The Instigator
Akhenaten
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
reubencpiplupyay
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The universe is made of one particle

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/18/2018 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 842 times Debate No: 119055
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Akhenaten

Pro

The universe is made of one particle in 3 states. There are not hundreds of different sub-atomic particles.
reubencpiplupyay

Con

First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate, And wish them luck. Whoever wins, This is sure to be interesting. I'll just mention that if you see words after commas capitalised, It's automatic and unresolvable, So don't award grammar points to either of us on that basis only.

Because Pro has the burden of proof, I'll let them them put forward the first argument. For now, I'll assume that Pro means 'The universe is made of one kind of particle', Unless they state otherwise. But first, We should note that this view goes against all scientific models, Which are backed by thousands, If not millions, Of experiments. Pro will need to supply experimental evidence which disproves the Standard Model of particle physics (which I assume Pro is referring to in their second sentence, Even though it only posits less than a hundred particles), Before proving that the universe is only made from one particle kind. Pro will also need to show that the three states they claim to exist are different states of the same fundamental particle, Rather than merely three different particles.
Debate Round No. 1
Akhenaten

Pro

Firstly - The law of parsimony - Occam's razor - is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, One should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

Yes, I have the burden of proof and you have the burden of disproof. Lol

The universe is made of only one particle in 3 states. Positive, Negative and neutral. This can be further simplified to left spin, Right spin and no spin. I came to this conclusion by studying nature and observing that everything is divided into 3 groups. This particle would be spherical in shape.
Acid / alkaline / neutral - Positive / negative / neutral.
The universe is very simple place. Only humans are complicated. Lol

Electricity is aether flow. The electric plug has 3 connection points. Positive, Negative and neutral.
Electricity is spin energy. If you want to collect electrical power you must spin something (turbine) and rub against it in order to harness the spin energy. This spin energy will be transferred through aether flow channels of least resistance (wires).

The sun is the key to understanding how the universe works. Space is made of aether which contains positive and negative aether particles. These particles are invisible to us because they are inter-dimensional. They spin at the speed of light which is a dimensional barrier so we can't see them. We can only see no spin particles which have spin particles rotating around them, Commonly known as atoms. When no spin aether particles approach the sun they are squeezed together and stop spinning giving off E = MC squared energy. That is 2 particles of aether which are spinning at light speed will stop spinning and give off C squared energy. Thus, Matter is created from aether at the sun's surface. Note - Hydrogen is the most abundant element. This is because it is the first element which the sun produces. Hydrogen is a hybrid particle somewhere between matter and aether.

The standard model has many sub-atomic particles which can all be catalogued into groups of 3, 6 or 9. Thus, 3 quarks which are positive, Negative and neutral. Therefore, The standard model particle groupings complies with and compliments my theory.

Note - The science world tends to favour complication over simplicity because there is more prestige, Money and recognition in complicated theories. Also, A simple theory like mine would put a lot of important people out of a job and would cause a lot of red faces. Therefore, They would do better to ignore it and pretend that it never existed. Lol
reubencpiplupyay

Con

"Firstly - The law of parsimony - Occam's razor - is the problem-solving principle that the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, One should select the solution with the fewest assumptions. "
That is true only of hypotheses with equal support by the evidence. Even if your hypothesis was consistent with observations, It makes more assumptions: claims unsupported by experimental evidence. If I claimed that every mystery, From accelerating expansion of the universe to the crashing of MH370, Was caused by wizardry, I would be espousing a model consistent with observations, But with unsupported assumptions. The inferiority of my explanatory example should be clear. As it turns out, Your reference to Occam's razor undermines your own argument, Which is also laden with assumptions, Such as that there is a close parallel between macroscopic properties (such as acidity) and the behaviour of subatomic particles.

"Yes, I have the burden of proof and you have the burden of disproof. "
That's not how it works. My position, That the universe isn't made from one particle, Is the null hypothesis, Whereas yours is the alternative hypothesis, On which the burden of proof lies. I'll provide an example to demonstrate why. If I claimed that there is an invisible teacup orbiting Alpha Centauri, It's my responsibility to prove it. You wouldn't be able to disprove it, Due to lacking the necessary equipment to detect an invisible teacup from 4. 3 light years away. But even though you can't disprove it, It doesn't mean my claim is true.

