ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 3rd November 2019, 11:08 PM   #441
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
[color="Navy"]Tananastazio is hilarious. His "explanations" keep contradicting his own claims.
No Matthew Ellard is the one who has contradicted himself on numerous occasions:

1) He believes in relativity but then he brinks the example of electrons accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light yet do not increase in mass.

2) He believes in waves of photons, but when I point out that that could not be the case, since photons are not chained (whip and garden-hose examples), he claims afterwards what I had claimed earlier. He says that I was the one who claimed that photons were chained, not him! Even though he spoke of light being a wave of photons, whereas I extensively explained, also through the double slit experiment, that not only photons are not chained, they don't even move beyond the first "jump," of the electron that generates them; not to the extend of engaging in a continues wave motion, anyway (let alone a 12 billion year wave motion). Instead I stated, they set a wave motion of energy, from particle to particle; a single appearance of which in the detectors of the double slit experiment (as in a still picture from a series stringing up a movie), gave rise to the idea of the so called "the wave-particle duality of light." So to clarify, the sun bursts a solar flare in space; and from that point on a wave motion of energy from particle to particle is set, the original photons travel only to a point.

3) He claims that photons travel in waves, but he cannot explain how and why they travel in waves; how they stay the course and don't continue sideways (Newton's first law of motion: An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force). How light keeps on "travelling" without a medium, since energy needs a source and a medium to be applied through and bring a result, such as to travel for 12 billion years; and again why does it have to go ziczac/peak-valley/side-to-side and not in a straight line; and as I mentioned above, why since it does not go straight, after it had been slingshot from the source, it does not deviate from the wave motion?

4) He claims that the Universe is not infinite and it is expanding, after it was a singularity which emerged from a non-dimensional nothingness, but not only he can't explained how the singularity came to be, he can't explain how the Universe expands into what is outside the Universe, namely a non-dimensional nothingness.

5) He claims that calculus is not used in statistics but when I provide a link which proves otherwise he says "That's right..." and then he goes on to prove that that's what he was saying in the first place.

Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
We can all observe this. We know that the rules of this site mean he cannot expunge his stuff.

Everyone knows this. Except him for reasons I cannot fathom.

I suspect that now that he has discovered that there is no revisions allowed he will likely bail.
First I am not contradicting myself, if you think I do, point out where. I'll clarify, as long as I don't have to go ten times over the same thing. The only reason that I don't write more often, is because my time is limited and valuable. But I'll drop by so people won't make the false assertions and assumptions such as that I have "bailed"; or that my theories have been proven wrong. For the record, to this day no part of my philosophy, nothing at all whatsoever has been proven wrong. If you disagree, give me an example.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 12:59 AM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 01:41 AM   #442
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
No Matthew Ellard is the one who has contradicted himself on numerous occasions:
No. You can't show one example. Link us to each of my supposed contradictions, so we can laugh at you some more.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
1) He believes in relativity but then he brinks the example of electrons accelerated to 99.9% of the speed of light yet do not increase in mass.
No. I linked you to the Large Hadron Collider where accelerated particles including electrons increase in mass under acceleration. You don't believe in relativity as it destroys your "God is infinities" religion where you claim photons are "bouncing particle balls".

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
2) He believes in waves of photons, but when I point out that it could not be the case since they are not chained,
No photons are not chained bouncing balls. There are mass-less electromagnetic wave forms. I then linked you to the experiments that prove that. You refused to look at the experiments.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
3) He claims that photons travel in waves, but he cannot explain how
No. I linked you to Maxwells equations five times, and the supporting experiments, that explain exactly how electromagnetic waves are generated and move. You deny electromagnetic waves exist and didn't know what a magnet was until yesterday.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
4) He claims that the Universe is not infinite and it is expanding
I gave you the evidence that the universe has a set number of atoms from the big bang and gave you the evidence of red shift that proves the universe is expanding. You deny the universe is expanding as your "God is infinities" religion denies light is a wave that can be red shifted.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
5) He claims that calculus is not used in statistics
It isn't. Statistics is imperial evidence. You pretended you used a formula and put words through the formula to prove there is a god. We all laughed at you as you can't do basic mathematics.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
First I am not contradicting myself, if you think I do, point out where.
You claim photons are little particle balls that knock other little balls and that's how we see light. That means all your little balls must travel at the speed of light, as you forgot humans have already measured light speed over distance. Therefore you deny relativity. I explained to you that electromagnetic waves always travel at the speed at light and have no mass. You ran away for three days in confusion.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio
The only reason that I don't write more often, is because .....
...you keep getting caught making up incoherent contradictory stories to prove god exists using your hilarious "God is infinities" religion "little bouncing balls" fantasy.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Electromagnetic field wave.jpg (50.9 KB, 0 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 01:52 AM   #443
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
You don't seem to have a basic 12 year old's education in science.

