₦airaland Forum

Dear thread contributors past, I will respond to your posts shortly. Thank you all for your input.

Teempakguy:
I think, Calling me to a thread such as this is a bad Idea.


But no qualms, I will ask a simple question.


The sun provides light, warmth, and drives photosynthesis. What gives back to the sun, according to your Cyclical two way universe?

A simple question deserves a simple answer. The answer is cold space gives back to the sun through its two polar openings. The book is free boss. Why don't you get a copy.

LoJ:
Hello my Bro SidL,

will download the book as soon as I hit home. Looks interesting.

In the meantime, I hope you are doing fine.

Cheerful greetings.

I'm good m'man. Hope you good too. Thanks bro.

Hello NL 'Sciencers',

I have an ebook out on Amazon kindle:

“THERMODYNAMIC FRAUD AND THE DIS-CONCEPTION OF PERPETUAL MOTION CLASS 101: The Theory”

It is free for next couple of days, please download a copy. You may (or may not) find it an interesting read. It is my take on the science of creation as it really is, not as presumed to be.

Please get a copy for free. Also tell a friend about it, who would usually be interested. Heck, tell your physics professor about it. If you like it, please leave an honest review on the Amazon page. If you don't like it, please don't.

Please do not file patents, its already public.

If you would like to discuss its contents after reading, please join this thread
https://www.nairaland.com/3066765/idea-perpetual-motion-free-energy

You can get the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/THERMODYNAMIC-FRAUD-DIS-CONCEPTION-PERPETUAL-MOTION-ebook/dp/B01HUEAB7U/ref=la_B01HVE1UJC_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467628812&sr=1-1

You do not need to own a kindle device, you can download their app to any device. I do recommend it be read on a computer screen though, since it contains some illustrations. Once again its free for at least the next two days or so.

I hope you enjoy it.

Thanks,

SidL.

[img]https://www.nairaland.com/avatars/mehyi6j57x8wfvnnci758p3hp4y5xjaz1643695[/img]

Edit: Still waiting for them to update the book cover. It will be the one above.

Well in case it looks like I abandon my own threads, I don't.

Been working on my book among other things. At least that way my posts don't get swallowed up into cyber space so easily. It is live on Amazon and will be free to download from 8AM today the 4th of July and will remain free till the 8th of July. Please download a free copy and let others who should know about it, know about it. Thanks.

[img]https://www.nairaland.com/avatars/mehyi6j57x8wfvnnci758p3hp4y5xjaz1643695[/img]

http://www.amazon.com/THERMODYNAMIC-FRAUD-DIS-CONCEPTION-PERPETUAL-MOTION-ebook/dp/B01HUEAB7U/ref=la_B01HVE1UJC_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467614318&sr=1-1

LoJ Johnydon22 mk82 PastorAIO Teempakguy SirWere Seunot Canme4u Dorox Samsard

Teempakguy:
...

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

SirWere:
In other words, you're like Spinoza.



That's a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply saying, in very crude terms:
"If there is a god, let me prove himself and not you trying to prove him".

Most Atheists on this forum will accept the possibility of a creator if shown convincing evidence.
TBH, atheism is a response to the rituals and hiatuses observed by both major Religion in this Country.

Atheism in general exists because of the inadequacy of the world religions in answering the worlds problem, in fact, they worsen it.

Atheism is directed as theism; the belief that a personal god watches you in 7D and is annoyed when you masturbate and demands that you pay 10 percent of your money or chop off the heads of unbelievers and all that.


You definitely sound Agnostic.
Yet where is the truth? Where is the answer to everything??
Is there even such an answer

What is even the question??


You lost me there.
I guess the question I should have asked in the beginning was :

How do you view God??

In other words, you're like Spinoza.

I have no idea who that is.

That's a misunderstanding of atheism. Atheism is simply saying, in very crude terms:
"If there is a god, let me prove himself and not you trying to prove him".

Most Atheists on this forum will accept the possibility of a creator if shown convincing evidence.
TBH, atheism is a response to the rituals and hiatuses observed by both major Religion in this Country.

