The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Vitalux on February 28, 2015, 03:09:38 PM
-
Lets assume an position of Life is just a dream.
When we are in bed sleeping, we dream of existing in land much like this, yet in the dream we are not aware we are dreaming.
Why can't Earth be the same?
After all, this dream sure appears to be just as fucked up ...as dreamland :-\
Therefore, to answer the Round Earth vs Flat Earth riddle.
Neither is true.
It's all a dream ...created by some master dream weaver ....and we are just along for the experiential ride.
Plus....to add drama to the movie plot, everyone is quite insane and suffering from the delusion that they are sane.
:-\
-
I don't always know when I am dreaming, but I know when I'm not. And I know that my life is not a dream, and everything was not put here just to trick me into thinking reality exists. It would be nice if everyone could be right. Then FET could be kind of the 'Special Olympics' of science. Let's call it Special Science. Everyone if FE gets a gold ribbon for every dribble they come up with. But it doesn't mean a thing. The earth is still round, and the real science will continue without them. And if you are dreaming, why the heck would you dream about reading this stupid post? Don't you have better things to dream about? Dream about sex, that's an order!
-
If its a dream unique to each of us then its meaningless to question what it means for reality. Our own realities are reality.
This goes down the same road of "I don't know that anyone besides me thinks or actually exists outside my head, so I must assume only I exist."
Also,
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3m144zebp1r4gei2o4_400.gif)
INCEPTION! WE NEED LADDERS TO GO DEEPER INTO THE DREAM!
-
I don't always know when I am dreaming, but I know when I'm not.
While most of us generally think when we wake up each morning, the dream ends, however the dream itself can be used as a clue.
While in that dream, we walk on land, we eat, we chat/ communicate with other people and we manipulate objects. In all aspects we appear in our dreams to be living in a real place and having real experiences.
However, we are unable to use our mental faculties to generally compute that we are dreaming.
Now consider this, the world in which we play in during our dreams does not really exist, does it?
If you were to consider rather the Earth was round or flat inside the dream, it would be neither simply because it all is an illusion.
My suggestion here actually should make sense.
Most believe in the BIG BANG
Out of absolutely nothing...came something. (naturally) :-\
Out of that something....it all self organized (naturally) :-\
Out of that parts that became self organized we have consciousness :-\
and here we are floating on a ball in the middle of nowhere :-\
There appears to be a holographic theory that tends to support that everything is just a kind of illusion.
My Big Toe, by Tom Campbell does a wonderful job of explaining it.
However, for some reason this site appears to me to forgo all other data and proclaim the world is flat without considering....that ....the world is a holographic simulation which has certain aspects that are modeled flat and certain models that are round.
Otherwise, this site is an exercise in balanced insanity. RET vs FET
For one can not move forward if one is determined to stand still :-\
-
The thing about dreams is that although you can't always tell if you are in a dream you can control everything once you realize that it's a dream. If what we think of as reality is really a dream and you knew it then you could summon a portal gun out of thin air and make bacon healthy, but that is not the case so naturally we can assume that this is not a dream.
-
Well I hope its not, that would mean I'm trapped in a perpetuated nightmare.
-
The thing about dreams is that although you can't always tell if you are in a dream you can control everything once you realize that it's a dream. If what we think of as reality is really a dream and you knew it then you could summon a portal gun out of thin air and make bacon healthy, but that is not the case so naturally we can assume that this is not a dream.
Let us imagine the possibility that we entered a very special kind of dream.
Before we arrived we agreed that our powers of control would be very limited to a particular rule set.
Those being
Rule #1
The player must forget who they really are ( a player ) and believe they are something else instead. – at the extremes , for example that they are their body. Hereafter called their avatar.
Rule 2
The player must believe their holographic experiences are real and what they are perceiving with their 5 senses is actually happening out there. In some objective and independent reality.
Rule 3
The players must believe what they encounter out there has power over them. And the power to affect their lives.
Rule 4
The player must believe in the judgments of good and bad, right and wrong, better and worse, good and evil.
Rule 5
The players must believe there is something wrong with the reality they see out there and needs to be changed, fixed or improved.
Rule 6
The players must believe they have a power to create a different reality than what they are experiencing and therefore feel defective and deficient ( more limited) when they fail.
Rule 7
The player must believe they can think their way out of the first part of the human game by using their mind, or love their way out of it by using their heart.
Rule 8
They players must believe they can make something happen, and when they fail, blame themselves for not being smarter or better at working harder.
Rule 9
The players must believe there are goals to be reached or agendas to be satisfied, or lessons to be learned.
Rule 10
The players must believe they, and they alone, are responsible for meeting their own needs and wants for which they have to fight for.
Rule 11
Fear and resistance are the foundations of the first part of the human game and judgments and their resulting beliefs are the glue that keeps the illusion together.
Rule 12
These illusions must never break down, or the players will see through the game, and it would be over.
-
That's just last thursdayism. Maybe the world was made last Thursday, and all of our memories from before that are fake.
It's possible, but it's also unprovable, so it doesn't really add to our understanding of the world.
-
Occam's razor, kman. It also disproves FE.
-
It's possible, but it's also unprovable, so it doesn't really add to our understanding of the world.
Does your statement not qualify as a narrow minded statement?
In one search for truth, narrow-mindedness would tend to hinders ones progress don't you think?
My goal is not to force my opinion, on others, but rather to offer a new direction in consideration.
Thinking of the big picture rather than just a puzzle piece. :)
-
It's possible, but it's also unprovable, so it doesn't really add to our understanding of the world.
Does your statement not qualify as a narrow minded statement?
In one search for truth, narrow-mindedness would tend to hinders ones progress don't you think?
My goal is not to force my opinion, on others, but rather to offer a new direction in consideration.
Thinking of the big picture rather than just a puzzle piece. :)
Well, maybe we are all pineapples, and we just think we are humans. Or maybe tomorrow we will all grow another head. Or maybe bunnies actually run the world.
Non of these are any more legitimate, reasonable, or provable then your theory.
