Peter …when you know what you are talking about….post….until then be quiet….you are embarrassing yourself.
Jupiter123:
Peter …when you know what you are talking about….post….until then be quiet….you are embarrassing yourself.
K: and that is polemical, not philosophical…
Kropotkin
You make claims that you can’t substantiate Peter.You claim that there is no God and good and bad moral absolutes don’t exist.
These are your foundational philosophical claims which are pure guesses.
Mainstream science claims that God doesn’t exist and attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out which was a guess.We know that they don’t cancel out.
Neither you nor they have any evidence whatsoever for your/their claims.Absolutely nothing at all.
What is hilarious is you think it doesn’t matter that you don’t have any evidence.
I think this is very poignant. I’m a “newb”, of course, but for me philosophy is forming ideas that give meaning and interpretation to often abstract concepts. I try to turn those ideas around in my head, for as long as I can, looking for flaws and inconsistencies, sometimes it takes years.
I came on here hoping that other people would find those logical flaws, and point them out, now that I can no longer find any myself, perhaps by challenging my beliefs directly. But unfortunately, that rarely happens. Instead, I’m bombarded with historical quotes and concepts that often don’t even address what I’m saying, or are irrelevant, and I have to drag the commenter back to the actual point being made. I wouldn’t mind being targeted by polemicists, not at all, but ffs, a sound argument would be nice now and again.
Please keep on writing in English Peter, I would say it’s a big strength on here..
Jupiter123:
You make claims that you can’t substantiate Peter.You claim that there is no God and good and bad moral absolutes don’t exist.
These are your foundational philosophical claims which are pure guesses.
Mainstream science claims that God doesn’t exist and attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes cancel out which is guess.
Neither you nor they have any evidence whatsoever for your/their claims.Absolutely nothing at all.
K: there are no absolutes… give me a statement that is an ‘‘absolute’’
statement… and as far as ‘‘mainstream science’’ goes, don’t really care…
that is not my interest… philosophy is my interest…
as far as ‘‘pure guessing’’ goes, I don’t have to guess if there is
no evidence or facts showing us something… that there are no
such things as say, a unicorn, isn’t about guessing, but simply
an acknowledgment there are no unicorns… I am simply acknowledging
that there is no god… so, where is the proof of god? Search me,
I have looked for over 40 years and never found any evidence
or facts that suggest a god exists… and I am still waiting for
someone to show me evidence or proof of god’s existence…
Kropotkin
Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes exist Peter.
The only two forces that God adopts in his creation are these two force absolutes.Forget the other made up forces,they don’t exist.
You’re a very poor philosopher Peter.
The cosmos and all matter within it is vibrating because these two force absolutes are balanced between all spinning particles which make up all matter.
The cosmos is expanding and contracting……because it’s vibrating!!!…..it’s not just expanding as mainstream scientists claim.Their whole science is founded upon an incorrect starting philosophical guess regarding force absolutes.This is why it has ALL failed now.
Jupiter123:
Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes exist Peter.
The only two forces that God adopts in his creation are these two force absolutes.Forget the other made up forces,they don’t exist.
You’re a very poor philosopher Peter.
K: and we can’t actually be sure that there are ‘‘attractive and repulsive
electromagnetic forces’’ it is a theory…and like all scientific theories
subject to change… the real problem is that we can’t take scientific theories
and try to turn them into philosophical theories… for it take further
commentary to make that science fit into philosophy…
for example, I say, the Sun is 93 million miles from Earth..
that is science… but I have to further explain how that fact
has any value… that fact does not and cannot stand alone…
Why does the Sun being 93 million miles from Earth matter?
That is further explanation… and thus why science is not the
end all, be all…science only has value if, IF we put some
value behind it…so, one might say, the Sun being 93 million miles
from Earth because it put the Earth within the goldilocks zone and
that concept requires further explanation… it cannot stand on its
own as a concept… just as your pretend science of = or whatever
it is not philosophy… because it takes much further explanation
to have it make sense… it doesn’t and can’t stand alone, as a
philosophical concept… science isn’t philosophy… the two
are two separate and distinct concepts… science is engaged with
the how and philosophy is engaged with the why…
the nonsense you spout doesn’t answer the why…
it is simply gobbledygook… nothing more…
Kropotkin
We can be sure because balancing these two force absolutes holds all matter together and therefore mass is balanced out.All vibrating matter levitates in space as a result.This is only way that energy can be produced in the cosmos.The only way that energy is regulated in the cosmos is by increasing or decreasing the spin speed of the particles as this increases or decreases the frequency of the vibratory interactions between particles and this directly impacts the amount of electromagnetic energy waves emitted from a matter type.
