New Scientist vs. William Lane Craig on infinity explanations

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 25, 2016

Cosmology, Mathematics, News}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

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!

Comments

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.ellazimm_{March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

Blah, blah, blah
Mapou_{March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 29, 2016
March
03
Mar
29
29
2016
01:14 AM
1
01
14
AM
PDT}

@76, Crybaby. If the shoe fits and all that. LOLMapou_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
04:44 PM
4
04
44
PM
PDT}

butt-kissing dirt worshippers.
Getting cruder ...Aleta_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
01:27 PM
1
01
27
PM
PDT}

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. LOLMapou_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

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...Mapou_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT}

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?jcfrk101_{March 28, 2016
March
03
Mar
28
28
2016
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

Blah, blah, blah
You dirt worshippers are getting a taste of your medicine. Get used to it.Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT}

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?ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

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…Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:25 PM
2
02
25
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

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…Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

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...Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

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. LOLMapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

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...Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
01:06 PM
1
01
06
PM
PDT}

Either our opponents are stupid, ignorant or just obtuse. The issue is not about accepting evolution, the issue at hand is, guided or not?Andre_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:59 PM
12
12
59
PM
PDT}

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?ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:52 PM
12
12
52
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:48 PM
12
12
48
PM
PDT}

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.Mapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:27 PM
12
12
27
PM
PDT}

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. LOLMapou_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:24 PM
12
12
24
PM
PDT}

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?ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT}

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.ellazimm_{March 27, 2016
March
03
Mar
27
27
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply