Do you know why things are paired?

[lawsinium]

If we look at the world we live in, we always find objects in pair. When something goes up most likely it will go down. A magnet has always north and south poles. Electricity runs, when the positive and negative terminals of a battery are connected. We created the word bits, for binary digits zero and one. White and black, A and Z, roots and branches, crest and through, right and left, body and soul, yin and yang, matter and energy and many more examples could be given possibly with no end. We do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game, these objects can be detected or interpreted by our senses. This theory of duality is realistically observable, logically explained and sequentially classified.

 

To illustrate this theory, although you can use any of the examples above, I will use the inanimate letters of the alphabet as an example. Letters live in an enclosed system called the alphabet system. This system begins with letter A and ends with letter Z. These two letters are logistically positioned to coexist as reciprocating partners in a structured open system. As these letters combine, they group together and transform into words, sentences, paragraphs, books, encyclopedias, libraries. Letters group together and expand to create more different words, words group together and expand to create multiple sentences, sentences create paragraphs, paragraphs create pages, pages create books and books create never ending voluminous information. However, in their exponential transformation and continuous progression, some words become dormant and others become effective and efficient. These letters who are effective and efficient dominate, thrive and survive.

 

The concept of pairing is the ultimate answer to how things evolve from the birth of the universe to the way life is today. In the book Creation by Laws, the evolution of anything on earth and our universe can be authoritatively explained using the theory of particle duality and the law of spontaneous infinity. The concept dictates a continuous propagation of "life" (living and non-living) and exponential transformation of species (living and non-living) in a never-ending process of procreation, which is guided by verifiable empirical list of instinctive instructions, that activates gradually the natural process of evolution of anything in the universe, a process that allows even god to be part and parcel of the evolutionary creation.

 

If we analyze differ the creation of our universe, the timeline of our cosmos from a macrolevel point of view really begun with the Family Duality theory, followed by the planetary big bang, the Darwinian evolution of organism, the genesis of Adam and Eve, and the microlevel family of man-made systems exemplified by the tools system, the alphabetical system, and the numerical system to name a few. All these dualities follow the stages of family life cycle called Creation by Laws.

 

The practical significance of this article:

 

This article revolutionizes the Family Age, since all creatures belongs to the same family tree and ergo have the same status as all other species, each and every organisms including us must be equally treated. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight should not be regarded as different since all of them have the same common particle that we inherited since the birth of the universe. There are standard man-made norms that we follow, but the happiness of anybody should not be taken from them. After all, it is not only sex that makes a partnership survive, companionship and care contribute the most in order for a relationship to last. And from this duality principle, you will be surprised that pairing is not only for man and woman in order to grow and multiply. Everything in this world can spontaneously propagate and exponentially transform by simply following the natural seven laws of creation.

 

Also, within this family age, all living things must come together to unite in order to save the earth and to enjoy life to its fullest by introducing a new way of living. If this duality theory will be accepted by the common tao, then the reality of protecting and sustaining the world will be almost at hand. And it is nice if our group will be a part of this endeavor. If civilization started from Stone Age, Agricultural Age, Industrial Age, Technology Age, Information Age, it is high time now to recognize and to promote with immediate attention the Family Age.

 

On the other hand, if the leaders of every country recognize this family theory, then there will be no innocent kids or soldiers that will be killed in the line of fire, there will be no crimes since everyone is earning at their own face, and the earth will be protected since a new way of green living is being introduced. And on this picturesque, the key element to be united is not peace but harmony within a family. Like bees or ants in colonies who worked in harmony and protect their "Queen", human beings, with a slight gift of intelligence and not to far from other species, must worked together too to protect "Mother Earth" in order to survive, grow and flourish.

 

 

Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind;

(ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).

Edited July 13, 2008 by lawsinium

[lawsinium]

How this article will differ from previous related topics on creation:

 

The article about Creation by Laws is absolutely unique since the principles behind this theory especially the particle duality and spontaneous infinity can appropriately be used as a concrete basis to explain all other existing theories about creation. Also, all concepts about creationism have been either based on religious beliefs or scientific ideologies. My theory is based on mathematical facts. It is like dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, the end result is always a pi. Pi which is equal to 3.1416 is always constant and is the basic fact of life for all circles

 

Any major benefits that the theory will contribute to the world:

 

All of the theories in my book Creation by Laws were based from the isomorphical figures that I have experimented in my “laboratory”. The number six is so dominant that I considered it as a perfect number and thus must be given special attention. Its structure can be used in buildings for stability purposes during times of earthquake. It can also be used in designing new aircraft that might break time travel. And like carbon which can be formed with a host of other compounds, it can be used in skin grafting, material hardening and other form of structural strenghtening (e.g. space elevator connecting earth and the international space station).

[iNow]

This is not a place for prostylization nor the spreading of religious bunk or numerology.

[mooeypoo]

I'd love to know what you mean by "laboratory".

I know what a laboratory is, but what is a "laboratory"? And how do you experiment in such? where are the results of such experimentation?

[lawsinium]

I am sorry guys, but I will not response into any remarks or opinions in this thread, which is not related, into my theory on duality and instinctive intelligence per se. And if you post any related critics or opinions, please do not tell me to read the book of this person, or go to a website to just prove your claims. Please explain them thoroughly why do you think that my theory is wrong and what evidence do you have to back up your claims or my claims.

