RELIGOUS SCIENTISM - "WHERE IS THE MATH"?

[Audie]

And if they say yes!

Well! You stumped me with that.

But not for long.

One more question would resolve it.

 

[Native]

Why would I try again? Yes, atoms and molecules carry or have energy. They are not made of energy.

Withpout energy they would even exist as atom and molecules.

 

[ratiocinator]

Withpout energy they would even exist as atom and molecules.

And......?

 

[Native]

The observation is that the expansion of the universe is accelerating with time.

I was specifically refering to the assumed exponenetial expansion velocity per distances - which is highly unscientific.

 

[Native]

And......?

And then you wouldn´t be sitting typing at all.

 

[ratiocinator]

I was specifically refering to the assumed exponenetial expansion velocity per distances - which is highly unscientific.

Where did you get this idea from? The standard Hubble law is constant expansion rate. The phenomenon we call 'Dark Energy' is the observation that the rate of expansion is increasing with time.

And then you wouldn´t be sitting typing at all.

You seem to have lost track of the conversation entirely.

 

[AppieB]

Hi Apple,

I don't remember saying that the BBT was an assumption,

I did say: "As I stated there is nothing but an assumption to support the BBT. (Support=Evidence)

Then I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify? Are the evidences that support the BBt assumptions?

If you disagree then present the evidence that provides for the energy that is required to for the Big Bang to happen ."

Since you disagree with my statement, please present any evidence you have to support the source of the energy that existed at T=0 to bang at 10^-34 and expand into the universe we live in.

Enjoy,

Does the BBT claim to know the source or that the energy needs a source?

 

[Native]

Where did you get this idea from? The standard Hubble law is constant expansion rate. The phenomenon we call 'Dark Energy' is the observation that the rate of expansion is increasing with time.

This is STILL scientific nonsense and a mental construct! The concept of time cannot logically increase another concept of expansion.

Native said: (About energies in atoms and molecules)
And then you wouldn´t be sitting typing at all.

You seem to have lost track of the conversation entirely.

No, you just don´t make the logical atom-energy connection to your own body and mind, which is why you can´t track the conversation.

 

[ratiocinator]

This is STILL scientific nonsense and a mental construct! The concept of time cannot logically increase another concept of expansion.

We are talking about actual measurements here. I really don't know what you expect to achieve by labelling them as 'concepts'. You also don't seem to be at all familiar with the current science.

No, you just don´t make the logical atom-energy connection to your own body and mind, which is why you can´t track the conversation.

You jumped into a conversation that was about whether energy was a substance ('stuff') or a property (it's a property). Nothing you've said seems to have had anything to do with it.

 

[Native]

(# 1) We are talking about actual measurements here. I really don't know what you expect to achieve by labelling them as 'concepts'. (# 2) You also don't seem to be at all familiar with the current science.

Ad # 1: No, we are talking of an assumption which contains an impossible exponential expansion by using two human made concepts which cosmos don´t obeys.
Ad # 2: I know of your type, trying to build up your personal identity by parrotting all kinds of impossible conventional thinking - knowing only of 4 % of the observable universe.
Don´t you come and speak of being unfamiliar with current science.

 

[Native]

You jumped into a conversation that was about whether energy was a substance ('stuff') or a property (it's a property). Nothing you've said seems to have had anything to do with it.

Are you perhaps one of the few humans who don´t need to take in atomic and molecular food to give your energy?

 

[ratiocinator]

Ad # 1: No, we are talking of an assumption which contains an impossible exponential expansion by using two human made concepts which cosmos don´t obeys.

You appear to be just making things up. If you prefer to live in a little fantasy world, and ignore the actual evidence, that's your problem.

Ad # 2: I know of your type, trying to build up your personal identity be parrotting all kinds of impossible conventional thinking - knowing only of 4 % of the observable universe.
Don´t you come and speak of being unfamiliar with current science.

You clearly aren't familiar, you've just demonstrated it again.

Are you perhaps one of the few humans who don´t need to take in atomic and molecular food to give your energy?

Try not to be silly. This is irrelevant to the actual point about what energy is.

 

[Native]

You appear to be just making things up. If you prefer to live in a little fantasy world, and ignore the actual evidence, that's your problem.

"A little fantasy world"!? You mean like the little pitty one consisting of only 4 % knowledge and 96 % dark things and energies?

Native said:
Are you perhaps one of the few humans who don´t need to take in atomic and molecular food to give your energy?

Try not to be silly. This is irrelevant to the actual point about what energy is.

OK, for you everything atomic and molecular is something energetic going on only outside yourself. Doing the logical universal connections is apparently not your strongest quality.

Well, maybe you´re just a mathematical animation or singualrity

 

[ratiocinator]

"A little fantasy world"!? You mean like the little pitty one consisting of only 4 % knowledge and 96 % dark things and energies?

I mean making **** up instead of using evidence.

OK, for you everything atomic and molecular is something energetic going on only outside yourself.

I really can't even imagine what misunderstanding you're clinging to here. You jumped in on a conversation about what energy is, not where it is or if we need it. What is it.

 

[Native]

or if we need it.

Just says it all.
Sorry for trying to broaden your conventional thinking . . .

 

[ratiocinator]

Just says it all.
Sorry for trying to broaden your conventional thinking . . .

What on Earth are you on about? You are making zero sense in the context. Energy is something that everything has and that we need to live. That is not in any doubt.

 

[Pogo]

Just says it all.
Sorry for trying to broaden your conventional thinking . . .

@ratiocinator's point was the conversation is not about whether we need energy, that is a given here.
His question is "what is energy"? You say you are here to broaden conventional thinking, that is actually on topic so
what is energy in your broadened thinking?

 

[Native]

What on Earth are you on about? You are making zero sense in the context. Energy is something that everything has and that we need to live. That is not in any doub

So why can´t you make the logical conclusion and connection that atoms and molecules contains energy and that the human body also is build by atoms and molecules?

 

[Native]

You say you are here to broaden conventional thinking, that is actually on topic so
what is energy in your broadened thinking?

On the atom and molecular level it is electromagnetic charged frequensies.

 

[Pogo]

On the atom and molecular level it is electromagnetic charged frequensies.

Frequencies are not things and thus cannot be charged by whatever you think electromagnetic is.

Unfortunately, it appears that you have no knowledge of physics but have been reading or watching a lot of woo-woo pseudoscience that has no basis in reality. It is not a broader understanding, but a symptom of a desire for specialness in a world that seems too complex coupled with an ignorance of what the words being used even mean. It sounds sciencey so it must mean something!