The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[tazanastazio]

Tananastazio is hilarious. His "explanations" keep contradicting his own claims.

No Matthew Ellard is the one who has contradicted himself on numerous occasions:

1) He believes in relativity but then he brinks the example of electrons accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light yet do not increase in mass.

2) He believes in waves of photons, but when I point out that that could not be the case, since photons are not chained (whip and garden-hose examples), he claims afterwards what I had claimed earlier. He says that I was the one who claimed that photons were chained, not him! Even though he spoke of light being a wave of photons, whereas I extensively explained, also through the double slit experiment, that not only photons are not chained, they don't even move beyond the first "jump," of the electron that generates them; not to the extend of engaging in a continues wave motion, anyway (let alone a 12 billion year wave motion). Instead I stated, they set a wave motion of energy, from particle to particle; a single appearance of which in the detectors of the double slit experiment (as in a still picture from a series stringing up a movie), gave rise to the idea of the so called "the wave-particle duality of light." So to clarify, the sun bursts a solar flare in space; and from that point on a wave motion of energy from particle to particle is set, the original photons travel only to a point.

3) He claims that photons travel in waves, but he cannot explain how and why they travel in waves; how they stay the course and don't continue sideways (Newton's first law of motion: An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force). How light keeps on "travelling" without a medium, since energy needs a source and a medium to be applied through and bring a result, such as to travel for 12 billion years; and again why does it have to go ziczac/peak-valley/side-to-side and not in a straight line; and as I mentioned above, why since it does not go straight, after it had been slingshot from the source, it does not deviate from the wave motion?

4) He claims that the Universe is not infinite and it is expanding, after it was a singularity which emerged from a non-dimensional nothingness, but not only he can't explained how the singularity came to be, he can't explain how the Universe expands into what is outside the Universe, namely a non-dimensional nothingness.

5) He claims that calculus is not used in statistics but when I provide a link which proves otherwise he says "That's right..." and then he goes on to prove that that's what he was saying in the first place.

We can all observe this. We know that the rules of this site mean he cannot expunge his stuff.

Everyone knows this. Except him for reasons I cannot fathom.

I suspect that now that he has discovered that there is no revisions allowed he will likely bail.

First I am not contradicting myself, if you think I do, point out where. I'll clarify, as long as I don't have to go ten times over the same thing. The only reason that I don't write more often, is because my time is limited and valuable. But I'll drop by so people won't make the false assertions and assumptions such as that I have "bailed"; or that my theories have been proven wrong. For the record, to this day no part of my philosophy, nothing at all whatsoever has been proven wrong. If you disagree, give me an example.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

No Matthew Ellard is the one who has contradicted himself on numerous occasions:

No. You can't show one example. Link us to each of my supposed contradictions, so we can laugh at you some more.

1) He believes in relativity but then he brinks the example of electrons accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light yet do not increase in mass.

No. I linked you to the Large Hadron Collider where accelerated particles including electrons increase in mass under acceleration. You don't believe in relativity as it destroys your "God is infinities" religion where you claim photons are "bouncing particle balls".

2) He believes in waves of photons, but when I point out that it could not be the case since they are not chained,

No photons are not chained bouncing balls. There are mass-less electromagnetic wave forms. I then linked you to the experiments that prove that. You refused to look at the experiments.

3) He claims that photons travel in waves, but he cannot explain how

No. I linked you to Maxwells equations five times, and the supporting experiments, that explain exactly how electromagnetic waves are generated and move. You deny electromagnetic waves exist and didn't know what a magnet was until yesterday.

4) He claims that the Universe is not infinite and it is expanding

I gave you the evidence that the universe has a set number of atoms from the big bang and gave you the evidence of red shift that proves the universe is expanding. You deny the universe is expanding as your "God is infinities" religion denies light is a wave that can be red shifted.

5) He claims that calculus is not used in statistics

It isn't. Statistics is imperial evidence. You pretended you used a formula and put words through the formula to prove there is a god. We all laughed at you as you can't do basic mathematics.

