1
Just Chat! / Re: Predictions?
« on: 01/01/2021 18:33:04 »
So why if Nostradamus is right he didn't write clear sentences than writing puzzles? Because nobody will understand his puzzles and he will fool his followers forever.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 21/12/2020 16:28:23 »The interesting question is why does anyone accept religion?
Religion is not science it is what is equivalence to science.It doesn't explore the universe with minds.It explores the universe with feelings. You feel whether you go to after life or not and you feel whether this universe built by a creator or not .Science knows the creation, feelings know the creator Ancient people are not ignorant they just felt it and made imaginations for that.Today's people feel the existence of God and know the truth which is delivered by prophets.
Human is not just body that will rot , it is also life.What distinguish a dead body and living body ? both have the same matter and cells but the living body has life .The body thinks it will die and rot and spirit feels it will have eternal life. if we stop the body thoughts " death is nothingness " then we will feel the spirit feelings which is religion .This what scientists do today they have the body thoughts " death is nothingness "and then they will not make a place for the living human spirit feelings
The body naturally knows harm in not good for the body, harm will cease the body then a body feels pain to alter the human.The spirit knows immorality is harmful and pain of regret alters the human to behave well " for his eternal life "
These feelings and the spirit are in the chest:
"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being"
Genesis 2:7
3
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 21/12/2020 16:27:00 »This can be categorized as imaginationIf science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.OK, Unicorns are not real and so they are magical creatures.
4
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 20/12/2020 22:39:34 »If science describes reality then magic describes non-reality.No.
Looking in magic as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as the non-science with no rules.
Magic is not real.
5
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 20/12/2020 22:27:08 »Looking in magic as undiscovered science is a waste of time magic is not just a unique phenomenon that we are going to discover to be added to mainstream physics but is a whole of violations.It is like we are going to figure out the non-science or magic will that be useful ? every kid knows what is non-science , what is the not of water is liquid.
Simply magic can be defined as the non-science with no rules.
6
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 22:36:15 »
The universe is built by an intelligent creator.The creation is well designed. This is what religious scientists claim.No person observed the big bang ,it didn't happen , but the BBT is how physics works.God built the universe , even though according to science the universe comes from a big bang but God " magician " did it in 6 days.
The floating man needs force against gravity " physics behind universe creation " he floats without force " Without big bang " he did it " universe creation " He is the person who did it " God"
The floating man needs force against gravity " physics behind universe creation " he floats without force " Without big bang " he did it " universe creation " He is the person who did it " God"
7
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 13:41:32 »I formulate the sentence wrong Kryptid says before I discovered it I already take it as non-magical but what I was trying to say is, before I discovered it , it is unknown , after Discovered it I can describe it as magic.If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.That approach does not make sense.
So, you think your computer works by magic?
8
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 02/12/2020 10:52:35 »This only a Newtonian thought .In General Relativity gravity force is neither a push nor a pullGravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pullThe interaction between two masses is a pull.
If you drop something it is pulled to the Earth.
9
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 02/12/2020 10:27:15 »It sounds like you are still going with the argument from ignorance. You are basically saying, "If I can't figure out how he did it logically through non-magical means, then he must have used magic to do it".It is not supposed to be "non-magical" means it is supposed to be unknown means.
If I can not know how he did it through any means then he uses what I can call it magic.
10
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 01/12/2020 21:24:49 »He uses his stick for balance, and as you imply he uses the disk for balance as well .Anyway still it is not logical to keep his shape for a long time.carpet.jpg (97.13 kB . 666x280 - viewed 813 times)If he is using magic, what is the little carpet for?
11
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 01/12/2020 21:02:54 »This is the video of the man in your link and he does it. he simply uses support for his body which is logical.The man in my link can not put any hidden support .The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time.Here is a man doing essentially the same thing.
He explains how the "trick" is done,.