-
Well, maybe we are all pineapples, and we just think we are humans. Or maybe tomorrow we will all grow another head. Or maybe bunnies actually run the world.
Non of these are any more legitimate, reasonable, or provable then your theory.
Well my friend, seeing as how you appear interested in offering your thoughts. ::)
Please share with me briefly your outlook or theory of how we come to find ourselves "here" in;
-an objective universe with planets, stars, galaxies, etc;
and
further explain your "theory" of how humans got here?
I would actually be quite impressed if you could actually in a sincere and honest manor express your insight.
:)
-
Please share with me briefly your outlook or theory of how we come to find ourselves "here" in;
-an objective universe with planets, stars, galaxies, etc;
and
further explain your "theory" of how humans got here?
I would actually be quite impressed if you could actually in a sincere and honest manor express your insight.
:)
I agree with the conclusions that have been reached by the scientific community.
Our universe is made up of billions of galaxies. We are in one called the Milky Way. Our solar system consists of a few planets and a medium sized star. Our planet is round (like all of the others)
Humans evolved roughly 200,000 years in Africa. We have been spreading throughout the planet since then.
-
I agree with the conclusions that have been reached by the scientific community.
Our universe is made up of billions of galaxies. We are in one called the Milky Way. Our solar system consists of a few planets and a medium sized star. Our planet is round (like all of the others)
Humans evolved roughly 200,000 years in Africa. We have been spreading throughout the planet since then.
Ok
So what I can state than is that in a way you are a kind of Border Control Guard for an official State sanctioned stamped reality.
thank you.
-
I agree with the conclusions that have been reached by the scientific community.
Our universe is made up of billions of galaxies. We are in one called the Milky Way. Our solar system consists of a few planets and a medium sized star. Our planet is round (like all of the others)
Humans evolved roughly 200,000 years in Africa. We have been spreading throughout the planet since then.
Ok
So what I can state than is that in a way you are a kind of Border Control Guard for an official State sanctioned stamped reality.
thank you.
Is not arrogant and condescending to assume my beliefs are only as a result of indoctrination? I'm a free thinker too, I just came to a different conclusion then you did.
What do you think is wrong with evolution?
-
One common proof that the universe is not virtual is irrational numbers like PI, the square root of 2, the golden proportion, and e. These numbers just keep on going forever and they never repeat themselves as far as we know, so how would this be possible if the universe were in any way virtual? Either someone would have to program them in or you would have to come up with them yourself and either way that's impossible because they have infinite numbers after the decimal.
-
Is not arrogant and condescending to assume my beliefs are only as a result of indoctrination?
To debate beliefs would be an exercise in futility.
Beliefs, like I have stated before, have absolutely nothing to do with Truths.
I have absolutely no clue how the universe came to be. :-\
However, I consider that it very unlikely that something came out of nothing, and then self organized.
Hence, the Big Bang.
There is ample evidence to suggest that the universe is indeed holographic.
My premise for this thread is simply to consider that;
There could be another explanation for what "here" is :-\
-
One common proof that the universe is not virtual is irrational numbers like PI, the square root of 2, the golden proportion, and e. These numbers just keep on going forever and they never repeat themselves as far as we know, so how would this be possible if the universe were in any way virtual? Either someone would have to program them in or you would have to come up with them yourself and either way that's impossible because they have infinite numbers after the decimal.
The scientific empirical evidence actually supports the theory of a virtual universe.
More and more scientist within the scientific community are coming to terms with these conclusions.
The evidence is hidden in plain sight, and self evident.
I often make the statement to folks.
Which is easier for GOD to do.
Make a universe out of matter, or make the illusion of a universe out of dreams?
Most agree the illusion is easier to create.
Works that way in the movie and video game industry as well. ;)
-
The scientific empirical evidence actually supports the theory of a virtual universe.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
More and more scientist within the scientific community are coming to terms with these conclusions.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
The evidence is hidden in plain sight, and self evident.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
-
If nothing else, there is at least one thing which can assure you that the universe is not virtual at all : human stupidity (naivety) which is infinite!
-
However, I consider that it very unlikely that something came out of nothing, and then self organized.
That would be very unlikely.
Good thing that that's not the premise of the big bang.
What exactly do you mean by self organized?
-
The scientific empirical evidence actually supports the theory of a virtual universe.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
The evidence is hidden in plain sight, and self evident.
Go do some research like I did. There is ample information out there to study.
It would be pointless for me to post the information, you would probably not read it, and more than likely argue against it.
First place I suggest you start is if you wish to educated yourself is;
Tom Campbells "My Big Toe"
http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/TMIKeynoteSlidesV3.pdf (http://www.my-big-toe.com/uploads/TMIKeynoteSlidesV3.pdf)
It is a free pdf downloand.
read it
Otherwise, if you wish to have an intellectual dance with me, please know how to dance, I am not here to teach you. It is not my responsibility to educate the ignorant. I seek those that wish to learn and grow, not defend their ignorance.
Google in your friend. ;)
-
However, I consider that it very unlikely that something came out of nothing, and then self organized.
That would be very unlikely.
Good thing that that's not the premise of the big bang.
What exactly do you mean by self organized?
Entropy
One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/imgthe/timarr.gif)
Evolution would tend to be an example of a system losing Entropy.
loss of entropy equals more order : increase in entropy equal less order.
-
However, I consider that it very unlikely that something came out of nothing, and then self organized.
That would be very unlikely.
Good thing that that's not the premise of the big bang.
What exactly do you mean by self organized?
Entropy
One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems.
(http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/therm/imgthe/timarr.gif)
Evolution would tend to be an example of a system losing Entropy.
loss of entropy equals more order : increase in entropy equal less order.
The key word is 'isolated'. The Earth is not an isolated system here; it receives a vast amount of energy from the Sun. The entropy of the Sun-Earth system is increasing.
-
The key word is 'isolated'. The Earth is not an isolated system here; it receives a vast amount of energy from the Sun. The entropy of the Sun-Earth system is increasing.
