₦airaland Forum

monerozi5590:
But but do you know the meaning of Inertia?

Can you explain your point or you just want to ridicule Physics.

* You are the one that actually needs to explain cause right now am confused on what you are saying. You talked about Universal law of gravity and I told you it's flawed. It has been observed to be flawed around the universe then you switched to Newtons first law.

monerozi5590:
How is something not fact under certain conditions? E.g

A body will remain in its state of rest until a force is applied. Is that statement not true?

Why are you doing this?

*In non inertial frames it's not.

[quote author=seankafor post=121488086][/quote]Why can't I quote the words?

monerozi5590:
Is like you didn't understand my post you quoted before now. I said most laws in Physics are fact under certain conditions. Truth.


Tell me the flaws of gravity on earth all conditions being equal.

You don't see how flawed that statement is. How is something a fact only under "certain condition". It already shows limitation and flaws.

monerozi5590:
Tell me the flaws of gravity under the right condition on earth. Emphasis on the right conditions.

It's called universal law of gravity so why are you restricting it to earth?

monerozi5590:
Haba bro. Nothing in science is a confirmed fact. This is not true. Most laws in Physics are confirmed fact under certain conditions.

Law of gravity to my level is a fact especially here on earth.

* Newton's laws of physics allowed us to calculate how to land a man on the moon. is it therefore a fact? Newton's laws fail to work well at velocities approaching the speed of light so needed adjustment.



* Law of gravity is not a fact. It has various proven flaws.

seankafor:
bro, you can write all epistles you want to defend your favorite scientists, it doesn't make you different from religionsits who go extra lengths to preach and manufacture variety of things for their followers to keep them in check..

Atheists worship scientists more like religionists worship their preachers.. nothing more nothing less..

These scientists, yes are trying to at least come up with practical solutions to the world's problems.. but they overstep their boundaries when they try so hard to explain what's beyond them, like how the world formed, what and what existed billion years ago.. that's where I draw the line in listening to their craps..

You can still choose to worship them as you wish.. it's your choice, but know there are people like me who will not agree and will attack the junks you Chun out here in a public forum..

The only way you get to enjoy these half cooked beliefs of yours is if you keep them to yourself alone

*You are actually comparing people who create theories and then carry out experiments and observation to prove those theories to people who believe in fairytales lol.


* Worship scientist? Elaborate on this statement cause am lost. How does stating a principal or theory equate to worshipping a scientist.


* Beyond them? If scientist did engage in things that were beyond them you won't be enjoying the advance technology of the 21st century. You are very bold.

monerozi5590:
.....Just like the name implies is still a theory and not a confirmed fact.. Not all scientists sef accept the theory.

Nothing in science is a confirmed fact. In natural science we cannot prove anything to be true.

seankafor:
People defending and ready to kill on what archaic scientific theories and postulations based on myth from their favorite scientists just to sound and appear woke

Big bang this, metaphysics that.. like they were there billion years ago when it exploded and formed something from nothing

There is no difference between these lots and the religionists they love to hate

Just that this time, they want to sound and appear woke and more intelligent not knowing they re appearing more dumb and dumber

*Stop talking from a place of ignorance and learn. Obviously we didn't see the Big Bang, and we can't make another Big Bang in labs So what scientist do is to devise theories to explain why the universe looks the way it does, and then do experiments to compare their theory with the real world. If the experiments match the predictions the more confident they feel about the theory being accurate.


* The theory we use to describe the universe is General Relativity. When we make a few assumptions about the universe and feed these into General Relativity it tells us that our universe is described by an equation called the F.L.R.W metric . This have been used to make predictions about the universe, and so far they've all been proven true, so we know it works.

*The thing about the FLRW metric is that we can use it to wind time back and calculate how the universe must have been in the past. If we do this we find the universe gets denser and denser and hotter and hotter, until around some billion years ago the density and temperature become infinite. This is the point called the big bang.

A001:
That's why I said your IQ is too low. You don't understand the subject you're arguing about.

Based on the Big Bang model, many physicists assert the Universe came from nothing, an initial state devoid of matter.

They use the term nothing because time, space, and matter didn't exist in that initial state, and the state isn't visible to the naked eye.

Facts in Physics generally don't align with your parochial views and emotions, and it's possible for something to come from nothing empirically speaking.

* Stop lying and repeating this mumbo jumbo.

*The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

* We have already established it was nothing or void like you are claiming.

A001:
Almost all scientists in the world belong or belonged to one religion or the other.

Your IQ is too low to know philosophy lies at the heart of all principles and concepts in science.

Na wa o. See the graduate the Nigerian education system is churning out.