It is an illusion.
https://gigazine.net/gsc_news/en/20170630-silver-man-secret/
This exact one is a trick version for the real magic man https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
12
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 01/12/2020 19:56:33 »Here is my hypothesis :How are
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
those hypotheses fundamental to SR?
You put this in quotes like something official says this.
The premises of SR do not involve either of these equations. They are both Newtonian equations and the latter is only an approximation under relativity theory. SR makes no mention at all of gravitational mass.
You understood it wrong.It is my hypothesis that is fundamental for both these estimate Newtonian equation and RS ones
Gravity force is the interaction between two masses inertial force is a push or a pullf in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.I'd have said that m is inertial mass in the first equation. Force is force, and there's no inertial version of it.
I will rewrite it to be more clear
For these estimate Newtonian equations " f=ma and F=GMm/rē" when mass m changes then both f and F changes , and this also works for SR complicated equations.
And if m changes both inertial force f and gravity force F change implying a relation between inertial force and gravity force .The relation is gravity force is space-time curvature and inertia force is space-time resistance .Rest mass is connected somehow with space-time and curve it , mass still connected to space-time while it is moving.If rest mass is affected by curvature and that results in gravity acceleration then moving mass is also affected by space-time and that results in inertial acceleration.
13
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 23:45:32 »
Some easy ones are tricks some are not ,here are several explained magics
https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
But I do not have any source in which the magician himself tell its reason .
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time. The floating man is simply uses the stick for balance.
The important question is how scientifically this floating person raise himself , keep his body shape and stand still for a long period ? I did not find any explanation in the web than the above .And above all there is not an official scientific source that talk about it.
https://brightside.me/wonder-curiosities/10-secrets-behind-the-most-famous-magic-tricks-revealed-364360/
But I do not have any source in which the magician himself tell its reason .
The floating man will not tell what he is doing , but the scientific explanation in the link is impossible The person appears to raise no weight. He keeps his body shape.And he does it for a long time. The floating man is simply uses the stick for balance.
The important question is how scientifically this floating person raise himself , keep his body shape and stand still for a long period ? I did not find any explanation in the web than the above .And above all there is not an official scientific source that talk about it.
14
New Theories / Re: Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 21:19:58 »The "magic" done by stage magicians are illusions. Tricks. They are not real.This how to be describing some phenomena that do not go with science.If we see something " illusions" that it really has been done by "tricks" and when touching a box and touching the 10 men"not real ", so What it left to judge it true?
If you say the above you will also have a scientific problem by the need to define that illusion how it exists ? how this is out of our scientific observation tool ?
15
New Theories / Accepting magic ? why not religion ?
« on: 29/11/2020 19:20:45 »
So , science is real we see phenomena and explain them well.
Magic is real , we see unbelievable actions done by magicians.
Magic is real , but it contradicts science.
I see those people who fly , gathering many people from inside a small box, etc
Magic is not only about some magical performances that we don't know how they works , but also magical actions that contracts science .An example of silence contradiction : How a volume of 10 men with specific density be placed inside a small box .Or how these men disappear if mass can't be destroyed.
It is not one thing we are waiting for some scientist to explain , it is a huge reality that contracts science.
We can not ignore scientists who accept religion and have arguments whose they believe are logical and we can not ignore those scientists who reject religion and question its validity . If so why not for religion , God created the universe in 6 days and the world came from a big bang.
An equivalent :
A) A magician created a person from inside a box " religion " and
B) The person already exists " science".
If silence rejects A then it is against reality , if religion rejects B then it is a against the reality of the universe.
Magic is real , we see unbelievable actions done by magicians.
Magic is real , but it contradicts science.
I see those people who fly , gathering many people from inside a small box, etc
Magic is not only about some magical performances that we don't know how they works , but also magical actions that contracts science .An example of silence contradiction : How a volume of 10 men with specific density be placed inside a small box .Or how these men disappear if mass can't be destroyed.
