Christ slave

Ok, thanks.

What? I know what astrology is--and your birth time affects it as well. What I am saying is, astrology and astronomy are both founded on observing/using the stars--so, the stars are actually a part of culture, both the astrology and astronomy culture and their influence (meaning, if an astrologer or astronomer teaches someone about their field or even if they don't, their very existence is affecting society, life as a whole, and Evolution). Regardless if you think their beliefs are wrong, they both are cultures involving the stars. What don't you understand? If this were a discussion about how Jesus affected the world, we'd talk about how various religions are highly involved with Jesus, most of the world knows or has heard of Jesus, satanists know Jesus--the very nature of his influence is seen. Now, does that mean I agree or want to get into a discussion about what satanists, anti-christs, or even what Catholics believe--and whether or not they're right or wrong? Not necessarily. The same with this instance, I mention astrology as a fine example of how the stars are influencing society, as this is an entire culture shaped around the study of the stars, and I wasn't necessarily testifying to the validity of the teachings of astrology. In other words, if I had neglected to mention astrology but replaced it with a reference to a child who wears pajamas with drawings of outer-space on them, it should be just as valid.

I don't know, have they tried the same experiment with other things beside light and got different results?

That's very skewed, especially since light/perception (distance-perception) diminishes the further out something gets...likewise, the further out the lightbeaem goes, it's actually traveling in a triangular pattern in terms of distance, because up close it's large and the further out it goes it gets smaller (like a cone). So, while you want to measure the light, you yourself are still viewing light with your eyes...so, if you time light with your eyes, how then would the speed not be different? You're playing a game with light...a lightshow!

I called astrology a true aspect of the effect stars have on people. The very nature that astrologers use the stars and study them, discuss them, spend so much time and energy in them, etc. is a true aspect of a piece of life/Evolution (culture) involving the stars. This does not mean that astrology is not necessarily hog-wash. Do you see where you are wrong in your understanding of what I am saying? Like I said, astrology is a true aspect of culture/people--a true way of life for some people. Whether or not the teachings of astrology as absolutely true or not is another thing. What I mean is, if people get involved with the stars, such as in astrology, NASA, or astronomy, etc., then obviously the stars play a role in life on earth and Evolution, as society has so proved. In other words, even a person looking up at the sky and seeing a star is proof enough. Some people may...some people post threads to allow others to discuss--to far it's just a bunch of people challenging me. Don't fail to discuss topics with other people. No, you keep questioning things because you lack understanding...such as interpreting my affirmative assessment of astrology being an exisiting field as my testimony to the field's inner-validity itself. No, you aren't adding much of anything other than asking me to add something. Some people did add stuff and I'm glad, but this has become an argument and it's sad. <-- Oh yes, rhyming intended.

What? Why would an outside observer think the wall is moving away from the light source? The lightsource is moving along with the wall--they're both moving in the same direction at the same speed. It's like throwing a ball in an airplane...the ball doesn't go flinging to the back of the airplane, and neither does light which is likewise moving with the momentum/vehicle. Neither does the man in the spaceship go flinging to the back because the object moving is like earth, it's almost stationary. Am I wrong here? In other words, the lightsource is moving in respect to the object moving. Am I wrong here? What were you trying to tell me?

