So you're going to dismiss a theory that's no less valid than the unproven ones you accept as empirical unwavering truth? How emotionally mature, and scholarly of you. I predict you write another raging three-thousand word literary epic in response, declaring how angry you AREN'T about the bold theory I've presented. You can pretend to posture and attempt to speak Down to me, but you only reveal yourself to be utterly intrigued by my genius as you do this.
What????...so, now you're the next Copernicus or Einstein?....You were wrong from, "atoms are solid". You can't even get out of the batter's box.
how many times are you going to move the goal posts?...your claim was, "atoms are solid". You're wrong. PS. almost forgot.....PROOF?
If you were to present any theory that had a LINE OF LOGIC to it that anyone could follow even if it went against conventional thinking or existing knowledge or theories I would be more than happy to discuss it. But unfortunately you have not posted one single concept or idea that has any Line of Logic to it. You keep insisting that all Particles either Atomic or Quantum are SOLID....but yet you fail to realize that all Hadrons are COMPLETELY COMPRISED OF QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS such as Quarks, Gluons, Leptons, Higgs-Bosons, Mesons...etc....and that the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that comprise these Hadrons exist as both Particle and Wave. And the Quantum Particle/Wave Forms that exist in an Energy Field....the Electron Orbital Fields that surround all Atomic Nucleus and which are a part of all Matter.....also exist as Particle and Wave....and have have more than one Function and which have an INDETERMINATE EXISTENCE AND POSITION. You are completely confusing a STATE CHANGE....such as how Liquid Water will change into a Crystalline Solid due to Temperature....with the reality of what exactly is the state of a wide variety of both Atomic Particles and Quantum Particle/Wave Forms. Light which is PHOTONS....a Quantum Particle/Wave Form that has NO MASS and exists in an Indeterminate Physical State as Light or Photons existing at a specific FREQUENCY cannot in ANY WAY be defined as being SOLID....and the same can be said for any Quantum Particle/Wave Form. In fact...you would agree that a lump of pure Carbon existing as a Diamond....is a SOLID STATE of Carbon correct? Now what if I told you when you touched that Diamond your hand and fingers NEVER...EVER ACTUALLY COME INTO CONTACT WITH ANY PARTICLES MAKING UP THAT DIAMOND NOR DO ANY PARTICLES MAKING UP THE DIAMOND TOUCH ANY PARTICLES MAKING UP YOUR HAND!!??? In fact even as I am typing this the particles of both mass and energy making up both my fingers and the keyboard keys NEVER COME INTO CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER!!!! The reason? Well....I know the reason for this and I am sure quite a few other people here know the reason and I will post the reason for all and any who wish me to but I will ask YOU first to do so. Because the answer to this question is not THEORETICAL.....nor is it UNKNOWN.....it is a well known and PROVEN FACT that has been proven and even YOU CAN DO AN EXPERIMENT TO EASILY PROVE THE ANSWER.....but since you keep on telling us that your a GENIUS and that we should all BASK IN YOUR BRILLIANCE.....I will let you....SMART BOY.....the HONOR of telling all of us the answer to this very easy question. I will check to make certain you are on line and from that time I will give you 30 minutes to answer. If you cannot answer this very easy question which most of us learned in 3rd or 4th grade.....well then.....I guess the entire MEMBERSHIP will be able to see you for what you truly are. REMEMBER....you can't hide behind answering in a manner such as...."Oh.....it is because all of you don't know the latest most modern reasoning behind this question!" THAT ANSWER FROM YOU WILL NOT FLY!!!! Because the answer to this question can be easily PHYSICALLY PROVEN and even you can prove it using a few simple objects and about 5 seconds of time.....SO.....TELL US OH GREAT ONE!!! What is the answer to this 3rd Grade QUESTION!!!!!?????? AboveAlpha
I have yet to find you on the forum Val-Boy....so I will keep on checking to find you active on the forum. When I do find you I will send you a PM...to alert you to this question I have asked you to answer. But it seems curious quite some time has passed and still...no reply or answer from you...a person who has been very active and vocal....until now. Still waiting..... AboveAlpha
Dear BelowAlpha, Let's get back to basics. Admit that the very foundations of your entire outdated and obsolete arguments are THEORIES, themselves. Be wise, and do this for yourself. Most popular scientific models are NOT empirical, and many "scientists" have built entire careers snowballing new Non-Empiricals on top of old Non-Empiricals, and would never have the guts to admit that their lives have been wasted on lies. They perpetuate these myths for money, and for the hopes of having their name in the textbooks throughout history. And sadly, you've bought into it. This is not scholarly. This is not the way a True lover of Knowledge would behave themselves. Open your narrow mind.
OK....so now that I have read your rant....can you answer the question on post #55...or not? AboveAlpha
The answer to your 3rd grade riddle is the Arrow Paradox. A Paradox is not an Empirical permanence. Next?
