Philosophy Now Forum

The rudiments of quantum mechanics and nucleosynthesis. More fun than it sounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 7:59 am The rudiments of quantum mechanics and nucleosynthesis. More fun than it sounds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

How do you KNOW that the EXACT SAME 'fundamental.particle' disappear, and then, SOMETIMES, reappear half way across the galaxy?

REMEMBER it is YOUR Wrong INTERPRETATIONS that are STOPPING and PREVENTING you FROM SEEING what thee ACTUAL Truth IS here. Human beings, individually and collectively, are SLOWED DOWN because of these kind of Wrong INTERPRETATIONS, which are continually being presented as being what is true and right in Life.

Your "explanation" of how 'a particle' is NOT 'a particle' is just IRRATIONAL, to say the least. Saying, 'a particle' is REALLY 'a distortion in a field', is NOT saying ANY thing worthwhile. WHY NOT just say there are NO 'particles', there are ONLY distortions in fields?

The reason you do NOT should fairly EVIDENT.

ALSO, WHY can you NOT rid "yourself" of your DISTORTED BELIEF and CLAIM that the 'big bang' was the START, and/or created ALL things?

If you DID, then you WILL SEE and GRASP a much CLEARER PICTURE of what thee ONE and ONLY IRREFUTABLE Truth IS.

What you, and some "others", INTRPRET and call 'life' is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of WHY it is taking you lot SO LONG.

The reason WHY you STILL DO NOT KNOW what was BEFORE the so-called 'big bang' is due to your Wrong and False INTERPRETATIONS, BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS here. Rid yourselves of them, then things become MUCH CLEARER.

LOL "the big bang IS GROWING".

You say this like CHANGING your words will make your CURRENT BELIEFS (more) true. Which REALLY IS a Truly humorous thing to watch and observe here.

YOUR CLAIMS about "we KNOW 'it' IS GROWING" are PRIME EXAMPLES of CONFIRMATION BIASES at their best work. 'you', human beings, back in the days when this was being written REALLY could NOT SEE NOR RECOGNISE them. Even when they were SO BLATANTLY OBVIOUS.

Your ATTEMPTS at LOOKING FOR just about ANY thing that could back up and support YOUR CURRENT BELIEFS
can be CLEARLY SEEN here.

Your continual reference to the 'big bang' created Everything is NOTHING more than the "preacher" referencing that God is the creator of Everything.

'you' BOTH are just expressing your deeply seeded and deeply HELD BELIEFS, WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY ACTUAL Proof NOR EVIDENCE.

YOUR videos and STORIES are getting MORE ABSURD and RIDICULOUS as you go along.

But I do NOT expect you to SEE this, YET. YOUR BELIEFS would NOT allow you to.

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:00 pmHow do you KNOW that the EXACT SAME 'fundamental.particle' disappear, and then, SOMETIMES, reappear half way across the galaxy?

Well Age, you might have heard of a chap called Albert Einstein. He's very famous because he said a lot of things that sound strange, but which have proven to be true. Among the oddities is the inference from E=mc2 that mass and energy are essentially the same thing. In the wrinkly rug analogy, the energy is applied by the foot, which compresses the rug. You can think of that energy as pressure, If there is enough pressure, the rug will wrinkle wherever conditions are most suitable. This will probably be close to where the rug is scuffed, because that is where the pressure is felt first. In quantum field theory, it is not particles that are fundamental, it is the quantum fields they are a wrinkle or distortion in. A distortion in a quantum field is the result of any energy that is applied, but it takes a specific amount of energy to create distortions that behave like particles. A hundred years ago, Einstein said this:
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter." https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/
No one uses the word ether anymore and there are more fields than just electromagnetic, but the principle is the same. We know you can create particles from energy; it is done routinely in particle colliders, the mass of the particles created is greater than the combined mass of the particles that collided, the Higgs Boson is an example. It's a bit like throwing a stone into a pond. If you throw it hard enough, the mass of the water that splashes up is more that the mass of the stone.
Have another look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:57 am

Age wrote: ↑Wed Jun 08, 2022 6:00 pmHow do you KNOW that the EXACT SAME 'fundamental.particle' disappear, and then, SOMETIMES, reappear half way across the galaxy?

