Physicists make most precise measurement ever of the proton's magnetic moment

November 24, 2017, RIKEN
Image of a proton trapped in magnetic fields. Credit: RIKEN

An international collaboration of scientists from RIKEN's Ulmer Fundamental Symmetries Laboratory (FSL), Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz, Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics, Heidelberg and GSI Darmstadt, have used high-precision techniques to make the most precise measurement to date of the magnetic moment of the proton, finding it to be 2.79284734462 plus or minus 0.00000000082 nuclear magnetons, the unit typically used to measure this property. The magnetic moment, a property of particles that gives rise to magnetism, is one of the fundamental properties of the proton and is key to understanding properties such as the structure of atoms.

Painstaking work was required to make these unprecedented measurements, which have a precision better than one part per billion. First, the researchers had to isolate a single proton―not two or three―in the trap. They did this by detecting the thermal signal of the ions stuck in the trap, and then using an electric field to eliminate them until they were left with just one.

The key to the tremendous precision, however, was a combination of extremely difficult engineering coupled with the ability to shuttle the proton between two different .

The group's method for directly measuring the magnetic moment of a particle is based on the fact that a proton in a Penning trap aligns its spin with the trap's magnetic field. The basic method is to use the detector to measure two frequencies—known as the Larmor (spin-precession) frequency and the cyclotron frequency of the proton in a magnetic field. These can be used to find the . The cyclotron frequency of the proton can be measured using what is called the Brown-Gabrielse invariance theorem, while the Larmor frequency can be measured by driving spin flips—using a that heats the particle—and measuring the probability of a spin flip as a function of the drive frequency.

Physicists make most precise measurement ever of the proton’s magnetic moment
A Penning trap. Credit: RIKEN

The already high precision of these measurements can be boosted further, however, by using the double-trap method, where the cyclotron frequency is measured and spin transitions are induced in a first trap. The is then carefully shuttled to a second trap, where the spin state is detected using a large magnetic inhomogeneity–a magnetic bottle. The spatial separation of high-precision measurement and detection makes the extremely possible.

For the current experiments, three individual protons were used for a total of 1,264 experiment cycles, each taking approximately 90 minutes. The whole experiment required approximately four months including maintenance and systematic crosschecks.

According to Georg Schneider, the first author of the paper, "To move forward in particle physics, we require either high-energy facilities or super precise measurements. With our work we are taking the second route, and we hope in the future to do similar experiments with antiprotons using the same technique. This will allow us to get a better understanding of, for example, atomic structure."

According to Andreas Mooser, second author of the study and member of RIKEN FSL, "Looking forward, using this technique, we will be able to make similarly precise measurements of the antiproton at the BASE experiment in CERN, and this will allow us to look for further hints for why there is no antimatter in the universe today."

The work was published on November 23 in Science.

Explore further: Riddle of matter remains unsolved: Proton and antiproton share fundamental properties

More information: Georg Schneider et al. Double-trap measurement of the proton magnetic moment at 0.3 parts per billion precision, Science (2017). DOI: 10.1126/science.aan0207

Related Stories

Most precise measurement of proton mass

July 20, 2017

What is the mass of a proton? Scientists from Germany and Japan have made an important step toward better understanding this fundamental constant. By means of precision measurements on a single proton, they were able to improve ...

Zeroing in on the proton's magnetic moment

May 28, 2014

As part of a series of experiments designed to resolve one of the deepest mysteries of physics today, researchers from RIKEN, in collaboration with the University of Mainz, GSI Darmstadt and the Max Planck Institute for Physics ...

Recommended for you

Pond dwellers called Euglena swim in polygons to avoid light

September 25, 2018

In any seemingly quiet pond the still waters actually teem with tiny pond dwellers called Euglena gracilis. Unseen to the naked eye, the single-celled organism spirals through the water, pulled along a relatively straight ...

Explainer: The US push to boost 'quantum computing'

September 24, 2018

A race by U.S. tech companies to build a new generation of powerful "quantum computers" could get a $1.3 billion boost from Congress, fueled in part by lawmakers' fear of growing competition from China.

A new way to count qubits

September 24, 2018

Researchers at Syracuse University, working with collaborators at the University of Wisconsin (UW)-Madison, have developed a new technique for measuring the state of quantum bits, or qubits, in a quantum computer.

155 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

knowphiself
1 / 5 (4) Nov 24, 2017
I see it differently . Georg Schneider's axiom of high energy or super precision. I'm humbled but we have been looking at elementry particles for a century. I know a constant when I see one. it's called time. I wonder if Klein bottle symmetry is a better way of peering into antimatter (phase)
knowphiself
1 / 5 (3) Nov 24, 2017
I just did a google: holographic particle trap
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2017
If it is true that experts have "arrested" only one proton in that trap, the question is, by what coercion, do they hold that "victim" in jail? Is it external magnetism? If it is an external magnetic field, then how can the magnetic moment of proton be measured, when its magnetism is an inseparable part of the influence of external magnets and a substance that fills the whole proton.
Does science know who causes magnetism in all forms of matter? If it does not understand it, then it is not possible to give any real explanation about any phenomenon and property of matter.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
You can't measure magnetic moment without a magnetic field for it to interact with @milnik.
milnik
1 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2017
Do scientists know how magnetism arises and who causes it?
I will try to help, because many things are not clear if the cause is unknown.
Magnetism occurs as an interaction between the Aether, from which the matter forms, and which fills the infinite universe, and free gluons. Since the free gluon is obtained by annihilating an electron-positron pair, try to make an idea of the formation of magnetism yourself.
Why is there a magnetic field around the conductor through which the current flows? This phenomenon can not be formed without the AETHER substance.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2017
There ain't no aether. They figured that out in 1887, which was like a hundred and twenty years ago. Try to keep up with, you know, modern science and stuff.
Da Schneib
3.6 / 5 (5) Nov 25, 2017
Oh, and if you want to know where magnetism comes from, it's the pseudo-force caused by the speed-of-light propagation of the electromagnetic force. We've known that even longer; since 1862. They're called Maxwell's Equations.

On Earth.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Nov 25, 2017
Oh, and if you want to know where magnetism comes from, it's the pseudo-force caused by the speed-of-light propagation of the electromagnetic force. We've known that even longer; since 1862. They're called Maxwell's Equations.

On Earth.

So... that would make the speed of magnetism at C, along with light and gravity...
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2017
it's the pseudo-force caused by the speed-of-light propagation of the electromagnetic force.


This is a circular argument. The magnetic field is caused by a changing electric field in the case of electromagnetism, or by a moving electric charge (a current). An accelerating electric charge creates the electromagnetic field.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2017
@Whyde, yep. The real watershed moment was when Maxwell realized light had to be what his equations were describing.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2017
This is a circular argument.
@Noum's lying again.

Magnetism is the difference in how the electric force would behave if it were instantaneous and how it actually behaves with a finite velocity. And it's been known since 1865. You can read about it on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipe...agnetism

Looks like @Noum needs to brush up on some physics basics too. Pretty common failure of understanding actually. Then again @Noum's not all that bright to start with, so no surprise there; Russian trolls generally aren't.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 25, 2017
that would make the speed of magnetism at C, along with light and gravity


A magnetic field, like an electric field, can be stationary.
Da Schneib
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2017
@Noum is wrong again. A magnetic field is always and only seen when an electric charge moves. The electric field is the only field seen from a charge when it's stationary. Wikipedia again: https://en.wikipe...ic_field
A magnetic field is a force field that is created by moving electric charges (electric currents) and magnetic dipoles, and exerts a force on other nearby moving charges and magnetic dipoles.
Happy to skool ya anytime, #russiantroll.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2017
@DaScheib,

Still a child I see. You stated the following....

if you want to know where magnetism comes from, it's the pseudo-force caused by the speed-of-light propagation of the electromagnetic force.


By making reference to the "electromagnetic force" in your attempt at explaining where "magnetism comes from", you are making a circular argument. At best you're wording your explanation poorly.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
Sorry, @Noum #russiantroll, now you're backpedaling. Maybe if you actually knew some real physics you wouldn't say stupid stuff. Then again, you're only a #russiantroll so I guess we can't expect much.

So can you explain for us why it is #russiantrolls deny science so much? That would be more interesting.

Just askin'.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 25, 2017
"#russiantroll"?,... "deny science so much"?

Is this how desperate and insecure you are, that you make up non-sense, and not quote me directly?

@Noum is wrong again.


Wrong about what? If you don't quote me for proper discourse and clarity, then YOU are the corrupt troll.

A magnetic field is always and only seen when an electric charge moves.


What does this have to do with anything that I posted above? A magnetic field can be stationary, for example from a bar magnet.

If the magnetic field is a component of electromagnetism, then a electric charge does not need to be present as it is then a self propagating field.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 25, 2017
Sorry, @Noum, I'm not going to play logic-chopping with you.

