|
Post by billmcelligott on May 18, 2009 18:41:38 GMT
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?
Let us eliminate the impossible.
It is possible for a timeless energy with consciousness to exist. [not in this universe as we understand it]
We have no evidence that God exists, therefore it is improbable.
Therefore the only conclusion left is God did it. God created the Universe.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on May 18, 2009 19:04:29 GMT
For those interested in supporting the universe is controlled by science theory. The universe is not controlled by science, Bill. Science is simply a tool we use to identify and classify knowledge so that we may come to understand it. As to proving my existence, that falls under the law of identity. A=A. I exist because the evidence of my senses indicate that I am here. I am, therefore, I think (in contradistiction to Descartes delclaration of the primacy of consciousness ). Science and God are not incompatable.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 18, 2009 21:34:54 GMT
Never said they were. I said "the universe is controlled by science theory" so we agree there is more to life than just being.
But then you did a little shuffle there and changed the question.
My car is outside my house, I know it is there because I just went for a ride in it. I have a log book for the car and I know where it was made. I can prove that car was made from a number of components. The components were made from a variety of elements / chemicals etc.
What I can not do is prove how those building blocks [chemicals and elements] came to be where they were found. I can not prove where the first atoms of iron ore were created. As I can not prove where the first drop of blood was created. Where or when the first heart beat began to beat.
'I think therefore I am, is a statement of a theory'. As is 'my car is outside'.
The closest man has ever come to God. 'I think therefore I am'
Exodus 3 14 God said to Moses, "I am who I am . This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.' "
15 God also said to Moses, "Say to the Israelites, 'The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.' This is my name forever, the name by which I am to be remembered from generation to generation.
Or was that Popeye. I am what I am, and that is all that I am, I'm Popeye the sailor man.
But beside my poor attempt at humour, we still can not prove that we exist. We know what atoms are and how to make a bomb from them, but we do not know how or where it all started. According to the laws of science and physics as we know them it is impossible, for us to be here sitting at a computer typing, but we are.
Now of course it is possible there are laws that we do not know yet.
I can hear the big bang theory coming over the hill.
|
|
|
Post by maximus on May 18, 2009 21:58:34 GMT
One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)
An irreducible primary is a fact which cannot be analyzed (i.e., broken into components) or derived from antecedent facts.
|
|
|
Post by moose on May 19, 2009 12:53:05 GMT
Promethius- you say because it was born that way..
do you know how mecury rotates ? -during a cycle from day to night it will reverse back on its direction and then go forward again. If you were standing on the planet it would look like the sun was setting and decided to come back up. It could not do this more than once if it was by accident, once it changed direction it would continue on that path.
I have spent alot of time studying Teslas coil and aplications of this with alot of different things..
The earth does have a magnetic feild - The earth is a masive puls coil or techtonic generator which developes electonic feilds that interact with each other creating a magetic feild - ( this is not gravity) The manetic feilds aslo interact with each other and the electric feilds (this is not gravity either), Bouncing back and forward this would have takenn some time to reach an equalibrium if it has at all.
This feild interacts with its self and a feild generated by the sun, other planets and cosmic radiation. ( do you know wat a static lifter is ?)
Take for exaple the fact that water aparently spins in oposite direction on the other side of the planet.. If you got a clear plastic glob and filled it with water and placed a stick man on the top and on the bottom,and gave it a spin. The man on the bottom would see the water spining in the oposite direction to the man on the top. But you as an observer from far away will see the water spining in only one direction for both and it is only their persective that sees something differnt. ( I see this as the great pillar in the physical sense).
This is a physical way of proving that a powerfull feild passes through the planet and rotates in that direction, or if you like it remains fixed in place like an ivisible anchor while the planet rotates around it. My formal studies didn't take me far enough But this was my area of interest, so I dont realy know how to explain except in a visiual way.
But Thinking of the Pulse Coil generating electronic feilds that can latch onto other electronic feilds created by this techtonic generation and the water in the feild . It is easy to see on a model that the earth is causing itself to spin when interacting with all these outside influences and its not just rolling down the hill. waiting to stop at the end. the fact that the earth is slowing down may just be a part of the earth reaching an equalibrium and the fact that we are gutting the earth of its natural resaurces and if you will its life source it will continue to degrade, but the fact it is slowing down may just mean the felds that govern this interaction are increasing and have more hold.
The interesting effect I noticed on the static lifter was that it was not forced into the air but it pulled itself up this is what im trying to iterate here that the earths magnetic feild is different from the electric feild infact its a byproduct of the electric feilds interaction- internal and external which also helps creat more electronic feilds.
Don't ever go for the simplest answer we'r mason lol I'm sure there is someone here that can advance on my caotic drible.
