Cosmology Mathematics News

New Scientist vs. William Lane Craig on infinity explanations

Spread the love

Not to start up the infinity battle again (okay, maybe we are … ), from New Scientist:

Explanimator: Does infinity exist in the real world?

Some mathematicians are trying to rebuild the foundations of mathematics without the infinite. But if there is a biggest number, what would happen when you add one to it? The solution could be thinking of numbers as a cycle rather than a linear series, some sort of loop where you revert back to the beginning. It’s a little strange, but then so is infinity. More.

The reader who forwarded the tip comments, “Compared to William Lane Craig’s lectures, this article seems shallow and infantile.”

Here’s Craig. Readers can decide:

See also: Durston and Craig on an infinite temporal past

and

Infinity at Starbucks: Starring Laszlo Bencze and Art Battson

Follow UD News at Twitter!

110 Replies to “New Scientist vs. William Lane Craig on infinity explanations

  1. 1
    mike1962 says:

    But if there is a biggest number, what would happen when you add one to it?

    You can’t. That’s why it’s the biggest.

    The universe would not accommodate it.

    You will have reached the end of the universe’s resources.

    Just like any computer.

    The trap is peoples’ intuition leads them to believe there is no limit.

    But there is a limit.

    The universe only has so many bits of information.

    The largest number is limited by that.

  2. 2
    Aleta says:

    Question: “Does infinity exist in the real world?”

    Answer: No

  3. 3
    daveS says:

    mike1962,

    The universe only has so many bits of information.

    The largest number is limited by that.

    Do you know what the approximate magnitude of this number would be?

    Edited: I think the first video answers my question by estimating the maximum information the universe could store as 10^122 bits.

    But numbers much larger than that arise in mathematics, and of course mathematicians deal with infinite cardinal and ordinal numbers all the time. Should our mathematics be limited by the capacity of the physical or material universe?

  4. 4
    daveS says:

    Correction: If the universe has the capacity to store 10^122 bits, I guess that means any number between 0 and 2^(10^122) – 1 (inclusive) could be represented. The rest of my comment stands, I believe.

  5. 5
    Aleta says:

    Question:

    Should our mathematics be limited by the capacity of the physical or material universe?

    Answer: No

  6. 6
    Mapou says:

    Does infinity exist in the real world?

    No, but what other world is there? Did mathematicians or materialists invent a parallel universe where infinity exists while I was not looking?

  7. 7
    Mapou says:

    Should our mathematics be limited by the capacity of the physical or material universe?

    It cannot be otherwise. I mean, do we exist in the real world in which we calculate in? Or do we exist in an imaginary (fictitious) parallel mathematical universe?

  8. 8
    Aleta says:

    Do imaginary numbers exist in the real world? Do non-Euclidean two dimensional spaces exist in the real world? Do quaternions exist in the real world? How about pi? How about a perfect circle?

    What exactly does it mean for a mathematical concept to exist in the real world?

  9. 9
    Mapou says:

    Even numbers are abstract and non-existent. So what can one say about infinity? Again, I will wear Immanuel Kant’s hat to make a point.

    If a number exists, where is it?
    If infinity exists, where is it?
    If distance exists, where is it?
    If time exists, where is it?
    If space exists, where is it?
    If spacetime exists, where is it?
    If a unicorn exists, where is it?
    And so on.

    I was going to add gravitational waves (spacetime ripples) to the list but I’m getting off topic already.

  10. 10
    Mapou says:

    What exactly does it mean for a mathematical concept to exist in the real world?

    Neither Euclidean nor non-Euclidean geometry exists since they both embrace infinity.

  11. 11
    Aleta says:

    Two questions:

    1. So is there any mathematics at all? What am I doing when I write that (3 + 2i)^2 = 5 + 12i? Is this just meaningless?

    2. In your opinion, mapou, what does/b> exist?

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    mike1962 @1,

    I agree. However, even if you knew the total number of particles in the universe (the universe is certainly finite), the number itself would still be abstract and nonexistent. Only the particles exist, IMO.

  13. 13
    Aleta says:

    So, mapou, if only particles exists, does math exist when we speak it or write it, as sounds and written symbols are made of particles?

    Second question: Does something like i = sqrt(-1) have absolutely no meaning even if we use it in formulas which successfully model how certain things in the real world work?

  14. 14
    Mapou says:

    Aleta:

    Two questions:

    1. So is there any mathematics at all? What am I doing when I write that (3 + 2i)^2 = 5 + 12i? Is this just meaningless?

    No, not meaningless. Just nonexistent.

    2. In your opinion, mapou, what does/b> exist?

    In the physical universe, only particles, their properties and their interactions exist. Everything else is abstract or BS.

    But there is a complementary-opposite realm (it’s all Yin and Yang) in which there are no interactions. In that realm, things just are and can neither be created nor destroyed. This is the realm of the entities that give us consciousness among many other things.

    Just my opinion.

  15. 15
    Mapou says:

    Aleta:

    So, mapou, if only particles exists, does math exist when we speak it or write it, as sounds and written symbols are made of particles?

    In my opinion, symbols are abstract entities and exist only in a different realm that our consciousness has access to. They do not exist in the physical world. However, infinity does not exist anywhere, not even in the abstract realm. It’s nonsense. Otherwise, our spirits would sense it directly.

    Second question: Does something like i = sqrt(-1) have absolutely no meaning even if we use it in formulas which successfully model how certain things in the real world work?

    sqrt(-1) is, of course, nonsense. It’s nonsense even in the abstract world of our conscious thoughts. Otherwise, we would sense it directly.

    When you write i, it could be any variable that represents any other number. So you can manipulate it in equations just like any number variable (e.g., x, y, z, etc.). But insisting that it represents the square root of -1 is nonsense since it contradicts the accepted definition of multiplication and numbers.

    Again, just my opinion.

  16. 16
    Mapou says:

    By the way, I am so confident that distance is an abstract perceptual illusion that I predict the following. In the foreseeable future, when our knowledge will have increased and physicists finally wake up from their stupor, we will develop technologies that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intervening positions.

  17. 17
    Aleta says:

    So how do you explain that there are mathematical formulations that use i = sqrt(-1) to model the real world, and for which the models are extremely accurate?

  18. 18
    Mapou says:

    So how do you explain that there are mathematical formulations that use i = sqrt(-1) to model the real world, and for which the models are extremely accurate?

    I don’t believe it. For the same reason that I don’t believe a lot of other crap that are handed down to us from elitists. It’s crap. I don’t believe in gravitational waves, black holes, Big Bang, wormholes, accelerated expansion and spacetime either, for examples. It’s all crap.

  19. 19
    Aleta says:

    I see. Well, in that case I won’t ask any more questions.

  20. 20
    groovamos says:

    mapou: sqrt(-1) is, of course, nonsense

    Here’s one for Mapou since I can’t tell if (s)he’s serious or not about complex numbers. If there is no reality in the use of i, what is the method for obtaining sin(1.0) to say 50 places, and what are the underlying mathematical structures in this? And if a person does this in a Far Eastern country does it work out identically as to doing it in the West? Or in the Third World? (angle in rads).

    But maybe Mapou’s is turning the discussion into a joke, intentionally – if not their contribution is a good joke.

  21. 21
    GBDixon says:

    Mapau @ 18

    Time to stop using your cell phone and computer, for design techniques employing both sqrt(-1) and infinities permeate the designs of these devices.

    Luckily, for those of us who find these concepts useful, useful work is done. They still work despite your lack of belief in imaginary numbers and infinity.