You lied, which is what #russiantrolls always do, and now you're trying to double down. It's to sow confusion amongst those you perceive as "enemies." You did it on AGW, you did it on quantum mechanics, and now you're trying to lie about electromagnetism. And when you get caught, your "go-to" maneuver is to start logic chopping. It's totally transparent, you're totally sussed, and I'll be happy to make it obvious how stupid you are any time you like.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
LOL, you still have not quoted me in context supposedly "lying".

I don't need to read your links as I have studied Maxwell's equations including in their covariant form.

Why not quote me when you "claim" that I don't know what I am talking about? Reprobate. Right off, you degenerate into confrontation.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2017
@Noum #russiantroll is lying again. Obviously you haven't studied Maxwell's theory because you don't understand how it works.

Next?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
@Noum #russiantroll is lying again. Obviously you haven't studied Maxwell's theory because you don't understand how it works.


How would you know? Quote me, or continue your dishonesty,

Sorry, but you can't reference electromagnetism in explaining where magnetism comes from, as the magnetic field is a component of the electromagnetic field. Circular.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
Sorry @Noum #russiantroll, not playing logic chopping today. What you said is right there in black and white, and anybody can compare it with reality and see it. Don't lie if you don't wanna get caught, or is that too complicated for a #russiantroll to figure out?

Prime symptom of Dunning-Kruger syndrome: too stupid to understand you're wrong. You keep doing the same thing over and over and getting caught over and over and pretending it never happened over and over and everyone keeps noticing it over and over. Do better.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
What you said is right there in black and white, and anybody can compare it with reality and see it


Then it should be easy for you to quote me when responding. Your unwillingness to do so exposes your corruption and trolling behaviour, and makes it easier for you to cast vague characterizations, and outright lie.

Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Noum #russiantroll, you already tried that one and already got caught lying fifteen or twenty times. There's no point in arguing with a liar; just point out they lie, over and over, until they go away. If you ever wanted discourse or rational argument you contaminated it by lying, and I'll never play your game again. I'll just keep pointing out you lied over and over. That's all you can do with stupid #russiantrolls. Go kiss Pooty's ass.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
So rather than quote me and respond to that quote as one would expect is proper discourse, you would rather type 10 times as much text to claim that I lied without ever having quote that supposed lie?

Obviously you're trolling here as apparently you don't like being corrected. This is what a child does, calling names over and over. Are you going to hold your breath next? How about I start reading all of your posts critically?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
I just won't play your game.

You lied, you got caught, now you're backpedaling and whining and double-down lying again.

It's your standard maneuver; if you get caught lying, lie some more.

Boring.
msadesign
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
"Then it should be easy for you to quote me when responding. Your unwillingness to do so exposes your corruption and trolling behaviour, and makes it easier for you to cast vague characterizations, and outright lie."

Is everyone here just a dick?

Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 26, 2017
Is everyone here just a dick?
@msadesign
that really depends on how long they've been interacting with each other. Nou is a philosopher who tends to spread opinion and philosophy instead of science but has a fair grasp of QM (though again, he also tends to interject philosophical points)

.

.

A magnetic field can be stationary, for example from a bar magnet.
@Nou
links and references, please
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
A magnetic field can be stationary, for example from a bar magnet.
@Nou
links and references, please

Why?

"Around a permanent magnet or a wire carrying a steady electric current in one direction, the Magnetic Field is Stationary and referred to as a magnetostatic field." - Britannica

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Now, Stumpy, having received that link source, which I went out of my way to find for you,... what conclusion will you draw from it?

"Then it should be easy for you to quote me when responding. Your unwillingness to do so exposes your corruption and trolling behaviour, and makes it easier for you to cast vague characterizations, and outright lie."

Is everyone here just a dick?



You're not a dick for calling me a dick while not reading the thread? DaSchneib basically attacked me for correcting him, and characterized my posts as "lying". Now, according to you my crime is asking him to quote me to substantiate that charge?

The proper question is, ....is anyone here objective and capable of rational discourse?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Nou is a philosopher who tends to spread opinion and philosophy instead of science but has a fair grasp of QM (though again, he also tends to interject philosophical points)


I have posted more on core physics including the mathematical foundation than most here. I have never advocated for a non-mainstream theory. Any Philosophy of Physics that I post is backed up by other prominent physicists,.... and in any case is of more value than bickering with cranks that is the majority of posts here.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
Why?
because if you want to argue a point then you should provide links and references for others to make an informed decision
except in philosophy as that is entirely subjective to the individual
Now, Stumpy, having received that link source, which I went out of my way to find for you,... what conclusion will you draw from it?
i don't care - I don't have a vested interest in the argument
.is anyone here objective and capable of rational discourse?
yes
but you tend to try to force people to accept your opinion over theirs - which is irrational in and of itself

example:
I have never advocated for a non-mainstream theory.
philosophy, by definition, is subjective
who cares if you can "prove" that someone else believes like you?

(see above philo of physics link)
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
Why?

because if you want to argue a point then you should provide links and references for others to make an informed decision


It was basic physics. I'm not going to do that unless someone asks as I don't use the internet to think with.

Having done this for you though, your response is "i don't care - I don't have a vested interest in the argument". Then what is your point here, when ignoring that DaScheib's posts that not only had no references but was wrong. You also don't seem to mind that a subjective characterization was leveled on me without even a quote to substantiate it. Stumpy, you pretend that you're being objective, yet you're one of the most subjectively bias posters here.
Captain Stumpy
not rated yet Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
It was basic physics
so?
Then what is your point here
you were questioned - therefore "Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements"
when ignoring that DaScheib's posts that not only had no references but was wrong
I cannot see his posts, therefore I cannot comment on them
you pretend that you're being objective, yet you're one of the most subjectively bias posters here
I am here for a specific purpose

sometimes (rarely) I post for reasons not realted to my purpose
You also don't seem to mind that a subjective characterization was leveled on me without even a quote to substantiate it
which was?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
philosophy, by definition, is subjective


Well, no, not in the sense that you naively believe. For example, all QM theories that are empirically indistinguishable are de facto philosophy of physics, and in fact help to guide further understanding and research. An clear example of this is in the early development of QM where Bohr, Heisenberg, Jorden, Pauli, etc assumed a positivist/epistemic (philosophy of mind) approach while Schrodinger's wave mechanics was initially guided by realist considerations.

However, I did not interject philosophy here, you did.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
when ignoring that DaScheib's posts that not only had no references but was wrong

I cannot see his posts, therefore I cannot comment on them


I didn't know you had him on ignore. Sound judgement on your part.

However,...

Then what is your point here

you were questioned - therefore "Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements"

How would you know that not having read Schneib posts? Actually, maybe you didn't read them, as I wasn't questioned at all. I was called a liar without having been quoted to substantiate that charge.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
So, if you can't see the other side of the argument, how can you pass judgement on me?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@nou
Well, no, not in the sense that you naively believe
it's not a subjective statement: Philo is a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means

you may support your claims by others who also support your claims, but there is always a dissenting claim that is equally relevant

Then there is the fact that "values" and "reality" can be subjective dependent upon culture, perspective, mental diagnosis, time or location

therefore it's subjective
An clear example of this is...
still don't care about philo as it's not relevant nor scientific
However, I did not interject philosophy here, you did
no, I simply made a statement to @msadesign that you are a philo and have a habit - it's factually correct and you couldn't help yourself by interjecting it as I stated you tend to do, like this in your very next post
Any Philosophy of Physics
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@nou
How would you know that not having read Schneib posts?
sigh
this sh*t again?
really?

it was simple: you were making a lot of posts about a claim - I suggested you simply support your claim with evidence
period
full stop

you do tend to ignore the links/references part until you go all philo

another typical trait, BTW... (are you going to argue that one? it's not like no one can read your historical posts)
So, if you can't see the other side of the argument, how can you pass judgement on me?
now you're being an idiot

no "judgement" was involved

why are you feeling defensive?

guilt?

I made a statement to @msadesign that was factually correct and can be supported by your history

LOL
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
[A] clear example of this is...

still don't care about philo as it's not relevant nor scientific


I just gave you an historical example of how philosophy was directly relevant to the development of QM, and you choose to ignore it. That is lack of objectivity when you choose to ignore facts of science presented.

Another example,.... when John Wheeler objected to the deBroglie-Bohm theory is was on philosophical grounds,.... 'too much metaphysical baggage'. There is otherwise nothing wrong with the pilot wave theory as it is empirically indistinguishable from other theories and even allows for a 'realist' interpretation, which was it's purpose.

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
And of course I have never once claimed that philosophy can in any way replace or IS science.