Well...
let us start at the beginning. ::)
Please explain where all the energy (or mass) first originated from to cause the Big Bang.
Let us start with absolutely Nothing.
A BIG ZERO
Explain how you can suddenly create something out of nothing. :-\
-
Explain how you can suddenly create something out of nothing. :-\
You can't.
The universe started as singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density.
If you don't even understand the basics of the Big Bang Theory, why are you attempting to debate it?
You are the one saying how you should know the basics of a theory before attempting to debate it.
if you wish to have an intellectual dance with me, please know how to dance, I am not here to teach you. It is not my responsibility to educate the ignorant. I seek those that wish to learn and grow, not defend their ignorance.
Google in your friend. ;)
-
You can't.
The universe started as singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density.
If you don't like the Big Bang idea, why is everything accelerating from a central point? And how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
Where did the singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density come from?
:-\
My point in all of this....
a kind of paradox exists.
One would consider that you can not create something out of nothing.
Therefore, one who has a belief in the Big Bang, for the most part, is completely ignoring the basic fact that it would be illogical to assume one can create something out of absolutely nothing.
So, just as when I put the question to you, you played "here we go around the mulberry bush " as you kept avoiding the common sense fact that something can't be created out of something.
So we have to start with the premise there was something,,,, which avoids the whole dilemma of " I have no clue how something came from ::)
-
You can't.
The universe started as singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density.
If you don't like the Big Bang idea, why is everything accelerating from a central point? And how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
Where did the singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density come from?
:-\
We don't know.
As all of space and time are thought to have originated in this singularity, that question may not be answerable within the limits of our universe.
Even though we can't fully explain it, there is abundant evidence for it.
I quote from here http://www.big-bang-theory.com/ (http://www.big-bang-theory.com/)
"First of all, we are reasonably certain that the universe had a beginning.
Second, galaxies appear to be moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This is called "Hubble's Law," named after Edwin Hubble (1889-1953) who discovered this phenomenon in 1929. This observation supports the expansion of the universe and suggests that the universe was once compacted.
Third, if the universe was initially very, very hot as the Big Bang suggests, we should be able to find some remnant of this heat. In 1965, Radioastronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin (-454.765 degree Fahrenheit, -270.425 degree Celsius) Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) which pervades the observable universe. This is thought to be the remnant which scientists were looking for. Penzias and Wilson shared in the 1978 Nobel Prize for Physics for their discovery.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins."
More recently, sceintists have discovered gas clouds that are nearly as old as the universe that have the composition of elements that the big bang theory predicts.
It is pretty clear you don't understand the basics of the Big Bang Theory
You are the one saying how you should know the basics of a theory before attempting to debate it.
if you wish to have an intellectual dance with me, please know how to dance, I am not here to teach you. It is not my responsibility to educate the ignorant. I seek those that wish to learn and grow, not defend their ignorance.
Google in your friend. ;)
-
You can't.
The universe started as singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density.
If you don't like the Big Bang idea, why is everything accelerating from a central point? And how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
Where did the singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density come from?
:-\
We don't know.
That is the most important point in your post.
I have already studied and have familiarity with all general aspects of the things you mention.
Those were my initial things I learned in my studies a few decades ago and long ago used as a bases for consideration.
For example, in Tom Cambells Book my Big Toe (which means "my big theory of everything") he discusses his theory of how the entire universe is a holographic simulation.
It is not that difficult to grasp.
If you have not familiarized yourself with the book, I urge you to at least watch a few of his many videos on youtube.
After all, he is a scientist with a Phd, so I would assume he would know something about what he is talking about.
My goal in this thread is to offer folks an alternative insight.
Otherwise, to actually believe we exist on a flat planet floating in the cosmos, one would have to be a complete imbecile.
It would be an exercise in complete stupidity.
Simply because we have the devices to prove it, and they would be simply ignoring the evidence because it is an inconvenience. :-\
That being said, perhaps there are some very good points the Flat Earthers do make as observations.
My guess, is that they are just failing to connect all the dots to finalize their theory.
-
You can't.
The universe started as singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density.
If you don't like the Big Bang idea, why is everything accelerating from a central point? And how do you explain the cosmic microwave background?
Where did the singularity- a single point with infinite mass and density come from?
:-\
We don't know.
That is the most important point in your post.
I have already studied and have familiarity with all general aspects of the things you mention.
Those were my initial things I learned in my studies a few decades ago and long ago used as a bases for consideration.
For example, in Tom Cambells Book my Big Toe (which means "my big theory of everything") he discusses his theory of how the entire universe is a holographic simulation.
It is not that difficult to grasp.
If you have not familiarized yourself with the book, I urge you to at least watch a few of his many videos on youtube.
After all, he is a scientist with a Phd, so I would assume he would know something about what he is talking about.
My goal in this thread is to offer folks an alternative insight.
Otherwise, to actually believe we exist on a flat planet floating in the cosmos, one would have to be a complete imbecile.
It would be an exercise in complete stupidity.
Simply because we have the devices to prove it, and they would be simply ignoring the evidence because it is an inconvenience. :-\
If you had indeed familiarized yourself with the Big Bang Theory you wouldn't be talking about how something can't come from nothing.
The notion that we are living on a flat plane is ridiculous. I agree.
And you still haven't disproved the Big Bang Theory.
-
Once one gets too far outside of the sphere of knowledge, things get pretty loose and anything starts to become possible. Sure, this could be some dream, but that dream would be operating outside of our available knowledge to know and experience that it is a dream. The universe could be some mold spore growing in some gigantic turd some unimaginable animal crapped out after some bad sushi it's owner gave it. It is just not that interesting, once you loose the connection to known knowledge, there is no way to know what is a dream and what is reality. It is much more interesting to operate at the edge of knowledge where one is still attached at least through a logical thread to what we can know and experience. Even if this is a dream, it is a damn important dream to me and it freaking hurts when things go wrong. I'm not real keen on dieing, even if that really means waking up.
And still everyone is dreaming about this stupid thread instead of sex. Pathetic.
