Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 05/05/2018 10:17:38
-
In a critical balanced system, an object of the ''gears'' of that system need a critical balance or that object will wobble like an off balance car wheel.
If for some reason the balance of the object was off set, then like with a car wheel we would put on a weight to re-balance the system.
Now as Pyramids are scattered about the Earth , was this an ancient attempt by previous civilisations to re-balance the axial tilt ?
-
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Technically, I will name this theory, Earth mass displacement of a critical balanced system.
-
I very strongly doubt it:
(1) The total mass of all the pyramids on Earth would be an incredibly tiny percentage of the Earth's mass. The Earth's mass is 5.972 x 1024 kilograms, whereas the mass of the Pyramid of Giza is only 5.2163 x 109 kilograms. Even if there were a million such pyramids around Earth, their total mass would still be 8.7346 x 10-10 times smaller than the Earth's mass. That's equivalent to trying to change the spin axis of a rotating bowling bowl by sticking about twenty grains of pollen to its surface.
(2) There's no obvious need to change the Earth's axis. Animal and plant life are well adapted to our changing seasons. Bringing the Earth's axis to 0 degrees would cause mass extinctions.
(3) I'm not aware of any references in hieroglyphics or other such records that state changing the Earth's axial tilt was a goal.
(4) Even if it could be done, the different pyramid-building societies would need to know the exact distribution of mass across the Earth's surface in order to know where to build their pyramids. Even a small mountain is much, much more massive than the largest of pyramids.
-
was (the pyramids) an ancient attempt by previous civilisations to re-balance the axial tilt ?
I see no reason to doubt the common theory that the Egyptian pyramids were intended to bury a pharaoh or other noble.
By the way, the Earth's axis does actually tilt (or precess) over time. It is thought that the Egyptian surveyors used the stars to orient the pyramids when laying the foundations. There has been attempt to date the pyramids by looking at their slightly different orientations, and comparing this to the precession of the Earth's axis.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession#Ancient_Egyptians
-
This is, by any standards, a very silly idea.
When the pyramids were built they "knew" that the world was standing still and didn't need balancing.
There was no "axis" about which to balance things.
-
This is, by any standards, a very silly idea.
When the pyramids were built they "knew" that the world was standing still and didn't need balancing.
There was no "axis" about which to balance things.
Oh of course, we of today was around ''yesterday'' to check history is correct and has not been changed by Chinese whispers over time. How do we know the Egyptians were not Aliens and left us here to fend for ourselves?
What we knew was not necessarily what was known.
-
How do we know the Egyptians were not Aliens
We have their DNA from mummies.
Oh of course, we of today was around ''yesterday'' to check history is correct and has not been changed by Chinese whispers over time.
It's hard to tell what you mean from such a poorly phrased sentence.
Do you mean that we don't know what they thought, because we were not there at the time?
If so, the answer's fairly clear.
We have their written record.
-
How do we know the Egyptians were not Aliens
We have their DNA from mummies.
Oh of course, we of today was around ''yesterday'' to check history is correct and has not been changed by Chinese whispers over time.
It's hard to tell what you mean from such a poorly phrased sentence.
Do you mean that we don't know what they thought, because we were not there at the time?
If so, the answer's fairly clear.
We have their written record.
Firstly an alien could be human, alien does not mean scary creatures. Consider we are trying to go to Mars. Imagine if we found a tribe of humans on mars who were primitive. Do you think with our technology , they would think we are human like them?
We would be superior evolved humans, we may even look different, but we would both be the same humans at different evolutionary time scales.
Writers can be ambiguous, in 1000's of years things get re-written. Evidence shows how Chinese whispers can Change a message.
So no, we do not know history is accurate until we started recording it accurate . 2018 years ago
-
Do you think with our technology , they would think we are human like them?
This sort of thing has happened- not with Martians but with people in remote areas of this world.
According to at least one story I read, they did come to the conclusion that we were people like them- at least in part when they observed that, like them, we went behind the bushes to relieve ourselves and what we left there smelled the same as theirs.
in 1000's of years things get re-written.
Not while it's sealed up in a pyramid.
Did you somehow think you had made a point there?
So no, we do not know history is accurate until we started recording it accurate . 2018 years ago
Nonsense; we have much older records than that.
We would be superior evolved humans, we may even look different, but we would both be the same humans at different evolutionary time scales.
You are arguing against yourself.
I'm saying that the Egyptian mummies are the same as us. You were the one speculating pointlessly about aliens.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I question your rationality.
-
I'm saying that the Egyptian mummies are the same as us. You were the one speculating pointlessly about aliens.
This is the sort of thing I mean when I question your rationality.
You read me wrong, I know mummies are humans, but if little green men came from Mars, they would at first seem Alien until we understood they were human?
We would feel assured once we know they were human .
-
If the little green men came from Mars, they wouldn't be human. They would be martians. The "green" bit is a strong hint.
-
How do we know the Egyptians were not Aliens
I know mummies are humans
It looks like you read yourself wrong.
-
How do we know the Egyptians were not Aliens
I know mummies are humans
It looks like you read yourself wrong.
I yes I see the misunderstanding if you read it that way. Imagine Mummies were just the Gods ''generals''.
-
I can imagine all sorts of stuff; but I don't have to believe it.
In general I believe the stuff for which we have evidence.
-
I can imagine all sorts of stuff; but I don't have to believe it.
In general I believe the stuff for which we have evidence.
In experiment we can produce evidence. Theory, test that theory, pass the theory, becomes a fact.
-
I can imagine all sorts of stuff; but I don't have to believe it.
In general I believe the stuff for which we have evidence.
In experiment we can produce evidence. Theory, test that theory, pass the theory, becomes a fact.
Again, I wonder if you bother to read through what you type before you post it.
-
Firstly an alien could be human
Not if they evolved from a lineage of creatures native to that planet. Even if they looked somewhat like us, they wouldn't be actual humans (which are, by definition, in the taxonomic genus "Homo", such as Homo sapiens, Homo erectus, Homo naledi, etc.).
Consider we are trying to go to Mars. Imagine if we found a tribe of humans on mars who were primitive. Do you think with our technology , they would think we are human like them?
Primitive humans could not be on Mars: they would not have the technology necessary to travel from Earth to Mars and establish a base there. If you are talking about something native to Mars, then you are no longer talking about humans.
-
If the little green men came from Mars, they wouldn't be human. They would be martians. The "green" bit is a strong hint.
Supposing these little green men were from Mars, came to Earth, populated the planet, then left?
Aren't you being racist by suggesting because they are green they are not human?
-
Primitive humans could not be on Mars: they would not have the technology necessary to travel from Earth to Mars and establish a base there.
The Humans left mars and came to earth, over time we evolved to be different colours than green.
How do we know this did not happen?
-
Aren't you being racist by suggesting because they are green they are not human?
Plainly, no.
Stop being silly.
The Humans left mars and came to earth, over time we evolved to be different colours than green.
How do we know this did not happen?
We don't.
