johnydon22:


That you are a carbon based life four main elemental composition:

-Hydrogen
-oxygen
-carbon
-nitrogen

That you live in planet earth, a tiny blue organic dust floating in a vast deep and dark space trapped in the chains of an average small star having a cosmic dance in between the orion's arm of the galaxy.

A gigantic monster of organic worlds and suns all in a cosmic dance of unparalleld chaos and resulting harmony.

and one out of billion other galactic monsters, a universe filled with so much stars and planets that we yet cant quantity their number.

And you are but a mere miniscule blink in the cosmic play, an existence of a millisecond, sadly irrelevant in the gigantic cosmic duration but beautiful and as quickly as a blink comes it goes.

A child of nature, a child of earth...

These are the facts

How did you know that what you jus stated are facts? Theory upon theory! I 've told you times without number to kindly show me the real video of the earth footage with the help of the so called thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, before you tell us what is in light years away. I'm tired of GCI photos.

Dawdy:

How did you know that what you jus stated are facts? Theory upon theory! I 've told you times without number to kindly show me the real video of the earth footage with the help of the so called thousands of satellites orbiting the earth, before you tell us what is in light years away. I'm tired of GCI photos.

If a picture of the earth is provided i doubt if you can be able to distinguish it from the CGI so is there really any need when you will still end up holding on to what you want and feel should be?

For some reason, I didn't see this in my mentions. if I hadn't checked up on the thread perchance, I would have inadvertently allowed this . . . piece to go unchallenged.
But that will now change.

You see, your entire philosophy is based on a very faulty understanding of what science is. what physics is.

SidL:


Hello Teempakguy,

My apologies for this very late response, 'twas due to circumstance beyond my control. On the other hand it can be quite THE challenge keeping up with posts on this forum, it's just huge and posts are rapid-fire.

First of all, i think it pertinent to make very clear what i effort to do on this forum which is to highlight blatant falsities and inconsistencies in science because they are detrimental to the greater good of all. Science is not a problem solver, it is a problem creator. More correctly, it creates more problems than it actually solves. The problems i speak of, mind you, are mostly what it says cannot be done, far much more than what it claims it thinks it sees happening. My thrust in learning and the sharing of knowledge is the pursuit of TRUTHS of EXISTENCE, not endless conjectures and theories which have no basis whatsoever in nature other than consensus agreements by the high priests and priestesses of science about what is supposedly so. I apologise if i appear arrogant. As much as possible i will effort to debate the details of theory, still, i think it a sheer waste of time to debate theories without addressing their founding premises which when dissected is most times found to be itself a conjecture too. Now let us proceed.

I honestly fail to understand how anyone living in the twenty first century can say this comfortably. much less on a public forum. Literally every solution to mankind's problems have been provided by science. the problem of communication, the very thing which would have prevented you from getting your ideas across to everyone who would read it, was solved by science. a vast set of problems.

I am a programmer, and often, in programming, we encounter things known as bugs. which are basically problems, often, finding one bug(solving the problem) causes several more to reappear. that doesn't make the programmer a problem creator now, does it? it instead shows that Problems often prevent us from seeing other problems. and once stumbling blocks are removed, we find others up the road. still doesn't change the fact that we ARE moving up the road.
I think you'll find that Science is deeply rooted in nature. every basic science has an experimental part. which consistently measures and tests theories and conjecture to continually verify that they are indeed an accurate representation of nature. You coming along and denying that does little to change the truth.

"Your first paragraph in the quote above has a contradiction i am not sure you noticed. If trying to apply quantum mechanics, as you say, to classical mechanics is a waste of time because it... well, "don't work," logic dictates that you are discarding classical mechanics (or parts of it) for quantum mechanics then does it not? Sounds very much to me like a replacement by any other name, however, have it your perceptual way.

There is no contradiction in my post. Quantum mechanics won't work for a classical environment because they are not the same place. the Quantum and Classical worlds are very different places. Classical mechanics describes the classical world, while quantum mechanics describes the quantum world. replacing one with the other will only yield a series of very wrong answers. using a fork for spaghetti is not the same as replacing it with a spoon. a spoon does not function in that case, just as a fork is useless with soup.

Did creative dynamics (the truth of it) evolve from classical to quantum mechanics for man's inadequate-perception convenience or is it man's understanding of creative dynamics which has evolved (somewhat)? My money is on the latter. I think understanding of the way things work will further improve once you start seeing the cosmos from the perspective of ONEness in which its operating system or principles is UNIVERSAL regardless of size or scale.
It is not a thing of shame to say, "Houston, i think we were mistaken."
Beware Hubris.

Like I said, they are very different worlds. there was no evolution. there was simply an invention of a new mechanics to describe a new world which man had discovered. the quantum world. when classical mechanics was developed, man had no Idea of the quantum world, he was merely trying to describe the world he lived in. however, when the quantum world was discovered, it was found out that the classical mechanics did not accurately describe it. hence, a new mechanics was to describe it.

There was no oneness, as you now describe. might I remind you that two of the most brilliant physicists of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein and Nikola Tesla, both spent their entire lives searching for this one theory you keep speaking of. it didn't work.
There is no doubt that there is probably some general fundamental theory, but it does not exist in the form you think it does. Nature is in fact inconsistent. and if you refuse to accept that, you will find that you keep getting wrong answers.

Now you say it is important that these laws are right due to the need to make predictions.

yes, I do.

And what if they are wrong? You think all life will come to an end?

possibly. i mean, the electromagnetic force need only be always center seeking and we're all done for. the speed of light need only be half it's speed and we'd cease to exist. the smallest constants need only shift slightly and our universe would crumble upon itself.

Where did you come by that idea if i may inquire, that the goal of science is to predict the future? Well, that's new to me.

You didn't know? then what were you arguing about? the entire goal of science is to be able to understand our world. and the number one way we know that we have understood it is to predict it's behavior. you should get a book on the philosophy of science. till this day, any hypothesis is hogwash in science if it cannot make any tangible prediction which can be verified.

I thought science was a sense-based method of inquiry into Truths of Existence beyond what is most times apparent? How can you predict the future when you are not even seeing NOW clearly, or are theories Fadcts?

science is not a sense based method of inquiry. it is a systematic study of the universe. in Theoretical physics, a branch of science, you can spend an entire career without actually observing anything tangible. Euler was totally blind towards the end of his years, that didn't stop him from contributing immensely to science.
addressing your second question. doesn't the fact that we can predict the future mean that we are actually seeing now clearly?