-
And you still haven't disproved the Big Bang Theory.
Why would I want to disprove it.
It is a theory, which means " guess"
In this case educated guess.
Guess do not qualify as truths.
After all.
arguing against other people's theory is like arguing against other people's beliefs.
As i stated before, beliefs are just illusions, not truths.
The Big Bang is flawed.
You can not create something out of nothing. << period.
-
And you still haven't disproved the Big Bang Theory.
Why would I want to disprove it.
It is a theory, which means " guess"
In this case educated guess.
Guess do not qualify as truths.
After all.
arguing against other people's theory is like arguing against other people's beliefs.
As i stated before, beliefs are just illusions, not truths.
The Big Bang is flawed.
You can not create something out of nothing. << period.
Well, FET certainly has created something out of nothing!
-
And you still haven't disproved the Big Bang Theory.
Why would I want to disprove it.
It is a theory, which means " guess"
In this case educated guess.
Guess do not qualify as truths.
After all.
arguing against other people's theory is like arguing against other people's beliefs.
As i stated before, beliefs are just illusions, not truths.
The Big Bang is flawed.
You can not create something out of nothing. << period.
In layman's terms, a theory is a guess.
However, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
I have already shown you several pieces of evidence to support the big bang theory.
Saying that the big bang theory is a guess is absurd.
And the fact that you still the think that the Big Bang Theory is about creating something out of nothing shows you don't understand the theory.
-
However, a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation."
I have already shown you several pieces of evidence to support the big bang theory.
Saying that the big bang theory is a guess is absurd.
And the fact that you still the think that the Big Bang Theory is about creating something out of nothing shows you don't understand the theory.
The scientific method is also flawed.
The fact that you are so quick to judge me also shows that you are narrow minded.
Do you understand why the scientific method is flawed?
-
Do you understand why the scientific method is flawed?
Np, I don't understand why you think the scientific method is flawed. Please enlighten me.
-
Well, FET certainly has created something out of nothing!
The Flat Earth society actually serves a great purpose, in that they challenge the current paradigm.
Naive as they may be, they are actually on the right track to experiencing awakening.
They may not be fully aware where the fire is, but they definitely smell smoke. ;)
Like I already stated, quite a few of their observations have complete merit.
Some aspects of natural phenomenons on Earth appear to demonstrate a flat Earth model.
That is undeniable to this open mind. :-\
-
Do you understand why the scientific method is flawed?
Np, I don't understand why you think the scientific method is flawed. Please enlighten me.
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Can you spot it?
To paraphrase.
The scientific method is the study of matter.
-
I doubt you will get it.
So I shall explain.
Dark Energy and Dark Matter, which is an unknown form of energy comprise according to Wikipedia about 95.1% of the universe.
Therefore, the scientific method is only based on studying less than 5% of the universe.
...reason it out man....reason it out. :-\
source for dark energy and matter http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy)
-
The scientific method is the study of matter.
What? What?!!
Did you even read the paragraph you cited?
The scientific method isn't only the study of matter. At all.
To accurately summarize the paragraph you cited- the scientific method is concerned with gaining new knowledge and correcting old knowledge through evidence and reasoning.
-
The scientific method is the study of matter.
What? What?!!
Did you even read the paragraph you cited?
The scientific method isn't only the study of matter. At all.
To accurately summarize the paragraph you cited- the scientific method is concerned with gaining new knowledge and correcting old knowledge through evidence and reasoning.
So please explain to me how the scientific method is able to measure that which does not exist as matter or energy?
Dark Matter and Dark energy, please explain how that is measured with scientific instruments or observations?
I suggest you actually try a new method in your reasoning. Instead of being in opposition to whatever I say, which is a serious flaw in learning, try understanding what I am attempting to convey.
I could point out, that in your entire life, you have been so conditioned and brainwashed to do that when someone questions your current State sanctioned rubber stamped approved reality that it becomes a knee jerk reaction that is done at an unconscious level.
My goal here is not to talk to a parrot, but to reason with another individual that is capable of expanding your horizons beyond beliefs or institutional conditioning.
Dark energy is the most accepted hypothesis
It can't be seen or it can't be measured.
It is theoretical.
If more than 95% of matter in the universe is not considered in the scientific method, than the reality that exists that science deals with is less than 5%.
Studying less than 5% of what is, and proclaiming to be the machine of truth would be a serious flaw in Truth.
If it is your standpoint that studying less than 5% of the universe by a method is not flawed, than I would classify that as a statement of a narrow mind.
For example, most human beings even though they walk around conscious, have little consideration for what exactly consciousness is and how it occurs.
But in conclusion, the scientific method is flawed because it only studies what exists in our physical universe and by that it must contain mater or energy.
However it is already a consideration by theorist, that all the matter and energy in the universe that we can observe through the scientific method is less than 5%.
I would not trust any map in which the whole map was based on only knowing 5% of the actual information.
Would you?
-
Dark Matter and Dark energy, please explain how that is measured with scientific instruments or observations?
Your whole convoluted point seems to stem from the fact that we can't study it. That has NOTHING to do with the scientific method. Nothing. All it speaks to is our current limitations in studying this world.
You can't totally dismiss all parts of science off hand, just because one section of science isn't fully understood. Do you think that in 1880, cells didn't exist or cell theory was wrong, simply because science hadn't discovered atoms yet?
And you still haven't pointed out a flaw in the Big Bang Theory. You've just dismissed all of science out of hand, simply because we don't know everything yet.
-
And you still haven't pointed out a flaw in the Big Bang Theory. You've just dismissed all of science out of hand, simply because we don't know everything yet.
I have, you just chose to ignore it.
Thank you for your time and interaction.
I am going to abandon this thread.
It is my observation that there are not enough members here on an equal level to myself to foster any real advancement in communication.
take care.
-
I have, you just chose to ignore it.
Thank you for your time and interaction.
I am going to abandon this thread.
It is my observation that there are not enough members here on an equal level to myself to foster any real advancement in communication.
take care.