Now go and learn about what science says about this sort of thing.
-
The Humans left mars and came to earth, over time we evolved to be different colours than green.
How do we know this did not happen?
Genetic and fossil analysis firmly places us as coming from the Earth. We are closely related to the animals that live here.
What makes you think Martians would necessarily be green anyway?
-
We don't.
Now go and learn about what science says about this sort of thing.
I don't need to ask science the answer when my realisation of the answer is probably better than sciences answer. You say ''we'' don't know, yet the first piece of intelligence must of developed somewhere in time for any thoughts to begin. A potato cannot think.
-
What makes you think Martians would necessarily be green anyway?
Radiation exposure causing different evolution of skin pigmentation.
-
Radiation exposure causing different evolution of skin pigmentation.
And you think "green" is the best color for that?
-
Radiation exposure causing different evolution of skin pigmentation.
And you think "green" is the best color for that?
Well, they would only be green in the light, in the dark they are black like all of us, deep fried. I say green mainly because of media, I should imagine they could be exactly like us but much older of a race. More developed.
-
Well, they would only be green in the light, in the dark they are black like all of us, deep fried. I say green mainly because of media, I should imagine they could be exactly like us but much older of a race. More developed.
They couldn't be exactly like us. Mars is a very different planet from Earth. The gravity is 0.38G, the atmosphere is less than 1% as thick as ours and has practically no oxygen, and the temperatures easily dip far below freezing. It can't support complex life like humans. The only way those intelligent Martians could be there would be if they had space bases of some kind where they could create more habitable environments. It's also very unlikely for intelligence to have evolved in the short period of time where Mars had a thick atmosphere and oceans. It only lasted on the order of 1 or 2 billion years, whereas it took over 3.7 billion years for microbes on Earth to evolve into humans.
-
Well, they would only be green in the light, in the dark they are black like all of us, deep fried. I say green mainly because of media, I should imagine they could be exactly like us but much older of a race. More developed.
They couldn't be exactly like us. Mars is a very different planet from Earth. The gravity is 0.38G, the atmosphere is less than 1% as thick as ours and has practically no oxygen, and the temperatures easily dip far below freezing. It can't support complex life like humans. The only way those intelligent Martians could be there would be if they had space bases of some kind where they could create more habitable environments. It's also very unlikely for intelligence to have evolved in the short period of time where Mars had a thick atmosphere and oceans. It only lasted on the order of 1 or 2 billion years, whereas it took over 3.7 billion years for microbes on Earth to evolve into humans.
Well, what lies beneath the surface on Mars? If we had a ultrasonic rock cutter, we could bury ourselves in the ground too.
There is lots of holes appearing everywhere on the planet, maybe it is a cavern of tunnels down there.
-
In a critical balanced system, an object of the ''gears'' of that system need a critical balance or that object will wobble like an off balance car wheel.
If for some reason the balance of the object was off set, then like with a car wheel we would put on a weight to re-balance the system.
Now as Pyramids are scattered about the Earth , was this an ancient attempt by previous civilisations to re-balance the axial tilt ?
The pyramids were a projection of the layout of the human psyche. In this early days of civilization, the unconscious mind was projecting a map of itself with the pyramids part of that map. The genius needed to make the pyramids came from the unconscious mind. They had no power tools, lasers, computer or GPS. They had the inner self, mapping itself, which was better.
The four sides of a pyramid are symbolic of the four orientating functions of consciousness. These four functions are intellect, emotions, sensations and intuitions. We all use these four functions too orientate ourselves to reality. All humans have all four, but typically there is a single dominant function and a secondary which are most conscious. The other two are less subject to willpower and the fourth most driven by unconscious potential.
For example, my order is intellect, intuition, sensation, and lastly emotions. It is easy for me to analyze data and create new ideas; intellect and intuition. The unconscious connection to sensory seems to drift my eye to the right thing. However, I need to keep my emotions in check, since this has the strongest unconscious potential with the unconscious riding that pony faster that I should go.
The vertical shape of the pyramid has the widest part of the pyramid; base, touching the earth. Earth symbolizes instincts. The total volume of the pyramid is our collective human data and information. Most of the hard data we have is connected to sensory input and verification; seeing is believing.
As we leave the earth or base and go vertical, the thoughts, ideas and feelings become more imaginary, theoretical and abstract with the collective human data becoming thinner and thinner. The four sides meet at the top to form a singularity point. This is where the four functions become one; inner self. The paradox of God appears; one is all and all is one.
-
Well, what lies beneath the surface on Mars? If we had a ultrasonic rock cutter, we could bury ourselves in the ground too.
There is lots of holes appearing everywhere on the planet, maybe it is a cavern of tunnels down there.
Maybe so. Wouldn't mean it's humans doing it.
-
Well, what lies beneath the surface on Mars? If we had a ultrasonic rock cutter, we could bury ourselves in the ground too.
There is lots of holes appearing everywhere on the planet, maybe it is a cavern of tunnels down there.
Maybe so. Wouldn't mean it's humans doing it.
Of course it does not mean humans are doing it, although some of the global holes seem the cutting technology of ancient Egypt.
Coincidence ? Or somebody on Earth using negative energy?
-
A potato cannot think
It has company.
-
A potato cannot think
It has company.
Well I worked out that pyramids are landing stages for the mother ships.
-
A potato cannot think
It has company.
Well I worked out that pyramids are landing stages for the mother ships.
And three's no evidence to suggest that there were any ships, mother or otherwise.
So, what you did was make stuff up.
That's not science and it's not clever and it's not helpful.
-
A potato cannot think
It has company.
Well I worked out that pyramids are landing stages for the mother ships.
And three's no evidence to suggest that there were any ships, mother or otherwise.
So, what you did was make stuff up.
That's not science and it's not clever and it's not helpful.
Make stuff up ? I think you will find if you stick a pyramid on top of a sphere, the sphere will fall over.
Nothing wrong or inaccurate about my physics pal .
-
Of course it does not mean humans are doing it, although some of the global holes seem the cutting technology of ancient Egypt.
Coincidence ?
Most probably yes. Holes occur in nature all the time, as do caves and underground tunnels.
Or somebody on Earth using negative energy?
Um, what are you talking about here?
-
Make stuff up ? I think you will find if you stick a pyramid on top of a sphere, the sphere will fall over.
Nothing wrong or inaccurate about my physics pal .
I might be drunk right now but I'm pretty sure if the sphere had more mass than the pyramid then it wouldn't even do anything. Stick a paper pyramid on a bowling ball an watch it not turn.
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
Well, would anyone understand field polarisation shift.
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
Thank you Alan, you've cheered me up a great deal, much appreciated right now I assure you.
-
Make stuff up ? I think you will find if you stick a pyramid on top of a sphere, the sphere will fall over.
Nothing wrong or inaccurate about my physics pal .
I might be drunk right now but I'm pretty sure if the sphere had more mass than the pyramid then it wouldn't even do anything. Stick a paper pyramid on a bowling ball an watch it not turn.
