Bill Gaede on the EU

[Benevolent]

Bill Gaede of 'Einstein's idiots' "fame".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVdkwS-f7M&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbtP6J-IIvo&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhpClxl31fo&feature=plcp

[StevenJay]

I've never been able to tell what Bill Gaede's agenda is or why he always wears his beliefs regarding religion on his sleeve.

In these anti-EU vids, he's just tossing out straw man arguments and nothing else.

And another thing: If for some bizarre reason Stephen Smith had told Gaede, "Yeah, sure, I'll show your vids-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-the-EU at the EU conference," would he have still felt the need to launch an attack on the EU?

Me thinks this all just so much juvenile sour grapes. Willie should have taken his video presentation to the conference in person, just like everybody else, if it was that important to him.

Censorship, my butt.

[Siggy_G]

He generally has some interesting points, assembled in some amusing videos with some ugly layout and poor sound quality - probably a part of the amusing aspect. (The Hawking comments in one of the videos made me laugh.)

I made some comments in the last two videos, but they tend to disappear in the stream of replies and new comments. The replies are typically grammar corrections along the mantra that most terms in physics aren't "an object" and hence one can't do physics on it (this includes plasma, electric and magnetic fields etc). If solid objects are the only thing we can do physics on, then I don't see much potential of progress. We can't have any interpretations along large scale or bulk movements either (because we're not tracing each and every particle separately). I somewhat support his view on what can be labeled merely conceptual esp. the mathematical views.

Btw, what's this freaky background of his seen on Wikipedia?

[jjohnson]

Who knows, Siggy? The Bill Gaede we know from his oddly funny website doesn't advertise any prior convictions for industrial espionage, does he? One does not know whether to dismiss him as another "crank", or to kind of hope he's right. I just laugh and go on about other things.

One part of his website concerns reification. There's an interesting and useful discussion of that concept and similar ones on Wikipedia. (Wiki isn't always wrong; it just covers, and edits, so many different subjects that it isn't always right, either.) In particular, use of it as a logical fallacy, and on the other hand, when it is permissible to use metaphor and reification as models in the development phase of a hypothesis or theory when things may not be real (such as concepts - they list "center of gravity" as something not directly observable, but a useful and practical concept nonetheless, often treated as if it were something real. I like their quotation about metaphors in science: "The price of metaphor is eternal vigilance."

Cheers,

Jim

[+EyeOn-W-ANeed2Know]

Actually Bill doesn't shy away from his infamy, it's right on his YT channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHauqSM703c

It's too bad he tends to get insulting with just simple questions & conversations. He tries to be very specific about his wordings. LOL! I saw in the comments where he wouldn't even admit to having a pulse.

He says these ropes of his physically connect everything to everything else. That's a hell of a lot of ropes connectin a universe of atoms.
Since he likes being so literal about physical things...
I can't help but wonder- what's the diameter of each rope??

[allynh]

This is on Bill Gaede's YouTube channel.

Bill Gaede and the FBI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHauqSM703c

HA!

I recommend, that people watch the video, remember how he filmed his interaction with the FBI, and consider any so called "anti-EU" videos that he may do as simply baiting people.

BTW, I remember that Nightline episode. This video puts every video he has ever done into a different light.

[StevenJay]

This video puts every video he has ever done into a different light.

A real upstanding guy. Yeah, I'd say that's pretty much a wrap.

[Anaconda]

Bill Gaede says plasma isn't an object, and, that as a "concept" can not be empirically observed & measured.

Mr. Gaede bases this assertion on the "unknowability" of the Niels Bohr model of atomic structure (one of his criticisms against particle physics raised in the "Einstein's idiots" video series).

But if plasma is "unknowable", then so, too, is non-ionized matter, solids, liquids, and gas because according to Mr. Gaede non-ionized matter, being also based on the Niels Bohr model of atomic structure, and, thus, only a concept, can not be empirically observed & measured.

Well, of course, science has been able to empirically observe & measure non-ionized matter for thousands of years without the Niels bohr model.

Plasma is harder to observe & measure, but, today, can be empirically observed & measured to a high degree of resolution.

Today's scientific ability for high resolution empirical observation & measurement of plasma allows conclusions to be drawn by observation & measurement of all plasma's physical parameters: Magetic fields, electric fields, charged particle density, location, velocity, direction and points of acceleration.

Gaede made a criminal mistake when he stretched his critique of the Niels Bohr model to include claiming plasma is not an object, and, thus, can not be scientifically comprehended because, then, he, by logical construction, invalidates ALL science, even simple chemistry by his rational.

That's a false premise, whether the Niels Bohr model is valid or false is irrelevant in strict terms of being able to observe & measure magnetic fields, electric fields, charged particle density, location, direction and points of acceleration. (Helpful in terms of visualization and proposing theoretical relationships & dynamics, but not a necessity to empirical observation & measurement.)

Just as whether the Niels Bohr model is valid or false is irrelevant in strict terms of being able to mix chemicals via different parameters of heat, pressure, and chemical variation, and, then, empirically observe & measure the resultant chemical reaction, itself, and, then, observe & measure by-products or reactants and, then, draw conclusions about the nature of the process & substance empirically observed & measured.

Did Gaede really think he could just "mail in" a couple videos to a conference and then have them presented without his presence? Who would have taken questions and given answers regarding the videos?

By Gaede's logic nothing is knowable, a scientific nihilism, so that restricts his ability to engage scientific discussion.

 

[Steve Smith]

Bill and I had a cordial relationship for a couple years. His videos contained good information that I thought was worth considering. I was a moderator for his Yahoo group.

Shortly after he joined Facebook and created a group, I placed a blurb there for the January 2012 EU conference. Bill emailed me to say that he wanted to present a couple videos at the conference, so I wrote, "Sure. Send me a couple snippets so I can see what they're about."