Well, you talked about how something can't come from nothing and then...
That last bit was excessively arrogant. Good luck finding people who meet your standards.
-
Vitalux, quit it! Course we live in a Big Dream. But that's not the site for such stuff. They want it scientific.
-
It is my observation that there are not enough members here on an equal level to myself to foster any real advancement in communication.
That costed you my sympathy...
-
Vitalux, quit it! Course we live in a Big Dream. But that's not the site for such stuff. They want it scientific.
How dare we demand evidence and reasoning.
-
There is plenty of evidence that dark matter and dark energy are real, dark energy is what we call the mysterious force causing the universes expansion to accelerate and dark matter is invisible matter which is known about by it's gravitational influence on other things. It's clear that dark matter and dark energy exist, it's just that we don't know what they are and they are really just names given to something we don't understand. Nobody would bother giving them names if there was no evidence.
-
There is plenty of evidence that dark matter and dark energy are real, dark energy is what we call the mysterious force causing the universes expansion to accelerate and dark matter is invisible matter which is known about by it's gravitational influence on other things. It's clear that dark matter and dark energy exist, it's just that we don't know what they are and they are really just names given to something we don't understand. Nobody would bother giving them names if there was no evidence.
Elves and fairies have names. Some people believe they are real. Are you saying that there is evidence for their existence just because they have names?
-
There is plenty of evidence that dark matter and dark energy are real, dark energy is what we call the mysterious force causing the universes expansion to accelerate and dark matter is invisible matter which is known about by it's gravitational influence on other things. It's clear that dark matter and dark energy exist, it's just that we don't know what they are and they are really just names given to something we don't understand. Nobody would bother giving them names if there was no evidence.
Mike.
Lets try something ......different.
Instead of you being a parrot and just regurgitating everything you read, perhaps you can touch upon some of the reasons they had to come up with Dark Matter and Energy theory to explain various events which were observed in the cosmos. See if you can for example talk about an observation that you personally have made that one would not read in a book?
I just wish to understand it you actually know what you are talking about or if we are just witnessing a parrot trying to masquerade as an intellectual being.
Can you for example explain the problem with this image scientifically (which is typical of many spiral galaxies)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3729/11856442186_8e4050ac4a.jpg)
-
We can't get any non-condescending FE-ers.
-
Vitalux, it is impossible for an average person without equipment to messure the rotation period of stars in a galaxy, even if he would have the required knowledge and skills. But that's what you must do to prove or disprove the existence of dark matter.
By the way, when you have toothache, do you go to a doctor? If you can't repair your car, don"t you go to one who has learned that? If if we want to know something about stars, why is it so dull to trust an astronomer, who used to study them all his life?
-
There is plenty of evidence that dark matter and dark energy are real, dark energy is what we call the mysterious force causing the universes expansion to accelerate and dark matter is invisible matter which is known about by it's gravitational influence on other things. It's clear that dark matter and dark energy exist, it's just that we don't know what they are and they are really just names given to something we don't understand. Nobody would bother giving them names if there was no evidence.
Mike.
Lets try something ......different.
Instead of you being a parrot and just regurgitating everything you read, perhaps you can touch upon some of the reasons they had to come up with Dark Matter and Energy theory to explain various events which were observed in the cosmos. See if you can for example talk about an observation that you personally have made that one would not read in a book?
I just wish to understand it you actually know what you are talking about or if we are just witnessing a parrot trying to masquerade as an intellectual being.
Can you for example explain the problem with this image scientifically (which is typical of many spiral galaxies)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3729/11856442186_8e4050ac4a.jpg)
Dark matter and dark energy are just names given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate and the invisable stuff between galaxies. It doesn't matter if the universe is expanding because of unicorns pushing it, it's still called dark energy.
I don't see anything wrong with that image by the way.
-
Dark matter and dark energy are just names given to whatever is causing the universe's expansion to accelerate and the invisable stuff between galaxies. It doesn't matter if the universe is expanding because of unicorns pushing it, it's still called dark energy.
I don't see anything wrong with that image by the way.
In our solar system, think about how the planets rotate around the Sun.
Mercury 88 days.
Pluto 247 years
Now go back and examine that image and ponder the question.
How can the stars in that image take that configuration and shape, if the are orbiting a central point such as a black hole?
If you wish to experiment to help aid you in understanding the model, go to your blender, pour in the ingredients to make a milk shake. When the blender is operating, and the mixture is quite homogenous, turn off the blender. Then place some food coloring (dye) and some nutmeg on the surface of the milkshake solution, than turn on the blender again at low speed.
Notice what happens to the food coloring and dye.
Next empty the blender completely of the contents and look at the blades at the bottom of the mixer.
Consider how the blades at the bottom rotate all fixed together as they rotate around the center axis.
A spiral galaxy tends to violate all principals of physics because the stars on the outer regions (spiral arms) appear to rotate around the axis in the same time period as the stars closest to the centre of the galaxy.
Hence, if our solar system operated on the same physics as what we are observing in the spiral galaxies, than Mercury and Pluto would both take 247 years to orbit the Sun.
Scientists had to dream up an excuse of what was causing the universe to operate that way, hence Dark Matter and Energy. :-\
Now do you see what is wrong with the image?
-
In our solar system, think about how the planets rotate around the Sun.
Mercury 88 days.
Pluto 247 years
Now go back and examine that image and ponder the question.
How can the stars in that image take that configuration and shape, if the are orbiting a central point such as a black hole?
If you wish to experiment to help aid you in understanding the model, go to your blender, pour in the ingredients to make a milk shake. When the blender is operating, and the mixture is quite homogenous, turn off the blender. Then place some food coloring (dye) and some nutmeg on the surface of the milkshake solution, than turn on the blender again at low speed.
Notice what happens to the food coloring and dye.
Next empty the blender completely of the contents and look at the blades at the bottom of the mixer.
Consider how the blades at the bottom rotate all fixed together as they rotate around the center axis.
A spiral galaxy tends to violate all principals of physics because the stars on the outer regions (spiral arms) appear to rotate around the axis in the same time period as the stars closest to the centre of the galaxy.