"The universe is made of only one particle in 3 states. Positive, Negative and neutral. This can be further simplified to left spin, Right spin and no spin. I came to this conclusion by studying nature and observing that everything is divided into 3 groups. "
It's a mistake to think that there's a parallel between the macroscopic (large-scale) world, And the subatomic world. The universe behaves very differently on a quantum level, And so it's a mistake to apply our intuition to it, Seeing as intuition is suited for humans living in the macroscopic world. Furthermore, Not all things are divided into 3 groups. There are far more than 3 elements, To use one example.

"This particle would be spherical in shape. "
You haven't supported this claim.

The next two paragraphs are at odds with experimentally trialed models of the universe. They makes no sense, And their claims have no evidence to back them up.

"The standard model has many sub-atomic particles which can all be catalogued into groups of 3, 6 or 9. Thus, 3 quarks which are positive, Negative and neutral. Therefore, The standard model particle groupings complies with and compliments my theory. "
This is false. The standard model includes 4 gauge bosons, And 1 scalar boson, Which exist in their own separate categories. Neither 4 nor 1 are divisible by 3. Therefore, Not all of the particless can be grouped in the manner you describe. There are 6 quarks, And none of them are neutral. Up, Charm, And top all have fractional charge of +2/3, while down, Strange, And bottom all have a charge of -1/3. The Standard Model completely contradicts your theory. Nothing in the quoted paragraph is factual.


Sources:
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Quark
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Standard_Model
Debate Round No. 2
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Occam's razor
My theory has far less assumptions than the standard model. You have made a fundamental and misleading statement here.
The standard model is really just guess work at best. Nobody has seen an atom and nobody really knows how and atom functions. Thus, It is all conjecture, Guess work and hypothesis. In other words it is just a game of smoke and mirrors played by stage magicians called scientists.

2. The burden of proof
Your example of an invisible tea cup orbiting Alpha Centuri is extremism gone berserk.
The things that I am talking about are just everyday objects which are clues to how the universe works. For example - An electric plug has 3 points; the human eye sees things in 3 parts; computer language and binary code has zeros; ones and spaces, There are 3 primary colours; Chemicals have acid, Alkaline and neutral; and electrity can be positive, Negative or neutral.

3. Macroscopic and microscopic
Sorry, There is no mistake in seeing a parallel between fractal related objects. The universe is full of fractal relationships. You just have to be observant to see it. Note - Movie animators use fractal mathematics to create fake mountains and scenery.
Note - An atom is a smaller fractal of a galaxy. Note - Spin rate of a galaxy and an atom vary considerably. Thus, The larger the fractal the slower the spin or rotation rate and the smaller the fractal the faster the spin rate. A solar system is in the middle between an atom and a galaxy. A solar system is growing and will turn into a galaxy. A planet and its moons will turn into an independent solar system with time. Thus, The universe is both expanding and contracting at the same time. The black hole in the centre of a galaxy will return matter to aether and shoot it out as jets at 90 degrees to the galactic rotation.
It has been found that galaxies form into crystalline structures due to this process.

www. Fractal. Org/Bewustzijns-Besturings-Model/Chris-King-fractal-universe. Pdf

4. Spherical particles

The sphere is the basic shape of the universe. This is because the no spin particle creates a hole in space which the spin particles rotate around in a descending spiral. This is the basic shape of a galaxy and of an atom. The no spin particle or state is the key to understanding how gravity works. The aether particles are falling into the dimensional gateway or hole in space. (don't ask me where they go to after they fall in) This falling action creates gravity. The Earth is expanding and growing because of this growing accumulation of aether particles and matter.

