The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Matthew Ellard]

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 discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself."

So we can discard your little "bouncing particle ball" theory. We all already knew that. It's called Planck's constant.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Tananastazio / Hilarious Black Holes Excuse.

I have already discussed that blackholes are like valves/wormholes funneling space in from one side out the other

Firstly, Black holes do not funnel small bouncing particle balls to other places. Black holes destroy all information. That's why you can't support this hilarious claim, with evidence or mathematics.

Secondly, we have already observed Black Holes expanding as they absorb particles.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

...according to Matthew the Universe is finite

It is finite. We know the entire mass of the universe from the Cosmic Background Radiation level and observation of its size. That's how we know the Big Bang is 13.77 billion years ago and contains 10⁷⁸ to 10⁸² atoms.

You didn't know any of this did you? You don't even know what Cosmic Background Radiation was until a second ago, right?

"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

 

[tazanastazio]

So we can discard your little "bouncing particle ball" theory. We all already knew that. It's called Planck's constant.

I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word "discarded" to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes

 

[Matthew Ellard]

..light doesn't actually travel. Could it be that the electron jumps which generate photons, cause a ripple effect from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as " light?"

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.

So you are trying to contradict your own claim....again.

Draw us a picture, using Microsoft paint, of these bouncing particles creating a ripple effect in a straight line like a laser.

That should give everyone a good laugh.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word used to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes

You are funny....are you now claiming an proton breaks in half to become a half proton? What charge does it have?

You also have contradicted your own quote, which is hilarious

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 discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself.""

 

[Matthew Ellard]

If the photon has no mass, then the only reason it would be affected by the gravitational forces of a black hole, is because the space (the infinitesimally minute particles that comprise the fabric of space) and the "massless" photons are pulled along simply because their movement is dependent upon the particles that comprise what you deam as void .

Err no. Gravity is caused by curved space and light does get sucked into Black holes. (That's why they are called black holes) There are no magic particles, as you claim, on the edge of a black hole as they would also be sucked in.

You really need to buy a children's book on basic physics.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Tell us why your "magic particles" are not sucked into the black hole, and then explain to us why you pretend there is no void when they are sucked in.

And don't use wormholes from Star Trek to try distract from the question again.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Tanastanzio? Answer these simple questions about your "God is infinities" claim. ( I already have your quotes)

1) Do you claim Photons are particles (have mass) YES or NO?

2) Do you agree with special relativity that a particle's mass increases, as it approaches the speed of light, as evidenced by the Large Hadron Collider? YES or NO?

3) Do you claim particles are everywhere and pass photons (with mass) to the next particle? YES or NO?

"God of Infinities" Claim is falsified
According to tananastazio's ridiculous claim each photon particle (with mass) would have to travel, in relay, as individual particles, at the speed of light. As he claims photons have mass, special relativity would cause each photon particle to have infinite mass. Yes we do not see this.

In normal science, electromagnetic waves ( visible light) have no mass and can only travel at the speed of light.

Therefore we have proved that Tananastazio's claim is 100% crap and dismiss it.


(Click on image to make larger)

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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![/B][/COLOR] I have already explained why, but you don't seem to get it, like a stubborn mule!

Being immune to reason, or even the possibility that you might be wrong, is nothing to brag about.

Go ahead, debate on! This is just my game! You realize I don't have to answer to you at all, whatsoever!

Well, for a start, this is an internet forum with several hundred active members. It is not 'your game', and, if you didn't want to answer, why join in the first place?
This endless feud you are engaged in is, frankly, tedious. Why not simply address the arguments?

You have insulted my intelligence repeatedly; well who is the chump and who is the champ now chap?[/B][/COLOR]

Juvenile name-calling. Not impressive.
As long as you keep framing this debate as a personal attack on your ego, you will never rise above that juvenile level. You are not winning this argument, and you are not making any friends here.
Try leaving your ego at the door and addressing the actual arguments. Oh, and there are more people here than your nemesis Ellard. How about engaging with them for a change? Must surely be better than going round and round in the small, defensive, angry circle you are in now.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Or not, as it turns out:

I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word "discarded" to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes

Remind me, tazanastazio, pride comes before a what.....?