Atheism in general exists because of the inadequacy of the world religions in answering the worlds problem, in fact, they worsen it.

Atheism is directed as theism; the belief that a personal god watches you in 7D and is annoyed when you masturbate and demands that you pay 10 percent of your money or chop off the heads of unbelievers and all that.

Hmm... I misunderstand atheism? Perhaps you're right. I find your take on it quite interesting though. It is new to me. It seems a comprise in atheistic values is re-emerging and i'd say that this is a most welcome development indeed. Because my understanding of atheism per dictionary definition is "noun: atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

The first paragraph of our 'dear' wikipedia states: "Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."
Clearly, if there has been an update to the definition or perhaps you are redefining it, i missed the memo. Let's not worry about that, it's a minor technicality of the semantic sort, or is it?

If we go by your stance then i'd say we have a stand-off between the two which will never ever be resolved because if one is seeking proof of The Source of Things which the other knows only by belief, who then will do the proving? Very well then.

Note that atheism does not fare any better in any of its accusations towards theism. I too grew weary of the silly rituals of religion, the Catholics in particular score 10/10 on rituals, but atheism was not my response. My response was to seek the Truth about the idea of "God."

You definitely sound Agnostic.
Yet where is the truth? Where is the answer to everything??
Is there even such an answer

What is even the question??

When you decide the question you wish to ask, i believe you will find the path to follow to get answers. You are obviously seeking to know truth. Then please pucker up like one who is truly seeking. Knee-jerk rejection-responses to ideas which may hold the keys you seek will not get you any closer to Truth my dear friend. You have to start somewhere and that where is entirely Mindal or mental.

So i sound Agnostic now abi? LOL!!!!! Bross abeg.
Enough of the labels please.

You lost me there.
I guess the question I should have asked in the beginning was :

How do you view God??

No i did not loose you. That was a literal statement and i'll say again in other words: "Space itself IS God." It's a new thinking for you, that's all.
"Thank God" for NEPA. When next there is a power failure at night, please go outside and look up at the night sky. You will see two things, the cosmos (black space) and the universe (stars). Actually, that the cosmos is invisible is why your eyes registers it as black, its not even black.
Ever wondered what "space" is?
I say again, it is "God." What else but "space" is omnipresent? How else do you suppose that "God" according to religion is omnipresent? Where is there not space?

My view of "God" (and note my insistence to quote the word) is that God or Gods are people, humans. Please read the "Lost Book of Enki" by Zacharia Sitchin for an idea of my meaning. When more advanced--but still immature--people with technology encounter younger ones who can barely cook, they become GODS since what they display is akin to magic, woo-woo. To be God or a God means to be Lord over another. People forget that God denotes masculinity and therefore the more correct use of the idea should be Gods and Goddesses.
The idea of a God/Goddess denotes separateness or far-away-ness--that one is here and the other is over there.

The Source of Creation is not a God or Goddess. IT has no need be God, over whom? We are all ITS thoughts--an idea with both philosophical and scientific implications--and therefore cannot be separate from IT.
IT is us, and we are IT.
There is only ONE PERSON after all, in existence.

In the past when the "Truth books" were penned, Gods/Goddesses quite literally meant more advanced humans. Today however, people actually refer to the Source of Creation when they say and pray to "God." So as to avoid misunderstanding, i just stick with the term but place it in quotation because i have a long "genetic memory" of what the word originally meant and find that i am simply unwilling to compromise. I am not a fan of bullies!

crusadistic:
Yes,atheists think they are wise....but is it not still the same hell they going to with pagans and Muslims

I think that is an inappropriate comment. You are obviously Christian.

PastorAIO:
Schrodinger was referring to observations.

opening the box to look at the cat is an observation.

Getting the cat to 'meow' to a question is an observation.

Entering the box to check for yourself is an observation too.

Hello Pastor, love your work.

Indeed, observations. Perhaps therein rests the problem and foundation of debate as to the existence of a Source of Creation, the one that people casually refer to as God or a God. The senses have a set range of frequencies or light spectrum they can respond to, is there any reason to assume that the "God" question has its answer in..."Observation," through senses which are patently limited in perception?