See The Expanding Earth Video.

www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oJfBSc6e7QQ

5. Bosons

Quote - "This is false. The standard model includes 4 gauge bosons, And 1 scalar boson, "

Reply - There may be a sixth tensor boson spin = -2

en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Boson

Thus, My theory still stands. Note - In case you didn't know, 6 is divisible by 3. Lol

Finally - The twelve fundamental particles

www. Hep. Ucl. Ac. Uk/undergrad-projects/3rdyear/PPguide/12. Htm
reubencpiplupyay

Con

"My theory has far less assumptions than the standard model. You have made a fundamental and misleading statement here. "
Claiming that all phenomena are caused by the same thing contains many assumptions, Which you have put forward in your argument. What if I claimed that all world leaders were the same person? You may claim that my example is a strawman, But it fits your argument due to your insistence that the macroscopic mirrors the subatomic.

"The standard model is really just guess work at best. Nobody has seen an atom and nobody really knows how and atom functions. Thus, It is all conjecture, Guess work and hypothesis. In other words it is just a game of smoke and mirrors played by stage magicians called scientists. "
This is completely false. The Standard Model is based on decades of humanity's observations and mathematics. We have seen individual atoms, And we have a good idea of how they work, Based on observations and mathematics. Your slur against scientists is unfounded. Scientists are the ones who will try to prove themselves wrong as a career. They are the opposite of what you say they are. Furthermore, You've previously attempted to use the Standard Model to support your hypothesis, But you claim here that it's 'just guess work at best'. So is your hypothesis based on guesswork?

"Your example of an invisible tea cup orbiting Alpha Centuri is extremism gone berserk. "
On a fundamental level, My example is identical to others. They involve a positive claim, On which the burden of proof lies. In a court of law, The prosecution has the burden of proof. You, Like the prosecution, Are making a claim. Under all recognised customs of science, Law and debating, You are the sole person on who the burden of proof lies in this case.

"The things that I am talking about are just everyday objects which are clues to how the universe works. For example - An electric plug has 3 points; the human eye sees things in 3 parts; computer language and binary code has zeros; ones and spaces, There are 3 primary colours; Chemicals have acid, Alkaline and neutral; and electrity can be positive, Negative or neutral. "
Why do you think they have 3 parts? Might it not be that we defined those parts in such a way as to have 3 of them, For clarity and understanding? There is nothing fundamental about this. An electric plug has 3 points because we created it in such a way, Not because of a mysterious universal order. The human eye has 3 parts because there are billions of cells being arranged in such a way that humans identified 3 major parts. Computer language isn't all in binary, And there is nothing fundamentally different about it. Binary exists because a switch on a computer can either be on (1) or off (0). Spaces are merely added for clarity of reading. In saying that binary is fundamentally special, You are claiming that the fact that 2 + 1 = 3 reveals something fundamental about the structure of the universe. The primary colours are in visible light only. You're mistakenly thinking that visible light makes up a far greater portion of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum than it actually does. If one takes humans out of the equation, The colours red, Blue and green are no more fundamental than radio waves. Chemicals can be acid, Basic or neutral, Because of the type and concentration of ions within them. It's a spectrum, Not a 3-way switch. There's nothing fundamental about this, And to focus on acidity is to ignore the other chemical properties with more or less than 3 options. Electricity can't be neutral; it can only be associated with positive or negative charge. Electricity is the set of physical phenomena associated with the presence and motion of matter that has a property of electric charge. Neutral objects don't have electric charge, So electricity is associated with 2 rather than 3 types.

"Sorry, There is no mistake in seeing a parallel between fractal related objects. The universe is full of fractal relationships. You just have to be observant to see it. "
The universe does have similarities between some objects of different scales, But it's not a law. You're making the assumption that subatomic particles follow this trend.

"Note - An atom is a smaller fractal of a galaxy. Note - Spin rate of a galaxy and an atom vary considerably. Thus, The larger the fractal the slower the spin or rotation rate and the smaller the fractal the faster the spin rate. A solar system is in the middle between an atom and a galaxy. A solar system is growing and will turn into a galaxy. A planet and its moons will turn into an independent solar system with time. Thus, The universe is both expanding and contracting at the same time. The black hole in the centre of a galaxy will return matter to aether and shoot it out as jets at 90 degrees to the galactic rotation. "
Just because both things contain orbits, Doesn't mean they're the same. Is the heart proof that the universe expands and contracts? Is a table proof that the Earth is flat? Aether was debunked by the Michelson-Morley experiment. With all due respect, This and the source you provide are pseudoscientifc technobabble.