 

[tazanastazio]

Tanastanzio? Answer these simple questions about your "God is infinities" claim. ( I already have your quotes)

1) Do you claim Photons are particles (have mass) YES or NO?

2) Do you agree with special relativity that a particle's mass increases, as it approaches the speed of light, as evidenced by the Large Hadron Collider? YES or NO?

3) Do you claim particles are everywhere and pass photons (with mass) to the next particle? YES or NO?

"God of Infinities" Claim is falsified
According to tananastazio's ridiculous claim each photon particle (with mass) would have to travel, in relay, as individual particles, at the speed of light. As he claims photons have mass, special relativity would cause each photon particle to have infinite mass. Yes we do not see this.

In normal science, electromagnetic waves ( visible light) have no mass and can only travel at the speed of light.

Therefore we have proved that Tananastazio's claim is 100% crap and dismiss it.


(Click on image to make larger)

1) Energy at the infinitesimal level has infinitismal mass. When energy is turning to matter, it is increasing in mass. Photons are comprised by energy, as such they have what scientists call "relativistic" mass, after all their effect, light, is visible; and light can theoritcally be used to produce movement on solar sails (I know about the massless transfer of momentum to the sails, don't bother, I don't buy it. Unless they are referring to infinitesimal small mass, which still when put together becomes enough mass required, to transfer said momentum).

2) Movement may cause the increase of mass (after all space is not empty/absolute void/utter nothingness) and may lose mass as energy (ex. x-rays - temperature) or matter (debris) due to friction. I don't think therefore that mass would increase to infinite if it is accelerated to light-speed, I am more inclined towards total obliteration of said mass to energy (radiation, thermal).

I believe, like I said repeatedly before, that the effect on matter due to gravity or the conditions said matter finds itself, is relative; but time is only a rate of such change, or rate of movement and it does not actually exist.

3) In my view, as the particular chemical reaction which produces photons/energy particles occurs; they in turn, as added energy to particles surrounding the area of said chemical reaction, cause in those particles further chemical reaction which further cause the generation of photons/particles of energy; also this process generates a movement in the form of a wave and a momentum which pushes/moves photons further and further; and seemingly instantaneously (an instant can further be infinitely divided as far as we can calculate) is accelerating the light wave, to light speed. Energy needs a medium to produce any form of work whether directly or indirectly.

You have proved nothing of the sort! Claim 100% validated, and therefore indismissible.

 

[tazanastazio]

You are funny....are you now claiming an proton breaks in half to become a half proton? What charge does it have?

You also have contradicted your own quote, which is hilarious

No, it does not break in half but ot the particles of matter and energy that comprises it.

 

[tazanastazio]

Tell us why your "magic particles" are not sucked into the black hole, and then explain to us why you pretend there is no void when they are sucked in.

And don't use wormholes from Star Trek to try distract from the question again.

Err no. Gravity is caused by curved space and light does get sucked into Black holes. (That's why they are called black holes) There are no magic particles, as you claim, on the edge of a black hole as they would also be sucked in.

You really need to buy a children's book on basic physics.

Gravity is caused by the infitesmally mimute particles that comprise space, and the astronomically large objects in it, that is exactly why a black hole cannot swallow the whole universe in it, also because there are other black holes pulling particles towards them; but particles themselves along with the aforementioned astronomically large objects have their own gravity. EMPTY SPACE CANNOT GENERATE GRAVITY!

Additionally, black holes or Whirlpools/wormholes/universal valves, cause more particles to enter an area in space, while others provide an exit for it which produces MOVEMENT in space (universal currents); and sustains energy (electromagnetism, gravity, radio, and thermo - a codependent existence) and life through which intelligence is generated; from the incalculably small to the incalculably large.

 

[Craig4]

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.

