Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No one got "tripped up." Seems you're not tracking very well...
Someone who likes to write "suck it up butter cup" was making an argument about "puerile dumbstuff."
"Levels of intellect and maturity."
You don't see the irony? The reason to laugh?
I do learnme. We have to put in actual claims to see who is doing what. Right now we have you accusing me and me accusing you . then we have teamies jumping in. lets put in actual claims and compare them. then lets watch what happens. you know, to see where science fits in.
or we can use mystics?
His belief is spacetime exchanges information via QED and we are just part of that exchange. Basically we are subset of a larger more complex information exchange.
whats your belief? or at least do have a idea that is more plausible than his?
You have explained exactly why my my og theory is stupid. It is consistent with some vague observations as I claimed in my post. But physics and meteorology are much better at explaining wind.
For me to come up with a theory explaining wind, it is not enough for it to be vaguely consistent. I have to show that it is better that the other theories out there, and that thereis strong evidence for my theory.
You "you and I can walk outside" is like my "the farting dog moves the air, and I observe the air moving." It is consistent with observation in a vague and stupid way. It is my job to prove that by farting dog is a better explanation than existing meteorology, and it is your job to show that you theory is better than existing science. You can't do that.
Yes I went outside today. I saw the trees, the birds, the soil. Biology explains how they operate and what connects them. If you want to introduce a new theory, yu have to show why it is better than the existing theory, not just plausible.
Anyway the thread starter has said this is not the discussion they were aiming for, you live with whatever broken reasoning and false science you want. Thankfully plenty of people know better.
There are so many things wrong with this post, in terms of science and engineering, I don't even know where to start. You are really not talking about the theory now. You are talking about how come you don't want to address the theory scientifically. The red flag statement is that you are not here to talk about alternate claims. so I guess you only here to tell people they wrong without even having to use science to show where they are wrong?
lets just look at the dog claim to use how science actually treats it. Assume we don't know its actually the sun heating the surface of the earth.
The dog blowing farts does not generate enough power to generate the winds we see. the butterfly effect, although possible, the possibility of friction damping the affect to such an extent that the effect becomes meaningless is more plausible. But we can wait and see. Do you see how I answered it? It wasn't with your philosophy that is for sure.
The sun heating the planet is plausible based on the observations we see. It is certainty more plausible than a dog. in fact, bringing up a dog is kind of weird. Well, if the person is trained that is. But hey ... its science ... so lets measure it. Again ... take notice of how I addressed it.
Science will say that the "Lets put it on the we are mostly wrong pile" is just adolescent thinking or a position of a person trying to put forth a personal agenda. Or just an irrational person.
Vague observations? are you really trained in physics? spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED are "vague" observations? You do know the standard model is based on those "vague observations" right?
Last edited by Arach Angle; 05-12-2021 at 04:47 PM..
There are so many things wrong with this post, in terms of science and engineering, I don't even know where to start. You are really not talking about the theory now. You are talking about how come you don't want to address the theory scientifically. The red flag statement is that you are not here to talk about alternate claims. so I guess you only here to tell people they wrong without even having to use science to show where they are wrong?
lets just look at the dog claim to use how science actually treats it. Assume we don't know its actually the sun heating the surface of the earth.
The dog blowing farts does not generate enough power to generate the winds we see. the butterfly effect, although possible, the possibility of friction damping the affect to such an extent that the effect becomes meaningless is more plausible. But we can wait and see. Do you see how I answered it? It wasn't with your philosophy that is for sure.
The sun heating the planet is plausible based on the observations we see. It is certainty more plausible than a dog. in fact, bringing up a dog is kind of weird. Well, if the person is trained that is. But hey ... its science ... so lets measure it. Again ... take notice of how I addressed it.
Science will say that the "Lets put it on the we are mostly wrong pile" is just adolescent thinking or a position of a person trying to put forth a personal agenda. Or just an irrational person.
Vague observations? are you really trained in physics? spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED are "vague" observations? You do know the standard model is based on those "vague observations" right?
Yes your theory is about spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED. My theory is about fluid dynamics and energy.
All very specific, sure.
I remember Einstein just said his theory of general relativity was about spacetime and gravity as his evidence and left it at that. Didn't bother getting any more specific that that, right? Apparently just listing stuff counts as evidence to some.
Hint - listing other physics theories is not evidence, showing exactly how those other theories show that your theory is likely to be correct would be a start. And then showing how your theory is a better explanation than existing theories would help.
My guess? You can't because your understanding is very shallow. So your theory has to be vague and shallow as well. Maybe go away and read some of the papers on QED and see the level of detail and evidence they provide.