 

However, to other readers, you can throw all questions in a different thread entitled - Exploring the origin of life and consciousness. In addition, for those who already have posted some questions, can you please take them out of here so that this thread will concentrate only about my article regarding evolution of creations. Thank you.

 

I would be very glad if you point out any defects or inconsistency whatsoever you might find in my article. Don’t be intimidated or constrained by what you will throw to me. I need your disapproval or condemnation as a measure to enhance the qualitative and quantitative of my assertions. Please, spare your praises since what I need now is your honest opinion - the harsher the better.

[iNow]

Sounds like you're used to your ideas being challenged. That was a pretty ready response you had right there.

[mooeypoo]

Excuse me, but my remark may have sounded cynical, it was not.

 

I was absolutely seriously asking you how you could possibly test this, and I meant what I asked about the "laboratory". I might have asked this with a bit of humor, but it *is* a relevant question to analyze your theory, and your refusal to answer it seems slightly odd.

 

The burden of proof is on you, not on us, so if you want us to analyze your theory, I think you better get off your high horse and start answering our questions..?

 

Or do you rather we assume the answers, rather than asking you for clarifications..?

[Kyrisch]

What empirical evidence do you have that six is the "perfect" number?

[lawsinium]

Regarding "Laboratory" - what if I tell you that I was the one who discovered Pi (3.1415+) and that I used a piece of paper as a place where I conducted my scientific investigations, will it matter?

 

Regarding "Six" - like Pi which is a constant, six always comes out as end result using my isodimensional morphical figures. It always carry a sinusoidial frequency in an inverse helixal configuration.

[mooeypoo]

Science is about common language and common practice, so that it eliminates (as much as possible) the existence of human bias and human error.

 

One of the requirements of a theory, to be considered scientific (and hence, valid), is that its experimentation can be repeated. If I want to make sure your experiment is valid, I need to know what you've done.

 

That's science.

 

Another requirement is that I your theory fits reality. At the moment, the last sentence of your post is doubtfully mathematical. I am not sure it's even physical. In fact, I doubt very much that it's even English.

 

You need to make sure you separate your interpretations from actual facts and observations. When you were asked about the meaning of six, the scientific response should have been a *logical* construction of the proof, along with observational data (or math, I'll take that too).

 

 

Instead, you spurted out an interpreted opinion, which, other than being interesting to read (..sometimes), is not helping the validity of your theory.

 

Don't forget this very easy fact: You came to us. We are a scientific forum, following the scientific method. If you wish to discuss your theory using gibberish, ignore our requests for proof and substantiation and preach to us about not disagreeing with you, then perhaps you should move to "my-theory-must-be-right-despite-of-reality-because-i-like-it-forums.net"

 

Otherwise, I suggest you climb off your high horse and start following the rules of the forum you chose to sign up to, and talk some science.

 

~moo

[ajb]

Regarding "Six" - like Pi which is a constant, six always comes out as end result using my isodimensional morphical figures. It always carry a sinusoidial frequency in an inverse helixal configuration.

 

 

Come on, explain this further. To me it sounds like "technobabble". You should be able to explain (most) of this here. If not, you will need to think how you will do so. LaTex works on this forum so presenting maths should not be a huge problem. If it is lengthy and difficult to present a full proof of am mathematical result, then you should at least present an outline. That way we can begin to believe what is being claimed.

 

Part of science is about communicating your ideas and results effectively. This is not often easy, but has to be done. If you want anyone on here to look at what you have done then you must present it well and be prepared to strengthen your arguments/presentation accordingly.

[lawsinium]

Before I will present to you my formula, I just like to make sure that you are really good in science or math. So for LaTex, can you derive a formula for all these problems which actually can be found from any algebra books.

 

1. There are only 2 species in the universe the first day.

2. After seven days, these species gave birth to 4 species.

3. After 14 days, each specie gave birth to 4 species each.

4. If we follow the same pattern of conception, how many species do we have all in all on the 28th day?

 

Or maybe you can try this which was solved by a 5th grader!

 

There are 7 kids on a bus.

Each kid has 7 backpacks

In each backpack, there are 7 cats

For every cat there are 7 little kittens

 

How many legs are there inside the bus?

 

Or maybe you can analyze this for me!

 

When I was 18 years old I discovered that the famous equation: E = mc² was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I got.....

 

FORMULA >>STATEMENT

W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation

F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation

W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2

W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units

W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents

W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B

W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining

W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying

W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E)

 

So for you guys and LaTex and thinkers alike: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If work = force x distance, and force = mass x acceleration, then yes, you are correct.

[insane_alien]

W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V

W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass

 

you have a flaw here. you replace a variable, V, with a constant, c. justify this substitution or you cannot say E=mc^2 was derived from these two equations(and we know that it wasn't).

 

also, why do we have to do trivial math problems for you to post equations? post them or shut up.

[Edtharan]

E = mc² was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I got.....

Also E=MC^2 is not the true equation, it is a simplification of the equation.

 

It is like me saying (with W = F x d) that I can Show that W = F because in the situation d = 0. Because d = 0 we can simplify the equation, but this only applies in the situation where d = 0. If d does not equal 0, then that simplification is invalid, and any conclusions I came to because of only looking at that simplification will also be invalid in the case of d <> 0.

 

As the full equation is: E^2 -(pc)^2 = (Mc^2)^2

 

Where:

E = energy

M = Rest mass

p = momentum

c = the speed of light

 

So the simplified equation that you used only applies when the momentum is 0 (it it is not moving). Also, because you substituted a variable V for c, then it only applies when the variable V is equal to c (and only when V = c).