It is not one thing we are waiting for some scientist to explain , it is a huge reality that contracts science.
We can not ignore scientists who accept religion and have arguments whose they believe are logical and we can not ignore those scientists who reject religion and question its validity . If so why not for religion , God created the universe in 6 days and the world came from a big bang.
An equivalent :
A) A magician created a person from inside a box " religion " and
B) The person already exists " science".
If silence rejects A then it is against reality , if religion rejects B then it is a against the reality of the universe.
16
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 23/11/2020 10:22:51 »If cone is friction-less then no contact between the cone and the ball which is equivalent to a rotating ball without put on a cone In this case circular motion equations apply by which small push will change ball path.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the coneIt would still work with a frictionless cone.
17
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 22/11/2020 21:27:12 »
So, why moon doesn't leave its orbit when hit by a meteorite , it is a matter of it moving even slight distance from earth?
The fact is the moon will move slightly and return back.
Imaging a ball rotating inside a cone with specific speed , This ball can be pushed small distance and return back again keeping its speed and orbit this is a matter of connection and friction force
So the cone scenario must be for moon as well , space-time represent the cone and ball represent the moon.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone in case of the moon there is " my force I discovered " between the moon and space-time
The fact is the moon will move slightly and return back.
Imaging a ball rotating inside a cone with specific speed , This ball can be pushed small distance and return back again keeping its speed and orbit this is a matter of connection and friction force
So the cone scenario must be for moon as well , space-time represent the cone and ball represent the moon.In case of the cone there must be friction force between the ball and the cone in case of the moon there is " my force I discovered " between the moon and space-time
18
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 19/11/2020 09:57:47 »It is a hypothesisThen it is not science.Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?I don't have one yet.
19
New Theories / Re: Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 19/11/2020 08:42:02 »Can you propose an experiment to test this idea?I doesn't have one yet.
20
New Theories / Mass gravity vs mass inertia
« on: 18/11/2020 21:51:06 »
Here is my hypothesis :
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.
If m changes in its mass then both inertial force and force of gravity will change with the same rate.
There must be a relation between mass m being affected by gravity and mass m being affected by inertial force.
If mass is connected somehow to space-time and this connection enable mass to curve space-time this connection will also enable space-time to affect motion resulting in inertia .Space-time curvature makes mass to move with acceleration and space-time opposes mass motion with inertia acceleration.
Space-time straight geometry lines will resist motion of mass m with a force F=ma in a comparison of straight lines will be curved by a mass m.
If the mass is big both curvature and the effect on moving mass will be big if this effect is big then inertia will be big.
A mass at constant speed has no increment in its mass "special relativity "in this case there will not be my moving object effect, because my effect depends on mass"just like curvature depends on mass".
For some math the difference between my effect is highly large in numbers than curvature"gravity " force of inertia is higher than force of gravity both are for the same mass
Let's say:
f=ma , and F=GMm/rē
"The hypothesis is fundamental for Both these Newtonian equations and special relativity equations"
f in the first equation is the inertial force of object m and F in the second equation is the gravity force on m.
If m changes in its mass then both inertial force and force of gravity will change with the same rate.
There must be a relation between mass m being affected by gravity and mass m being affected by inertial force.
If mass is connected somehow to space-time and this connection enable mass to curve space-time this connection will also enable space-time to affect motion resulting in inertia .Space-time curvature makes mass to move with acceleration and space-time opposes mass motion with inertia acceleration.
Space-time straight geometry lines will resist motion of mass m with a force F=ma in a comparison of straight lines will be curved by a mass m.
If the mass is big both curvature and the effect on moving mass will be big if this effect is big then inertia will be big.
A mass at constant speed has no increment in its mass "special relativity "in this case there will not be my moving object effect, because my effect depends on mass"just like curvature depends on mass".
For some math the difference between my effect is highly large in numbers than curvature"gravity " force of inertia is higher than force of gravity both are for the same mass