"It has been found that galaxies form into crystalline structures due to this process. "
It has not, And you are misusing the word 'crystal', Which applies only to solids. Galaxies are mostly plasma and vacuum, Which are not solids.

"The sphere is the basic shape of the universe. This is because the no spin particle creates a hole in space which the spin particles rotate around in a descending spiral. This is the basic shape of a galaxy and of an atom. The no spin particle or state is the key to understanding how gravity works. The aether particles are falling into the dimensional gateway or hole in space. (don't ask me where they go to after they fall in) This falling action creates gravity. The Earth is expanding and growing because of this growing accumulation of aether particles and matter. "
This is also technobabble. You also haven't provided evidence of any of the claims in this paragraph. The Expanding Earth hypothesis also has been replaced by the theory of plate tectonics, Which, Following Occam's razor, Contains fewer assumptions.

"There may be a sixth tensor boson spin = -2. Thus, My theory still stands. Note - In case you didn't know, 6 is divisible by 3. Lol"
So the possible existence of the graviton is definite proof of your theory? The fact that some number is divisible by 3 isn't a fundamental truth about the universe's structure.






Sources:
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Electricity
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/PH
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Technobabble
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Crystal
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Expanding_Earth
https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Boson
Debate Round No. 3
Akhenaten

Pro

1. Quote - "What if I claimed that all world leaders were the same person? "

You are taking a logical assumption and a clear analogy and turning it into a joke or nonsense analogy. My assumptions are all logical and reasonable assumptions whereas your assumption is total lunacy. Nature divides things into 3 parts because that's what happens when you use fundamental particles that have 3 states. Nature is highly efficient and doesn't waste and is never excessive. Thus, Matter has 3 states which are solid, Liquid and gas. Why? Because the 3 states of matter are shadowing the 3 states of the fundamental particles (ethons).

2. The standard model.
" you have seen individual atoms" Good, Then you can draw a picture of an atom for me then? Answer - No. Why? - Because the image are just blurry looking blobs. Oh, So an atom is a blurry blob then. Thanks for that information Mr genius scientist who spent 50 years studying atoms.

"Scientists are the ones who will try to prove themselves wrong as a career. "

Sorry, I used to work in a university. Scientists will do what ever it takes to get their next research grant. They will tell lies, Fudge results and do what ever it takes to stay employed in a nice university environment with lots of income. Most scientists would rather die than admit that they had ever made an error or mistake.

3. Burden of proof.

Any person who enters a debate and thinks that they don't have to provide any evidence or proof is a fool. It is just a matter of common sense that you can't prove somebody wrong without proving that you are right. Thus, Any person who doesn't have a burden also doesn't have a conscience or a sense of morality either. So. . . . . Do you fit that bill?

Also you are creating a diversion while ignoring the fact that your example extremist and not fitting of the situations at hand.

4. Three particle states

"An electric plug has 3 points because we created it in such a way, Not because of a mysterious universal order. "

Reply - So, When have you seen an electric plug which has 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 points? Answer - Never
Reason - Because electricity is aether flow and aether has 3 states and not 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 Its commonsense. Positive, Negative and neutral (earth).

"The human eye has 3 parts"

Sorry, The human eye has dozens of parts. What I am talking about is the eyes perception of reality. The law of thirds in other words. The human eye breaks up the visual field into 3 parts.

"You are claiming that the fact that 2 + 1 = 3 reveals something fundamental about the structure of the universe"

Reply - The universe is a binary system. Left spin - right spin - space or enter

"The colours red, Blue and green are no more fundamental than radio waves"

You don't understand colour theory. Ultra violet and infra red are not primary colours. Note - All colours can be made from red, Blue and yellow.

