Energy is Mass "accelerated" (frequency of vibration) to C^2 (religion, self)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am perfectly willing to engage in the "philisophical implications" of Mass and Energy if you wish.
I am not about to engage in the "philisophical implications" of other stuff you just made up however. The name calling adds nothing either and I do not engage in it so you can drop it too. If name calling is required to defend a position - that says more about the position than anything else.
There is no matter traveling _or_ vibrating at that speed. You are just creating pseudo science for the purpose of analogy. Analogy to nonsense is not useful unless the thing you are making it an analogy too is also nonsense. Which it appears to be.
I am perfectly willing to engage in the "philisophical implications" of Mass and Energy if you wish.
I have asked you to rigorously engage my non-analogy explanations of the philosophical implications of mass-energy equivalence repeatedly. A mathematician or physicist would know what a rigorous engagement was. Instead you keeping harping on what you see as the inappropriateness of my attempt to simplify explanations through analogy for those less conversant with the science or the math. I am calling no names just describing behavior . . . if the shoe fits . . .
You simplify nothing if you make up pseudo science nonsense in order to make comparisons to it. Because it is false science and nonsense you will only serve to muddy the watters more - bamboozle the scientifically illiterate - and look bad in the eyes of the scientifically literate. That is my main point here which you refuse to acknowledge.
Now having acknowledged it if you want to then go back a few steps and represent your points without recourse to made up nonsense about things vibrating at impossible speeds - I am more than happy to re-engage with your points and try to understand them.
Until then however I am not likely to understand your points and am likely to keep pointing out that the analogy you are using to try and explain your points is pseudo scientific nonsense that aids understanding in no way whatsoever - nor am I alone in this as many people have lined up on the thread to point out what nonsense it is.
So simply realise that the analogy to made up nonsense has failed to illuminate the point you are trying to make and attempt to make the same point in a different way. That is how communication works. If people do not understand it the first time then you simply present it a different way.
You simplify nothing if you make up pseudo science nonsense in order to make comparisons to it. Because it is false science and nonsense you will only serve to muddy the watters more - bamboozle the scientifically illiterate - and look bad in the eyes of the scientifically literate. That is my main point here which you refuse to acknowledge.
Now having acknowledged it if you want to then go back a few steps and represent your points without recourse to made up nonsense about things vibrating at impossible speeds - I am more than happy to re-engage with your points and try to understand them.
Until then however I am not likely to understand your points and am likely to keep pointing out that the analogy you are using to try and explain your points is pseudo scientific nonsense that aids understanding in no way whatsoever - nor am I alone in this as many people have lined up on the thread to point out what nonsense it is.
So simply realise that the analogy to made up nonsense has failed to illuminate the point you are trying to make and attempt to make the same point in a different way. That is how communication works. If people do not understand it the first time then you simply present it a different way.
SO . . . I was right . . . you did NOT even bother to read my non-analogy explanations. I suggest you do and return with some substantive rebuttal. Your harping on what you see as the inappropriateness of my analogy is tiresome and mere bloviation.
Your wish to avoid my points does not make them go away. Again this thread is based upon a pseudo scientific notion which the scientifically literate know is nonsense but those not so well versed will find misleading and confusing. There is nothing wrong with my - and I do not apoloise for - pointing out that this is made up, nonsense and misleading. Leaving false science unconfronted is almost as bad as being the one spreading false science. Science is difficult enough to communicate to the lay public without making up - or allowing people to make up unchecked - nonsense science to muddy the waters.
If you want to remake your points without recourse to nonsense science then I am more than willing to engage with those points. However as we see above when I made that offer first you did not do so but engaged in some baseless "I told you so I told you so" rhetoric instead without returning at all to your points.
So when I engage with you you accuse me of not engaging with you. When I offer to engage with you further you simply throw out some rhetoric and run. The trend here is not good but it certainly illuminates who and what we are dealing with here.
Your wish to avoid my points does not make them go away. Again this thread is based upon a pseudo scientific notion which the scientifically literate know is nonsense but those not so well versed will find misleading and confusing. There is nothing wrong with my - and I do not apoloise for - pointing out that this is made up, nonsense and misleading. Leaving false science unconfronted is almost as bad as being the one spreading false science. Science is difficult enough to communicate to the lay public without making up - or allowing people to make up unchecked - nonsense science to muddy the waters.
If you want to remake your points without recourse to nonsense science then I am more than willing to engage with those points. However as we see above when I made that offer first you did not do so but engaged in some baseless "I told you so I told you so" rhetoric instead without returning at all to your points.
So when I engage with you you accuse me of not engaging with you. When I offer to engage with you further you simply throw out some rhetoric and run. The trend here is not good but it certainly illuminates who and what we are dealing with here.
That your supposed heroic agenda prevented you from even reading my non-analogy explanations ALREADY presented in this thread does not mean I have to repeat myself to accommodate your laziness or lack of attentiveness to the thread and its content. Read my presentation and respond substantively to it . . . your bloviations and dodging are tiresome!
I have read everything I have been presented. So making up that I have not adds nothing. I still think what you are saying appears to be nonsense. However I am indicating, for a number of posts now, to move past this pseudo science nonsense analogy you used to try and explain your position and engage with you further. Rather than acknowledge that and move on with me you simply claim I have not been reading what I have been reading and run.
Either you want to engage or you do not. If you do I am here. Either you want to cut and run - throwing moderator deleted insults and false accusations as a smoke screen for that, or you do not. If you do then I have no time for that.
More sideline heckling completely devoid of substantive scientific rebuttal and full of spurious bloviations against my belief in God (which is off topic).
How is pointing out that the fact that atoms absorb and re-emit photons, despite your claim that it is impossible, "sideline heckling completely devoid of substantive scientific rebuttal"? It seems to be pretty on topic - the topic being that your so called scientific claims contradict what scientists actually claim.
But keep up the personal attacks rather than explain why scientists and reality are wrong. Rant all you like. The more you do, the more it shows there's nothing of substance behind what you're claiming
I have read everything I have been presented. So making up that I have not adds nothing. I still think what you are saying appears to be nonsense. However I am indicating, for a number of posts now, to move past this pseudo science nonsense analogy you used to try and explain your position and engage with you further. Rather than acknowledge that and move on with me you simply claim I have not been reading what I have been reading and run.
Either you want to engage or you do not. If you do I am here. Either you want to cut and run - throwing moderator deleted insults and false accusations as a smoke screen for that, or you do not. If you do then I have no time for that.
Respond substantively and rigorously (as an avowed mathematician you should know what that means) to the rationale about the mathematics of relativity in my post#86 or "cut and run" yourself.
How is pointing out that the fact that atoms absorb and re-emit photons, despite your claim that it is impossible, "sideline heckling completely devoid of substantive scientific rebuttal"? It seems to be pretty on topic - the topic being that your so called scientific claims contradict what scientists actually claim.
Because I never made any such claim, KC. You infer a great deal of such nonsense because you do not seem to understand the implications of mass-energy equivalence as revealed in relativity theory (and as I explained in my post#86). If you have any substantive rebuttals of that presentation I will entertain them . . . but I will not entertain the defense of things you wrongly inferred.
Quote:
But keep up the personal attacks rather than explain why scientists and reality are wrong. Rant all you like. The more you do, the more it shows there's nothing of substance behind what you're claiming
I made no personal attacks despite the reporting of such by those refusing to rebut my views substantively . . . as a means of distorting them and distracting the discussion in sideline heckling. If you know the implications of relativity and the mass-energy equivalence better than I do as presented in my post#86 . . . please demonstrate it or "cut and run" as monumentus suggested.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