 

In any other cases, you conclusions are invalid. They are correct, but only when something is not moving and the velocity is the speed of light.

 

Can you see the problem now? You can't be both stationary and moving at the speed of light can you.

[lawsinium]

Have you heard of relativity. A train could be moving at the speed of light and you are sitting inside that train,probably reading my book. Now this concept defends on whose frame of reference are we talking about!

 

I know that momentum was derived from F = M x A, and again Einstein borrowed an existing formula from Sir Newton. And because he knows the tricks of his trade, he has to make sure that they are dimensionally correct. And his derivation is somewhat parallel to my derivation of W = MAD.

[Dak]

but how would you see your book at the speed of light?

 

Most of the first paragraph of your OP is the texan sharpshooter fallicy, i think. plus, you're ignoring the fact that many things don't come in pairs, that many of the things you mentioned don't come in pairs (black and white. or, y'know, blue; what goes up comes down, unless it's boyancy is such that it hovers, etc). other things you're just choosing to make up to reinfose your point (body and soul, BUT, for all that it makes sence to pair these, you may as well have said 'body, soul and mind', or 'fish and chips' for that matter).

 

iow, most things don't come in pairs, and there's probably no significance to the fact that several things do, unless you want to say that there are quite a few things that are binary (this thing either has, or has not, this quality).

[lawsinium]

I have already answered your questions and other similar arguments in a different thread. But to give you a glimpse of my claims, I am posting here a concrete evidence that might satisfy your curiosity and definition of REALITY. Look at this in a perspective, as if you are living inside the world of computer and as the world you are living now.

 

The computer itself evolved from the Duality of 0 and 1. In the electrical level we call it On and Off. But if you look at the “universe” of your computer desktop or laptop, you do not see this duality or it is so hard to find one just like that. But this electronic virtual world is functioning like our own world, it can even create a hypothetical human-like specie I called homotronics.

 

How did this duality evolve? It started from on and off partnership. A 5-volts of electrical signal is transported to some timers, capacitors, transistors, resistors and integrated circuits. As this duality of signals reach the electronic level, they were encoded and decoded along the way from the duality of 0 and 1 to a complex system of families. They were connected to an 8 led-display so that human beings can read them.

 

These two switches (on & off) were translated into binary numbers, 0 and 1. Zero as a representation of ‘off’ or ‘nothingness’ and one as a representation of “On’ or ‘something’. These binary digits were the particles that created the world of computers and beyond. These two numbers coexist, interact and form new set of numbers. These new sets of numbers combine as groups and transform into new sets of systems of families: base-2 (0 and 1 as a pair); base-3 (0 and 5 as a pair); base-6, (0 and 11 as a pair); base-10 (0 and 9 as a pair); and base-16 (0 and F as a pair) to name a few. Others even branch out to a different path, e.g. the octadecimal system, multiplication tables, html color-codes, ipod, homotronics.

 

Following the basic algorithm of generating counting numbers outlined in my previous threads, all of these systems will multiply endlessly forever in time. However, in their exponential transformation and continuous progression, some families become dormant (e.g. base-3, base-6, base-60) and others become effective and efficient (e.g. base-2, base-10, base-16). These numbers or systems, which are effective and efficient dominate, thrive and survive.

 

These families of numbers that were effective and efficient tend to go to a different direction. They evolved and created the language of the computers: from assembly language, to DOS, basic, cobol, logo, pascal, dbase, C, and to Microsoft suite to name a few. Take note, all these languages are by-products of the duality of zero and one again. (since you are a programmer just like me, then you can not deny this at all - another reality)

 

So it does not matter again, if it is 0 &1 to create a family of numbers. It can be 0 and 5 or 0 and 11 or other hieroglyphics. So it does not matter again, if it A-Z to create a family of languages. It can be 0 & 1, A & Z, assembly language, hexadecimal, Chinese characters or russian morse codes. So it does not matter again, if it is metal or wood to create a family of tools, what matter is that the evolution of creation can be duplicated by using to say the least - the principle behind the family of duality and the seven instinctive laws of creation. So with all things said, do I still need to do cherry picking (look for matches and disregard that contradicts) in this complex world we called WWW?

 

Another reality that this duality of zero and one created is the colors in our monitors and printers. This duality has created millions of colors by using the color combination of red, green and blue in hexadecimal form. The RGB system is a third level color generation using a three-color “triality” system. RGB tricolor is often used in generating complex colors in television sets and computer monitors. The process is called Additive Color Mixing. This method creates new colors by mixing black with various proportions of red, green or blue and ending up with white. The RGB triality is also used as a basis for creating colors on web pages. This computer language scheme, called HTML color codes, is made up of six digits whose values start from 000000 and end in FFFFFF. The color code #000000 represents black and #FFFFFF represents the color white. Using the basic html color format #xxxxxx and plugging any one of these hexa-numbers(originated from the duality of zero and one) in the color format will yield millions of colors. The number of possible true colors that can be produced out of this html color system is sixteen millions and more. The black and white family can generate more systems by duality, tertiality, and hexiality. All these systems procreate by dividing and forming new groups. As they transform to a new life—from color particles to a rainbow, RGB monitors, or html web colors—they begin to expand bringing with them their best features in order to survive and propagate. And for those inactive colors, they just stay within the system waiting to be recognized. (metal & air, metal & water, air and wood which were called natural elements are totally different from the periodic table of today.)