Well Age, you might have heard of a chap called Albert Einstein. He's very famous because he said a lot of things that sound strange, but which have proven to be true. Among the oddities is the inference from E=mc2 that mass and energy are essentially the same thing. In the wrinkly rug analogy, the energy is applied by the foot, which compresses the rug. You can think of that energy as pressure, If there is enough pressure, the rug will wrinkle wherever conditions are most suitable. This will probably be close to where the rug is scuffed, because that is where the pressure is felt first. In quantum field theory, it is not particles that are fundamental, it is the quantum fields they are a wrinkle or distortion in. A distortion in a quantum field is the result of any energy that is applied, but it takes a specific amount of energy to create distortions that behave like particles. A hundred years ago, Einstein said this:
"Since according to our present conceptions the elementary particles of matter are also, in their essence, nothing else than condensations of the electromagnetic field, our present view of the universe presents two realities which are completely separated from each other conceptually, although connected causally, namely, gravitational ether and electromagnetic field, or - as they might also be called - space and matter." https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/E ... ein_ether/
No one uses the word ether anymore and there are more fields than just electromagnetic, but the principle is the same. We know you can create particles from energy;

But HOW and WHAT creates energy?

Work that out, or find that out, and then you WILL DISCOVER that what I have been saying all along IS IRREFUTABLE.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:57 am it is done routinely in particle colliders, the mass of the particles created is greater than the combined mass of the particles that collided, the Higgs Boson is an example. It's a bit like throwing a stone into a pond. If you throw it hard enough, the mass of the water that splashes up is more that the mass of the stone.
Have another look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

Are you purposely 'trying to' be DECEPTIVE here or could you REALLY NOT COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTION that I posed?

HOW do you KNOW that 'it' is the EXACT SAME one that SUPPOSEDLY reappears "halfway across the galaxy", like you CLAIM 'it' does?

In other words how do you know that 'it' is NOT a DIFFERENT one?

Also, what instrument is being used, and where is that instrument placed, which SUPPOSEDLY observes the EXACT SAME one "reappearing halfway across the galaxy"?

ID you just STICK to the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed to you, then we can move along. However, if you do NOT, then we just get STUCK in and with YOUR OWN BELIEFS here. Just like when 'you', human beings, were STUCK in and with the BELIEF that the sun revolves around the earth.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amBut HOW and WHAT creates energy?

Ah well, that's sometimes called the inflaton field. Basically, the big bang is still going on because the inflaton, the 'particle' that started everything is still growing.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amWork that out, or find that out, and then you WILL DISCOVER that what I have been saying all along IS IRREFUTABLE.

Well, it's a bloke called Alan Guth who first coined the phrase and it's not what you have been saying.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amAre you purposely 'trying to' be DECEPTIVE here or could you REALLY NOT COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTION that I posed?

HOW do you KNOW that 'it' is the EXACT SAME one that SUPPOSEDLY reappears "halfway across the galaxy", like you CLAIM 'it' does?

In other words how do you know that 'it' is NOT a DIFFERENT one?

You missed the point. Particles are not fundamental, fields are. A surplus of energy in a field can manifest as a particle anywhere in the field, but wherever it pops up, it's the same energy.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amID you just STICK to the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed to you, then we can move along.

It would be quicker if you could understand the answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amBut HOW and WHAT creates energy?

Ah well, that's sometimes called the inflaton field. Basically, the big bang is still going on because the inflaton, the 'particle' that started everything is still growing.

LOL "the 'particle' that started everything". Sounds like you are proposing some God particle.

And, just like just about EVERY child would question, What started the 'particle', which, supposedly, started EVERY thing?

This kind of child like logic WILL ALWAYS TRUMP ABSURD and RIDICULOUS CLAIMS, like YOURS here.

'you', "uwot', have, LITERALLY, NOT progressed ANY further than the " preachers" had, from LONG AGO.

Now, how 'big' or 'small' do you envision this One 'particle' was, which you want to now CLAIM "started everything"?

ALSO, what made 'it' go off with a "big bang" and KEEP "expanding" hitherto to the day 'you' were existing?

