Could there be NO flat Earth...NO Round Earth ...just the BIG DREAM

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.

Quote from: kman on March 02, 2015, 06:24:53 PM

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!

Quote from: kman on March 02, 2015, 06:24:53 PM

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.

Quote from: Vitalux on March 02, 2015, 06:48:04 PM

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

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.

Quote from: Vitalux on March 02, 2015, 06:58:12 PM

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)

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?

Quote from: mikeman7918 on March 05, 2015, 08:24:18 PM

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)

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:


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

Quote

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.

Quote

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.

Quote from: FalseProphet on March 06, 2015, 08:57:40 PM

Quote

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.