You can't explain the primary school experiment, why iron filings on paper, over a magnet actually shows electromagnetic fields. You deny magnets do this and claim it must be "bouncing balls".

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls) religion can't explain why two magnets have positive poles that repel, although that was known 200 years ago. You refuse to say how your "bouncing balls" repel and attract at different poles of a magnet.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls) religion can't explain why Polaroid glasses filter out electromagnetic waves at certain angles

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion can't explain why RADAR waves bounce back from objects at a distance.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion, with infinite particles and no gaps anywhere in the universe , can explain why black holes don't, expand and absorb the entire universe.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion,can't explain how light travels through vacuums between stars.

Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion,claims the universe is infinite in size and not expanding, yet we can see the early universe and know it is expanding because of red-shift.

In contrast, you can't show any experiment or any evidence for your hilarious "God is infinities" religion, where all photons are "bouncing balls" .
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Magnet 2.jpg (89.6 KB, 0 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 01:57 AM   #444
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
The electrons LOSE ENERGY (break apart to infinitesimally smaller particles which in turn interact with other infinitesimally smaller particles in the "vacuum." in a wave motion, the frequency,amplitude and "wave" length of which, we call X-rays. They do not increase to infinite mass. Now try this in space with a spaceship, see what happens to it.
All the particles accelerated to almost light speed in the Large Hadron Collider increase in mass exactly as predicted by relativity. You refused to read the CERN-LHC link I gave you that clarified that.

You are denying relativity is real, as light only travels at light speed and if, as you claim, photons are particles with mass, they can't exist at light speed.

You really don't have a clue about science, do you?

See the picture below....this is the crap you believe in.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Newton's cradle.jpg (28.8 KB, 0 views)

Last edited by Matthew Ellard; 4th November 2019 at 01:59 AM.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:54 AM   #445
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Whatever Matthew, the only way you can have photons slingshot from the source, and move vast distances of billions of years and still maintain a short of wave would be if other little particles rotate around them in an elliptical fashion like planets do around a star/sun, while the star/sun also moves. I've already mentioned that earlier. Still photons would need a nudge here and there say by gravitational forces,I mean of course you believing in an empty space, Newton's 1st law etc. would not think that's necessary.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 08:57 AM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 09:16 AM   #446
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
All the particles accelerated to almost light speed in the Large Hadron Collider increase in mass exactly as predicted by relativity. You refused to read the CERN-LHC link I gave you that clarified that.

Relativity predicts increase to an infinite mass; in this case to almost infinite mass. On the other hand the particle in the experiment LOSES energy in the form of X-ray, similar to what I claimed for an object traveling at such high speeds in a SEEMINGLY EMPTY SPACE (such as the vacuum in the experiment).

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You are denying relativity is real, as light only travels at light speed and if, as you claim, photons are particles with mass, they can't exist at light speed.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You really don't have a clue about science, do you?
And you who does, claims that nothing can reach the speed of light, yet forgetting/ignoring/not knowing that the Universe expands as fast, and perhaps even faster!

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
See the picture below....this is the crap you believe in.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
How about the crap you believe in ex. the bee - pollen "arrangement." Ha, ha, ha!

I'll get to the rest of your nonsense, in due time, once again.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 09:43 AM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 11:40 AM   #447
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Ji
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
No. You can't show one example. Link us to each of my supposed contradictions, so we can laugh at you some more.

No. I linked you to the Large Hadron Collider where accelerated particles including electrons increase in mass under acceleration. You don't believe in relativity as it destroys your "God is infinities" religion where you claim photons are "bouncing particle balls".

No photons are not chained bouncing balls. There are mass-less electromagnetic wave forms. I then linked you to the experiments that prove that. You refused to look at the experiments.

No. I linked you to Maxwells equations five times, and the supporting experiments, that explain exactly how electromagnetic waves are generated and move. You deny electromagnetic waves exist and didn't know what a magnet was until yesterday.

I gave you the evidence that the universe has a set number of atoms from the big bang and gave you the evidence of red shift that proves the universe is expanding. You deny the universe is expanding as your "God is infinities" religion denies light is a wave that can be red shifted.

It isn't. Statistics is imperial evidence. You pretended you used a formula and put words through the formula to prove there is a god. We all laughed at you as you can't do basic mathematics.

