The Infinite! In Search of The Ultimate Truth.

[Craig4]

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.

Again, if the above were true, the speed of light would not be constant. It would change based on the "particles" (whatever the hell that means) around it.

 

[Craig4]

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

You seem to have to do that a lot.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Energy at the infinitesimal level has infinitismal mass.

You claimed photons are particles with mass and therefore they obtain infinite mass when accelerated to the speed of light. Therefore your hilarious religious claim photons are particles with mass has been destroyed. In reality photons are electromagnetic waves and have no mass.

"The answer is then definitely "no": the photon is a massless particle. According to theory it has energy and momentum but no mass, and this is confirmed by experiment"
http://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html

Photons are comprised by energy

You are contradicting your own religious claim that protons are particles. Why do you lie so much?

Movement may cause the increase of mass

Accelerating any mass particle to the speed of light increases its mass as proved by the Large Hadron Colliders. You keep pretending to forget as this destroys your religious claim that photons are particles.

I believe,

Who cares what you believe. You don't know anything about basic science.

In my view,

Your view is worthless. You claimed photons were particles. We gave you eight experiments, from the last 150 years, that proved otherwise and you still pretend you can't understand the experiments. You simply deny electromagnetic waves ( visible light ) exists.

Go away, read a basic science book and post your religious nonsense on a religious forum

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Because space is not empty. Among all the reasons mentioned earlier ....

That is when you got caught lying....did you forget? Your "God is infinities" religious claim is that all space is filled with particles and they magically pass "photon particles" around. You then linked to six articles on quantum fluctuation that confirmed in vacuums, there will occasionally be a quantum event causing a negative and positive ions to appear and then negate themselves.

Your own link destroyed your own claim and everyone laughed at you for pretending you had evidence.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Gravity is caused by the infitesmally mimute particles that comprise space

No. A hundred years ago it was proven that gravity is caused by curved space and that's why we have gravitational lensing.

"The Eddington experiment was an observational test of General Relativity, organised by the British astronomers Frank Watson Dyson and Arthur Stanley Eddington in 1919"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment

Stop making up facts about science, on a science forum, where people have studied science. Your lies just confirm to us that you know nothing about science.


Absolute idiocy by tazanastazio

...., 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

Black holes merge <snip>.

Additionally, black holes cause more particles to enter an area in space...

No. Black holes absorb mass from outside the Schwarzschild radius. Can you show us an example of a black hole adding to the space around it?

You really don't have a clue what a black hole is do you?

Edited by Loss Leader: 

Edited for Rule 0.

 

[tazanastazio]

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.

You do depending on the medium; that is how the prism works and that is how we have the rainbow effect.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Everything is caused by particles and this gives the illusion light is a wave.

Light is both a particle and wave as proved by Einstein.

It was Maxwell who determined the speed of light using four formulas in the 1860's before Einstein was even born.

Light is not a particle and Einstein never said it was. You are simply lying again.

You are contradicting your own religion again, to hide all your incredibly idiotic claims.

Do you now acknowledge that electromagnetic waves actually exist and this includes the visible light spectrum? Yes or No?

Do you now reject your own previous claims that photons are particles? Yes or No?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

You do depending on the medium; that is how the prism works and that is how we have the rainbow effect.

No. Your "God is infinities" religion, claims light is a particle. How does a particle know what frequency the other "photon particles" from the same source are? Obviously this is crap.

In reality electromagnetic waves (visible light) are homogeneous and thus when refracted ( A prism rainbow, A CD rainbow) or undergo doppler shift (red shift) they retain a homogeneous frequency over the entire wave.

Draw us a picture of how you think "photon particles" are connected as a wavelength so we can all have another jolly good laugh at you.

 

[Craig4]

You do depending on the medium; that is how the prism works and that is how we have the rainbow effect.

And this would impact the speed of light how?

 

[Matthew Ellard]

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

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

Err......you seem totally unaware that protons are fermions and are made of three quarks. Have you already forgotten what the Large Hadron Collider is testing about hadrons, fermions and so on?

Now answer my question. What happens to the proton's charge and as you don't believe in electromagnetic fields, tell us what other little particles you think are causing the electric charge of a proton? Draw us a picture!!!

(This is going to be hilarious)

 

[tazanastazio]

And this would impact the speed of light how?

I meant that light slows down according to frequency speed as it goes through the prism and the raindrops.

https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/prisms/

 

[Craig4]

I meant that light slows down according to frequency speed as it goes through the prism and the raindrops.

https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/prisms/

But those speeds are a constant.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I meant that light slows down according to frequency speed as it goes through the prism and the raindrops.

https://wonders.physics.wisc.edu/prisms/

You claim light is made up of individual "photon particles". How does an individual "photon particle" have "frequency"?