There would have SURELY been some sort of 'energy' existing PRIOR to make such a 'bang' or 'EXAPANSION'. Or, do you STILL REALLY BELIEVE that there was NO energy BEFORE the SOMEHOW EXPANDING 'particle' just, SUDDENLY, started EXPANDING, and that 'energy', itself, only came into Existence AFTER that 'bang'?

If yes, then, to me, those IDIOTIC and STUPID CLAIMS made by "preachers" are starting to sound MORE REAL than YOUR CLAIMS here.

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amWork that out, or find that out, and then you WILL DISCOVER that what I have been saying all along IS IRREFUTABLE.

Well, it's a bloke called Alan Guth who first coined the phrase and it's not what you have been saying.

Are you 'trying to' suggest here that If some bloke called "alan guth" coins some phrase, then whatever that phrase is referring to, then 'that' is IRREFUTABLY True?

If no, then what I have been SAYING could be true and right, correct?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amAre you purposely 'trying to' be DECEPTIVE here or could you REALLY NOT COMPREHEND the ACTUAL QUESTION that I posed?

HOW do you KNOW that 'it' is the EXACT SAME one that SUPPOSEDLY reappears "halfway across the galaxy", like you CLAIM 'it' does?

In other words how do you know that 'it' is NOT a DIFFERENT one?

You missed the point. Particles are not fundamental, fields are.

So what? It was YOU who SAID, "fundamental particles sometimes do pop halfway across the galaxy".

Now my question STILL STANDS. How do you KNOW 'it' IS the EXACT SAME ONE?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:16 am A surplus of energy in a field can manifest as a particle anywhere in the field, but wherever it pops up, it's the same energy.

OF COURSE 'it' is the SAME 'energy'. BUT it was YOU who SAID and STATED, "fundamental particles sometimes pop up halfway across the galaxy".

If what you MEAN IS DIFFERENT, then I suggest you SAY what you ACTUALLY MEAN.

Now, let us LOOK AT YOUR sentence and CLAIM above;
"A surplus of energy in a 'field' can manifest as a 'particle' anywhere in the 'field', but wherever it pops up, it's the same energy."

You have become SO LOST and CONFUSED you are NOT even NOTICING how many INCONSISTENCIES you are making here.

One moment you say there are NO such things as 'particles', 'fundamental particles', or 'particles of matter' because they are NOT 'solid objects'. You CLAIM that what you THINK is a 'particle' is REALLY a distortion in one or another 'theorized' 'field'. So, this would MEAN that some so-called "surplus of energy" in one or another 'field' can manifest as a "distortion", in one or another 'field', but wherever the 'distortion' "pops up", it is the same 'energy' anyway. Which is REALLY saying absolutely NOTHING, AT ALL. To me, this is just ANOTHER ATTEMPT at one 'trying to' back up and support what they ALREADY BELIEVE is true with just about ANY thing that they think will work.

What you have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that "energy in a field can manifest as a distortion ANYWHERE in the same field". Unless, OF COURSE, you want to suggest there are DIFFERENT so-called 'fields' within the Universe, and if you do, then 'what', EXACTLY, separates these DIFFERENT 'fields'?

Also;

1. What do you mean by "a surplus of energy"?

2. 'Surplus' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

3. Is the 'field' an ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE thing or just a 'theory'?

4. Either way what form is it in EXACTLY?

5. What does the 'distortion' look like, EXACTLY?

6.The 'distortion' is DISTORTED in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

7. How do you KNOW, for sure, that WHEREVER a so-called 'distortion' so-call "pops up", " halfway across the galaxy", that 'it' was the EXACT SAME 'distortion' that was 'half a galaxy away', PREVIOUSLY?

8. What instruments were used to verify this CLAIM of YOURS here?

9. Is what "pops up" the SAME 'distortion of energy', or just the SAME 'energy'?

uwot wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:16 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amID you just STICK to the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed to you, then we can move along.

It would be quicker if you could understand the answers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

LOL

I am SEEKING CLARIFICATION to and for the QUESTIONS I pose and ask you.

The so-called, and LAUGHABLE, "answers“ are NOT, and I will repeat, NOT answering the ACTUAL QUESTIONS that I have posed to you.

Now, if you can NOT or will NOT just answer the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I POSE to you Honestly, OPENLY, and DIRECTLY, then you are NOT answering THE QUESTIONS.