Still, i think i understand your meaning and will say that your analogy to the point was not the best. A better analogy for instance would be that to calculate the unknown distance apparently travelled from points A to B would be a multiple of speed of travel and the time taken. The knowledge of the required strength of the bridge deemed for it to be reliable borders on bad past experiences and common sense, and the animals do that just fine without anyone quoting so-called "LAWS" to them.

at this point I gasp . . . Jesus Christ!
the bolded is the entire point of science. the accumulation and recording of past experiences and using common sense to find the connection between these experiences so that a prediction can be made for the future, the only difference is that science takes a proactive approach. imagine if the third mainland bridge had to built over and over again, so we could accumulate enough experiences and know which materials would withstand pressure . . . instead of just going into the science books and doing the calculations. that would just be ridiculous. think of the phone in your hand, you think it was built on "bad past experiences and . . . common sense?" of course not. it is based on centuries of SCIENCE.
Animals know these laws on a subconscious form. and only a limited amount of them. no animal in this world knows how electromagnetism works, or even slightly advanced newton mechanics. that's what makes humans different.

And there we go again with the "classical-talk." Is some aspect of creation stuck in the "Disco Ages" as opposed to today's "Quantum RnB" or did i miss a memo somewhere? Sigh... As you wish.

yes. in fact. yes. the classical world is stuck in classical mechanics. because it's the first we observed, and it's the first we described. and it hasn't changed. the quantum world was discovered hundred years ago. and it is being described.

You know, i think it is a thing of utter curiosity and awe-inspiring amazement how someone's observations of the 1600s is/was regarded as sacrosanct for over 300 years in the first place. Then just like today, Academia is drawing conclusions based on faulty premises and limiting itself in the process. That there is a lack of imagination of what much else may be discovered tomorrow does not give one the right to coin outrageous "Laws" today, then coin it "classical" tomorrow so as not to admit that yesterday's observations were inadequate. I will refrain from too much debate on Newton's Laws themselves for they will take up too much time and space and just rather poke a needle in the balloon of the premise of what motion is or is not, upon which those laws are founded. Reasonable?[quote]It is still regarded as so. and it actually works. it has not changed. neither has it been rendered irrelevant. you are welcome to carry out experiments to verify this.

[quote]This is not hard to understand for the reality faces us daily. The banana sitting in a state of apparent rest is actually moving, and rather very violently too.

no it isn't. it is at rest. if it were moving, it would have momentum, and any object that came in contact with it would experience a change of momentum. but that doesn't happen now, does it? for you to accept this, you might as well accept that a bus without an engine is moving if a rat is running across it's floors.

All parts of it are.

that motion is different. in order to find that motion, one does not assert that it is moving. one simply finds its temperature and realize that this temperature is a measure of the speed of the "parts" of it which are moving. this isn't a problem in science, it is well documented under thermodynamics. yet another branch of nature which is interchangeable with classical mechanics. no matter how hard you try.

Is this a fact or not?[b] Is that not what your ceiling fan does[b] sitting in one point or arena in your room? Dare you stick a finger in? The principle is the same. Who says movement from Points A to B is a prerequisite for motion as people think they know motion to be? After a while, the activity within the banana will consume the banana in the process of decay till that banana becomes a gas, one day--That too is motion--how if i may ask, do you intend to apply the Laws here??

I'm sorry, that's not how it works, the ceiling fan isn't moving in a translational path, it is rotating. the difference between translational and rotational motion is well documented under classical mechanics. this is a problem long solved in physics. they are not the same kind of motion. and in fact, an object can experience both simultaneously.

about your banana . . . I'm sorry, it's not the motion in the banana that causes decay, it is bacteria. this is easily proven by irradiating said banana to kill bacteria, and then placing the banana in an hermetically sealed container to prevent more from settling, and your banana will remain the same for all eternity. Meanwhile, I challenge you to give the same analogy with plastic. the "activity" within plastic is fairly the same with that of the banana. yet, it holds. care to tell us why?

The problem is that we are accustomed to motion as being from point a A to B,

that is the arbitrary definition of motion.

but that is an illusion of nature perpetrated on our senses.

it is the exact illusion which is referred to as motion.

On what we now call today "Quantum" or "sub-atomic" levels, atoms and atomic systems do not move from point A to B either,

sorry, but atoms actually move. what you mean is electron.

but the Point A arena becomes point B arena, or B becomes C or it can choose to play in one arena for as long as desired like the idea of the ceiling fan.

alright, moving on . . .

I cut the post into two because Nairaland said my post was too long.

I claim that as an accolade.

Things do not travel in nature, they repeat their identities from one harmonic wave-field (arena) into the same field or another field. A particle becomes a wave which dissipates into equilibrium as you see when a drop of water (particles for the particle gang ) hits the water surface and dissipates into waves of four concentric rings to achieve equilibrium. That Arena may now become "point" B in which the waves are wound back up into particles and the cycle repeated.

What you just managed to describe is the quantum world. in order to show you the fallacy of hasty generalization you are committing by applying the mechanics to the classical world, let me describe it.
a ball is kicked from a point a. it then immediately disappears, becomes a wave, and then reappears at another point b. we both know that is hogwash. of course, you may quickly counter, the ball doesn't become a wave for the entire journey, but becomes a wave for infinitely small distances, becomes a particle, travels another infinitely small distance as a wave, and becomes a particle again . . . and so on and so forth. here you have a problem, we have an infinite amount of infinitely small distance, the solution to that is an integral, which if performed, we get us to classical mechanics. hence, we have just wasted our entire time, and ink to use quantum mechanics which only brought us back to classical mechanics.

Hopefully, you now understand what I meant up there, using quantum mechanics on classical objects brings us back to classical mechanics after all the trouble. so what's the point?

Quantum mechanics got the duality of particles right ( "Thank God!" ). This cyclical interplay is called a vibration. The faster the frequency of vibration, the faster what we actually call "speed". Are we thoroughly confused yet? Let us look at an analogy which demonstrates this principle.