First I am not contradicting myself, if you think I do, point out where.

You claim photons are little particle balls that knock other little balls and that's how we see light. That means all your little balls must travel at the speed of light, as you forgot humans have already measured light speed over distance. Therefore you deny relativity. I explained to you that electromagnetic waves always travel at the speed at light and have no mass. You ran away for three days in confusion.

The only reason that I don't write more often, is because .....

...you keep getting caught making up incoherent contradictory stories to prove god exists using your hilarious "God is infinities" religion "little bouncing balls" fantasy.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You don't seem to have a basic 12 year old's education in science.

You can't explain the primary school experiment, why iron filings on paper, over a magnet actually shows electromagnetic fields. You deny magnets do this and claim it must be "bouncing balls".

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls) religion can't explain why two magnets have positive poles that repel, although that was known 200 years ago. You refuse to say how your "bouncing balls" repel and attract at different poles of a magnet.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls) religion can't explain why Polaroid glasses filter out electromagnetic waves at certain angles

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion can't explain why RADAR waves bounce back from objects at a distance.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion, with infinite particles and no gaps anywhere in the universe , can explain why black holes don't, expand and absorb the entire universe.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion,can't explain how light travels through vacuums between stars.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion,claims the universe is infinite in size and not expanding, yet we can see the early universe and know it is expanding because of red-shift.

In contrast, you can't show any experiment or any evidence for your hilarious "God is infinities" religion, where all photons are "bouncing balls" .

 

[Matthew Ellard]

The electrons LOSE ENERGY (break apart to infinitesimally smaller particles which in turn interact with other infinitesimally smaller particles in the "vacuum." in a wave motion, the frequency,amplitude and "wave" length of which, we call X-rays. They do not increase to infinite mass. Now try this in space with a spaceship, see what happens to it.

All the particles accelerated to almost light speed in the Large Hadron Collider increase in mass exactly as predicted by relativity. You refused to read the CERN-LHC link I gave you that clarified that.

You are denying relativity is real, as light only travels at light speed and if, as you claim, photons are particles with mass, they can't exist at light speed.

You really don't have a clue about science, do you?

See the picture below....this is the crap you believe in.

 

[tazanastazio]

Whatever Matthew, the only way you can have photons slingshot from the source, and move vast distances of billions of years and still maintain a short of wave would be if other little particles rotate around them in an elliptical fashion like planets do around a star/sun, while the star/sun also moves. I've already mentioned that earlier. Still photons would need a nudge here and there say by gravitational forces,I mean of course you believing in an empty space, Newton's 1st law etc. would not think that's necessary.

 

[tazanastazio]

All the particles accelerated to almost light speed in the Large Hadron Collider increase in mass exactly as predicted by relativity. You refused to read the CERN-LHC link I gave you that clarified that.

Relativity predicts increase to an infinite mass; in this case to almost infinite mass. On the other hand the particle in the experiment LOSES energy in the form of X-ray, similar to what I claimed for an object traveling at such high speeds in a SEEMINGLY EMPTY SPACE (such as the vacuum in the experiment).

You are denying relativity is real, as light only travels at light speed and if, as you claim, photons are particles with mass, they can't exist at light speed.

You really don't have a clue about science, do you?

And you who does, claims that nothing can reach the speed of light, yet forgetting/ignoring/not knowing that the Universe expands as fast, and perhaps even faster!

See the picture below....this is the crap you believe in.

How about the crap you believe in ex. the bee - pollen "arrangement." Ha, ha, ha!

I'll get to the rest of your nonsense, in due time, once again.

 

[tazanastazio]

Ji

No. You can't show one example. Link us to each of my supposed contradictions, so we can laugh at you some more.

No. I linked you to the Large Hadron Collider where accelerated particles including electrons increase in mass under acceleration. You don't believe in relativity as it destroys your "God is infinities" religion where you claim photons are "bouncing particle balls".

No photons are not chained bouncing balls. There are mass-less electromagnetic wave forms. I then linked you to the experiments that prove that. You refused to look at the experiments.

