[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
MD State Employee may get Arrested by Sheriff for reporting an Illegal Alien to ICE
RFK Jr: DTaP vaccine was found to have link to Autism
FBI Agents found that the Chinese manufactured fake driver’s licenses and shipped them to the U.S. to help Biden...
Love & Real Estate: China’s new romance scam
Huge Democrat shift against Israel stuns CNN
McCarthy Was Right. They Lied About Everything.
How Romans Built Domes
My 7 day suspension on X was lifted today.
They Just Revealed EVERYTHING... [Project 2029]
Trump ACCUSED Of MASS EXECUTING Illegals By DUMPING Them In The Ocean
The Siege (1998)
Trump Admin To BAN Pride Rainbow Crosswalks, DoT Orders ALL Distractions REMOVED
Elon Musk Backing Thomas Massie Against Trump-AIPAC Challenger
Skateboarding Dog
Israel's Plans for Jordan
Daily Vitamin D Supplementation Slows Cellular Aging:
Hepatitis E Virus in Pork
Hospital Executives Arrested After Nurse Convicted of Killing Seven Newborns, Trying to Kill Eight More
The Explosion of Jewish Fatigue Syndrome
Tucker Carlson: RFK Jr's Mission to End Skyrocketing Autism, Declassifying Kennedy Files
Israel has killed 1,000 Palestinians in the West Bank since October 7, 2023
100m Americans live in areas with cancer-causing 'forever chemicals' in their water
Scientists discover cancer-fighting bacteria that "soak up" forever chemicals in the body
Israel limits entry of baby formula in Gaza as infants die of hunger
17 Ways mRNA Shots May CAUSE CANCER, According to Over 100 STUDIES
Report: Pentagon Halts Some Munitions Shipments To Ukraine Over Concerns That US Stockpiles Are Too Low
Locals Fear Demolitions as Israeli Troops Set Up New Base in Syrias Quneitra
Russian forces discover cache of Ukrainian chemical drone munitions FSB
Clarissa Ward: Gaza is what is turning people overseas against the US
What Parents Wish Their Children Could Grow Up Without
Title: Stephen Crothers: Why Black Holes Don't Exist Source: Stephen Crothers URL Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4GFAjX62Yg&feature=player_embedded Published: Apr 14, 2009 Author: Stephen Crothers Post Date: 2009-04-14 12:57:37 by Horse Keywords: NoneViews: 541 Comments: 23
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html A new language The casual browser and superficial reader typically get the wrong idea that this site is business as usual. So in order to minimize blind-siding the average visitor, I would like to say up front that this site relies on and uses a different language to communicate ideas. For instance, when I say that in Physics or in Science the word space means 'no shape,' I am not saying that this is what the idiots of the establishment mean by space. I am saying the this is what the word space means in genuine as opposed to contemporary 'science.' Whenever I want to represent or depict the official version, I will refer to them as 'mathematicians' or 'mathematical physicists' or idiots or something like that. There are no physicists in mainstream 'Physics.' From Newton to Einstein to Hawking, they are all just mathematicians as far Science and Physics are concerned. This site defines Physics as the science of existence. Physics is first and foremost the science that studies objects, specifically those objects that exist. In contrast, Philosophy is a discipline that studies concepts. The establishment has turned this state of affairs around over the centuries and today it is incongruously in reverse. The contemporary 'physicists' play around with abstract concepts such as energy, mass, space- time, virtual particles, and black holes while the philosophers are trying to answer fundamental questions of genuine Physics, such as 'What is an object' or 'What does the word exist mean?' Physics is first and foremost the science that studies objects. Without objects we have no physical 'anything' to study or to carry out an experiment with. And even if the moron of Mathematics believes that Physics also studies concepts, the idiot has yet to define what a concept is. Therefore, whether objects or concepts, we must get to the bottom of these strategic words because Physics certainly studies one of them. So I caution you that communication will be a major problem. The mathematician comes to this site with the idea that Physics is about time travel and wormholes and virtual particles. He discovers, instead, what he missed in college, what he failed to question his teachers about. Physics is about objects and location and motion, and these words don't mean what they mean in ordinary speech. The mathematicians (known today as 'physicists') have never had to confront these words in high school or college, except perhaps from a casual 'philosophical' perspective in a course they were forced to take at gunpoint. Therefore, they are ill- equipped to deal with the subject matter at hand and are likely to feel frustrated. Here, these words become a major component of every argument. As soon as a mathematician so mentions a buzz word such as object, exist, dimension, position, straight, or continuous, I will ask him to define it. The reason for this is not to cause unnecessary trouble. I'm not here to play devil's advocate. The reason for this is that the mathematician erroneously believes that he has communicated his idea effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The mathematician cannot have any idea what he is talking about because he takes these words for granted. He extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a scientific context without realizing that a rigorous definition of the same words destroys his entire argument. I promise to harp on such vital words as object, exist, and concept until it hurts. I will insist until you hate me. The contemporary mathematicians have no idea what these words mean or how important they are to scientific communication. This is where the battle will begin. This is where the battle will end. Language. You seem to have trouble grasping simple, abstract, mathematical theories, Bill. Therefore, we are through with words. Perhaps it's time for something a little more pragmatic. We decided that the time has come to demonstrate our theories to you empirically. 