True , a paper pyramid would not tilt a bowling a ball, however it would be a bumpy roll .
-
Make stuff up ? I think you will find if you stick a pyramid on top of a sphere, the sphere will fall over.
Nothing wrong or inaccurate about my physics pal .
Nice try at a strawman.
You should know by now that they don't work.
You didn't say "put a hat on a sphere" you said this
Well I worked out that pyramids are landing stages for the mother ships.
And that was made up stuff.
So, what you did was make stuff up.
That's not science and it's not clever and it's not helpful.
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
That's the most useful post in this thread.
-
In a critical balanced system, an object of the ''gears'' of that system need a critical balance or that object will wobble like an off balance car wheel.
If for some reason the balance of the object was off set, then like with a car wheel we would put on a weight to re-balance the system.
Now as Pyramids are scattered about the Earth , was this an ancient attempt by previous civilisations to re-balance the axial tilt ?
Wouldn't it be easier to move the death star "moon" around?
My point is, you're talking about an executive species aligning a planet for a certain purpose with incredible technology. If their technology was that good, wouldn't the Moon suffice, placing that correctly?
-
In a critical balanced system, an object of the ''gears'' of that system need a critical balance or that object will wobble like an off balance car wheel.
If for some reason the balance of the object was off set, then like with a car wheel we would put on a weight to re-balance the system.
Now as Pyramids are scattered about the Earth , was this an ancient attempt by previous civilisations to re-balance the axial tilt ?
Wouldn't it be easier to move the death star "moon" around?
My point is, you're talking about an executive species aligning a planet for a certain purpose with incredible technology. If their technology was that good, wouldn't the Moon suffice, placing that correctly?
Interesting and maybe so , but what if the Sun was the cause of an offset? How would we balance a sun or an whole universe for that matter?
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
"Please do excuse me for interupting, I'm actually here to buy some comets for a birthday display, but I couldn't help overhearing.
You sir, to say so, are not being clear about the factor of the long term effects of pyramid placements, nor taking on board the implications of false advertising for that matter...
Dear squire, all this fellow here is going to do for you is google earth for some yet to be discovered pyramids that litter all corners of the globe and then pawn them off as his own work. It's the oldest game in the book.
You see it's not that we can't build pyramids with modern technology, course we can, it's a peice of piss. But on account of the fact that star constellations are spookily prone to lining up with these structures, pyramid building is banned! Reason being that although no SETI investigation has ever resulted in contact, it is presumed that these creatures (that we have never seen or heard from), have far superior technology to ours, and no-one wants aliens showing up all pissed off because they can't find their way home..."
-
"My planet needs balancing. It wobbles at 1000 mph."
"Well, squire, I can put it on the balancing machine and fix a few pyramids to it, but that will only solve the problem at one speed. Trouble is, you've got the old model planet, with lots of water on the surface. Very good for supporting life, but it sloshes about, especially if you have the moon option - pretty enough at night, but a real bugger to keep steady in a complex orbit."
"OK, let's do the pyramids on this one, and I'll look around the showroom."
"Good idea, sir. Mars might suit you: two moons but no surface water - predictable on corners and if I may say so, a bit of a man's planet. 'Course if you're looking for a babe magnet, we've got a nice Venus: no moons, very pretty gas clouds, keeps one face to the sun, stable and easy to drive. Mercury is a bit of a boys' toy - hot, fast, not very comfortable. Meanwhile I'll stick some pyramids around the equator, and if that doesn't to the trick, we'll add a Great Wall."
"Please do excuse me for interupting, I'm actually here to buy some comets for a birthday display, but I couldn't help overhearing.
You sir, to say so, are not being clear about the factor of the long term effects of pyramid placements, nor taking on board the implications of false advertising for that matter...
Dear squire, all this fellow here is going to do for you is google earth for some yet to be discovered pyramids that litter all corners of the globe and then pawn them off as his own work. It's the oldest game in the book.
You see it's not that we can't build pyramids with modern technology, course we can, it's a peice of piss. But on account of the fact that star constellations are spookily prone to lining up with these structures, pyramid building is banned! Reason being that although no SETI investigation has ever resulted in contact, it is presumed that these creatures (that we have never seen or heard from), have far superior technology to ours, and no-one wants aliens showing up all pissed off because they can't find their way home..."
It's official , I am in the twilight zone .
-
Interesting and maybe so , but what if the Sun was the cause of an offset? How would we balance a sun or an whole universe for that matter?
There are probably multiple causes for the Earth's tilt. One of the big ones would be due to impacts from other objects during the Earth's formation. The collision with Theia that formed our Moon could definitely have caused significant tilt.
-
Interesting and maybe so , but what if the Sun was the cause of an offset? How would we balance a sun or an whole universe for that matter?
y..
There are probably multiple causes for the Earth's tilt. One of the big ones would be due to impacts from other objects during the Earth's formation. The collision with Theia that formed our Moon could definitely have caused significant tilt.
True there are several ways to have a tilt, but I consider the Earth's tilt is electrodynamics. Long and short ''rod'' persay..
-
I'm thinking the Earth's tilt is a very logical thing, namely how the oceans can abide gravitationally with the Moon.
The Earth rotating on a tilt I'm thinking is due to the fact the water-mass of the planet needs to be equalised with the Moon.
Take a planet of a perfect sphere with water.......does the tilt matter regarding the Moon?
Take varying land-masses with water-ways, oceans...is it possible the "tilt" is a result of the "shape" of the continents compared to the water?
One of those "butterfly effects over time" sort of thing.
-
I'm thinking the Earth's tilt is a very logical thing, namely how the oceans can abide gravitationally with the Moon.
The Earth rotating on a tilt I'm thinking is due to the fact the water-mass of the planet needs to be equalised with the Moon.
Take a planet of a perfect sphere with water.......does the tilt matter regarding the Moon?
Take varying land-masses with water-ways, oceans...is it possible the "tilt" is a result of the "shape" of the continents compared to the water?
One of those "butterfly effects over time" sort of thing.
I think gravity is not a difficult subject at all, it is a matter of balance and as a carp angler I picked up a few tricks about critical balance. Science is just a visual art put into words.
-
Balance is science
I have being doing science since I was about 4.
-
Take a planet of a perfect sphere with water.......does the tilt matter regarding the Moon?
Depends on the magnitude of planet inertia relative to the Sun or other such as a BH
If you can imagine holding a transparent sphere in your hand that was hollow and water spinning around in it, it would only start to wobble when it spins greater than your hold . The inertia equal to force 1, a limit.
''Holy'' eck , atoms can be made, intelligent design , really?
Wow
-
Box, it's like when you see something that challenges you, you go all out with your own thing.
Maybe cool it and relate to what was asked?
Give that a chance, you will get somewhere, I promise you.
-
Box, it's like when you see something that challenges you, you go all out with your own thing.
Maybe cool it and relate to what was asked?
Give that a chance, you will get somewhere, I promise you.
Sorry, I can't help the ''upload'' of new thoughts and I get a bit excited. It's not like I have just found the elixir of life is it ...
