A World Without Men?

Anything to do with gender and the status of women and men.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:48 pm
Age wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:10 pm'Matter', and, 'distance' or 'space', around matter.
The idea that the universe is composed of matter and empty space is wrong.
Well, considering that I NEVER used the 'empty' word here, what has this got to do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, and WROTE?
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:48 pm We know this, because we routinely create matter out of 'empty space' by hitting it really hard, as happens in particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider.
So, one sentence you CLAIM the Universe is NOT composed of 'matter' and 'empty space' BUT next sentence you CLAIM that 'we' [whoever that refers to] KNOW this because when "we" "hit" 'it' [and exactly what the 'it' word is referring to here only you know] but either way you claim that "we", routinely, create matter out of 'empty space'.

Besides the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here, which needs to be RECTIFIED and CLARIFIED, FIRST, there is also quite a deal to unpack, LOOK AT and DISCUSS before 'we' can proceed and move on here. But first things first; Is there, or is there NOT, 'empty space', to 'you'?

If there is 'empty space' to you, then how do you explain the contradiction here?

If there is NO 'empty space', to begin with, then what, exactly, is just being, routinely, "hit really hard"? If it is matter just being "hit really hard" by other 'matter', then OF COURSE matter is apparently being created. But saying matter is being, routinely, created out of 'empty space' is VERY misleading. But, if what is being "hit really hard" is 'empty space', then you STILL have a LOT of explaining to do.

After you do that, if you do, then we can LOOK AT and DISCUSS how it would NOT matter how you explained things here we are still left with the OBVIOUS, actual, CONCLUSION anyway.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:48 pm As you are keen to remind us, it is possible that we human beings make all sorts of assumptions that misdirect out beliefs, but atom smashers do not make assumptions and they very clearly show that Einstein was right about E=mc2 and that you really can make matter from energy - kinetic energy in this instance, or movement in plain English.
Hold up a bit. You are, again, JUMPING way to far ahead here, as well as, again, making ASSUMPTIONS, based on NOTHING that I have ACTUALLY SAID, nor WRITTEN here so far.

I will, once again, suggest STOP ASSUMING that what you ALREADY BELIEVE is true, right, and correct, that is; if you REALLY do want to find out and discover what is ACTUALLY True, Right, and Correct. Otherwise, just continue on the way you are DOING, and SHOWING us, here.

When, and if, you answer and clarify ALL of my previous Truly OPEN questions posed to you, then we can move on to LOOKING AT and DISCUSSING how matter is just ALWAYS just a consequence from 'energy' ANYWAY. The reason WHY energy exists, and ALWAYS DOES EXIST, explains HOW matter ALWAYS EXISTS as well, which further explains, and UNIFIES, the apparent but NOT actual "incompatibility" and "inconsistency" between the quantum and classical level of 'things'.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:48 pm
Age wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:10 pmAnd, the way these two interact with each other, or behave together, has to have been happening forever and has to be extending out infinitely.
Suppose I grant you that the universe is composed of "'Matter', and, 'distance' or 'space', around matter", what about the way they interact proves eternity and infinity?
'Space', or 'distance', can only be limited by 'matter'. 'Matter', however, is limited, or defined by a boundary, of which there is 'space' around it. And again, this 'space', or 'distance', has to go on forever, until it is limited by 'matter'. And, either this "last" piece of 'matter' goes on forever, or is limited in size, of which there would, again, 'space' around it, which would go on forever, unless it is limited by a piece of 'matter', an 'object'.


The Universe is not composed only of 'matter' as there is, obviously, 'space' in between and around objects like planets and stars, 'space' within tables and chairs, themselves, 'space', within atoms, and space in between things like protons, neutrons, and even quarks themselves. There HAS TO BE space between these things, otherwise they would be just one thing and, literally, NOT things at all.

So, the Universe, Itself, at the most fundamental level, is just composed of 'matter', AND, a 'space', with the word 'space' just referring to the distance between and around 'matter'.

'Space' is, literally, at the defining edge of 'matter' and defines the size of 'matter', and, 'matter', itself, defines the 'distance' or the length of 'space'. Spatially, the Universe has to be infinite.