This is your theory. which has not yet been experimentally proven. the terms used are yours. I will examine your analogy.

Your computer screen is made up of what they call pixels within each of which vibrations may occur, for which different frequencies of vibrations or combinations thereof result in tensions we call colour. Let us assume the mouse cursor occupies one whole pixel alone. When you "move" the mouse from Point A to B and that cursor moves along from Pixel A to B, tell me, the cursor, did it REALLY move from Pixels A to B, or did it "dematerialise" from Pixel A and reappear at Pixel B by switching off its identity in pixel A and switching it back on at pixel B?

Yes, I know it dematerialized. but let's say, when I move it, it dematerializes and moves one pixel in one second before reappearing. I then move it for five seconds. classical mechanics immediately tell me it will have moved five pixels. but we could always waste our time doing quantum mechanics to get the exact same answer.

Also, if i left the cursor in Pixel A permanently, is it REALLY at "rest" there? You do know, computer processors have a clock-speed and everything that looks at rest on your screen is actually going off and on at frequencies so fast that rest is simulated?

"rest" means no change of co-ordinates with time. so yeah, it IS at rest. my computer is 1366 by 768. if i leave my cursor at the 10th pixel across and the 12th pixel down, the fact that every time it is observed, it is ALWAYS there, means that it is at rest. the fact that it disappears and reappears as the computer refreshes every nanosecond doesn't change the fact that it is at rest. that is exactly what rest means. it means that, if I put a body at some co-ordinate(x,y) if time passes and every time i observe the object, it is still there, then it is at rest.

Soon we will develop harmonic wave-field technologies and with which we can treat whole bodies of atoms, like a craft, as one coherent atom or atomic system, just like all heavenly bodies do. This will allow us instantaneous interstellar travel in which light years will be bridged in seconds. This is because to get from from point A to Z hundreds of light years away, we would not have to also bother with B through Y but merely make A become Z.

That sounds easier said than done. because till date, NOTHING can. not even electrons can teleport instantaneously. not even atoms can just disappear and reappear elsewhere simultaneously. time always passes. time which is proportional to distance traveled. even quantum entanglement cannot transmit any tangible information. sorry to bust your bubble, but quantum mechanics may not be what you make it out to be. when the distance is greater than the atomic radius, the objects travel. didn't you know that electricity is made of traveling electrons? and even in silver and graphite, the best conductors, they still travel slower than light. they don't just disappear from one place and appear in the other like ghosts.

The theory of relativity is well, a joke, i'm sorry, because you see, Light does not "travel".

sure it does. the fact that it does is what time of flight cameras are based on. and next year, you'll probably be seeing devices that have one. like the Microsoft hololens. it sends out light pulses and records the time they take to go and return, and uses the information to know how far things are. so . . . repair your hypothesis based on this new information.

Nothing does.

everything does. light is the fastest thing in the world and yet it does.

If it seems like things are always doing Points A to Z, it is only seeming, and on top of that things can also be in motion at terrible speeds while sitting at 'a' point A. I trust you would not place your hand in boiling water sitting 'jejely' on the burner.

This is a classical confusion of thermodynamics with Newtonian mechanics. no pun intended. the water is not moving, the molecules that make up the water are what are moving around. unless you'd rather argue that a molecule of h20 is equal to the liquid water. i would gladly debate that.
you know the interesting thing? if you summed up the individual movements of these molecules, you would get zero in your calculations. it will not make sense to you until you realize that the sum of these molecules is the water. which isn't going anywhere.

The "Laws" of motion are thus Dead On Arrival for the very simple reason that their underlying premise was inadequate.
Does this compute?

permit me to say . . . epic fail.

I find the contradictions in your second paragraph a minor technicality since i did not make the "Laws" about what is going in a straight line or not. I do not know that it would serve good use of time to debate your points here because the laws are invalid anyways, per my writing above, so i essentially googled 'physics for dummies' and found these http://www.physics4kids.com/files/motion_laws.html and this https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/education/rocket/newton1r.html
They all say straight lines. If that is not the case any more, it makes no difference.

they all say straight lines, they also give the condition for straight lines. a force must not act on the object. logic dictates that ANY object that is not moving in a straight line or being at rest is being acted on by a force. that is the entire statement of the law. and indeed, if you observe these objects which aren't moving in straight lines, they are always being acted on by various forces. except in the quantum world. so you see that they are as different as forks and spoons.

There is so much i would like say about motion and maybe i will find time someday.

I have a single thing to say on motion. you should study it.

No we do NOT have four fundamental forces, please. Don't even get me started on that. There is only ONE force in nature and that force is Equilibrium and its idea-synonyms. Equilibrium expresses it sheer power or force as compression (so-called gravity) and expansion (radiation), both of which interplay and/or become one or the other using Equilibrium as their fulcrum. In time i will amplify this further.

equilibrium is not a force. it is a state. .
Also, yes, we have four . . . and probably a lot more . . . forces. gravity, the electromagnetic force, the strong force, the weak force. of course, they can be unified, but that doesn't mean they aren't different. because a goat and a pig are both mammals, doesn't mean a goat is a pig.

I like the fact that you state that "Nature is Hierarchically consistent" for i have not heard that before and it demonstrates that you are dialoguing with me, not repeating information you were forced to memorise somewhere. Even then i must disagree with you for it is that type of thinking that prevents the Academics from admitting that past observations are invalid.

say, rather, that past observations are limited. and we will agree with you wholeheartedly.

Rather than admit so, they create "outs" for themselves to justify inconsistent and unnatural theories. By saying that "Nature is Hierarchically consistent", you are creating an out also my friend.
Unless the True Laws of creation are evolving, i would say it is the powers and means of observation of Man that is evolving and not that nature is inconsistent. Nature's Operating System, so to speak, is perfected and works the same way every single time. She screams of this fact. Last i checked, apple trees still bear apples and Human females do not bear kittens. Oxygen and Hydrogen still beget water and Sodium and chlorine still beget perfect cubic salt crystals when uncontaminated.

Yeah, Oxygen and Hydrogen don't beget water all the time. they beget hydrogen peroxide sometimes, they also beget oxonium ions sometimes, they also beget hydroxl radicals sometimes, and apple trees will continue to evolve until one day, their fruit won't taste remotely like apple. and Human females give birth to all sorts of babies, such that the chance of giving birth to one kind of child is one in millions, babies with tails, babies with traits inconsistent with their races, babies that are alive, those that are dead, those without brains, those attached to their twins, underdeveloped, over developed . . .