"So electricity is associated with 2 rather than 3 types. "

Electricity is aether flow and aether has left spin, Right spin and no spin characteristics. Note - Without the 'no spin' state the electricity or aether would not be able to travel or move. Electricty and aether need a sink hole to fall into which is supplied by the 'no spin' particles.

"Aether was debunked by the Michelson-Morley experiment"

The result was called a 'null result' which means that they didn't get what they were expecting. They assumed that the Earth moved through the aether at the speed that the Earth goes around the sun. This was a false assumption. Note - The aether pushes the planets around the solar system. The speed of the aether is the same as what the gravity is. Note - Gravity is aether flow. Thus, They discounted the slow rate as a "null result".

www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=NTpytbccqgs&index=4&list=PL2fbwSsQ2zlXhVlH3U7i9NzvP_Xl5NLMs

www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=S4Tnq564LlU

"The Expanding Earth hypothesis also has been replaced by the theory of plate tectonics, "

There is no evidence to support plate tectonic theory. The biggest lie - India travelled 7 thousand kilometres from the Antarctic and bumped into Europe which created the Himalayan Mountains. It must have been on ice skates! Lol

What a joke! And you actually believe this stuff? Lol

Talk about creative thinking to fill in a logic anomaly. Lol
reubencpiplupyay

Con

"You are taking a logical assumption and a clear analogy and turning it into a joke or nonsense analogy. My assumptions are all logical and reasonable assumptions whereas your assumption is total lunacy. Nature divides things into 3 parts because that's what happens when you use fundamental particles that have 3 states. Nature is highly efficient and doesn't waste and is never excessive. Thus, Matter has 3 states which are solid, Liquid and gas. Why? Because the 3 states of matter are shadowing the 3 states of the fundamental particles (ethons). "
No, I'm not. You're the one who said that the subatomic world reflects the macrocosm, And social systems are natural to humans, Who are part of the macrocosm. Your assumptions have no scientific backing whatsoever. This is a debate about science, And science doesn't give weight to arguments by analogy. Evidence of the specific phenomena you claim to exist is the only scientific proof. Once again, You're making statements without scientific evidence. And to be pedantic, Matter has 4 states we see every day: gas in the air, Liquid in the water we drink, Solid in many things, And plasma in the Sun. There are also other states of matter, Such as Bose-Einstein condensates. So the example you've used falls flat.

""you have seen individual atoms" Good, Then you can draw a picture of an atom for me then? Answer - No. Why? - Because the image are just blurry looking blobs. Oh, So an atom is a blurry blob then. Thanks for that information Mr genius scientist who spent 50 years studying atoms. "
In 1989, Scientists at IBM used a scanning tunneling microscope to precisely position 35 xenon atoms on a layer of chilled nickel crystal to spell 'IBM'. While the atoms look blurry, They couldn't have been positioned in such a way if we didn't know their behaviour and structure. That's why we could do this in 1989 and not 1889. Can you draw a picture of air? No. Does that mean air doesn't exist? No. Furthermore, Your sarcastic retort adds nothing to your argument, And could be considered disrespectful by some.

"Sorry, I used to work in a university. Scientists will do what ever it takes to get their next research grant. They will tell lies, Fudge results and do what ever it takes to stay employed in a nice university environment with lots of income. Most scientists would rather die than admit that they had ever made an error or mistake. "
That's a hasty generalisation. Some universities have a different culture to others. I'm an Australian. If I spent a year in Silicon Valley, I might conclude that all Americans are young, Liberal, Tech-savvy people. The plural of anecdote is not data.

"Any person who enters a debate and thinks that they don't have to provide any evidence or proof is a fool. It is just a matter of common sense that you can't prove somebody wrong without proving that you are right. Thus, Any person who doesn't have a burden also doesn't have a conscience or a sense of morality either. So. . . . . Do you fit that bill? "
In a court of law, We have innocent until proven guilty. In science, The topic on which this debate is on, We only accept things with evidence. In a court of law, The defence tries to cast enough doubt on the claims of the prosecution for the judge or jury to not accept their position. That's what I'm doing. For you to imply that I'm being immoral for trying to uphold scientific integrity is unfounded.