All 'matter' comes from at least two other prior things, coming together. Even your 'loosely' worded; "we routinely create matter out of 'empty space' by hitting it really hard" is further evidence and proof that at least two things prior, coming together, is needed for absolutely ANY thing to be created. So, for ANY to be created there has to be at least two prior things. Which means that if there is ever ANY thing, then there MUST HAVE BEEN two things prior ALWAYS.

The 'Universe', all 'matter' and 'space' as a whole, beginning from absolutely nothing is not even logically possible, let alone an actually possibility, let alone an actuality.

The Universe exists ALWAYS, or eternally, just from the very simple fact that for every reaction there was an action, and, for every action there is a reaction. As well as the very simple fact that for every effect there was a cause, and, for ever cause there is an effect, or just 'effect and cause' or 'cause and effect'.

Therefore, the Universe, Itself IS infinite and eternal. Of which, there is countless other PROOF, although what has been explained here is enough, to back up and support this FACT.
uwot wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 4:48 pm
Age wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:10 pmAnyway one looks at this, this HAS TO BE this way.
Except that when we actually do look, we discover that it isn't that way.
LOL But, and OBVIOUSLY, you have NOT YET LOOKED, for "yourself".

You are just going off and BELIEVING what "others" have TOLD 'you'.

Also, what will come to light, and so will be SEEN, is that because you are just repeating, what "others" have TOLD you is true, you will NOT be able to back up and support that hypothesis and guess that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING. Although, and which can be CLEARLY SEEN, you will continue on 'trying' and 'trying' to CLAIM that what you currently BELIEVE is true, is ACTUALLY true, right, AND correct.

By the way, when 'we' do LOOK, from thee Truly OPEN Mind, what 'we' not just 'discover' but actually do 'uncover' is thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things'. Which, in the days when this was being written, 'you', adult human beings, were still in the process of re-learning how to do, properly and correctly.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amWell, considering that I NEVER used the 'empty' word here, what has this got to do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, and WROTE?
In your own words:
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 am'Matter', however, is limited, or defined by a boundary, of which there is 'space' around it.
At our scale, that appears to be true; a laptop for example has a edge, beyond which there is no more laptop. That is not true of the sub-atomic particles it is made of. They are features in one or more quantum fields; loosely analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amSo, one sentence you CLAIM the Universe is NOT composed of 'matter' and 'empty space' BUT next sentence you CLAIM that 'we' [whoever that refers to] KNOW this because when "we" "hit" 'it' [and exactly what the 'it' word is referring to here only you know] but either way you claim that "we", routinely, create matter out of 'empty space'.
What appears to be empty space is the ocean of the analogy above. Matter being waves and whirlpools, we [human beings] have learnt to create waves and whirlpools, effectively by slapping the surface.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amBesides the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here, which needs to be RECTIFIED and CLARIFIED, FIRST, there is also quite a deal to unpack, LOOK AT and DISCUSS before 'we' can proceed and move on here. But first things first; Is there, or is there NOT, 'empty space', to 'you'?
The quotation marks are there for a reason. Hopefully the explanation above makes it clear that what appears to be empty space is filled with quantum fields.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amWell, considering that I NEVER used the 'empty' word here, what has this got to do with what I ACTUALLY SAID, and WROTE?
In your own words:
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 am'Matter', however, is limited, or defined by a boundary, of which there is 'space' around it.
And, what can be CLEARLY SEEN, in my own words, is that I NEVER used the 'empty' word.

Is this CLEAR to you?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am At our scale, that appears to be true; a laptop for example has a edge, beyond which there is no more laptop. That is not true of the sub-atomic particles it is made of.
Are you 100% absolutely SURE of this?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am They are features in one or more quantum fields; loosely analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.
Are quarks joined together as thought they are one, or are they separate?

If they are not separate, then WHY are they called quarks?

But, if they are separate, then 'what', EXACTLY are they separated by?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amSo, one sentence you CLAIM the Universe is NOT composed of 'matter' and 'empty space' BUT next sentence you CLAIM that 'we' [whoever that refers to] KNOW this because when "we" "hit" 'it' [and exactly what the 'it' word is referring to here only you know] but either way you claim that "we", routinely, create matter out of 'empty space'.
What appears to be empty space is the ocean of the analogy above.
And let us all NOT FORGET that ONLY you have brought into this discussion the 'empty' word.