Anyway, A sphere is a giro scope, if we were to add degrees on a giro scope that is pretty much an axial tilt calculator.
By placing balance weights on places on the giro scope, we can calculate what does does what.
We can create a virtual sphere , computerised around the giro scope to work it out. A rest frame.
Or I could just mentally construct this in my mind and then on new information such has electrodynamics displacement , work out in my mind the balance needed.
-
Hey man, and I mean that, why don't you volunteer for these new Microsoft virtual reality head sets as a developer? Surely you're imaginative ability can be put to work?
-
Its state of the art stuff, but what you're saying is like you're just looking to put you're ideas into imaginative use. Why not?
Check out the latest offers Microsoft VR.
Scared?
-
I am being "very" serious. I've seen you're diagrams, and so on. Ever thought of being a Microsoft VR developer?
The hard bit is matching you're image of reality with reality via algorithms that isn't that hard once you get to know how to do that.
This stuff is event-horizon material in VR, and to do that with physics I'm sure even physicists haven't had the time to consider.
-
Its state of the art stuff, but what you're saying is like you're just looking to put you're ideas into imaginative use. Why not?
Check out the latest offers Microsoft VR.
Scared?
I am not scared, ''he'' is scared.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
This stuff comes and goes.
The timing.
Don't fool yourself, you're interested in diagramming reality. That's VR, whether right or wrong. Don't throw away that interest because you can't build a device to prove you're stuff, you can still use you're will to imagine how reality can be nonetheless animated, right?
-
Microsoft VR developer
In a box in a box hey , an alternative mind experience. Do you feel small?
I think I would blow microsofts minds, causing them all anxiety . My thoughts look at all the boxes and tick all the right boxes. I have to huff and puff while I am doing this or I would blow my own mind.
-
This stuff comes and goes.
The timing.
Don't fool yourself, you're interested in diagramming reality. That's VR, whether right or wrong. Don't throw away that interest because you can't build a device to prove you're stuff, you can still use you're will to imagine how reality can be nonetheless animated, right?
Well I can use my will to view reality in alternative ways. A virtual reality being one possibility. However there is a possibility of a physical virtual reality, where things are real but the reality isn't.
However a creator of this reality would be no more wiser to their own reality. Could a virtual reality create a virtual reality?
The realities could occupy the same space and ''run'' simultaneously.
-
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-au/windows/mixed-reality/
The headset though for developers is about 5K US.
It's not for kids, developers only.
-
I can see this might not be your thing right now.
-
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-au/windows/mixed-reality/
The headset though for developers is about 5K US.
It's not for kids, developers only.
Nice, I think virtual reality could maybe go beyond a headset though. Also I think I have the answer to AI , quite a strange answer but pretty cool.
-
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy
-
Its a new way of designing.
-
Almost certain I'll be needing to use this with my work.
-
Its a new way of designing.
Cool , I have just designed in my thinking a better version than that , you would not know the experience was not real, if you died in the experience , you die for real. I hope I continue in this experience, I have become attached to it. I am not lonely in here.
added- well I am lonely, but not has lonely as outside my experience, I need something new.
-
Almost certain I'll be needing to use this with my work.
That's proper cool. I could not afford one of them , I have to have my designs in my head, I can live a virtual reality. I can create an imaginary world, I can create other imaginary worlds. Am I stuck in the program? If so leave me here lol .
-
Box, you're asking yourself or someone else...........I think you have ability, and I think you should use it. But throwing theories in the face of data you're not using that everyone else "is" an interview disaster.
-
Box, you're asking yourself or someone else...........I think you have ability, and I think you should use it. But throwing theories in the face of data you're not using that everyone else "is" an interview disaster.
I have no Data to go off, I have to try to imagine what Data I am going off. I have to question my own sanity, I am not surprised scientists go mad.
But in taking a deep breath, when I start any new job, I know to sit back and listen and learn until I am either asked a question or am asked to get the ''sweeping brush'' out .
I am not too proud to sweep the flaw so we don't fall over . I have years of health and safety protocols behind me. Nobody gets hurt on my ''shifts''.
I know the difference in qualified and unqualified. I would not be qualified to try be boss, but I would be qualified in I can think.
P.s I am curious though so will ask questions involving the job at hand to learn that job.
added- I am not crazy, I just don't know for absolute certain things. Knowing is the strongest form of emotion, I need to know everything to know everything and think about everything. I can't think precisely and accurately with half a story. I can't behave accordingly.
-
I think people just forgot how to act.
-
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/hololens/buy
A bit like Bruce Almighty?
-
Anyway it was quite obvious that the ancients used a Tesla coil to levitate the huge sand stones into position.
At 7.83 Hz :D
-
Light bulbs?
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I would be qualified in I can think.
Got any evidence of that?
-
I would be qualified in I can think.
Got any evidence of that?
I got plenty, but you know what? Stuff this I have had enough of crap . You go live your life of fake illusion and be happy with it. I am out of here and will go live my own life keeping my ideas to myself. Your nothing but a jumped up little troll, thinks you are all that, when you are nothing and mean nothing to me. Your just bacteria in a dish, before long the world will run out of energy. Then the world will become animals again, dog eat dog.
How funny hey ..I am laughing , find it hilarious. I don't care if the world ends. @ ''You'' are not worth it.
-
Give MR Chemist the reaction he craves for, that is the only thing he understands. He got anger issues.
-
I consider the Earth's tilt is electrodynamics.
Reality doesn't.
-
I would be qualified in I can think.
Got any evidence of that?
I got plenty, but you know what? Stuff this I have had enough of crap . You go live your life of fake illusion and be happy with it. I am out of here and will go live my own life keeping my ideas to myself. Your nothing but a jumped up little troll, thinks you are all that, when you are nothing and mean nothing to me. Your just bacteria in a dish, before long the world will run out of energy. Then the world will become animals again, dog eat dog.
How funny hey ..I am laughing , find it hilarious. I don't care if the world ends. @ ''You'' are not worth it.
@Thebox kind of cyberbullying here mate, they are only trying to help you! No need for any of this though is there? I've read plenty of your posts and people like @Kryptid @Bored chemist @Colin2B ETC have all tried to help you and been met with abuse the majority of the time. It's really unfair, I'm no moderator or whatever but if someone is trying to help you at least be pleasant instead of calling them trolls and stuff.
-
I would be qualified in I can think.
Got any evidence of that?
I got plenty, but you know what? Stuff this I have had enough of crap . You go live your life of fake illusion and be happy with it. I am out of here and will go live my own life keeping my ideas to myself. Your nothing but a jumped up little troll, thinks you are all that, when you are nothing and mean nothing to me. Your just bacteria in a dish, before long the world will run out of energy. Then the world will become animals again, dog eat dog.
How funny hey ..I am laughing , find it hilarious. I don't care if the world ends. @ ''You'' are not worth it.