I do not follow the logic of how the hypothetical response of the cat constitutes an observation, but perhaps we both need to ponder that further.

CoolUsername:
So like, Schroedinger's god?

You mean cat?

Ah yes, the "quantum gang."

Most definitely not! Not what i meant.

I am personally irritated with scientists and their methods of inquiry which creates assumptions that their parameters of investigation are the way it works in nature. I might as well say that the way a bicycle works is how creation works because i invented the bicycle, for instance. If the cat could talk or be trained to 'meow' to a question, would a question not suffice determination of its state? Why wait to open the box to find out and why speculate while the box is closed?
Better still why didn't Schroedinger enter the box himself and find out the truth for himself while the box was closed? He may have come out more enlightened. Bunch of charlatans.

SirWere:
I don't fully know yet myself.

But I know Eastern Religion seems incompatible with day to day activities here in Nigeria.

I like that answer, "I don't know." You will get there. It is a process.

But I know Eastern Religion seems incompatible with day to day activities here in Nigeria.

The point is invalid within the context of our discourse simply because i never said i am religious. I do not do Religion. At the same time i do not do Atheism. I am part of neither. Yet, I "do" both in the sense that each side has qualities which manifest some Truths of Existence when considered simultaneously. Hence my "neither and both."

Theists believe in the existence of an intelligent Source of Creation. But their understanding of it borders on 'magic and magic wands'...woo-woo.

Atheist do not. They believe that creation comes forth--by itself--through set principles which is their thrust to identify and quantify. They will not allow room for consideration that if creation is a child, then surely it must have a parent.

Neither by itself is right. But by combining both qualities, both are TOGETHER, correct.

Creation has a parent and the method by which heavenly bodies--upon which we live--are born and maintained, is by set universal principles.

It is a lack of understanding of the ways and processes of the Source of Creation that is responsible for the hell we have created on this planet.

If that sounds like any eastern philosophy, then maybe you best pay attention then.
All religions have truth in them anyways. Atheists also have truth. The one white light is a combination of all colours is it not?
Ah but i know, both sides still, profess a lot of BS too.

"God" is the cold blackness of space. It, not "he" nor "she" is intelligent. It is a hermaphrodite by idea.

SirWere:
The normal meanderings of human life.....

It's all well and dawdy to talk about everything being a cycle, how Love is God.......

It's all right to talk about these things and pen it down. It's noble, chivalrous, basic goodness really......


But In Reality, when dealing in a messy country such as these,,,, it's nonshense.

Are you sure that it is nonsense or is that just a knee-jerk response? Tell me, what is the way forward then? What do you propose for a messy country, or is that...a messy world you meant? What is...practical?

The problem with homosexuality (in males especially) is not a moral one, it is purely technical as to why it is not an encourage-able behaviour-choice. Morals are meaningless in nature, or animals would not feed off of others by "stealing" their lives.

The law in Nigeria on the matter is misinformed and needs to be removed. It should be more like Russia's which focuses on anti-propaganda as perpetrated by the "Jewish" controllers in the west. My policy on the matter is "Live and Let Live -- Do no harm to another and do not rub your personal choices in people's faces."

Rape on the other hand is Rape, and should be treated in isolation regardless of what age or gender-combination was involved.

I continue to be amused by the irony of our society today in which it is designed to be terribly homo-social. We isolate our kids in single-gender school at the very height of puberty and wonder why homosexuality happens. The same bible and other books that have a mouthful to say on "bad behaviour" are themselves causatives to those behaviours in their hypocrisy about the naturalness and okness of sex between male and female.

Has anyone even ever considered the solution to the problem? Is it laws that treat effect? Who or is treating the Cause?

SirWere:
Nah it won't.
I find eastern religion too impratical to survive in my country.
It seems too.......vague

Vague? As opposed to...?