You claim photons are little particle balls that knock other little balls and that's how we see light. That means all your little balls must travel at the speed of light, as you forgot humans have already measured light speed over distance. Therefore you deny relativity. I explained to you that electromagnetic waves always travel at the speed at light and have no mass. You ran away for three days in confusion.

...you keep getting caught making up incoherent contradictory stories to prove god exists using your hilarious "God is infinities" religion "little bouncing balls" fantasy.
I've answered all that, you relying in repeating mantras, arguments which I have answered repeatedly, over and over. You have not "debunked" let alone "destroyed" anything. You live in a fantasy world! Fact is, had you not find my theory challenging (to say the least) you wouldn't even bother, the fact that you do FOR TEN YEARS NOW, is proof that my theory got under your skin, and deserves the time and effort it would take on your part, to attempt to debunk it! You will never succeed, even if you devote all your time and all your resources for the rest of your life, nor will anyone else, ever! I have already explained why, but you don't seem to get it, like a stubborn mule!

Go ahead, debate on! This is just my game! You realize I don't have to answer to you at all, whatsoever! What is written is written, your opinion does not matter to the world that much. People will take what I've written on face value. But I do find your stubbornness entertaining, and I don't mind the multiple challenge here. I'll answer if and when I feel like it, exactly because I don't really have to! I have better things to do with my time. But you play into my purpose. Just imagine if ten years ago, you had dismissed my theories as "rubbish" and had not devoted YOUR valuable time! We wouldn't have this conversation TEN YEARS LATER, now would we? You have insulted my intelligence repeatedly; well who is the chump and who is the champ now chap?

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 12:57 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 03:07 PM   #448
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,297
Yes, we have seen face value of your religion. It will be treated accordingly.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 03:24 PM   #449
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Your "God is infinities" (bouncing photon balls ) religion, with infinite particles and no gaps anywhere in the universe , can explain why black holes don't, expand and absorb the entire universe.
Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Exhibit B:

https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-s...nce-curiosity/

Exhibit C:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Straight out of my writing:

"...Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence..."


I've been saying this since the year 2001, and I've written it on the skeptic forum10 years ago, and Matthew Ellard can attest to that fact! In fact he has already. I've written it also in 2001 and later, it just never saw much of the light of day. Even back then in 2001, without any prior knowledge more than barely Junior-high physics, and without Google, I knew that one day I would be vindicated. Simply by putting my imagination and common sense to good use; when all these information was not available to me, I had Philosophy!

I could go through the whole Alphabet;

Here is a YouTube video since Matthew Ellard likes to use them so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Who has destroyed whose arguments? I'll keep them coming.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 04:33 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 04:30 PM   #450
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,301
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Exhibit B:

https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-s...nce-curiosity/

Exhibit C:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Straight out of my writing:

"...Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence..."


I've been saying this since the year 2001, and I've written it on the skeptic forum10 years ago, and Matthew Ellard can attest to that fact! In fact he has already. I've written it also in 2001 and later, it just never saw much of the light of day. Even back then in 2001, without any prior knowledge than junior high physics, and without google, I new one day I would be vindicated. Simply by putting my imagination and common sense to good use; Philosophy.

I could go through the whole Alphabet;

Here is a YouTube video since Matthew Ellard likes to use them so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Who has destroyed whose arguments? I'll keep them coming.
OK. Pop-sci is not science. I am sorry nobody has told you this.

Link A and link C are the same link.

Spamming crackpottery across multiple sites does not equal evidence.

I have seen your earlier writings. Let us just say time has not been kind.

Imagination and "common sense" do not constitute evidence of anything.

Youtube videos are evidence that a whole lot of ignorant idiots can post anything they fantasise. If you accept Youtube evidence then you are a de facto flat earther.

Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.

You have presented no factual arguments. Some fantasies, sure, but nothing factual.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 05:56 PM   #451
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Whatever Matthew, the only way you can have photons slingshot from the source
Electromagnetic waves (visible light, Gamma waves radar and so on) are not "slingshot" by your hilarious magical "bouncing balls" religious claim. They are emitted when an electron changes orbit.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Still photons would need a nudge here and there .
Photons only travel at the speed of light. They can't slowdown.

You didn't even know that?
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:04 PM   #452
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Relativity predicts increase to an infinite mass;
You just destroyed your entire "bouncing photon balls" claim.

We have measured light travelling to the moon and back. Electromagnetic waves (visible light) can only travel at the speed of light. They do this as they have no mass and are electromagnetic waves.

In your hilarious "bouncing photon balls" religious claim, you pretend that particles with mass, knock into other particles. The only way that would work is if each particle moved at the speed of light. But that would mean every particle bouncing into other particles, to bounce a photon back to earth, in your hilarious claim, would increase to infinite mass.