Scientist don't read books about unicorns or minotaur to find any truths. Scientist don't read and find truths in fairytales. Scientist don't read the bible or Quran to find truth in anything. How can a physicist say scientist read fairytales to find truths? Wait you are reading and following Otem to find truth. What school did you attend again?

A001:
Type it on Google. Maybe it can cure your stupidity.

* I need to know what you school taught you so we know where to start educating you from.

A001:
The Big Bang is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. A disgrace that calls himself a graduate. Lols

Can you show me where I said the above sentence? You keep reading without understanding.

A001:
I did philosophy in school and passed it in flying colors. That's why I know metaphysics, one of the aspects of philosophy, is different from physics.

Only fools confuse one with the other.

*What did you school teach you about metaphysics?

A001:
And you can see that quantum singularity? Your IQ is so low. You can see quantum particles? Without the physicists you disparage, would you know there are anything like quantum particles — sub-atomic particles which are too small to be seen with the naked eye?

You're obviously more knowledgeable that the scientists that designed the model who believe the universe expanded from nothing, a state the human eye can't see.

It's called a vacuum or void because it is devoid of matter. Learn the basics of Physics before discussing the subject.

You're just a clown.

* We have already established it didn't come from nothing like you claimed.


* Whenever you make a statement, try to define what you mean in terms of sense-experience. If you find that you can't, you are talking gibberish. This is called "positivism", and in positivism, one does not admit questions like yours as meaningful. Physicists are positivists.

*The big bang is an attempt to explain how the universe developed from a very tiny, dense state into what it is today. It doesn't attempt to explain what initiated the creation of the universe, or what came before the big bang or even what lies outside the universe.

A001:
If you're not foolish, you'd know philosophy is the mother of science.

That's why scientists read books on various philosophies, including those of Atum, Taoism, Buddhism, Daoism, Hermetica, Abrahamic religions, and many others.

There are some truths in all of them.

As a researcher, I've different books on many philosophies and religions because they're crucial to the field I'm engaged in.

About Otem, if you don't know Tem, the god of ancient Egyptians, you're more ignorant than I thought.

* Scientist don't read books about unicorns or minotaur to find any truths. Scientist don't read and find truths in fairytales. Scientist don't read the bible or Quran to find truth in anything.


*Make me understand. You ridicule religious people and their beliefs but find truths In their books? You ridicule religious people but believe in the words of Otem or is it atum.


*Mystical philosophy is mumbo jumbo. Nobody takes them seriously.

*

A001:
Big Bang is metaphysics. This one na big clown. Lols

*How can a so called physicist not know the meaning of metaphysics. Let me help you with the definition.

"Metaphysics is the branchof philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality; the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time, cause and effect, necessity and possibility"


* There's no way you can convince me that your are physicist.

A001:
You obviously don't understand anything you've been saying.

The scientists that postulated the Big Bang model believe the Universe expanded from nothing, and many physicists around the world hold that view.

The Big Bang postulates the Universe expanded from an initial state of singularity. If you were to witness that state, you'd call it nothing because you can't see the subatomic particles in the state.

Your posts show you don't even have an idea of what's called the Big Bang.

You're just a clown.

Can you please stop embarrassing yourself. The Big Bang Theory tells you the Universe emerged from "something" - a quantum singularity not nothing or void that you are describing. This is getting laughable.

A001:
You've not read Krauss' book, Otem's book, or even the books of Lao Tzu, who created Daoism.

I tap from the wisdom of these great minds, not a nonentity on Nairaland that calls the Big Bang, one of the most successful theories in Physics, metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

You're just babbling. This one na graduate?
Lols, Nigeria's education system is a joke.

*You tap wisdom from mystical philosophy which are nonsense. This explains why you keep reasoning the way you do.


* Krauss book was flawed and provided zero evidence. It's not different from me telling you unicorn exists. Go and read reviews about his book from actual scientist.


* Who the hell is Otem?


*Taoism is a religion. Negro stop being ignorant. You condemn religious folks but believe in mystical philosophy. Can you even hear yourself?

A001:
His book is flawed to you that don't know the basics of Physics? This one na clown.

I don't need to waste my first time with someone that considers the Big Bang metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

Lols, joke of the century.

* Can you show me where is said anything about the Big bang being mumbo jumbo?

* I don't know the basics of physics lol. Personal attacks are not doing you any favours.

* How can you call yourself a Physicists yet doesn't know the meaning of metaphysics? You are begining to sound weird and a liar. Big bang is a metaphysical hypothesis in precise sense. Negro you are not a Physicists. Stop lying. What school did you graduate from?