    Don’t forget the maths are merely symbolic representations of real world things and in the sense they are symbolic none of it has any reality per your definition. But math, including your difficult pieces, sure is handy.

  22. 22
    Mapou says:

    GBDixon:

    Time to stop using your cell phone and computer, for design techniques employing both sqrt(-1) and infinities permeate the designs of these devices.

    Funny. Both my cell phone and my computer are discrete and finite machines. I can assure you that neither of them contains either infinities or sqrt(-1).

    And since none of the computers that were used to design my computer and my cell phone have either infinities or sqrt(-1) in them, I am rather confident that you are pulling your lies out of your nether regions. See you around.

  23. 23
    Me_Think says:

    Mapou @ 16

    In the foreseeable future, when our knowledge will have increased and physicists finally wake up from their stupor, we will develop technologies that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intervening positions

    That’s possible only via a wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridges) or by going into higher dimension. Which of those two do you believe in?

  24. 24
    J-Mac says:

    Me_think @23

    There is a third possibility; teleportation.

    Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous transfer of quantum state of the entangled particles. Although you may not believe that, the bible has more than one example of teleportation; when angles materialized human bodies and ate with Abraham… for example.

  25. 25
    Mung says:

    I don’t believe I exist, and I think I can prove it.

  26. 26
    Me_Think says:

    J-Mac @ 24

    There is a third possibility; teleportation.

    Teleportation works by transferring the quantum state from one position to another, but there is something called No Cloning theorem – you can’t copy the quantum states of arbitrary body. What is possible is imperfect cloning , but you have to destroy the original body to know the quantum states of the body even then you will get only the macro states which is why teleportation is not considered a viable method.

    Quantum entanglement allows for instantaneous transfer of quantum state of the entangled particles.

    Quantum entanglement is completely different. It has nothing to do with transportation of states.When the initially entangled particles are separated by an arbitrary distance, it is still governed by a single wave equation so when you measure a quantum state in one particle, the corresponding state in the other particles collapses to the alternate state. Thus if the first particle is measured to have a clockwise spin, the other particle will collapse to have a counterclockwise spin.

  27. 27
    GBDixon says:

    Mapau @ 22:

    I’m sorry if I offended you.

  28. 28
    daveS says:

    Did anyone else watch the WLC video and find it unconvincing?

    He in essence says that the Hilbert Hotel is strange, therefore it cannot exist. Well, a lot of modern physics is strange, but apparently it describes things that actually exist.

    Moreover, I think that the two examples of candidate actual infinities that he discusses: 1) a hotel with infinitely many rooms, and 2) the set of all past events, are a bit different. The infinitely many rooms in Hilbert’s Hotel must exist all at once, while the events in the past exist only finitely many at a time. I find an infinite past to be less problematic than an actually infinite physical object, so I’m not convinced that absurdities in the Hilbert Hotel “prove” that an infinite past is impossible.

  29. 29
    J-Mac says:

    Me_Think,

    “…but you have to destroy the original body to know the quantum states of the body…

    Obviously… or one would have to 2 of himself…a clone.

    “Quantum entanglement is completely different. It has nothing to do with transportation of states.When the initially entangled particles are separated by an arbitrary distance, it is still governed by a single wave equation so when you measure a quantum state in one particle, the corresponding state in the other particles collapses to the alternate state. Thus if the first particle is measured to have a clockwise spin, the other particle will collapse to have a counterclockwise spin.

    I’m not sure you understand the issue…
    Quantum entanglement is what would make teleportation possible.

    Watch this video on the 40 min mark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIcg0XsbFQ

    Maybe then you will understand what I’m talking about…

  30. 30
    daveS says:

    Here’s an attempt to modify the Hilbert Hotel to illustrate the distinction I’m making above in #28.

    This hotel consists of just a single room.

    The hotel is “beginningless” in the WLC sense.

    Guests stay at the hotel one at a time, for one night only.

    Let’s assume the hotel has been fully booked throughout an infinite past, so you would think there is no vacancy.

    Could the hotel have accommodated one extra guest? Could it have accommodated (countably) infinitely many extra guests? Yes, just as in the original Hilbert Hotel.

  31. 31
    Me_Think says:

    J-Mac @ 29

    Obviously… or one would have to 2 of himself…a clone.

    Obviously, but what is left behind is imperfect broken clone . Neither the transported quantum state nor the left over quantum state will be complete. You would destroy the original and still will not get a complete replica at the other end.

    I’m not sure you understand the issue…
    Quantum entanglement is what would make teleportation possible.

    Watch this video on the 40 min mark:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbIcg0XsbFQ

    Maybe then you will understand what I’m talking about…

    I understand the issue quite well 🙂 .What you need to understand is popular videos are hype- not the truth. What gets transported over quantum entanglement is the quantum information contained in one photon not the photon itself, and no the photons were not created at the other end- it was used to set up another photon. This is how the actual experiment works:
    Alice and Charlie* are in La Palma, and Bob in Tenerife. Charlie prepares teleportation input photon in a state using HSP (Heralded single-photon) source with a trigger photon 0. An Einstein Podolsky Rosen source generates an entangled pair of photons 2 and 3. Alice then performs a Bell-state measurement on photons1 and 2 and projects them onto two of the four Bell states and sends the result via the classical feed-forward channel to Bob. Photon 3 is sent via the free-space quantum channel to Bob, who applies a unitary transformation on photon 3 depending on the BSM result and thus turns its state into a replica of the initial quantum state.
    Note: Alice , Bob and Charlie are placeholder names us

  32. 32
    Mapou says:

    GBDixon @27:

    Mapau @ 22:

    I’m sorry if I offended you.

    My apologies. I mistook you for someone else.

  33. 33
    GaryGaulin says:

    Mung at 25:

    I don’t believe I exist, and I think I can prove it.

    Wow, that’s a new one for me. What religion is this from?

  34. 34
    Mapou says:

    Me_Think:

    Mapou @ 16

    In the foreseeable future, when our knowledge will have increased and physicists finally wake up from their stupor, we will develop technologies that will allow us to travel instantly from anywhere to anywhere without going through the intervening positions

    That’s possible only via a wormhole (Einstein-Rosen bridges) or by going into higher dimension. Which of those two do you believe in?

    The wormhole concept is Star-Trek voodoo physics created by clueless crackpots in the physics community who never learned the truth about spacetime being a block universe in which nothing happens. Karl Popper and many others told them about this inconvenient little truth many years ago but the crackpots love their little crackpot world too much to give it up. So they keep perpetuating the lie. And why shouldn’t they? It’s a cash cow to them. Also, the public just love being fleeced by the likes of Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne and the entire physics community. They just can’t have enough of the time travel, gravitational wave and wormhole fairy tales.

    If distance does not exist (it doesn’t), we live in a nonspatial reality. This means that the position of a particle is not a property of space but an intrinsic property of the particle itself, just like mass, charge or any other intrinsic property. Ordinary motion consists of changing the particle’s positional property to an adjacent value. There is no reason, however, that the position of a particle cannot be changed by an arbitrary value. I expect that, one day in the not too distant future, when the physics community finally take their heads out of their asteroids, we will find a way to do just that. Imagine being able to move instantly from New York to Beijing or from earth to the moon or to Mars. It will be a different world, to say the least.

    In a way, reality is not unlike a 3D video game. The software objects in the game do not move anywhere in memory. Only their positional properties change.

    Just saying. Take it or leave it.

    PS. To those of the Christian persuasion, there is a story in the New Testament that mentions instantaneous teleportation.

  35. 35
    Aleta says:

    dave asks, “Did anyone else watch the WLC video .”