You really didn't think your stupid claim through did you?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Newton's cradle.jpg (28.8 KB, 1 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:19 PM   #453
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
OK. Pop-sci is not science. I am sorry nobody has told you this.

Link A and link C are the same link.

Spamming crackpottery across multiple sites does not equal evidence.

I have seen your earlier writings. Let us just say time has not been kind.

Imagination and "common sense" do not constitute evidence of anything.

Youtube videos are evidence that a whole lot of ignorant idiots can post anything they fantasise. If you accept Youtube evidence then you are a de facto flat earther.

Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.

You have presented no factual arguments. Some fantasies, sure, but nothing factual.
Sorry for the repeat link, thanks for pointing it out. Here are three more:

https://m.phys.org/news/2018-08-physicists.html

http://factmyth.com/factoids/the-uni...y-empty-space/

https://www.universityherald.com/art...mpty-space.htm
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:21 PM   #454
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I've answered all that,
No you didn't. Here are two more basic facts that destroy your "bouncing photon ball" religious claim.

Stable Planetary Orbit
You claim there is no gaps in outer space and that all space is filled with "bouncing particle balls". That would mean that planets orbiting Earth would encounter resistance against their orbit, slow down and sink towards the sun's gravity well and eventually fall into the sun. That hasn't happened has it?

Black holes
Your ridiculous religion claims, that space is made up of "bouncing particle balls". That means they are continuously next to, and falling into the Schwarzschild radius of black holes. That would make the black hole expand and gather more and more "bouncing particle balls" until the entire universe becomes one big black hole. That hasn't happened either, has it?


Your silly "God is infinity" religion makes absolutely no sense. That's why you can't write it down as a scientific hypothesis.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg orbit.jpg (22.9 KB, 75 views)
File Type: jpg black hole and particles.jpg (76.0 KB, 1 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:27 PM   #455
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
That had nothing to do with your claim and simply discussed quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. In fact all three of those links are simply about quantum fluctuation. Not one mentioned "bouncing balls in space"

You obviously didn't read any of the articles. You deny quantum fluctuation happens REMEMBER???
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:33 PM   #456
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Declaring victory unilaterally does not mean you actually won anything.
Tananastazio is simply a source of endless "stundie" fun. He refuses to answer direct questions about his ridiculous claims and then pretends he has explained everything.

He has linked to articles about quantum fluctuation, while simultaneously claiming quantum fluctuation does not exist because everything is caused by "bouncing ball particles".

That's because he doesn't know what any of these things are.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 06:54 PM   #457
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,301
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
A: None of those supports your crackpot ideas.

B: none of those is remotely relevant.

Had you something, anything to support your crackpot ideas? Nope.

Now as to the issue of Matthew Ellard. I don't know the man, but we have interacted on various fora and he is, to me a solid contributor. All of his contributions here have directly trashed your crank notions. But here is the thing. Everyone here would have done exactly the same even if Matthew never existed and never showed up here. To me you seem strangely enamoured with an ongoing feud with Ellard. And quite happy with ignoring everyone else pointing out your abject nonsense notions.

Personally, I am happy and content to have Ellard right here illustrating the crap nonsense that you are once again attempting to foist upon all and sundry. But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves. Do not kid yourself that there exists some anonymous army of supporters. We are are simply enjoying the schadenfreude of your abject failure of rational argument. And watching Matthew comprehensively dismantle it.

Could I do it? Sure, no problem. But I would likely be far more gentle and an argument that daft does not deserve any kind of "gentle".

Oh and a word to the wise. Abusive posts only last up to the point that they start to get reported. For now, it is mildly amusing up to the point when it stops. Try to not cross that line please.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 07:04 PM   #458
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
..But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves.
More likely, no one else bothers to argue with tasanastazio's claims because they see the immediate holes, which were debunked almost two hundred years ago when "aether theories" were destroyed through experimentation.

I simply argue with him to see how funny his excuses are.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 07:06 PM   #459
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
People will take what I've written on face value.
People take Bonzo the clown at face value too.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 07:09 PM   #460
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
A: None of those supports your crackpot ideas.

B: none of those is remotely relevant.

Had you something, anything to support your crackpot ideas? Nope.

Now as to the issue of Matthew Ellard. I don't know the man, but we have interacted on various fora and he is, to me a solid contributor. All of his contributions here have directly trashed your crank notions. But here is the thing. Everyone here would have done exactly the same even if Matthew never existed and never showed up here. To me you seem strangely enamoured with an ongoing feud with Ellard. And quite happy with ignoring everyone else pointing out your abject nonsense notions.

