Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knowsHow does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?
non sequitur
we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.
we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.
the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.
Never stops amusing me that they think that objects must be intelligent, or aware in order to obey the laws of physics...or worse that they think suggesting that I think that they must be smart is a good argument in support of their position.
At the end of the day, the Kabbalists and theoretical physicists agree that our 4 dimension space time is folded within a larger 10 dimension construct. we're living in our version of Flatlands where things passing through, light, heat, feelings are just our limited interpretations of something we forever lack the perceptual capability to grasp
The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field. No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.
That's the heart of SSDD's failure. His interpretation and the real interpretation end up with the same results but the real interpretation doesn't require matter being sentient and able to control its emissions and violate special relativity. Why would you pick the explanation that requires such idiotic bullshit?
The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field. No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.
That's the heart of SSDD's failure.
The bowling ball falls because it is driven in that direction by the gravity field. No such field exists to control photons in response to the temperature of distant objects.
That's the heart of SSDD's failure. His interpretation and the real interpretation end up with the same results but the real interpretation doesn't require matter being sentient and able to control its emissions and violate special relativity. Why would you pick the explanation that requires such idiotic bullshit?
Gravity can drive, but not temperature?
Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knowsHow does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?
non sequitur
we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.
we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.
the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.
presented and debunked in previous threads.Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
View attachment 98887
Keep ignoring the data jc.
well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knowsHow does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?
non sequitur
we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.
we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.
the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.
the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.
150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.
we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.
SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.
Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:
• According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.
YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK
When It Originated: 1175

One of the oldest aphorisms in English, this adage was first recorded in the Old English Homilies: “Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken.” A modern version appeared in the 1602 play Narcissus: “They can but bringe horse to the water brinke / But horse may choose whether that horse will drinke.”
bubba, I give two shits as I have stated before. The fact remains, you have no observed material to prove your position. PERIOD!!!!!!!!Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
I can't figure out which old saying describes you better....
There Are None So Blind As Those Who Will Not See:
• According to the ‘Random House Dictionary of Popular Proverbs and Sayings’ this proverb has been traced back to 1546 (John Heywood), and resembles the Biblical verse Jeremiah 5:21 (‘Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not’). In 1738 it was used by Jonathan Swift in his ‘Polite Conversation’ and is first attested in the United States in the 1713 ‘Works of Thomas Chalkley’. The full saying is: ‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’.
or
YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO WATER, BUT YOU CAN'T MAKE IT DRINK
When It Originated: 1175

One of the oldest aphorisms in English, this adage was first recorded in the Old English Homilies: “Hwa is thet mei thet hors wettrien the him self nule drinken.” A modern version appeared in the 1602 play Narcissus: “They can but bringe horse to the water brinke / But horse may choose whether that horse will drinke.”
well again, it depends if you think the earth is a closed system. Do you believe the earth is a closed system? If you do, why does matter make it's way into our planet from space.So you're telling us that the smart bowling ball does not move at random but just knowsHow does a smart balling ball know how to fall toward Earth?
non sequitur
we know the effects of gravity to a very fine degree. that we cannot identify the actual force carrier is unfortunate but does not change our calculations.
we know the effects of light to a very fine degree. we have identified the energy carrier in radiation, and the force carrier in electomagnetic fields. they are called photons. radiative photons are extremely well known and measured, virtual EM force carriers are only inferred.
the known properties of light do not support SSDD's version of physics. bringing gravity into the discussion does nothing to add clarity or understanding of this topic.
the properties of gravity are well known. the strength (and of course the direction) can be measured to a very fine degree. the GRACE satellite(s) measure tiny variations in the gravity field and that information is useful because we know how gravity affects mass, if not exactly how.
150 years ago we started getting l data from energy exchange experiments. we deduced absolute zero, energy movement and direction, entropy, etc, etc. we were still left with unexplained anomalies. those anomalies led to Quantum mechanics and statistical explanations for energy transfer.
we can measure gravity and predict its effects much better than we can thermodynamics. but we have no Quantum Theory of Gravity, no observation of gravitons, no irreduceably small quanta, no mechanism at all really. and no prospect of it in the near future either.
SSDD is using definitions and Laws produced by scientists 100 years ago with sparse and faulty data. new data and new insights have agreed with those archaic Laws in much the same fashion as QM still agrees with Classic Newtonian Physics for most conditions. But SSDD is relying on Laws published before the discovery of photons etc to define the properties of radiation. in general, those Laws are fine for macroscopic examples but they break down for atomic scale conditions.
What about all of you space junk?
presented and debunked in previous threads.Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
View attachment 98887
Keep ignoring the data jc.
presented and debunked in previous threads.Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
View attachment 98887
Keep ignoring the data jc.
Yes, your smart photons have debunked those measurements of back radiation. Sure.
Maybe you can help SSDD explain how the cooler surface of the Sun still radiates toward the hotter corona?
Or maybe post proof that it doesn't?
presented and debunked in previous threads.Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!it is unfortunate that the term 'photon' is given to both light and the electromagnetic force carrier. understandable because there is such a fuzzy boundary between the two, but still confusing to most people.
light is a way of getting rid of energy. paid in advance. created and expelled in a random direction. there is no known reason why it would be affected by its final destination, or even if it has a final destination in all cases.
the force carrier in E/M interactions is fundamentally different even though it is also called a photon. it is not paid in advance, it is COD. plus, it has two modes of either being attractive or repulsive. electric charge sends out 'feelers', virtual photons that are simply reabsorbed if they fail to find another electric charge to swap force with. this type of photon has no 'colour', cannot be refracted or reflected, focused or directed. at least to my understanding. there are no Star Trek tractor beams out there.
gravity resembles the virtual photons in E/M force interactions. it only exists between two particles of matter, never as a stand alone entity that can be observed or inferred. (at least in our dimensions, Frank may disagree. hahahaha)
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
View attachment 98887
Keep ignoring the data jc.
Yes, your smart photons have debunked those measurements of back radiation. Sure.
Maybe you can help SSDD explain how the cooler surface of the Sun still radiates toward the hotter corona?
Or maybe post proof that it doesn't?
How do you know that it does?
presented and debunked in previous threads.Funny stuff from Ian a lot lately in the forum. Still can't produce any observable data requested by SSDD. I see a dude standing pounding a chest after presenting bupkis to the argument. hearsay and mathematical models, but nothing observed. Zippola baby!!!!!!
I declare Ian the champion of nothing. Crick hanging on, with the toddster mingling around with his one liners. But still today after, let's say 100 different threads, and we all get bupkis from this group.
but, but gravity........ I laugh at all of you.
View attachment 98887
Keep ignoring the data jc.
Yes, your smart photons have debunked those measurements of back radiation. Sure.
Maybe you can help SSDD explain how the cooler surface of the Sun still radiates toward the hotter corona?
Or maybe post proof that it doesn't?
How do you know that it does?
The Sun's surface would be black, you know, if it's not emitting photons.