It is not, why do you keep repeating yourself? The fact is, you ranted more than necessary on about how I have failed to serve you. I did not fail to serve you, I have posted several posts in regard to your requests. I know you want to get snippy with me discussing how you don't care what my beliefs are, however, the very nature of the requests that we are talking about involves a belief of whether or not Evolution is an ongoing process. On the same road of being abundantly clear, why do you get upset when I try to inform you that all the while you keep posting like I am avoiding the subject, I am trying to tell you that in meeting your requests, we have come to a breech in the road--it involves two conflicting warrants, I assume, unless you agree with me and just like to keep arguing anyhow...which is considered trolling, but far be it from me to call you a troll, I think that's rude and a selfish slap in the face--in other words, I hate to slap someone in the face and tell them I was trying to get their attention. So, as I said, unless you have no self-consciousness over there on the other side of the Internet (you're not a robot, right?), we have come to a breech in our discussion. Do you understand this? This breech is that you are asking me to support some of my warrants...now, scientifically, if you challenge somebody's warrant, you are challenging their belief. Do you not understand this? This is scientific--you may be oblivious and keep going on and on about how you don't care about this or that, but, being scientific here, if you challenge somebody's warrant, and my warrant happens to be a belief regarding the theory of Evolution, and then that person does not want to enter into your challenge/chain-argument, do you understand that I have the right to refuse your proposed argument? And do you understand that if you challenge a warrant/belief, you are getting involved with the warranter's belief? You are challenging my beliefs, because you ask for support regarding a warrant--this is called a chain-argument, and from my standpoint, if you ask for support regarding a belief, you in fact (although you say you don't), do care about my beliefs. Do you know what warrants are? Do you know what support is? Do you know what a claim is? Do you know what chain-arguments are? Do you know what a field-view is?

Yes, well, perhaps I wanted to get you to consider? So, no living creature is affected by starlight? That is a lie. Even an eyeball can see that the starlight has an effect on the creature seeing it--be it its own acknowledgement of the star, its disregard of it, or even if the eyeball doesn't look at it and the starlight is still there beating down on the cells of the creature, etc. The very nature that starlight can be seen and we notice them shows you that starlight is not some weak (nor nonexistent) irrelevant force--apart from our own interest in them (which is profoundly shaping society and the future, anyhow), even our own cells notice them--obviously, as even the cells of our vision can perceive them. Also, what about other animals and plants? Do their cells transcend the stars? Yes, I made it clear I don't want to debate with you on every little peanut-gallery you buy a ticket to. I am telling you that you've wasted your money, the ticket is as good as trash. Can you now see what respect is, or should I draw? When you argue, dispite my warning you that I don't want to discuss something you want to discuss (because of your unhealthy worship of debate), then you're disrespecting me--and you seem to think disrespect/rebellion is a privelege, as you continue to bring up your challenges toward things in an attempt to prove me wrong and get me to debate with you when I told you I don't want to debate with some of the things you seem interested in. Respect the topic at hand, as we have come to the conclusion that this forum is called, "Science Forums and Debate", not "Science Debate Forums". Are you ready to let go of your defiance? Are you willing to respect that I am making the choice of not giving you the right to debate with me on anything you want to? Good. I hope I have made myself clear as well for future reference...as you seem to be questioning my competence because I don't curmudgeonly debate with you in every aspect that arouses your interest.