So . . . what consistency are you talking about? I told you about hierarchical consistency, with that, we can say, human females always give birth to human babies, oxygen and hydrogen always give a compound or mixture, but the exact kind varies, and the kind of kind varies even more. but you insist on absolute consistency and that theory doesn't hold up to scrutiny. if science operated like that, pray tell, how would our society have gotten to this level of advancement?

If scientists are not able to settle down and let nature teach them her ways and process through the soul, but would rather rely on OBVIOUSLY limited senses, then please by all means let them do so, but let them desist from making a whole lot of SHI.T up and passing them off as facts. It is time to start seeking the real TRUTHS of EXISTENCE as they really are not as we think they are. This will enable us solve all our problems as a species and save our environment and planet. It will also do wonders for our relationships which at this point has no real natural philosophical basis upon which it is based. That is why life as we know it is as silly and entropic as the entropic claims of charlatans that hold the world to intellectual ransom.

@bolded, you are very welcome to give examples. if scientists make anything up, it is never passed off as fact. not even after countless experiments. at the most, it is called a theory. Johnydon22, please confirm.
Sir, you are entirely free to challenge the scientific community, it is highly welcome, the only problem is that your Ideas have to hold up to scrutiny. and so far, they haven't. for someone who thinks the millions of scientists around who are constantly working to prove each other wrong, are CHARLARTANS, who are holding the world to intellectual ransom, one would expect a consistent, solid and working theory.(yes, I took it personally because I'm a physicist and you basically just insulted years of study on my part.)

As to the second paragraph. The possibility for debate exists only because our position on the galactic ring/spiral does not let us see its centre. Naturally, one is tempted to conjecture and argue forever. You are thoroughly deceived by scales in nature and your knee-jerk choice of response that nature is not consistent in her principles allows you to entertain completely fantastic theories about a black hole centring this galactic system. What you have stated is just "text-book." Further, it only enforces the nucleal theory of atoms in which things are magically drawn into a centre and held there by magic.

what do you mean, of course, we can see the black hole, do your research, it's located at an area called the Saggitarius A* and we know it's there because it emits a part of the electromagnetic spectrum specific to supermassive black holes. stars emit another specific part. and you can verify it yourself with the appropriate equipment. you don't need "textbook."
and it doesn't enforce any theory. the atom is not the galaxy. and yes, the atom has things that are drawn to the center. not by magic, but by the strong force. There's an entire PhD dedicated to studying it. you are welcome to join.

There is indeed much to teach about harmonic wave-fields and nature's ways and processes that i determined it would just be much easier to show rather than tell.

then show. we have invented the thing for the task. it is called mathematics. with it, you can show us all your ideas, and we will conduct experiments to verify your claims.

Rather than argue the theory with you, let me you ask you, can you post here any evidence of a solar/galactic system centred by a black hole?

Yes. there is an object at the center of the galaxy that emits an intense radio waves. we know this because we can detect radio waves. we also know that stars don't emit radio waves because at their temperature, they would only emit at least, red light. in fact, the bigger the sun/star, the more dense it's core is, and the more likely hotter it is, it then makes no sense that the "big ass" sun at the center of the galaxy is emitting just radio waves.
co-incidentally, we know black holes can be responsible for this. combine this with the impossibility of having a sun that is so big as to control billions of other stars to orbit around it, due to the limit of the strength of neutron degeneracy pressure, and the existence of a supermassive black hole is readily apparent. but of course, you can disprove this line of thought by proving to us how a "big ass sun" can produce intense radio waves.

I mean, i understand the temptation for conjectures with regards to something that cannot be seen, but if you wish to see what your scalp looks like, why not look at another person's scalp for an idea of what yours looks like? Why conjecture?
Please show me a system centred by a black hole.

A system whose center is emitting FREAKING radio waves instead of hot red? even the coldest dullest of stars emit a definite red. going down the spectrum, you pass infrared and microwave wavelengths. there isn't a star in this universe that emits intense mircrowave. not to mention radio waves, which have even less energy.
Either there is a Tv tower in the center of the galaxy, or there is a black hole there.

I like your use of "maybe." Tell you what, MAYBE if you give your life to Jesus, you might be spared hellfire because....religion

I only used maybe as a token of politeness, the observations we've made are vehemently against a star being in the center of the galaxy.

A lovely day to you.

indeed.

Teempakguy:
...

Hmmm....Interesting. Well then, so be it.

johnydon22:


If a picture of the earth is provided i doubt if you can be able to distinguish it from the CGI so is there really any need when you will still end up holding on to what you want and feel should be?

Go ahead and provide it. Just make sure it is not computer generated image.

One thing that we do know for a fact, is that the Heliocentric model is wrong! and the NEO Tychonic Geocentric model is 100% correct! like yea you left out; - How the Michelson/Morley Experiment done in 1887 proves the Earth is at rest! - The Airy experimental result in 1871, proves its the distant stars and galaxies going around the stationary Earth! - The Sagnac experiment done in 1913, proves Einstein's special theory of relativity wrong, and proves the Aether to be! - The Michelson/Gale experimental result in 1925, in consideration to the M/M result in 1887, The Airy experimental result in 1871, and the Sagnac experiment in 1913, the M/G experiment proves the Sun is going around the Earth once a day, every 24 hours, and the Earth is at rest. - The Doppler Effect and what Hubble wrote and published about that in his book "The Observational Approach to Cosmology" published in 1937, and how he violated scientific method just to keep the Copernican system alive. - The discovery of the spherical concentrically aligned Galaxies, quasars, and Gama Ray bursts, all with the Earth in and at the center of the distribution field. - The CMB alignment with Earths equator and the ecliptic plane brought back by the three probes, the COBE launched in 1989, the WMAP launched in 2001, and the PLANCK launched in 2009, making a Cosmic cross right through the Earth, putting the Earth in the very center of the universe, stationary, fixed and at rest! - The released discovery last year that the Earth has an inner inner core, meaning that the density if the Earth is greater then initially calculated and thought meaning the mass is greater. - the fact that you're reported mass of the sun is not an exact proven thing it is best guess assumption! - that the Earth has more density per cubic centimeter then the sun, in fact the Earth has the highest density of all the stellar bodies in the solar system. - Mach's Principal, and Issac Newton's proposition 43. for all these reasons and so many more the true fact is the NEO Tychonic Geocentric model is correct!

