The religious cult of mainstream science guesses that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out ghatzige…can you provide the scientific evidence to prove this? …this religious cult can’t…how naive are you…It’s forbidden to ask these crank/crack pot religious cult scientists to provide the evidence to prove their guess…didn’t you know that?..lol!!!..wow!!!..They have to safeguard their fake religion somehow…they rely totally on the ignorance of the masses and gaslighting if all else fails.
What am I naive about? Take that now as rhetorical. Not interested in your presumptuous answers see below.
Can I provide the scientific evidence to prove this? I haven’t argued that it’s the case, so why would I have some onus to prove that the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic forces force absolutes cancel out? Why should I provide evidence? Why am I naive because I can’t present evidence for something I haven’t asserted and don’t believe?
I ask scientists all sorts of things, either those on the mainstream, you know, and those on the outside. I email them. I find their university addresses. Generally speaking, I’ve been treated with great respect even when challenging their ideas. Obviously, with the more, you know, not fringe, but outside the mainstream scientists, I’ve often found either direct responses from them immediately or responses through assistants. Actually, the mainstream of scientists almost always respond to me directly. Probably they’re less well-known in a way that someone like Rupert Sheldrake or Dean Radin is.
But a few reactions. You don’t really interact with what I write. You respond, but it’s often hard to tell if it actually is a response. You seem to have an anti-romantic fantasy that it is forbidden to ask questions and anyone who seems to disagree with your or might disagree with something or questions something you’ve said is out to get you and you see the deep truth they cannot manage to see. It’s very defensive. You have no idea, clearly, how I relate to mainstream science. I don’t see any evidence mainstream science worships or centers itself on or believes in Shiva. Perhaps, at best, one institution does, though even that seems like a stretch to me. Which doesn’t mean they are right about their physics. But you’re way of not interacting the the defensiveness and assumptions…it now far outweighs any curiosity I had. Carry on. I’m no longer interested in interacting with you. Wow! Lol!!! or some other teenage jibe.
1 Like
A good scientist feels happy when his/her ideas are challenged.
First reason: people have read and took time to analyze these ideas.
Second reason: When challenged seriously, it is an occasion for re-exploring the fundumentals and make sure there are no missing pieces.
Third reason: In the case where the challenge shows that the idea or theory is wrong, new research opportunities open. There is a need for further investigation on a previously “closed” topic.
Scientists in certain fields are “blocked”, because there is not enough room for new discoveries or innovation. Give them a proof that some established concepts are wrong or problematic and they will thank you profoundly.
Mainstream science cannot provide any proof whatsoever that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out and have therefore guessed that they do which is why all of their theories have failed.
Mainstream Science has guessed that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out greenfuse which isn’t scientific.
So mainstream science is a religious indian cult that is wrong in calculating 5 - 5 = 0, and makes fake science, for you. Big if true!
What if you were wrong about that? Do you recall what I asked you first about, if you could be wrong, in this thread?
Explain how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos and if you can’t then find a scientist that can….Neither of you will be able to explain how attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes can cancel out in the cosmos…..this isn’t conjecture ….this is a fact!!, therefore both your starting philosophy and your science which is founded upon the claim that attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos is a lie.Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes don’t cancel out in the cosmos so moral absolutes exist.
You don’t cancel out!!! …because you need to exist to claim that you don’t exist.
If you go to a seesaw and place equal weights on each side, the forces in the middle are repulsive from one side, attractive from the other (like tug of war), and all that is the same on one side cancels the other. That’s why it is so fun.
Exactly, the 5 bazillion 5133 teapots don’t cancel out it seems
If you interact an N pole of a magnet with an S pole of another magnet or vice versa you get an attraction…If you interact an N pole of a magnet with an N pole of another magnet OR If you interact an S pole of a magnet with an S pole of another magnet you get a repulsion.As all spinning objects and particles in the cosmos are electromagnets with N and S poles its impossible to cancel out any of the attractive and repulsive electromagentic force ABSOLUTES!!! that exist between them.
This is a scientific FACT!!! …so you are misinformed…you clearly do not understand science and neither do the clowns who misinformed you.
So you stick with your psychotic delusions if you are not interested in ACTUAL reality science…but please don’t patronize others who know what they are talking about.