3.0 Mathematical Physics offers irrational physical interpretations for common phenomena Contemporary Mathematical Physics is comprised of three pillars: General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and String Theory (ST). The establishment regards these disciplines with absolute reverence, but don't be misled. GR, QM, and ST are actually more like Andersen's proverbial Emperor's Clothes tale. The mathematician points to an invisible entity and interprets for you what you are observing. Suspiciously, the idiot of Mathematics always ends up with his beloved point. An atom is a particle. An electron is a particle. A photon is a particle. An event is a particle and space-time is comprised of events (meaning particles). And a string is made of particles. When you so much as insinuate that his explanation borders on the irrational, the moron urges you to set aside your common sense and intuition and trust his equations and calculations. He throws a list of who's who at you to reinforce his claim with authority. All the celebrities of Nobel and Templeton fame believe in the particle. So how come you don't believe in particles? Who are you to question so much authority? But I have just shown that you can provide different physical interpretations to an equation. So what compels you to switch your intellectual allegiance? Why should you trust his interpretation of a physical phenomenon when it is also based on intuition? The results are on the table. After centuries of raving lunacy, the mathematicians of this world have absolutely nothing to show for their abstract theories. We have yet to see a mockup of space-time or a picture of a single particle of the Standard Model or a sculpture of the 1-D Planck Length theorists claim the Universe is made of. Not a single mathematician on Earth can tell you WHAT light IS. Not a single mathematician working at NASA or CERN can tell you how a simple magnet works or WHAT the invisible lines of force that surround it ARE. Not a single mathematician at Cambridge or at Harvard can illustrate mass or energy for you. And certainly numbers and equations will not help them in any of these quests. Mainstream scientists don't understand the first thing about the scientific method The underlying problem is that the mathematicians have never defined the word science unambiguously and have yet to grasp the nature of the scientific method. The establishment has erroneously concluded that experimentation and Math are necessary components of the scientific method. A mathematician models the path of an invisible particle with an equation, runs a test to prove his hunch, and then boasts that the experiment has proven his theory. [1] Yet, when you go back to check, the infamous particle was merely an assumption. If the invisible thing at the center of his experiment is not a particle, his alleged 'proof' disintegrates before your very eyes. The mathematicians mistake assumptions for proofs and confuse hypotheses with theories. After 2500 years of research, the disciples of Pythagoras and Euclid have nothing to exhibit at their trade shows, nothing to show during their show-and-tells. The mathematicians are still in the Dark Ages as far as their understanding of nature is concerned. They have merely modified the language of Plato and Augustine. The members of the establishment continue to talk about spirits and ghosts and miracles, but today allude to such phenomena using scientific-sounding names like 'singularity' and 'carriers of force' and 'uncertainty.' The irony is that the mathematicians believe that the development of technology proves that the inventions we enjoy today confirm their theories. The language of Physics and of Science is called visualization. In order for the prosecutor and the juror to be on the same wavelength, they must both watch the same movie. If the prosecutor is talking about rocks and the juror imagines trees they cannot possibly be communicating. We don't understand rocks and trees. We see them with our eyes! There is only one way to guarantee that everyone visualizes the same thing: the presenter should be able to make a movie of his theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why something occurred. If the presenter cannot put his ideas on the Big Screen for everyone to watch (the same thing), he is not doing Science. And in order for the theory to be converted into a movie, an even more fundamental requirement is form. Without shapes, the prosecutor has nothing to film and the juror has nothing to watch. The first requirement of science and of the scientific method is to produce the physical objects. We cannot make a film with abstract concepts! We cannot do science with the idiotic words of Mathematics: energy, mass, time, force, or field. These words do not represent physical objects. Science is not about running experiments or proving theories or about Math. Science is about communicating ideas. Afterwards you can infer whatever you like, run experiments in the lab, and reach your own conclusions. In order to communicate ideas precisely, the presenter absolutely needs to define his words rigorously. A precise definition of the words that make or break a theory is the second requirement of the scientific method. Mathematical Physics fails both of these requirements. Not a single mathematician in the world can make a movie of his presentation. What is he going to put on the screen? A