    Well, I just did. Looks like ground that we’ve gone over thoroughly before. I certainly agree, and have from the beginning, that no actual infinite number of things exists in the real world. I also think that we all agree that our universe had a beginning, so the question of an infinite past for our universe is irrelevant.

    And, as I’ve pointed out, it is a totally unwarranted metaphysical speculation to think that the mathematical number line might be an accurate model of time as it is outside and beyond our universe, or even time as we know it in our universe has any metaphysical analog at all.

    And I found Craig a bit annoying as a speaker – reminded be a bit of Vizzini in the Princess Bride.

  36. 36
    Aleta says:

    I’ll also make a point that has been avoided so far: that all these arguments about time are assuming discrete events, as they are modeled by the natural numbers (or integers). If we model time as a continuous flow, (e.g, as the reals) there are an infinite number of “events” every second.

    Again, the point that is not being discussed here is the difference between the mathematics itself and the use of the mathematics to model a real-world phenomena. In general, models are always useful approximations that may or may not be accurate, or may or may not be misleading.

  37. 37
    GBDixon says:

    Mapau @ 32. Thank you.

    Aleta @ 36,

    Thanks for clarifying. I won’t try to digress. The topic is infinity but just one small comment on sqrt(-1). I justify it by asserting the comment does seem to relate to real world things.

    There are a few people who speculate that quantum information is a complex entity. If this is so, our world is full of ‘imaginary’ entities (I consider ‘imaginary’ an unfortunate name. In many realms imaginary numbers are as real as real numbers). I think the idea is that instead of two electron spin states there are really four, two of which are readily observable.

    This topic is marked for future study by me because, like Mapau, I cannot currently envision what a complex information bit would be like. But I am comfortable working with complex numbers in other areas, and although I cannot envision a complex information bit, it does seem to resolve some of the spooky action at a distance questions.

    Anyway, regarding infinity it does seem there are no real world examples.

  38. 38
    Aleta says:

    Complex numbers are just two dimensional vectors. “imaginary” is a terrible name for i: imaginary numbers are no more, and no less, “imaginary” than real numbers are. Complex numbers are commonly used in many fields, and are tremendously important.

    As with all applied mathematics, the essential point is to model a real-world phenomena with appropriate mathematical concepts, and then to test the model by seeng whether the implications of the math are borne out by the real world. If so, the model is strengthened, if not, you refine the model.

  39. 39
    ellazimm says:

    Aleta #36 & 38

    I think your comments are very important: applied mathematics is not the same thing as pure mathematics. But a lot of applied mathematics makes use of some very odd and obtuse results and structures. Topology is one of the weirder areas of pure mathematics but it’s very good at modelling Einsteinian space-time. Complex numbers have some very good and concrete applications in the real world because, as you say, they help separate physical effects into basis vectors. I couldn’t believe it at first when I took a complex analysis course.

  40. 40
    kairosfocus says:

    F/N: I pick back up: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....ent-601594 In a day or so the budget silly season will be past. KF

    PS: ijk vectors and complex numbers are very useful, and even root -1 too. I add that for several years I more lived in the complex frequency domain than in the temporal one and was forever pole spotting for transfer functions. Insofar as the relevant structures and quantities are realistic or real, the logic of such constrains empirical observable reality. This I discuss in the linked.

  41. 41
    kairosfocus says:

    PS: The pivot of debate is, many do not agree that there was a beginning to the physical world, and now appeal to multiverse models. The issue is, is such a claim coherent, and I am arguing no it tries to end the endless in cumulative finite stage steps.

  42. 42
    daveS says:

    KF,

    The issue is, is such a claim coherent, and I am arguing no it tries to end the endless in cumulative finite stage steps.

    As I stated in the other thread, it’s actually a matter of “ending the beginningless”, which is not contradictory.

  43. 43
    Mapou says:

    Crackpot atheists on UD love to talk about the mathematics of spacetime as a way to show off:

    Topology is one of the weirder areas of pure mathematics but it’s very good at modelling Einsteinian space-time.

    But, amazingly, not one of the dirt worshippers ever mentions that spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. This nasty little truth about spacetime is well-known to those few who truly understand the stupidity of Einsteinian physics but it doesn’t stop the crackpots from talking about gravitational waves (spacetime ripples) traveling through spacetime at the speed of light. Only the physics community and evolutionary biology somehow get away with feeding the public with blatant crackpottery. Read it and weep.

    “There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. […] In particular, one does not think of particles as “moving through” space-time, or as “following along” their world-lines. Rather, particles are just “in” space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once the complete life history of the particle.”
    Source: Relativity from A to B by Dr. Robert Geroch, U. of Chicago

    “At the same time I realized that such myths may be developed, and become testable; that historically speaking all — or very nearly all — scientific theories originate from myths, and that a myth may contain important anticipations of scientific theories. Examples are Empedocles’ theory of evolution by trial and error, or Parmenides’ myth of the unchanging block universe in which nothing ever happens and which, if we add another dimension, becomes Einstein’s block universe (in which, too, nothing ever happens, since everything is, four-dimensionally speaking, determined and laid down from the beginning). I thus felt that if a theory is found to be non-scientific, or “metaphysical” (as we might say), it is not thereby found to be unimportant, or insignificant, or “meaningless,” or “nonsensical.” But it cannot claim to be backed by empirical evidence in the scientific sense — although it may easily be, in some genetic sense, the “result of observation.”
    Source: Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper. Emphasis added.

    We are being lied to by the high priests of the physics community. We are being ripped off by crooks and con artists in high places who look down on us condescendingly. We, the public who pays their salaries, need to wake up and ask for our money back. We need the prosecute the thieves and the liars and lock them up. It’s not nice to fool the entire world and nobody should be allowed to get away with it.

  44. 44
    Aleta says:

    To quote Mapou,

    Crackpot.

  45. 45
    Mapou says:

    Aleta, are you calling Karl Popper a crackpot? Or are you calling yourself a crackpot?

    All dirt-worshipping atheists/Darwinists are liars and crackpots. It’s genetic. LOL

  46. 46
    Aleta says:

    You, Mapou, are a first-class crackpot. But I’m not calling you a liar, because if one truly believes one’s fallacious ideas, one isn’t lying when one states them.

  47. 47
    Mapou says:

    Aleta,

    If I am a crackpot in your eyes, I consider it a badge of honor. I would rather be on the side of Karl Popper than some inconsequential dirt worshipper proselytizing on UD. LOL

  48. 48
    Mapou says:

    By the way, Aleta, what does the Flying Dirt Monster’s asteroid smell like today?

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…

  49. 49
    Mapou says:

    Who among the dirt worshippers who comment on UD is willing to contradict Karl Popper’s contention that Einstein’s spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens, not even gravitational waves?

    Go ahead and put your crackpottery where your mouth is. Come on out and state your case and watch me shoot it down.

  50. 50
    Mapou says:

    “According to Einstein’s doctrine the world is a finite four dimensional sphere full with force-lines. No motion is possible in it since time is one of its geometrical dimensions, and there is no external time.”
    Source: Methodologia (pdf) by Dr. Uri Fidelman.

    Why is the physics community allowed to continue with its lies? Why are we giving this bunch of con artists billions of dollars of our hard earned money to come up with more BS results that will never benefit the taxpayers?

    PS. We, the taxpayers, should form a legal fund and take the thieves to court. We can win this.

  51. 51
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #43

    But, amazingly, not one of the dirt worshippers ever mentions that spacetime is a block universe in which nothing happens. This nasty little truth about spacetime is well-known to those few who truly understand the stupidity of Einsteinian physics but it doesn’t stop the crackpots from talking about gravitational waves (spacetime ripples) traveling through spacetime at the speed of light. Only the physics community and evolutionary biology somehow get away with feeding the public with blatant crackpottery. Read it and weep.

    Last time I asked you if you had an explanation for the LIGO data you cut and run. When I pointed out that Fourier analysis is defined and based on the concept of infinity you also bailed. Topology is a widely used area of mathematics that can come up with the goods as far as predictions and models. As far as I know you have not yet provided any kind of grounded and tested alternative.

    We are being lied to by the high priests of the physics community. We are being ripped off by crooks and con artists in high places who look down on us condescendingly. We, the public who pays their salaries, need to wake up and ask for our money back. We need the prosecute the thieves and the liars and lock them up. It’s not nice to fool the entire world and nobody should be allowed to get away with it.

    Show us an alternative system which can explain the LIGO data then. And gravitational lensing. And relativity which can be measured. How about quantum mechanics which depends on continuous probability distributions.

    Standing on the sidelines and poking fun might be entertaining but why not grab your helmet and show us that you can do better.

  52. 52
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #49

    Go ahead and put your crackpottery where your mouth is. Come on out and state your case and watch me shoot it down.

    When are you going to present an alternative which works better?

  53. 53
    Mapou says:

    Dirt worshipper:

    Last time I asked you if you had an explanation for the LIGO data you cut and run. When I pointed out that Fourier analysis is defined and based on the concept of infinity you also bailed. Topology is a widely used area of mathematics that can come up with the goods as far as predictions and models. As far as I know you have not yet provided any kind of grounded and tested alternative.

    Lying as always, which is what dirt worshippers do. The LIGO data, whatever it is, has nothing to do with G-waves since G-waves are complete BS (nothing can move in spacetime). It could be due to earthquakes, solar flares or what have you. The signal to noise ratio is abysmal and anything can cause a reading. Besides, coming out and announcing that Einstein’s prediction was proven on the basis of one experiment is not science. It is propaganda.

    It is also a lie that infinity is used in Fourier Analysis and topology. I use Fast Fourier Transforms all the time in my speech recognition research and I can assure you that my computer is finite and discrete and there is no infinity in it. So you are lying again, as you always do. All dirt worshippers are weavers of lies and deception.

    When are you going to present an alternative which works better?

    I will do so as soon as you explain how anything can move in spacetime. I’m waiting but I ain’t holding my breath. I know you’re a liar and a deceiver. Your science is no better than that of tree-dwelling primitives. You people worship dirt as the mother of life, for crying out loud.

    LOL

  54. 54
    Mapou says:

    By the way, gravitational lensing is a direct result of Newtonian gravity since Newton (and Galileo) knew that gravity affects everything equally regardless of mass. So this includes massless particles such as photons (light particles).

    Relativists are lying when they claim that they are the ones who figured out gravitational lensing.

  55. 55
    ellazimm says:

    Mapoo #53

    Lying as always, which is what dirt worshippers do. The LIGO data, whatever it is, has nothing to do with G-waves since G-waves are complete BS (nothing can move in spacetime). It could be due to earthquakes, solar flares or what have you. The signal to noise ratio is abysmal and anything can cause a reading. Besides, coming out and announcing that Einstein’s prediction was proven on the basis of one experiment is not science. It is propaganda.

    So, you don’t know what it represents. What was the signal-to-noise ratio?

    I agree, one result does not a truth make. But gravitation waves is an explanation of the data. What is your explanation?

    It is also a lie that infinity is used in Fourier Analysis and topology. I use Fast Fourier Transforms all the time in my speech recognition research and I can assure you that my computer is finite and discrete and there is no infinity in it. So you are lying again, as you always do. All dirt worshippers are weavers of lies and deception.

    I have linked to the Wikipedia pages discussing the theory behind Fourier analysis and it was clear that there were lots of infinities. That is indisputable as anyone can see by looking it up. Just because you are using an approximation doesn’t mean the theory doesn’t encompass infinite sets.

    I will do so as soon as you explain how anything can move in spacetime. I’m waiting but I ain’t holding my breath. I know you’re a liar and a deceiver. Your science is no better than that of tree-dwelling primitives. You people worship dirt as the mother of life, for crying out loud.

    Typical Mapou. Bluff and bluster and no viable alternative, no published results, no experimental data. I would think you’d be filthy rich if you understood physics better than the scientists and engineers who are designing and building iPhones and computers and Mars probes.

    #54

    By the way, gravitational lensing is a direct result of Newtonian gravity since Newton (and Galileo) knew that gravity affects everything equally regardless of mass. So this includes massless particles such as photons (light particles).

    Why did Newton’s gravitational formula include masses then? Why did he say that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the two masses in question?

    Relativists are lying when they claim that they are the ones who figured out gravitational lensing.

    Show us where Newton predicted the phenomena then.

  56. 56
    ellazimm says:

    Mapoo #53

    Dirt worshipper:

    Accepting evolutionary theory has nothing to do with accepting relativity and quantum mechanics. Except that you disagree with all of them. And, since you think there is no evidence for any of those things you consider them religious contentions. But, since you have yet to come up with any viable alternatives then aren’t your own beliefs actually just based on negative arguments against the ruling paradigm?

  57. 57
    Andre says:

    Either our opponents are stupid, ignorant or just obtuse. The issue is not about accepting evolution, the issue at hand is, guided or not?

  58. 58
    Mapou says:

    Dirt worshipper:

    [inconsequential crap deleted for sanity’s sake]

    Why did Newton’s gravitational formula include masses then? Why did he say that the force of gravity is directly proportional to the two masses in question?

    LOL. This is how G was obtained. But guess what? G is also part of Einstein’s GR equations. The fact is that Newton knew (deny if you are a dirt worshipper) that the acceleration of gravity had nothing to do with the mass of the accelerating particle. Galileo also understood this since he was the one who discovered it. Again, deny if you worship dirt as the mother of life.

    PS. Nasa uses Newtonian physics, which assumes instantaneous gravity, to send probes around the solar system and put satellites in orbit. Newtonian gravity works fine once you factor in the speed of light.

    GPS works, not because anything can move in spacetime (which is pure unmitigated BS that only dirt worshippers believe in), but because clock slowing is a direct result of the Michelson-Morley experiments re the measurement of the speed of light. Einstein did not discover that the measured speed of light was constant. Other people did.

    PS. I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper to show me how anything can move in spacetime. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  59. 59
    Mapou says:

    Dirt worshipper, lying again:

    Accepting evolutionary theory has nothing to do with accepting relativity and quantum mechanics. Except that you disagree with all of them.

    The truth is that I agree with a large part of quantum theory, including nonlocality and entanglement which are direct consequences of nonspatiality. But a huge part of quantum theory is also crap. Dirt worshippers love to believe in crappy theories because this what they do best. They love worshipping dirt and watching time travel and wormhole crap on Star Trek. LOL

  60. 60
    Mapou says:

    IMO, the ID movement should stop being on the defensive. They should stop denying that ID has a religious component. On the contrary, we should acknowledge that everything is about religion and that our opponents, the dirt worshippers, belong to the the most superstitious, chicken feather voodoo church of them all, the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster, where dirt is worshipped as the mother of life. They should not be allowed to teach their stupid religion and superstitions in our schools with impunity. They should be booted out and as unceremoniously as possible.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  61. 61
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #58

    LOL. This is how G was obtained. But guess what? G is also part of Einstein’s GR equations. The fact is that Newton knew (deny if you are a dirt worshipper) that the acceleration of gravity had nothing to do with the mass of the accelerating particle. Galileo also understood this since he was the one who discovered it. Again, deny if you worship dirt as the mother of life.

