₦airaland Forum

TheNiceGuy:
Well, to bust your bubbles, 750k was paid around 2011/13, it's close to 2m or more as we speak.

Naturally, with the exchange rate having sky-rocketed.

And please for the record, Government has SOME DESIGNATED PEOPLE that are sponsored for Hajj and to Jerusalem, NOT THE GENERAL MUSLIM.

That's still untenable. Government should not be sponsoring anybody for Hajj or pilgrimage. That's pure madness.
And with the entourage culture in Nigeria we all know how "some designated people" would likely be quite a crowd!

dtiBusiness:
For clarification sake, Pilgrims pay for their air tickets, lodgings and feeding through out there stay in Saudi Arabia. The Hajj Commission is just coordinating. The $900,000 and 50% payment belongs to prospective hajj contributors.

Sharrap there, are you saying the Hajj is not subsidized?

https://punchng.com/despite-recession-states-others-spend-over-n136-5bn-on-hajj/

donofdons:
The man doesn’t look like a criminal. I know criminals when I see one, because I have been in the business of crime for 26 years before I retired. I was jailed for 8 year in the US and spent a total for five years in jails in Thailand, Pakistan and brazil. Trust me, I have seen all kinds of criminals and this face doesn’t look like one. Look deep and you will realize that there is a government official somewhere who ate that money

If at all you have spent the said years in government guest-houses across the world as you claim, that would not necessarily help you with the recognition of high class white collar criminals. Such criminals could look on the outside as clean and spotless as a prince, as dignified as true royalty, as proper as a priest, as compassionate as a saint, as attentive and meticulous as the finest professor, as humble as a monk. . . . and still inwardly, undetected, be more savage and corrupt than Jack the Ripper, Idi-Amin, Mobutu-Seseseko and the worst mafia-drug-lord imaginable put together.

Now this is not to say there isnt gwament collusion in this. That is a necessity.

Walkee:
goodnight. I have been in a very bad mood all day mainly because FG have not paid salary. Sorry if I was rude to you.

Cheers amigo. Apologies too.

Walkee:
he was still in power when he got booted out. If Buhari is ousted this evening, did he complete his tenure?

I don tire.
Good night again.

Walkee:
Did Shagari whom the people gave power complete his term?

Yes he completed his first term.
You have too many facts scattered and wrong.
Good night again.

Walkee:
was both the president and the vice from the same region? Did they complete their tenure and power failed to rotate to the South?

As you have already guessed, those were not the errors I sought to correct. I have corrected the errors I sought to correct, daz all.

PS: My last post. Should not have used the word "republic" in reference to the 1st republic lasting over four years. Cos it wasnt a republic throughout. However it was an elected government and lasted over four years.

Ol boy good night. Take care.

Walkee:
selection of leaders that never lasted 4 years?

Haba. 1979 - 1983 was actually a little over four years.
Also, the 1st republic lasted well over four years.

The two executive heads was definitely a mistake but it is not even relevant in this discourse, just a wrong lexical item which doesn't distort the my point. What I mean is the head of the executive branch and his vice.

No worries my man, just glad to see there is a humble bone in your body after all.

Don't even bring 1960 election into this argument (not that it changes anything) but that was a completely different system of government, three years into that administration Nigeria wasn't still totally independent.

Doesn't change the fact that leaders were elected then.

Walkee:
there's no misrepresentation of anything here. You jumped into an argument halfway without bothering to understand the context. The guy I quoted initially has gotten the memo. He believed the entire North was one ethnic group which was why he claimed they were getting undue advantage by always being in power either as president or vice. I only explained to him that president and vice cannot come from the same region, not even in the 80s. You just jumped into an argument you didn't even understand

I hear you sa. But please sha note that -

- 1. There is nothing, and there has never been anything like "both executive heads of state" in Nigeria in any dispensation, contrary to what you wrote.
- 2. There was selection of leaders in this country by votes before 1999, contrary to what you wrote.

Thank you sa.

Walkee:
do you have comprehension problem? Prior to 1999 I was clearly talking about military era. Didn't you see where I said " nobody told our generals not to be bold enough to risk their lives and take power"?
The guy I was lecturing said that North has always had either president or vice since 1999 so I told him it has always been that way for both North and South. Why are you people so dumb?
Those periods you mentioned up there when did the two heads of executive branch come from the same region?