No. I linked you to Maxwells equations five times, and the supporting experiments, that explain exactly how electromagnetic waves are generated and move. You deny electromagnetic waves exist and didn't know what a magnet was until yesterday.

I gave you the evidence that the universe has a set number of atoms from the big bang and gave you the evidence of red shift that proves the universe is expanding. You deny the universe is expanding as your "God is infinities" religion denies light is a wave that can be red shifted.

It isn't. Statistics is imperial evidence. You pretended you used a formula and put words through the formula to prove there is a god. We all laughed at you as you can't do basic mathematics.

You claim photons are little particle balls that knock other little balls and that's how we see light. That means all your little balls must travel at the speed of light, as you forgot humans have already measured light speed over distance. Therefore you deny relativity. I explained to you that electromagnetic waves always travel at the speed at light and have no mass. You ran away for three days in confusion.

...you keep getting caught making up incoherent contradictory stories to prove god exists using your hilarious "God is infinities" religion "little bouncing balls" fantasy.

I've answered all that, you relying in repeating mantras, arguments which I have answered repeatedly, over and over. You have not "debunked" let alone "destroyed" anything. You live in a fantasy world! Fact is, had you not find my theory challenging (to say the least) you wouldn't even bother, the fact that you do FOR TEN YEARS NOW, is proof that my theory got under your skin, and deserves the time and effort it would take on your part, to attempt to debunk it! You will never succeed, even if you devote all your time and all your resources for the rest of your life, nor will anyone else, ever! I have already explained why, but you don't seem to get it, like a stubborn mule!

Go ahead, debate on! This is just my game! You realize I don't have to answer to you at all, whatsoever! What is written is written, your opinion does not matter to the world that much. People will take what I've written on face value. But I do find your stubbornness entertaining, and I don't mind the multiple challenge here. I'll answer if and when I feel like it, exactly because I don't really have to! I have better things to do with my time. But you play into my purpose. Just imagine if ten years ago, you had dismissed my theories as "rubbish" and had not devoted YOUR valuable time! We wouldn't have this conversation TEN YEARS LATER, now would we? You have insulted my intelligence repeatedly; well who is the chump and who is the champ now chap?

 

[8enotto]

Yes, we have seen face value of your religion. It will be treated accordingly.

 

[tazanastazio]

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion, with infinite particles and no gaps anywhere in the universe , can explain why black holes don't, expand and absorb the entire universe.

Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

Exhibit B:

https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-...searchers-now-have-direct-evidence-curiosity/

Exhibit C:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

Straight out of my writing:

"...Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence..."


I've been saying this since the year 2001, and I've written it on the skeptic forum10 years ago, and Matthew Ellard can attest to that fact! In fact he has already. I've written it also in 2001 and later, it just never saw much of the light of day. Even back then in 2001, without any prior knowledge more than barely Junior-high physics, and without Google, I knew that one day I would be vindicated. Simply by putting my imagination and common sense to good use; when all these information was not available to me, I had Philosophy!

I could go through the whole Alphabet;

Here is a YouTube video since Matthew Ellard likes to use them so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Who has destroyed whose arguments? I'll keep them coming.

 

[abaddon]

Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

Exhibit B:

https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-...searchers-now-have-direct-evidence-curiosity/

Exhibit C:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

Straight out of my writing:

"...Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence..."


I've been saying this since the year 2001, and I've written it on the skeptic forum10 years ago, and Matthew Ellard can attest to that fact! In fact he has already. I've written it also in 2001 and later, it just never saw much of the light of day. Even back then in 2001, without any prior knowledge than junior high physics, and without google, I new one day I would be vindicated. Simply by putting my imagination and common sense to good use; Philosophy.

I could go through the whole Alphabet;

Here is a YouTube video since Matthew Ellard likes to use them so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Who has destroyed whose arguments? I'll keep them coming.

OK. Pop-sci is not science. I am sorry nobody has told you this.

Link A and link C are the same link.

Spamming crackpottery across multiple sites does not equal evidence.

I have seen your earlier writings. Let us just say time has not been kind.