picture of energy? A scene where mass jumps up and down? And not a single mathematician on Earth defines the words that make or break his theory rigorously. The contemporary mathematicians: • tell you that their crucial words are primitives (i.e., undefinable) (e.g., point, line, mass, energy, time) • use these terms inconsistently during their talks anyways • replace concepts with objects (e.g., the center of mass with a dot, space-time with a tesseract) • move abstract concepts (e.g., transfer energy, accelerate point particles, bend time, blend orbitals) • describe interactions between abstractions (e.g., virtual particles, field and charge, annihilation of two 0-D particles) ...and then wish you to believe that they are doing Science. The mathematicians of Mathematical Physics are the first to attempt to give a physical interpretation to their equations. When you call their bluff and show that the explanation is irrational, relativists defend themselves by saying that you are raising a philosophical issue and not one that concerns Science (by which they mean Physics). But it was they who introduced 'philosophy' (i.e., give a physical interpretation to the equations) in the first place. In other words, the mathematician wants you to believe that he is authorized to provide a physical interpretation to a series of variables or to a function because he is backed by Math and authority (celebrities). When you question his logic, he accuses you of relying on subjective intuition and common sense at the expense of objective Mathematics. He dismisses your attack as petty philosophy, meaning that it's just your opinion. If this argument fails to persuade you, he produces next a list of who's who from the 'scientific' community who believe in the same idiocy he does (i.e., the argument from authority). These people are backed by Nobel Prizes (which their peers gave to them). Turn around and look behind you. Who supports your version? The mathematicians are convinced that whether a theory is scientific depends on a show of hands! 5.0 A mathematician has no explanation The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world. We have delegated the task of uncovering the nature of our Universe to idiots that laymen mistake for geniuses. I can find no better word than idiot to qualify an individual who has a Masters Degree or a PhD and offers irrational and fantastic physical interpretations for natural phenomena. Those who invoke such ridiculous concepts as space-time, Big Bang, black hole, parallel universe, field, energy, mass, wave-packet, point particle, time travel, tunneling, warped space, or annihilation to explain a phenomenon of nature should be locked up in a mental institution. The official scientific world is a farce. The establishment has gone completely mad. Actually the official interpretations of the real world have as much to do with the equations the mathematicians back them with as the Bible with the existence of God, but naive people have gradually surrendered themselves to celebrities. Most people stand in awe of the nonsense coming out of the universities and think tanks simply because they don't understand any of it. The result is that we have made a 180º turn. We are back to the Middle Ages as far as understanding of nature is concerned. If, like me, you suspect the physical interpretations of the mathematical sages of our world, the following pages contain material that will provide you with solid arguments in your heads-to-heads with relativists, mechanics, and string theorists. I have simplified concepts and theories of Mathematical Physics and illustrated wherever possible to make the site accessible to the average visitor. You don't need to know Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. A good dose of common sense will do! Poster Comment:I will explore this further.
http://www.youstupidrelativist.com/03Intro.html
A new language
The casual browser and superficial reader typically get the wrong idea that this site is business as usual. So in order to minimize blind-siding the average visitor, I would like to say up front that this site relies on and uses a different language to communicate ideas. For instance, when I say that in Physics or in Science the word space means 'no shape,' I am not saying that this is what the idiots of the establishment mean by space. I am saying the this is what the word space means in genuine as opposed to contemporary 'science.' Whenever I want to represent or depict the official version, I will refer to them as 'mathematicians' or 'mathematical physicists' or idiots or something like that. There are no physicists in mainstream 'Physics.' From Newton to Einstein to Hawking, they are all just mathematicians as far Science and Physics are concerned.
This site defines Physics as the science of existence. Physics is first and foremost the science that studies objects, specifically those objects that exist. In contrast, Philosophy is a discipline that studies concepts. The establishment has turned this state of affairs around over the centuries and today it is incongruously in reverse. The contemporary 'physicists' play around with abstract concepts such as energy, mass, space- time, virtual particles, and black holes while the philosophers are trying to answer fundamental questions of genuine Physics, such as 'What is an object' or 'What does the word exist mean?' Physics is first and foremost the science that studies objects. Without objects we have no physical 'anything' to study or to carry out an experiment with. And even if the moron of Mathematics believes that Physics also studies concepts, the idiot has yet to define what a concept is. Therefore, whether objects or concepts, we must get to the bottom of these strategic words because Physics certainly studies one of them.