 

BTW, alter pair is different from opposite pair. Opposite connotes an anti pair, a negative-positive relationship. Alter pair means the other pair, the second pair. This pair lives in a symbiotic partnership called family.

 

Going back to the basics is a very important element in life and the quest for life! From basics you will learn how things originated. Since I know that computers are nothing but a basic signals of On and Off, I harnessed, tamed and taught these signals to control my television, my sound systems, my air-conditioning and all other equipment I have in my room. It was fun! When I always repetitively type the DOS commands (assembly language evolution) at the A prompt, it always disturb me inconveniently. So, I designed a program that will make it simple using Dbase as my graphical interface at that time and place all this DOS command in one place. I compiled it into exe file and the result is a look alike of what we have now called Windows. Another happy moment! Learning the basic (duality theory) and some modular algorithm (seven laws of creation) can create a complex world where cherry picking could be fun too!

 

 

"The universe evolved from nothing and something; and has most of this elemental duality until today."...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

[Sayonara]

Analogies followed by a quote.

 

That is certainly a novel approach which we have never seen before.

[Edtharan]

Have you heard of relativity. A train could be moving at the speed of light and you are sitting inside that train,probably reading my book. Now this concept defends on whose frame of reference are we talking about!

No, it would have to bee stationary and moving at the speed of light in the same frame of reference.

 

Those equations are applied to a single frame of reference. If you take a different frame of reference then you have to put in new number to the equations.

 

As the equations are applying to a single frame of reference, then the equations state that the object must be moving at the speed of light and also be stationary for that particular frame of reference.

 

I didn't mention the frame of reference because I though it was obvious from the equations that they were referencing a single frame of reference.

 

I know that momentum was derived from F = M x A, and again Einstein borrowed an existing formula from Sir Newton. And because he knows the tricks of his trade, he has to make sure that they are dimensionally correct. And his derivation is somewhat parallel to my derivation of W = MAD.

The maths are wrong, so the conclusion from them is also wrong. You can't have an object, as determined form the same frame of reference, be travelling at both the speed of light and be totally stationary at the same time.

 

Take note, all these languages are by-products of the duality of zero and one again. (since you are a programmer just like me, then you can not deny this at all - another reality)

You have causality backwards here. The languages are not a by product of the binary logic of a computer, but instead the product of our language and the way humans think.

 

Originally all computers were programmed using machine code, however, this is difficult to do. So programmers made another language that was easier for them to read, but mapped directly to machine code. This is called Assembly language.

 

Machine code did not "create" this language, but instead it was an application of the ability for a computer to map one set of abstract symbols to another set of abstract symbols. However, the computer only defines one set of these abstract symbols, not the other.

 

If you are correct, then it would have to be that the computer defined both sets of abstract symbols, as by your statement they were by products of the computer.

 

Howver, the second set of abstract symbols was specified by humans, so this measn that the computer did not specify the second set of symbols.

 

This further confounds your proposal because the Assembly language was also found to be too complex fro people to fully understand. So programmer created a further set of abstract symbols that mapped to the Assembly Code symbols, that mapped to the Machine Code symbols.

 

It is the last layer that we use when programming a computer, as it also give several advantages (as the symbols are abstract we can change their mapping which allows us to take the same program in a high level language and compile it for a different underlying hardware/machine code).

 

If you are correct, and the assembly language was a by product of the base computer, then each language level would be dependant on the level below it. This would mean that even with the high level languages, you would not be able to use it to code for a different underlying set of hardware. As this is not the case, it disproves your proposal.

 

A computer is a Simple Turing Machine, the job of a Simple Turing Machine is to map one set of arbitrary symbols to another set of arbitrary symbols according to a set of rules.

 

However, a computer is more than a Simple Turing Machine, it is a Universal Turing Machine. The difference between a Simple and a Universal Turing machine is that the Universal Turing machine is capable of implementing any Simple Turing Machine (hence why it is called Universal).

 

This means that a computer can map any set of arbitrary symbols onto any other set of arbitrary symbols. It means that there is a virtually infinite derived mapping rule sets (it is not infinity in reality as there is not an infinite amount of space in computer memory or processing power).

 

So, this means that you have to explain why the mapping, if it was not a by product of humans and only a by product of the logic of a computer), that we have is so well suited to human usage, with virtually no variation (evolution requires variation, and because there has been so little variation, evolution could not have been at work).

 

So it does not matter again

You keep repeating this phrase, and then listing conclusions you have made from your theory.

 

This sentence is not proof of your assumptions

 

In fat, this is saying (paraphrased): "Evidence that contradict my pet assumption does not matter".

 

Evidence that contradict something is the most important evidence there is. If there is evidence that says I am wrong, then it means I am wrong, no matter how much evidence that I can pull out to says I am right.

 

You can prove that something is wrong, but you can never prove that something is right.

 

Your proposal has been proved wrong. Many times over. This means that it is wrong. Just stating that because evidence disagrees with you, then it "does not matter" is just constructing a fantasy world, a delusion if you will.

 

Let me put it to you again why contradictory evidence matters:

 

You decide to cross the street. You make the assumption that because you looked one way and didn't see a car, then it means that there is no cars coming.

 

However, because you didn't look at all the evidence (looking both ways), then you don't really know if your assumption is correct. But because you have already made that assumption and thinking that any contradictory evidence "does not matter", you step out into the road.

 

But, the contradictory evidence that was there (ie a car coming the other way from where you looked), you end up getting hit by the car.