Your problem is you don’t know enough about how philosophy relates to science Peter which is just one of the reasons you are a very poor philosopher.
E=mc2 is total nonsense…Einstein didn’t have a clue about reality science.
You have been taken for a fool Peter.
I had a conversation with AI a few months ago, discussing the merits of a tertiary system, for both computing, but also human calculation performed mentally.
I expressed it as “+ 0 -” but perhaps that’s not far off what you are referring to? I was asking the AI about if it could come up with a way to use it for mental calculation, based on halving and doubling results to reach an approximate value, then halving and doubling again..
I’m not even sure exactly how it would work, but I’m just sure, somewhere deep down, that it can..
I think decimal is stupid, that’s why I was exploring it, but I’m no mathematician.. 
Why is the = sign only a 0?…..why isn’t it 1 as well? You can’t cancel out attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes Niall….its impossible..You can only balance them hence the formula N/S=N/S which is a united formula of the two possible starting philosophies N=S and S=N AND N=N and S=S.The varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from all vibrating matter contain binary data which includes BOTH 0’s and 1’s
With +/-=+/- philosophy (+/-) represents a spinning particle with an N and S pole on both sides of the fence which is why all matter is held together and vibrates.The = sign represents the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from the interaction of the two particles.The energy waves emitted are regulated by increasing or decreasing the spin speed of the two particles.
The above explains why philosophy is totally related to science.
1 Like
Well the 0 represents equilibrium. I’m not sure we’re using this paradigm to refer to the same thing. The zero here has nothing to do with binary, it’s a third option which represents no signal at all, or perhaps that both values are true.
In computing or electronic signals, there would have to be a “neither” option, which I admit is impossible when considering magnetic forces.
Can you quote a practical example of how this would apply to philosophy?
The 0 sign does not represent equilibrium in reality because you require both a 0 and a 1 for equilibrium in the cosmos because the 0 and the 1 relates to the attractive and repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes which are vibratory balanced out by the formula N/S=N/S.This is how all matter is held together.This is how binary data is produced in the cosmos as well which is contained within the varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from vibrating matter.
Good/Bad=Good/Bad
No, let’s forget I used 0, it’s arbitrary, to indicate balance or null, I could have just as well used “X”, or practically anything else. Binary as a numerical system is presence or absence of a signal, the 0 in the instance I used it was disconnected from binary, it describes a tertiary system, which I am now sure is not what you are trying to describe.
This formula, N/S=N/S, does that indicate “either=either”, or maybe “both=both”?
Good/Bad=Good/Bad, I’m just not sure what this describes? That what one person thinks is good, the other might think is bad and vice versa?
No,let’s not forget that you used 0….We both know why you used 0.It’s because you believe that force absolutes cancel out in the cosmos because you believe in 0=1 and 1=0 philosophy.
0/1=0/1 because N/S=N/S
Force absolutes don’t cancel out in the cosmos.
No, that’s wrong. I don’t think that at all, I don’t think that “0” can possibly exist, and neither can perfect equilibrium, the Universe won’t allow for it. The only example would be an absolute void where nothing happens at all and no matter or forces existed, that would be the only possible example of 0 or perfect equilibrium, and that situation is impossible also in my opinion.
Do you mean FALSE and FALSE philosophy? No, I don’t believe that either..
Attractive and Repulsive electromagnetic force absolutes don’t cancel out in the cosmos Naill.You are wasting your time challenging this.
They are used to balance all spinning particles with N and S poles by the formula N/S=N/S.The spin speed of the vibratory balanced particles is what determines the frequency of the vibratory interactions and therefore the amount of electromagnetic energy waves emitted from a matter type.
All varying frequency electromagnetic energy waves emitted from vibrating matter contain unique binary code characteristics specific to the matter type.
“If you want to find the secrets of the universe,think in terms of energy;frequency and vibration”….Nikola Tesla.
He was right then…..and Einstein was wrong all along.
I’m not challenging it, I’m asking for further explanation. Why do you feel that I’m challenging it?
What I do challenge, is that N/S=N/S sounds to me like 1=1. I would want to know, can N/S=S/N? Is this a quantum thing? I’m just asking..
No…0/1=0/1
(15 characters)
Yes, but once again, 1/2=1/2. An apple is an apple. What does the “/” signify?
/ means separation…0 and 1 are not the same….just as an attractive interaction is not the same as a repulsive interaction.
N/S=N/S has an output at the centre (=) in reality.That output is a sinusoidal wave of energy containing binary data (a 0 and a 1).
1 Like