No, I simply question your own understanding; I am not attempting to stop trying to provide evidence. For one thing, most/all of the things you are questioning me on you yourself appear to think is such a grand challenge that I think is simply stupid--if you'll read the post I posted in this thread just above this post to swansont, you'll see my point. Most of my claims are based on sheer reality--to argue or challenge them, asking for support to something common sense to someone with understanding can answer for them, certainly leaves the arguer in suspicion as to the challenger's own understanding. As you would see, all of his challenges are based on providing proof to claims that are backed up (warranted) by Evolution, and how Evolution is and always has been an ongoing effort--it doesn't take breaks...and, Evolution won't ever take breaks--as if something can separate itself into an unbiased state of being idle. I don't challenge your competence to ask for support, I simply question/challenge why you do it (is it because you lack understanding? Or, is it because your beliefs are simply contrary to mine?). For what sort of "proof" do I have to offer to Evolution, as it is a theory? I am attempting to widen people's horizons into seeing the bigger picture (the forest among the individual trees). Humanity, the environment, plant life, air, elements, life, death, food, everything is a part of this on-going breathing, living universe whereby all life is affected by it. Culture itself is a part of Evolution and life. If you can't believe this, I asked you to please stop discussing...and yet some of you seem to get offended--I am not saying don't ever talk to me again, I am simply informing you that if you cannot accept what I believe to be true as well as many other people in regard to life, Evolution, etc., then you should stop hounding me to succumb to your views. You seem to be very interested in using a scientific method for debating, however, you are disrespecting the fact that warrants can be warranted by beliefs, and beyond which you are attempting to enter into religious discussions with me, and even though a lot of you seem to think it is me who makes everything religious, it is actually the other person a lot of the time that does it. Why? Perhaps because my username is "Christ slave" and you know I believe in God and Christ, and so when warrants are warranted by beliefs, you instead are inclined to disrespect/forget your so-called "scientific method" by demanding I somehow prove my faith to you, such as my beliefs regarding Evolution and life, just because your beliefs conflict with mine. So, perhaps you should work on realizing that just because you have a conflicting warrant/belief, that doesn't mean scientifically one is obligated to go into a religious-war with you on such beliefs. Nobody should have to go desperately scourging through research to backup his or her beliefs. Evolution is a theory based on faith, and there are wide-spectrums of beliefs regarding it. I told you my warrants, and beyond that I have no interest to get into a huge religious-war with you about who's right and who's wrong regarding their faith. You may faithfully believe Evolution takes breaks and I for one do not. How can we prove this? Well, if you're challenging my belief and want to form a chain-argument, then actually, oh ignorant one, it is you in this instance morally obligated to provide proof that Evolution takes breaks. How can you prove this? Show me evidence that Evolution takes breaks and is not an endless on-going process of time. You cannot, can you? Are you ready to stop being a curmudgeon, now?

Yes, this is true. Are you done asserting the worst now, continually suggesting I make no effort to respond to you? You know I do. Let's move on, please. Yes, NASA is obvious a cultural reality, and since Evolution takes no breaks, then why evidence do I need to provide that NASA is a part of Evolution (as it continues on-going even now just as it did 3 billion years ago) since it is a part of life which is a part of Evolution, that NASA is a part of earth, and yes, as I said, that NASA is a part of life? What evidence do you need to prove that Evolution is still continuing to this day, that NASA is a part of our lives as it is on earth, and that NASA likewise as an organization amongst evolving creatures is a part of Evolution and thus for proves the stars are affecting Evolution? Like I said, these are field-views, and unless you personally are not convinced the Evolution is real and still exists and takes no breaks, I don't know what it is you're looking for--other than attempting to make me look bad and make yourself look intelligent, right, and better? Okay, so you want me to provide evidence that I honestly believe they have a huge effect on Evolution? If you don't believe me to be honest about my belief, that is your problem not mine. And, as I said, "I believe", so it's not your business to judge this a claim past my beliefs--let it go, stop trying to entrap me. Again, this is speaking of my own beliefs--not your business, and if you cannot believe I am being honest, I cannot provide further support to prove my belief. However, being descendents and neighbors of creatures living under the stars, and even more recently those who observe and label the stars (anyone who looks at the stars/star-gazers, astrologers, astronomers, etc.), it is so obvious the stars do have a relevant effect in society and affect us--all of this energy is a part of Evolution, so if you're looking for support, then you're quite uneducated in what Evolution really is. What all of this star-gazing and whatnot means for the future, that is yet to be seen...however, I can state my belief that the stars didn't only showup among life when a person first looked at them--there are other senses which are effected by the stars, including the cells of our bodies, earth itself, etc. which is receiving the light of the stars. Any cell which takes in the light of a star, and over billions of years, has to in some way be affected by it--everything has an effect on everything in Evolution. I shouldn't have to teach you a course on what Evolution is and what life is. Again, this is speaking of my perception--I am not obligated to support my beliefs to you, and I still ask if you want to learn about Evolution. I for one believe Evolution is an expression/adaptation to the environment--whereby everything is noticed/taken into account (not necessarily just what we eat or life and death, but even our own consciousness: the thoughts we think, the things we sense, etc.). I believe psychology plays a role in Evolution, so if you believe this to be true, then you should consider this the answer/justification you were looking for. Evolution takes no breaks--this is my belief, as what I know. If you think otherwise, I hold no competence over you. Evolution takes no breaks. Are we done now? I gave you reasons (support) for these claims, and warrants...essentially you seem to be asserting one, some, or all of these: a) psychology/consciousness/lifestyle is out of Evolution b) the elements are out of Evolution c) some things, such as lightwaves or gravity from stars, are somehow, although they reach earth and perceive them and know about them because they reach us in some form, are somehow untallied in Evolution (suggesting Evolution takes breaks) If you believe any of these, I will ask that you end this discussion, because I am not interested in such a chain-argument.