Dawdy:

Go ahead and provide it. Just make sure it is not computer generated image.

Have you fill of earth's pictures, first one is a direct picture taken on the first manned apollo mission to the moon, others are close up satellite and probe photos

I have no intent of joining words in an irrelevant squabble with one who still cling to Medieval astrology

-Geocentric system
-Aether
-Universe center earth
-stationary and fixed earth..

and numerous other outdated trashed and shattered medieval scientific bunders

In the 21st century? I am not going to mince words here that will be a total waste of my time, effort and intellectual morsels.

Wow!! Thanks for the tag Johnydon22 interesting piece.....
following

johnydon22:


This is a very delicate question and i'd start by saying Nobody is certain about it yet ..

Some hold that there was nothingness and a vacuum and quantum fluctuations in this vacuum gave rise to matter.
But since Vacuums represents the lowest level and i mean the lowest lowest of energy frequency it cannot be called Nothing then in my own opinion.

So I'd say Energy is my best shot to answering this but this energy must have been at a very miniscule frequency.

Dark Energy some may call it.

But i'd like to also add that if this energy was before the Universal and is directly the interacting value for the causality of the universe then this energy is also the universe.

so can then rephrase this question to what was before the universe as it appears now

which then will be "Energy at a very low frequency [/b]

Although one is left to wonder HOW MINDLESS "energy" or NOTHING (Like WTF!!) could have managed to create the universe..... An insane claim that lumps of LIFELESS, mindless matter jumped into existence FOR NO REASON, via no mechanism, then after billions of years of evolution and expansion, a portion of these lifeless materials randomly and MIRACULOUSLY arranged themselves into living beings with MINDS, even though this is formally impossible since atoms possess neither life nor mind...

KingEtienneSky:
Although one is left to wonder HOW MINDLESS "energy" or NOTHING (Like WTF!!) could have managed to create the universe

One thing i noticed about you all is that you always expect everything to be a plan, to have a goal, to have a reason.

the same way mindless Hydrogen and Mindless Oxygen makes water or hydrogen peroxide when once they by accident come in contact.

it is result, its a result that must happen.

When a mind fuses hydrogen and oxygen together, there will still make water or hydrogen peroxide, so hydrogen and oxygen do not need a mind to produce result, once there is a reaction between the two there must be an outcome.

that is the nature of everything.

..... An insane claim that lumps of LIFELESS, mindless matter jumped into existence FOR NO REASON, via no mechanism,

E=MC² ... matter and energy are relative... energy can become matter and matter can be reduced to energy.. that is the machanism.

so once there is energy matter can be created.

then after billions of years of evolution and expansion, a portion of these lifeless materials randomly and MIRACULOUSLY arranged themselves into living beings with MINDS,

Matter has no light yet the same matter shines as the sun through nuclear fusion, the same lifeless matter is living as you no matter how you think that happened it still remain the same matter you call lifeless is alive as you.

even though this is formally impossible since atoms possess neither life nor mind...

Same way it possessed neither light but soon through gravitational effect collapsed and sparked up nuclear fusion.

that is a result doesn't need to be planned.

it is not impossible because life is a chemistry, you are mostly hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and carbon [carbon as the building block]

thus four elements are the most abundant elements in the universe along with helium.

so life is a chemistry of the most common elements this universe has, and it took billions of years because it was not a product of a plan, it was just a series of chance trials and errors.

like Johannes Kepler once asked "If carrot, lettuce, cabbage , milk were floating eternally is there a chance there would at some point by accident collide and salad is made"

that is a "Yes"

Now i'll like you to replace the universe with any deity you probably might be thinking made the universe and you are faced with the same problem.

-how a mind just came fro no where (not even reaction)
-how such a complex entity just came out fully functional and active
-how mindless nothing harboured a mind

Gravity does not exist... Gravity is merely Newton's opinion about why an apple fell from a tree... The apple fell because it had more mass than the air molecules below it! "Gravity" is just density on a larger scale. It's not because of a magical pull from the center of earth, it's because air molecules cannot physically hold a fucking apple!

to this day gravity has yet to be proven. why do helium balloons rise/float? because it weighs less than air, it's so simple you can't fathom it, the ego wants to make you think the more complex and complicated something is the more intelligent you are..

Einstein was wrong.. His General Theory of Relativity was only created to debunk the experiment called "Airy's Failure" which "failed" to prove the earth is moving.. the fact is.. it was a valid test and repeated 100s of times.. and every time it showed that the earth is completely motionless.. The stars revolve around us.. the sun does too..

Well for my first post in this educative thread by my friend johnydon22. I do not think science and religion are anything apart considering that both were birthed at the same time by the same race (Sumerians/Babylonians). In fact science is the foundation of religion i.e astronomy (science) gave birth to astrology (religion). The universe seems to be expanding and we probably do not know if our solar system is the first or there is a solar system before ours. We are beings of third dimension (3d) and we do not know if we are alone or whether beings of 2d or 4d exist somewhere in our vast cosmos.

This is funny, johnydon22... The world is either a machine made of lifeless, mindless, meaningless, purposeless things - as science and all mechanistic theories of natire maintain - or an Organism made of living, minded, meaningful, purposeful things.

It's easy to understand how a universal organism can produce the phenomenon of evolution. It's impossible to understand how a machine with no living or mental parts, with no meaning or purpose, can manifest evolution through the alleged process of random, purposeless mutations, being acted upon by random, purposeless Nature; which of course is the ideology of Darwinism. Darwinists seek to claim that randomness, uncertainty, chance, accident, indeterminism, and acausation can lead from a primordial slime, or chemical soup, to human beings; that purposeless life can emerge from purposeless lifelessness; that mind can emerge from mindlessness. This would be THE SECOND GREATEST MIRACLE OF ALL TIME, preceded only by the egregious, magical claim that existence can randomly and miraculously jump out of non-existence for no reason, via no mechanism!