 

You have looked in one direction (seen that there exist dualities between certain things), and come to the conclusion that there are no cars (that everything has a duality and that more complex things are a combination of these dualities). However, you have not looked the other way to see that there is a car (that there exist thing in the universe that have no duality at all).

 

As you entire theory is based on the assumption that duality exists in all things, then a single piece of evidence that exists that shows that something does not have a duality, disproves your entire theory.

 

I put forward that gravity does not have this duality. You said that because your theory was right, that it did. But that is not actually providing evidence against my argument. That is a bare Assertion logical fallacy.

 

In other words the only reason for one to accept your theory, is not because reality is like that, but because you say it is right. And reality be damned.

 

Sorry, there is no evidence in reality that Gravity has a duality. As your theory require there to be duality in all things, this means that there is not duality in all things and your theory is wrong.

 

Unless you can provide evidence that shows that Gravity does have a duality, then there is no amount of evidence that you can present that will confirm your theory, as this evidence (Gravity not having a duality) completely disproves it (and thus must be addressed before we can continue).

[lawsinium]

I know that you still do not get how to approach my theory! Why?

Because you are still asking the same old question! What is the duality of this or that?

 

The right question should be: What is the family of gravity? What is the family of this duality?

 

If you know the family of a certain specie (living and non-living), then you will find the alter pair of that particular specie. So gravity belongs to what family? Since gravity is a force, I can say that it belongs to the Family of Forces. What are the different forces that are already known to man: magnetic, gravity, nuclear and so forth and so on. These forces are classified as at-a-distance forces. The other forces, which are classified contact force, are friction, pressure to name a few. They belong to the duality of push and pull (literally?)

 

So gravity can interact with any forces. Gravity can use electromagnetism as an alterpair. It can use nuclear forces as an alterpair. Did you get it now?

 

Since you love analogies, I will use the family called human beings as an example.

 

What/Who is the duality or alterpair of Edtharan? So the first thing that you should do is classify edtharan? Is edtharan a virus, a bonobo or a human being? You found out that edtharan is a human being. So edtharan belongs to the family called Homo Sapiens. At the same time Sayonara, Dak, Kyrisch, mooeypoo belong to the same family of human specie. So who is the alterpair of edtran? It could be sayonara, dak or any body else. Did you get the picture now? Again this "analogy" is a factual evidence of duality!

 

I could not blame you that you see it like other ordinary people will do? Because some brains are preconditioned just like that (that is why you simply asked: what is the duality of this and that). Our senses: sight, hearing, touch, smelling, taste and dreaming; are the main culprit of this preconditioning. When these senses detect anything, consciously or subconsciously, they are all stored in the brain. And the principle behind cherry picking comes in! (Hey edthran, I am learning something from you. hehehehe!) Some people can not accept the fact that my theory is a reality so they labeled it as an analogy (a selection process of creation). I can not blame some people about this kind of reaction, since in the first place this is a new concept and the scientific community has not heard my theory yet. (that is why i approached this forum coz maybe someone here is a science editor of a university, a physicists, a teacher who has the power to publicly publish my work) But I am very sorry to disagree; this is not an analogy at all. The on and off duality is a "reality" - a fact and an evidence. And the letters you see on your screen are the by-product of this duality which are being processed by truth table, logic gates, and ansi codes (assembly language evolution). To prove me right otherwise, you may ask experts like both computer engineers and electronic engineers about this, or just google if you have an inquisitive mind.

 

If someone will ask you to open a door, which one will you do? If I want to open the door, I will either push it or pull it. To a kid, he might try his sword, a bomb, a mallet, his magic powers, his laser beams, his telekinesis and probably his invisible friend. To others they will just use a key. So with these three personalities, who among them is the most intelligent?

 

1. To a regular mind, this question can be answered automatically. (common intelligence)

2. To an active mind, this question can be answered in many ways”. ( inquisitive intelligence)

3. To an intelligent mind, this question becomes a challenge for proof. (the visionary)

 

 

"The best journeys are not always in a straight lines"....excerpt from the book Creation by Laws.

[mooeypoo]

I know that you still do not get how to approach my theory! Why?

Because you are still asking the same old question! What is the duality of this or that?

 

The right question should be: What is the family of gravity? What is the family of this duality?

Okay, the process you are going through with us at this thread is called peer review. Peer review is meant to take a theory and try to rip it to shreds by criticizing the living heck out of it with these possible outcomes:

 

• If the theory survives that process, it's valid (until it falls again after reevaluation, or new observations/facts are found).
  
• If it fails, then at least you get a chance to see why, and perhaps revise it accordingly to try and get it to stand through another same process.
  

 

You don't get to choose our questions in this peer review process. If you can't answer a valid criticism, your theory is dead. You are being asked questions on the merit of what you are presenting. The fact that you might not have valid answers only means that your theory is shaky, not that we are wrong in our questions.

 

If you know the family of a certain specie (living and non-living), then you will find the alter pair of that particular specie.

 

1. What do you mean by "non-living" species? The term "Species" is quite well defined in scientific speak, and I am not quite sure I understand what you mean by non-living species. You mean the extinct ones?
   
2. The fact you pick and choose pairs that seem nice to you does not mean they are pairs. What is the pair of a fig tree? What is the pair of a dog? For that matter, what is the pair of this animal, or this, or of the Contagious pustular dermatitis virus?
    