Personally, I am happy and content to have Ellard right here illustrating the crap nonsense that you are once again attempting to foist upon all and sundry. But make no mistake, if Ellard vanished right this instant from the planet, I and others would be most happy to point out the nonsense ourselves. Do not kid yourself that there exists some anonymous army of supporters. We are are simply enjoying the schadenfreude of your abject failure of rational argument. And watching Matthew comprehensively dismantle it.

Could I do it? Sure, no problem. But I would likely be far more gentle and an argument that daft does not deserve any kind of "gentle".

Oh and a word to the wise. Abusive posts only last up to the point that they start to get reported. For now, it is mildly amusing up to the point when it stops. Try to not cross that line please.
All the above is your opinion friend; as of me being "abusive" that is quite the rhetorical curve ball, but very cliche. I find it quite funny and silly that you would go there. Everyone has an opinion and there own viewpoint. When Matthew gives up, be my guest to prove yours. I don't ignore anybody, when I respond to one, I respond to all. I don't have all the time in the world. Besides Matthew makes the most extraordinary in ridiculousness of connection against my arguments here, true be told, it is challenging to ignore him. He just made a couple, but I really gotta catch some zzz's throughout the coming work days. Going in circles with you all at once, takes a bit of energyand lots of valuable time; and pointing out the bullflakes over and over within the same old arguments retold and rephrased, is beginning to pale.

I have already discussed that blackholes are like valves/wormholes funneling space in from one side out the other, he keeps on bringing up that one single black hole will devour the hole Universe and expand to infinite size, even though, according to Matthew the Universe is finite (6th contradiction). But even if the black hole was what Matthew believes it is, it would have to outdo the gravitational pull of all the other blackholes to devour the Universe (with the blackcholes). Instead of the blackhole of Matthew's belief, growing to infinity, it would stop devouring the ever filling from other wormholes Universe, which is not expanding inside a non-dimentional nothingness (ha, ha,ha) as Matthew Ellard believes, and would start devouring itself to a singularity, which will eventually cause another Big Bang, and for the time being will be overcome by the continuously filling up of particles , which comprise matter and energy in space; or simply close (in the case of the wormhole/valve; collapse one side break apart on the other).

Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
That had nothing to do with your claim and simply discussed quantum fluctuation in a vacuum. In fact all three of those links are simply about quantum fluctuation. Not one mentioned "bouncing balls in space"

You obviously didn't read any of the articles. You deny quantum fluctuation happens REMEMBER???
From the original:

"For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be broken apart; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself."


I never said a anything about "bouncing balls" I spoke about particles within particles, and infinite matter that de-forms to infinite energy and infinite energy forming to infinite matter, by forming particles which form everything else.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 09:09 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:28 PM   #461
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
From the original:"For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself."


So we can discard your little "bouncing particle ball" theory. We all already knew that. It's called Planck's constant.

Last edited by Matthew Ellard; 4th November 2019 at 08:44 PM.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:34 PM   #462
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Tananastazio / Hilarious Black Holes Excuse.
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I have already discussed that blackholes are like valves/wormholes funneling space in from one side out the other


Firstly, Black holes do not funnel small bouncing particle balls to other places. Black holes destroy all information. That's why you can't support this hilarious claim, with evidence or mathematics.

Secondly, we have already observed Black Holes expanding as they absorb particles.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:42 PM   #463
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
...according to Matthew the Universe is finite
It is finite. We know the entire mass of the universe from the Cosmic Background Radiation level and observation of its size. That's how we know the Big Bang is 13.77 billion years ago and contains 1078 to 1082 atoms.

You didn't know any of this did you? You don't even know what Cosmic Background Radiation was until a second ago, right?


"The cosmic microwave background (CMB, CMBR), in Big Bang cosmology, is electromagnetic radiation as a remnant from an early stage of the universe, also known as "relic radiation". The CMB is faint cosmic background radiation filling all space."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic...ave_background
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:51 PM   #464
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post


So we can discard your little "bouncing particle ball" theory. We all already knew that. It's called Planck's constant.
I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word "discarded" to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes

Last edited by tazanastazio; 4th November 2019 at 08:56 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:54 PM   #465
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio two weeks ago
..light doesn't actually travel. Could it be that the electron jumps which generate photons, cause a ripple effect from particle to particle, a wave the end of which affects our brains in a way we understand as " light?"
Originally Posted by tazanastazio today
I never said a anything about "bouncing balls" I spoke about particles within particles, and infinite matter that de-forms to infinite energy and infinite energy forming to infinite matter, by forming particles which form everything else.
So you are trying to contradict your own claim....again.