I made a statement to @msadesign that was factually correct and can be supported by your history


You cast your own subjective characterization about me, ....and a false one as if my main interest is philosophy, ....utterly ignoring that I post more on core physics than most do. You object to philosophy of physics being posted where 1) none was posted here until you brought up the subject, and 2) it is orders of magnitude more relevant to science than all of your posts so far in this thread not to mention your history of posts here.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
I just gave you an historical example of how philosophy was directly relevant to...
like I said - it's a compulsion with you
And of course I have never once claimed that philosophy can in any way replace or IS science
nor did I imply you did

you're making an ASSumption that:

1- I'm ignorant of the subject (I am not - nor is anyone who has ever read any post you interject your philo QM arguments about)

2- I care

much like your philosophical interjection, neither are relevant

so how is your interjection of QM philo to the topic of magnetism or stationary fields? it's not - hence my factually accurate statement to @msadesign which you took great pains to validate

you're being defensive because I don't agree, therefore you're going to shove your opinions down everyone's throat regardless of it's irrelevance

Guilt? Neurosis?

or something simpler like D-K mixed with narcissism?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
You evidently cared enough to charge me with posting philosophy instead of science, and therefore I care enough to refute that charge.

you may support your claims by others who also support your claims, but there is always a dissenting claim that is equally relevant


Your claim is that philosophy is not relevant to physics, while I have referenced prominent physicists to support a given point made by me that you would interpret as philosophy, thus refuting your charge. If it's not relevant to physics and we both agree that philosophy does not replace physics, then all I have to do is reference a few prominent physicists to refute you. There opinion is of more value than yours.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@nou cont'd
You cast your own subjective characterization about me, ....and a false one as if my main interest is philosophy
I made a factual statement that you, yourself, validated above

that isn't a subjective characterization considering there is ample empirical evidence from you proving my statement is factually correct

any BOT or simple search can validate my claim in other threads
....utterly ignoring that I post more on core physics than most do
I didn't ignore it
i just noted that regardless of how much fact you share, you tend to go all Philo - which is, again, supported by your own above posts (and your history)
none was posted here until you brought up the subject
and again: you're the one who brought in the Philo - i made a factual observation that was supported by evidence

it doesn't matter if I was talking about philo or fraudulent diaper sealant

ever notice how defensive you get about philo?

yeah - it's your main interest
LOL
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
Your claim is that philosophy is not relevant to physics
quote my claim
thanks
while 1) I have referenced prominent physicists to support a given point made by me that you would interpret as philosophy, thus refuting your charge
and as we all know, @Ghost has refuted your same points with the equivalent evidence, making your argument null

this is why philo fails: if anyone can present a dissenting opinion it has the same veracity as your own making it every bit as legitimate
IOW - it's subjective
2) I have never claimed that philosophy can replace or is physics
did i say you did?
so why is it relevant that you continue to make this point?
why so defensive and why bring a red herring strawman to the discourse?
only that it is relevant to, thus rendering your charge vacuous
how can my charge be vacuous when you've built a strawman argument based upon an opinion that is subjective?

simply stating the contrary is equivalent to refute in this case
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
You evidently cared enough to charge me with posting philosophy instead of science, and therefore I care enough to refute that charge.
truly fascinating

so, when someone posts something factually accurate it is then your passion to repeatedly validate the claim and demonstrate your neurosis by repeatedly interjecting a non-topical subject because it brings you pleasure to elucidate its scope, applicability to all things, and bearing on your perspective?

and yet you have the gall to state
and a false one as if my main interest is philosophy
when you are demonstrating that you're passionate about philo over science

and validating my "charge", I might add. LOL
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
I made a factual statement that you, yourself, validated above


You referenced the history of my posts here to claim that I post on philosophy 'instead of science' as a sweeping generality. That is a factually incorrect characterization that can be objectively refuted given all the core physics posts that I have made, including of the theoretical description.

I choose to post what I choose to, and you choose to pass factually incorrect sweeping characterizations.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
You referenced the history of my posts here to claim that I post on philosophy 'instead of science' as a sweeping generality. That is a factually incorrect characterization that can be objectively refuted
then prove it

According to what I've collected your statistics validate my claim - that is verifiable to anyone who chooses to take the time, just like it's verifiable that as of November 18, 2017, 2:30 pm, RC has posted 7,604 times without presenting evidence of his BICEP claims

that isn't to say that you don't post science, nor have I claimed you don't

objectively, the statistics, using forensic linguistics, show that you tend to lean more towards subjectivity and philosophy as well as interject it into threads, especially when, like above, your neuroticism gets the best of you
and you choose to pass factually incorrect sweeping characterizations
so says you?
after validating my point above?

ROTFLMFAO
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
1) I have referenced prominent physicists to support a given point made by me that you would interpret as philosophy, thus refuting your charge

and as we all know, @Ghost has refuted your same points with the equivalent evidence, making your argument null


I only make reference to prominent physicists to substantiate an already articulated point made by me.

Like you, GhostOtto does not make a contextual counter-point, he only degenerates a given discussion into one over the validity of the philosophy in science in general. As pointed out to him, I only need to reference a few physicist of note to refute that claim, as they're of more informed opinion than him. IOW, if he does not rely on objective counter argument to the given point made.

In fact I don't recall ever having a substantive debate with GhostOtto on philosophy or physics.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
I only make reference to prominent physicists to substantiate an already articulated point made by me
and @Ghost has done the exact same thing making his points equally valid
In fact I don't recall ever having a substantive debate with GhostOtto on philosophy or physics
do you see everyone as being inferior to you?

or is it just most people here?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
The way you and Otto argue this point of 'nou posting philo', ....a debate never initiated by me,... is to avoid substantive discussion about what I ACTUALLY posted.

In defense, I then reference history of physics or statements by prominent physicists to counter that out of context attack. IOW, you two tend to hi-jack an otherwise potentially interesting subject, and turn into one orders of magnitude less interesting. I fact it was MY point many times to GhostOtto that his mere reference to others that do not think philo is relevant to science, is pointless without objective argument.

If I post something you don't agree with, then quote me and offer a counter argument germane to the given point,.... that is objective. Subjective characterizations are not substantive.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
In fact I don't recall ever having a substantive debate with GhostOtto on philosophy or physics

do you see everyone as being inferior to you?


By substantive debate, I mean on a specific topic in philosophy or physics,.... as opposed to defending myself against subjective accusations, or sweeping claims that philosophy is not science, or not relevant to science,... which is what you two tend to do.

An example, GhostOtto referenced others who do not agree with Kant,... without having ascertained what it is that he is supposedly objecting to ME about, nor even if I agree or disagree with Kant myself. I asked him to read Kant's work and get back to me, so I don't have to debate the internet out of context. Still waiting,

Another example, GhostOtto recently accused me of speaking philosophy when I used the purely physics term "ensemble". He was not interested in the substantive point made by me about physics, only about his invented topic of anti-philo.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
.a debate never initiated by me
and in this thread also not directed at you until you stepped in to validate the claim
is to avoid substantive discussion about what I ACTUALLY posted
wrong
i asked - you answered
period
it should have stopped there, but your neuroticism forced you to interject and validate my claim
you two tend to hi-jack an otherwise potentially interesting subject
see last point
quote me and offer a counter argument germane to the given point
i did
i do
see above

your defensiveness comes from your awareness of your neuroticism - otherwise, you would have left it alone
Subjective characterizations are not substantive
it's not subjective if it can be substantiated with evidence, and my point is being repeatedly validated above (plus your history) making my point an Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou cont'd
By substantive debate, I mean on a specific topic in philosophy or physics
any debate on philosophy is subjective, including the philo of physics as even your own link demonstrates:
https://en.wikipe...echanics

that is why @Ghost posts are every bit as substantive as your own - and why my argument still stands as valid
as opposed to defending myself against subjective accusations, or sweeping claims that philosophy is not science, or not relevant to science
strawman and red herring again
Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact
For example, GhostOtto recently accused me
So?
...Kant...
regardless of this point - it's still subjective and if his perspective differs then it's every bit as valid

so -

why did you feel the need to defend yourself against his claim?
was it to close to home?
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
it's not subjective if it can be substantiated with evidence, and my point is being repeatedly validated above (plus your history) making my point an Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact


Your subjective characterization was that I post on philosophy "instead of science". That is factually incorrect, as I have posted far more on the theoretical description of core QM and GR at physorg, then you have,.... therefore you should have left off "instead of science", but instead wrote "in addition to science". But that would have conflicted with your dishonest characterization narrative.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
Your subjective characterization was that I post on philosophy "instead of science"
it's not subjective as it's validated above and in your own history using a forensic linguistics analysis of your posts, so that makes it an Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact
That is factually incorrect ... then you have
there is no comparison in my statement

it is an Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact that can be validated by anyone choosing to take the time to do so
but instead wrote
invalid semantics argument - there is no substantive difference using either term unless specifying details in a study for clarity, which there is no need for here as the term still stands as being factually correct when assuming volume of your specific content

volume invalidates the need for specificity
your dishonest characterization
defensive again

validation?
Analytical fact as well as an Evaluative fact
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou cont'd
But that would have conflicted with your dishonest characterization narrative.
the only way to conflict with an Analytical fact or an Evaluative fact is: the scientific method

I will make a prediction: when you attempt to study said above facts you will validate my claim yet again using the same statistical analysis and tools that I've used

(unless, of course, you lie about it or simply present your opinion in the form of denial, yet again, for refute)
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
By substantive debate, I mean on a specific topic in philosophy or physics

any debate on philosophy is subjective, including the philo of physics as even your own link demonstrates:


All QM theories that are empirically indistinguishable are de facto philosophy of physics,... yet these alternative formulations are not subjective as they make the same objective predictions. What guided their development was a philosophical point of view,.... realist, positivist, epistemic,...