   Please supply the methodology and requirements of 'picking' a pair. What would constitute 'pairing'? What are the rules you are using to pair things up? They need to be logical and scientific, and have quite a lot of substantiation themselves, too, since I can explain what I - personally - think of as pairs, and odds are we will differ. Different approaches lead to different conclusions in those matters.
    
   For example, I doubt the National Association of Evengelicals would agree on what I constitute as a logical pair in human mating or marriage. Actually, I'm pretty sure they won't.
   

So gravity belongs to what family? Since gravity is a force, I can say that it belongs to the Family of Forces.

Why? It's anecdotal and completely personal choice to include it in any type of family, or to a family in general. you might think of it as a family of Forces; I consider it a family of attractors, differing from force in strength, function and direction. I can also put it in a family of spacial phenomena, or Newtonian observations.

 

It's arbitrary, and hence not valid as a scientific fact.

 

 

From here on you just continue with yet another series of arbitrary pick of what you WANT to be a logical trail, but is, in fact, personal preferenced pick of 'groups'. I can play the same game with entirely different pairs. In fact, I can play the same game with octets too, if I put my mind to it. It's not science, it's a mindgame. Fun, perhaps, but not enough to prove a scientific theory correct.

 

So gravity can interact with any forces. Gravity can use electromagnetism as an alterpair. It can use nuclear forces as an alterpair. Did you get it now?

Just a minor point here = gravity doesn't "Use" anything, gravity is a force/phenomenon. It's not using, it's being observed as a fact of existence -- two (or more) objects are attracted to one another with relation to their mass and distance. We call that phenomenon "Gravity". It's not an "it" or a "her", hence it does not "pick" or "interact".

 

 

Since you love analogies, I will use the family called human beings as an example.

Actually, you're the one who seems to like them, that's why people tried to help you understand our questions using analogies. Analogies by themselves are NOT science, and are not proofs. They're just a means to an end -- use an analogy to explain your point.

 

 

What/Who is the duality or alterpair of Edtharan? So the first thing that you should do is classify edtharan? Is edtharan a virus, a bonobo or a human being? You found out that edtharan is a human being. So edtharan belongs to the family called Homo Sapiens. At the same time Sayonara, Dak, Kyrisch, mooeypoo belong to the same family of human specie. So who is the alterpair of edtran? It could be sayonara, dak or any body else. Did you get the picture now? Again this "analogy" is a factual evidence of duality!

I'm the alterpair of Edtharan:

 

• He explains what I try to a lot better;
  
• We often agree on many issues;
  
• He's a man and I'm a woman (alterpair right there);
  
• He is likely to write my exact point but better said
  

 

But then again, I can also find the same amount of reasons why we're not alterpairs, and why I'm the duality of Sayo. Or Cap'n. Or YDOAPS. Because it's not based on any actual factual logical processes; it's just shooting from the hip -- it SOUNDS logical, and I LIKE the result, so I pick it.

 

It doesn't quite work, though, and it's far from being a fact.

 

 

I could not blame you that you see it like other ordinary people will do? Because some brains are preconditioned just like that (that is why you simply asked: what is the duality of this and that).

That requires proof. Preconditioned for what? How do you know this? Why are you saying this? Prove it, or it's vain.

 

Our senses: sight, hearing, touch, smelling, taste and dreaming; are the main culprit of this preconditioning. When these senses detect anything, consciously or subconsciously, they are all stored in the brain. And the principle behind cherry picking comes in!

You mean what you did here in this theory?

 

(Hey edthran, I am learning something from you. hehehehe!) Some people can not accept the fact that my theory is a reality so they labeled it as an analogy (a selection process of creation).

No no no, some people asked you questions which you couldn't ANSWER so they labeled your theory bunk.

 

Answer the questions we ask instead of repeating the claim with no substantiations.

 

 

I can not blame some people about this kind of reaction, since in the first place this is a new concept and the scientific community has not heard my theory yet. (that is why i approached this forum coz maybe someone here is a science editor of a university, a physicists, a teacher who has the power to publicly publish my work)

Nothing -- NOTHING -- will make me happier than to meet a valid theory in this forum, rip the living heck out of it, have it survive and stand still, and see it being submitted to a quality scientific publication so it changes the way we think of current physics. Absolutely nothing will make me prouder and happier; it will, for one, give me more money and more work, since new advancements are a GREAT opening for new research, and new research is new work, which is money.

 

But we can't be expected to accept a theory that failed our questioning. You THINK your theory is realistic, that's why you're here - so we examine this. It turns out you are using way too many analogies, way too many subjective decisions in your logical premises, and way too little facts and observations.

 

Fix this matter, refine your theory, and perhaps it will stand stronger and you will be able to go on and win a Nobel prize for changing the face of science.

 

Man, I am SERIOUSLY wishing you good luck with this effort. Seriously.

You're just not quite there yet.

 

 

But I am very sorry to disagree; this is not an analogy at all.

You're not explaining yourself, though, that's our problem. You say it's not an analogy but instead of giving us HARD PROOFS for substantiations, you give more and more analogies and subjective explanations. What do you expect us to say to those, exactly?

 

Now, sadly, I must run off to the Gym now, so I have to cut this analysis short. But don't worry, I should probably stop here anyways and let Edtharan do a better job explaining my point for me, as he usually does.

 

Cheers,

 

~moo

[Edtharan]

But don't worry, I should probably stop here anyways and let Edtharan do a better job explaining my point for me, as he usually does.