A001:
Where did he tell you he's a physicist? No physicist will ridicule a great discipline like Physics in that manner.

When you don't know the basics about a subject, the sensible thing is to keep quiet and observe, not saying trash like "it's all metaphysics", "nothing special about physicists".

From his posts, it's clear he doesn't know what's called the Big Bang. Lols. He's a joker.

He has not made any contribution to the discussion. Just mere noise.

* The only thing you have talked about since yesterday is false equivalence. You have talked about Otem(who the hell is that), Taoism (a Chinese religion centered on metaphysics) and a flawed book. What exactly have you contributed?

A001:
Learn what's called the Big Bang first and learn the basics of Physics before embarrassing yourself in public on a subject you don't know jack about.

I'm sure the Big Bang is all metaphysics to you. And this one na graduate? Clown

Learn to read and understand. You don't know how to read.

* The krauss you have been shouting about his book is flawed. Next time you better not believe each and every mumbo jumbo you read.

Bombblacks:
* You keep shouting about krauss lol. All he wrote in that book that is confusing you is untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre existing complex of entities which includes variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum etc. He does not explain in what way these entities pre existed the coming into being of the universe, why they existed in the first place and he provided no experimental or observational process whereby they could test those wide speculations of the supposed things that generated the universe. Tell me how can you test what existed before the universe existed? negro you can’t. What he is presenting is not tested science, It’s metaphysical speculation mixed with mystical mumbo jumbo.

monerozi5590:
Bombblack and If yes, you guys should respect each other and end the argument please.

There's no argument here, Just trying to educate so that next time someone will not ask us us to drop solid evidence that unicorn doesn't exist and then call you ignorant.

A001:
Don't waste my time with unnecessary mentions. Post silly comments about a subject you don't know anything about is an insult.

Ok then.

A001:
I don't have time to read your nonsense. Your silly argument shows you don't even know what's called the Big Bang.

I don't have time to waste with you. Educate yourself first on the subject before embarrassing yourself further in public.

Nice one.

A001:
I'm sure the fool doesn't even what's called the Big Bang. It's all metaphysics to him. And this one calls himself a graduate? Lols.

How Did The Entire Universe Come From Nothing?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/11/27/ask-ethan-how-did-the-entire-universe-come-from-nothing/?sh=29e8aee62c59

Fool? Calls himself a graduate?


What called for all those personal attacks? Have insulted or something.

A001:
Lols, you're very confused and ignorant. I don't have time to waste with someone that doesn't have basic knowledge about science.

There's physics and there's metaphysics. I can see your quality of education is so shallow calling experts in Physics metaphysicists.

There's nothing special in award-winning physicists that have written their names on the sands of time through their works, but there's something special about a nonentity like you.

Tell me another joke. He doesn't even know what cosmology, a branch of Physics, is.

Better you keep quiet when you don't jack about a topic of discussion before embarrassing yourself in public.

Confusing cosmology in metaphysics with cosmology in Physics, when everyone familiar with the history of Physics and the history of science knows all the fields and disciplines came from philosophy including science.

Your IQ and education are questionable when you mix up cosmology in metaphysics with cosmology in Physics even after seeing a renowned scientist like Prof Krauss mentioned.

Anyway, you've not said anything tangible other than metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

Facts don't care about your emotions and your fixed world-view based on ignorance and shallow thinking.

The concept of Nothing or Vacuum is a solid explanation on the Beginning of the Universe, which could even have no beginning as some philosophers and scientists say.

* Why do you like typing long sentences with zero substantial meanings. You keep rambling on and on and on like the longer you go the more you feel good about yourself. Learn to say things in few words.

* You keep shouting about krauss lol. All he wrote in that book that is confusing you is untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre existing complex of entities which includes variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum etc. He does not explain in what way these entities pre existed the coming into being of the universe, why they existed in the first place and he provided no experimental or observational process whereby they could test those wide speculations of the supposed things that generated the universe. Tell me how can you test what existed before the universe existed? negro you can’t. What he is presenting is not tested science, It’s metaphysical speculation mixed with mystical mumbo jumbo.

A001:
Yea, I don't know the difference between actual science and metaphysics as a physicist, just like award-winning physicists that wrote books on Nothing.

But you, an ignorant person, that doesn't what cosmology and quantum physics are and doesn't know jack about Physics, do.

Ignorance is your problem, and you're even arrogant about it, which is why you assume matter (everything you see) has always existed like that even before the Big Bang.

Your knowledge of the subject is very limited. I don't have time to waste with you.

If you're not just rambling, you'd have a presented a solid argument against Nothing (yes, there's actually one) other than metaphysics mumbo-jumbo.