LoJ:
Could you develop my bro

Bross, what can i say, i felt like i just eavesdropped on a very, very, very bad pillow talk. These folks are actually paid to spout these things? I wonder were i can i sign up. Nothing to develop bro because i think he capped the whole 4 mins up well himself, when he said "science fiction".

I have never heard of anything more insipid or absurd before. I'm sorry, just had to post this somewhere.
What a bunch of charlatans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYAdwS5MFjQ

LoJ:
Very nice Discussion. I learned a lot.

@ Sarassin, can this "life field" be equated with the notion of a body generated/related bio energy field which some eastern schools name "chi" or "qi" ?

It is known that some eastern masters/initiate are able to "see" and manipulate the energy field of their patient and facilate the healing process. Likewise they can use the characteristics of the "field" to counteract the effect of greater Electromagnetic fields (like the Earth's, or gravity, etc.) and achieve astonishing feats which would seem impossible to the common man.

cc. SidL (you may find this thread very interesting, as from Page 1).

Indeed it is. Some people here know their shit ( *Shi,t* LOL@NL ) The first page was hilarious though LOL!!!!!!!!

I will have to come back and digest this page in particular and share my opinion. I will say this briefly though, the debate on the soul is of absolute necessity and conjectures will no longer suffice. Even greater a necessity will be the need to prove the Soul irrefutably in "the lab." It will happen in our life-time and the effects will be as uplifting as it will be catastrophic. It will be the end of science and religion as we know it. It will change the world in more ways than obvious. The religions know this and fight it to keep their control via "unknowing." The scientists (most of whom are atheists) who should do the proving will not touch the matter because it invalidates their relevance instantly. But someone has to do it.

SirWere:
Burning need No.... Just noticed all your post is about how two possible options are no answer at all and the answer is neither....... I dunno, I've been reading a bit about Taoism and that sounds pretty damn close

And if it is damn close, would that be a problem?

Teempakguy:
sorry about your depression. if you like you can use my solution. which is loud rock music and marathon coding bouts. or story writing. I found it helpful.

if you'll notice, i'm not active here either. I just can't resist scientific arguments. like the ones sidl is making. I'm looking forward to having similar ones over there.

Well i am happy something about me is irresistible. LOL!

Teempakguy:
Okay, first, Quantum mechanics is not a replacement for classical mechanics. Trying to apply that to classical objects is just a waste of time and whatever ink the equations are written in. a more fitting candidate is the special theory of relativity.

second, it is important that these laws are right because science makes predictions. the entire goal of science is to be able to predict the future. to know what will happen. so obviously, these laws we make have to describe the world as accurately as possible in order to allow for prediction of the future. the engineer must know what material will withstand the stress of gravity when building a bridge so that he can know for sure what will happen. would you sleep in your bed if the maker put a note that said "may explode spontaneously."?

Newton's second law states the condition for bodies not at rest. they are moving in the direction of a force. so, if objects are not at rest, there is a force acting on them. this holds true in every classical case. also, a banana left on the table will never leave the table. if it does, something took it. and we should immediately commence search for the thief.

second, motion in nature is not a straight line because forces are always acting on them. this is also stated by newton's laws. if you go into deep space, and shoot a bullet, until it gets near a gravitational point, it will move as straight as light.


that's the whole point of the Academia. to learn. the moment we know it all, the Academia ceases to exist from sheer uselessness.

Actually, Nature is very annoyingly inconsistent. the large amount of universal constants is a testament to that. we even have four fundamental forces. I would rather say that Nature is Hierarchically consistent. there is a fundamental law, which devolves into different smaller laws that apply to specific situations . . . and smaller ones, and smaller ones . . . and so on.

About the black hole theory . . . if a "big-ass sun" were to exist in the center of the galaxy, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's size. the intense gravity would convert it into a pulsar. a neutron star. and even the star wouldn't be able to contain the gravitational force. eventually, it would collapse as the neutron degeneracy pressure falls under the reign of gravity. hence singularity . . . hence black hole.

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics.

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.

