Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Shark on 29/10/2018 00:32:59
-
Hey, I share my greater knowledge about the universe with you. ;) I only use logic to explain things. It's not only to read, but also to think very deep and detailed about things. My intention was to make a testable theory. And there's a way to explain the greatest questions ever.
Why is there anything at all? Why not just nothing? Let's first define the exact opposite of nothingness! The exact opposite of nothingness is: 'everything existing' or 'all existing things'. Well, since I solved it, the answer lies within why nothingness can't be. Just imagine if there's nothing existing at all, how can the word nothingness mean anything? The word nothingness has no meaning if there's nothing existing at all. If there's nothing existing at all, the word nothingness can't exist either. If there isn't anything existing at all, there isn't anything that can support the fact that nothingness should be and not everything existing. There simply can't be nothing existing at all. We and everything around us exists without a beginning because nothingness can't be at all.
Well, how much is there of everything existing? You forgot one question: Is there an 'end' without a beginning? If you have a 30 cm long ruler. The beginning is at 0 cm's and the end at 30 cm's. Now remove the beginning, the ruler is no longer a ruler. It's only a piece of plastic now. Therefore there's no end without a beginning. And no beginning and no end doesn't only represent a no time beginning. It also represents that there's no limit of everything existing. Like: there are limitless different existing things (water, iron, rock, ∞ etc.), including limitless amount of each existing thing (limitless amount of water, limitless amount of iron, limitless amount of rock, ∞ etc.). You can shorten everything existing or all existing things and just call it: 'limitlessness'. Everything existing = all existing things = limitlessness. Limitlessness is not getting bigger or smaller. It's simply limitless. No beginning and no end.
Are we alone? There are limitless different species, beings, aliens, animals, insects, creatures, etc.
Are there other universes? I have no use for this word. I use limitlessness, everything existing and all existing things. With universe you can easily say another universe. However you cannot say another limitlessness/everything existing/all existing things, because as supposed to, it doesn't make sense! There's only one limitlessness/everything existing/all existing things. Even though you can't say "one" because it's limitless.
Other realities (different possibilities) then? Yes, like your dreams when you sleep. Best example for realities anyway.
Why do I dream when I sleep? Logically because you lose your consciousness here when you fall asleep. But without a beginning, there can't be an end either. Which means you can't cease to exist. If you're not here, you're elsewhere. The same example applies to death. Life can only change, however it can never end.
Is this real what I see and experience in my dreams? First, who said that dreams are dreams and that they are only dreams? And second, if we live in a limitless existence, how could they not be real? Dreams are only as real as here and now. This is because in a limitless existence there's no the centre/the centre of everything existing/all existing things/limitlessness. Just remember the example with the 30 cm ruler! A way to explain why there's no such thing as the realest place of everything existing/all existing things/limitlessness. You may think your dreams seem nonsense compared to this reality. But they think exactly the same way about our reality.
Is there a god? If everything existing can be there without a beginning, there's no need for a creator.
Time? Time without a beginning has no meaning. Time can only exist as a clock (watch). Your memories isn't the past either. It is only stored information that you can access. Like: you have not been to the x place, you've got only an image copy of the x place in your brain! Stored files on your computer is a good example. There's only the now. Everything existing is always in motion, you're a part of it. You're still in motion even if you don't do anything.
My past life (the opposite of the afterlife)? A life as a human being is only 1 of limitless other ways to exist. You don't think everywhere the same way (different realities, different beings/aliens). Because if you could remember your past life, short after you would ask yourself who you were before that life! You would have then an endless loop. This is why our memories are fading away over time. There's simply no origin to remember.
Afterlife? This knowledge only reveals that you can't cease to exist.
I hope this could help you out. I'm also on youtube under the name; "Shark's Theoretical Science". Anyway, tell me what you think about it! ;)
-
My intention was to make a testable theory.
So where are the testable parts of this theory? You have written claims, but I see that you have proposed no way to experimentally test those claims in a scientific manner.
-
So where are the testable parts of this theory? You have written claims, but I see that you have proposed no way to experimentally test those claims in a scientific manner.
It's not physical. The answer lies within the reasoning.
-
It's not physical. The answer lies within the reasoning.
Sounds like your intention to make a testable theory did not work then.
Without the ability to experimentally investigate your claims, what you have is philosophy instead of science.
-
Sounds like your intention to make a testable theory did not work then.
Without the ability to experimentally investigate your claims, what you have is philosophy instead of science.