I asked you eight VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS above here, let us SEE how you ANSWER them.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm...do you STILL REALLY BELIEVE that there was NO energy BEFORE the SOMEHOW EXPANDING 'particle' just, SUDDENLY, started EXPANDING, and that 'energy', itself, only came into Existence AFTER that 'bang'?

You clearly didn't hear this at 2:04 minutes into the video: "As for what came before the universe, or what lies beyond it, well that's anyone's guess."

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amIt was YOU who SAID, "fundamental particles sometimes do pop halfway across the galaxy".

Now my question STILL STANDS. How do you KNOW 'it' IS the EXACT SAME ONE?

It depends on what you count as fundamental. If you think the wrinkle in the rug is fundamental, then the fact that it could occur in different locations means a wrinkle here and a wrinkle there are two different wrinkles. On the other hand, E=mc2: it's the same energy, hence the same mass/wrinkle.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmOne moment you say there are NO such things as 'particles', 'fundamental particles', or 'particles of matter' because they are NOT 'solid objects'.

You missed another bit: "So perhaps fundamental particles are specks of Big Bang stuff that are twisted, shaken or both." That's at 3:55.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmWhat you have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that "energy in a field can manifest as a distortion ANYWHERE in the same field". Unless, OF COURSE, you want to suggest there are DIFFERENT so-called 'fields' within the Universe, and if you do, then 'what', EXACTLY, separates these DIFFERENT 'fields'?

Well now, that depends on what you mean by 'field'. There are different types of epistemological fields; those are the ones you can measure. For instance a gravitational field; you know it's there because you can see its effect, but you don't know what it is made of. Then there's ontological fields which cannot be observed directly but are invoked to account for matter. Personally I think one ontological field can account for all matter, including dark matter and dark energy, but I concede that might be because I just haven't seen the research that flatly contradicts that option.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm1. What do you mean by "a surplus of energy"?

2. 'Surplus' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Think of a cracked water pipe. If the water is seeping out, then it can spread out uniformly. If it leaking faster than it can spread, there will be structure in the form of waves and eddies.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm3. Is the 'field' an ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE thing or just a 'theory'?

Just a theory.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm4. Either way what form is it in EXACTLY?

Just a theory.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm5. What does the 'distortion' look like, EXACTLY?

Fundamental particles and forces.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm6.The 'distortion' is DISTORTED in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Well, it's like you have a piece of string, and it's got a knot in it.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm7. How do you KNOW, for sure, that WHEREVER a so-called 'distortion' so-call "pops up", " halfway across the galaxy", that 'it' was the EXACT SAME 'distortion' that was 'half a galaxy away', PREVIOUSLY?

You already asked that.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm8. What instruments were used to verify this CLAIM of YOURS here?

It isn't verified because, as we have established, it's just a theory, but it's based on the evidence of everything instrument from Galileo's telescope to the Large Hadron Collider.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm9. Is what "pops up" the SAME 'distortion of energy', or just the SAME 'energy'?

You've already asked that one too.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmNow, if you can NOT or will NOT just answer the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I POSE to you Honestly, OPENLY, and DIRECTLY, then you are NOT answering THE QUESTIONS.

Not only do I answer them honestly, openly and directly, as the quotes above show, sometimes I answer them before you ask them.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmI asked you eight VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS above here, let us SEE how you ANSWER them.

Which of the nine questions is the difficult one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm...do you STILL REALLY BELIEVE that there was NO energy BEFORE the SOMEHOW EXPANDING 'particle' just, SUDDENLY, started EXPANDING, and that 'energy', itself, only came into Existence AFTER that 'bang'?

You clearly didn't hear this at 2:04 minutes into the video: "As for what came before the universe, or what lies beyond it, well that's anyone's guess."

WHICH IMPLIES NO one knows, correct?

If no, then what does 'it' ACTUALLY MEAN

If 'it' means what I just said here, then what you CLAIMED is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as what came before 'that bang' IS ALREADY KNOWN, as I KEEP INFORMING you. But, because you BELIEVE the OPPOSITE is ABSOLUTELY TRUE you are NOT even remotely OPEN to LISTENING, LEARNING and DISCOVERING ANY THING ELSE nor NEW.