"Also you are creating a diversion while ignoring the fact that your example extremist and not fitting of the situations at hand. "
It's just like any other claim. The fact that my example is almost definitely false doesn't affect its usefulness as an example in philosophical discussions.

"Reply - So, When have you seen an electric plug which has 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 points? Answer - Never
Reason - Because electricity is aether flow and aether has 3 states and not 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 or10 Its commonsense. Positive, Negative and neutral (earth). "
This has no evidence. You're making an assertion, Not an argument here.

"Sorry, The human eye has dozens of parts. What I am talking about is the eyes perception of reality. The law of thirds in other words. The human eye breaks up the visual field into 3 parts. "
We perceive three dimensions because there are 3 spatial dimensions, At least on our scale of existence. The eye doesn't add the third dimension though; each sees two dimensions, And our brain adds the third dimension from the parallax of our two eyes being in different places. That's why it's harder to navigate with one eye closed. Furthermore, There is no such thing as the law of thirds. Perhaps you mean the rule of thirds? In that case, It's a rule of thumb for photographic aesthetics, Which isn't particularly relevant to your argument.

"Reply - The universe is a binary system. Left spin - right spin - space or enter. "
That's literally what I just refuted.

"You don't understand colour theory. Ultra violet and infra red are not primary colours. Note - All colours can be made from red, Blue and yellow. "
First of all, Red, Blue and yellow are the primary colours of paint, And though you claim that the universe is fractal, I'm sure you can agree that it is not, In fact, An easel. Perhaps you mean red, Blue and green, The primary colours of light. I do understand colour theory, Having done an art course in school, But I know that aesthetics aren't usually the key to understanding how the universe works. Colours are only parts of visible light, A small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum. Ultraviolet and infrared aren't primary colours because they aren't colours. But they're still light. One you realise how large the electromagnetic spectrum is compared to visible light, You'll realise that the primary colours really aren't all that fundamental.

"Electricity is aether flow and aether has left spin, Right spin and no spin characteristics. Note - Without the 'no spin' state the electricity or aether would not be able to travel or move. Electricty and aether need a sink hole to fall into which is supplied by the 'no spin' particles. "
The evidence you gave for this was refuted last round, So this claim has no legs to stand on.

"The result was called a 'null result' which means that they didn't get what they were expecting. They assumed that the Earth moved through the aether at the speed that the Earth goes around the sun. This was a false assumption. Note - The aether pushes the planets around the solar system. The speed of the aether is the same as what the gravity is. Note - Gravity is aether flow. Thus, They discounted the slow rate as a "null result". "
You haven't supported your claims with reliable sources. YouTube is generally not regarded as a reliable source of scientific information.

"There is no evidence to support plate tectonic theory. The biggest lie - India travelled 7 thousand kilometres from the Antarctic and bumped into Europe which created the Himalayan Mountains. It must have been on ice skates! Lol"
First of all, It was Asia, Not Europe. Secondly, It's supposed to have taken millions of years, So it's not too incredible. Thirdly, Your argument here is one from incredulity, Rather than evidence. Lastly, There is plenty of evidence for plate tectonics, Which I have put in my sources below.

"What a joke! And you actually believe this stuff? Lol. Talk about creative thinking to fill in a logic anomaly. Lol"
This is both rude and unnecessary. It could also be an example of projection.


Sources: (add the https to use)
en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Faulty_generalization
en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum
en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Plate_tectonics
Debate Round No. 4
Akhenaten

Pro


Nicola Tesla was the greatest inventor in human history. Note - You can’t create anything without making lots of mistakes.

According to Durack’s equations the universe is made of 2 dimensions which are matter and anti-matter. This theory complies with my theory. The only difference being that my universes are left spin and right spin rather than matter and anti-matter. My universe is purely mechanical and has no irrational magic nonsense added.

Therefore, There can be no - bending of space; distortion of time or pulling of gravity.


"It's well known that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object. "

The aether does not care about an object's mass. This is evident when you can drop a feather and a cannon ball on the moon they will be pushed down by the aether at the same rate. Thus, My opponent’s argument that mass is an important factor is total nonsense.