Give it a little bit more respect. It is not that simple. It's more about me. You don't know me so you don't take a lot of energy to think about it detailed. On the other forums and youtube I also get a 50/50. Some like and some don't. But I know it works.
-
Give it a little bit more respect. It is not that simple. It's more about me. You don't know me so you don't take a lot of energy to think about it detailed. On the other forums and youtube I also get a 50/50. Some like and some don't. But I know it works.
It doesn't have anything to do with respect nor does it have anything to do with whether I like it or not. It's the simple fact of the matter that a non-falsifiable claim is unscientific by definition.
-
It doesn't have anything to do with respect nor does it have anything to do with whether I like it or not. It's the simple fact of the matter that a non-falsifiable claim is unscientific by definition.
Imagine not even Cern (LHC) was able to solve it. Think about all the projects out there that tried to solve this. This is how much respect this topic deserves. It's up to you to decide if you want to put some more energy into a topic that claims to have the answer, and study it. If I were in your position I'd be tired. At least this is how I felt before I solved it. The official science was not able to answer my question.
Maybe you look at this topic like the engineers at the free energy devices? I'd agree with them now that the free energy device doesn't work. But it's not about free energy here.
-
Imagine not even Cern (LHC) was able to solve it. Think about all the projects out there that tried to solve this. This is how much respect this topic deserves.
I didn't say that the topic didn't deserve respect.
It's up to you to decide if you want to put some more energy into a topic that claims to have the answer, and study it.
I may get to some of your more specific points in time. At the moment, I just want clarification: do you realize that what you have is philosophy and not science?
If I were in your position I'd be tired.
What position do you think that I'm in?
At least this is how I felt before I solved it.
You don't know that you've solved it. Quite a few of your claims are unfalsifiable. If you were wrong, you'd have no way of knowing it.
The official science was not able to answer my question.
Perhaps not currently. That doesn't mean it never will.
-
I may get to some of your more specific points in time. At the moment, I just want clarification: do you realize that what you have is philosophy and not science?
If it's testable it's science. Testable by exact reasoning. Example: The exact opposite of nothingness = everything existing or all existing things.
Well, theoretical science then.
-
If it's testable it's science.
No, if it's falsifiable it's science. Mere testability also includes pseudosciences such as cryptozoology, ufology and paranormal research. In principle, you could prove that there is a Bigfoot, an alien spacecraft or a ghost (if it's a well-behaved ghost), but you can't prove that they don't exist. A scientific theory must be one that is able to be falsified if it is incorrect.
Testable by exact reasoning.
Please provide a source from a scientific organization where this is considered to be a legitimate form of scientific testing. Moreover, how do you test that your "exact reasoning" is correct?
-
Please provide a source from a scientific organization where this is considered to be a legitimate form of scientific testing. Moreover, how do you test that your "exact reasoning" is correct?
Logic like 1+1=2.
-
Logic like 1+1=2.
Except that your original post contains nothing like a mathematical proof. Heck, mathematical proofs like 1+1=2 are actually physically testable by experiment. Add one cup of flour to one cup of flour and you can measure two cups of flower. You can't do that with your ideas.
-
Except that your original post contains nothing like a mathematical proof. Heck, mathematical proofs like 1+1=2 are actually physically testable by experiment. Add one cup of flour to one cup of flour and you can measure two cups of flower. You can't do that with your ideas.
I don't need to. The cup of flour to one cup of flour already proves that logic works. You can use it to explain other things. Logic is a tool.
-
I don't need to. The cup of flour to one cup of flour already proves that logic works.
The flour experiment only demonstrates the validity of one particular logical argument. There are countless others, some sound and some not. It does nothing to help those other arguments.
You can use it to explain other things. Logic is a tool.
It is still subject to being wrong. Plenty of people use logical fallacies without even realizing it. You should take a look at some of the things that our member here Thebox has posted. He claims to use purely logical deduction to arrive at "truths" that are either known to be wrong or are complete gibberish. A couple of my favorites are "if you divide a dot of energy by a piece of string, the energy is now as long as the string" and the fact that he claimed that when attraction and repulsion are equal in strength, attraction is stronger than repulsion. You can try to argue with him all you want to, but he is convinced that he has discovered "axioms" that cannot be denied.
-
I'm sorry but I don't think that the exact opposite of nothingness could be maybe a cup of tea! It's clearly everything existing or all existing things.
If you can't agree with that then you lack of logic skill.
-
I'm sorry but I don't think that the exact opposite of nothingness could be maybe a cup of tea!
Nor did I say it was.
It's clearly everything existing or all existing things.
Or it could just be "something", not necessarily "everything".