I NEVER used the 'empty' word for a VERY SPECIFIC reason.

So, if what appears to you to be 'empty space', then REMEMBER that is to you, and NOT to me.
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am Matter being waves and whirlpools, we [human beings] have learnt to create waves and whirlpools, effectively by slapping the surface.
ONCE AGAIN, what has this got to do with what I have ACTUALLY SAID, and WRITTEN?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:02 amBesides the OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION here, which needs to be RECTIFIED and CLARIFIED, FIRST, there is also quite a deal to unpack, LOOK AT and DISCUSS before 'we' can proceed and move on here. But first things first; Is there, or is there NOT, 'empty space', to 'you'?
The quotation marks are there for a reason.
And 'what', EXACTLY, is that reason?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am Hopefully the explanation above makes it clear that what appears to be empty space is filled with quantum fields.
Hopefully, you will come to RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE that I NEVER used the 'empty' word in the first place, and PURPOSELY, and that it was ACTUALLY you who, completely unnecessarily brought the 'empty' word into this discussion.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 amAt our scale, that appears to be true; a laptop for example has a edge, beyond which there is no more laptop. That is not true of the sub-atomic particles it is made of.
Are you 100% absolutely SURE of this?
Yes.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am They are features in one or more quantum fields; loosely analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.
Are quarks joined together as thought they are one, or are they separate?
Quarks are components of protons and neutrons. It's a bit like asking whether the atoms you are made of are joined as though you are one, or if they are all separate.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 amIf they are not separate, then WHY are they called quarks?
But, if they are separate, then 'what', EXACTLY are they separated by?
Quarks and all other particles are irregularities in quantum fields. As above, they are analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 amHopefully, you will come to RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE that I NEVER used the 'empty' word in the first place, and PURPOSELY, and that it was ACTUALLY you who, completely unnecessarily brought the 'empty' word into this discussion.
I recognise and acknowledge that you never used the 'empty' word, and I'm very, very sorry. Can we then work out what your conception of space is? When asked what the universe is made of you say:
Age wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:10 pm'Matter', and, 'distance' or 'space', around matter.
What is that "'distance' or 'space'" made of?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 amAt our scale, that appears to be true; a laptop for example has a edge, beyond which there is no more laptop. That is not true of the sub-atomic particles it is made of.
Are you 100% absolutely SURE of this?
Yes.
So, to you, there are NO separate things that make up an atom, correct?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 4:48 am They are features in one or more quantum fields; loosely analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.
Are quarks joined together as thought they are one, or are they separate?
Quarks are components of protons and neutrons. It's a bit like asking whether the atoms you are made of are joined as though you are one, or if they are all separate.
AND, what is THE ANSWER?

THE ANSWER is, after all, OBVIOUS.
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 amIf they are not separate, then WHY are they called quarks?
But, if they are separate, then 'what', EXACTLY are they separated by?
Quarks and all other particles are irregularities in quantum fields.
Saying, "irregularities" is ONE EXAMPLE of just NOT answering Honestly.

As above, they are analogous to waves and whirlpools in the ocean.[/quote]

OBVIOUSLY, there is MORE THAN ONE. Therefore, there ARE MANY. WHICH MEANS they ARE SEPARATE.

AND, because they ARE SEPARATE what do you call the 'thing' that SEPARATES THEM?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 amHopefully, you will come to RECOGNIZE and ACKNOWLEDGE that I NEVER used the 'empty' word in the first place, and PURPOSELY, and that it was ACTUALLY you who, completely unnecessarily brought the 'empty' word into this discussion.
I recognise and acknowledge that you never used the 'empty' word, and I'm very, very sorry.
What are you 'sorry' for, EXACTLY?
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am Can we then work out what your conception of space is?
Yes.

BUT, if you had asked, 'What is your conception of space?' INSTEAD, then this would speed this process up tremendously.