But there are also 2 types of gravity the first is the force that hold atoms together (Gravity A). The second is merly a noticeable reaction of all our atoms being atracted to all the earths atoms, (Gravity B). Gravity is a radio wave generated inside the atom and its probably just all the quarks being attracted to other quarks being that they are negetive and positive magnetic feilds (I don't quote me on that).
This might be alittle confusing i always rush my posts on here but just to give you a physical example of an obect holding itself in position against gravity, you can do a search on the effect of liquid nitrogen on some ceramics and wat it does to strong magets. They wil levitate held in positon in watever angle you place them there. I found a good on on youtube but can't remember the name But the thing i noticed was that wen the technician tried to give it a spin it remaind still and even rotated backwards to were it started in stead of just remaining were it finished its rotation like it was spring loaded.
Cheers
|
|
|
Post by moose on May 19, 2009 14:05:28 GMT
This might be alittle confusing i always rush my posts on here My formal studies didn't take me far enough But this was my area of interest, so I dont realy know how to explain except in a visiual way. I'm sure there is someone here that can advance on my caotic drible.
It is confusing maybe I should have waited.. But I wouldn't have found the time to finish it, It might not look like a very informative thread but someone was curious and I wasn't satisfied with the responses. I prefer to come back here and find myself corected rather than condecended. Your all smart people after knowledge rigth.. I just threw in a few mind openers to get you guys thinking outside the box.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 19, 2009 20:39:58 GMT
When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth? Let us eliminate the impossible. It is possible for a timeless energy with consciousness to exist. [not in this universe as we understand it] We have no evidence that God exists, therefore it is improbable. Therefore the only conclusion left is God did it. God created the Universe. So, you don't question this. Now if I gave you s straight answer it would spoil all my fun.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 19, 2009 20:42:31 GMT
Absolutely, the mind should be treated like a muscle, if you want it to get bigger, plenty of exercise.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on May 19, 2009 20:54:29 GMT
One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of nonexistence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.) An irreducible primary is a fact which cannot be analyzed (i.e., broken into components) or derived from antecedent facts. Well, I don't know what a lot of those words mean, but I know there are things that can be proved. You can prove I am typing these words, because if I did not you could not reply. No one however can form a theory for the creation of matter from nothing. You can create matter from particles, but then someone has to sneak the particles in, you can create a theory that energy can create particles, but then who had the energy. At some point there had to be a piece of magic that created something where there was nothing.
|
|
|
Post by maat on May 20, 2009 1:50:34 GMT
I prefer to come back here and find myself corected rather than condecended. Your all smart people after knowledge rigth.. I just threw in a few mind openers to get you guys thinking outside the box. I'm with you moose... I have already given them an A for Arrogance Please keep posting, I enjoyed yours very much and I do think, like you, that we need to consider everyone's opinion with respect. If it makes you feel any better, just remember what they used to do to forward and free thinkers of the past ... kill them for the most part, and that was by the church whose God was Love. Crazy mixed up species we are... Keep posting... Maat PS Prom and Max are okay guys ... just put the shield up when they are in a fighting mood ;D
|
|
|
Post by paulh on May 20, 2009 3:17:54 GMT
When I was taught statistics there were 2 sorts of error:
- Accepting a false hypothesis - Rejecting a true hypothesis.
Personally I prefer not to miss a true hypothesis about the nature of reality so will invest time in following interesting (or even scary) hypotheses that later turn out to be false.
I suspect however that most people are quite averse to accepting a false hypothesis and thereby are willing to pay the price of missing some important true hypothesis. This makes the set of beliefs more stable and may encourage peace of mind.
|
|
|
Post by moose on May 20, 2009 7:22:48 GMT
Yesterday at 12:53pm, moose wrote:Take for exaple the fact that water aparently spins in oposite direction on the other side of the planet..
Promethius Wrote: This is not apparent. This is actual.
Yesterday at 12:53pm, moose wrote:If you got a clear plastic glob and filled it with water and placed a stick man on the top and on the bottom,and gave it a spin. The man on the bottom would see the water spining in the oposite direction to the man on the top. But you as an observer from far away will see the water spining in only one direction for both and it is only their persective that sees something differnt. ( I see this as the great pillar in the physical sense).
Promethius wrote: Your model is flawed. If you think my model is wrong tell me were.. I can't see it infact i just did a little experiment that only proved my model.. Take a peice of paper and fold it in half, then draw a spiral put a little arrow in there if u like doesnt matter. Now unfold it and draw over the imprinted line that came through from the other side you will now be looking at them side by side and they do spiral in oposite directions. Regards Sean
|
|
|
Post by penfold on May 20, 2009 11:36:23 GMT
Achooly, people often believe that water goes clockwise or anti-clockwise depending on which hemisphere you are in due to the Coriolis force of the Earths spin. This isn't true.
The direction water curls down the plug hole depends completly on whether the water is still or moving in a certain direction before the plug is removed.