So I caution you that communication will be a major problem. The mathematician comes to this site with the idea that Physics is about time travel and wormholes and virtual particles. He discovers, instead, what he missed in college, what he failed to question his teachers about. Physics is about objects and location and motion, and these words don't mean what they mean in ordinary speech. The mathematicians (known today as 'physicists') have never had to confront these words in high school or college, except perhaps from a casual 'philosophical' perspective in a course they were forced to take at gunpoint. Therefore, they are ill- equipped to deal with the subject matter at hand and are likely to feel frustrated. Here, these words become a major component of every argument. As soon as a mathematician so mentions a buzz word such as object, exist, dimension, position, straight, or continuous, I will ask him to define it. The reason for this is not to cause unnecessary trouble. I'm not here to play devil's advocate. The reason for this is that the mathematician erroneously believes that he has communicated his idea effectively when in fact nothing of the sort has occurred. The mathematician cannot have any idea what he is talking about because he takes these words for granted. He extrapolates the definitions of ordinary speech into a scientific context without realizing that a rigorous definition of the same words destroys his entire argument. I promise to harp on such vital words as object, exist, and concept until it hurts. I will insist until you hate me. The contemporary mathematicians have no idea what these words mean or how important they are to scientific communication. This is where the battle will begin. This is where the battle will end. Language.
You seem to have trouble grasping simple, abstract, mathematical theories, Bill. Therefore, we are through with words. Perhaps it's time for something a little more pragmatic. We decided that the time has come to demonstrate our theories to you empirically.
3.0 Mathematical Physics offers irrational physical interpretations for common phenomena
Contemporary Mathematical Physics is comprised of three pillars: General Relativity (GR), Quantum Mechanics (QM), and String Theory (ST). The establishment regards these disciplines with absolute reverence, but don't be misled. GR, QM, and ST are actually more like Andersen's proverbial Emperor's Clothes tale. The mathematician points to an invisible entity and interprets for you what you are observing. Suspiciously, the idiot of Mathematics always ends up with his beloved point. An atom is a particle. An electron is a particle. A photon is a particle. An event is a particle and space-time is comprised of events (meaning particles). And a string is made of particles. When you so much as insinuate that his explanation borders on the irrational, the moron urges you to set aside your common sense and intuition and trust his equations and calculations. He throws a list of who's who at you to reinforce his claim with authority. All the celebrities of Nobel and Templeton fame believe in the particle. So how come you don't believe in particles? Who are you to question so much authority?
But I have just shown that you can provide different physical interpretations to an equation. So what compels you to switch your intellectual allegiance? Why should you trust his interpretation of a physical phenomenon when it is also based on intuition?
The results are on the table. After centuries of raving lunacy, the mathematicians of this world have absolutely nothing to show for their abstract theories. We have yet to see a mockup of space-time or a picture of a single particle of the Standard Model or a sculpture of the 1-D Planck Length theorists claim the Universe is made of. Not a single mathematician on Earth can tell you WHAT light IS. Not a single mathematician working at NASA or CERN can tell you how a simple magnet works or WHAT the invisible lines of force that surround it ARE. Not a single mathematician at Cambridge or at Harvard can illustrate mass or energy for you. And certainly numbers and equations will not help them in any of these quests.
Mainstream scientists don't understand the first thing about the scientific method
The underlying problem is that the mathematicians have never defined the word science unambiguously and have yet to grasp the nature of the scientific method. The establishment has erroneously concluded that experimentation and Math are necessary components of the scientific method. A mathematician models the path of an invisible particle with an equation, runs a test to prove his hunch, and then boasts that the experiment has proven his theory. [1] Yet, when you go back to check, the infamous particle was merely an assumption. If the invisible thing at the center of his experiment is not a particle, his alleged 'proof' disintegrates before your very eyes. The mathematicians mistake assumptions for proofs and confuse hypotheses with theories.
After 2500 years of research, the disciples of Pythagoras and Euclid have nothing to exhibit at their trade shows, nothing to show during their show-and-tells. The mathematicians are still in the Dark Ages as far as their understanding of nature is concerned. They have merely modified the language of Plato and Augustine. The members of the establishment continue to talk about spirits and ghosts and miracles, but today allude to such phenomena using scientific-sounding names like 'singularity' and 'carriers of force' and 'uncertainty.' The irony is that the mathematicians believe that the development of technology proves that the inventions we enjoy today confirm their theories.