Draw us a picture, using Microsoft paint, of these bouncing particles creating a ripple effect in a straight line like a laser.

That should give everyone a good laugh.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 08:57 PM   #466
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word used to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes
You are funny....are you now claiming an proton breaks in half to become a half proton? What charge does it have?

You also have contradicted your own quote, which is hilarious
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
From the original:""For an object to actually become infinitely small, every particle, to the infinite minute ones as far as we humans can imagine, has to be discarded; the object becomes part of the infinite energy, dissolves into the Infinite Itself.""

Last edited by Matthew Ellard; 4th November 2019 at 09:07 PM.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th November 2019, 10:45 PM   #467
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
If the photon has no mass, then the only reason it would be affected by the gravitational forces of a black hole, is because the space (the infinitesimally minute particles that comprise the fabric of space) and the "massless" photons are pulled along simply because their movement is dependent upon the particles that comprise what you deam as void .


Err no. Gravity is caused by curved space and light does get sucked into Black holes. (That's why they are called black holes) There are no magic particles, as you claim, on the edge of a black hole as they would also be sucked in.

You really need to buy a children's book on basic physics.
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 01:36 AM   #468
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Tell us why your "magic particles" are not sucked into the black hole, and then explain to us why you pretend there is no void when they are sucked in.

And don't use wormholes from Star Trek to try distract from the question again.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg black hole and particles.jpg (76.0 KB, 1 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th November 2019, 04:58 PM   #469
Matthew Ellard
Suspended
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,425
Tanastanzio? Answer these simple questions about your "God is infinities" claim. ( I already have your quotes)

1) Do you claim Photons are particles (have mass) YES or NO?

2) Do you agree with special relativity that a particle's mass increases, as it approaches the speed of light, as evidenced by the Large Hadron Collider? YES or NO?

3) Do you claim particles are everywhere and pass photons (with mass) to the next particle? YES or NO?

"God of Infinities" Claim is falsified
According to tananastazio's ridiculous claim each photon particle (with mass) would have to travel, in relay, as individual particles, at the speed of light. As he claims photons have mass, special relativity would cause each photon particle to have infinite mass. Yes we do not see this.


In normal science, electromagnetic waves ( visible light) have no mass and can only travel at the speed of light.

Therefore we have proved that Tananastazio's claim is 100% crap and dismiss it.


(Click on image to make larger)
Attached Images
File Type: jpg photon particles claim.jpg (61.9 KB, 3 views)
Matthew Ellard is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:48 AM   #470
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post

You will never succeed, even if you devote all your time and all your resources for the rest of your life, nor will anyone else, ever![/b][/color] I have already explained why, but you don't seem to get it, like a stubborn mule!
Being immune to reason, or even the possibility that you might be wrong, is nothing to brag about.

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Go ahead, debate on! This is just my game! You realize I don't have to answer to you at all, whatsoever!
Well, for a start, this is an internet forum with several hundred active members. It is not 'your game', and, if you didn't want to answer, why join in the first place?
This endless feud you are engaged in is, frankly, tedious. Why not simply address the arguments?

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
You have insulted my intelligence repeatedly; well who is the chump and who is the champ now chap?[/b][/color]
Juvenile name-calling. Not impressive.
As long as you keep framing this debate as a personal attack on your ego, you will never rise above that juvenile level. You are not winning this argument, and you are not making any friends here.
Try leaving your ego at the door and addressing the actual arguments. Oh, and there are more people here than your nemesis Ellard. How about engaging with them for a change? Must surely be better than going round and round in the small, defensive, angry circle you are in now.
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th November 2019, 01:52 AM   #471
Cosmic Yak
Illuminator
 
Cosmic Yak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Where there's never a road broader than the back of your hand.
Posts: 3,068
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post

What is written is written, your opinion does not matter to the world that much. People will take what I've written on face value.
Or not, as it turns out:

Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
I'm glad you pointed it out, I meant to change the word "discarded" to "broken apart" to avoid confusion, but I forgot. You see you are useful sometimes
Remind me, tazanastazio, pride comes before a what.....?
__________________
Fortuna Faveat Fatuis
Cosmic Yak is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 02:04 PM   #472
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Tanastanzio? Answer these simple questions about your "God is infinities" claim. ( I already have your quotes)

1) Do you claim Photons are particles (have mass) YES or NO?

2) Do you agree with special relativity that a particle's mass increases, as it approaches the speed of light, as evidenced by the Large Hadron Collider? YES or NO?

3) Do you claim particles are everywhere and pass photons (with mass) to the next particle? YES or NO?

