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.

Conversely there is only one truth, and that is the truth of a objective nature. If we give subjective truths like" Bob being upset" without having the infliction of his anger conveyed in action or tonal quality, then the subjective nature of the statement is opinion, speculation and belief. And therefore not the truth, to bobs reality or the unsupported view of his condition, minus the factual display. The only IN for subjective truth, could be put this way; From the mouth of a third party, "Bob is upset". Here, one party would have to have, beforehand knowledge of what Bob may be upset about. And while subjective in part, by one who receives this message, by not being in the actual presence of Bob. This truth may be subjective. This can only be however, without knowledge of what bob may be upset about. If the what about, is known, then the subjective nature of this truth is alive, only to it becomes objective(backed by a Fact). If the word truth is to have any value in definition, it must be supported by a fact, being subjective then, despite it's connection to any perception, can not be a truth.

Over the span of recorded history, what race has came out with the most might collectively?. Now we connect this might to intelligence by means of factoring in the byproduct of having the most might into maintaining it, which equals educating their own or in layman terms, self preservation. Now one can see how intelligence can become inherent. Secondly you pigeon hole race under political rule, my context is broader. So if intelligence can be measured by education, then the ruling might (Power) provides the same to it's own, and thus intelligence takes racial proportions.

In Ancient Egypt, The heart is a metaphor for the Soul of a man. That's to say his seat of character, emotions etc. Once dominion and soveringty has been gained over the heart, then one can actuate the mind (Spirit) of eternity. So through the heart, the spirit is activated. science have found no link between the actual heart and mind, other then symbiotic control. The heart of Egypt is therefore symbolism, for a metaphysical understanding. Through complete ownership of the soul is the only way to reach the realm of the spirit.

@Tar, the litmus test only states rather the truth is supported by facts (Match) one or many. Subtract the facts (Match) and what are you left with? More to the point State a truth minus a fact.

Let's turn the tables here: Lets connect intelligence the gaining and having of, to the superiority of pure might, possessed by one race or another. Clearly we can now say that intelligence is in truth racial. And if such a position persist, then we can finally state that it will also be inherent. This is the present day fact of the matter.

Lol, Delta Clever but a word play of the issue. Do come up with an original story of any thing, logical or nonsense that would be unconnected to the whole of our existence or consciousness, reality, in any way. @Phil, What i am saying is that we don't know enough about either of the two points to rule out either or fully support one over the other. Therefore debates about it are moot. This is not a skeptic's stance, it's a scientific stance. Had this debate brought substantiated info, towards the end of the pertinent question, then it can be moved to an conclusion, however it merely rehashed the same tired argument that has been through the ringer over and over and over again and is therefore Moot. The legal definition of moot- a subject for academic argument, Presenting no real question.

Data on Earthquakes all over the world for 2014. 97 total earthquakes within the fall winter spring months, when the Sun is close to earth. 36 total earthquakes within the summer months, when the earth is far away from Sun. For the year 2015 as of 2/01/2015, there have been 36 earthquakes to date.

Creationism is lacking even partially, this is true/factual. However I hold that no story, can/have existed with out some basis in a reality or fact. There has never been a story of any caliber, fiction or non fiction, that springs from a source completely unknown to the author (consciousness) of. Now this may not be a proper barometer for validation of creationism, but for me at best, it holds the weight of at least investigation. This may be weak but, whatever put the wheels of what we call life in motion, then that would be our creator, no matter if it turns out to be a by product of quanta or an unknown entity of cosmological order, or beyond our comprehension. lol don't call me to task on the latter, I will be unable to comply, but i can not completely rule it out, due to my partial comprehension of the matter on a whole. In fact there is no difference in the gist of this debate. Your position rest on partial comprehension leaning towards evolution, My position rest on the partial aspects of both sides which thereby supports neither.

Partial comprehension is the word I used, partial doesn't imply, nothing at all. So the theroy of evolution is partial as far as it being from one to ten, and the gist of the creationist is partial, as it relates to evidence out side of the subjectiveness. Cause is a scientific principle, even when we discuss the Cause of a sought after particle of quantum mechanics, If it does a thing then why does it do it?. A bedrock of science. All of nature has to do with evolution, conditions spurs adaptation , so the first question is evolution. But thank you for not weighing it down with..... "Energy minimization, in other words there is no cause really". Is Speculation, geometric optimization starts with a atom or atoms, how you arrived at the bond angles and the lessing of the attraction between them, having nothing to do with cause, from the already "present" state of the atom is beyond me. I would like to know the cause of the bond in the first place, dont you?

Then where does this debate takes you from having a partial understanding of all the process'es involved. And how did the post i made favor one side or the other? At the end of the day despite your positions, the questions remain unanswered, thus the discussion is indeed moot. - MOOT- SUBJECT TO DEBATE, DISCUSSION, DISPUTE, OR UNCERTAIN, AND TYPICALLY NOT ADMITTING A FINAL DECISION So where is the factual evidence (Truth) one way or another? But of course you may indeed spout your view/opinion or partial personal understanding, for forum sake, but to what final end, wait there is no end, therefore moot. In large part nothing is being added to the original debate, all views contained within the post has been expounded beyond recognition, a double moot. Question. How do you go from the vacuum of space, hot gases extreme hostile environment (Big bang) to a single cell organism? Question. What exactly is the causation of the whole series of events that leads to our existence? Feel free to use whatever resource material you may have available, except solid concrete opinions, based on partial comprehensions.