Hence, if our solar system operated on the same physics as what we are observing in the spiral galaxies, than Mercury and Pluto would both take 247 years to orbit the Sun.
Scientists had to dream up an excuse of what was causing the universe to operate that way, hence Dark Matter and Energy. :-\
Now do you see what is wrong with the image?
No, I still don't see anything wrong with that image.
Nobody said that the centers of the galaxies rotate the same speed as the outside, it's just that galaxies take a really REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY long time to do much of anything because of their size.
Spiral galaxies are actually the youngest galaxies, that's how they still have that spiral. When a galaxy gets older it looks like this:
(http://mcdonaldobservatory.org/sites/default/files/images/news/gallery/ngc4621_3.jpg)
This is an elliptical galaxy, the individual stars are too dim to see and they are scattered all over so it looks like a glowing blob. The center is the brightest because that's where there are the most stars. The point is, spiral galaxies don't last long.
-
Nobody said that the centers of the galaxies rotate the same speed as the outside
I thought they do and that this is the reason why astronomers came to assume Dark matter. Galaxies do not follow Kepler's laws
-
Nobody said that the centers of the galaxies rotate the same speed as the outside
I thought they do and that this is the reason why astronomers came to assume Dark matter. Galaxies do not follow Kepler's laws
Again, dark matter is not an assumption, it's a place holder name for something we don't understand. Here is an analogy that will hopefully help you better understand it:
Imagine you find a rock that glows and falls up, and let's say that no matter how hard you try you cannot figure out why it does what it does. Now let's say that you call that rock the "mystery rock", in doing so are you making any assumptions? It's clear that the rock does what it does, you just don't know why or how and you are simply giving it a name. That's all that dark matter and dark energy are, names for something we don't understand.
-
Nobody said that the centers of the galaxies rotate the same speed as the outside
I thought they do and that this is the reason why astronomers came to assume Dark matter. Galaxies do not follow Kepler's laws
They don't follow Kepler's laws, but they also don't rotate like a record. The inside does spin faster then the outside, but the difference is just not as great as expected.
-
Nobody said that the centers of the galaxies rotate the same speed as the outside
I thought they do and that this is the reason why astronomers came to assume Dark matter. Galaxies do not follow Kepler's laws
Again, dark matter is not an assumption, it's a place holder name for something we don't understand. Here is an analogy that will hopefully help you better understand it:
Imagine you find a rock that glows and falls up, and let's say that no matter how hard you try you cannot figure out why it does what it does. Now let's say that you call that rock the "mystery rock", in doing so are you making any assumptions? It's clear that the rock does what it does, you just don't know why or how and you are simply giving it a name. That's all that dark matter and dark energy are, names for something we don't understand.
No, it is more like finding a rock that floats up and then assuming that there must be "dark antigravity pushy particles" under it.
-
Again, dark matter is not an assumption, it's a place holder name for something we don't understand.
Ok so back to my original statement about the scientific method being flawed.
If scientist theorize that when they look up and all around them, all the energy, all the matter contained in the whole universe, including all the stars, dust, planets and gasses, it only accounts for 4.9 % of what they can detect.
Therefore the scientific method, which studies matter ( anything that exists and occupies space). Only concerns itself with that which exists. This means that 95% of the universe is currently unconsidered and ignored by the scientific method.
No single individual can possible understand even 4.9% of how the functional universe works.
In order to fully understand full reality, one must have access to all aspects of reality.
Therefore, it would be an exercise in complete delusional thinking, upon understanding this to consider that the scientific method was not flawed.
All human beings are inherently flawed due to being inherently delusional. :-\
It is said, Mike that if one can't dazzle others with their brilliance, than one can always baffle them with bullshit.
I doubt you have much an actual working understanding of astrophysics by reading your statements. Which is ok, few individual do. Most folks I come across are not even aware of of what consciousness is.
:)
-
No Dark matter is not just a placeholder. it must have mass, that's why it is called matter. It cannot be dedected, so it is called dark. So Dark matter is really just a descriptive term.
-
So back to the original purpose of this thread :)
One serious flaw in the human mind is cognitive dissonance.
Which is a mental stress experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs at the same time, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs and or ideas.
Most humans have either one outlook or another, evolution or religion. What if both systems are untrue, and falsely propagated.
Therefore once a young mind has been indoctrinated by a system to think and feel a certain way, it can pretty much be considered that the individual is compartmentalized and becomes a packaged parrot.
Interesting one of the traits of this system is that those that have been indoctrinated into this conformity serve as a kind of reality border control guard for others that might be inclined to sway from the State sanctioned rubber stamp approved reality.
The trick to overcoming this hurdle is to become aware of not falling into the pitfalls of beliefs.
Beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with truth.
Beliefs are just the minds illusions.
One of the tricks that has happened to the human race is we are played against each other like fools.
We spend so much time attacking those who do not think as we do, that we accomplish nothing.
Lets try as a group, to think collectively. To consider "new" possibilities and break into a greater understanding of the nature of our universe.
Consideration 1
It does not take a huge leap in intelligence to understand, One can not create something out of nothing.
Matter and energy can not be destroyed or created only transformed.
Therefore, a Big Bang Universe doesn't in Truth exist. Nothing, in terms of Nothing can produce matter and energy.
Consideration 2.
All reality experienced by the mind is just a holographic projection downloaded from another point source.
For those that have an understanding of what consciousness is, than it is understood that the mind creates reality. The brain does not know what color, sound, texture really is. Through some incredible process the mind can only imagine reality. Therefore, the objective universe that we conceive though our body senses is really just a projection of mind.
Yet, this projection in association with others is consensus reality.
The only way, individual human beings can experience a consensus reality, as a function of mind, is if we are all tied in to the hive collective via a third party source.
Therefore, all reality is a holographic simulation controlled externally.
Consideration 3.
We do not actually exist in a real universe, only a virtual universe which was created from data and presented with certain capabilities and limitations. Much similar to the way we presently create virtual reality video games.