Ol boy you grossly misrepresented reality with what you wrote. But no worries, perhaps its just a misunderstanding.
Its no matter.

Walkee:
you be mugu. The point here is that both executive heads of states can't come from the same region. One must come from south while the other come from North. That's the argument

Really? That's the argument? How strange. I seem to recall you suggesting that before 1999 power was taken by force:

Walkee:
Nobody marginalised anyone. Prior to 1999 anybody could take power. Power was taken not given, nobody told our generals not to be bold enough to risk their lives to seize power. Since we started choosing president through votes, how many years have Northerners ruled compared to the South?

Perhaps 1960 - 1966 and 1979 to 1983 were periods after 1999. Ah, I see, indeed, that must be the case, pardon me. You know its not easy for us mugus.

When you say "both executive heads of state" - I can only shake my head in pity, and in shame at the quality of our educational system these days. How sad, how terribly sad.

Walkee:
what point are you even trying to make? When Balewa was Prime Minister, was the president not from South East?
Who be this one sef?

1. The President who was occupying a ceremonial position?

Oya, lets even give that one to you, just to pamper your iidiocy:

2. Shagari nko?

dalongjnr:
This is the most confusing thread I have ever seen on Nairaland. During the military regime, power is taken by coup and counter coups. If there's a failure, the reward is dead. Unless, it's a palace coup. Northern military men are the most bravest and risked their lives to be in power during the military era.
During the civilian rule, democracy favoured southern Nigeria,with the southerners having served 4 more years than the north with elections normally won by rigging and vote buying and using mechanization t rigged the system, mostly in 2003 and 2007 elections which favoured the north.

What about Balewa and Shagari, were those Military governments?

Walkee:
Nobody marginalised anyone. Prior to 1999 anybody could take power. Power was taken not given, nobody told our generals not to be bold enough to risk their lives to seize power. Since we started choosing president through votes, how many years have Northerners ruled compared to the South?

Even if you wish to deploy this highly suspicious and questionable argument, the 1st and 2nd Republics were prior to 199. You would still have to add Shagari to the count of the North, being a civilian democratically elected President. And there is also no reason you should not count Tafawa Balewa - he was an executive Head of the Federal Government. Thats at least an extra 10 years in favour of the North.

KnownUnknown:
But keep in mind that his vacuum is part of the universe not independent of it.

And could that reasonably be the case? A vacuum which is the source of the universe and still part of the universe? Is that not contradictory?
At all events, bear in mind of course, that no such perfect vacuum is observed anywhere.

KnownUnknown:
You always rightly criticize that one physicist’s idea of “nothing” because it involves a vacuum but the idea supports your cosmology. The universe could have sprung out of the vacuum of infinite real time, which has infinite possibilities.

Beautiful! - very very close to exactly how I see it! - Save that infinite real time is not nothing either!

KnownUnknown:
Describe this self existent infinite time.

Justcool describes what I mean properly here -

https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal#9318086

And his two succeeding posts on same.

LordReed:
So going by what you said about the universe expanding and this now, it could be taken together to mean that the universe is expanding into time?

Events occur within time and things are interpolated within space.
That the universe is expanding into already existent space is logically obvious.
When people say that space and time were created at the moment of the big bang its just preposterous. You could not even have a "moment" (at which the universe expanded) without time nor could you have a "point" (from which the universe expanded) without space.

LordReed:
Almost seems like you are defining space-time. Not seeing the difference.

The differences are primarily (1) that scientists describe their spacetime as being material - actually being a "fabric" of sorts, whereas we say that time is absolutely intangible. (2) that scientists say that time was created at the moment of the big bang, whereas we say that time could not possibly be created at all - much less by the big bang, which, being an event, could only occur in already extant time (3) that scientists describe time as a dimension of motion, whereas we say that motion occurs in time, time being always existent, permanent and eternal regardless of any particular motion.

And all the other differences which derive from the foregoing.

LordReed:
It only seems to define what "real time" is not which is it's not the scientific concept of time. Ok so what is it? You've shown what it's not but not what it is.

The infinite immaterial continuum into which events are interpolated. That much is stated on that thread. I stated so and so did Justcool.

Hmmm. PhysicsQED. Justcool. KAG. Plaetton.
Are you guys still on these boards. I only know Plaetton still is. The rest of you?
Quite a discussion we had here.

LordReed:
What is real time?

