Dr. Funkenstein

Question; Motion is the integral principle to all things. The planet's orbit the sun (We start here for brevity), The Solar system moves in accord with the center (Black hole) of it's Galaxy, The galaxy is in motion due to inflation, can we then conclude that space (Dark matter/energy) also, is in motion?. The distance from Earth to the Sun is 149,600,600 km. The distance of the Solar system to the center of it's galaxy, we can say is incalculable. In consideration of totality of distance's, between matter's, within the whole of the universe. We can assign "various" distance as, 3.14159. (Pie). if this be true, space then must itself, be in motion,too pie. No shape no borders. In considerations of Inflation due to BB, the Galaxy itself is in motion. If a single BB caused inflation (Expansion) from a point of origin, then colliding galaxies should only occur, within a short interval, right after BB. Due to speed of expansion and vector's of contained matter. They should have a detectable signature, of a "rear end" collision (Gravitational interaction). Any galaxies that collide much later in time, would then be, galaxies colliding from multiple BB's, in accord with their speed and vectors, producing angled collisions signatures. such as the gravitational interaction dictates. Proximity collision deep into expansion, would be impossible, from the same point of origin. Space then, may be thought of as having a motion which unfolds, as opposed to having a particular shape,or static endless boundary. A single BB would not be possible, and multiple's of BB's must be considered. Especially in light of the observable gravitational interactions. In addition, this present the question of, what could be the catalyst, for the unfolding of space? Would it be multiple inflations from multiples BB's, or does dark matter/energy functions in someway, like a single cell organism, in it's own unique growth pattern (Unfolding)?

Greetings, Pavelcherepan. explanation 1 is a non issue, Magma in the mantle, lava at eruptions terminology aside they are one in the same. If we say Magma is floating around within the mantle, then my question would be how does it get to be Magma? Science say's there are two types of Magma 1. Primary 2.Parental They both originate within the Mantle, they both are melts due to Heat and pressure, this original post suggested that the heat and pressure stems from contact of some portion of the mantle, with the Outer core, In the case of rich organic sediment, which is taken as Oil out of the mantle/crust area, I think the heat and pressure applied may not be of the same degree as the interaction between inner core and Mantle. Solubility of gas to Magma, the same gas that produced the magma through heat and pressure, is the only engine, for eruption. It cant just dissipate, because that would defy the laws of Thermodynamics, if the heat from gas melts the thing then obviously there will be more heat. As to the hot spots, I don't know. It seems plausible that Carbon within the mantle is turned to magma, with interaction with the outer core, and existing pathways within the mantle allows it to move, and Gas pushes it along.

E=MC2 divided by QM (Theory) in 5D= E x cold% = 1. It can't be zero. In the absence of E what accounts for non E (Dark matter).

Science agrees that lava pushed through the surface of the crust by gas, is the process for volcano's. This seems to suggest that the lava is already in place/in motion, or that perhaps the lava is on escape from the outer/inner core of the planet.This view doesn't prove itself, since the outer core is said to be made of molten metals (2) and the inner core of molten metal (1). The lava eruption however is proven to be igneous rock. Safe then to hypothesis, that Lava does not come from the core's. So either it's everywhere and self sustaining, waiting for a gaseous release, or it is formed through a process. I would think that it is formed, perhaps by a gaseous release of the outer core, interacting with material of the Mantle, maybe Carbon/Hydrocarbons, This gas is of such a high temperature that it turns Carbon deposit into lava. So the gas along with the gas release from the liquefying of Carbon, vents to the crust, causing volcanic eruptions. In the case of Diamonds, dense carbon atoms under the pressure of the gas to mantle, solidify, as do some minerals, and somehow escape the liquefy process.

I can't give truth a value based on perceptions which may or may not be in fact be true. A witness identified the perpetrator as the one who committed the crime, said witness was 100% positive of their identification. DNA result show that the perpetrator had nothing to do with the crime. The real criminal was captured and charged. This is just a sample of the outcomes, when truth becomes of value outside of the objective accompanying fact. Truth by perception, feelings etc cant be valid. @ Gees, A massacre is a victory, and a victory could also be a massacre. who writes it doesn't matter since the truth is, one side loss and the other won, Fact.

If Dark matter accounts for the majority of space, can we theorize that matter within this space are in analogy, "like a gas bubble in water". Contained fields of matter, held in place by dark matter. And that this containment is inverse, Thats to say that instead of the force being from the core of the matter outward (Gravity), it is inverse, from the borders of it's interaction"s with the surrounding dark matter, inward. All planets and it's various materials, are but bubbles of elements and compounds and other forces like electromagnetic force, contained in the fabric of dark matter. Their particular inversion force, can be directly attributed to their particular material of the body,Thus the effect the dark matter has on the bubble, is also specific to the material contained within. The solar systems are held in place by the solar systems containment field, inversely towards it's center. Quantum particles would therefore operate under another containment field within the larger containment field. So all that exist is a containment inverse field within a containment inverse field within a containment inverse field...... Within dark matter.

I concur lol

The definition of creation stands as the act of bringing something into existence. So when we automatically see the word creation, we also go straight to creator/Deity. A more proper definition would be creation=Causality. for that definition science would say, Theories exists to explain this, but as of yet we simple do not know. Some would say as in previous post, that not all things have cause, I would reject that since all things in existence has cause, otherwise why exist. Now whatever this cause may turn out to be through research, that would in fact be our creator. To the here and now, with partial/no understanding of the particulars of the subject between evolution and creationism. the debate on same would be moot. Why this position is such a lighting rod, I can't say. But in essence, it is evolution at it's finest.

In the above you give truth a meaning separate from objective fact, and gives it a external existence outside of physical reality "Fact"

In contemplation of this argument, the best that I can add to it for the side of creationism, is the need, those who have stock in this position require. I suppose for their overall well being in some way. This need may in fact, have no verifiable objectiveness to it through science, and connected to evolution only in opposition of. So to those who support it for the need it fulfills, I then considerer it necessary. perhaps you others find it necessary to beat it down with a stick, sorry I don't.

@ Commander And how does that differ from the objective fact? which earlier you state that it is not. An example of your argument please.

@Tar. So the "correspondent theory"/ Redundancy theory" of truth is agreed upon by our views. which is to say, truth is objective. a mere predicate of the sentence. The truth is, Bob is upset.

If that was the case Strange, there is nothing you can do about it, under no circumstances, on any day of the week, so why the indignation? However the question of racial intellect, can only be viable to me by the policy "Might" would provide a particular race, over the others, through self preservation, interest etc. How climate, agricultural factors or anything other then dominance of force, is not be considered here is beyond me. Especially since that facts of history and wars speaks to might, and therefore the perks of the victor.

So basically the gist here is that since the one thing has some support of facts, and the other does not, then the one things is all that is. Quite an elite position to take for men of science. but thank you for your opinions.

I did say let's turn the table= for conversation sake.