Imagination and "common sense" do not constitute evidence of anything.

Youtube videos are evidence that a whole lot of ignorant idiots can post anything they fantasise. If you accept Youtube evidence then you are a de facto flat earther.

Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.

You have presented no factual arguments. Some fantasies, sure, but nothing factual.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Whatever Matthew, the only way you can have photons slingshot from the source

Electromagnetic waves (visible light, Gamma waves radar and so on) are not "slingshot" by your hilarious magical "bouncing balls" religious claim. They are emitted when an electron changes orbit.

Still photons would need a nudge here and there .

Photons only travel at the speed of light. They can't slowdown.

You didn't even know that?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Relativity predicts increase to an infinite mass;

You just destroyed your entire "bouncing photon balls" claim.

We have measured light travelling to the moon and back. Electromagnetic waves (visible light) can only travel at the speed of light. They do this as they have no mass and are electromagnetic waves.

In your hilarious "bouncing photon balls" religious claim, you pretend that particles with mass, knock into other particles. The only way that would work is if each particle moved at the speed of light. But that would mean every particle bouncing into other particles, to bounce a photon back to earth, in your hilarious claim, would increase to infinite mass.

You really didn't think your stupid claim through did you?

 

[tazanastazio]

OK. Pop-sci is not science. I am sorry nobody has told you this.

Link A and link C are the same link.

Spamming crackpottery across multiple sites does not equal evidence.

I have seen your earlier writings. Let us just say time has not been kind.

Imagination and "common sense" do not constitute evidence of anything.

Youtube videos are evidence that a whole lot of ignorant idiots can post anything they fantasise. If you accept Youtube evidence then you are a de facto flat earther.

Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.

You have presented no factual arguments. Some fantasies, sure, but nothing factual.

Sorry for the repeat link, thanks for pointing it out. Here are three more:

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/

https://www.universityherald.com/articles/69075/20170313/quantum-mechanics-empty-space.htm

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I've answered all that,

No you didn't. Here are two more basic facts that destroy your "bouncing photon ball" religious claim.

Stable Planetary Orbit
You claim there is no gaps in outer space and that all space is filled with "bouncing particle balls". That would mean that planets orbiting Earth would encounter resistance against their orbit, slow down and sink towards the sun's gravity well and eventually fall into the sun. That hasn't happened has it?

Black holes
Your ridiculous religion claims, that space is made up of "bouncing particle balls". That means they are continuously next to, and falling into the Schwarzschild radius of black holes. That would make the black hole expand and gather more and more "bouncing particle balls" until the entire universe becomes one big black hole. That hasn't happened either, has it?

Your silly "God is infinity" religion makes absolutely no sense. That's why you can't write it down as a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/18-nothingness-of-space-theory-of-everything

That had nothing to do with your claim and simply discussed quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. In fact all three of those links are simply about quantum fluctuation. Not one mentioned "bouncing balls in space"

You obviously didn't read any of the articles. You deny quantum fluctuation happens REMEMBER???

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.

Tananastazio is simply a source of endless "stundie" fun. He refuses to answer direct questions about his ridiculous claims and then pretends he has explained everything.

He has linked to articles about quantum fluctuation, while simultaneously claiming quantum fluctuation does not exist because everything is caused by "bouncing ball particles".

That's because he doesn't know what any of these things are.

 

[abaddon]

Sorry for the repeat link, thanks for pointing it out. Here are three more:

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-universe-is-mostly-empty-space/

https://www.universityherald.com/articles/69075/20170313/quantum-mechanics-empty-space.htm

A: None of those supports your crackpot ideas.

B: none of those is remotely relevant.

Had you something, anything to support your crackpot ideas? Nope.

Now as to the issue of Matthew Ellard. I don't know the man, but we have interacted on various fora and he is, to me a solid contributor. All of his contributions here have directly trashed your crank notions. But here is the thing. Everyone here would have done exactly the same even if Matthew never existed and never showed up here. To me you seem strangely enamoured with an ongoing feud with Ellard. And quite happy with ignoring everyone else pointing out your abject nonsense notions.

