I'll address Roller to start. I'm not too informed, since what I read suggested I consult some books. A more specific, clear description about masonry can be read here. It's a long read, so search for "mason" if you want to get right to it. Basically they were enlightened, by higher forms of life. They knew how the universe worked, but wanted to keep this secret.
Originally posted by Peregrinus
Oh man, not again. If an area of study cannot be discussed and investigated in a scientifically rigorous manner, it should not have the root-word of a well-respected scientific discipline. Period. \"Metaphysics\" is not physics. In its best forms, it is most akin to philosophy and spirituality. If its claims cannot be proven in a scientific manner, it is not science.
It has been studied and discussed in a scientific, rigorous manner. All the evidence in research is there in the initial link I posted. The claims are immediately dismissed because they require the concept of \"(a)ether\" and that automatically gets them a \"No\".
Originally posted by Peregrinus
You are missing the point entirely. If you make a revolutionary claim, the burden of proof is on you to convince others of its veracity. The bolder and more revolutionary the claim, the bolder, more rigorous, and more convincing your evidence must be.
You are missing my point. There is nothing saying these claims are revolutionary, except those that want to make things more difficult. Realize that established theories are usually the first attempt to understand things. We usually know less about something the first time we try it, as opposed to the second time. Quantum mechanics and Relativity are good examples. It would make sense that newer theories are more complete. Especially when the new theories can explain problems that the original models cannot.
As far as convincing goes, realize that the majority of people don't understand physics, much less metaphysics. Sure they \"know\" F = ma, that doesn't make them an expert. How can a small percentage of society make the decision for everyone?
Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>
That’s not stacking the deck. That’s a logical requirement necessary to eliminate false conclusions drawn from coincidental or anecdotal evidence.[/b]
No, it's an illogical requirement and unnecessary. Any claim that requires more evidence than another means there is an unlevel field. If things weren't wrong, people wouldn't have anything to hide, and it would be an equal opportunity.
Originally posted by Peregrinus+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Peregrinus)</div>
You want to know why a strong tornado levels towns and forests, rips up foundations and flings roofs like Frisbees, shoots straws through chickens’ necks and 2x4s through cars? Because, as mentioned before, 300+ mph winds and intense pressure gradients...The extremely high kinetic energy of the debris is what is responsible for the many strange and unusual sights observed after many tornadoes (e.g. straws stuck straight through a chicken's neck, etc).[/b]
I want to know why there are 300+ mph winds and why there are intense pressure gradients. Why is there extremely high kinetic energy?
Also I disagree with the straw and 2x4 going through the chicken or car. I think they are actually fused into each other, as one. My favorite example is the cow that was found half inside the house, half outside the house, part of the way up the wall. The cow was still in one piece, so was the house. They were not damaged in any way, except the cow was dead (no broken bones or framing).
Originally posted by Peregrinus
Because that is the nature of the gravitational force. Why do two like charges repel while opposite charges attract? That’s the nature of the electromagnetic force.
No, not good enough. Why do we stop trying to understand here? There is more to it. Push deeper.
Eventually, it will be necessary to stop, and define axiomatic laws of the universe. I think there are exactly seven, which govern the entire universe, from the quantum realm to the cosmic realm. Several of these include Cause and Effect, Karma, etc...I just looked for the article online, but I can't find it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus@
This requires a diagram and a bit of calculus to explain, but if you really care and have the mathematical background, I’ll show you.
I do have the mathematical background, but the answer I was looking for is more than the math model, it includes the concept of levity. It defines what the cause of gravity is.
<!--QuoteBegin-Peregrinus
You want to explain where you got this idea and what evidence you have to back it up.
Again, it comes from e-book I read. See section 2.6 Here are some described experiments that show how emotion/knowledge can be transferred.
Originally posted by Peregrinus
Your claim is also completely illogical in the face of a changing understanding of the world. If what people expect determines what will manifest, then change would never occur, because people expect what has always been to continue being.
What you don't understand is that is anything conscious has a will, and the ability to influence things. Atoms, people, planets are all conscious and all capable of influencing things. It takes time, and a lot more will than just \"No things can't change\". It's not often people think \"Gee, I really want the world to stay exactly how it is\". It is about emotion and how strongly you feel. People really don't care that the world is going to stay how it is. You also need to concentrate your thought.
It's like water. When pressurized and concentrated, it can cut through diamond and stone with amazing preciseness. When not focused, like coming out of a low-pressure hose, it will hit an object and bounce off.
Originally posted by Peregrinus
No, please do explain why the arguably most ubiquitously successful scientific theory of all times is incorrect.
I'll even throw relativity in as a bonus. Two assumptions made for Relativity are:
1. The speed of light is constant, and nothing can travel faster.
2. There is no center of the universe, all things are relative.
There are massless particles, like photons that can travel faster. Light sent through magnetic fields have had about 3 times the normal speed of light. Also, there has been investigation into the decrease of the speed of light (although from now and on it won't change more than the margin of error).
Second, the universe does has a center, according to me. Galaxies are relatively flat, like discs, in one dimension, that certainly brings this claim closer. What is this center you might ask? God, of course. I think an equal argument can be made that there is no center of the universe though.
On to quantum mechanics. Scientific experiments showed that an electron is outside the nucleus of an atom. Scientists assume there have to be quantized orbitals. Why? Because otherwise there would have to be some energy to keep them from being sucked in by gravity, the atom would collapse.
First, there is research that electrons are simply in probability clouds, which justifies Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. However it is my contention that there is a very source which gives atoms (and people and planets) this energy is inward flowing (into the body). This inward flowing, goes through the middle of a body, and right back out the other side. Further, this inward flowing is exactly what causes gravity, and levity, and inertia too. Einstein's Principle of Equivalence states that the magnitude of gravity and inertia are identically the same.
Conclusion
First it should be observed that this model of physics is incomplete. The conveniently stop explaining...when they can no longer understand. There are some things that are wrong, some are incomplete, and it will take a major overhaul. This has been done, it's all been collected into the Convergence e-book. All the science has been broken down into simple terms for the commoner to understand. Otherwise, how can we expect people to understand what scientists can't?
|
|
Bookmarks