We don't actually exist on a planet. It is more just a virtual reality realm. It has some characteristics of following a flat model for simplicity, and other features of following a round model for simplicity as well.
Holographic universes are similar to radio and television signals. I shall refer to them also as dimensions.
Just as how we can change the television channel from one station to another, holographic realities exists in multitudes the same way.
Therefore it is my offering in this thread to consider another possibility to explain the nature of "here"
Like a dream, we are all existing in a consensus reality dream, in which in order to enter into this dream, one has be be birth via a body (sexual reproduction via parents) and in order to exist, the avatar has to succumb to death via accidental, intentional or planned age failure of the system of body. :-\
-
Consideration 1
If this one's necessarily true, then an ultimate reality must suffer from the same issue. Something has to be real for there to be grounding for existence, regardless of whether or not we experience it. If you hold this consideration, you need to grant an exception to it sooner or later: why not sooner?
You just seem to have rejected out of hand any explanation.
Consideration 2.
Through some incredible process the mind can only imagine reality. Therefore, the objective universe that we conceive though our body senses is really just a projection of mind.
Yet, this projection in association with others is consensus reality.
The only way, individual human beings can experience a consensus reality, as a function of mind, is if we are all tied in to the hive collective via a third party source.
Therefore, all reality is a holographic simulation controlled externally.
What we perceive is dependent on what information we take in. The terms you use only work when applied incredibly loosely. We don't 'imagine', we experience: whether or not those experiences are accurate is another question, but consensus says it is.
As for 'third party source' and 'controlled externally', you have nothing in support of either statement. You have the fact we experience by interpreting what happens: no more than that.
Consideration 3.
We do not actually exist in a real universe, only a virtual universe which was created from data and presented with certain capabilities and limitations. Much similar to the way we presently create virtual reality video games.
We don't actually exist on a planet. It is more just a virtual reality realm. It has some characteristics of following a flat model for simplicity, and other features of following a round model for simplicity as well.
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/wikipedian_protester.png)
-
If this one's necessarily true, then an ultimate reality must suffer from the same issue.
Something has to be real for there to be grounding for existence, regardless of whether or not we experience it. If you hold this consideration, you need to grant an exception to it sooner or later: why not sooner?
You just seem to have rejected out of hand any explanation.
- ultimate reality has all the components of reality. Consciousness is that ultimate reality.
- Nothing has to be real for their to be a grounding for existence. A Person is a fiction, an artificial entity.
Perhaps you might be aware of the distinction between a human being (man) and a person ( artificial entity).
Many children believe in Santa Clause, as well as a multitude of other fictional entities however they are not real ,yet have a grounding for existence. Even if that grounding is an illusion; a belief.
Consideration 2.
BiJane says
What we perceive is dependent on what information we take in. The terms you use only work when applied incredibly loosely. We don't 'imagine', we experience: whether or not those experiences are accurate is another question, but consensus says it is.
As for 'third party source' and 'controlled externally', you have nothing in support of either statement. You have the fact we experience by interpreting what happens: no more than that.
Go and get a hammer, and drop it on your foot. :o
Then contemplate the question. What part of you is experiencing the pain , your foot, or the mind?
What would qualify as support for the things I am discussing. If I was to post the sources would you really take the time to consider and read the information. Even if you did, you may not yet possess the awareness to comprehend it all.
From my perspective, I am chatting to an illusion that thinks they are really real.
Additionally, from my perspective, I do not believe that I am actually real. I am just in a continuous dream masquerading as a human being (an avatar), in a realm called Earth. Because I have been stripped of both my higher intellect, and memories outside of this realm, I am suffering from much of the same delusions as everyone else.
With a slight twist, I am aware that this reality is an illusion.
:-\
-
- ultimate reality has all the components of reality. Consciousness is that ultimate reality.
- Nothing has to be real for their to be a grounding for existence. A Person is a fiction, an artificial entity.
Perhaps you might be aware of the distinction between a human being (man) and a person ( artificial entity).
Something does have to be real: unreal things are incapable of experiencing, for one. At the very least, you believe consciousness is real.
The Santa example does have a real grounding: the speech of the people who share the stories of Santa. Of course, maybe that's not real: but you presumably think consciousness is (to some degree). That would be your grounding:
Go and get a hammer, and drop it on your foot. :o
Then contemplate the question. What part of you is experiencing the pain , your foot, or the mind?
Why not both? From a materialistic perspective, for a moment, while the brain is where the functions are, the nerves it relies on (and are fundamentally part of it) extend to the foot. It is also clear awareness is a crucial part of the mind: without awareness, there is nothing that can realistically be called a mind: and nerves are one source of that awareness. Strictly speaking, the foot does the experiencing, the mind interprets it as pain.
I've no doubt you reject a material perspective, from what I've seen, but I'd hope that much makes sense.
If I was to post the sources would you really take the time to consider and read the information. Even if you did, you may not yet possess the awareness to comprehend it all.
Don't assume someone lacks awareness just because they disagree. I've had similar discussions before (qualia, observer effect etc) it's not convincing evidence for what you're saying.
Additionally, from my perspective, I do not believe that I am actually real. I am just in a continuous dream masquerading as a human being (an avatar), in a realm called Earth. Because I have been stripped of both my higher intellect, and memories outside of this realm, I am suffering from much of the same delusions as everyone else
That very much needs evidence, but the first query would be what exactly constitutes 'real', to you? Unless by 'you' you're referring to your body, rather than your consciousness (in which case, while I still disagree, it's clearer what you're saying). Otherwise, you seem to be using a rather impractical definition.
-
That very much needs evidence, but the first query would be what exactly constitutes 'real', to you? Unless by 'you' you're referring to your body, rather than your consciousness (in which case, while I still disagree, it's clearer what you're saying). Otherwise, you seem to be using a rather impractical definition.
Have you studied cases involving Near Death Experiences?
Have you studied the various philosophies of Buddhist and Hinduism?
Have you studied some of the scientific literature of scientific study of reincarnation?