That Bohr, Heisenberg, made epistemic arguments while Einstein and Schrodinger made realist arguments is a fact of history, and therefore demonstrates that philosophy is relevant to physics, even necessarily.

"[on Kant's objection to Realism],... all knowledge must go through the mold of our a-priori synthetic judgements, the constraints of our mind,.. [...] ... This is not very far from Bohr's point of view.." - Roland Omnes, physicist.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
Evaluative facts are verified by applying objective standards of value. For example, the claim that theft is wrong may be verified by applying the standard of the right to own property.

in this case, the objective standard is the use of, reference to or elucidation using philosophy

.

Analytical facts are verified by consistency with the rules of a symbol system. For example, 3+2=5 is factual given the rules of arithmetic in base 10. Analytical facts include definitions, e.g., philosophy means a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means. This is how competent speakers of English have agreed to use this term. Again, most people will allow that analytical statements can be verifiable facts, provided there is convergent evidence of their accurate usage within a symbol system
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
What guided their development was a philosophical point of view,.... realist, positivist, epistemic
and irrelevant, especially to a layman or a discourse on valid scientific evidence, unless you're specifically attempting to justify your argument for a path of research

so the point still stands: given that subjectivity, the only thing required to be a refute of your claim is simply to state something different that has the equivalent publication as validation for said argument

that is supported by your own link

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
I have posted far more on the theoretical description of core QM and GR at physorg, then you have Stumpy.

That undisputed fact renders your attempted character assassination mute and factually incorrect, despite your ridiculous claim of "forensic linguistics analysis of [my] posts". I have not denied posting on philosophy of physics, and will continue to do so, in addition to physics, etc. So what? Again, if you don't agree then make a substantive counter argument,

Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
the only thing required to be a refute of your claim is simply to state something different


My claim is that it is a historical fact that philosophy of physics was relevant to the guiding and interpretation of physical theories. This is an indisputable fact. My claim that philosophy of physics is also of interest and relevancy to prominent physicists is an indisputable fact. That I post more on the theoretical description of QM and GR, than you do, is an indisputable fact.

These facts render your original subjective characterization vacuous and demonstrable wrong.

If when I eventually give my opinion about a subject in physics that one could interpret as philosophical then you have the opportunity at that time and in that context to render a counter argument.

My analysis your the bulk of your posts is that you chase cranks around, without actually posting about science.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
I have posted far more on the theoretical description of core QM and GR at physorg, then you have Stumpy
so what you're saying is that if you can justify your beliefs by comparing yourself with any random person then you're able to deny Evaluative and Analytical *facts*?

and you don't see the logical flaw here?
really?
*REALLY*??
That undisputed fact renders your attempted character assassination mute and factually incorrect
except that it's not factually incorrect as it's substantiated by your own posting history as well as the above
despite your ridiculous claim
ridiculous?
LOL
this *thread* is demonstrative of your neurotic behaviour and posting history validating my claim!
I have not denied posting on philosophy
never said you did - strawman and red herring
then make a substantive counter argument
already made my point

you already validated it

see also: Evaluative and Analytical *facts*
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
This is an indisputable fact
and?
My claim that philosophy of physics is also of interest and relevancy to prominent physicists is an indisputable fact
1- you're not discussing this with any prominent physicists here on PO, so it's irrelevant unless you're discussing this in a philo thread, which this isn't

2- you've already been told that it isn't topical or relevant, so why continue to dredge it up?
are you attempting to establish your superiority over someone?
why is it so important that you share this with those who actively and repeatedly tell you they don't care?
That I post more...than you do, is an indisputable fact
still aint a competition
I post more on psychology, forensics, etymology and semantics that you do, and I get paid for it

so what?
it's still irrelevant
subjective characterization
and again: Evaluative and Analytical *facts*
it can't be wrong if you keep proving that i'm correct and validating my claim!
LMFAO
Noumenon
1 / 5 (3) Nov 26, 2017
You have posted the same number of posts that I have , yet want to call me neurotic.

I have posted far more on the theoretical description of core QM and GR at physorg, then you have Stumpy

so what you're saying is that if you can justify your beliefs by comparing yourself with any random person


Not a random person, only the person claiming that I post on philosophy "instead of science". Since, I post on core science as well, this renders your attempted subjective characterization factually wrong.

Why do you feel the need to convince another poster here that I post on philosophy "instead of science" when that is factually incorrect, Why caste that aspersion to begin with? Are you trolling?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
You have posted the same number of posts that I have , yet want to call me neurotic
like I've told you before: it's part of what I do here

what better way to get you to break down barriers and show your true self than to challenge your beliefs with facts
Since, I post on core science as well, this renders your attempted subjective characterization factually wrong.
invalid semantics argument - there is no substantive difference using either term unless specifying details in a study for clarity, which there is no need for here as the term still stands as being factually correct when assuming volume of your specific content

volume invalidates the need for specificity

let me repeat this yet again: Evaluative and Analytical *facts*
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@Nou
Why do you feel the need to convince
not convince: it's an Evaluative and Analytical *fact*
Why caste that aspersion to begin with?
let me repeat this yet again: Evaluative and Analytical *facts*
when that is factually incorrect
wrong again: analysis shows you're more likely to post about philosphy than science
Are you trolling?
nope
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Nov 26, 2017
Geez you guys, it's only a measurement of the magnetic moment of a proton. It's only halfway done-- they still have to measure the magentic moment of an anti-proton and compare it.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Nov 26, 2017
Looks like we have a Cap'n - Noumo show going on... wasn't he a Jules Verne Captain of a Sub?
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
@mac, from the article
2.79284734462 plus or minus 0.00000000082
Looks like greater precision to me. A full order of magnitude more. I count eleven digits in the current measurement and only ten in yours. #physicscrankscantcount.

There's also the consideration of using the same experimental apparatus for both measurements, which you seem not to understand the point of. It reduces possible systematic errors, for starters.

On Earth.
Da Schneib
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2017
Looks like we have a Cap'n - Noumo show going on... wasn't he a Jules Verne Captain of a Sub?
Sideshow I'd say.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
You do know that charge is fundamental and that the magnetic is derivative; therefore, charge has no magnetic moment only the curl of the E field, that you apparently know nothing about... maxwell you stupid people!
Noumenon
1 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2017
Looks like we have a Cap'n - Noumo show going on... wasn't he a Jules Verne Captain of a Sub?
Sideshow I'd say.


Which you initiated with your childish lashing out.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@Da Schneib
I know that some "scientists" have ignored the existence of Aether, but what did they do with their unconsciousness in these 130 years?
They wander through the Aether that fills them, and they are not aware of it. What do you think, from what formed everything in the material-energy entity of the universe? Could it be true that it all came from nothing? Use your logic and do not constantly use other "evidence" that is. Perhaps, deliberate forgery. You, as some of your tools in treating the unknown, use Maxwell and others, but: does anyone from science know the origin of the creation: matter, magnetism, electricity, heat, light, and all other phenomena as created by the interaction of these?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@Da Schneib I know that some "scientists" have ignored the existence of Aether, but what did they do with their unconsciousness in these 130 years?
They wander through the Aether that fills them, and they are not aware of it. What do you think, from what formed everything in the material-energy entity of the universe? Could it be true that it all came from nothing? Use your logic and do not constantly use other "evidence" that is. Perhaps, deliberate forgery. You, as some of your tools in treating the unknown, use Maxwell and others, but: does anyone from science know the origin of the creation: matter, magnetism, electricity, heat, light, and all other phenomena as created by the interaction of these?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
Today, the existence of Aether is increasingly accepted, but since he is a great secret for science, this ignorance has been rejected by him.
Here, let me help you with a little understanding of magnetism: magnetism can not exist without a neutron and in them gluon and of course gluon in general.
For now, until the time comes to explain it in detail. But you must accept that there is Aether and that it fills an infinite universe and even subatomic particles in it are "submerged"
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
Today, the existence of Aether is increasingly accepted, but since he is a great secret for science, this ignorance has been rejected by him.
Here, let me help you with a little understanding of magnetism: magnetism can not exist without a neutron and in them gluon and of course gluon in general.
For now, until the time comes to explain it in detail. But you must accept that there is Aether and that it fills an infinite universe and even subatomic particles in it are "submerged"

"Nothing" is only conceptual. A charge, i.e. the Charge's Field, follow simple set of rules. Our interpretation of the "creation" is only conceptual and without Logic. For each thought, is part of the field We don't always see the fairy tales being presented to us, bias?
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
We have the ability to use Logic but have a penchant for not!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 27, 2017
...
Here, let me help you with a little understanding of magnetism: magnetism can not exist without a neutron and in them gluon and of course gluon in general....

So, how is it they are able to measure the magnetism of a single proton (no neutrons in sight)...?
That would be a fail for THAT particular statement...
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
Gurgle, #physicscranks say the craziest things.

Neutrons?

Really?

Really?

I can't imagine where they come up with this stuff. Thanks for sharing that one, @Whyde.