No, but it's a good place to start--and, anyhow, space itself has been observed to move. However, if we're moving with outerspace, caught in its momentum, it's like being in a car and the car is stationary to your perception. Likewise, outerspace is moving, however, the earth is not stationary to it, so not everyone is necessarily standing back from it all like an unbias observer to understand it. However, they have created a whirl-pool of empty space using a system of four mirrors in four corners to cause a lightbeam to loop around...and with this experiment, you are much more stationary to it than if you're moving with the momentum of something. Likewise, indeed most likely outerspace is this cup of water.

BenSon: Speak like you have respect for other people, then maybe I'll read and reply to your post. At any rate, here is my suggestion: time itself is composed of light...but with varying vibrations. So, if you speed up an object to the speed of light, the object begins to transcend light itself (the light they give off will be behind in time, because their light in relation to the speed of light is evening out...like a runner speeding up to the speed of another runner so that they can run together and speak to each other). If the object begins to transcend light, because of its speed (and, keep in mind the object in order to have this speed it must be moving, and if its moving, it must be affecting/utilizing laws of physics and space which affect the whole of things including the experiment, as I said, things are relative), then light itself to that object begins to slow down in relation to its perception (its time). Time is essentially perception. So, then, this is why looking at a distant star is viewing it from the past...and, likewise, if a person moves at the speed of light, we begin to see them IN THE PAST. If they're being seen in the past, then of course their clock will appear to be a nanosecond or so behind (meaning, the possibility is there). Likewise, what if the scientist on the jet and the jet itself, the clock, etc. are actually VISIBLY SMALLER than we are? What if as the future approaches (time increases), we are actually expanding or getting bigger? So, the measurement of time is relative. Time is relative because it's constantly changing--it's expanding. So, if a scientist travels into the future (gets younger), it's because we are measuring him in relation to light (our visual perception). If he travels fast enough and long enough, what if he actually shrinks into the past? He becomes like a distant star, and to him, we have become like a giant near-by object. Why is this? Perhaps because as time is relative, its only relative to gravity--where there's no gravity, there's no time. So, as we are orbiting around the sun, time itself is getting denser because the sun's gravity is pulling it in...which is why time for us expands, but we may not notice it because we are expanding with it, so in relation to us, things look relatively the same proportionally. How, if someone travels into the past, they've essentially subverted their own time-density and have become smaller (or, dimmer)--and if an object becomes dimmer in terms of time, then essentially you're looking at it in the past...why? Because the clock itself is becoming denser as time approaches, so as the clock changes in numbers and becomes brighter (denser/older), if you subvert its density (because its moving faster in relation to time/gravity and light), then it has become dimmer/lighter (notice how the term "lighter" also has the word "light" in it), and if you dim the light on an evolving/growing clock, then you have dimmed the lights on its measurements...so, you lose light displayed by the clock, a number or so. So, then, to the person speeding up, light itself becomes slower--if you speed up enough light comes almost to a haulting end, becoming black to you. This is all ties in with our own consciousness, as well...afterall, we are using these illusionary senses to measure it all. So, regardless if you're looping around the globe or even a parking lot, you are still racing light itself--the sensory waves. If you speed up enough, you have actually escaped some of the light displayed, thereby becoming a dim vision of the past. If someone were to travel at the speed of light in a parkinglot, perhaps the person would actually shrink the size of a distant star in relation to us. It's really hard to attempt to discuss things, however, because time keeps going on, and so the relativity keeps changing--we on earth use proportions to attempt to understand it all, but even these proportions are subject to changing.