A long time ago, a wonderful poster on this forum, Justcool, helped me out explaining what I was laboring to put across in this regard.
Please take a look at the way he put it -

https://www.nairaland.com/775552/speed-light-time-einstein-extra-universal#9318086

- in that, as well as his two succeeding posts.

I cant do better than that.

LordReed:
If time is self existent then how is it immutable since time is progression?

Real time does not move anywhere, only things move in it.

EnemyofGod22:
Please,Send me your phone number let me call you so that I can prove to you that I EnemyofGod22 truly existed.

That will not prove that you exist.

wirinet:
There are several shades of atheists as there are theists. The one thing binding atheists is a lack of a personal God or Gods in human form, or any other form directing our affairs and that of the universe.

I know that, I just found it interesting.

Workch:
You have been correct by several people on this thread not to commit fallacy from ignorance but you won't stop.

We don't know doesn't mean that you are right. It's as simple as that.

Not evidence is no evidence, don't create stuffs to fill the gap.

Don't be an incorrigible person

Cool. Enjoy. You have no clue what you are discussing. But enjoy.

wirinet:
That's against the universal spiritual law of Karma, that prescribes actual consequences for our actions.

So even as an atheist, you believe in this?

Workch:
energy cannot be created nor destroyed, the universe in 100% energy. The universe cannot be created nor destroyed. What's difficult to understand in this? Energy cannot change from energy into something that is not energy.
Do you have problem with sticking to things with evidence rather than conjur stuffs without evidence?



The evidence before us states that the energy in the universe is constant at times and energy can only be constant in a closed system. It's a well established fact that the universe is a closed system.



The universe is a close system sir. It's not a debate in science. It's only a debate outside of science.
Theres nothing like time before big bang, the perception of time is confined within the laws of our universe which didn't exist before big bang. Think dude



Energy is not mutable, stop making that uninformed statement. Energy is always energy irrespective in what form it exist. Stop creating stuffs from thin air, stick to what we know and the evidence we have.



Energy is energy, it's immuatable but can exist in various forms. Your logic is flawed, energy is alway constant. And because it's constant, it cannot be created nor destroyed, it's a evidence that the universe cannot be created not destroyed as we know for now. Stick to that.



If I don't know what triggered big bang, I will simply say "I don't know". I won go about making stuffs like "something existence outside of space and time" up. It's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. I will rather wait until we find out.

My response will remain thesem until you stop commiting fallacies and accept the correction that energy is constant, universe cannot be created nor destroy according to the law of thermodynamics and that we don't know is better than making stuffs up.



This is not evidence that time existed or exist outside of the universe. Stop making that up.
Just say you don't know yet

"I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation."

Near1:
You're claiming either Creatio ex materia or Creatio ex deo. In either case, where the hell did this "previously existing substance" come from?

Then you go on to say, "1. Something cannot arise from nothing and 2. You cannot have an infinite regress in a causal chain"

One more time, where did this Something come from? If you claim this Something is eternal with no evidence to support your claim then I can just as easily claim the universe is eternal with no supporting evidence. You're just making shit up as you go along and you may not want to admit it but your argument boils down to a magical Something that just popped into existance from....... what else?........nothing.

Sigh. How many times do I have to repeat that it could only arise from that which is self-existent. I would have thought by now you would be asking me to elucidate the concept of self-existence or give examples of self-existent things.

As it stands now the best answer is "Nobody knows" where everything came from before the Big Bang. Scientists cannot see past the Big Bang so we don't know and frankly, you don't know either. You're wasting everyones time and your argument goes around in dizzying circles.

I dont deny that nobody knows. That is very much my position as well. The little I have said is what little can be gleaned with a little application of logic, nothing more. In the final analysis the issue is well beyond our pay grade.

Workch:
Energy is constant, it's immutable and it has always been immutable. Constant means "cannot change". Your argument is flawed in that regard. Whether or not energy is converted to one form or the other, it still remains energy.
Matter is energy in different forms, Energy is immutable and cannot be created.
Stick to that

The universe and everything within is energy and energy is constant, it cannot change. Cannot be "created", that's the law. The universe cannot be created, it's an uncaused cause. Get that

The problem you are having here is you are conflating the nature of something and the quantum of its energy. A certain quantity of two different food items may provide you with exactly the same amount of calories - but this does not make the food items the same. Rice would still be something different from bread even if they provide you with the same units of energy or calories. Likewise solar power and fossil fuels may provide you with the same units of the power of electricity, but they remain different substances at their core. Thus kindly understand that the fact that energy is constant does not mean it does not change form - it does - and this is constantly happening in the material universe, which is subject to constant change - and thus, the material universe is not immutable.