But don't despair!!! The Coriolis force DOES have an effect on large whirlpools in the ocean, just not in sinks and baths.
|
|
|
Post by moose on May 21, 2009 12:34:11 GMT
Thanks Penfold for the Coroilis effect i know about the earths spin having an effect on free moving object. To shoot over a long distance and if i am not shooting due east or due west I need to take into acount the earths rotation and on a pendulim it's like holding a gyroscope and trying to move it on an angle. But given that water suposedly spins in oposite directions from a static state I wasn't sure how it would have effected water.
So far my point earlier is still acurate there is just a different explanation for it now.
Promethius - My freind.. The model I explained earlier was to represent how 2 different people on different sides of the planet viewing a portal of spiraling water through the planet will see it due to their positon being each at the oposite end and their perspective being that they are in respect to one another upside down from each other and looking down into the portal, will see the water spiral in oposite directions.. And for all purposes I intended it was acurate.
Now Penfold you say water isn't realy effected.. R u sure ? I've tried experiments with my kids and I always noticed that right near the base of the portal the water always kicked back on itself and went the oposite direction if it wasnt going that way to start. Is this just a fluke ? or would it have somthing to do with the weight of the water focusing on a smaller area ?
Kind of digresing here.. I would still like to know why the earth spins. Only thing is I don't like taking any one elses word for things when it sounds too simple unless I have completly exaughsted all my resourses.
Sean
|
|
|
Post by paulh on May 21, 2009 12:54:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by paulh on May 22, 2009 0:28:42 GMT
"In physics, the Coriolis effect is an apparent deflection of moving objects when they are viewed from a rotating reference frame." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coriolis_effectPrometheus I am not sure how to apply the Coriolis effect to the Earth to make it spin. Perhaps you can describe how that works.
|
|
|
Post by paulh on May 22, 2009 1:05:24 GMT
That does not seem a particularly clear answer
Perhaps you can start by pointing out the rotating frame of reference that we can use to make the Earth spin
|
|
|
Post by maximus on May 22, 2009 1:52:53 GMT
Rotation seems to be a fundamental property of all matter. As a planet starts to form, it condenses; condensing, angular momentum increases around the axis of rotation, causing faster rotation the more the matter condenses. What causes the initial rotation, you will ask? Tidal forces (gravitation) impart rotation, angular momentum increases it, and inertia continues it. Likewise, entropy will eventually cause it to break down.
I don't know how else to explain it.
|
|
|
Post by paulh on May 22, 2009 3:03:24 GMT
I still don't understand the answer to Moose (Reply 75)
Does the Coriolis effect not cause the Earth to spin after all?
So that the real answer is that "Rotation seems to be a fundamental property of all matter"
Thus the Earth spins because it is matter?
This must not work at short time frames else all cricket bowlers would be spin bowlers.
I suppose however that we can test the proposition by examining the spin of asteroids.
E.g. "Smaller asteroids have a more dispersed distribution, with both slow and fast spinning populations. ..... Among the very slow rotators are some (but not all) that are “tumbling” in non-principal axis rotation states. Among the smallest asteroids (less than a few hundred m diameter) are some that spin dramatically faster than the “spin barrier”,..... In the last few years it has been recognized that the spins of asteroids smaller than a few tens of km diameter are affected by radiation pressure torques that tend to either speed up or slow down asteroid spin rates, thus providing an explanation for the dispersion of small asteroid spins, and also their non-random axis orientations."
The wide variety of spin rates suggests the speed of spin is not related to mass and therefore possibly not an intrinsic quality of matter
So I think my first test of this hypothesis is not encouraging.
I am interested in how "radiation pressures" might speed up or slow down spin. I wonder if "radiation pressures" could be code for aether.
|
|
|
Post by moose on May 22, 2009 4:06:32 GMT
Thnx Paul, an aetheric effect is what i was hinting towards in my first response.. like you said like a solar wind i was refering to it like a sail attatched to the earth and using your wind effects caused by outside influences to proplell itself. didn't quite have the words for it but yes I agree. I'm not sure how you view it but i don't see aether as a fantasy thing used to explain somthing that doesnt exist, i see it as a physical part of everything and that joins everything that we just don't understand.
I refered to a pulse coil earlier.. this is a way of generating high frequensy signals that can be used for an unlimited number of aplication all at the same time. From previous posts i see that most of you agree that the pyramid was a gigantic pulse generator that used pyzolectric current caused from sysmic activity to generat radiation. A side note to this is it could have been used to terraform the planet by creating ozone gass just like lightning, free power and many more aplications.
there is alot i would like to say there but that is way off topic, but i agree that aether is a form of radiation but in my mind i see it more as the internal workings of radiation. Radiation is random and dangerouse and we'r rnt realy talking about 1 radiation we'r talking about the resultant of many, just like in the atmospher there are layers of radiation. Why don't they all exist on the surface- it's like its catching on something.
Thanks for the info I'll look into it.
Chees Sean
|
|