Hell are reward/scare tactics used to recruit religionists. They are concepts only and do not occupy real time/space/matter. In essence, they do not exist. They are thoughts and imagination only.

    • profile image

      Leo 5 years ago

      That is not entirely true.wat do u say about hell nd heaven.

    • profile image

      linda 6 years ago

      people please your mind is what controls your thoughts and memories your body movement and so on...when you die and your blood stops flowing, your heart stops and brain function is gone, thats it, your gone...The bible states the dead no nothing at all.... Wake up people live your life because its your last..... Live love and be happy....What ever energy you have stored up in that body floates off it knows nothing...

    • RealHousewife profile image

      Kelly Umphenour 6 years ago from St. Louis, MO

      Ha! Like you need encouragement from the lowly likes of me! LOL! You're lucky you didn't get boiled in that volcano!

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      No one has boiled me yet! They'll have to drag me kicking and screaming! Thanks for the encouraging words.

    • RealHousewife profile image

      Kelly Umphenour 6 years ago from St. Louis, MO

      You are too smart! I feel like I just took physics again:-). I always learn something from you and the comments are terrific. Now I'm going to find Alice's Restaurant. I hope no one took you up on the offer to boil you in oil LOL!

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Kirui, you have seen the light and understand life. What a beautiful existence indeed.

    • profile image

      Kirui 6 years ago

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

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

      Lastly, if a brain like yours is assembled somewhere, no matter how far in space and how long in time, using different atoms you can as well become conscious there. So consciousness can be omnipresent. So given an endless time in future and infinite universe in space, there is a never ending hope of coming back to life yet we can't tarry waiting for it. What a beautiful existence.

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

      Lela

    • Micky Dee profile image

      Micky Dee 6 years ago

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

    • Shahid Bukhari profile image

      Shahid Bukhari 6 years ago from My Awareness in Being.

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

      FatFist, are you going to answer the question?

    • VOICE CIW profile image

      VOICE CIW 6 years ago

      Austinstar, and you are done.

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

      Oh! Is it that simple? How convenient.

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

    • VOICE CIW profile image

      VOICE CIW 6 years ago

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

    • kfassett profile image

      kfassett 6 years ago

      Nice Hub!

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Austinstar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Any takers?

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

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

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

      (which could be a verb or a noun)

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

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Manna,

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

      Absolutely not!

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

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

      Or

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

      Are you doing Religion or are you doing Physics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Manna,

      (It takes energy...)

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

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

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

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

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

      (Energy is conserved)

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

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

      (there is not an infinite amount of energy available)

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

      (the minimum energy configuration)

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

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

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

      (and most likely .... configuration.)

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

      (and most common configuration.)

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

      Answer my question.

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Mana,

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

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

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

      I can EASILY answer the question for you """

      Go on then.

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      That's better :-)

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

      e.g.

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

      Here is a rational number: 1/2

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Manna,

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Manna,

      (ANY noun can be verbeb)

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

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

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

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

      (I never claimed anything religious.)

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

      (You say (Math can only DESCRIBE) Rubbish)

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

      (made wonderful predictions)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (trillions of transistors)

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

      (the accumulated knowledge)

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

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

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

      (I love the irony.)

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

      What is a "quantized field"?

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      Second chance:

      fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?

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

      What is the most rigid object known and why?

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

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

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

      On whether something is an object or space:

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      Fatfist: ANY noun can be verbed - Google it!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • gsteele.ican profile image

      gsteele.ican 6 years ago from Georgia ,USA

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      Hi Austinstar,

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      manna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Manna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (I've already explained covalent bonding.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

    • James A Watkins profile image

      James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      fatfist: What is the most rigid object and why?

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      I've already explained covalent bonding.

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      manna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Manna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Fatfist: “Force is "repulsive".”

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

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

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

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

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

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

      (Positive and negative charges attract.)

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

      The following are concepts: positive, negative, charges.

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

    • Coming of Age profile image

      Coming of Age 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

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

    • Coming of Age profile image

      Coming of Age 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

    • Coming of Age profile image

      Coming of Age 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

      Hi Austinstar...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

      ( There are hundreds of models of the atom. )

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

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

      All three models are useful to describe attraction between atoms.

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

      This is correct although a distinctly unscientific approach.

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

      Motion produces tension? This is weak and meaningless babble.

      ( Tension is "attractive" )

      True

      (Force is "repulsive".)

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

      Positive and negative charges attract.

      Positive and negative magnetic poles attract.

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

      False unless it's repulsive. See above.

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

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

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

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

      ( Only a permanent connection can do that. )

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

      ( Discrete objects can only push each other away )

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      ( Manna,

      (@fatfist: Whatever)

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

      Meh. No problem. You earned it.

    • profile image

      brotheryochanan 6 years ago

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Manna,

      (@fatfist: Whatever)

      Thank you for the intellectual response. I am speechless!

      Austinstar,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • Coming of Age profile image

      Coming of Age 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

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

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

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

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      @Coming of Age:

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

    • Coming of Age profile image

      Coming of Age 6 years ago from Rocky Mountains

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

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

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

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

    • Austinstar profile image
      Author

      Lela 6 years ago from Somewhere in the universe

      Manna - I can actually see that! Thank you.

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

      @fatfist: Whatever.

    • Manna in the wild profile image

      Manna in the wild 6 years ago from Australia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

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

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

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

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

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

      (but gravity is real.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    • fatfist profile image

      fatfist 6 years ago

      Hi Manna,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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