Yes your theory is about spacetime, exchanging information via the mechanisms in QED. My theory is about fluid dynamics and energy.
Get a life. This is NOT a physics journal and no one is presenting physics papers. This is a discussion forum on Religion and Spirituality. We are making suggestions about what beliefs are plausible and which are absolutely made up out of whole cloth, like your asinine examples that have zero relevance to the discussion. If you know of any KNOWN facts or principles that would render my beliefs impossible, offer them up. Otherwise, muzzle your ego and hubris.
Get a life. This is NOT a physics journal and no one is presenting physics papers. This is a discussion forum on Religion and Spirituality. We are making suggestions about what beliefs are plausible and which are absolutely made up out of whole cloth, like your asinine examples that have zero relevance to the discussion. If you know of any KNOWN facts or principles that would render my beliefs impossible, offer them up. Otherwise, muzzle your ego and hubris.
I have no problem with those you claim to believe in God and leave science out of it. It is those who try to use pseudo science that I challenge.
Maybe you should take your own advice and keep your theories out of this thread - the thread starter has already said that is not what they opened this thread to discuss. I was not the person who first mentioned the ridiculous theories in this thread. Looking at your history of peddling your theory everywhere and at every opportunity, it is not me who needs to get a life.
You and that other poster can believe whatever you want, I just hope that other people can see that they are not based on anything more than shallow and pseudo science.
Those who believe in God as a personal choice, no problem with that whatsoever.
I have no problem with those you claim to believe in God and leave science out of it. It is those who try to use pseudo science that I challenge.
Maybe you should take your own advice and keep your theories out of this thread - the thread starter has already said that is not what they opened this thread to discuss. I was not the person who first mentioned the ridiculous theories in this thread. Looking at your history of peddling your theory everywhere and at every opportunity, it is not me who needs to get a life.
You and that other poster can believe whatever you want, I just hope that other people can see that they are not based on anything more than shallow and pseudo science.
Those who believe in God as a personal choice, no problem with that whatsoever.
Apparently, you have no clue what pseudoscience actually is since you are claiming my actual science is pseudoscience. None of the science I use is pseudo and that is easily verifiable by anyone claiming to know the relevant science. You just don't like how I USE it to justify belief in God because like the OP you don't think science can do that. That is on topic, BTW.
Apparently, you have no clue what pseudoscience actually is since you are claiming my actual science is pseudoscience. None of the science I use is pseudo and that is easily verifiable by anyone claiming to know the relevant science. You just don't like how I USE it to justify belief in God because like the OP you don't think science can do that. That is on topic, BTW.
It is not the theories you name that is pseudo science. It is saying your theory is based on science that is pseudo science. Mind you some of the theories you name are not accepted and widely thought to be wrong - the fact you don't even consider that is bad enough.
Science theory plus rubbish unsupported extrapolation equals pseudo science. Even the worst conspiracy theorists (Which you are not - this is not an accusation at you) start with some science.
Anyway you really don't have a life do you? Always peddling you rubbish theory, even in a thread where you started made it clear that is not the topic. Rather ironic that you told me to get a life.
It is not the theories you name that is pseudo science. It is saying your theory is based on science that is pseudo science. Mind you some of the theories you name are not accepted and widely thought to be wrong - the fact you don't even consider that is bad enough.
Science theory plus rubbish unsupported extrapolation equals pseudo science. Even the worst conspiracy theorists (Which you are not - this is not an accusation at you) start with some science.
Anyway you really don't have a life do you? Always peddling you rubbish theory, even in a thread where you started made it clear that is not the topic. Rather ironic that you told me to get a life.
It is clear that you could not have pursued a doctorate in any field. Your thinking is too shallow and superficial and your view of established science is too rigid for someone trained to advance the frontiers of knowledge.
It is not the theories you name that is pseudo science. It is saying your theory is based on science that is pseudo science. Mind you some of the theories you name are not accepted and widely thought to be wrong - the fact you don't even consider that is bad enough.
Science theory plus rubbish unsupported extrapolation equals pseudo science. Even the worst conspiracy theorists (Which you are not - this is not an accusation at you) start with some science.
Anyway you really don't have a life do you? Always peddling you rubbish theory, even in a thread where you started made it clear that is not the topic. Rather ironic that you told me to get a life.
your adolsentent insults aside. Try and learn something here.
Watch this series "Through time and clades". On youtube.
Its a great example of how applied science people talk. Listen to how they talk about the various theories based on evidence.
That's how science/engineers address theories. You are not interested in talking about beliefs. You are interested in something else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