My GOD!!! You really have no idea what the answer to this question is do you? This is Zeno's Arrow Paradox for any here who might be interested. The Arrow Paradox Zeno’s arrow paradox appears to show that motion is impossible. It works by taking a snapshot of an arrow at a point (either in space or in time) in its flight. At that point, and at every other, the arrow is motionless. If there is no point, spatially or temporally, at which the arrow is moving, though, then the arrow is motionless. Contrary to appearances, an arrow in flight cannot move. If we had a film of the arrow in flight, and broke it down to its individual frames, we would see that in each frame the arrow is simply hovering in the air. It is only when you put all the frames together that the arrow appears to move. In each frame, i.e. at each point, the arrow is motionless. This is true irrespective of whether we think in terms of time or space. Motion occurs through space, not at a single point in space. To move, something must get from one point to another, and so at each point considered individually, the arrow is still. Similarly, motion takes time, it doesn’t occur instantaneously. At any specific point in time, therefore, the arrow cannot be moving. If at every point and at every moment in its flight the arrow is still, though, then how is it possible for it to move from the bow to its target? If the arrow is made of wood at every point in its flight, then it must be wooden; it can’t be plastic. If it is sharp at every point in its flight, then it must be sharp, not blunt. Similarly, if the arrow is motionless at every point in its flight, then it must be still, not moving. Contrary to appearances, then, arrows cannot move towards targets. In fact, similar reasoning applies to any other alleged case of motion, so it seems that movement in general is impossible. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION AND FOR YOU TO EVEN SUGGEST IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS!!! The reason why my hands and finger tips will not come into contact with any particles be those particles Quantum or Atomic is because the Electron Orbital Fields that surround the Atoms that make up both my hands and fingers as well as the diamond or the keys on the keyboard are NEGATIVELY CHARGED and thus like when you try to put to negative poles of two magnets together and they repel each other...SO DO THE ELECTRON FIELDS SURROUNDING THOSE ATOMS!!!! You have got to stop pretending that you know anything about Physics. AboveAlpha
I meant more in the fractile sense. Infinite doubling, infinite halving. The arrow only goes half the distance, half again, so on. But why are you distracting away from MY theory with your silly old bookfiller? You seem well studied...On other's theories. You're a repeater, not an innovator. This is why I say so little, and you feel the need to say So much.
Perhaps "liquid" is an oxymoron - or not. Glass is a super-chilled liquid and yet it's hard. Liquid by default must have a definition, but as the case of glass illustrates, it's meaning isn't really clear, is it? .
Glass heated to a Temp. that makes it a Molten Liquid is still a Liquid. Liquid is just one state of Matter as the various states of Matter are Solid, Liquid, Gas, Plasma and Einstein-Bose Condensate. A STATE CHANGE occurs in Matter dependent upon Temp. or Pressure. AboveAlpha
I started this thread to help people like you. - - - Updated - - - So there's tangible MATTER which changes states? These TANGIBLES are existent, and thus are Solid.
Ah yes. Good point. But we're parsing words for it's own sake; at least that's the jist of it from my understanding of the OP. Mebbe I'm wrong; it wouldn't be the first time.
Matter is comprised of an Atomic Nucleus which contain Hadrons...Protons and in most cases Neutrons...and Electrons which ARE NOT TANGIBLE as Electrons are Quantum Particle/Wave Forms existing at INDETERMINATE POSITIONS AND AT FREQUENCY. As well Protons and Neutrons are also COMPLETELY COMPRISED OF QUANTUM PARTICLE/WAVE FORMS. AboveAlpha
i.e. semantic bunk... Particle: In classical physics, a theoretical point like mass having precise spatial location but no spatial extent. For example, we can classically treat the earth's mass as existing at a single point (i.e. at it's "center of mass") when considering external gravitational interactions. But in reality - there are no such things as zero dimensional point masses. These are merely a contrivance or approximation designed to make the mathematical analysis of mass-energy systems more manageable. What we actually have are selectively designated manifestations of mass-energy, their currents (changes as a function of time and/or spatial position), and their mutual interactions. Waves: In QM, system properties that manifest themselves as complimentary quantum states stand in relation to one another as dynamic probabilities, and their evolution through time is determined by the evolution of the associated complex (as in the a+bi kind of "complex") probability wave functions [see Schrödinger equation]. Liquid: vibrating atoms and molecules that are held together in a non-rigid fashion (non-covalently bonded) by relatively weak inter-particulate bonds (such as hydrogen bonds and Van der Waals forces) and that require more energy to break than the available thermal motion (kinetic energy) of its constituents can provide. But, I guess if you want to stir up some baseless (*)(*)(*)(*), help yourself.
Thank You for posting this. I suppose I should have posted something like this to get him to stop going on endlessly but I guess I thought I might be talking to someone who would be reasonable. Thank's again. AboveAlpha
This it the problem with "their" side....they want to redefine Science to accommodate their woo as though it was credible.
Throwing insults at intellectual arguments because they challenge your belief system is childish and im embarrassed for you.
So...let me get this straight. Because I support facts determined by using the Scientific Method....I am Childish??? LOL!!!! AboveAlpha...p.s....I am still offering to help you.