The language of Physics and of Science is called visualization. In order for the prosecutor and the juror to be on the same wavelength, they must both watch the same movie. If the prosecutor is talking about rocks and the juror imagines trees they cannot possibly be communicating. We don't understand rocks and trees. We see them with our eyes! There is only one way to guarantee that everyone visualizes the same thing: the presenter should be able to make a movie of his theory. A theory is an explanation of how or why something occurred. If the presenter cannot put his ideas on the Big Screen for everyone to watch (the same thing), he is not doing Science. And in order for the theory to be converted into a movie, an even more fundamental requirement is form. Without shapes, the prosecutor has nothing to film and the juror has nothing to watch. The first requirement of science and of the scientific method is to produce the physical objects. We cannot make a film with abstract concepts! We cannot do science with the idiotic words of Mathematics: energy, mass, time, force, or field. These words do not represent physical objects.
Science is not about running experiments or proving theories or about Math. Science is about communicating ideas. Afterwards you can infer whatever you like, run experiments in the lab, and reach your own conclusions. In order to communicate ideas precisely, the presenter absolutely needs to define his words rigorously. A precise definition of the words that make or break a theory is the second requirement of the scientific method.
Mathematical Physics fails both of these requirements. Not a single mathematician in the world can make a movie of his presentation. What is he going to put on the screen? A picture of energy? A scene where mass jumps up and down? And not a single mathematician on Earth defines the words that make or break his theory rigorously. The contemporary mathematicians:
• tell you that their crucial words are primitives (i.e., undefinable) (e.g., point, line,
mass, energy, time)
• use these terms inconsistently during their talks anyways • replace concepts with objects (e.g., the center of mass with a dot, space-time
with a tesseract)
• move abstract concepts (e.g., transfer energy, accelerate point particles, bend
time, blend orbitals)
• describe interactions between abstractions (e.g., virtual particles, field and
charge, annihilation of two 0-D particles)
...and then wish you to believe that they are doing Science.
The mathematicians of Mathematical Physics are the first to attempt to give a physical interpretation to their equations. When you call their bluff and show that the explanation is irrational, relativists defend themselves by saying that you are raising a philosophical issue and not one that concerns Science (by which they mean Physics). But it was they who introduced 'philosophy' (i.e., give a physical interpretation to the equations) in the first place. In other words, the mathematician wants you to believe that he is authorized to provide a physical interpretation to a series of variables or to a function because he is backed by Math and authority (celebrities). When you question his logic, he accuses you of relying on subjective intuition and common sense at the expense of objective Mathematics. He dismisses your attack as petty philosophy, meaning that it's just your opinion. If this argument fails to persuade you, he produces next a list of who's who from the 'scientific' community who believe in the same idiocy he does (i.e., the argument from authority). These people are backed by Nobel Prizes (which their peers gave to them). Turn around and look behind you. Who supports your version? The mathematicians are convinced that whether a theory is scientific depends on a show of hands!
5.0 A mathematician has no explanation
The mathematicians have become the priests of the modern world. We have delegated the task of uncovering the nature of our Universe to idiots that laymen mistake for geniuses. I can find no better word than idiot to qualify an individual who has a Masters Degree or a PhD and offers irrational and fantastic physical interpretations for natural phenomena. Those who invoke such ridiculous concepts as space-time, Big Bang, black hole, parallel universe, field, energy, mass, wave-packet, point particle, time travel, tunneling, warped space, or annihilation to explain a phenomenon of nature should be locked up in a mental institution. The official scientific world is a farce. The establishment has gone completely mad.
Actually the official interpretations of the real world have as much to do with the equations the mathematicians back them with as the Bible with the existence of God, but naive people have gradually surrendered themselves to celebrities. Most people stand in awe of the nonsense coming out of the universities and think tanks simply because they don't understand any of it. The result is that we have made a 180º turn. We are back to the Middle Ages as far as understanding of nature is concerned.
If, like me, you suspect the physical interpretations of the mathematical sages of our world, the following pages contain material that will provide you with solid arguments in your heads-to-heads with relativists, mechanics, and string theorists. I have simplified concepts and theories of Mathematical Physics and illustrated wherever possible to make the site accessible to the average visitor. You don't need to know Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. A good dose of common sense will do!
Poster Comment:
I will explore this further.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: Horse (#0) You don't need to know Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. All you need is the nonlocality of quantum entanglement. MUDDOG posted on 2009-04-14 21:42:16 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply Replies to Comment # 4. There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
You don't need to know Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock. All you need is the nonlocality of quantum entanglement.
You don't need to know Math to realize that relativity is 100% poppycock.
All you need is the nonlocality of quantum entanglement.
MUDDOG posted on 2009-04-14 21:42:16 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
There are no replies to Comment # 4.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest