Science and religion

[james blunt]

I don't believe you.

You don't have to believe me , look what I wrote and think about it yourself .

 

[youknowme]

You don't have to believe me , look what I wrote and think about it yourself .

I don't believe you.

 

[james blunt]

I don't believe you.

Your choice , want it a little bit more ''sciencey'' ?

In science jargon :

The self annihilating virtual particles of the zero point energy (ZPE) process , namely micro-bangs , spontaneously manifest before they self annihilate due to their mono pole status and additionally self annihilated due to their high energy point transition to lower energy state points as in the basic principles of thermodynamics ''hot'' to ''cold''.
This process proposed to be isotropic in nature and we can express A / k to represent a positive charged monopole divided / dispersed by space k . We can also express B / k to represent a negative charged monopole divided / dispersed by space k .

 

[youknowme]

Your choice , want it a little bit more ''sciencey'' ?

In science jargon :

The self annihilating virtual particles of the zero point energy (ZPE) process , namely micro-bangs , spontaneously manifest before they self annihilate due to their mono pole status and additionally self annihilated due to their high energy point transition to lower energy state points as in the basic principles of thermodynamics ''hot'' to ''cold''.
This process proposed to be isotropic in nature and we can express A / k to represent a positive charged monopole divided / dispersed by space k . We can also express B / k to represent a negative charged monopole divided / dispersed by space k .

Still don't believe you.

 

[Polymath257]

It's not difficult to understand that relativistic space-time is a property of absolute space and space is the property of a void .

I think it's an American thing and they don't use good English , space is not including contents , in English .

Visual Universe is including contents

Universe is visual universe and beyond .


Understand , space-time curves relative to absolute space which is unmovable .

Demonstration : The curve of the line is relative to the absolute ''background ''. Space-time is the overlay of space , see?

View attachment 26544

Not even close to what relativity says. Fail.

 

[Polymath257]

A / k

B / k

(A+B / t ) + A + B = constant increasing volume of A+B

I've put it that way for simplicity .

Or I can put it this way

(A+B / t ) + A + B = >4/3πr³/t

A=0.5

B=0.5

Nothing of any value here. It is pure gobbledigook.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm sorry but you don't understand !

On the contrary, I *do* understand. I understand general relativity and what it says. I understand how it applies to the data we have and how it interacts with the other known laws of physics.

What you have shown is that *you* don't understand basic physics (or math).

So why should we take your ideas seriously?

 

[james blunt]

Not even close to what relativity says. Fail.

What you actually mean in reality is that I am not even close to what Wikipedia says and what science says ?

I'm afraid to say , my physics is very real and physically factual using basic science principles that are also experimental real .

This is the diagram that goes with the science jargon post . It's a real physical true model , no gimmicks .
Reference: Dirac - particles popping into and out of existence . I got the reason why !

 

[Polymath257]

What you actually mean in reality is that I am not even close to what Wikipedia says and what science says ?

I'm afraid to say , my physics is very real and physically factual using basic science principles that are also experimental real .

This is the diagram that goes with the science jargon post . It's a real physical true model , no gimmicks .
Reference: Dirac - particles popping into and out of existence . I got the reason why !
View attachment 26546

You have presented no 'basic science principles'. In fact, none of what you have presented has any remote connection to actual science.

Your picture is meaningless unless you define your terms. What are A,B, and k? What are alpha vs beta waves? Why is A, for example, labeled as both one of the objects and something that can be divided by k (and giving zero---which means A=0)?

This is why I say what you give is gobbledigook.

 

[james blunt]

You have presented no 'basic science principles'. In fact, none of what you have presented has any remote connection to actual science.

No , what I am talking about is the real set of physics that made everything which does not use gimmicks and false theory .

The reason how and why a particle pops into and out of existence are as follows :

1) Because it's a monopole
2) Point to point transition , high energy state to lower energy state points
3) No binary force i.e massless


You are not discussing what I'm saying , you're doing what all science forums keep doing , quoting your memories ignoring what I am saying .

Let's start with a question and you can answer my question which when you do answer , if you answer, will give the same answer as I've already give .

Dirac had a notion about virtual particles popping into and out of existence as you are aware .


So let us now presume/pretend we have a single virtual particle that has just popped into existence .

We know already it is going to pop out of existence almost at an instance .

So what could possibly make this particle annihilate itself ?

Do you not think the obvious first choice , it has no binary bond ?

 

[james blunt]

You have presented no 'basic science principles'. In fact, none of what you have presented has any remote connection to actual science.

Your picture is meaningless unless you define your terms. What are A,B, and k? What are alpha vs beta waves? Why is A, for example, labeled as both one of the objects and something that can be divided by k (and giving zero---which means A=0)?

This is why I say what you give is gobbledigook.

You just don't understand it !

A in the diagram is representing an electrostatic positive charge just popped into existence , the Alpha waves are the annihilation of A . The energy is split up that much by space k , it is diminished to a zero value . The same with B but a Negative electrostatic charge .