Dr Ian Stevenson for example studied over thirty thousand cases of children that appeared to have past life memories of existing in other body, places and times.
The person you are speaking with now, has also had out of body experiences. ;)
My reference to you understanding my awareness simply means that everyone experiences different degrees of awareness based on time and experience.
Imagine if you will Plato - the allegory of the cave.
This best illustrates how I view the realm Earth. I've experienced being outside of the cave and returned.
Please view the video below.
(http://)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson)
;)
-
Have you studied cases involving Near Death Experiences?
Yes: the vast array of contradictions between them, and distinct cultural bias, very much implies there's a psychological cause. The only thing worth a second glance is reports of people gaining information they couldn't otherwise have had, but generally it's incredibly hard to firmly say that they couldn't have known such information. Simple confirmation bias covers the rest.
Have you studied the various philosophies of Buddhist and Hinduism?
Not in detail: the big question is "Why assume it's true?"
Have you studied some of the scientific literature of scientific study of reincarnation?
Some: again, much is confirmation bias. Out of billions of people, and what are usually sample sizes of thousands, one or two individual cases are statistically meaningless, especially when (to take some of Stevenson's research) you have children often fairly closely related to the deceased.
The person you are speaking with now, has also had out of body experiences. ;)
Remember, also, that many out of body experiences have directly been falsified. People have reported seeing things from outside their body, only to later find out that what they saw was wrong. (An example that comes to mind is James Randi, sceptic who was temporarily convinced, until flaws were pointed out).
Imagine if you will Plato - the allegory of the cave.
This best illustrates how I view the realm Earth. I've experienced being outside of the cave and returned.
As interesting as some ideas are, interesting does not mean true.
-
Have you studied cases involving Near Death Experiences?
Yes: the vast array of contradictions between them, and distinct cultural bias, very much implies there's a psychological cause. The only thing worth a second glance is reports of people gaining information they couldn't otherwise have had, but generally it's incredibly hard to firmly say that they couldn't have known such information. Simple confirmation bias covers the rest.
Have you studied the various philosophies of Buddhist and Hinduism?
Not in detail: the big question is "Why assume it's true?"
Than you have boxed yourself into a corner my friend.
You are allowing your beliefs to interfere with your love of Truth.
You stand as a paradoxical statement of stagnated growth.
Choosing to stand in defense of your ignorance because it is an inconvenience to your solidified opinion.
The love of Truth has no boundaries and is open to considering all possibilities.
You and I are on two completely different frontiers my friend. :-\
-
Than you have boxed yourself into a corner my friend.
You are allowing your beliefs to interfere with your love of Truth.
You stand as a paradoxical statement of stagnated growth.
Choosing to stand in defense of your ignorance because it is an inconvenience to your solidified opinion.
The love of Truth has no boundaries and is open to considering all possibilities.
You and I are on two completely different frontiers my friend. :-\
I'm happy to consider possibilities: but the point is, I have considered them, and they failed to convince. I'm sure you wouldn't accept something as true just because I say so, why must others do the same?
I'm concerned with truth, I just don't think you can automatically assign the title of 'truth' to an appealing statement. There has to be justification, else why think it's truth?
That which I know explains everything you've suggested, without needing to appeal to anything else. Why add more?
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
-
That which I know explains everything you've suggested, without needing to appeal to anything else. Why add more?
So what do you think your purpose in existence is ? :)
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
Thank you
Once a human being has experienced OBE it is quite life changing.
It is amazing how millions of people around the world have experienced similar occurrences of OBE, yet it is something that mainstream media tends to avoid reporting.
One thing for sure, it sure changes the way we view reality, ourselves and all other people.
I see that inherently we are all one. ;)
-
Forget it.
-
So what do you think your purpose in existence is ? :)
Quick answer: define purpose.
Long purpose: objectively, none. On the whole there are very few objective measures of, well, anything. You always have to ask "But what makes that..." Less objectively, whatever I choose.
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
Yes, they are especially common for people on hallucinogenic drugs.
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
Yes, they are especially common for people on hallucinogenic drugs.
Perhaps....
But most people fly airplanes to reach great heights and distance, and yet no one criticizes them for using a tool (airplane) to achieve this capability.(http://image.fg-a.com/aircraft/prop-fighter.gif)
Millions of yogi (a.k.a Siddhas) throughout history have enjoyed out of body experiences without the aid of hallucinogenic drugs (a.k.a entheogens).
Further the The Monroe Institute, which is based in Faber, Virginia, United States has aided in teaching individuals how to have an out of body experience. The have had a success rate of more than 5000 people having this experience.
And yes, it is a fact that historically millions of people have also had spiritual experiences including out of body experiences with the aid of "hallucinogenic drugs"
:)
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
Yes, they are especially common for people on hallucinogenic drugs.
Perhaps....
But most people fly airplanes to reach great heights and distance, and yet no one criticizes them for using a tool (airplane) to achieve this capability.(http://image.fg-a.com/aircraft/prop-fighter.gif)
I don't think you can compare peyote with airplanes...
-
I don't think you can compare peyote with airplanes...
How do you know? Have you ever done peyote?
-
I don't think you can compare peyote with airplanes...
How do you know? Have you ever done peyote?
Missing the point on purpose isn't doing anything for your argument.
-
I don't think you can compare peyote with airplanes...
How do you know? Have you ever done peyote?
Missing the point on purpose isn't doing anything for your argument.
Oh I am sorry, I thought you were attempting to add something intelligent to this thread. :-\
-
Out -of-body-experiences are more common than people think. Few people speak about that. That has a reason.
Thank you.
Of course you can go out of body. Of your wife or of your goat if you're a muslim.
-
Of course you can go out of body. Of your wife or of your goat if you're a muslim.
You are shit.
-
I don't think you can compare peyote with airplanes...
How do you know? Have you ever done peyote?
Missing the point on purpose isn't doing anything for your argument.
Oh I am sorry, I thought you were attempting to add something intelligent to this thread. :-\
Yup, you were sadly mistaken.