You have no proof. Some people believe it is, I am one of them.And not all things get more dense as they soldify or expand when heated. Water, for example, expands upon freezing.Okay, fair enough.

Consider: everything is made of light (energy). The slower you are (idle), the thicker/denser things get (which is why an object at rest is not moving). Now, is it simply not moving, or is it "resting" and making things denser around it? Likewise, when people freeze or heat things, they're messing around with the density of things--or, the speeds/times of things. Likewise, the slower you get, the brighter things get...which is why a person moving slower is more likely to take in (perceive) the environment--surely these seemingly miniscule parts of life are actually laws of physics? It's all a part of our perception, the human-species having a shared-inherent perception of things. Also, the faster you move, the less you're allowed to see--and we know this because when we run, go on a mari-go-round, drive in a car, etc., we see how smeared things can look as we zoom past them--in fact, things become dimmer to the one going fast, and brighter to the one going slow. So, also, this mimics/goes right along with what I initially said (reality is denser to an object at rest than an object in motion)...and, what do you know, a beam of light is energy and it can travel through transparent objects. So, in other words, time-travel may in fact simply be an illusion of light--the person going faster so seems to have gone faster because the faster you move to the speed of light, the more the speed of light slows down to you--likewise, measuring the speed of light in contrast to your own motion while watching an object which, by the way, is feeding your obersvation/eye-sight with, yes, you know it, LIGHT, is simply giving the illusion of time-travel...in other words, the object which reflects the light has become dimmer--time itself is the brightness or darkness of light, being, or something (speed, motion, etc.). In fact, what is brightness but a continual buildup of light on a surface? So then, whatever time is, time is perhaps speed or something. The clock itself is not absent from the laws of physics...so, in other words, the laws of physics are also relative. Possible? I think so. So, in other words...everything is one, just like Christ tells us, and the more you approach the speed of light, the more you transcend the laws of physics (like God)...until, eventually, you get to a speed whereby everything seems to be two-inches away. What if space is also relative to speed? That would explain further into why going in a car, running, etc. gets you somewhere quicker than walking. Is it possible to travel into the past? Imagine you're traveling at the speed of light, would not the light itself become darkness? What then becomes light? Whatever is moving faster--so, the faster we move, the more manifest/at-rest things like light become. Imagine going so fast that you're actually the future itself and you're descending on "reality", while those going slower are "ascending". So, things become reversed, MAYBE. I don't know--there has to be two alternatives. To travel into the past one would be rewinding time...in order to rewind time, you have to go faster than the event took place in order to "get in front of it" and then relive it...scientists think they're so smart with understanding time, but by ignoring the spirit and the reality of God, they have tricked their selves by playing around with light and the illusions therein...possibly. So, when they use their mind and imagination to attempt to understand time by using light, they're really just creating illusions, because everything's controled by consciousness. So, the faster we move the dimmer light gets because the less light has built up on us--if you can move fast enough perhaps you can start changing the past and future...but you have to realize this is all hypothetical because we're using our minds and thoughts, which are energy...so we're basically attempting to play God, which in turn you must realize we're simply being imaginative and playing with illusions. In other words, the further you move from an object, the more you look at it from the past--so, the more we move, the more we're moving into the future--whereby our past self is perceived in the distance. Likewise, if there's this distance, then what's that to say? Obviously things become so small that they're microscopic. So, even if you do become light by moving so fast to become the energy, things will be so far away that you'd need a newly formed microscope, telescope, or whatever you want to call it. Basically, there's no end to the realms--when you become light, this present physical universe slows down to the point of darkness until it begins to rewind itself, the further away you get. So, what's this to say? Are we really just distant light-beams to tiny germs and cells, because we've become so fast and so far away that we peer at them from a microscope? Who knows!? All I'm saying is perhaps it's absurd to attempt to judge the laws of physics using light (energy/thoughts/imagination), because you then begin to transcend the laws of physics to the point that they're so far beyond you they're not even applicable anymore--it's like taking a chunk of dirt out from other a pile--the pile simply sinks in because the chunk has been removed, so now the chunk is simply placed on top of the pile. So, did a clock measure time being behind the clock on earth, or did it measure its relation to the speed of light? Did it lose time or light? If everything is made of light, including the speeder light-display on the clock itself which depicts the numbers, then of course the faster somebody moves the more likely the clock is to depict a dimmer, "past" number. So, you also see how this "reality" is simply an illusion--in fact, the time it takes for light to hit your eye, process the information, etc. is even measurable...so, then, "reality" is truly an illusion, and realative to the observer because everything is made out of energy (consciousness), or, light. Okay, you might be confused with some of this...but I felt I'd rant for a bit.