@Thebox kind of cyberbullying here mate, they are only trying to help you! No need for any of this though is there? I've read plenty of your posts and people like @Kryptid @Bored chemist @Colin2B ETC have all tried to help you and been met with abuse the majority of the time. It's really unfair, I'm no moderator or whatever but if someone is trying to help you at least be pleasant instead of calling them trolls and stuff.
It's not bullying, me and Mr C have developed an ''attachment'' where we wind each other up. Mr C knows I like him a lot in a friend way. We have history together on here, It is only having fun while learning. Mr C always drives me forward, tries to get me to try harder . I fully respect all , I never get proper angry , but Mr C knows what buttons to press. Well it seems that way, he probably can't stand me :D
added- Sorry Mr C it was bit o.t.t
added- Sorry sincerely , I am letting my personal situation affect my posts and it is wrong of me to do this.
-
It is only having fun while learning.
You don't learn.
-
, you can still use you're will to imagine how reality can be nonetheless animated, right?
I have had a great idea already, the idea though quite freaked me out :D
''how reality can be nonetheless animated'', I could be a hand me down , I could of in a past experience shared myself, my thoughts. Making clones of myself to continue when I am gone. The clone would think it was me, well I would think I was me but really I am a clone of my former self with all my memories.
Scary lol
-
It is only having fun while learning.
You don't learn.
Lol I have never tried .
-
Lol I have never tried .
Which shows why you shouldn't be on this site.
-
Lol I have never tried .
Which shows why you shouldn't be on this site.
Which shows I have cognitive ease and I am that good at thinking, I do not have to try . lol
-
Lol I have never tried .
Which shows why you shouldn't be on this site.
Which shows I have cognitive ease and I am that good at thinking, I do not have to try . lol
And yet, you don't learn.
-
Lol I have never tried .
Which shows why you shouldn't be on this site.
Which shows I have cognitive ease and I am that good at thinking, I do not have to try . lol
And yet, you don't learn.
If learn is to remember and remember is to learn, is that not thinking without thinking?
-
And yet, you don't learn.
-
And yet, you don't learn.
Tell me Mr C, what would you want me too learn or think I need to learn?
Do you not think that if I filled my storage space completely then my thinking might run slow?
How can I create new information if I have no room for new information because it is full of old information?
I would hit a wall and still be stuck on 100 year old science.
-
You need to learn what constitutes scientific evidence for a start.
-
You need to learn what constitutes scientific evidence for a start.
Somethings need no evidence, example statement
I walk on the ground , the ground is objectively real in the sense of it feels solid.
So what evidence do you think the above statement needs?
-
I can remove all the substance of the Universe but I cannot objectively remove space.
What evidence does that statement need?
It is obvious and fact you can't do anything with space it is nothingness.
The evidence is the fact we cannot remove space.
Added- I can flap my arms and fly
False, the evidence shows I cannot .
Evidence comes in forms ,
1) Can
2) Cannot
3)works
4)fails
5)does
6)doesn't
Can anyone remove space from space?
Evidence you can't . It is evident you can't. Is that difficult to understand?
-
The Earth rotating on a tilt I'm thinking is due to the fact the water-mass of the planet needs to be equalised with the Moon.
Mars has an axial tilt slightly more than that of Earth (25.19 degrees vs. 23.44 degrees) yet it has no large satellites, so I doubt that's the reason. At least not the sole reason.
-
The Earth rotating on a tilt I'm thinking is due to the fact the water-mass of the planet needs to be equalised with the Moon.
Mars has an axial tilt slightly more than that of Earth (25.19 degrees vs. 23.44 degrees) yet it has no large satellites, so I doubt that's the reason. At least not the sole reason.
If the oceans are moving relative to the Moon , they are moving relative to the Earth also , so shouldn't really affect the Earths tilt due to pretty friction-less. Sort of like a skin sliding around a fixed inner skin. Probably causes some wobble.
-
You need to learn what constitutes scientific evidence for a start.
Somethings need no evidence, example statement
I walk on the ground , the ground is objectively real in the sense of it feels solid.
So what evidence do you think the above statement needs?
It isn't supported by any evidence so I must conclude that it may not be true.
You might be a wheelchair user.
You might be a computer generated "AI"
Like I said. You need to find out what constitutes scientific evidence.
-
You need to learn what constitutes scientific evidence for a start.
Somethings need no evidence, example statement
I walk on the ground , the ground is objectively real in the sense of it feels solid.
So what evidence do you think the above statement needs?
It isn't supported by any evidence so I must conclude that it may not be true.
You might be a wheelchair user.
You might be a computer generated "AI"
Like I said. You need to find out what constitutes scientific evidence.
I am not AI and I am not in a wheel chair . I know what constitutes as scientific evidence. Predictable and testable and repeatable.
Try to remove space please.
I predict you can't , I predict you can repeat the experiment over and over and get the same result every-time.
Evidence , there you go .
Try it repeat my experiment, ''I'' used several nukes in the past, look on you-tube for the footage.
-
Somethings need no evidence, example statement
All things need evidence. Sometimes things that seem to be common sense can be wrong.
I walk on the ground , the ground is objectively real in the sense of it feels solid.
So what evidence do you think the above statement needs?
This is a little bit confusing. Things don't have to feel solid in order to be real (such as light and heat) nor does feeling solid mean that it is real (things can feel solid in dreams).
-
I am not AI and I am not in a wheel chair
Assertion is not proof.
-
Somethings need no evidence, example statement
I disagree, axioms are evidence. Like the sky exists, it needs no evidence that the sky exists. Even if the sky was VR, it still exists in the form of energy.
All things need evidence. Sometimes things that seem to be common sense can be wrong.
Common sense is something not everyone has. People with real common sense know objective axiom values from make believe. The possible and impossibles.
This is a little bit confusing. Things don't have to feel solid in order to be real (such as light and heat) nor does feeling solid mean that it is real (things can feel solid in dreams).
I am referring to touch rather than feel, solid is not solid in dreams , well not that I am aware of. Light is a solid, crooks device shows that and light sails. Heat is not solid , heat is a sense .
-
I disagree, axioms are evidence.
That sounds contradictory. If something doesn't need evidence, and axioms are evidence, then they don't need axioms either. Calling something an axiom doesn't necessarily mean that is an axiom either.
Like the sky exists, it needs no evidence that the sky exists. Even if the sky was VR, it still exists in the form of energy.
The sky can be detected. That is evidence of its existence. If it could not be detected, there would be no evidence of its existence.
Common sense is something not everyone has. People with real common sense know objective axiom values from make believe. The possible and impossibles.
What is possible and what is impossible are deduced from evidence.
I am referring to touch rather than feel
How are those different?
solid is not solid in dreams , well not that I am aware of.
Objects can feel just as solid in dreams as in waking life, so merely "feeling" solid is not evidence of an object's reality.
Light is a solid, crooks device shows that and light sails.
Light is not solid. It has momentum, but so do gases and liquids. By definition, gases and liquids are not solids.
Heat is not solid , heat is a sense .
Yet we know it exists despite not being solid.