Oh, and by the way, I CLEARLY did hear when you said that. SO, this IS just ANOTHER EXAMPLE of a False, Wrong, AND Incorrect ASSUMPTION and CLAIM of yours here.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 8:21 amIt was YOU who SAID, "fundamental particles sometimes do pop halfway across the galaxy".

Now my question STILL STANDS. How do you KNOW 'it' IS the EXACT SAME ONE?

It depends on what you count as fundamental.

I count whatever you are calling 'fundamental particles'.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am If you think the wrinkle in the rug is fundamental, then the fact that it could occur in different locations means a wrinkle here and a wrinkle there are two different wrinkles. On the other hand, E=mc2: it's the same energy, hence the same mass/wrinkle.

It is YOUR STORY here so best YOU EXPLAIN and CLARIFY what 'it' IS, EXACTLY, which you are talking about and referring to here.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmOne moment you say there are NO such things as 'particles', 'fundamental particles', or 'particles of matter' because they are NOT 'solid objects'.

You missed another bit: "So perhaps fundamental particles are specks of Big Bang stuff that are twisted, shaken or both." That's at 3:55.

SO WHAT IS 'it'?

I suggest if one want to TELL a STORY or CLAIM some things, then it is MUCH BETTER if they KNOW what they are talking about EXACTLY, BEFORE they begin.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmWhat you have ESSENTIALLY SAID and CLAIMED here is that "energy in a field can manifest as a distortion ANYWHERE in the same field". Unless, OF COURSE, you want to suggest there are DIFFERENT so-called 'fields' within the Universe, and if you do, then 'what', EXACTLY, separates these DIFFERENT 'fields'?

Well now, that depends on what you mean by 'field'.

This is YOUR STORY and CLAIMS. I am just trying to gain CLARITY on what YOU MEAN, EXACTLY.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am There are different types of epistemological fields; those are the ones you can measure. For instance a gravitational field; you know it's there because you can see its effect, but you don't know what it is made of.

I suggest that instead of you using the 'you' word here that you speak for YOU, ONLY. That way you will NOT end up being Wrong AND Incorrect SO OFTEN, as you ARE AGAIN here

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am Then there's ontological fields which cannot be observed directly but are invoked to account for matter.

In other words 'just made up'. Usually as a confirmation bias to support some previously HELD BELIEF.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am Personally I think one ontological field can account for all matter, including dark matter and dark energy, but I concede that might be because I just haven't seen the research that flatly contradicts that option.

And what IS this so-called 'dark matter', EXACTLY?

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm1. What do you mean by "a surplus of energy"?

2. 'Surplus' in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Think of a cracked water pipe. If the water is seeping out, then it can spread out uniformly. If it leaking faster than it can spread, there will be structure in the form of waves and eddies.

So, I have thought of this, now, I am STILL wondering what the word 'suplus' is in relation to EXACTLY?

By the way this is a PRIME EXAMPLE of you NOT answering thee ACTUAL QUESTION posed to you.

Anyway,
it could be argued that ANY water coming out of a cracked pipe is 'surplus'. BUT it is ONLY 'surplus' BECAUSE OF and IN REGARDS to the crack in the pipe. The 'surplus' word is NOT in relation to ANY thing else.

So, HOW is there so-called 'surplus energy' in the Universe, WHAT is this SUPPOSED 'surplus energy' in relation to, EXACTLY?

If it is this 'surplus energy' that is what causes what creates 'matter', then surely it is NOT 'surplus' but rather just what was ACTUALLY 'necesaary'.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm3. Is the 'field' an ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE thing or just a 'theory'?

Just a theory.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm4. Either way what form is it in EXACTLY?

Just a theory.

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm5. What does the 'distortion' look like, EXACTLY?

Fundamental particles and forces.

So, in regards to 'fundamental particles', the 'distortion' looks like some thing, which REALLY is NOT a 'fundamental particle' anyway, which literally translates to the 'distortion' looks like itself, which may NOT even exist AT ALL as this is all just a 'theory' anyway.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm6.The 'distortion' is DISTORTED in relation to 'what', EXACTLY?

Well, it's like you have a piece of string, and it's got a knot in it.