My information was sourced from Thayer Watkins. Phd in Physics.

My opponent has totally distorted the calculations to suit his own devious purpose. The radius of the orbit is measured in relation to the sun and does not refer to the planets radius. Thus, All my opponent’s calculations are faulty and nonsense.

"First of all, Binary refers to 2 of something, Not 3, So you've misused the word. "

I have already explained previously that a binary system has 3 components but it appears you were not paying attention. The third component is the shift, Space or enter component. A binary code system is useless without an instruction. Thus, The instruction is the third element that you have missed. This is also a good analogy on how the universe works. Left spin, Right spin and no spin or enter.


"Radio waves are light, But aren't made from the primary colours. "

That's not relevant. The human brain and eyes have evolved for survival. The human eyes don't need radio waves to survive. The brain and eyes use a 3 cone system to detect 3 colours. Light is a product of the sub-atomic world. The left spin, Right spin and no spin dominance can be interpreted as red, Blue and green. Note - Light is spin energy transferred through the aether in another dimension. This is why you can't see light until it hits an object or mass. This impact causes a vibration which we see as a reflection. The light wave length is determined by
the spin direction dominance of the object or mass target.



"The movement of India doesn't contradict plate tectonics and it wasn't the only movement of land, So your entire statement is false. "

The movement of India from the Antarctic to Eurasia (not Asia) was 4 times faster than any other land mass movement. Thus, It should be recorded as an anomaly.

Note – Continental drift theory was developed long before the invention of satellite photography. Satellite photography has since shown that all the oceans have fault lines running through the middle. The age of the rocks that are closet to the fault lines are youngest (0 – 10 million years old). The rocks get older as they approach land mass. The oldest sea floor area is 70 million years old which occurs closest to the coast line. Thus, This proves that the Earth is expanding and growing from these central ocean fault lines.

My references will be in comments section.

reubencpiplupyay

Con

When I last posted this argument, My opponent's argument was deleted, And they posted a different argument, In response to mine. For the sake of clarity, I will repost the same argument, Even though what it was responding to no longer exists. I apologise for any inconvenience.



While Nikola Tesla was a brilliant engineer and inventor, He held numerous views which have been soundly debunked. He denied the existence of the electron, Which had been proven through cathode ray experimentation in the late 19th century; and believed that atoms were immutable, Which was refuted in dramatic fashion by the atomic bomb. Particle physics was not his area of expertise. Your quoting of him is an argument from irrelevant authority, Similar to how climate change deniers will cite chemical engineers instead of climate scientists, Because "they're both scientists".

"This was demonstrated with the Michelson Morley experiment. They assumed that the Earth moved through the aether at the speed that the Earth moves around the sun. This is a false assumption. The aether pushes the planets around the sun. That is why all the planets move around the sun in the same direction and travel at the same relative rate according to their size and position. (The product of the square roots of the relative raddii and the orbit velocities is close to unity. )"
This is false on several levels. First of all, The Michelson-Morley experiment debunked aether as it was conceived at the time. Your claim that aether pushes the planets appears to be an ad hoc explanation, And is at odds with established science. Furthermore, You claim that all planets travel at "the same relative rate according to their size and position". If what you said was remotely true, Wouldn't mass be a factor rather than size? It's well known that the acceleration of an object is dependent upon two variables - the net force acting upon the object and the mass of the object.
As for your claim that "the product of the square roots of the relative raddii and the orbit velocities is close to unity", I did the maths and found you incorrect. Let's compare Jupiter to Earth. Jupiter's radius is 69911 km, Making its square root about 264. 4. Its orbital velocity is 13. 1 km/s, And 264. 4 multiplied by 13. 1 is about 3463. 6. Earth's radius is 6371 km, Making its square root about 79. 8. Its orbital velocity is 30 km/s, And 79. 8 multiplied by 30 is 2394. This is a huge difference, Not 'close to unity'. Your statement is henceforth debunked.