    It’s incorrect to say only one of the masses is accelerating, the force of gravity imposed an acceleration on both, dependent on their masses. Galileo never came up with Newton’s laws of motion or the formula for the force of gravity even though he clearly set the stage for Newton.

    PS. Nasa uses Newtonian physics, which assumes instantaneous gravity, to send probes around the solar system and put satellites in orbit. Newtonian gravity works fine once you factor in the speed of light.

    Yes, Newtonian physics works very well in many situations. But it didn’t predict clocks moving at different rates at the North Pole and the equator which has been measured. Or clocks on orbiting space stations moving at different rates than those on the ground which has been measured.

    Nasa is smart enough to use relativity when dealing with GPS systems.

    GPS works, not because anything can move in spacetime (which is pure unmitigated BS that only dirt worshippers believe in), but because clock slowing is a direct result of the Michelson-Morley experiments re the measurement of the speed of light. Einstein did not discover that the measured speed of light was constant. Other people did.

    No one is saying Einstein came up with the idea of the speed of light being constant. But he came up with a theory which explored the ramifications of that and his ideas have been verified over and over again.

    PS. I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper to show me how anything can move in spacetime. ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

    I can understand that since you perceive yourself to be the centre of the universe.

    Still no alternate theory or hypothesis eh? And no admittance that the theory of Fourier analysis (easily verified) involves lots and lots of infinities. You’re quick to use theories but not too good at coming up with them.

    The truth is that I agree with a large part of quantum theory, including nonlocality and entanglement which are direct consequences of nonspatiality. But a huge part of quantum theory is also crap. Dirt worshippers love to believe in crappy theories because this what they do best. They love worshipping dirt and watching time travel and wormhole crap on Star Trek. LOL

    Most of the science on Star Trek is crap. I can’t bear to watch any of the series anymore. Or read science fiction much at all. And that’s because I found out about the real science.

    You love lumping everyone who disagrees with you as a moron and a dirt worshipper. It makes it easier for you to dodge questions you get asked.

    What is your alternate explanation of the LIGO data? What was the noise to signal ratio?

    Give us a formula which can be used to calculate the difference in clock speeds in different inertial frames of reference.

    Show us where Newton and/or Galileo predicted gravitational lensing.

  62. 62
    Mapou says:

    Dirt worshipper @61:

    Blah, blah, blah

    Again, I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper to show me how anything can move in spacetime, let alone gravitational waves.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  63. 63
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #60

    IMO, the ID movement should stop being on the defensive. They should stop denying that ID has a religious component. On the contrary, we should acknowledge that everything is about religion and that our opponents, the dirt worshippers, belong to the the most superstitious, chicken feather voodoo church of them all, the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster, where dirt is worshipped as the mother of life. They should not be allowed to teach their stupid religion and superstitions in our schools with impunity. They should be booted out and as unceremoniously as possible.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

    I think I get you now. You and Mung, you’re the court jesters. You just like stirring things up and dance and doge quickly when anyone calls you on your actually alternate theories.

    The funny thing is . . . if you’re so obviously right then why aren’t you in charge? Why do most of the educated people on this planet disagree with you? Are they all mad, bad or stupid? All of them?

    Deep down, I think, you really don’t like other people. Maybe you’re resentful because they don’t respect your views. Maybe you’ve just never learned to get along in the real world. Maybe you just crave attention and you’re not getting it. So you spend hours of your time on some blog where even the site moderators don’t agree with you on all things, just stirring things up and getting into arguments because it makes you feel noticed and acknowledged. Maybe you’re just a sad and lonely person who has spent so many years taking a stand against the world that now the only way you can get any intellectual contact at all is to annoy people you disagree with on a blog where you are allowed to be rude but your detractors have to behave.

    That’s kind of sad, isn’t it? You must feel a bit lonely knowing that your view is like some tiny island off the coast of the mainland and you can’t get any attention or money or recognition. But, oddly enough, when people ask you for your alternative theories you just bail. You can’t help yourself get more understand because you’ve actually got nothing to offer. Except dissent.

  64. 64
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #62

    Again, I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper to show me how anything can move in spacetime, let alone gravitational waves.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

    Still can’t come up with an alternate theory eh?

    Still can’t explain the LIGO data?

    Still can’t acknowledge that the theory of Fourier analysis has infinities all over it?

    Still can’t come up with a formula which explains why clocks run at different speeds in different inertial frames of reference?

    Hey, did you ever think that Newton’s laws of motion are continuous functions? How does that fit into your discrete view? Hmmm?

    Are you just going to keep dodging these perfectly reasonable questions?

    And you expect people to take you seriously? I guess you don’t. You are just the court jester. I hope it pays well.

  65. 65
    Mapou says:

    Lying dirt worshipper:

    Blah, blah,blah…

    Again, I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper (or any other small-cranium, tree-dwelling primitive, ahahaha…) to show me how anything can move in spacetime, let alone gravitational waves.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  66. 66
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #65

    Again, I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper (or any other small-cranium, tree-dwelling primitive, ahahaha…) to show me how anything can move in spacetime, let alone gravitational waves.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

    Can’t even come up with a new comeback eh? Being a court jester is hard work. Especially when people start asking you questions about your views. Like:

    What is your explanation of the LIGO data?

    What is your formula which explains why clocks run at different speeds in different inertial frames of reference?

    If the universe is discrete then why are Newton’s laws of motion continuous functions?

    Why are the theories behind Fourier analysis chock-a-block full of infinities?

    You jump and jive, bitch and moan, duck and dive but you never seem to be able to answer these (and other) questions.

    But you wouldn’t be expected to actually come up with something substantial if your real purpose is just to rally the troops to the cause of fighting the materialists. If you’re just suppose to keep the flag flying then there’s no need to have a real, substantial ideology in the heat of battle.

    It’s all becoming very clear to me now. Never, ever concede even a foot of ground to them. You said it yourself a few posts ago. My view should be prohibited. When are you going to start burning books? When are you, personally, going to come up with the goods instead of just jumping from blog to blog slagging off people you disagree with? It’s not much of a career is it? Especially when your lack of an alternate theory is called up. Then you kind of look like a fool really.

    It’s okay with me if that’s what you want to be. But don’t bitch and moan when no one takes you seriously.

  67. 67
    ellazimm says:

    Everyone else

    Please note the typical dodge of insisting on not answering any questions until some stupidly pointless topic is addressed.

    Again, I am still waiting for a dirt worshipper (or any other small-cranium, tree-dwelling primitive, ahahaha…) to show me how anything can move in spacetime, let alone gravitational waves.

    Mapou is using this dodge to avoid answering a lot of other sensible questions like:

    What is your explanation for the LIGO data if it wasn’t gravitational waves?

    If the universe is discrete then why are Newton’s and Einstein’s theories stated in terms of continuous functions?

    If relativity is bunk then what is your formula which explains why clocks run at different speeds in different inertial frames of reference?

    If you don’t believe in infinity but you use Fourier analysis then why do the theorems behind Fourier analysis involve so many infinities?

    I personally suspect that Mapou, like Mung, is just a court jester. Someone who plays dumb and keeps the discussions moving. Let’s face it, a blog like Uncommon Descent can only make money if people visit the site. And Mung and Mapou seem determined to not answer questions but keep the visitors numbers high. They both always do a powder when the going gets tough.

  68. 68
    ellazimm says:

    Everyone else

    I should have also mentioned the typical use of abusive and dismissive language.

    a dirt worshipper (or any other small-cranium, tree-dwelling primitive,

    The moderators of this site seem to think this kind of thing is perfectly acceptable despite the fact that it is the opposite of their stated posting guidelines.