Okay, first, Quantum mechanics is not a replacement for classical mechanics. Trying to apply that to classical objects is just a waste of time and whatever ink the equations are written in. a more fitting candidate is the special theory of relativity.

second, it is important that these laws are right because science makes predictions. the entire goal of science is to be able to predict the future. to know what will happen. so obviously, these laws we make have to describe the world as accurately as possible in order to allow for prediction of the future. the engineer must know what material will withstand the stress of gravity when building a bridge so that he can know for sure what will happen. would you sleep in your bed if the maker put a note that said "may explode spontaneously."?

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.
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.

Now you say it is important that these laws are right due to the need to make predictions. And what if they are wrong? You think all life will come to an end? 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. 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 Facts?
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.

Newton's second law states the condition for bodies not at rest. they are moving in the direction of a force. so, if objects are not at rest, there is a force acting on them. this holds true in every classical case. also, a banana left on the table will never leave the table. if it does, something took it. and we should immediately commence search for the thief.

second, motion in nature is not a straight line because forces are always acting on them. this is also stated by newton's laws. if you go into deep space, and shoot a bullet, until it gets near a gravitational point, it will move as straight as light.

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.

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?

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. All parts of it are. Is this a fact or not? Is that not what your ceiling fan does 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??

The problem is that we are accustomed to motion as being from point a A to B, but that is an illusion of nature perpetrated on our senses. On what we now call today "Quantum" or "sub-atomic" levels, atoms and atomic systems do not move from point A to B either, 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.
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.
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.

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?
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?
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.
The theory of relativity is well, a joke, i'm sorry, because you see, Light does not "travel". Nothing 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.
The "Laws" of motion are thus Dead On Arrival for the very simple reason that their underlying premise was inadequate.
Does this compute?

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.

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

Actually, Nature is very annoyingly inconsistent. the large amount of universal constants is a testament to that. we even have four fundamental forces. I would rather say that Nature is Hierarchically consistent. there is a fundamental law, which devolves into different smaller laws that apply to specific situations . . . and smaller ones, and smaller ones . . . and so on.

About the black hole theory . . . if a "big-ass sun" were to exist in the center of the galaxy, it wouldn't be able to sustain it's size. the intense gravity would convert it into a pulsar. a neutron star. and even the star wouldn't be able to contain the gravitational force. eventually, it would collapse as the neutron degeneracy pressure falls under the reign of gravity. hence singularity . . . hence black hole.

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics. wink

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.
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.

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? 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.

In other words, maybe at the start of the galaxy, there was a big ass sun, but now, there is no way it's still there. because . . . physics. wink

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

A lovely day to you.

I like the intent of this.

SirWere:
Are you a proponent of Eastern religion You know, the ones where they talk about how God is love; and reincarnation and using your spirit mind to heal your body and all that crap

Cuz those people, from what I've been reading, love paradoxes like saying "The answer is both yes and no"

Hmmm... I see. You have a burning need to categorise me lest you experience processing errors.

Why don't you tell me.

Teempakguy:
To the best of my knowledge,


We can quantize gravity by finding the mediator of gravity. namely the elusive graviton, and then study its properties. it is in the study of those properties that we can determine if gravity is quantized or not. already, we can detect gravitational waves. in the history of science, we usually discover the waves before the particles. so I'm guessing we're taking steps in the right direction.


Dark matter is matter that . . . to the best of our knowledge, only interacts with gravitons. you can't see it, you can't detect it with any method known to science at this point. EXCEPT by means of gravity.

I doubt any real headway will be made not when mainstream science as of June 2016 cannot properly define gravity.

SirWere:
I smell Eastern philosophy all over this post. Do tell, are you one of those who like dealing in paradoxes

Please can you rephrase in other words, you lost me completely.

absolutism:
both on the table and not; neither on the table nor not. It is dangerous to talk this way. I hope you are only trying to win an argument

Sigh... that indeed is a very sincere question--the need to win an argument--for which the value for and to the good of all is ultimately Nil, most times.
Unfortunately, all who grace this forum in the capacity we all do must accept that we become invariably tainted by the need to be correct, or more so than the other. It is from such a stance especially that the eternal debate of Theism versus Atheism is born, is it not?