If you had asked this question INSTEAD, then I would have informed you that my conception of 'space' is just distance. However, this conception was CLEARLY EXPRESSED previously, so I wonder WHY you STILL need to "work out what my conception of 'space' is"?

I CLEARLY SAID and WROTE, the Universe is made up 'matter', and, 'distance' or 'space'. Therefore, my conception of 'space' is 'distance'. That is; the distance around matter, for as far as that distance goes.
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 am When asked what the universe is made of you say:
Age wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 12:10 pm'Matter', and, 'distance' or 'space', around matter.
What is that "'distance' or 'space'" made of?
Not visible matter, OBVIOUSLY. As can be CLEARLY OBSERVED, SEEN, and EXPERIENCED.

ALL 'matter' is separated by a 'distance', or a 'space'.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:39 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 amQuarks and all other particles are irregularities in quantum fields.
Saying, "irregularities" is ONE EXAMPLE of just NOT answering Honestly.
Age, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty, you can go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush. The universe is made of quantum fields. One way to visualise them is like a duck pond; perfectly smooth until something causes an irregularity. Is disturbance more honest? Anything that disturbs the duck pond, a duck for instance, puts energy into it, which will create waves. If the duck happens to be in possession of a spoon, she might stir the pond and create eddies and whirlpools. If the right amount of energy is put into quantum fields, you create eddies and whirlpools that manifest as particles. If you have been paying attention, you will have heard of the Higgs Boson. That is just one example of matter being created by kicking a quantum field ever so, ever so hard in the bollocks.
Now, if you wish to continue this conversation, I suggest you learn some fucking respect.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:45 pm
Age wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:39 am
uwot wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:57 amQuarks and all other particles are irregularities in quantum fields.
Saying, "irregularities" is ONE EXAMPLE of just NOT answering Honestly.
Age, if you are going to accuse me of dishonesty, you can go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush. The universe is made of quantum fields. One way to visualise them is like a duck pond; perfectly smooth until something causes an irregularity. Is disturbance more honest? Anything that disturbs the duck pond, a duck for instance, puts energy into it, which will create waves. If the duck happens to be in possession of a spoon, she might stir the pond and create eddies and whirlpools. If the right amount of energy is put into quantum fields, you create eddies and whirlpools that manifest as particles. If you have been paying attention, you will have heard of the Higgs Boson. That is just one example of matter being created by kicking a quantum field ever so, ever so hard in the bollocks.
Now, if you wish to continue this conversation, I suggest you learn some fucking respect.
LOL Is telling another, "you can go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush", what you call, "fucking respect"?

LOOK, you have used these types of diversionary tactics, which you are showing above here, previously, when you also did NOT answer the clarifying questions posed to you, Honestly.

Now, however, are you CLAIMING that the Universe is made up SOLELY of "quantum fields", which ALL BEGAN, from ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and IS EXPANDING, correct? If this is correct, then good luck in PROVING that this is true, right, and correct?

Lest us now start with, What are 'quantum fields', EXACTLY, to you?

Your ASSUMPTION of how I used the 'Honestly' word is, ONCE AGAIN, completely AND utterly Wrong.

Your way of LOOKING AT and DESCRIBING 'this' is perfectly fine with me. But, WHY complicate what is MUCH MORE SIMPLISTIC and MUCH EASIER to COMPREHEND and UNDERSTAND?

What, EXACTLY, is a "higgs boson", to you?

What are you here 'trying to', suggest in regards to "matter being created by "kicking a quantum field" ever so, ever so hard in the bollocks"?

What is the 'thing' that does the "kicking"?

How long has this, so called, "quantum field" existed for? And, how long will it last for? Does it expand?

There are so many questions to answer and CLARIFY here. Are you CAPABLE of answering these clarifying questions Honestly?

Furthermore, what is 'regular' in regards to "quantum fields" or thee Universe, Itself, if the ACTUAL matter, itself, which makes up the whole entire visible Universe, is a, so called, "irregularity"?

By the way, you are sounding more and more like the priest when just asked, If God created everything, then what created God?

Has this "quantum field" been around for eternity?