    So, here’s the question: why are we non-ID people still bothering to post and attempting to be civil on this site when it’s abundantly clear that NO ONE amongst the site moderators or ID positive commentators are really treating our views with respect or even vaguely considering our point of view?

    Why are we bothering?

  69. 69
    Mapou says:

    Blah, blah, blah

    You dirt worshippers are getting a taste of your medicine. Get used to it.

  70. 70
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #69

    You dirt worshippers are getting a taste of your medicine. Get used to it.

    thanks for continuing to uphold my contention that when the questions come you bail. I guess that’s why you can’t hack it in academia, why you’ve got no publications (peer-reviewed or otherwise). Don’t bother regaling us with your claims of some giant “keep your head down and suck up the money” conspiracy ’cause we’ve heard it over and over and over again. If you want to believe that literally thousands upon thousands of intelligent, working scientists don’t ask themselves and others hard questions all the time then that’s your choice. You just keep up your court jester routine here and your ‘lone man against the system’ stance on your own blog and watch the world get on without you inventing new technology and materials.

  71. 71
    jcfrk101 says:

    In my opinion this is a great argument for the immaterial mind. The fact that we can conceive of “abstracts” that cannot exist materially, is significant proof of an immaterial mind. Other wise how would your material mind represent such a number, if it cannot exist in the material world? How does a material mind store and reference a number that cannot exist in the material world. How does a material mind find the bits to store such a number?

  72. 72
    Mapou says:

    You just keep up your court jester routine here and your ‘lone man against the system’ stance on your own blog and watch the world get on without you inventing new technology and materials.

    Engineers all over the world invent lots of things, but no thanks to brain-dead dirt worshipers, infinity-worshipping mathematicians and those lying, time-traveling, wormhole-surfing, Star-Trek-voodoo physicists.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  73. 73
    Mapou says:

    jcfrk101:

    In my opinion this is a great argument for the immaterial mind. The fact that we can conceive of “abstracts” that cannot exist materially, is significant proof of an immaterial mind. Other wise how would your material mind represent such a number, if it cannot exist in the material world? How does a material mind store and reference a number that cannot exist in the material world. How does a material mind find the bits to store such a number?

    Excellent point. And it’s not just numbers. It’s also colors, tastes, smells, etc. They don’t exist in the material world either. They are not properties of matter. They are created by the spirit.

    And we can go even further. Distance (space) is an abstract concept that does not exist in the material world. And yet we experience distance in our field of vision. Somehow, the firing of a bunch of neurons in the back of the brain is converted into an amazing 3D vista that does not exist in the brain. It’s all created by the spirit.

    Anybody who denies the existence of the spirit is a dirt-worshiping moron, a tree-dwelling primitive, a mindless baboon, i.e., a Darwinist/materialist/atheist jackass.

    LOL

  74. 74
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #72

    Engineers all over the world invent lots of things, but no thanks to brain-dead dirt worshipers, infinity-worshipping mathematicians and those lying, time-traveling, wormhole-surfing, Star-Trek-voodoo physicists.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

    Whatever. When you get off your lazy intellectual backside and come up with some answers for some pertinent question then let us know. Or stay the butt of lots and lots of jokes. Your call. IF you can really back up your statements. I’m thinking you really can’t. After all these years and you’re produced nothing. Zip. Nada.

  75. 75
    Mapou says:

    Dirt worshipper:

    Or stay the butt of lots and lots of jokes.

    You mean on dirt-worshipping blogs and forums? LOL I would not have it any other way. Thanks for telling me. It’s how I know I bug the hell out of a bunch of brain-dead idiots.

    Your call. IF you can really back up your statements. I’m thinking you really can’t. After all these years and you’re produced nothing. Zip. Nada.

    There is a time for everything. But be assured that I have no interest in impressing a bunch of butt-kissing dirt worshippers.

  76. 76
    Aleta says:

    butt-kissing dirt worshippers.

    Getting cruder …

  77. 77
    Mapou says:

    @76,

    Crybaby. If the shoe fits and all that. LOL

  78. 78
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #75

    You mean on dirt-worshipping blogs and forums? LOL I would not have it any other way. Thanks for telling me. It’s how I know I bug the hell out of a bunch of brain-dead idiots.

    You don’t bug the hell out of me any more than the primary school boys I put up on the playground. I don’t take you at all seriously since you haven’t been able to produce anything of substance.

    Have you figured out an explanation for the LIGO data yet? What was the signal to noise ratio anyway? Since the detectors were a long ways away from each other it couldn’t have been a very local phenomena. And the fact that the time difference was the time it would take light to travel between them means it wasn’t earth based either. Gee, what does that leave? You claim to know about this stuff, what was it if not gravitational waves?

    Ready to admit that the theory behind Fourier analysis really does depend on using infinity? You can read the mathematics can’t you?

    There is a time for everything. But be assured that I have no interest in impressing a bunch of butt-kissing dirt worshippers.

    Well, you’re doing a very good job of not impressing anyone. Which is why no one will take you seriously. Probably ever since I don’t think you’ve got anything to show. Maybe you should spend less time trawling blogs so you can show off and put down people who disagree with you and spend more time working on some real results.

    Crybaby. If the shoe fits and all that. LOL

    Just pointing out your crude behaviour is a far cry from getting upset about it. The site moderators don’t seem to care anymore about how people behave on UD so you might as well say whatever you want.

  79. 79
    Mapou says:

    Blah, blah, blah

  80. 80
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #79

    Blah, blah, blah

    Still haven’t figured out another explanation for the LIGO data yet then? Or what the signal to noise ration was. We know it wasn’t a local (to a detector) signal that was detected. We know the signal was propagating at the speed of light. Sounds like something from space to me. Now, what kind of thing travelling through space could distort space at the level expected . . .

    If you can’t come up with an alternate explanation I guess we’ll just stick with gravitational waves even if you say they don’t exist. Besides you haven’t published or produced a single bit of work that shows you have any insight into higher level physics. You’re good a copying-and-pasting stuff from people you agree with but that’s about it.

    You can ‘blah, blah, blah’ all you like but you’re not coming up with anything. I guess that’s why no one takes you remotely seriously. Maybe that’s why the moderators can’t be bothered to censor you; they don’t even read your posts!! There’s not much point in reading them to be honest. A lot of assertions backed up with nothing. And a lot of abusive name calling which apparently is fair game here now. But it doesn’t make you right.

    I am curious though . . . did you understand the Wikipedia article on Fourier analysis? I mean since there were lots of infinities about I thought you’d have something to say. I guess you didn’t understand it. Or aren’t big enough to admit you were wrong. I’ve noticed that with crackpots, they can’t own up to the fact that they are wrong ’cause it makes them look like a damn fool. That definitely fits you to a T.

  81. 81
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou

    Gotta love this from your own website:

    There is a foolproof way to spot a voodoo scientist. If a scientist claims to have a theory about a natural phenomenon but is unable to explain the theory in a simple language that the average layman can understand, one can be absolutely certain that he is as clueless about the nature of the phenomenon in question as anybody else.

    Now who does that remind you of . . . someone who pontificates a lot but can’t explain anything . . . give up?

  82. 82
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou

    This is very interesting; from your ‘agenda’.

    My plan is to demonstrate over the coming months and years that, not only is it false that Biblical teachings are anti-science, but that the most revolutionary scientific advances in this century will come straight from the Bible.

    And this . . .