I think.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
Time to link another BS generator. I like this one pretty well, it sounds just like Deepak Chopra: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 27, 2017
Time to link another BS generator. I like this one pretty well, it sounds just like Deepak Chopra: http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Think you would do better thinking for yourself with Logic. You may only derive truth with that, that is and not that, that is not.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
@milnik
Today, the existence of Aether is increasingly accepted
not by any scientist or semi-literate person because of things like the following: https://www.natur...omms9174

Use your logic and do not constantly use other "evidence" that is
"logic" gave the world religion, ghosts, dragons and wars to decide which nonexistent deity was the best deity, whereas the scientific method used evidence and got rid of the crap
Perhaps, deliberate forgery
so, if evidence works in your interpretation of reality (Maxwell) then it's ok, but if it directly refutes your claims (like the above study - validated many times over) then it's a conspiracy?
how is that even logical?
LMFAO
But you must accept that there is Aether
only if you also deny the evidence, reality and science

aether is dead, so your religion is based on a lie
deal with it
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
@milnik
Today, the existence of Aether is increasingly accepted
not by any scientist or semi-literate person because of things like the following: https://www.natur...omms9174

Use your logic and do not constantly use other "evidence" that is
"logic" gave the world religion, ghosts, dragons and wars to decide which nonexistent deity was the best deity, whereas the scientific method used evidence and got rid of the crap
Perhaps, deliberate forgery
so, if evidence works in your interpretation of reality (Maxwell) then it's ok, but if it directly refutes your claims (like the above study - validated many times over) then it's a conspiracy?
how is that even logical?
LMFAO
But you must accept that there is Aether
only if you also deny the evidence, reality and science

aether is dead, so your religion is based on a lie
deal with it

You don't get it! The ether is the collective fields, you see, they are all
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@hyper
You don't get it!
no, *you* don't get it
just because you say it doesn't make it true
period
full stop
The ether is the collective fields, you see, they are all
and if you could prove that you would be zephyr's messiah, or at the very least worshipped by everyone in his cult

.

I presented evidence that there is no aether
evidence that is not only validated but to a really f*cking high degree of accuracy! [10^-18]

you presented: your belief

belief isn't the same as evidence

see the difference?

Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 27, 2017
So take a second, look at the universe with knowledge that everything are these bipolar fields we identify as charge centers. Nothing else, conserved. So charges always complies, i.e. the like charge centers are moving away from each other, and the unlike rushing toward each other, collectively! i.e superposition applies everywhere and the relative superimposed objects will always attract. Anyway, to generate the magnetic field from a point charge without spatial dimension, only location, requires a current loop! So don't wiggle the probe, and remove gravity, ..
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 27, 2017
@hyper
So take a second, look at the universe with knowledge that everything are
just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is
- that statement still applies

you can make all the statements you like but it will all mean exactly the same thing: nada

until you have:
1- evidence
1a - that is peer-reviewed and published
AND
2- validation

then it is simply your interpretation and belief

point of specific duress for your argument:
if you consider that I provided evidence that directly contradicts your claims
and said evidence is definitely validated

then you will have to consider the implications and not just appeal to reiteration of former beliefs

repetition doesn't make it more true
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
@hyper
So take a second, look at the universe with knowledge that everything are
just because you believe it to be true doesn't mean it is
- that statement still applies

you can make all the statements you like but it will all mean exactly the same thing: nada

until you have:
1- evidence
1a - that is peer-reviewed and published
AND
2- validation

then it is simply your interpretation and belief

point of specific duress for your argument:
if you consider that I provided evidence that directly contradicts your claims
and said evidence is definitely validated

then you will have to consider the implications and not just appeal to reiteration of former beliefs

repetition doesn't make it more true

my bad, i thought charge was a gimme
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
I laugh at the fool that denies his own existence! It's obvious to any "learned" individual. Filtering "words" for "Truth" using a tool defined by the theories that denies your claim is acknowledging stupidity as Merit!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy,
Vedo che servi più con consapevolezza che con logica, ed è per questo che sei sulla strada giusta per comprendere le vere cause del fenomeno in noi e nell'universo. Colui che non capisce se stesso e non capisce lo scopo della sua esistenza ascolterà sempre ciò che dice da chi ha qualche beneficio. Siamo tutti fatti di etere, e chiunque non creda in questo, deve aspettare di salire dal livello dell'intelletto al livello dell'intuizione.
@Captain,
La logica è un modo di collegare le cause del fenomeno, ma sotto l'influenza del libero arbitrio, che è una coscienza freno importante che ci collega con la coscienza assoluto dell'universo tramite l'intuizione. Questo non ha nulla a che fare con la religione, perché l'intuizione porta la conoscenza finale delle vere cause del fenomeno. Quindi, assicurati di risvegliare la consapevolezza in te stesso.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Pardon for this above !
@Hyperfuzzy,
I see that you serve more with awareness than logic, and that's why you are on the right path to understanding the true causes of the phenomenon in us and in the universe. The one who does not understand himself and does not understand the purpose of his existence will always listen to what they say from whom he has some benefit. We are all made up of Aether, and whoever does not believe in this, must wait to climb from the level of intellect to the level of intuition.
@Captain,
Logic is the way to connect the causes of phenomena, but under the influence of free will, which is a great brake of awareness that connects us with the Absolute consciousness of the universe through intuition. This has nothing to do with religion, because intuition brings final knowledge of the true causes of the phenomenon. So, make sure to awaken awareness in yourself.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
@Whydening
You need to know that the proton is composed of gluon and quarks, and I said that magnetism can not occur without the mutual relationship between gluon and Aether.
Think about the magnets and neutron stars and how they were created.
And as matter arises, today's scientists will not understand, because they think that science can go within its power beyond the power of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU). That is why they are "trapped" in cages of various models and meaningless many equations, which they have invented, believing that they are more powerful than the Creator himself, because they do not believe in him, and therefore they are persistent with a limited level of consciousness.
Noumenon
3 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
today's scientists will not understand, because they think that science can go within its power beyond the power of the Spiritual Entity of the Universe (SEU).

You don't seem to understand the purpose of science. Science deliberately limits itself to phenomena, which of course precludes speaking of metaphysics. Prediction of phenomena. Science does not nor should it claim anything beyond this.

..., believing that they are more powerful than the Creator himself, because they do not believe in him, ...


If a scientists chooses to not believe in metaphysics or finds no meaning to do so, it is not based on his scientific knowledge, as metaphysics is not subject to scientific investigations.

It is now clear that you invoke the "aether" as a metaphysical entity. While some realist-physicists make similar mistakes, it is not objective science proper. It may be and was a useful postulate, but if not substantiated, it will eventually by dropped as unnecessary.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Metaphysics is above physics, and physics is merely a knowledge of matter and its behavior as seen by our observing senses, and how are our observable senses formed and whether they are above or below those physical knowledge.? Leave your understanding of science and metaphysics that originated from ancient times. Understand your existence and try to find out how matter forms and from what. Can our scientific level of knowledge explain how and from what the matter arises. Science has swallowed us up and does not know anything about it and claims that everything came from nothing. It's your science and nothing is empty pieces of particle collision tubes that are not empty, although there is no substance in them, but Aether is there, for which scientists are not aware that this Aether is "the creator of all their" dead "- non-existent particles , but they
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
were created in such a way that Aether was irritated, that with the help of increased magnetism and higher particle collisions, these "new" particles formed, as a product of science.
Metaphysics exists only in the minds of people whose awareness is destroyed by the external influences of those who are only at the level of intellect and instinct.
Science should be the field of action of mankind, that through the laws of nature there will be the true causes of the phenomenon.
How is science, which does not know Spirituality and rejects metaphysics, how has it had the courage to "baptize" some of its own God, as a particle of God, in Cern?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 28, 2017
This has nothing to do with religion, because intuition brings final knowledge of the true causes of the phenomenon
@milnik
your argument requires faith in intuition by your own definition which then leads directly to religion - this is because logic is lead by current knowledge and beliefs (not evidence) making it influenced by irrational faith-based situational "facts" believed to be true

this is why people "know" unproven entities exist

therefore your argument supports my claim of logic leading to religion
were created in such a way that Aether was irritated
there is absolutely no evidence of aether's existence other than your insistence in it, therefore your argument is invalidated by the simple fact that Science provides *evidence* that the aether doesn't exist