Science is absurd. Its central claims are impossible. Science openly defies reason an logic. It has no evidence or proof for its claims. No one ever has, or ever could, observe a "random" event. Randomness is an irrationalist, indeterministic philosophical hypothesis and specuation, not something factual and proven.

Scientists refuse to refer to an eternal God, or eternal mind, or even eternal matter, as causal mechanism. Once you have removed any eternal causal order from existence, you then have no option but to refer to existence acausally jumping out of nothing for no reason - and this is exactly what Science has done. Random indeterminism lies at the heart of all scientific theories, whether cosmology, evolution, or wavefunction collapse.

Without a necessary, eternal causal order, you can have a system only of contigency and temporality, of things appearing miraculously (since they do not belong to a permanent, rational, logical order). Can a universe of car parts "evolve"? That's what Darwinists and Cosmologists expect us to believe. Can car parts randomly mutate or start expanding all of a sudden for NO REASON? Can car parts be subject to "natural selection"? What does that even mean? Natural selection presupposes that something can select. Can a system of nothing but car parts select some car parts over others? How? Why?

Natural selection presupposes mental qualities of evaluation, choice, will, will to power, desire, ambition, ruthlessness, intelligence, scheming, cunning, aggression, fitness, adaptability and purpose - but these are exactly the qualities that are denied by all lifeless, mindless, mechanistic, materialist systems, such as science.

Darwinism is ridiculous. Machine parts cannot evolve. Full stop. There can be no "natural selection" in a system of machine parts. End of story.

"Evolution" is a misnomer within the ideology and dodmatism of scientific materialism. Nothing material can evolve. Nothing material is capable of evolving. Lifeless, mindless atoms cannot evolve (evolve into what?!), so how can collections of lifeless, mindless atoms evolve? If we laid out all the parts of a supercar on an alien planet, and came back a billion years later, would we expect to find a planet inhabited by hyper-evolved, living supercars, or a pile of rusted, useless car parts? You'd need to be insane to imagine that lifeless things can evolve life, and that mindless things can evolve mind. However, if, like scientists, you believe in miracles and magic, in things jumping out of nothing for no reason, in things "emerging" from other things in which they had no precedent, well, Darwinian evolution must make perfect sense to you!

Science is in fact an anti-evolutionary ideaology, just like Abrahamism. Only through fraudulent, specious, impossible arguments does "evolution" enter into science.

An indeterministic system is useless at selecting anything as a deterministic system (i.e a system of mechanistic scientific determinism), and makes even less sense. In a genuinely random system, ALL events are by definition, random, hence nothing is ever "selected". Things just happen, with no rhyme or reason.

Wow, if these assumptions with too many variables while ignoring the contradictions is the best the evolutionists have, they have a pretty sorry case.

lordnicklaus:
Well for my first post in this educative thread by my friend johnydon22. I do not think science and religion are anything apart considering that both were birthed at the same time by the same race (Sumerians/Babylonians). In fact science is the foundation of religion i.e astronomy (science) gave birth to astrology (religion). The universe seems to be expanding and we probably do not know if our solar system is the first or there is a solar system before ours. We are beings of third dimension (3d) and we do not know if we are alone or whether beings of 2d or 4d exist somewhere in our vast cosmos.

I agree with you science and superstition are born of the same source, in fact science is advanced superstition that has replaced God(s) with empiricism.

i treated this on my thread Songs of the world

[b] Many would think that superstitions and science are irreconcilable opposites,
rivals in a world mesh of ideas but that i would argue is wrong.

Superstition was a very shouty stage in the evolution of what we now call
science.

Let us bear in mind that while in this age, superstition is consonants with the
ideas of science, it is none the less an elder sibling to the established
discipline of science as they are both children of one parent which is
Philosophy …

_Philosophy is a projection of human enquiry, a leap of the mind into the
unknown trying to resolve the known to merge with the unknowns that may
lurk within, and so Philosophy birthed more of questions that it ever had ever
given an answer.

And this philosophical insolubles gave birth to the path ways of their answers,
approaches employed for their satisfaction and thus superstition was birthed
first as an offshoot of a naturalistic troubling problem and thus has evolved
through the course of human history, science slowly evolved from within,
speculations began to arose more often leading to disagreement and
arguments and the need for substantiation became dire thus empiricism was
spiced into the deductive means and science was born.[/b]

https://www.nairaland.com/3145298/songs-worlds-johnydon22

you may like to check it out

johnydon22:


I agree with you science and superstition are born of the same source, in fact science is advanced superstition that has replaced God(s) with empiricism.

i treated this on my thread Songs of the world

[b] Many would think that superstitions and science are irreconcilable opposites,
rivals in a world mesh of ideas but that i would argue is wrong.

Superstition was a very shouty stage in the evolution of what we now call
science.

Let us bear in mind that while in this age, superstition is consonants with the
ideas of science, it is none the less an elder sibling to the established
discipline of science as they are both children of one parent which is
Philosophy …

_Philosophy is a projection of human enquiry, a leap of the mind into the
unknown trying to resolve the known to merge with the unknowns that may
lurk within, and so Philosophy birthed more of questions that it ever had ever
given an answer.

And this philosophical insolubles gave birth to the path ways of their answers,
approaches employed for their satisfaction and thus superstition was birthed
first as an offshoot of a naturalistic troubling problem and thus has evolved
through the course of human history, science slowly evolved from within,
speculations began to arose more often leading to disagreement and
arguments and the need for substantiation became dire thus empiricism was
spiced into the deductive means and science was born.[/b]

https://www.nairaland.com/3145298/songs-worlds-johnydon22

you may like to check it out

The real superstition and magic is to believe that "something came from nothing" defend this theory if you can, we are here to reason logically.

Dawdy:

The real superstition and magic is to believe that "something came from nothing" defend this theory if you can, we are here to reason logically.

I do not even understand what you are yapping about, do you just like pulling premises out of no where and argue on it?

Dawdy:
Einstein was wrong.. His General Theory of Relativity was only created to debunk the experiment called "Airy's Failure" which "failed" to prove the earth is moving.. the fact is.. it was a valid test and repeated 100s of times.. and every time it showed that the earth is completely motionless.. The stars revolve around us.. the sun does too..

This GEOCENTRIC nonsense again... in the 21st Century...

Who led the loonies into this thread?

davien:
Who led the loonies into this thread?