    Artificial intelligence is just the tip of the Biblical iceberg because, as it turns out, the Bible has many more secrets hidden behind clever metaphors. The Biblical symbolism related to the fundamental principles and the underlying structure of the physical universe will turn out to be just as amazing and upsetting as the advent of intelligent machines, if not more so.

    Now that page is copyright 2006 so you may have changed your mind by now.

    From rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Physics.htm#Causal

    Most scientists consider the Bible to be a collection of fables and superstitions. Even Christians and Jews would be astonished to learn that the Bible contains precise and revolutionary secrets pertaining to science. One reason for this mindset is that the Bible goes to great lengths to hide its scientific truths through the use of mysterious symbols and metaphors. Worse, the secrets are not recorded in a single book, nor were they written down by a single author. Part of a concept may be given in one book while the rest is found in another book written centuries later. As many of my readers already know, I am already well on the way to decoding the symbolic passages that describe the organization and operation of the brain. These will lead to the construction of highly intelligent robots and artificial brains. The introduction of human-level (and beyond) artificial intelligence in the world will be revolutionary in its own right but, as I explain in these pages, there are aspects of the underlying physical universe that, should they become known to us, would be equally revolutionary. These things are described in the Bible, more specifically, in the books of Isaiah, Ezekiel and Revelation.

    Pure poetry. How’s that work coming by the way? That page is copyright 2007 so progress must be pretty slooooooooooooooooow.

  83. 83
    Mapou says:

    You’re on a mission, now. Aren’t you? A dirt worshipper has a new obsession. How interesting? Not.

  84. 84
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou

    Sorry, sorry, I couldn’t pass up this paragraph . . .

    Cherubim are described in the old testament book of Ezekiel. The prophet receives a strange vision of four creatures, each having four faces, four wings, human hands and calf’s feet. In addition, he describes an enormous flying wheel that had the appearance of a wheel within a wheel. There is reason to believe that Ezekiel’s cherubim are related to the seraphim described in the books of Isaiah and Revelation because Ezekiel also mentions a throne and an immense sea of glass. There is a strong similarity between cherubim and seraphim. They all have wings, faces, feet and are full of eyes. The differences are equally striking. For example, cherubim have two attributes that seraphim lack: bodies and hands. And while a seraph has one face and six wings, a cherub has four faces and four wings. My current hypothesis is that the four cherubim of Ezekiel symbolize an ideal composite particle, possibly an angelic (i.e., alien) particle. The known subatomic particles (e.g., neutrons, protons, electrons, etc…) of quantum physics can be described as either single cherub or various combinations thereof. I am preparing a special page on cherubim. More to come…

    And this paragraph further down the page shows your understanding of inertia.

    All current ground, sea, air and space transportation systems will become obsolete. This means there will no longer be a need for things like combustion engines, wheels, tires, rockets, railroads, transmissions, brakes, propellers, sails, airports, paved roads, highways, bridges, traffic signals, etc… As a result, transportation related industries will have to undergo a severe transformation in order to adjust to the new reality. Future vehicles will go almost anywhere with no visible means of propulsion and they will make no sound as they move. They will be able to do so at extremely high speeds. Even right angle turns will be negotiated at high speeds. Inertial effects will not be felt because every atom or particle that comprises a vehicle and its cargo will undergo equal acceleration. This means that moving vehicles will be able to come to a full stop within a fraction of a second without incurring any damage. City dwellers will use small personal devices (flying chairs?) to float around effortlessly. Normal walking will no longer be a necessity.

    (Sorry for reproducing the entire paragraph, I didn’t want to be accused of taking anything out of context.)

  85. 85
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou

    Just found another fascinating passage from rebelscience.org/Seraphim/Seraphim.htm

    In my hypothesis, the electrostatic field of a charged particle (e.g., the electron) is the result of interactions caused by the motion of the particle in the fourth dimension. The field consists of a huge number of seraphim being jettisoned from the points of interaction in the lattice. The property that is responsible for the fourth dimensional (note 6) motion of a particle is its feet. Note that there are two wings associated with a seraph’s feet and that, even though all seraphim have feet, they do not all have similar faces.

    Note 6:

    6. I have reasons to believe that the fourth dimension is associated with the eagle.

    The eagle comes from a passage in Revelations by the way.

    Oh, note 5 is great!

    5. This is true even for massive particles. At rest, a massive particle has no kinetic energy. Its entire energy is contained in its body (mass energy). As it moves, part of its mass energy is converted into kinetic energy (wings). The average speed of a massive particle is less than c as long as it has mass energy. It reaches c when its entire mass energy is converted into kinetic energy. This will be explained further in the coming page on Cherubim.

    Sadly it looks like you’ve not got around to that page on Cherubim.

  86. 86
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou #83

    You’re on a mission, now. Aren’t you? A dirt worshipper has a new obsession. How interesting? Not.

    Oh dear, having trouble taking some derision when you sling at anyone who disagrees with you? Not being a crybaby are we?

  87. 87
    Mapou says:

    Derision coming from a dirt worshipper is a badge of honor. Some force is driving you now but you have no idea why you’re becoming obsessed, do you?

    How’s the weather in London, BTW? Seen strange creatures walking about lately?

    LOL

  88. 88
    Aleta says:

    Wow – good research. Cherubim are the key to particle physics!

  89. 89
    Mapou says:

    Actually, my cherubim hypothesis led me to discover that the electron is not an elementary particle, as claimed by the Standard Model, but actually consists of 4 sub-particles, each with 1/4 charge. I knew this long before evidence for these sub-electric particles started showing up in experiments in 2012.

    Of course, the physics community, being the gutless political animal that it is, cannot allow its claim that the electron is an elementary particle to be contradicted. So they decided to call the constituent particles of the electron, “quasiparticles”. Physics through labeling.

    You dirt worshippers will defecate on yourselves when the full revelation of scriptural science is revealed. Electrons are just a small part of it. Get ready for “crackpot science” like unlimited free energy (we are swimming in it; it’s all around us), extremely fast transportation and human-level artificial intelligence. In your lifetimes.

    And none of it is coming from dirt worshippers. LOL

  90. 90
    Mapou says:

    One more thing that I discovered while studying the cherubim metaphors in the book of Ezekiel is that the electric charge that surrounds an electron is not just highly spherical (wheels within wheels) but moves instantaneously with the electron. This is true regardless of how far away the charge is measured from the electron.

    Also, all particles have faces (directions) that are absolute. That is to say, the universe has absolute directions (axes). Just saying.

    Finally, far from being embarrassed on account of my Biblical research, as ellazimm (the dirt worshipper) is apparently counting on, I rely on it for all my scientific knowledge, especially my understanding of the brain and intelligence.

    PS. To interested Christian hardware/software engineers who frequent these pages, I will be hiring a team of engineers in the not too distant future for a special project. Keep your eyes open for an announcement on my website.

  91. 91
    ellazimm says:

    Mapou

    Derision coming from a dirt worshipper is a badge of honor. Some force is driving you now but you have no idea why you’re becoming obsessed, do you?

    I’m not obsessed; you’re a very small part of my day. One I’m happy to give up. I just don’t like bullies.

    How’s the weather in London, BTW? Seen strange creatures walking about lately?

    I live a long ways away from London actually. That’s another lose for you.

    Actually, my cherubim hypothesis led me to discover that the electron is not an elementary particle, as claimed by the Standard Model, but actually consists of 4 sub-particles, each with 1/4 charge. I knew this long before evidence for these sub-electric particles started showing up in experiments in 2012.

    And where have you elucidated this? Did you get some physicists to look it over and critique it? Did you get it published? Can you show us an explanation of your reasoning?