Thanks. Actually it used to be my job explaining science to the general public.

 

Nothing -- NOTHING -- will make me happier than to meet a valid theory in this forum, rip the living heck out of it, have it survive and stand still, and see it being submitted to a quality scientific publication so it changes the way we think of current physics. Absolutely nothing will make me prouder and happier;

A fully agree with this. Science is all about discovery, so if I (and most likely the other members of this forum) actually could contribute to some new science, I would be very excited. Even if I didn't get any formal recognition for my efforts. Just knowing that I contributed, or even just knew someone who made a significant contribution to science would be an awesome prospect.

 

Okay, the process you are going through with us at this thread is called peer review. Peer review is meant to take a theory and try to rip it to shreds by criticizing the living heck out of it with these possible outcomes:

 

* If the theory survives that process, it's valid (until it falls again after reevaluation, or new observations/facts are found).

* If it fails, then at least you get a chance to see why, and perhaps revise it accordingly to try and get it to stand through another same process.

 

 

You don't get to choose our questions in this peer review process. If you can't answer a valid criticism, your theory is dead. You are being asked questions on the merit of what you are presenting. The fact that you might not have valid answers only means that your theory is shaky, not that we are wrong in our questions.

In a world of conflicting ideas, personal beliefs and measurement errors, you need a methods to sort out the incorrect ideas from the correct ideas. This is the Scientific Method, part of which is the peer review process.

 

The scientific method is designed to be an reality check. Essentially, if someone presents an idea, then this is checked with what we known about reality (experimentation and evidence). If it fails this reality check, then it quite obviously is not describing reality (it is describing something, but it just is not reality).

 

Science is about constructing a discretion of Reality.

 

With the scientific method, you first have to show that your idea is at least as good a description of reality as we have already got.

 

It is quite simple, if a new description of reality is not as good as the description we currently have, then why should be use the inferior one?

 

The person who understand a new idea better than anyone else in the world, is the one who came up with it. This means that they are the most qualified person to seek evidence that supports their idea.

 

This is why the burden of proof is on the person proposing an new idea: Because they are the most qualified person to do so.

 

Imagine that I can up with a new idea about physics. But I felt that the burden of proof was on you. But, you don't actually understand exactly what my theory is, so you collect the wrong evidence and so my theory appears not to be valid.

 

But, if I had gathered that evidence then because I know the theory, I can collect the correct evidence that properly represents my theory.

 

But that is not all the scientific method is. That is just the first step.

 

The next step is the peer review process. This is where you present your theory, along with the evidence that you have gathered that represents it. Then everyone else tries to find a problem with it. They need to examine it from every angle that they can, challenge you to support your conclusions and the evidence that you collected and test it against reality.

 

If your idea survives this process, then we can say with a fair degree of confidence that it is correct. But, always, you must be willing to accept, that if evidence comes along that disproves your theory, then your theory must be wrong (but it still might be the best we have).

 

Look at it this way: The scientific theories we have today are the most inaccurate, except for all the ones that have come before them.

 

It means we can never be 100% certain that a given theory is correct, but we can say with 100% certainty that is is better than the one it replaces. But to get that confidence, it needs to go through the "trial by fire" of the scientific method and peer review.

 

Because you are still asking the same old question! What is the duality of this or that?

The reason that I am still asking the same question is that there is nothing in your original explanations of your theory as to why a particular pairing is accepted (and why others are rejected), and that you haven't actually answered this question at all.

 

It is a valid question, and the best answer you have given to date is: It doesn't matter".

 

Sorry. You presented your theory on this web site which is about science and the debate (peer review) of scientific theories. But then when we actually apply the scientific method to your theory, you come out and say that it is not what we should be doing.

 

You even asked us to review it.

 

If you know the family of a certain specie (living and non-living), then you will find the alter pair of that particular specie.

As Mooypoo said, the definition of "Species" is a well known definition. It has to do with living organisms and their offspring. It is sometimes used as an analogy (but analogies are not facts, they are little stories to aid communicating an idea).

 

Unless you are claiming that Subatomic particles, or the gravitational force has a genetic code, then you are using this either incorrectly, or as an analogy (in which case you can't present it as evidence).

 

I suppose you could be redefining the word, but that is an entirely different process that has to occur, and is not physics, but linguistics.

 

Also, if you are redefining the term "Species" you need to first communicate this new definition before using it in a sentence.

 

Imagine this:

 

If I said: "The sky is green".

 

Then later try to explain that all your objections where you claim that the sky is really Blue are incorrect because I redefined the word Green to mean Blue, it doesn't make me correct. It is just bad communication.

 

Species refers to living organisms.

 

Since gravity is a force, I can say that it belongs to the Family of Forces.

You have made an unsupported assumption here. You claim that gravity is a force. But, it is also geometry. All other forces can be described by the exchange of force carrying particles. But when gravity is treated like this, the force of gravity goes to infinite (because the force carrying particles also produce gravity, so these need force carrying particles and these produce gravity... and so on).

 

However, if you treat Gravity, not as part of the "family" of forces that they others belong to, and treat it as the geometry of Space/Time, then you don't get these infinites.

 

In other words, Gravity seems to be fundamentally different from the other forces in this respect. Including in in the "family" of other force therefore seems to be an incorrect assumption.

 

If gravity is not in the same family as the other force, then it would need a different duality (based on my heuristic understanding of how you are grouping things into "pairs" - as you haven't explicitly stated the rules with which you assign entities to a pair). But according to what I understand of your theory, there is actually nothing that Gravity, as a geometry of Space/Time, can be paired with. This breaks your theory.