"God of Infinities" Claim is falsified
According to tananastazio's ridiculous claim each photon particle (with mass) would have to travel, in relay, as individual particles, at the speed of light. As he claims photons have mass, special relativity would cause each photon particle to have infinite mass. Yes we do not see this.


In normal science, electromagnetic waves ( visible light) have no mass and can only travel at the speed of light.

Therefore we have proved that Tananastazio's claim is 100% crap and dismiss it.


(Click on image to make larger)
1) Energy at the infinitesimal level has infinitismal mass. When energy is turning to matter, it is increasing in mass. Photons are comprised by energy, as such they have what scientists call "relativistic" mass, after all their effect, light, is visible; and light can theoritcally be used to produce movement on solar sails (I know about the massless transfer of momentum to the sails, don't bother, I don't buy it. Unless they are referring to infinitesimal small mass, which still when put together becomes enough mass required, to transfer said momentum).

2) Movement may cause the increase of mass (after all space is not empty/absolute void/utter nothingness) and may lose mass as energy (ex. x-rays - temperature) or matter (debris) due to friction. I don't think therefore that mass would increase to infinite if it is accelerated to light-speed, I am more inclined towards total obliteration of said mass to energy (radiation, thermal).

I believe, like I said repeatedly before, that the effect on matter due to gravity or the conditions said matter finds itself, is relative; but time is only a rate of such change, or rate of movement and it does not actually exist.

3) In my view, as the particular chemical reaction which produces photons/energy particles occurs; they in turn, as added energy to particles surrounding the area of said chemical reaction, cause in those particles further chemical reaction which further cause the generation of photons/particles of energy; also this process generates a movement in the form of a wave and a momentum which pushes/moves photons further and further; and seemingly instantaneously (an instant can further be infinitely divided as far as we can calculate) is accelerating the light wave, to light speed. Energy needs a medium to produce any form of work whether directly or indirectly.

You have proved nothing of the sort! Claim 100% validated, and therefore indismissible.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 9th November 2019 at 03:55 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 02:24 PM   #473
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
You are funny....are you now claiming an proton breaks in half to become a half proton? What charge does it have?

You also have contradicted your own quote, which is hilarious
No, it does not break in half but ot the particles of matter and energy that comprises it.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 02:38 PM   #474
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post
Tell us why your "magic particles" are not sucked into the black hole, and then explain to us why you pretend there is no void when they are sucked in.

And don't use wormholes from Star Trek to try distract from the question again.
Originally Posted by Matthew Ellard View Post


Err no. Gravity is caused by curved space and light does get sucked into Black holes. (That's why they are called black holes) There are no magic particles, as you claim, on the edge of a black hole as they would also be sucked in.

You really need to buy a children's book on basic physics.
Gravity is caused by the infitesmally mimute particles that comprise space, and the astronomically large objects in it, that is exactly why a black hole cannot swallow the whole universe in it, also because there are other black holes pulling particles towards them; but particles themselves along with the aforementioned astronomically large objects have their own gravity. EMPTY SPACE CANNOT GENERATE GRAVITY!

Additionally, black holes or Whirlpools/wormholes/universal valves, cause more particles to enter an area in space, while others provide an exit for it which produces MOVEMENT in space (universal currents); and sustains energy (electromagnetism, gravity, radio, and thermo - a codependent existence) and life through which intelligence is generated; from the incalculably small to the incalculably large.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 9th November 2019 at 03:18 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 03:40 PM   #475
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,232
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Whatever Matthew, the only way you can have photons slingshot from the source, and move vast distances of billions of years and still maintain a short of wave would be if other little particles rotate around them in an elliptical fashion like planets do around a star/sun, while the star/sun also moves. I've already mentioned that earlier. Still photons would need a nudge here and there say by gravitational forces,I mean of course you believing in an empty space, Newton's 1st law etc. would not think that's necessary.
Why does it need a nudge? If an object is radiating, say light and the property of light is to travel at the speed of well light, why is the radiating not enough? Why is the radiating not the "nudge"?
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.

Last edited by Craig4; 9th November 2019 at 03:47 PM.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 03:47 PM   #476
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,232
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
Scientific proof:

Exhibit A:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Exhibit B:

https://curiosity.com/topics/empty-s...nce-curiosity/

Exhibit C:

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug...-of-everything

Straight out of my writing:

"...Empty space is not really empty because nothing contains something, seething with energy and particles that flit into and out of existence..."