    Of course, the physics community, being the gutless political animal that it is, cannot allow its claim that the electron is an elementary particle to be contradicted. So they decided to call the constituent particles of the electron, “quasiparticles”. Physics through labeling.

    On this issue I see your point but that’s how science works. It takes time for the paradigm to shift. But you have to have data and experimental results to prove your point.

    You dirt worshippers will defecate on yourselves when the full revelation of scriptural science is revealed. Electrons are just a small part of it. Get ready for “crackpot science” like unlimited free energy (we are swimming in it; it’s all around us), extremely fast transportation and human-level artificial intelligence. In your lifetimes.

    Sounds good to me. I’d love to have a robot maid whose batteries I didn’t have to charge. Sign me up.

    One more thing that I discovered while studying the cherubim metaphors in the book of Ezekiel is that the electric charge that surrounds an electron is not just highly spherical (wheels within wheels) but moves instantaneously with the electron. This is true regardless of how far away the charge is measured from the electron.

    And you got that from reading the Bible? How come it is then that no one else gleaned that information in the last 1500 years? Seriously, why is it that you are especially gifted to see the truth behind the veil? AND, why was the information encoded in the first place? Why didn’t the almighty just spell it all out because he loves all humans and wants them to be happy and healthy? If he invented the ‘system’ why hide the key for so long and allow all that pain and suffering?

    Also, all particles have faces (directions) that are absolute. That is to say, the universe has absolute directions (axes). Just saying.

    How can you establish those absolute axis? Where do they ‘point’?

    Finally, far from being embarrassed on account of my Biblical research, as ellazimm (the dirt worshipper) is apparently counting on, I rely on it for all my scientific knowledge, especially my understanding of the brain and intelligence.

    Fine, I’m glad you’re proud of your stance. One of my absolute best friends is a strong Christian and we have had several conversations about what ‘god’ is about. And, to be honest, I find that her best arguments are hard to dispute. I have discovered what true faith entails. And I find that enlightening and inspiring.

    PS. To interested Christian hardware/software engineers who frequent these pages, I will be hiring a team of engineers in the not too distant future for a special project. Keep your eyes open for an announcement on my website.

    I think you’ll need a better job description than that.

  92. 92
    Mapou says:

    All questions will be answered in due time. Now is not the time and UD is not the place. I’ll just make a few additional comments and I’ll be out of this thread.

    1. I figured these things out because I am a bona fide nut.

    2. For more on the particle hypothesis (deciphered from metaphors in the books of Ezekiel, Revelation and Isaiah), read The Cherubim Model of Elementary Particles. I started work on it way back in the 1990s. Caveat: it’s still an evolving hypothesis but I stopped all work on it several years ago because it scared the hell out of me. But I’m sure I will get back to it again soon. (just saying, take it or leave it)

    3. I can’t say more about the absolute axes of the universe at this time other than this: The East-facing Sphinx (the lion is one of the 4 faces of elementary particles) next to the great pyramid of Giza in Egypt has something to do with it. The riddle of the Sphinx and all that. ahahaha…

    4. I will never publish any of my research in so-called peer-reviewed journals. I call them ARJs (arse-review journals). The world is my peers and my blog is my journal. I spit on mainstream science and its gutless politics.

    5. In a couple of months or so, I will be looking for integrated circuit (processor) engineers and software (graphical language and user interface design) engineers. The project has to do with completely reinventing the computer as we know it, including the way we program it. The old Von Neumann architecture is woefully inadequate (too unwieldy, too slow, too unreliable and way too energy inefficient) for the coming AI revolution. The plan is to eliminate the central processing unit and, of course, the Von Neumann bottleneck, altogether. Think “pulse-driven parallel computing and neural networks.”

    That is all.

  93. 93
    Origenes says:

    Aleta: Cherubim are the key to particle physics!

    Think about it… This idea has much more going for it than “the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and super computers running partial differential equation solving software.”

  94. 94
  95. 95
    Mapou says:

    Gaulin @94,

    Well, thanks for adding some entertainment into the mix.

    I am a Smashing Pumpkins fan. Cherub Rock is great. Of course, their “Bullet with Butterfly Wings” was their best ever.

    “The world is a vampire. In spite of my rage, I’m still just a rage in a cage.”

    Awesome lyrics.

  96. 96
    Mapou says:

    Correction @95:

    “The world is a vampire. In spite of my rage, I’m still just a rat in a cage.”

  97. 97
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Mapou: ““The world is a vampire. In spite of my rage, I’m still just a rat in a cage.”

    It is nice to see that you are so self aware.

  98. 98
    Mapou says:

    Effigy, I got news for you. We are all rats in cages and we are all trying to escape. Who’s gonna let us out? Who’s gonna set us free?

  99. 99
    Indiana Effigy says:

    Mapou: “Effigy, I got news for you. We are all rats in cages and we are all trying to escape. Who’s gonna let us out? Who’s gonna set us free?”

    Speak for yourself.

  100. 100
    Mapou says:

    Speak for yourself.

    Says the dirt worshipper who’s gonna live forever. Not. Whether or not you know it, you’re on death row, amigo. Just like pigs and cockroaches. And rats, too. Live with it.

  101. 101
    News says:

    Mapou at 43 and following, settle down. Now. Whatever your case is, you are not making it. Take a break. I think you should apologize for some of your language above.

    Even if you are correct, there is no excuse for such language.

    More of this, and I am shutting off the comments.

  102. 102
    ellazimm says:

    News #!01

    Mapou at 43 and following, settle down. Now. Whatever your case is, you are not making it. Take a break. I think you should apologize for some of your language above.

    Thanks. You should note that Mapou has said that he doesn’t care if the site moderators ban him. It’s not just us evos he is disrespecting.

  103. 103
    Aleta says:

    Although this thread might be otherwise dead, shutting off comments rather than moderating the offender (in this case, Mapou) can unfairly prevent others from continuing the discussion. A general rule in the schools I have taught in has always been that it is better to deal with individual misbehavior rather than punish the whole class for the transgressions of a few.

  104. 104
    Mapou says:

    I would rather be banned from UD forever than apologize to a bunch of cretinous dirt worshippers. They owe me an apology for preaching their religion in our schools, which is against the Constitution. They owe me an apology for bullying non-atheists, not only in the education system but in the mainstream media and the government. They can all kiss my asteroid.

    I may apologise to them but only AFTER they apologize to me. Until then, they are just tree-dwelling primitives, cretinous members of the Church of the Flying Dirt Monster.

    Ban away.

    ahahaha…AHAHAHA…ahahaha…

  105. 105
    News says:

    Mapou has been banned.

  106. 106
    News says:

    Please feel free to continue the discussion, folks. Absent unacceptable language, we are happy to host it.

  107. 107
    Indiana Effigy says:

    News: “Mapou has been banned.”

    News, thank you. Even though I do not believe in ID, people like Mapou and Joe (Virgil) do more damage to your side of the argument than to mine. But I much prefer to win an argument based on the evidence than to win on a technicality.

  108. 108
    Axel says:

    DaveS, would not an infinite past predicate an infinite future…. both including the present : an infinite continuum of all tree. Infinity is indivisible.

  109. 109
    daveS says:

    Axel,

    Well, I don’t know of any reason why an infinite past would entail an infinite future. It seems conceivable to me that the universe could have an infinite past, yet cease to exist tomorrow, for example.

  110. 110
    Aleta says:

    Or vice versa: our universe, which is thought to have beginning, might exist forever, even though in a purely static state at some point. Geometrically we have rays as well as lines.

Leave a Reply