Lol brother they are not loonies, without conflicting ideas the world would be boring.

johnydon22:


Lol brother they are not loonies, without conflicting ideas the world would be boring.

No truer word spoken! If everyone were to have that kinda mindset, it would go a long way to solve MANY of our social problems.... You have quite the golden life philosophy (the kind of personality any sane person would wish nature had endowned him with), the very charisma that makes you so loved by many on this forum (I'm yet to see that one who HATES John Williams, and I wonder what sane excuse he'll have for doing so)... But you see, such beautiful, pleasant, approach to life is what many cannever manage, no matter how much they try.

That's a scenario very much reminiscent of Tantalus, the Lydian King who was a son of Zeus and a nymph. He committed unpardonable crimes against the gods by revealing secrets entrusted to him by Zeus, and by stealing ambrosia - the food and drink reserved exclusively for the divinities.

As punishment, he was condemned to stand up to his chin in water of a dark river of Hades, with the delicious fruit of a riverbank tree hanging from branches directly over his head. Everytime he tried to drink, the water receded from him just enough to thwart him, and no matter how he stretched and strained, he could never quite reach the fruit. Thus his eternal torment was to be permanently thirsty while surrounded by water, and permanently hungry while mere centimetres from the glorious fruit. All the time, he imagined that with a bit more effort he could attain the goals he craved, but his anticipation always went unfulfilled, thus multiplying his suffering.

It is from this tale that we get the word [size=16]TANTALIZE[/size] - to excite a hope but not satisfy it. I'm tantalized by what life seems to offer, espousing such philosophy as yours, but I can never quite reach out and grab that glittering and shining crystal of idealism because there're just some ideas people spew that I really can't stand!.... NATURALLY....

KingEtienneSky:
No truer word spoken! If everyone were to have that kinda mindset, it would go a long way to solve MANY of our social problems.... You have quite the golden life philosophy (the kind of personality any sane person would wish nature had endowned him with), the very charisma that makes you so loved by many on this forum (I'm yet to see that one who HATES John Williams, and I wonder what sane excuse he'll have for doing so)... But you see, such beautiful, pleasant, approach to life is what many cannever manage, no matter how much they try.

That's a scenario very much reminiscent of Tantalus, the Lydian King who was a son of Zeus and a nymph. He committed unpardonable crimes against the gods by revealing secrets entrusted to him by Zeus, and by stealing ambrosia - the food and drink reserved exclusively for the divinities.

As punishment, he was condemned to stand up to his chin in water of a dark river of Hades, with the delicious fruit of a riverbank tree hanging from branches directly over his head. Everytime he tried to drink, the water receded from him just enough to thwart him, and no matter how he stretched and strained, he could never quite reach the fruit. Thus his eternal torment was to be permanently thirsty while surrounded by water, and permanently hungry while mere centimetres from the glorious fruit. All the time, he imagined that with a bit more effort he could attain the goals he craved, but his anticipation always went unfulfilled, thus multiplying his suffering.

It is from this tale that we get the word [size=16]TANTALIZE[/size] - to excite a hope but not satisfy it. I'm tantalized by what life seems to offer, espousing such philosophy as yours, but I can never quite reach out and grab that glittering and shining crystal of idealism because there're just some ideas people spew that I really can't stand!.... NATURALLY....

You are great with words and versatile in your thoughts, remarkable traits that is. Up till today i have never known the origin of the word tantalize, thank you for the lesson, I believe it will come in handy.

for your last words i must say i have seen you in action on a thread about 'Bible and science and age of earth' hard aggressive invectives flowing out like rap music.

I agree most times there conflicting ideas that are way out of line and triggers our deepest sense of contempt for ignorance, in as much as the ones harbouring such ideas are also known to be arrogant in their ignorance there is always an impulse to go hard and blunt, a tendency to condescend and belittle.

But i do not chiefly always blame them and i do believe we should always temper our criticism with kind words, none of us comes fully prepared or all knowing..

But we are imperfect in our dealings, we evolve and grow but at intervals we also slip.

johnydon22:


You are great with words and versatile in your thoughts, remarkable traits that is. Up till today i have never known the origin of the word tantalize, thank you for the lesson, I believe it will come in handy.

for your last words i must say i have seen you in action on a thread about 'Bible and science and age of earth' hard aggressive invectives flowing out like rap music.

I agree most times there conflicting ideas that are way out of line and triggers our deepest sense of contempt for ignorance, in as much as the ones harbouring such ideas are also known to be arrogant in their ignorance there is always an impulse to go hard and blunt, a tendency to condescend and belittle.

But i do not chiefly always blame them and i do believe we should always temper our criticism with kind words, none of us comes fully prepared or all knowing..

But we are imperfect in our dealings, we evolve and grow but at intervals we also slip.

Smiles.... I can remember once telling you that your words are the type that should be written on marble. I stiill maintain that position, and I believe pretty much every sane person here will agree with me.

I admire your kind of personality and sense of judgement.... A mind so rich in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

I'm fascinated by your life philosophy... and I believe I've got a lot to learn from you.

I hope to meet you soon.

KingEtienneSky:
Smiles.... I can remember once telling you that your words are the type that should be written on marble. I stiill maintain that position, and I believe pretty much every sane person here will agree with me.

I admire your kind of personality and sense of judgement.... A mind so rich in wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

I'm fascinated by your life philosophy... and I believe I've got a lot to learn from you.

I hope to meet you soon.

Our paths may yet cross some day, i have met some people from NL directly and it was always a pleasant experience.

There is always something we can learn from each other, nobody is too big to learn or too little to teach.

Hop on to the 'Songs of the world' we are composing an orchestra ... Check my profile.

.................

I have a question that i think we'd need to address -

what are your views on extra-terrestrial life forms and civilizations and also on Extra-terrestrial visits (ancient astronaut theories)

Is there a chance that human Gods are probably an advanced alien specie that visited and primitive humans deified them?

lordniklaus, davien, KingEtiennsky, teempakguy, HCpaul, JackBizzle, Loj

johnydon22:
I have a question that i think we'd need to address -

what are your views on extra-terrestrial life forms and civilizations and also on Extra-terrestrial visits (ancient astronaut theories)

Is there a chance that human Gods are probably an advanced alien specie that visited and primitive humans deified them?

i don't believe accounts of extraterrestrial visits. I also don't believe ancient astronaut theories.