You just shot your own claim down again, which is hilarious!!

 

[tazanastazio]

Err......you seem totally unaware that protons are fermions and are made of three quarks. Have you already forgotten what the Large Hadron Collider is testing about hadrons, fermions and so on?

Now answer my question. What happens to the proton's charge and as you don't believe in electromagnetic fields, tell us what other little particles you think are causing the electric charge of a proton? Draw us a picture!!!

(This is going to be hilarious)

I know I won the argument when you panic and go berserk. Obviously I don't have all the time in the world, and in responding, I gave you top priority the past ten years. It's time to wait for your turn. 'sides I responded to all that repeatedly, most of which is bullflakes and insulting idiocies masqueraded in the form of a question.

Meantime research the reason light travels in waves and not in a straight line, since I've been waiting for that response among others for ages, and then come back with an answer first before you post a barrage of insulting comments.

Other questions:

Explain how the Universe expands within a "non-dimentional" nothingness.

Have you come up with an explanation to the claimed on your part, agreement between bees and pollen yet?



Not to mention how you have yet to answer the purpose and reason the Universe came to be, or why it functions the way it does, or the purpose of all things, for that matter, to which at least I gave an answer. Oh wait I know "in the passing of an infinite amount of years and infinite attempts, trials and errors, the universe got finally everything right to every mathematically minute yet not at all insignificant detail, and it managed to exist!" Considering the propability and all the aforementioned, and yourself proclaimed mastery in maths,I begin to have doubts about you not putting common sense to good use at all, and wonder whether you have any common sense after all!

You should be the one to take a hike (you told me to go away one too many times, I bet you'd like that, it would make things easy for you wouldn't it?), tin horn skeptic, you are the one who disturbs the peace and elevates the spirits, in whichever thread you visit. Without you, and the likes of you, we would have a more civilized conversation, instead of bouts of arguments distressing everyone (not me, I can care less, as I have so masterfully displayed) and causing negativity.

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


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?

I did, repeatedly, for ages.

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.

Matthew Ellard is as much my nemesis as any human with the stubbornness of a mule. In fact I wish him all the best in life, and who knows maybe he'll get the picture one day, maybe he realizes certain things in life. Such as while, all cannot be equally fortunate, because how would a finite world function after all, if that was the case (communism tried it and failed), and what would be the point of living and learning if dental care and clothing grew on trees, along with freshly baked bread and the Earth was infinitely large, and we lived forever;
while free will is necessary, for us to want to exist in the first place; and while free will can bring both a positive and a negative result; maybe with the passing of time, Matthew realizes that he should not take the good fortune of his, however subtle such affect of good fortune may seem to be, for granted, and attribute it sherely to mere chance. Maybe, but some people never learn.

 

[Craig4]

I know I won the argument when you panic and go berserk. Obviously I don't have all the time in the world, and in responding, I gave you top priority the past ten years. It's time to wait for your turn. 'sides I responded to all that. Meantime research the reason light travels in waves and not in a straight line, since I've been waiting for that response among others for ages, and then come back with an answer first before you post a barrage of insulting comments.

Other questions:

Explain how the Universe expands within a "non-dimentional" nothingness.

Have you come up with an explanation to the agreement between bees and pollen yet?

Not to mention how you have yet to answer the purpose and reason the Universe came to be, or why it functions the way it does, or the purpose of all things, for that matter, to which at least I gave an answer. Oh wait I know "in the passing of an infinite amount of years and infinite attempts, trials and errors, the universe got finally everything right to every minut yet not at all insignificant detail, and it managed to exist." Considering the propability and yourself proclaimed mastery in maths, I begin to have doubts about you not putting common sense to good use at all, and wonder whether you have any common sense after all!

No, seriously dude, you're pretty far out there. There are some fundamental things you just don't seem to get. This is the problem with tying your beliefs to the visible. If you just said your invisible god friend loved you and looked out for you, go nuts. You've trespassed your religious beliefs into the observable, testable and measurable (you know science). Your beliefs will never stand up to scientific scrutiny. No religious beliefs can.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

I know I won the argument when you panic and go berserk.

No. You didn't know that a proton was already known to be made of three quarks. I had to inform you. You then ran away from answering my question. How can a particle have an electric charge if you deny electromagnetic waves exist?