A / k = 0 see?

 

[Polymath257]

No , what I am talking about is the real set of physics that made everything which does not use gimmicks and false theory .

The reason how and why a particle pops into and out of existence are as follows :

1) Because it's a monopole
2) Point to point transition , high energy state to lower energy state points
3) No binary force i.e massless


You are not discussing what I'm saying , you're doing what all science forums keep doing , quoting your memories ignoring what I am saying .

Let's start with a question and you can answer my question which when you do answer , if you answer, will give the same answer as I've already give .

Dirac had a notion about virtual particles popping into and out of existence as you are aware .


So let us now presume/pretend we have a single virtual particle that has just popped into existence .

We know already it is going to pop out of existence almost at an instance .

So what could possibly make this particle annihilate itself ?

Do you not think the obvious first choice , it has no binary bond ?

Again, you show you misunderstand the basics. Virtual particle appear as *pairs*--one matter, one anti-matter. They disappear when the pair annihilates each other.

 

[Polymath257]

You just don't understand it !

A in the diagram is representing an electrostatic positive charge just popped into existence , the Alpha waves are the annihilation of A . The energy is split up that much by space k , it is diminished to a zero value . The same with B but a Negative electrostatic charge .

A / k = 0 see?

Nope. More nonsense.

 

[james blunt]

Again, you show you misunderstand the basics. Virtual particle appear as *pairs*--one matter, one anti-matter. They disappear when the pair annihilates each other.

You are doing it again , why not just post wiki links if you are going to keep doing it .

No anti-matter needed , a monopole is self annihilating because

1) it is repulsive to itself

2) it has no binary pairing of an opposite pole

 

[Polymath257]

You are doing it again , why not just post wiki links if you are going to keep doing it .

No anti-matter needed , a monopole is self annihilating because

1) it is repulsive to itself

2) it has no binary pairing of an opposite pole

Except that the *actual evidence* and observation shows that we get particle-antiparticle pairs.

if your ideas conflict with that, then they are simply wrong.

In the case of monopoles, the antiparticle has the opposite polarity--as required by conservation laws if there is to be annihilation.

 

[james blunt]

Except that the *actual evidence* and observation shows that we get particle-antiparticle pairs.

if your ideas conflict with that, then they are simply wrong.

Oh I could cry what people believe . Science has computer simulations and data sheets , they don't actually observe any of this . They can't even observe atoms properly let alone the ''made up'' particles smaller than atoms .
Science seems to think that in a single point with 0 dimensions there exists all these different particles they try to fit in this point .
It is quite unbelievable because it is not real , they are seriously delusional and believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true . At least religion has good reason , there is a miracle and science certainly can't explain this . My notion is the closest we will ever come to the truth .

 

[Polymath257]

Oh I could cry what people believe . Science has computer simulations and data sheets , they don't actually observe any of this . They can't even observe atoms properly let alone the ''made up'' particles smaller than atoms .

Well, OK, you can believe what you want. The actual evidence doesn't support your beliefs, though. Neither, for that matter, does logic.

Science seems to think that in a single point with 0 dimensions there exists all these different particles they try to fit in this point .

Huh? Where does science think that?

It is quite unbelievable because it is not real , they are seriously delusional and believe all sorts of things that simply aren't true . At least religion has good reason , there is a miracle and science certainly can't explain this . My notion is the closest we will ever come to the truth .

Science has the evidence, the observations, the data, the theory, the testing, etc.

Sorry, that wins.

 

[james blunt]

Science has the evidence, the observations, the data, the theory, the testing, etc.

Sorry, that wins.

You would think !

The big bang model is flawed and so is cosmology in their thinking . If you wish to carry on thinking the incorrect model is true , that's your choice .


I have already provided enough counter evidence to prove things

I noticed you avoided comment on the post where I mentioned basic physics ,

For something to expand it has to have pre-existing space to expand into .

Do you deny this simple fact ?

That one fact shows the big bang model is wrong and cosmology is incorrect !

 

[Polymath257]

I noticed you avoided comment on the post where I mentioned basic physics ,

For something to expand it has to have pre-existing space to expand into .

Do you deny this simple fact ?

Yes, of course. Again, this shows your basic lack of understanding of what the 'expansion of the universe' actually means.

It is an expansion of space itself, not an expansion into new space.

Again, if you look at the math, that becomes clear.

 

[james blunt]

Yes, of course. Again, this shows your basic lack of understanding of what the 'expansion of the universe' actually means.

It is an expansion of space itself, not an expansion into new space.

Again, if you look at the math, that becomes clear.

I know very well what the flawed model says !

I am demonstrating why it is flawed and you're ignoring the facts .


Space itself is immovable , it has no physicality , this shows your lack of understanding !

A metric expansion is the expansion of measurement between two or more point sources , NOT an expansion of space .