I think theories like them are borne out of the basic human need for self esteem. We like to think that we're "better" than ancient people. That they are dumber than we are, and therefore, those magnificent structures they built could not have been their sole handwork. But we often forget the inventive nature of human beings. It's only in recent times that humans has become obsessed with instant gratification. There has been times when the majority of humans were relentlessly focused, and without games to distract them, they made the world their playground. It's actually not so different from now.

That being said, I'm always open minded towards reasonable evidence for these theories.

johnydon22:
I have a question that i think we'd need to address -

Hello My brother Johnydon22. I was never invited in this great forum. Thank you

I am still working on that project I discussed with you. Trying to find ways. Will let you know in due time.

Back to your question: Is there a chance that...

There is definitely a chance. Most objects of worship are according to just the fruits of the imaginations, dreams, ignorance of primitive men (sometimes with good intentions). But there is a slim chance that in one case or the other, the gods they are depicting are extra terrestial beings.

Of course, like Teempakguy rightfully outlined, it does not make sense to suppose that the ancient had the help of ET to build their structures. I personally do not think that the best an ET would do, would be to build Pyramids. The Sumerians may be a good example. It is quite interesting to note that their spiritual history speaks extensively of ET. That in itself is not a proof of ET visitations. But remember, you did not ask for facts, but if a "chance" exists.

The Annunakis seem to reflect the behavior "gods" would display if actually they were not really "gods" but an (advanced) extra terrestrial specie.

Of course all these are just speculations. There no concrete evidence to back the "ancient astronauts" theories. But is there a chance? I would definitely think yes, a slim one.

Teempakguy:
i don't believe accounts of extraterrestrial visits. I also don't believe ancient astronaut theories.

I think theories like them are borne out of the basic human need for self esteem. We like to think that we're "better" than ancient people. That they are dumber than we are, and therefore, those magnificent structures they built could not have been their sole handwork. But we often forget the inventive nature of human beings. It's only in recent times that humans has become obsessed with instant gratification. There has been times when the majority of humans were relentlessly focused, and without games to distract them, they made the world their playground. It's actually not so different from now.

That being said, I'm always open minded towards reasonable evidence for these theories.

Oh this is very on point - i once replied a guy who was questioning me on how ancient structures were built trying to invoke the 'alien did' argument.

"Just because you can't figure out how ancient people built stuffs doesn't mean aliens did."

they were humans with same brain, deep scientific, engineering knowledge, how cant they achieve such feats with great number of manual labour.

On aliens visits and astronaut theories - i share same stance with Neil Degrasse Tyson 'show us proof, something alien'

I'm a newbie here so please don't shoot me!

As it happens, I've been researching this stuff for several years and I've reached some conclusions. I'll throw them into the melting pot for due consideration. Bear in mind that these conclusions are the result of much research including reading hundreds of books. (It's a wonder I can still see!) Oh, and I'm not religious.

1. The universe is infinite (I know, it's beyond human comprehension but I'll cover that, later).
2. The universe is full of energy or "aether" or whatever you want to call it. It's a fundamental substance that we, as humans, can't detect.
3. The aether is conscious and all-pervading so some might consider it as "God". (Hence "God is everywhere and everything".)
4. Matter is made up of spinning "clumps" of aether. For a crude explanation of this, see http://www.glodark.com/How_the_Universe_Works.htm
5. For a complete explanation read "The Vortex Theory" by David. A. Ash. (If you can't get hold of a copy, let me know.)
6. Those fundamental matter "particles" or "vortices" can be combined to make electrons, protons, neutrons, etc. that make up "matter" as we know it.
7. The universe contains many "layers" or "dimensions" that exist at different "frequencies" (rather like radio stations) and we, as humans, are "tuned" into just one of them. We can not normally detect the others although there is occasional interaction that is detected and usually explained away as "ghosts", "aliens", etc.
OK so far. Now for the biggie...
7. WE, as entities or "souls" or "spirits" are made of "aether" and we inhabit physical bodies in order to learn new things by experiencing. We are immortal. We return in different physical bodies many times. Scary thought? It's amazingly difficult to prove but there is lots of evidence that points towards this conclusion, simply because no other conclusion fits. You know about Occam's razor theory: choose the simplest answer.
8. In order to enhance the learning experience, the human brain is designed to filter out memories of previous lives or "existences". In effect, we all have amnesia. If you think about it logically, it can't work any other way. If we remembered previous experiences it would completely screw up the way we react in our current life and we'd learn a lot less. Life would be a lot less "random" because we'd have preconceived ideas and experiences to guide us.
9. Most memories are stored outside the brain. Some people think of "Akashic Records". I just think that my memories are stored in "the aether" and my brain has selective access to them. There's a filter.
10. Because we are all "souls" made from the same "aether", which is all-pervading, therefore we are all interconnected. It's a tenuous link because of the brain filtering and it's basically a subconscious link. But it's why we sometimes have a "premonition" or a "feeling" about something. It has been proven many times in a scientific manner. The most popular experiment has a person staring at another person via a video link. The person being stared at "knows" when he is being observed but not necessarily on a conscious level. However, measurement of his pulse, skin resistance and brain activity indicates that he is subconsciously aware.

There, I've covered a lot of ground in just ten statements but that's the gist of it. And the answer isn't 42 after all!

Edit: I just found an interview with a 12 year old American boy on Facebook. He really gets it! Unfortunately, i can't find this video elsewhere but here's the Facebook link so maybe this will work for you:
https://www.facebook.com/richard.greene.399/videos/10153963366212961/

Also search YouTube for the boy's name: Maxwell Loughan

.
August 11th
Wow, nearly a fortnight has passed and no comment?

.

Cc johnydon22

Theoretically, when extended to five dimensions, a 'Black Hole' becomes a black what?

A) A 'Polygon

B) A 'Black String'

C) A 'Black Box'

D) Liberia

Geofavor:
Cc johnydon22

Theoretically, when extended to five dimensions, a 'Black Hole' becomes a black what?

A) A 'Polygon

B) A 'Black String'

C) A 'Black Box'

D) Liberia

I do not know. . . teach me.

All i know is that in our 3D plain backholes are spheres.