If no, then HOW was it created, WHERE did it come from, and WHEN did it begin to exist?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:40 amLOL Is telling another, "you can go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush", what you call, "fucking respect"?
Yes Age. Out of respect, you have the option not to question my integrity for which I will extend the courtesy of not telling you to go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:40 amLOOK, you have used these types of diversionary tactics...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:15 am
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:40 amLOL Is telling another, "you can go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush", what you call, "fucking respect"?
Yes Age. Out of respect, you have the option not to question my integrity for which I will extend the courtesy of not telling you to go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
But I do NOT care one iota if you do, or not.
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:15 am
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 9:40 amLOOK, you have used these types of diversionary tactics...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
So, ONCE AGAIN, this one is STILL NOT YET CAPABLE of answering Honestly the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you, and ONCE AGAIN you have resorted to DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.

Now, no matter what you say or do you can NOT refute that the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.

Talking about "quantum fields" and/or "higgs bosons", or ANY thing else, and then NOT CLARIFYING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed to you has OBVIOUSLY only been leading you FURTHER AWAY from being able to back up and support YOUR BELIEF that the Universe BEGAN and IS EXPANDING.

If you want to make CLAIMS like; I have NOT even heard of "higgs boson" while implying that you have not just heard of them but LOL actually KNOW what a "higgs boson" IS, then tell us Honestly, What is a "higgs boson", to you?
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amSo, ONCE AGAIN, this one is STILL NOT YET CAPABLE of answering Honestly...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you...
I have given you the answers Age, I just can't give you the smarts to understand them.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...and ONCE AGAIN you have resorted to DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amNow, no matter what you say or do you can NOT refute that the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.
As I have already explained, Newton, Einstein and everybody who has heard of gravity understands that an eternal universe is unstable. The universe cannot be infinitely old.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amIf you want to make CLAIMS like; I have NOT even heard of "higgs boson" while implying that you have not just heard of them but LOL actually KNOW what a "higgs boson" IS, then tell us Honestly...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...What is a "higgs boson", to you?
Well Age, you have to understand that mass is resistance to acceleration. Since there is resistance, there is something that is causing it. That is the Higgs Field, which is loosely analogous to the aforementioned duck pond. It was reasoned that if this field was hit just right, it would create a specific pattern. That specific pattern was detected by the LHC in 2012.
Your turn now. What is a Higgs boson to you?
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amSo, ONCE AGAIN, this one is STILL NOT YET CAPABLE of answering Honestly...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...the CLARIFYING QUESTIONS posed to you...
I have given you the answers Age, I just can't give you the smarts to understand them.
You have given me responses to what you ASSUMED I was asking, but in most cases you have NOT given me answers to the ACTUAL questions I have been asking you. As is evidenced and proven above.
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...and ONCE AGAIN you have resorted to DIVERSIONARY TACTICS.
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amNow, no matter what you say or do you can NOT refute that the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.
As I have already explained, Newton, Einstein and everybody who has heard of gravity understands that an eternal universe is unstable. The universe cannot be infinitely old.
LOL So, how CLOSED you REALLY ARE is here for ALL to SEE.

Also, WHERE have you EVER written, in response to me, that thee eternal Universe is, so called, "unstable"?

And, you will need to explain WHY this could mean that thee eternal Universe is NOT eternal.
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amIf you want to make CLAIMS like; I have NOT even heard of "higgs boson" while implying that you have not just heard of them but LOL actually KNOW what a "higgs boson" IS, then tell us Honestly...
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 am...What is a "higgs boson", to you?
Well Age, you have to understand that mass is resistance to acceleration. Since there is resistance, there is something that is causing it. That is the Higgs Field, which is loosely analogous to the aforementioned duck pond. It was reasoned that if this field was hit just right, it would create a specific pattern. That specific pattern was detected by the LHC in 2012.
Is there any reason WHY you SOMEWHAT ATTEMPTED TO answer this clarifying question, but UET AGAIN NEVER DID, and NOT even attempt to answer the other clarifying questions?