Personally, I am happy and content to have Ellard right here illustrating the crap nonsense that you are once again attempting to foist upon all and sundry. But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves. Do not kid yourself that there exists some anonymous army of supporters. We are are simply enjoying the schadenfreude of your abject failure of rational argument. And watching Matthew comprehensively dismantle it.

Could I do it? Sure, no problem. But I would likely be far more gentle and an argument that daft does not deserve any kind of "gentle".

Oh and a word to the wise. Abusive posts only last up to the point that they start to get reported. For now, it is mildly amusing up to the point when it stops. Try to not cross that line please.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

..But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves.

More likely, no one else bothers to argue with tasanastazio's claims because they see the immediate holes, which were debunked almost two hundred years ago when "aether theories" were destroyed through experimentation.

I simply argue with him to see how funny his excuses are.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

People will take what I've written on face value.

People take Bonzo the clown at face value too.

 

[tazanastazio]

A: None of those supports your crackpot ideas.

B: none of those is remotely relevant.

Had you something, anything to support your crackpot ideas? Nope.

Now as to the issue of Matthew Ellard. I don't know the man, but we have interacted on various fora and he is, to me a solid contributor. All of his contributions here have directly trashed your crank notions. But here is the thing. Everyone here would have done exactly the same even if Matthew never existed and never showed up here. To me you seem strangely enamoured with an ongoing feud with Ellard. And quite happy with ignoring everyone else pointing out your abject nonsense notions.

Personally, I am happy and content to have Ellard right here illustrating the crap nonsense that you are once again attempting to foist upon all and sundry. But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves. Do not kid yourself that there exists some anonymous army of supporters. We are are simply enjoying the schadenfreude of your abject failure of rational argument. And watching Matthew comprehensively dismantle it.

Could I do it? Sure, no problem. But I would likely be far more gentle and an argument that daft does not deserve any kind of "gentle".

Oh and a word to the wise. Abusive posts only last up to the point that they start to get reported. For now, it is mildly amusing up to the point when it stops. Try to not cross that line please.

All the above is your opinion friend; as of me being "abusive" that is quite the rhetorical curve ball, but very cliche. I find it quite funny and silly that you would go there. Everyone has an opinion and there own viewpoint. When Matthew gives up, be my guest to prove yours. I don't ignore anybody, when I respond to one, I respond to all. I don't have all the time in the world. Besides Matthew makes the most extraordinary in ridiculousness of connection against my arguments here, true be told, it is challenging to ignore him. He just made a couple, but I really gotta catch some zzz's throughout the coming work days. Going in circles with you all at once, takes a bit of energyand lots of valuable time; and pointing out the bullflakes over and over within the same old arguments retold and rephrased, is beginning to pale.

I have already discussed that blackholes are like valves/wormholes funneling space in from one side out the other, he keeps on bringing up that one single black hole will devour the hole Universe and expand to infinite size, even though, according to Matthew the Universe is finite (6th contradiction). But even if the black hole was what Matthew believes it is, it would have to outdo the gravitational pull of all the other blackholes to devour the Universe (with the blackcholes). Instead of the blackhole of Matthew's belief, growing to infinity, it would stop devouring the ever filling from other wormholes Universe, which is not expanding inside a non-dimentional nothingness (ha, ha,ha) as Matthew Ellard believes, and would start devouring itself to a singularity, which will eventually cause another Big Bang, and for the time being will be overcome by the continuously filling up of particles , which comprise matter and energy in space; or simply close (in the case of the wormhole/valve; collapse one side break apart on the other).

That had nothing to do with your claim and simply discussed quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. In fact all three of those links are simply about quantum fluctuation. Not one mentioned "bouncing balls in space"

You obviously didn't read any of the articles. You deny quantum fluctuation happens REMEMBER???

From the original:

"For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be broken apart; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself."

I never said a anything about "bouncing balls" I spoke about particles within particles, and infinite matter that de-forms to infinite energy and infinite energy forming to infinite matter, by forming particles which form everything else.