Why does it need a nudge? If an object is radiating, say light and the property of light is to travel at the speed of well light, why is the radiating not enough? Why is the radiating not the "nudge"?

 

[Craig4]

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.

Uh...can we got back to "Why do laser range finders work?" You seem to have blown past that one. Since we're on the topic, you also hand-waved away the problem with your three multiple choice questions where you reasoned that, "I don't know," isn't the answer.

 

[tazanastazio]

Why does it need a nudge? If an object is radiating, say light and the property of light is to travel at the speed of well light, why is the radiating not enough? Why is the radiating not the "nudge"?

Because space is not empty. Among all the reasons mentioned earlier which show that space is not empty, if space was empty the wave would not be sustained and light would travel in a straight line as soon as it was generated from a source. That is followed from Newton's 1st Law. Light would need a "nudge" to be kept in a wavy motion, and for its speed to be maintained after it had to go through, a non-empty space. Which in fact I think it does not, but rather light from a source, generates light on particles surrounding said source, and so whatever energy is lost is regained by the regenerated energy of the next particle in the wave, this is the "nudge."

Light is both a particle and wave as proved by Einstein's radio - metal experiment, and contrary to popular belief, unless the extra acquired energy made the electrons in the experiment to manage to dislodge themselves by acquiring extra energy and enabling them to break the bond (elecrtons push away from electrons), then for light to dislodge matter it has to have also a particle nature (not Infinitely massless - energy turns to matter, and accumulated energy becomes an incalculably small amount of mass). So if light has "relativistic" mass to transfer momentum to solar sails, and if space is not empty (which is not), a "nudge" is needed for light to maintain light speed for billions of years, as it travels through space and to keep moving as a wave.

 

[tazanastazio]

Uh...can we got back to "Why do laser range finders work?" You seem to have blown past that one. Since we're on the topic, you also hand-waved away the problem with your three multiple choice questions where you reasoned that, "I don't know," isn't the answer.

No I didn't, I answered both as follows:

Photons/light/radio-energy interacting with particles of matter in the vicinity of the laser meter or the radar, generate back in the direction of the laser meter radar, a wave of photons/light/radio-energy which is read by the laser meter/radar. Similarly, with colored surfaces the radio-energy sent back is the corresponding to the frequency/amplitude/wavelength of the original radio-energy minus the type absorbed by the particles of the colored surfaces. With telescopes and polarized surfaces the course of said radio-energy is redirected by the appropriate lenses (of certain molecules in the case of pollaroid surfaces which block sunlight coming perpendicularly to the lenses).

With prisms and raindrops generating a rainbow; the energy of the photon/light wave as it goes through the molecules of the surfaces just mentioned, is dispersed to the corresponding frequencies/amplitude/wavelengths because the prism and the raindrops bent light according to speed of particular frequency color. Red moving the fastest is passing through from particle to particle the fastest, and purple the slowest. Perhaps as the light of particular energy level is passing through particles, it causes the further generation of the same light energy package/photon like particle; depending upon the energy level absorbed and caused a smaller particle within a particle (in case of atoms, the electrons) to make the particular energy level jump corresponding to energy level absorbed.

"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer because certain things we do know contradict it.

 

[Craig4]

No I didn't, I answered both as follows:



"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer because certain things we do know contradict it.

This is not correct. You told us things you thought and presented them as if we knew them but that's not the same.

 

[Craig4]

No I didn't, I answered both as follows:

Photons/light/radio-energy interacting with particles of matter in the vicinity of the laser meter or the radar, generate back in the direction of the laser meter radar, a wave of photons/light/radio-energy which is read by the laser meter/radar. Similarly, with colored surfaces the radio-energy sent back is the corresponding to the frequency/amplitude/wavelength of the original radio-energy minus the type absorbed by the particles of the colored surfaces. With telescopes and polarized surfaces the course of said radio-energy is redirected by the appropriate lenses (of certain molecules in the case of pollaroid surfaces).

If that were true, the speed of light would not be constant. If the color mattered, you'd have different results for reflections off different surfaces.