Also, it is amazing, and very coincidental, just how often when things are 'predicted/theorized', especially by those with who are revered, and instruments are made to detect those 'predictions/theories' that the 'prediction/theory' is then, so called, "found".
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm Your turn now. What is a Higgs boson to you?
Well "uwot", you have to understand that the, so called, "higgs boson" has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether thee One and ONLY Universe is infinite and eternal or NOT.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amNow, no matter what you say or do you can NOT refute that the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm As I have already explained, Newton, Einstein and everybody who has heard of gravity understands that an eternal universe is unstable. The universe cannot be infinitely old.
LOL So, how CLOSED you REALLY ARE is here for ALL to SEE.
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 amAlso, WHERE have you EVER written, in response to me, that thee eternal Universe is, so called, "unstable"?
Right here:
uwot wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:13 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:12 pmLOL And WHY NOT?
Because of gravity. Newton understood this; he had to invoke god to explain why the universe doesn't collapse: "And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he (god) hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another." https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/ Einstein understood it; he had to invent the cosmological constant to explain it. You too could understand it, but for the assumptions you have wrongly assumed.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 amAnd, you will need to explain WHY this could mean that thee eternal Universe is NOT eternal.
As I said Age:
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pmI have given you the answers Age, I just can't give you the smarts to understand them.
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amAlso, it is amazing, and very coincidental, just how often when things are 'predicted/theorized', especially by those with who are revered, and instruments are made to detect those 'predictions/theories' that the 'prediction/theory' is then, so called, "found".
I believe it was the golfer Arnold Palmer who, when told by a spectator that he had been lucky to achieve a shot replied: 'Yes, and the funny thing is, the more I practise, the luckier I get.'
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 am
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pmYour turn now. What is a Higgs boson to you?
Well "uwot", you have to understand that the, so called, "higgs boson" has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether thee One and ONLY Universe is infinite and eternal or NOT.
And you have the balls to accuse me of being evasive.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 am
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amNow, no matter what you say or do you can NOT refute that the Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal.
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pm As I have already explained, Newton, Einstein and everybody who has heard of gravity understands that an eternal universe is unstable. The universe cannot be infinitely old.
LOL So, how CLOSED you REALLY ARE is here for ALL to SEE.
Go fuck yourself with a dirty toilet brush.
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 amAlso, WHERE have you EVER written, in response to me, that thee eternal Universe is, so called, "unstable"?
Right here:
uwot wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:13 pm
Age wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 2:12 pmLOL And WHY NOT?
Because of gravity. Newton understood this; he had to invoke god to explain why the universe doesn't collapse: "And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he (god) hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another." https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/ Einstein understood it; he had to invent the cosmological constant to explain it. You too could understand it, but for the assumptions you have wrongly assumed.
ANOTHER CLAIM of YOURS here.

List the ASSUMPTIONS I have made, which you CLAIM are WRONG. Let us SEE what you are ASSUMING.

Also, if I recall correctly you NEVER previously wrote, in response to me, that "the Universe is unstable". And, you have OBVIOUSLY NOT YET backed this up with ANY thing that supports YOUR CLAIM.

Gravity has ALREADY been WELL UNDERSTOOD in relation to the IRREFUTABLE FACT that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal.
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 am
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 amAnd, you will need to explain WHY this could mean that thee eternal Universe is NOT eternal.
As I said Age:
uwot wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 1:59 pmI have given you the answers Age, I just can't give you the smarts to understand them.
There are NO answers able to discredit this FACT.
That thee Universe is ACTUALLY infinite and eternal has ALREADY BEEN PROVED True AND Right, and so STANDS Correct.
Therefore, you could NOT have given "the answers" that explains WHY thee infinite and eternal Universe is NOT eternal.

All you have provided are your OWN assumptions and already held onto and well maintained BELIEFS. Of which you OBVIOUSY can NOT PROVE.

Just because you are NOT YET OPEN to this FACT, and are being BLINDED by your OWN ALREADY HELD ONTO MISGUIDED ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS, does NOT mean that you have given ACTUAL answers/explanations of WHY thee eternal Universe is NOT eternal.