The observational evidence!!! is out there…because we know that the cosmos and all matter within it is VIBRATING!!! so the cosmos and all matter within it is expanding and contracting in equal measure and not just expanding as misguided and misinformed deluded mainstream scientists claim.
The cosmos and all matter within it is VIBRATING because all of the attractive and repulsive force electromagnetic force interactions that exist between all the spinning objects and particles with N and S poles are vibratory BALANCED out by the formula N/S=N/S!!!
This is why all matter is held together (vibrating)…this is why all mass is balanced out and this is why all spinning objects are held together in the cosmos because the cosmos as a whole is vibrating as well.
Energy is produced in the cosmos due to the electromagnetic force interactions of spinning particles that make up all matter. All matter types having their own unique vibrational characteristics. The spin speed of the particles which make up all matter types directly affects the frequency of their interactions with adjacent spinning particles and thus the characteristics of the energy waves emitted from a matter type.
The individual is embroiled within the cosmos and each individual’s physical body biological machine antenna senses pick up the varying frequency BINARY waves (analogue) of energy emitted from vibrating matter which are converted into binary electrical signals by the inner workings of the biological machine and then into sounds; visions and sensations which the metaphysical (non illusionary) SELF interprets.
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence”…NIKOLA TESLA.
After thinking a lot about this epistemological or metaphysical question, I think the answer is pure agnosticism. That I can know with certainty there is an external world or a source which is giving me these uncontrollable subjective experiences but I can’t prove with absolute certainty that the nature of the source or external reality align with my subjective experiences nor I can say with absolute certainty that the nature of the source or external reality doesn’t align with my subjective experiences at all. Thus, it is impossible to know is the alignment hypothesis is true or misalignment hypothesis is true. Thus, I think I should suspended my judgement on it, now it is entirely possible I might be in the real world writing this comment or I might not be in the real world writing this comment instead a demon or something else giving me these misaligned subjective experiences. The thing is no one can know can know with absolute certainty and proof which one is the case thus suspend judgement on it. But there is one thing I can’t doubt which is my subjective experiences or my mental states. These are indutiable and I guess my indutiable belief that my experiences are consistent and I can do actions in my subjective experiences is enough to live life I guess.
I agree that there is no absolute certainty.
However, you can structure your life with as much certainty as you like.
Agnosticism as a complete philosophical school of thought makes claims for ethics too. Nihilism also makes ethical claims. You can choose other paths, you can believe whatever you like for the universe. You are the master of your life and your reality.
There is absolute certainty because +/-=+/- is a philosophical certainty because it balances,
+=- and -=+ philosophy is a guess.
+=+ and -=- philosophy is a guess.
So you are wrong ghatzige,
Can we know that we cannot know about the external world tho?
In my opinion no, that is why I said that there is no absolute certainty.
1 Like
I have a question for you, those scientific statements you gave came from our senses so how you know that those scientific facts are actually true when it is possible that a demon or something else is giving us inaccurate perceptions of external reality?
If you can’t know anything about the external world, on what basis do you universalize this to include others? Perhaps they or we can know the external world. IOW I assume that you have some kind of model here of perception or what seems to be going on. But we are external to you (unless you think otherwise) so how do you know we are in the same situation you are?
In an absolute sense I do not know.
But I am not agnostic. I do not structure my life based on doubts. I consider that my reality is what I recognize as such and I proceed accordingly.
I choose a philosophical approach that seems more “believable” to me.
Since I am materialist, science is a very useful tool for me.
I do not universalize, I express opinion. Everyone can have different opinion about reality.
Admitting that I do not have absolute certainty about reality does not mean that I cannot have subjective opinion on the reality.
Yeah faith approach.
1 Like
Faith is more religious oriented term, I prefer the term axioms. I have certain axioms that I cannot prove or disprove.
Spinoza used a lot the axioms to build his philosophy. You consider some unprovable statements and you see how far you can go with them. Religion usually axiomatizes everything, philosophy tries to derive some things for reality.
Yes it is but your approach is pretty much faith like where someone believe something without much strong deductive and probalistic justification. Same you are believing in the alignment hypothesis without any deductive or probalistic justification which is kinda faith like and I don’t think this is preferable. In this situation why you don’t suspend judgement like me?