I've been saying this since the year 2001, and I've written it on the skeptic forum10 years ago, and Matthew Ellard can attest to that fact! In fact he has already. I've written it also in 2001 and later, it just never saw much of the light of day. Even back then in 2001, without any prior knowledge more than barely Junior-high physics, and without Google, I knew that one day I would be vindicated. Simply by putting my imagination and common sense to good use; when all these information was not available to me, I had Philosophy!

I could go through the whole Alphabet;

Here is a YouTube video since Matthew Ellard likes to use them so much:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY

Who has destroyed whose arguments? I'll keep them coming.
Uh...can we got back to "Why do laser range finders work?" You seem to have blown past that one. Since we're on the topic, you also hand-waved away the problem with your three multiple choice questions where you reasoned that, "I don't know," isn't the answer.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 04:44 PM   #477
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Why does it need a nudge? If an object is radiating, say light and the property of light is to travel at the speed of well light, why is the radiating not enough? Why is the radiating not the "nudge"?
Because space is not empty. Among all the reasons mentioned earlier which show that space is not empty, if space was empty the wave would not be sustained and light would travel in a straight line as soon as it was generated from a source. That is followed from Newton's 1st Law. Light would need a "nudge" to be kept in a wavy motion, and for its speed to be maintained after it had to go through, a non-empty space. Which in fact I think it does not, but rather light from a source, generates light on particles surrounding said source, and so whatever energy is lost is regained by the regenerated energy of the next particle in the wave, this is the "nudge."

Light is both a particle and wave as proved by Einstein's radio - metal experiment, and contrary to popular belief, unless the extra acquired energy made the electrons in the experiment to manage to dislodge themselves by acquiring extra energy and enabling them to break the bond (elecrtons push away from electrons), then for light to dislodge matter it has to have also a particle nature (not Infinitely massless - energy turns to matter, and accumulated energy becomes an incalculably small amount of mass). So if light has "relativistic" mass to transfer momentum to solar sails, and if space is not empty (which is not), a "nudge" is needed for light to maintain light speed for billions of years, as it travels through space and to keep moving as a wave.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 9th November 2019 at 05:21 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 05:00 PM   #478
tazanastazio
Thinker
 
tazanastazio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 240
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
Uh...can we got back to "Why do laser range finders work?" You seem to have blown past that one. Since we're on the topic, you also hand-waved away the problem with your three multiple choice questions where you reasoned that, "I don't know," isn't the answer.
No I didn't, I answered both as follows:

Photons/light/radio-energy interacting with particles of matter in the vicinity of the laser meter or the radar, generate back in the direction of the laser meter radar, a wave of photons/light/radio-energy which is read by the laser meter/radar. Similarly, with colored surfaces the radio-energy sent back is the corresponding to the frequency/amplitude/wavelength of the original radio-energy minus the type absorbed by the particles of the colored surfaces. With telescopes and polarized surfaces the course of said radio-energy is redirected by the appropriate lenses (of certain molecules in the case of pollaroid surfaces which block sunlight coming perpendicularly to the lenses).

With prisms and raindrops generating a rainbow; the energy of the photon/light wave as it goes through the molecules of the surfaces just mentioned, is dispersed to the corresponding frequencies/amplitude/wavelengths because the prism and the raindrops bent light according to speed of particular frequency color. Red moving the fastest is passing through from particle to particle the fastest, and purple the slowest. Perhaps as the light of particular energy level is passing through particles, it causes the further generation of the same light energy package/photon like particle; depending upon the energy level absorbed and caused a smaller particle within a particle (in case of atoms, the electrons) to make the particular energy level jump corresponding to energy level absorbed.

"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer because certain things we do know contradict it.

Last edited by tazanastazio; 9th November 2019 at 06:50 PM.
tazanastazio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 06:19 PM   #479
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,232
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
No I didn't, I answered both as follows:



"I don't know" is not an acceptable answer because certain things we do know contradict it.
This is not correct. You told us things you thought and presented them as if we knew them but that's not the same.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th November 2019, 06:21 PM   #480
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 19,232
Originally Posted by tazanastazio View Post
No I didn't, I answered both as follows:

Photons/light/radio-energy interacting with particles of matter in the vicinity of the laser meter or the radar, generate back in the direction of the laser meter radar, a wave of photons/light/radio-energy which is read by the laser meter/radar. Similarly, with colored surfaces the radio-energy sent back is the corresponding to the frequency/amplitude/wavelength of the original radio-energy minus the type absorbed by the particles of the colored surfaces. With telescopes and polarized surfaces the course of said radio-energy is redirected by the appropriate lenses (of certain molecules in the case of pollaroid surfaces).
If that were true, the speed of light would not be constant. If the color mattered, you'd have different results for reflections off different surfaces.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:41 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.