evidence trumps belief

repeating your dogma doesn't make it more true, regardless of the gobbledy-goop that explains it in your eyes
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
@ Captain,
Faith is true and religion is dogma. That is why faith is united with the awareness, and awareness is the power to know the true causes of the phenomenon.
What this science confirms is that Aether does not exist. ? Whether a person is more or less a product than someone else's product is more or less productive than a product that a person has performed. But only as a combination of an already existing one.
The evidence in science was created by human action, and what formed the man is much more subtle than science. See how much science has engulfed people by taking science as a tool, a product of people, to prove with it that this model is in that PC, one of your deities that we all should believe. This does not apply to me, because it is the same as when I was from the hoe I made, he expected me to explain how and why the plant has fruits.
I can freely say the truth: all those who think that experiments can prove every
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
phenomenon, they are unconscious, and consciousness is the power of understanding the truth, and the truth is science and religion.
Therefore, here is evidence that ether exists:
Gravity emerged as a residual unbalanced state between the AETHER and the "solid state" of the matter (quarks and 3kg of particles), similar to the cohesion forces in a liquid droplet.
Neither do you have any idea about what photon is, what is magnetism, and how it arises, how the heavenly bodies are formed, which are the true paths of heavenly bodies, and why black holes are formed. Once you understand this, continue the discussion, or if you want to explain it to me without stupid formulas and various and fictitious models.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (2) Nov 28, 2017
Minor Point: There doesn't necessarily need to be evidence per se that some postulated entity exists as it can legitimately be inferred as the simplest explanation. Historically, Maxwell made use of the aether to unify Faraday's research, and even after the Michelson/Morley experiment , the aether was "disproved", as Lorentz successfully accounted for the null result by use of length contraction. It was only after Einstein's equivalent resolution of special relativity that the aether was regarded as redundant. In fact this even took time as Einstein himself continued to use the terminology of "aether".
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
@milking it
Faith is true
faith is, by definition, the belief in something without evidence
therefore it cannot in any way be "true" as there is no evidence validating it
What this science confirms is that Aether does not exist. ?
study is linked above in my post to you
it is the latest validation with the highest accuracy

the rest of that paragraph was gobbledy-goop
... what formed the man is much more subtle...
it's called evolution combined with biology and physics

again, the rest of that paragraph is faith, not science or fact
I can freely say the truth
no
you can freely state your beliefs

for a "truth" to be evident there must be evidence constrained with methods that remove bias etc
that evidence must then be validated to become a "truth"
one of your deities
not mine
This does not apply to me,
reality and Science apply to everyone

Noumenon
3 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017

EDIT: ...."and even after the Michelson/Morley experiment , the aether [wasn't] "disproved", as Lorentz successfully accounted for the null result by use of length contraction"

How is science, which does not know Spirituality and rejects metaphysics, how has it had the courage to "baptize" some of its own God, as a particle of God, in Cern?


The "god particular" was merely a misnomer, and was never meant by scientists as an actual metaphysical entity.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
@milking the wrong bull
... or if you want to explain it to me without stupid formulas and various and fictitious models
without any method of verification for accuracy, factual representation of reality or ability to validate?

Hmmm... I can do that one!

the universe must have been created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster
AS the pasta unfurled it's meatballs of mass to infuse the universe with, yeah it did then reach out with its spaghetti arm and gather unto the universe said galaxies and formations of roundness that it so saucily prefers

and LO it did also use it's starchy attraction to glue together the electrons and protons and neutrons of meatball shape to build the pasta-ness of reality

AND in accordance with the prophecy, it did also breathe the tomato of life into said meatballs of shape to build us into the universe as it's life of rule and war

so sayeth the Flying Spaghetti Monster, lord of all that exists today and smiter of meatheads
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 28, 2017
@milnik,...One of many things that differentiates science from religion is that science will admit when it can't answer a question, in fact limits it's scope, and never claims final certainty,.... while religion is dogmatic.
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy,
Vedo che servi più con consapevolezza che con logica, ed è per questo che sei sulla strada giusta per comprendere le vere cause del fenomeno in noi e nell'universo. Colui che non capisce se stesso e non capisce lo scopo della sua esistenza ascolterà sempre ciò che dice da chi ha qualche beneficio. Siamo tutti fatti di etere, e chiunque non creda in questo, deve aspettare di salire dal livello dell'intelletto al livello dell'intuizione.
@Captain,
La logica è un modo di collegare le cause del fenomeno, ma sotto l'influenza del libero arbitrio, che è una coscienza freno importante che ci collega con la coscienza assoluto dell'universo tramite l'intuizione. Questo non ha nulla a che fare con la religione, perché l'intuizione porta la conoscenza finale delle vere cause del fenomeno. Quindi, assicurati di risvegliare la consapevolezza in te stesso.

TweedleDee and TweedleDum, i.e. The Right to reject or accept Logic. Simply deny any premise,
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
Money, the cause of nonsense and the cause to support nonsense. No publication can define truth, only suggest truth. Truth must be accepted by all. The generation of non-truthers began about 3500 years ago. Money is the right to deny! We killed the developers of logic and proper patterns for interacting.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
So any dichotomy to describe the "Whole", i.e. the universe, must know at least one partition. When did it become, "I think ..." vs "These set of measurements imply" this "Isomorphism" with knowledge our conceptual representations are only isomorphic to reality, not reality, two different thangs.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 28, 2017
So I don't get the connection of a magnetic moment of a point charge. We are talking about creating a magnetic field with a point charge? Else you are telling us a fairy tale!
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
Modern Physics, completely unacceptable, i.e. Formal Logic! Nonsense!

Onto set does not exist!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
@Whydening
You need to know that the proton is composed of gluon and quarks, and I said that magnetism can not occur without the mutual relationship between gluon and Aether.

No, you said it cannot exist without neutrons. BIG difference...
Hyperfuzzy
1 / 5 (1) Nov 28, 2017
@Whydening
You need to know that the proton is composed of gluon and quarks, and I said that magnetism can not occur without the mutual relationship between gluon and Aether.

No, you said it cannot exist without neutrons. BIG difference...

So what are you reporting and commenting about? Nonsense?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 28, 2017
@Milnik
You need to know that the proton is composed of gluon and quarks, and I said that magnetism can not occur without the mutual relationship between gluon and Aether.

@Whydening
No, you said it cannot exist without neutrons. BIG difference...

So what are you reporting and commenting about? Nonsense?

HF,
Was a conversation tween milnik and myself. Do try and keep up...
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
@ Captain,
You say I'm a wrong bull. Exactly for you and like minded ones, I am also dangerous, because I can put your not understanding the structure of the universe, put on my horns made up of Aether and I will take it into account.
Let me educate you a bit (not only you but the entire science), of which natural magnetic materials are made. Examine and see that these are chemical elements-isotopes, but each proton and neutron possesses its magnetic moment as it possesses gluons that bind quarks. And free gluon in the neutron forms magnetism with Aether, you have to understand this, if you want to understand something further.
I'll tell you that Einstein's erroneous claim that the planet Mercury is moving unevenly is wrong. I have proof of the exact cause of the movement of all celestial bodies in the universe, and this can undermine many of the previous theories, and especially your
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
Lorenz and Einstein, and especially those who go "for a walk" to the place of birth of your dear BB, and hence brought us The latest news, which are not very old, are only a couple of billion years old.
Sir, who invented an activity called science, and what it means and on what basis it established itself. Whether there was suddenly a BB that formed a science without the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
Especially, I ask, personally, you Captain: Are you two entity, materiality, and spirituality? Please answer that I know who I am dealing with !!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2017
@milking a bull
You say I'm a wrong bull
no
i proved you wrong
there is a difference
Exactly for you and like minded ones, I am also dangerous
no, you are not
definitely not to me
Let me educate you a bit
i don't accept religion
if you want to "educate" then you should use links and references to validated science/studies

otherwise you're talking religion
I'll tell you that Einstein's erroneous claim
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

I have proof of
then publish it and get it validated

otherwise it's just your belief - it's not science
Sir, who invented an activity called science
is your google broke? or are you just off your meds?
Especially, I ask, personally, you Captain: Are you two entity, materiality, and spirituality? Please answer that I know who I am dealing with !!
1- bad translation - nonsensical question

2- any answer that doesn't meet your belief is "wrong" to you proving you're religious, not scientific
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
@CaptainTo educate you in religion, though you do not understand and do not distinguish religion from the truth of the cause of the phenomenon.
Remember for all time: BOG STAY !!!
Only scientists or religious fervor do not really understand what God is.
God is neither matter nor energy nor any of it. GOD is the general state of all events and causes of phenomena in material-energy and in the Spiritual entity. Is it a religious process, if most people on the planet know and realize that the Soul is something that leads us to finding out the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe and in ourselves.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
Do you own the Soul? If you do not know it and you renounce it, then you are followed by several hundred reincarnations to understand the structure of the universe.
But there are plenty more of these discussions, let's go back to science:
Can you explain: why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth? Knowledge of this steam and Lorenzo and Einstein and all those who do not know the Constitution of the universe and what matter is and how it arises.
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 29, 2017
@Milnik
You need to know that the proton is composed of gluon and quarks, and I said that magnetism can not occur without the mutual relationship between gluon and Aether.

@Whydening
No, you said it cannot exist without neutrons. BIG difference...

So what are you reporting and commenting about? Nonsense?

HF,
Was a conversation tween milnik and myself. Do try and keep up...