I believe outerspace is indeed that mysterious current...like a glass of water, so is outerspace. I do not understand why people do not realize outerspace is indeed the swirling glass of water with bubbles (and it separates out the densist material to the least dense, radiating from dense to space itself). In other words, I believe outerspace works like the local level, and even wormholes support the drain idea (my toothpaste spit going down the drain like a galaxy).

Well, I am glad you pointed out this is a debate forum, I suppose I hadn't realized the entire forums were centered around only debate...which explains why I do not appreciate the constant chain-arguing which is less constructive than actually learning. Perhaps I can work on this new found realization or perhaps I will leave. This applies to all people, then, or else I will notice an imbalance. The forums say, "Science Forums and Debate", I guess I interpreted "and" to mean "and" and not "only". Perhaps they should be renamed to "Science Debate Forums", then, because I am presently justified, otherwise, in saying that I did not want to pursue all chain-arguments.

He already saw it as sci-fi long before I discussed at sci-fi. My opinion on sci-fi is not personal to him. There's a difference between calling someone an imaginative idiot or so and ridiculing them, such as treatment I have received, based on my beliefs of something not being sci-fi, in contrast to my discussing my opinion to the nature of something admitted to be sci-fi.

Yes, and if I argue that it does, then your argument is no longer necessary and you attempt to now argue my belief? Is this what you want?...do you enjoy disputes?

So, in other words, speed alters the consciousness or perception of the individual? That is much different than time being relative.

I think people should stop trying to entertain their selves away from reality.

Make a list of areas where you have concerns or questions about and perhaps I can answer and comment on them.

No, I got annoyed at people who sit on the computer asking people for support to a specific claim when they can go use google or something if they're honestly interested in learning--rather than being grumblers and faultfinders with unhealthy interests in disputes. I find it absolutely selfish for people to constantly hound someone for support when, support has already been given, regardless if their warrants are in conflict they can very easily find the support their self and/or they ignore the support given anyway as a means of avoiding departure--such as people overstaying their welcomes in threads and discussions and/or nosing in under the disguise of "publicity" So, what is it? You enjoy playing the rich man ordering people to serve you, or I am simply just one of a brute disease who should see no issue with those who refuse to help their selves? And, didn't I go ahead and give you the support for that claim anyhow, hellbender? So what are you annoyed at now? The fact that I pointed out I don't appreciate your refusal to seek the truth and verification yourself? Do you honestly believe the world should be a place where people go skeptically lingering around an individual and their claims, demanding them to give them proof, when all the time spent doing so could have been reduced and also spent strengthening the challenger's curious inquiry by simply seeking education their self from a readily-available source such as a search engine? Perhaps you hate me because I dream of a better world, where the incredibly pampered quit their shenanigans and start working together in honest, fair love and game.