You have simply confirmed again that you don't have a clue what any of these things are.

Obviously I don't have all the time in the world...

Yet here you are, posting but not answering any of my direct questions about your hilarious BS religious claims.

Meantime research the reason light travels in waves and not in a straight line,

I have explained this to you ten times as you didn't even know what a laser was. I have shown you how all electromagnetic waves ( visible light) have frequency as per Maxwells equations.

You, in contrast, keep religiously claiming photons are little particle balls yet can't explain how they maintain homogeneous frequencies over entire waves.

//////////////////////////////////////

Explain how the Universe expands within a "non-dimentional" nothingness.

For the fourth time, It is a curved universe, evidenced by the Cosmic Background Radiation being all around us and you refused to read the science links.
Shape of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

What is the Shape of the Universe?
https://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

Have you come up with an explanation to the claimed on your part, agreement between bees and pollen yet?

Yes. Firstly, you deny evolution is real as you are a religious nutter.. However scientific evolution understands bees and flowers both evolved at the same time. Random mutation in both the common bee and plant species, produced a relationship where bees benefited more from pollen nutrition if they distributed it between flowers. As these two mutations were able to breed more and have more offspring the gene frequency increased and both species evolved.

"Bees and flowers have evolved together for millions of years. It is a mutual relationship where the bee is provided with food (nectar or pollen) and the stationary plant gets to disperse its pollen (sperm cells) to other plants of the same species. ... This is an example of a co-evolutionary relationship"
https://www.otago.ac.nz/genetics/otago038359.pdf

In contrast, you think "God" made bees go to flowers.

 

[tazanastazio]

No, seriously dude, you're pretty far out there. There are some fundamental things you just don't seem to get. This is the problem with tying your beliefs to the visible. If you just said your invisible god friend loved you and looked out for you, go nuts. You've trespassed your religious beliefs into the observable, testable and measurable (you know science). Your beliefs will never stand up to scientific scrutiny. No religious beliefs can.

Even if I am wrong with the process of how light moves, or the digestive system of a bee, that does not by any means prove that the aforementioned came to be out of chance on their own. How exactly what I have said proves Infinitism false?

Some of you complained that in my so called "feud" with Matthew Ellard, I have not paid attention to your questions. You now have my undivided attention. But admittedly this debate takes a lot of time and a bit if energy, and while debating with Matthew E for over 10 years now (with a few years of a break in between) has passed the point of palling, and while despite of that I have plenty of energy left to continue the conversation for as long as
questions are posted, I do have to attend to other things in life; which due to circumstances has not provided me with the luxury some of you may share, of debating over tea on the web, day in day out for ages.

So please tell me, where exactly am I "far out there?" Now without me giving considerably more weight to answering Matthew Ellard's comments, which I have answered repeatedly and ten fold, and apparently he has nothing new to say, maybe now we can get things more in perspective.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

Matthew Ellard is as much my nemesis as any human with the stubbornness of a mule.

Not really. I am just one of the numerous audience members laughing at you, as you make hilarious science errors and conflicting religious claims, on a comedy science thread, you started.. In contrast, you don't know why people are laughing at you.

 

[tazanastazio]

Not really. I am just one of the numerous audience members laughing at you, as you make hilarious science errors and conflicting religious claims, on a comedy science thread, you started.. In contrast, you don't know why people are laughing at you.

Matthew,

What is the mathematical propability for every infinitely little detail to occur precisely as needed, for the Universe to be brought to existence on its own?


Can you comprehend how "hilarious" this belief sounds to billions of people on the planet some of whom are Scientists?

Not every doctor, or physicist, mathematician or NASA engineer is an atheist you know.

 

[Matthew Ellard]

How exactly what I have said proves Infinitism false?

Your "God is infinities" religion claim, that there are infinite numbers of particles, with mass, in all space between planets, which in reality would cause all orbits around the sun to end.

I told you ten years ago and you still don't have the common sense to understand this.

So please tell me, where exactly am I "far out there?"

1) You claim photons are individual particles with mass but simultaneously claim individual particles have frequency....as you don't know what the word frequency means.
2) You can't actually write down your "hypothesis" as it is self conflicting and you don't know what any of the scientific words mean.
3) You don't believe in evolution and think bees and pollen have an negotiated agreement.
4) You think black holes deliver particles instead of absorbing them.
5) You claimed to have put English words into a mathematical equation to obtain a mathematical answer, yet can't remember how you did this.
6) You claimed time doesn't exist while claiming you used a mathematical formula that required the input of time.

This is a very very long list.....
.