-
That sounds contradictory. If something doesn't need evidence, and axioms are evidence, then they don't need axioms either. Calling something an axiom doesn't necessarily mean that is an axiom either.
I will start with this part .
To me an axiom is an absolute, having no other answer or logic that can explain it or answer it . Things that are self evident absolutes.
Can you or anybody create or destroy space?
No is an axiom.
-
I will start with this part .
To me an axiom is an absolute, having no other answer or logic that can explain it or answer it . Things that are self evident absolutes.
Can you or anybody create or destroy space?
No is an axiom.
Just because you claim that to be an axiom doesn't mean it is.
-
I will start with this part .
To me an axiom is an absolute, having no other answer or logic that can explain it or answer it . Things that are self evident absolutes.
Can you or anybody create or destroy space?
No is an axiom.
Just because you claim that to be an axiom doesn't mean it is.
Who are you trying to convince? I know it is an axiom, it very obvious and very testable.
You can occupy a space and temporarily fill that space, but once you have moved , the space is observed again.
-
Who are you trying to convince? I know it is an axiom, it very obvious and very testable.
It's also "obvious" that the Earth is flat and that the Sun goes around the Earth,
You can occupy a space and temporarily fill that space, but once you have moved , the space is observed again.
That doesn't prove anything.
-
It's also "obvious" that the Earth is flat and that the Sun goes around the Earth,
It is obvious people say the earth is flat and it is also obvious people say the world is round. I don't know either way I have never been to space.
I just accept its round like science tells us.
-
I disagree, axioms are evidence.
Wrong, pretty much by definition, and proof of my assertion that you don't understand what evidence is.
Until you get to grips with that problem you are not going to do anything useful here.
-
I disagree, axioms are evidence.
Wrong, pretty much by definition, and proof of my assertion that you don't understand what evidence is.
Until you get to grips with that problem you are not going to do anything useful here.
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
Space cannot be created or destroyed, space does not age. Space is absolute.
Proof
-
Test me and you will lose my friend.
-
Test me and you will lose my friend.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Test me and you will lose my friend.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
lol
-
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
Space cannot be created or destroyed, space does not age. Space is absolute.
Proof
Except that is just an assertion. Assertions are not proof of anything.
-
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion.
Space cannot be created or destroyed, space does not age. Space is absolute.
Proof
Except that is just an assertion. Assertions are not proof of anything.
Space is absolute is not an assertion, space is nothingness, something that can't be created.
-
Space is absolute is not an assertion, space is nothingness, something that can't be created.
You just asserted it. That makes it an assertion.
-
Space is absolute is not an assertion, space is nothingness, something that can't be created.
You just asserted it. That makes it an assertion.
No, I am not asserting anything, I am pointing out the truth and fact.
Space does not age
Space cannot be created or destroyed
Space does not move
Space is independent of substance
All true outside of beliefs. Test any of those facts, show falsifiable?
-
No, I am not asserting anything, I am pointing out the truth and fact.
According to dictionary.com, an assertion is "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief": https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=assertion (https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=assertion)
So yes, what you have made are assertions.
Space does not move
I guess that rules out your claim that space-time can "spin" around wires, doesn't it?
All true outside of beliefs.
Another assertion.
Test any of those facts, show falsifiable?
You're the person making the claim. It's up to you to do that.
-
According to dictionary.com, an assertion is "a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief": https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=assertion (https://www.google.com/search?q=Dictionary#dobs=assertion)
So yes, what you have made are assertions.
I stand corrected, assertion did not mean what I thought it meant. Thank you for the education.
I guess that rules out your claim that space-time can "spin" around wires, doesn't it?
Not at all, space-time is spacial fields , the substance that occupies space and curves. I want to make a quantum catapult but I would need a black hole lol .
You're the person making the claim. It's up to you to do that.
Well I tried to destroy space using a lighter, it failed to destroy space. So I went on you-tube and found a nuke, that failed to destroy space.
I borrowed a JCB and tried to move space, the space just passed through the JCB,
Lol it is very obvious
-
Well I tried to destroy space using a lighter, it failed to destroy space. So I went on you-tube and found a nuke, that failed to destroy space.
I borrowed a JCB and tried to move space, the space just passed through the JCB,
So you tried three different things to destroy or move space. Since none of them worked, you concluded that it couldn't be done with any method at all. That would be like Thomas Edison giving up on creating a working light-bulb after only three failed attempts and concluding that it was impossible.
Lol it is very obvious
It is "very obvious" that the Earth is flat.
-
It is "very obvious" that the Earth is flat.
A Star exploding does not destroy space, there isn't anything I can think up to move or destroy space. I can think up things to move fields but not space. I have not give up as you say, there is just no way, it is an impossibility, you can fill space, but the space still remains even when full. I have spent years trying to destroy space.
Its not obvious the world is flat, it is round as far as I am aware.
-
A Star exploding does not destroy space, there isn't anything I can think up to move or destroy space. I can think up things to move fields but not space. I have not give up as you say, there is just no way, it is an impossibility, you can fill space, but the space still remains even when full. I have spent years trying to destroy space.
Arguing that space cannot be destroyed because you can't figure out how to do it is the argument from incredulity fallacy.
-
A Star exploding does not destroy space, there isn't anything I can think up to move or destroy space. I can think up things to move fields but not space. I have not give up as you say, there is just no way, it is an impossibility, you can fill space, but the space still remains even when full. I have spent years trying to destroy space.
Arguing that space cannot be destroyed because you can't figure out how to do it is the argument from incredulity fallacy.
Ok I will accept that if you can give an example of how space can be destroyed?
How can nothing be destroyed when nothing does not have an existence?
-
Ok I will accept that if you can give an example of how space can be destroyed?
I don't have to know how to destroy space in order to recognize a logical fallacy.
How can nothing be destroyed when nothing does not have an existence?
You would need to demonstrate that space is actually nothing first.
-
You would need to demonstrate that space is actually nothing first.
I have done with a balloon example , showing points of space ended up inside the balloon when inflated. Showing there was nothing stopping the balloon inflating .
Also I understand it is hard to accept for you, but nothing only has one direction it can go
nothing → something
-
I have done with a balloon example , showing points of space ended up inside the balloon when inflated. Showing there was nothing stopping the balloon inflating .
That doesn't demonstrate that space is nothing.
Also I understand it is hard to accept for you, but nothing only has one direction it can go
nothing → something
Do you have evidence for this?
-
That doesn't demonstrate that space is nothing.
It demonstrates u0 of space, nothingness.
-
It demonstrates u0 of space, nothingness.
What does "u0" mean?
-
Do you have evidence for this?
Huh? Seriously to me you are asking some unbelievable questions like as if you have become a bot. Only a bot would not understand that 0 only has one direction it can go .
Are you human?
-
It demonstrates u0 of space, nothingness.
What does "u0" mean?
permeability
-
permeability
Oh, you meant μ0. How does that demonstrate that space is nothing?