The universe is a closed system.

This is not established for a fact.

Because we have not answered what triggered the hug bang is not the reason why you should make things up from thin air, that's a fallacy of appealing to ignorance. "I don't know yet" is OK for any one who says he's "agnostic".

You are the one making things up from thin air and even contradicting yourself in the process. You cannot say that they universe is a closed system - which you assert as a fact - and at the same time admit that we dont know what triggered the big bang. That is a complete contradiction because if you dont know what triggered the big bang you can never know if the universe is an open or closed system. This is cast in iron.

You are ht person who don't understand occams razor. You manufacture complex answers without evidence to a simple question and then wants everyone to accept your answers.

Occams razor is also known as the law of parsimony - remaining with the simplest supportable reasoning, if you like. Mind you, it must be supportable. It does not urge us to grope into voids and blank states. There must be support for the minimalist reasoning or answer we settle on. Your position lacks support, it lacks rationale, and thus you are not using the razor. Occams razor directs one to settle on the position with the fewest possible assumptions - whereas you have included unnecessary and even absurd assumptions in your position. I have already pointed you to a number of unsupportable assumptions included in your position. You have assumed the universe to be a closed system even while admitting that we do not know what triggered the big bang. You have also done violence to the meaning of "mutable" in your misguided application of the razor by conflating immutability with energy being constant. This is wrong - a thing which changes state may remain constant in terms of energy, and yet it has just "changed" its nature, or mutated if you like. Thats what shows it is mutable. So you use already too many wrong assumptions and thus you are not applying the razor.

By using occams razor, the universe can equally be the immutable uncaused cause.

Stop embarrassing yourself by calling the universe immutable. It is highly mutable since it changes state. All matter is mutable since it changes state. Immutable things are therefore completely immaterial and intangible.

Since energy cannot be created so why should we created a complicated answer of someone creating the universe when we don't have evidence for that?

If you dont know what triggered the big bang you cannot conclude that the universe is an open or closed system - and once you cannot do that, then you cannot rule out the possibility that the energy for the bang came from somewhere else. Especially as the bang is an event which must occur in an already existing timeline.

I sense that your responses will remain the same from this point on and my further responses to your responses will also remain the same, so there will very likely be no point in continuing this conversation.

It's unscientific to say time existed before big bang, it doesn't make sense. Our perception of time within this universe would never have started before the universe.

You have unwittingly answered your own poser with the bold. Perception of time is not the same thing as time. The perception of an ant and that of a human with respect to five minutes would differ greatly, and yet that period of time remains the same.

streetsoldier1:
Na that is plan to comot agbero for road cost him his second term.

And the LAWMA PSP thing. Especially that.

Workch:
According to the law of conservation of energy, the universe is immutable and energy has always remained constant.

mutable
/ˈmjuːtəb(ə)l/

adjective: mutable
Meaning - liable to change.

Can you spot your mistake?

Because, you see, perhaps you dont know the meaning of the word mutable. The universe is constantly evolving. Change is the only constant thing in the universe. Self-existent things do not change. They are absolutely immutable.

When you speak about energy and matter being proportional - this does not render the universe immutable - because this does not mean it is not in a constant state of flux. It self evidently is. Matter, being mutable, cannot be self existent.

Having said that I would not presume even that which you do because it is still an open question as to whether the universe is an open system or closed system, so you are on a slippery slope here. You really have to think carefully. So long as we have not answered the question as to what triggered the big bang - then much of the scientific presumptions of the present day are still skating on thin ice in this regard. And no, it is not science to say that nothing triggered it. That it just happened, abracadabra. That would be the sort of thing you accuse the religionists of believing in.

What's wrong with usuing occasm razor sticking to what we know instead of creating more problems from thin air?

Why are you guys throwing about terms you dont understand. How does Occam's razor help you. It doesnt.

You are implying that something must exist outside of a universe without so certainty even when it's obvious that you don't know that and there's absolutely not evidence for that. That's appealing to ignorance

I am tired of saying it. If there was no time before the universe, how do you have an event - the big bang - outside of time? If there is no space outside the universe, how is the universe expanding and into what is it expanding.