Like I said, Nonsense. Please learn.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
@drank the milked bull-juice
@CaptainTo educate you in religion
i don't want or need your religion - keep it
though you do not understand and do not distinguish religion from the truth
1- I understand religion far better than you

2- there is no truth, otherwise you would be able to offer more than just "because i said so"
Remember for all time: BOG STAY
remember for all time: FOAD and Anhero
Only scientists or religious fervor do not really understand what God is
only idiot fanatical fundies make those type comments
GOD is the general state of
should be easily proven then!
have at it - just make sure we can validate it
you do know what validate means, right?
Do you own the Soul?
so, you can't prove it exists, but you're selling it or you want to discuss ownership? LOL
http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/

let's go back to science
back?
you've not been here once!
LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2017
@pseudoscience bull-milk
Can you explain: why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth?
yes
Knowledge of this steam and Lorenzo and Einstein and all those who do not know the Constitution of the universe and what matter is and how it arises.
WTF does that even mean?

did your word processor get a hairball and regurgitate random words from your dictionary, or did you have a stroke?
... the Soul is something that leads us to finding out the true causes of the phenomenon in the universe and in ourselves
so then why are people in vegetative states not the smartest people on the planet?

moreover, I've presented you with the truth of life, the universe, and everything [42] as explained by simply remembering reality is a construct of the flying spaghetti monster, and that is what the soul has proven to be truth, in accordance with the prophecy, therefore your argument is invalidated by truth
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2017
@CaptainTo educate you in religion, though you do not understand and do not distinguish religion from the truth of the cause of the phenomenon.
Remember for all time: BOG STAY !!!
...

Is Bog the name of your dog?
And, on the same note - what does the agnostic, dyslexic say?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@wg,
BOG=GOD
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@Captain,By your behavior and the special nicknames you attach to me, you are not aware of what kind of image you are giving yourself in the media. But it does not represent anything for me, because I am aware of who I am dealing with, but as a spiritual and conscious man I am trying to direct you to the right path of spirituality and awareness. I managed to get to know you enough and to conclude that you do not need to discuss anything at all, but I know that you absolutely do not know the basic meanings of what religion, spirituality, consciousness, God, and especially you have no idea what is and how it is created: matter, energy, magnetism, light, gravity, the movement of celestial bodies, and the like. You are in these areas "DALTONIST"
gculpex
not rated yet Nov 30, 2017
God does not play dice...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@got bull-milk?
@Captain,By your behavior and the special nicknames you attach to me, you are not aware of what kind of image you are giving yourself in the media
I am fully cognizant of the impact of the statements provided as each is considerably better thought out than even one of your own, however, as you're a Noob, perhaps you should endeavor to review my history and learn the reasoning why you're being addressed by such hyperbole and satirical sarcasm
I am trying to direct you to the right path of spirituality and awareness
no
you're trying to direct me to *your* path while making the ASSumption that I don't know a better path

that is called religious fanaticism
I managed to get to know you enough
not hardly, otherwise, you would run screaming into the night seeking succor from any large mental institution in your area

but I propose you're actually already admitted and on your R&R breaks, considering your discourse and content
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@the kool-aid is bull-milk
but I know that you absolutely do not know the basic meanings of what religion, spirituality, consciousness, God
worst assessment of any idiotic pseudoscience religious comment on PO ever

the problem isn't what you think I do or do not know. The problem is that you're spouting unprovable nonsensical religious dogma on a site where evidence, validation and science is the king

IOW - you're a loon squawking for attention because no one else will give you the time of day
and especially you have no idea what is and how it is created: matter, energy, magnetism, light, gravity, the movement of celestial bodies, and the like
funny thing: you've proven you have no idea, yet you claim I don't?

ROTFLMFAO

at least you have potential as a commedianne ... or a local nut-job standing on a corner preaching to the homeless attempting to get their money
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@Captain, You did not answer my question :
Why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth? This is true for many other moons in the solar system.
If you can answer this question, then you will prove that you are not "Daltonist" in the field of science and religion. This is simply a matter, but it requires a lot of knowledge about natural laws. Even Kepler's laws are correcting this.
HERE YOU GO!!
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
@Captain, You did not answer my question :
Why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth? This is true for many other moons in the solar system.
If you can answer this question, then you will prove that you are not "Daltonist" in the field of science and religion. This is simply a matter, but it requires a lot of knowledge about natural laws. Even Kepler's laws are correcting this.
HERE YOU GO!!

dribble, i see you have the ball he's going for the long one, he's out in a field, he's in the water. nooooo, he's on the moon!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
@milking the bull
@Captain, You did not answer my question
actually, I did answer
just FYI - clarity is important when asking questions
what you asked was
Can you explain: why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth?
to which I replied "yes"
Why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth?
http://www.wisege...arth.htm

If you can answer this question, then you will prove that you are not "Daltonist" in the field of science and religion
1- WTF does a dichromacy characterized by a lowered sensitivity to green light resulting in an inability to distinguish green and purplish-red have to do with astrophysics and your idiotic religious regurgitations above?

2- "science *and* religion" = antipodal opposition. There is no such thing combined unless you're a complete idiot creationist

the rest of your post is puerile vomitus excretions of dogma
Hyperfuzzy
not rated yet Nov 30, 2017
@milking the bull
@Captain, You did not answer my question
actually, I did answer
just FYI - clarity is important when asking questions
what you asked was
Can you explain: why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth?
to which I replied "yes"
Why is our Moon always one and the same side facing the Earth?
http://www.wisege...arth.htm
If you can answer this question, then you will prove that you are not "Daltonist" in the field of science and religion
1- WTF does a dichromacy characterized by a lowered sensitivity to green light resulting in an inability to distinguish green and purplish-red have to do with astrophysics and your idiotic religious regurgitations above?
2- "science *and* religion" = antipodal opposition. There is no such thing combined unless you're a complete idiot creationist
the rest of your post is ...

cause this is $hit!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
Again, I have to educate, not just Captain, but all those who deceive themselves with some "evidence" that has nothing to do with natural laws.
My proof for month issue is done on 15 pages of formula, text and diagram, but it is based on another proof that has over 20 pages of explanations.
In short: what is "allegedly explained" in
htpp: //vvww.visege...arth..htm, has nothing to do with the behavior and movement of celestial bodies, and most of the moons around their planets.
Two celestial bodies rotate between themselves (these include planetary, solar, galactic) based on the constant accumulation of the potential and kinetic energy of these bodies in relation to the center of mass of the system. In particular, on the elliptical path around the central body, there is a part of the kinetic energy of the radial velocity which is transformed into a conjunction of two spins of the same size, and the opposite directions
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2017
One spin is compressed and the other is a rotation of a smaller body around the local center of mass on a sinusoidal radius, and this leads to to this phenomenon, which science does not know.
That's how galaxies behave, and scientists say that their "escape" is caused by some dark energy and matter. It is my goal to show that it is nothing incidental in the universe and that everyone must believe in the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
I know this will ridicule the Captain, because he acts like the Communists behaved with us and thank God, they are gone.
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
One spin is compressed and the other is a rotation of a smaller body around the local center of mass on a sinusoidal radius, and this leads to to this phenomenon, which science does not know.
That's how galaxies behave, and scientists say that their "escape" is caused by some dark energy and matter. It is my goal to show that it is nothing incidental in the universe and that everyone must believe in the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
I know this will ridicule the Captain, because he acts like the Communists behaved with us and thank God, they are gone.

What potential? What kinetic? Relative to what? What axiomatic reality? What is your isomorphic symbolism. How do you symbolically define Truth. Define any deviation from Formal Logic. Define instrumentation other than your mind as a requirement. Variable radii? .. or near field?
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2017
One spin is compressed and the other is a rotation of a smaller body around the local center of mass on a sinusoidal radius, and this leads to to this phenomenon, which science does not know.
That's how galaxies behave, and scientists say that their "escape" is caused by some dark energy and matter. It is my goal to show that it is nothing incidental in the universe and that everyone must believe in the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe.
I know this will ridicule the Captain, because he acts like the Communists behaved with us and thank God, they are gone.

What potential? What kinetic? Relative to what? What axiomatic reality? What is your isomorphic symbolism. How do you symbolically define Truth. Define any deviation from Formal Logic. Define instrumentation other than your mind as a requirement. Variable radii? .. or near field?

Source!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Nov 30, 2017
@wg,
BOG=GOD

Wouldn't that DOG?
Which, by the way, is the answer to my previous question about dyslexic agnostics. -
Is there a Dog...?
So... you're dyslexic?
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2017
@Whydening,
In my tongue God = God, and since you do not know God, you do not know anything about him, so you use phrases such as: dyslexic, agnostic, and you are running away from a topic that relates to the magnetic moment of a particle.
People so "proud, like you, have the ability to" advance "using such expressions, which you use as a weapon to hinder the spread of Spirituality and Consciousness. Your chances are nothingness!!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2017
@bull milk-dud
Again, I have to educate, not just Captain
the problem is: your entire series of posts are nothing but gibberish spewing from your personal dementia and delusional beliefs
there is absolutely nothing you've claimed so far that can be validated in any way

so that isn't in any way education or educating anyone

there is a technical term for what you're doing: proselytization
My proof
your belief - there is no proof of anything in any of your posts
everyone must believe in the existence of the Spiritual Entity of the universe
and if we refuse?
considering there is still no proof or evidence, why should we?