All I have merely done is state that there is a third option in the sense that both sides are wrong and yet, together, they both become correct.

Theism and Atheism are both travesties to Truth in my opinion.

The one comes up with doctrines about the nature of creation and its source of creation, based on Human attributes. The other comes up with theories, sometimes (not most), based on sense observations with senses that can clearly see the railroad tracks 'always' meet on the horizon or senses that can barely perceive 10% of the light spectrum.

I mean, maybe I'm the one who is in-sane, I dunno.

@ "Dangerous talk"

absolutism:
is there a ball on the table a) there is a ball on the table b) there is no ball on the table c) is there another option to answer this question? Seriously

The answer is neither AND both, simultaneously.

Ever heard of hermaphrodites? Presumably both Male and Female and yet, hermaphrodites are neither male nor female.

There is always a third option. That third option is that Atheism and Theism are both halves of the same coin of uncertainty about truths of existence born out arrogance and the need to be more correct than the other.

I wonder what neither could mean in context. There is or there isn't . what does neither represent?

absolutism:
there is and there isn't. I can't see a third option

Well simple, the third option is that both sides are mistaken about the other and themselves.

absolutism:
as possible as saying nothing and something are the same

From my perspective, how close to truth you are. And yet, there is a third option, which is neither. Ah well...

Could it be that Theists and Atheists are 100% right about each the other??

donnffd:
I would respectfully disagree with you on these statements.

I believe that we are actually our brains. I extremely doubt that the brain is a computer or a flash drive, its far too complicated to be just that...the arrangement of the brain is so complex, that it became aware of its own existence, that in itself is freaking amazing.

Can you define you?, in the simplest of terms, i would say you is just a pattern of nerve firings in the brain that is miraculously aware and control driven with a high tendency for protecting itself...

Your brain dies, so does that illusion of You

And yet, i have on countless occasions found myself apart from my body (Brain) and still endowed with the ability of self-awareness, other-awareness and extremely heightened analytical capacity which is presumed to be the office of the brain. In other words, I had no brain. Should you ever manage lucidity during your dream, check to see if you have a body, much less a brain. I respect your view point though that you are your brain, I AM most certainly NOT

donnffd:
How come a concept in which we invented explains the universe in great details?, is mathematics really just a construct of the human mind or is it really the fabric in which universe is made from and we just happen to discover it?

I am open to your views but heres my humble opinion, Humans evolved a brain to navigate the plains of southern africa, in present day Tanzania, we evolved the ability of absolute and wholeness, which unfortunately helped us survive, because we could recognize that two lions is a bigger threat than one lion, we gave entities uniquesness including ourselves and from there, able to group entities together.

Mathematics was born from the ability to do this, we counted and counted, subtracted and added. With time, we started complex operations and superimposed this construct on the universe, and it fitted perfectly that it seemed like it was already a part of it.

Even with that said, i have no reason to believe maths is an intrinsic part of the universe, the same way i dont believe being red is an actual property of an apple. We just evolved brains able to perceive certain wavelengths with hue, so it is with maths, its a construct from our biological history that helped us make sense of the world in which we live in.

Why it explains the universe in great details?, i dont know, but i do know that it is a construct, a representation of reality and it works perfectly. It just makes you marvel at the power of the human brain.

Finally, imagine an highly advanced alien race that evolved in a far more different setting than we did, do you think they would also use maths to study the universe?, or do they have a far more better construct that explains the universe far more better than mathematics could ever do?

I think you give way too much credit to the human brain. The brain has as much relation to intelligence as coffee has with Pepsi in taste. You are not your brain. I would also not call a flash drive intelligent because it stores data--it simply has no idea what it is storing--garbage in, garbage out.

My money would be on a far much better construct. Mathematical equations are only as good as the premise upon which they are based and not unrelated to the hocus-pocus with which bankers perform their daily magic. It has it's value only when based on Truths, not conjecture or theory.

Interesting quote I found today.