That statement, and that statement only, caused him to start blowing fuses. He accused me of censorship because I wanted to "...use his material for my own ends." Naturally, I didn't respond to any of his rants, which seemed to fuel his emotional outbursts to more outrageous heights. He stated that he would "get back at us" for being "just like the people we claim to dislike." That farago began with negative and insulting statements on his FB group page, prompting me to leave the group, as well as to cease being a moderator for his Yahoo group.

Leaving his groups fanned his flaming even more, provoking the videos that you are all discussing. As far as I'm concerned, he's out in the deep end and I have no interest in what he says or does.

[PersianPaladin]

His latest comments on the "Whats' the point?" video.....lol...

5. "they're a thing"
What's a thing? Please define the term...
.
thing: ___
Please fill in the blanks. (Don't use the dictionary! A piece of shit like you with no brains will simply get into more trouble if you do. You obviously don't scrutinize anything, so see if you can come up with your own def.)
bgaede in reply to bgaede (Show the comment) 5 days ago
Reply

4. YOU said that ""a point has no size". Yes or No? How can a point have size, you stupid idiotic moron if it is a CONCEPT????? How can you talk about size of a CONCEPT, you stupid idiotic piece of shit? Am I talking to the wind? How can you say that 'it' is infinitesimally small? Are you retarded or what? I can't imagine what it is that a stupid religious moron like you fails to understand. You have sand in your sealed unit!
bgaede in reply to bgaede (Show the comment) 5 days ago

3. "What exactly have I not used my brain for?"
My dear God. I even have to do shrinking duties! Will I ever have respite?
bgaede in reply to bgaede (Show the comment) 5 days ago

2. "a point... can't be an actual figure"
So it's not a part of Geometry right, bean brain? Geometry deals first and foremost with shape. A square has shape. A cube has shape. But a 'location' does not have shape, right? What part is your stupid brain having trouble with, 198?
bgaede in reply to bgaede (Show the comment) 5 days ago

1. "a point is an infinitely small position"
What a #%?$ idiot you are, 198! YOU have ALREADY argued that 'a' point is a CONCEPT. Concepts don't have SIZE. And now you argue that a point is small. No wonder your momma left you in a fruit basket at the door of the Loony Asylum. She realized that you would grow with borderline Down's!
bgaede in reply to nn101198 (Show the comment) 5 days ago

[Bomb20]

It seems that the EU crowd was rather ignoring Bill Gaede´s rants in his clips no. 26-28. However, this does not make him and his criticism vanish. In my humble opinion he is a very brilliant materialist thinker but also a strange person and a difficult to handle character. I find many of his ideas and arguments very interesting and also convincing. Sadly, he himself is not accepting any criticism and was already two times deleting my comments at YouTube in the past, yesterday again. So, I wonder why he is complaning about censorhsip at all?

Anyway. In my humble opinion I have spotted his main mistake which is turning some of his justified criticism very fast into the dogmatic stand which we can observe in his clips 26-28.

Gaede claims that real Physics has to work with objects and not with concepts! Yes, also in my humble opinion Physics must research objects but Gaede forgot that Physics is not only about objects and this is his main mistake!

Physics is dealing with objects and its interactions, especially with motion! However, one can hardly describe or explain these interactions without the use of concepts like motion. Gaede is ignoring this fact and therefore acting in a dogmatic manner. According to his own ideas motion could not be part of Physics because it is not an object! So, he can only work with an universe without motion, a dead, frozen universe.

Gaede is criticising the EU for its use of wrong language (according to his standards), this means the use of concepts. Especially he is claming that the EU is based on the concepts aether, vortex and plasma! I could not see that the first two terms play a dominating role in the EU theory but will comment concerning both.

Aether. Here Gaede is listing three uses of the term.
1) aether = substance that fills space
2) aether = space (synonym)
3) aether = spacetime

IMHO he is right with his criticism concerning 2) because it leads to nothing and 3) because spacetime is a concept which is dealed with like an object, in fact a wrong concept with physical features or pseudo-object. However 1) includes a substance, and a substance is made by one or more objects. We don´t know (until now) what aether is, therefore the term aether is only a „placeholder“ or „wildcard“ for an unknown object or collection of objects.

Gaede himself has only replaced the „placeholder“ „aether“ by „electromagnetic ropes“ in his own hypothesesis! So, his aether is made by electromagnetic ropes connecting all atoms (Question: But what happens if we have plasma with ions and electrons?) and other researcher offer other solutions.

So, in my humble opinion Gaede is completely missing the fact that Physics is dealing with objects and its interactions. However, interactions require the use of concepts like motion.

Vortex:
Gaede gives no reference where he found that the concept vortex plays an important role in the EU theory. A vortex is a form of motion and indispensable for Physics because Physics is dealing with objects and its interactions (see above).

Nevertheless, I think the scientists in Physics have to rethink all their commonly used concepts, also the Thunderbolts! They should look for the real objects or particels behind these concepts and realize that some of their concepts are rather harmful because they don´t help to explain nature and imply always the danger of reification!

For example in my humble opinion Gaede is right if he is claiming that „fields“ are not objects and I have always wondered how Physics is rather preventing orderly explanations with the use of the nebulous term „field“. Without the concept field we would not have silly ideas like „breaking fieldlines“ at all. Therefore the proponents of the EU would be well-adviced to look behind the concept „field“ and to try to avoid its use.

[Plasmatic]

Two years and I had no idea that Geade had called out the Thunderbolts group for censorship and undefined ontology!??? I guess Alton was too busy making straight A's to notice it too...

[Influx]

What happened to Alton? Was he here just to promote threads?