In fact, the things you CLAIM can be VERY SIMPLY discredited and refuted, VERY EASILY. But you have ALREADY REVEALED and SHOWN just how CLOSED you REALLY ARE. So, this is WHY you can NOT see thee ACTUAL Truth of things here.
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 am
Age wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:48 amAlso, it is amazing, and very coincidental, just how often when things are 'predicted/theorized', especially by those with who are revered, and instruments are made to detect those 'predictions/theories' that the 'prediction/theory' is then, so called, "found".
I believe it was the golfer Arnold Palmer who, when told by a spectator that he had been lucky to achieve a shot replied: 'Yes, and the funny thing is, the more I practise, the luckier I get.
Well, so called, "scientists" are NOT having much luck AT ALL in predicting/theorizing about what thee Universe is MADE UP OF and how thee Universe ACTUALLY WORKS.

So, ONCE AGAIN, you have GONE OFF TANGENT, in the HOPE that what you say will somehow back up and support your ALREADY WELL MAINTAINED BELIEFS. But, ALSO, to NO luck AT ALL.
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 am '
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 6:44 amWell "uwot", you have to understand that the, so called, "higgs boson" has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether thee One and ONLY Universe is infinite and eternal or NOT.
And you have the balls to accuse me of being evasive.
'you', "uwot", are EXTREMELY EVASIVE.

As is ALREADY EVIDENCED and PROVED throughout our discussions.

Let us LOOK BACK on our discussion, in regard to the topic of whether thee Universe IS infinite and eternal, or BEGAN and IS EXPANDING.

I have EXPLAINED what thee Universe IS fundamentally MADE UP OF, and HOW It can ONLY BE infinite and eternal, and explained this in VERY SIMPLE detail where ANY one reading this could VERY EASILY understand. WHICH IS; the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you have done here.

Explain in detail what thee Universe is fundamentally made up of, without the CONDESCENDING REMARKS, if you can, and then explain in detail HOW, EXACTLY, thee Universe, Itself, could BEGIN, and EXPAND.

We look forward to YOUR DETAILED EXPLANATIONS.
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by uwot »

Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:35 amGravity has ALREADY been WELL UNDERSTOOD in relation to the IRREFUTABLE FACT that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal.
No Age, gravity is proof that the universe cannot be eternal. Once again:
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 amNewton understood this; he had to invoke god to explain why the universe doesn't collapse: "And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he (god) hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another." https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/ Einstein understood it; he had to invent the cosmological constant to explain it.
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: A World Without Men?

Post by Age »

uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:49 am
Age wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:35 amGravity has ALREADY been WELL UNDERSTOOD in relation to the IRREFUTABLE FACT that thee Universe IS infinite and eternal.
No Age, gravity is proof that the universe cannot be eternal.
LOL You have got to be joking here.
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 8:49 am Once again:
uwot wrote: Fri Aug 06, 2021 7:55 amNewton understood this; he had to invoke god to explain why the universe doesn't collapse: "And lest the systems of the fixed Stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he (god) hath placed those Systems at immense distances from one another."
https://isaac-newton.org/general-scholium/ Einstein understood it; he had to invent the cosmological constant to explain it.
It is like "einstein" is God, Itself, to you.

Again, you are joking here, right? Do you REALLY BELIEVE that just because a human being called "einstein" ASSUMED and said this, then this could be used as ACTUAL PROOF that thee Universe is NOT eternal?

Also, and by the way, if gravity was going to be used to 'try to' defeat some thing, then it would be used to 'try to' defeat an infinite Universe and NOT an eternal Universe.

Look, WHY the Universe does NOT contract because of gravity can be very easily explained and very easily understood, WITHOUT having to go into the ridiculous ASSUMPTIONS about God, nor an expanding Universe either.

Furthermore, let us NOT forget that 'you', human beings, also had to invent things up to continue with that age old BELIEF that 'in the beginning' the Universe was created. The issue here, however, is that NOT one of 'you' has ANY ACTUAL PROOF for this. AND, contrary to your BELIF "uwot", gravity is CERTAINLY NOT PROOF that the Universe cannot be eternal.

As I say, gravity, itself, WILL help in PROVING to 'you', human beings, just how thee Universe, Itself, is ACTUALLY infinite AND eternal.
Post Reply