My Flying Spaghetti Monster can beat up your spiritual entity because *meatballs*
I know this will ridicule the Captain, because he acts like the Communists
1- it actually ridicules your own self

2- communist? really? that's the best ya got?
LMFAO

3- Learn2Science, then learn2English, byotch!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy,
Would not be good for this discussion, if you do not know what the potential energy is, what kinetic energy is, what is the truth, what is mathematical evidence. And your philosophical expressions do not represent a value for me.
I have taken two heavenly bodies, and on the basis of my knowledge and understanding of the structure of the universe, I have received the formulas for which I can do the following:
  - I'm getting Kepler's law
  -bearing Einstein's "proof" of the cause of the precession of the perihelion of the planet
  - I solve the problem of moving two or more celestial bodies
  - I give an explanation of the origin of matter, magnetism, gravity, light
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2017
  - I explain the origin and formation of celestial bodies, and this puts in doubt many of the previous theories (black hole coupling, the existence of GW, the existence of BB, illogical inventions of various particles in particle collisions, and in particular the "divine" particles - some bosons)
For all this I have proof, but I am waiting for some conscious but not tycoon scientific institution to publish it, but I will never pay anyone to that publication, but I expect a prize for those works.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
@milky-bull juice idiot
People so "proud, like you, have the ability to" advance "using such expressions, which you use as a weapon to hinder the spread of Spirituality and Consciousness.
actually, people like you are the hinderance to any spirituality

and the only hindrance to consciousness is narcolepsy

,

the sad thing is: google translate is free and you still can't figure out how to use it

of course, even google can't comprehend the complete idiocy that you're trying to share here as it's based entirely on your own personal delusions

just because you *can* share your mental illness with the world doesn't mean you *should* - your psychiatrist will revoke your internet privleges once he reads your above bullsh*t!

*

"Ignorance is bliss to the ignorant, but a burden to society" - Truck Captain Stumpy
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
@Whydening,
In my tongue God = God, and since you do not know God, you do not know anything about him, so you use phrases such as: dyslexic, agnostic, and you are running away from a topic that relates to the magnetic moment of a particle.
People so "proud, like you, have the ability to" advance "using such expressions, which you use as a weapon to hinder the spread of Spirituality and Consciousness. Your chances are nothingness!!

@Milnik
You're response relays a distinct lack of humor. You and YOUR God should work on that. Lighten up.
My own definition states GOD is an acronym - (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)atum. Which describes the Universe.
Ergo, the Universe (and everything in it) IS "GOD".
Most Humans are uncomfortable with an equality like that. After all - a "God" can do anything - and we can't. (yet)
So instead, they choose a "God" structure to explain away their own lack of "god-like" abilities.
And then bully others to not even try...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
  - I explain the origin and formation ... and in particular the "divine" particles - some bosons)
For all this I have proof, but I am waiting for some conscious but not tycoon scientific institution to publish it, but I will never pay anyone to that publication, but I expect a prize for those works.

Aha! So you ARE a merchant, after all... (5th Element)
So much for "Spirituality" and "Consciousness"...

Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2017
@Hyperfuzzy,
Would not be good for this discussion, if you do not know what the potential energy is, what kinetic energy is, what is the truth, what is mathematical evidence. And your philosophical expressions do not represent a value for me.
I have taken two heavenly bodies, and on the basis of my knowledge and understanding of the structure of the universe, I have received the formulas for which I can do the following:
  - I'm getting Kepler's law
  -bearing Einstein's "proof" of the cause of the precession of the perihelion of the planet
  - I solve the problem of moving two or more celestial bodies
  - I give an explanation of the origin of matter, magnetism, gravity, light

WTF? Nonsense without reason!
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 01, 2017
I have taken two heavenly bodies, and on the basis of my knowledge and understanding of the structure of the universe, I have received the formulas for which I can do the following:
  - I'm getting Kepler's law

Which one?
  -bearing Einstein's "proof" of the cause of the precession of the perihelion of the planet
  - I solve the problem of moving two or more celestial bodies

Where ya moving 'em TO..?
 
 - I give an explanation of the origin of matter, magnetism, gravity, light

Now. we're gettin' somewhere...
Pick any 1 of the 4 and begin...
Oh, wait.. no explanation before payment, right?
Hyperfuzzy
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2017
Proof that stupidity is unbounded and intelligence is considered awkward!
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2017
So, we have completely focused on the topic of discussion, and I see that all of you are aiming and aiming to belittle the one you do not understand, because you do not understand much in science, and especially in the understanding of the structure of the universe and the explanation of the true causes of the phenomenon.
I again advise you to think deeply about the existence of the substance AETHER, because without it there can be nothing in the universe.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2017
If we are talking about two celestial bodies, I take Earth and the Sun, and as for other phenomena such as gravity, magnetism, light, heat, processes of the origin and disappearance of celestial bodies, the movement and the true path of these bodies, you and the whole doctrine You are filled with some "dark" matter and matter, and especially energy. It serves as a weapon against which you are fighting against the laws of nature and the God himself who is the creator and yourself.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 02, 2017
@milked the wrong bull
I again advise you to think deeply about the existence of the substance AETHER
thought about it
then i re-read: https://www.natur...omms9174

you say: "because without it [aether] there can be nothing in the universe"

the evidence says: ain't no aether, and the universe exists

Conclusion: you're an idiot smoking a psychotropic and proselytizing

.

.

the rest of what you wrote is pure unadalterated unconstrained manure wrapped in dogma topped with a Dunning-Kruger with pseudoscience sprinkles
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2017
So, we have completely focused on the topic of discussion, and I see that all of you are aiming and aiming to belittle the one you do not understand, because you do not understand much in science, and especially in the understanding of the structure of the universe and the explanation of the true causes of the phenomenon.

Not belittling. Just asking questions...
I again advise you to think deeply about the existence of the substance AETHER, because without it there can be nothing in the universe.

I laugh. The Universe is 3D space, filled with a combo of matter and energetic particles. The "substance" is the nothing that all the rest resides in. Aether is the nothingness of empty space. Ergo, NOT an actual "substance" in the accepted sense.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Dec 02, 2017
If we are talking about two celestial bodies, I take Earth and the Sun, and as for other phenomena such as gravity, magnetism, light, heat, processes of the origin and disappearance of celestial bodies, the movement and the true path of these bodies, you and the whole doctrine You are filled with some "dark" matter and matter, and especially energy.

Not some "dark" matter or energy. Unexplained phenomena...
It serves as a weapon against which you are fighting against the laws of nature and the God himself who is the creator and yourself.

Not a weapon. A magnifying glass.
Not fighting the laws of nature. Simply attempting to understand them.
And, yes, (G)eometrically (O)rdinated (D)ata is the creator...
Not an individual. A fortuitous geometric arrangement
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
@ Captain,
My true assertions for which I have proof, which you will never understand, and that's why you behave like that because you are full of some dark forces, and you are probably a member of ISIL, because only they can have such a relationship with human beings. I will pray to God to forgive me for having had a discussion with such a man ++++ ... +++
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
@WG,
And from these kinds of your opinions and behaviors, you can learn a lot about the state of affairs where the Spiritual Entity has left an unclean place of unholy powers and evil spirits.
I am glad that I have also seen here that there is a terrible resistance to the existence of God, but in those who have just stumbled into the existence of the SEU.
I wish you an enlightenment and refreshment. It is time to return and respect the one who formed you, but you are not aware of it.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
@idiot illiterate bull-milker
My true assertions for which I have proof
and again: just because you say it's true doesn't mean it is
you've provided absolutely no evidence at all whatsoever that anything you said is "true", and any scientific truth requires external validation, therefore you can't say you have "proof"
http://www.auburn...ion.html

which you will never understand
so you're saying that because I won't accept your belief as factual I can never understand it?
that makes what you are claiming a delusion or mental illness, which is a step worse than religion
, and that's why you behave like that because you are full of some dark forces
I am Wakinyan
you are probably a member of ISIL...only they...
you're the one talking fanatical religious belief so that makes "me" ISIL?

that's called projection!
- and it makes you even stupider because you've admitted you're a terrorist!

LMFAO
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
@idiot illiterate bull-milker cont'd
you are probably a member of ISIL, because only they can have such a relationship with human beings
beside your projection of your terroristic tendencies, this is pretty much demonstrating your religious fanaticism as well, making you just like ISIL

you're saying that because someone has challenged your claims because you have no evidence
and because someone doesn't believe the same way you do
that they must be terrorists

you've literally just proven that you're a fanatic religious mental case!
I will pray to God to forgive me for having had a discussion with such a man
https://pics.me.m...9979.png
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 03, 2017
When the tycoon of a scientific institution accepts that my works are published, and that I do not pay for them for this publication, because these evidence will be worth some of the Nobel Prizes, then you will be able to see how much my work is worth.
I am not a human being who enjoys the offenses of others, so I want to show by my attitude that others need to change the way they behave and understand the truth.
Hyperfuzzy
Dec 03, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
milnik
1 / 5 (2) Dec 04, 2017
In the subject of this discussion, predominance belongs to idiocy, and not science! Your final thoughts, idiocy.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.