Maybe you just learned that term.

Anyway, you'll find proponents for Nothing among scientists that study the beginning and history of the Universe — cosmologists and astrophysicists.

They're just telling you before space, time, and matter were created by the Big Bang, a Vacuum or Nothing existed.

If you feel otherwise, tell me exactly what existed before space, time, and matter were created by the Big Bang.

Anyway, I don't expect someone that doesn't know who a cosmologist is to know. Your ignorance is legendary, the stuff of comedy.

* There's no argument for the concept of nothing so why should I give you anything to refute it. This is like asking me to give you a solid argument against Unicorn or fairies. Come on do better and stop wasting both of our time .


* You are adding things I never said and calling me arrogant lol. Just come out and admit you don't know the meaning of metaphysics because it obvious. Cosmologist, ontologist and others are all part of physical metaphysics which involves the real nature of Time, Space, Laws of Nature, Matter etc. Sir You are actually the ignorant one here.


*There's no difference between you believing in a mystical metaphysical notion and those religious folks.

A001:
You're just commenting on issues ignorantly. Cosmology is the branch of astronomy that deals with the origin and development of the universe.

It's one of the many fields in Physics.

It's the business of people like Lawrence Krauss who is an expert in cosmology.

Quantum physics deals with the study of particles and phenomena in the subatomic or quantum realm and is a branch of Physics, not metaphysics.

Everything is special about physicists as they're some of the most intelligent people on the planet. When talking about the nature of the Universe including its beginning, I consider the views of physicists more seriously than your own view as a layman.

Also, I consider the view of philosophers like Socrates, Lao Tzu, Otem, and past humans like Atum (who taught the ancient Egyptians how to build those wondrous pyramids) more seriously than the view of a person that doesn't know jack about Physics or what's called cosmology or quantum physics.

As said earlier, Nothing is a fascinating concept that has a lot of depth. Unless you know with certainty what existed before the Big Bang, it'd be foolish to dismiss Nothing or Vacuum.

* The concept of nothing belongs to metaphysics.

*The problem here is that you believe in every metaphysics mumbo jumbo you see. You don't know the difference between actual science and metaphysics. Cosmology and ontology are branches of metaphysics.


*Metaphysics is unscientific and redundant. I've always been and remain deeply sceptical of metaphysical arguments. They have the same major flaw as religion

*Asking "What exited before the Big Bang" is like asking "What is north of the North Pole." It's like asking "What is further center than the exact center." "Nothing" exists there because "there" doesn't exist.

A001:
I can see your knowledge of the subject is very limited. Philosophy is the mother of science, including Physics, and all kinds of knowledge.

That's why all physicists took some courses in Philosophy while in school.

Nothing or Void is a crucial concept for physicists, especially those that study the beginning of the Universe and cosmology generally.

That's why a physicist and cosmologist like Lawrence Krauss wrote the book entitled "A Universe from Nothing". In the quantum realm, something can arise from nothing, and that has been demonstrated empirically.

When Socrates said "all that I know is nothing", you must think he's foolish or ignorant.

In one of the writings of Otem, one of the past beings (who had lived on Earth in the ancient past) that gave the histories he's writing to him explained how during one of his explorations of different parts of the Universe, he did studies on the Beginning of the Universe and how he started freezing when he moved close to the Source of the Universe, which is a Vacuum.

He said all things in existence existed as One in that frozen state of unconsciousness in the Vacuum in the Beginning before the expansions.

If you're into Cosmology and/or Astrophysics, it'll be foolish to dismiss Nothing and these ideas.

I very much doubt you understand my previous reply.


* Physicists are philosophers lol.


* There's nothing special about physicists. Every human is a logical thinker. Bro you are a philosopher yourself.


* Cosmology and ontology are branches of metaphysics.


*Quantum realm is mumbo jumbo under metaphysics. Metaphysics is not an actual science hence my previous reply below.

Bombblacks:
It's not possible to argue against a question of metaphysics and ontology using arguments of physics.

A001:
Your understanding of issues is shallow. Before you dismiss the concept of Nothing, you must have definite knowledge of what existed before the Big Bang.

Do you? You think it's matter that has always existed before space and time came into existence?

Anyway, you can't answer these questions. He thinks physicists and philosophers that have written books on Nothing are dumb.

Lols

There's a reason why I called it mumbo jumbo. Nobody takes mysticism philosophy seriously. It's not possible to argue against a question of metaphysics and ontology using arguments of physics.

Magnoliaa:
Every inventions came from "nothing". Originally. Then those inventions go on to lead to countless of other creations.



That's how I understand it sha.

Far from it.