Huh? Seriously to me you are asking some unbelievable questions like as if you have become a bot. Only a bot would not understand that 0 only has one direction it can go .
Are you human?
Zero is a number. It doesn't go in directions (whatever that is supposed to mean).
-
Oh, you meant μ0. How does that demonstrate that space is nothing?
Because it did not oppose the balloons surface.
Zero is a number. It doesn't go in directions (whatever that is supposed to mean).
0 is nothing , nothing only has one way it can go
-
empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience
The evidence I provided is empiricism .
a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.
Which should apply to set theory also .
-
absence of evidence as evidence of absence of something
Wow that is a mouth full.
There is not an absence of evidence that space cannot be destroyed. There is many many explosions in the universe and it is evident that space cannot be destroyed.
I have demonstrated the evidence, ''your'' absence of any evidence to the contrary , in itself the proof .
Not one piece of evidence provided in defence compared to the several demonstrations I have shown.
added - I just tried some super hot plasma to destroy space and guess what ?
Space is still there. Space did not age either it has no motion.
-
The logical way to prove it to you is a magic trick, in this video observe how the space appears from nowhere
-
Because it did not oppose the balloons surface.
Nor did anyone say that space is supposed to oppose it. You seem to be conflating an entity's existence with tangibility and/or drag forces.
0 is nothing , nothing only has one way it can go
Nothing can't "go" anywhere. There is nothing there to do any going.
empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience
The evidence I provided is empiricism .
"What I tried didn't work, therefore it can't be done," is poor evidence.
a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.
Which should apply to set theory also .
Except you haven't falsified anything critical to proving that space can be created or destroyed.
absence of evidence as evidence of absence of something
Wow that is a mouth full.
There is not an absence of evidence that space cannot be destroyed.
Only in particular cases. You have not demonstrated a general case that holds for every possible scenario.
There is many many explosions in the universe and it is evident that space cannot be destroyed.
You haven't ruled out non-explosion methods of destroying space.
I have demonstrated the evidence, ''your'' absence of any evidence to the contrary , in itself the proof .
Not one piece of evidence provided in defence compared to the several demonstrations I have shown.
Your evidence is not conclusive. All you have done is ruled out certain methods for destroying space. This is rather like a person from the 1800s making a list of things that cannot fly to the Moon and using that as "proof" that humans would never fly to the Moon.
added - I just tried some super hot plasma to destroy space and guess what ?
Space is still there. Space did not age either it has no motion.
You're the one who tried it? Funny. I thought the Sun was the one making the plasma...
The logical way to prove it to you is a magic trick
That doesn't prove space can't be destroyed.
in this video observe how the space appears from nowhere
If it really is appearing from nowhere, that's the same as space being created. That would contradict your claim that space cannot be created. Perhaps what you meant to say was that it only "looks" like it appears from nowhere?
-
Can someone clarify the link between the destructibility (or otherwise) of space and the origins of the pyramids?
The pyramids were built by people who didn't think the Earth was rotating, so they can't have been trying to balance that rotation.
It's probably time to close the thread.
-
Because it did not oppose the balloons surface.
Nor did anyone say that space is supposed to oppose it. You seem to be conflating an entity's existence with tangibility and/or drag forces.
0 is nothing , nothing only has one way it can go
Nothing can't "go" anywhere. There is nothing there to do any going.
empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience
The evidence I provided is empiricism .
"What I tried didn't work, therefore it can't be done," is poor evidence.
a hypothesis may be falsified if a vital predicted observation is not found empirically.
Which should apply to set theory also .
Except you haven't falsified anything critical to proving that space can be created or destroyed.
absence of evidence as evidence of absence of something
Wow that is a mouth full.
There is not an absence of evidence that space cannot be destroyed.
Only in particular cases. You have not demonstrated a general case that holds for every possible scenario.
There is many many explosions in the universe and it is evident that space cannot be destroyed.
You haven't ruled out non-explosion methods of destroying space.
I have demonstrated the evidence, ''your'' absence of any evidence to the contrary , in itself the proof .
Not one piece of evidence provided in defence compared to the several demonstrations I have shown.
Your evidence is not conclusive. All you have done is ruled out certain methods for destroying space. This is rather like a person from the 1800s making a list of things that cannot fly to the Moon and using that as "proof" that humans would never fly to the Moon.
added - I just tried some super hot plasma to destroy space and guess what ?
Space is still there. Space did not age either it has no motion.
You're the one who tried it? Funny. I thought the Sun was the one making the plasma...
The logical way to prove it to you is a magic trick
That doesn't prove space can't be destroyed.
in this video observe how the space appears from nowhere
If it really is appearing from nowhere, that's the same as space being created. That would contradict your claim that space cannot be created. Perhaps what you meant to say was that it only "looks" like it appears from nowhere?
Just no,....bangs head against wall.
-
Just no,....bangs head against wall.
Actually, it's just yes.
Your problem may be that you don't accept reality.
-
Just no,....bangs head against wall.
Actually, it's just yes.
Your problem may be that you don't accept reality.
just no, bangs head against wall
-
"What I tried didn't work, therefore it can't be done," is poor evidence.
Right, to look for evidence if my statement was true we would test the statement.
Space cannot be destroyed
So how would we test this ? We would try to destroy it right ? If we could not destroy it that would be evidence it cannot be destroyed .
Well there is no weapon that destroy space, there is no act of nature that can destroy space, there is no act in the Universe that can destroy space, I can't even destroy space using my mind and thinking. There is not a single way to destroy space.
Even if we were to contract space back to a single point, the point is still surrounded by space.
That is evidence and regardless of yourself looking for excuses like the dog ate the homework type excuse, the evidence is overwhelming .
added- so understand relativistic space-time (spacial fields) occupies absolute space. Absolute space the relative rest frame of the universe.
-
Moving on space does not age and has no time. There is no evidence and no mechanism for space to age or have a time.
There is lots of visual evidence that space does not alter in appearance or age , photo graphic evidence from history up until now.
-
Right, to look for evidence if my statement was true we would test the statement.
Space cannot be destroyed
So how would we test this ? We would try to destroy it right ? If we could not destroy it that would be evidence it cannot be destroyed .
Depends on how thorough you are. If a 5 year-old can't open a medicine bottle, would it be rational to conclude that it cannot be opened at all?
Well there is no weapon that destroy space
Not at the moment.
there is no act of nature that can destroy space, there is no act in the Universe that can destroy space
You don't know that. You don't know all of the possible phenomena that exist in nature.
I can't even destroy space using my mind and thinking.
Unless you're a psychokinetic, you shouldn't expect to be able to affect reality with your mind anyway.
There is not a single way to destroy space.
You don't know that.
Even if we were to contract space back to a single point, the point is still surrounded by space.
By definition, it would not be.
That is evidence and regardless of yourself looking for excuses like the dog ate the homework type excuse, the evidence is overwhelming .
If that's true, then the evidence is also overwhelming that we will never send people to Mars because no one has done it yet.