Except the 'field' being just a 'theory' NO one ACTUALLY KNOWS what 'it' may or may NOT look like. In fact NO one REALLY has ANY ACTUAL CLUE AT ALL, right?

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm7. How do you KNOW, for sure, that WHEREVER a so-called 'distortion' so-call "pops up", " halfway across the galaxy", that 'it' was the EXACT SAME 'distortion' that was 'half a galaxy away', PREVIOUSLY?

You already asked that.

Yea I did, and I found your response VERY INSUFFICIENT.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm8. What instruments were used to verify this CLAIM of YOURS here?

It isn't verified because, as we have established, it's just a theory, but it's based on the evidence of everything instrument from Galileo's telescope to the Large Hadron Collider.

But you ALSO ADMIT that the observed 'moving sun' is EVIDENCE that the sun revolves around the earth, and we KNOW how that 'evidence' and CLAIM turned out.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pm9. Is what "pops up" the SAME 'distortion of energy', or just the SAME 'energy'?

You've already asked that one too.

So, 'it' is ALL just the EXACT SAME 'energy, correct?

If no, then correct 'it'.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmNow, if you can NOT or will NOT just answer the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I POSE to you Honestly, OPENLY, and DIRECTLY, then you are NOT answering THE QUESTIONS.

Not only do I answer them honestly, openly and directly, as the quotes above show, sometimes I answer them before you ask them.

But most of the time you are NOT answering what I am ACTUALLY ASKING, and this is because you jump to some ASSUMPTION, BEFORE you CLARIFY. As our words above SHOW.

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 am

Age wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 7:32 pmI asked you eight VERY SIMPLE QUESTIONS above here, let us SEE how you ANSWER them.

Which of the nine questions is the difficult one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylMYL_yKwQ

ONCE AGAIN, you have FAILED.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 amYou clearly didn't hear this at 2:04 minutes into the video: "As for what came before the universe, or what lies beyond it, well that's anyone's guess."

WHICH IMPLIES NO one knows, correct?

Correct.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmIf 'it' means what I just said here, then what you CLAIMED is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as what came before 'that bang' IS ALREADY KNOWN, as I KEEP INFORMING you.

Sorry Age, I must have missed it. What came before 'that bang'?

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 9:08 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pm

uwot wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:51 amYou clearly didn't hear this at 2:04 minutes into the video: "As for what came before the universe, or what lies beyond it, well that's anyone's guess."

WHICH IMPLIES NO one knows, correct?

Correct.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:33 pmIf 'it' means what I just said here, then what you CLAIMED is ACTUALLY False, Wrong, AND Incorrect, as what came before 'that bang' IS ALREADY KNOWN, as I KEEP INFORMING you.

Sorry Age, I must have missed it. What came before 'that bang'?

The EXACT SAME 'thing' that came AFTER the 'that bang'. That is; the Universe in Its usual, or ALWAYS, SAME state - of CHANGING.

Thus, NEVER 'static', as you, SO Wrongly ASSUMED, AGAIN..

while it is entirely possible that waves make wrinkly rugs, doesn't sound depend on a listener to truly be sound?

falling trees, ect...

-Imp

Impenitent wrote: ↑Sat Jun 11, 2022 12:07 pmwhile it is entirely possible that waves make wrinkly rugs, doesn't sound depend on a listener to truly be sound?

It helps, but some listeners are catastrophically unsound.

Belief in the BB ("immaculate conception" in physics) needs very passionate believers…

Cerveny wrote: ↑Tue Jul 26, 2022 10:02 pmBelief in the BB ("immaculate conception" in physics) needs very passionate believers…

If you believe that the universe is expanding, which is by far the most compelling explanation of a whole heap of data, then you too can work out that it used to be smaller. That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory. By 'immaculate conception' I take it you mean some version according to which the big bang occurred in a vacuum. Perhaps there are some passionate believers of that, but it is only one option, and not the most plausible. I don't know why the big bang happened, I'm just confident that it did.

uwot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 27, 2022 6:53 am
That you can wind back the clock to a time when the universe was very small indeed, is the essence of the big bang theory.

Not very small, but nothing.

It is difficult to accept that something comes out of nowhere.

But the contradiction is only apparent.
Doesn't the electromagnetic field tell us that the universe is but a point?

Something arises out of nothing because it is itself nothing.