Your next paragraph is supported by the one I just debunked, So it is also debunked. Your next paragraph seems to be a diatribe about society, So I will ignore it, As it is irrelevant to the discussion. Next, You claim that it is a good thing that your claims have no evidence, Which makes no sense.

"The human brain and eye have evolved a binary based system of interpreting the outside world. The eye and brain see the world in 3 basic colours. This is clear evidence of sub-atomic structure because light is a product of the sub-atomic world. The fact that the brain uses a 3 colour system reflects sub-atomic structure of the universe. The eye contains 3 cone shaped colour receptors. Thus, Each colour represents left spin, Right spin and no spin dominance of surface structures. Thus, The true nature of the material will be known and can be identified by the brain. Thus, Survival in a hostile environment is assured because of this accurate representation of nature. "
First of all, Binary refers to 2 of something, Not 3, So you've misused the word. You claim that the existence of 3 primary colours of visible light is fundamental to the structure of the universe, Rather than to the structure of our eyes. Radio waves are light, But aren't made from the primary colours. Your next sentences can be ignored, As they have been left unsupported, And so are assertions rather than arguments.

"Note - India was the only land mass to undertake such a long journey across the Atlantic ocean. This is called a logic anomally. According to the rules of aquistion - It only takes one anomally to disprove a theory. "
The Rules of Acquisition do not exist, Except as a group of sacred business proverbs of the Ferengi race in Star Trek. Perhaps you meant something else. An anomaly only disproves a theory if it contradicts it. The movement of India doesn't contradict plate tectonics, And it wasn't the only movement of land, So your entire statement is false.

I'll also address your comment, In which you claim the following:
"All your references are from Wikipedia which is just a community website run by communists from Russia. Therefore, It is not recognized as a scientific authority on anything. "
First of all, Wikipedia was founded by Jimmy Wales, Who is an American libertarian, Not a Russian communist. Wikipedia is also reliable on science, As a study in Nature, A respected science journal, Found. It's roughly as reliable as Encyclopædia Brittanica.



I'd just like to mention that throughout this debate, Pro made several logical fallacies, Repeatedly made assertions and passed them as facts, Made statements which were demonstrably false, And expressed several anti-science conspiracy theories.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a lively and enlightening debate, And wish him luck.


Sources (in non-link form to prevent bugs):
(Wikipedia article on Nikola Tesla)
(Wikipedia article on Earth)
(Wikipedia article on Jupiter)
(first result of search term 'nature wikipedia encyclopedia britannica')

Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
References -

schools. Wikia. Com/wiki/File:Kepler%27s_third_law. Gif

www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=KbXVpdlmYZo

www. Youtube. Com/watch? V=oJfBSc6e7QQ&t=108s
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
I didn't know that facts could talk! Lol
Posted by reubencpiplupyay 3 years ago
reubencpiplupyay
Nature was the source, Not Wikipedia.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
If the source of the information says that it is reliable, Then do we assume that it is truly reliable? Then I can say that my source is reliable merely because I say so. Lol
Posted by reubencpiplupyay 3 years ago
reubencpiplupyay
I don't know how this site works.
Wikipedia also has moderation, And despite how it works, The facts say it's reliable.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
So that is how you conduct a debate, You delete somebody's reply because you know that the information is irrefutable. Lol

Note - Wikipedia can be edited by anybody. Thus, I can write that Einstein was born on the moon and the program would accept it. That is, Until a communist editor from Russia comes along and restores it to its original conservative and system friendly expected nonsense norm. Lol
Posted by reubencpiplupyay 3 years ago
reubencpiplupyay
Total software gore: Akhey's Round 5 argument is deleted. Fix your damn site.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Please substitute "Atlantic Ocean" for "Indian Ocean". Thanks Akhey.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Note - All your references are from Wikipedia which is just a community website run by communists from Russia. Therefore, It is not recognized as a scientific authority on anything.
Posted by Akhenaten 3 years ago
Akhenaten
Additional reference for aether flow and gravity relationship.

www. Politecnica. Pucrs. Br/~decastro/pdf/DWShaw. Pdf
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.