-
Depends on how thorough you are. If a 5 year-old can't open a medicine bottle, would it be rational to conclude that it cannot be opened at all?
I am thorough, the proof you have not thought of a way yourself is proof . I am happy to accept any logical way of destroying space if there was one.
Nothingness has nothing to destroy and that is the reason nothingness is forever.
You can destroy something but with surety you cannot destroy nothing. You can create nothing by destroying something and you can add something to nothing to have something, but removing nothing , displacing nothing, destroying nothing is an impossibility.
Think dude!
P.s Accepting this to be true does not alter present physics any. It helps physics , it gives us the absolute relative rest frame .
-
Consider the next time you write a post, the letters are going left to right , relative to the rest frame of the screen .
space 000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
object11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
-
Right, to look for evidence if my statement was true we would test the statement.
Space cannot be destroyed
So how would we test this ? We would try to destroy it right ? If we could not destroy it that would be evidence it cannot be destroyed .
Well there is no weapon that destroy space, there is no act of nature that can destroy space, there is no act in the Universe that can destroy space, I can't even destroy space using my mind and thinking. There is not a single way to destroy space.
Even if we were to contract space back to a single point, the point is still surrounded by space.
That is evidence and regardless of yourself looking for excuses like the dog ate the homework type excuse, the evidence is overwhelming .
And yet tomorrow, someone may come up with a way to destroy it.
-
Right, to look for evidence if my statement was true we would test the statement.
Space cannot be destroyed
So how would we test this ? We would try to destroy it right ? If we could not destroy it that would be evidence it cannot be destroyed .
Well there is no weapon that destroy space, there is no act of nature that can destroy space, there is no act in the Universe that can destroy space, I can't even destroy space using my mind and thinking. There is not a single way to destroy space.
Even if we were to contract space back to a single point, the point is still surrounded by space.
That is evidence and regardless of yourself looking for excuses like the dog ate the homework type excuse, the evidence is overwhelming .
And yet tomorrow, someone may come up with a way to destroy it.
Well in about 14 billion years nobody or thing as destroyed it, so I very much doubt it.
-
I am thorough, the proof you have not thought of a way yourself is proof
"Neither of us can figure it out, so it can't be done" is still the argument from incredulity fallacy.
The Big Crunch model does provide a way of destroying space, as the contraction of space is effectively the same as destroying some of it. We don't know if a Big Crunch will actually happen, but at least the physics and math are there (too much gravity forces the Universe to collapse in on itself).
Nothingness has nothing to destroy and that is the reason nothingness is forever.
You can destroy something but with surety you cannot destroy nothing. You can create nothing by destroying something and you can add something to nothing to have something, but removing nothing , displacing nothing, destroying nothing is an impossibility.
Think dude!
Space is not nothingness. Nothingness cannot have any dimensions (because, by definition, nothingness is nothing at all. Not even dimensions). Space has three dimensions, so it isn't nothingness.
P.s Accepting this to be true does not alter present physics any.
Physics does not regard space as nothingness, so it does alter physics.
it gives us the absolute relative rest frame .
Then it greatly alters physics, as relativity tells us there is no absolute rest frame.
-
Well in about 14 billion years nobody or thing as destroyed it, so I very much doubt it.
How would you know if someone (or something) had destroyed a bit of it somewhere?
Anyway, the pyramids were built as tombs- they say so.
-
"Neither of us can figure it out, so it can't be done" is still the argument from incredulity fallacy.
The Big Crunch model does provide a way of destroying space, as the contraction of space is effectively the same as destroying some of it. We don't know if a Big Crunch will actually happen, but at least the physics and math are there (too much gravity forces the Universe to collapse in on itself).
Your doing it again and forgetting what space is, the big crunch again is based on substance, not space. Your arguments are invalid arguments, in fact they are not even a counter argument of any description.
I say you can't destroy space, unless you can prove you can or give an argument of how you can, then obviously you can't .
I can't fly, your argument would be I may be able to in the future. Absurdity.
-
Anyway, the pyramids were built as tombs- they say so.
Well in about 14 billion years nobody or thing as destroyed it, so I very much doubt it.
How would you know if someone (or something) had destroyed a bit of it somewhere?
Anyway, the pyramids were built as tombs- they say so.
Who's they ? the mummies?
Some Pyramids have no mummies , so how do you explain them ?
-
Who's they ?
The pyramids which have writing in them.
Also, the dead bodies are a bit of a give-away.
-
Who's they ?
The pyramids which have writing in them.
Also, the dead bodies are a bit of a give-away.
What about the ones with no bodies in them ?
What about the Philadelphia experiment that used pyramids?
-
What about the Philadelphia experiment that used pyramids?
Other science fiction is available
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Experiment_(film)
Do you realise that sort of thing makes you look silly?
-
What about the Philadelphia experiment that used pyramids?
Other science fiction is available
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Experiment_(film)
Do you realise that sort of thing makes you look silly?
According to some footage I watched it was a real experiment with many scientists involved and they used pyramids shapes .
I guess not then and stand corrected.
-
Your doing it again and forgetting what space is,
It isn't the nothingness you claim it to be, that's for sure.
If three-dimensional space is nothing, wouldn't that make two-dimensional space less than nothing?
the big crunch again is based on substance, not space.
Another thing to add to "The List of Things Thebox Doesn't Understand": The Big Crunch.
Your arguments are invalid arguments, in fact they are not even a counter argument of any description.
My arguments are to show that your certainty is unfounded.
I say you can't destroy space, unless you can prove you can or give an argument of how you can, then obviously you can't .
"If you can't prove me wrong, then I'm right," is the argument from ignorance fallacy.
I can't fly, your argument would be I may be able to in the future. Absurdity.
We understand the laws of physics, biology and gravity well enough to explain why a human can't fly. We know of no laws of science that say "you can't destroy space".
-
three-dimensional space
Is a measurement system.
It's ok, I am giving up, I am going allow myself to forget science and go and live instead. I have tried to long now so is time I realise it is not going anywhere and give up.
My moral is at rock bottom, my passion is fading into disappointment, I am mentally worn out and inspiration is just becoming OCD.
-
It's ok, I am giving up, I am going allow myself to forget science and go and live instead. I have tried to long now so is time I realise it is not going anywhere and give up.
Color me skeptical. You'll be back to posting about this kind of stuff again in the future. I have no doubts.
-
It's ok, I am giving up, I am going allow myself to forget science and go and live instead. I have tried to long now so is time I realise it is not going anywhere and give up.
Color me skeptical. You'll be back to posting about this kind of stuff again in the future. I have no doubts.
Maybe , maybe not, I think maybe realisation needs to take hold of me and give me a kick. I suppose it was just all a dream I created out of desperation to be free from being a prisoner of circumstance.
I stand down and will just become ''invisible'', maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but as soon as I can stop myself from posting.
-
I think maybe realisation needs to take hold of me and give me a kick.
Sounds good.
-
I think maybe realisation needs to take hold of me and give me a kick.
Sounds good.
0-0=0
nothing lost in trying