 

Of course you seem quite willing to ignore this evidence (as I have presented this several times and you are quick to dismiss it without actually providing a reason to dismiss it).

 

So gravity can interact with any forces.

As far as we know this is absolutely incorrect.

 

If gravity could interact with the other forces, then we could configure these forces to effect gravity ("Interact" means both parties act on each other, that is what the "Inter" actually means). As we can't do this it means that the other forces can't act on gravity.

 

Also, if gravity could act on the other forces, then we could see effects of gravity on the other forces. Again, there is no evidence of this, and if Gravity did have such effects, then we most definitely would have seen them by now (there are people who do these kinds of experiments).

 

Remember the scientific method. First you must show that your theory is a least as good as what we have now. Well this "Gravity interacts with the other forces" proposition is not as good as what we have now as it makes prediction (ie that we should see the effects of this interaction), but we don't see what is predicted. Instead what we see is what we would get if Gravity didn't interact with the other forces.

 

You have grouped Gravity in with the other forces as part of a family. But, using your analogy of what family is: Gravity, if part of the family would appear to be a foster child.

 

Gravity can use electromagnetism as an alterpair. It can use nuclear forces as an alterpair. Did you get it now?

I get it. It is just that the evidence disagrees with you.

 

You found out that edtharan is a human being.

How dod you reach this conclusion? What evidence do you have that I am actually a human being? I could be a super intelligent artificial intelligence running on a top secret computer in some desert bunker. Or I might be an alien that has hacked into the primitive communication systems of this planet. Or I might be the brain of a rat wired up to a computer.

 

What evidence do you have to support your claim that I am Human?

 

This is your problem. You have made assumptions based on what you think is correct, but you don't actually have evidence to support that claim.

 

As a scientific community, we follow the scientific method and this requires that you need evidence to support your claims.

 

It has been repeatedly asked of you to support your claim with evidence, but each time you dismiss the need for evidence and claim that the burden of proof is on us.

 

I could not blame you that you see it like other ordinary people will do?

Just because you think differently does not mean that it is better. I can guarantee that people with mental illness think differently, but I bet you wouldn't consider them as thinking "better".

 

In summery, your entire theory is based on logical fallacies. That is it is not a rational argument. I will list the major ones:

 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking

What you have been doing is only accepting the evidence that supports your theories but ignoring evidence that disproves it.

 

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost

When evidence is overwhelming against a particular argument, you come out and state that the argument was not actually supporting your theories. This is called moving the goal posts. If you first present something as supporting your theory, and then change that later when it is shown not to support your theory, then that is called moving the gaol posts and is a logical fallacy.

 

3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

You like yuo use analogies. But the danger here is that you end up getting caught up within your own analogies. You start to base conclusions off the analogies instead of off evidence. This lead you to crate the false analogies (one such is your use of Species and family).

 

4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(logical_fallacy)

Burden of proof for a theory lies with the person presenting that theory. The burden of proof against a theory (disproof) lies with those involved in peer review.

 

We have presented evidence against your theory, so we have full filled our part of the burden of proof. You have yet to present any evidence to support your theory. The burden of proof is on you.

 

5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_novelty

You have used this to justify your position. You claim that because your approach is new, it must therefore be correct. This is clearly wrong as in those wil a mental illness will think differently from anyone else and even you would not think this "new approach" would be a better one that yours.

 

Of course, it might, but it has to first prove that it is better than the current one (or at least as good).

 

6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composition_(logical_fallacy)

This appear to be what you have based your theory on. You have found some things that match your idea (ie: pairing and using combinatronics - yes, your idea is not new. It is actually a well known field that even has its own name ), and so because you have found a few examples you have concluded that all things must follow this pattern. This is called composition and is a logical fallacy.

 

If you are going to reach this conclusion, you have to show evidence to support your conclusion, not just show the examples that you used to get the idea in the first place (and most of these examples are actually wrong anyway).

 

 

You have 6 major logical fallacies in your arguments. These need to be addressed. Otherwise you entire theory makes no logical sense.

[lawsinium]

You don't get to choose our questions in this peer review process.

 

Well this is a very harsh dictatorial statement. It implies restrictions on both my actions and thoughts. And because of these boundaries, the possibilities of tilting the balance or leading me to the outcome that you like the outcome to be will always be on you hands. This also shows that professionalism is highly questionable in this "peer review", if you call this as such.

"The fact that you might not have valid answers only means that your theory is shaky, not that we are wrong in our questions."

 

IN your own views, obviously my results will always be wrong. You look my evidence as analogies maybe because you do not understand my ideas or I am not presenting my concepts right. And maybe, if I am not presenting it right, you can guide me the right way how I will present my claims in the scientific methodology. However the analogies that I am presenting as my answers to your inquiries are hard evidences of my claims. You just do not want to open your minds on these "analogies". And changing your questions is just one way to lead someone to the right track.

 

Maybe since your approach is "dictatorial":-), you can supply me first all the requirements that you need in a list-format and what methodology do I have to follow. Like in your requirements: maybe you can ask me to define first all the words that you want me to define before I present my theory (e.g. pair, alter pair, non-living things). And for methodology (which might be different from the scientific method I presented earlier in a different thread), they might be a set of questions like “How do you pick a pair".

 

Since this is a peer review, obviously you have some criteria or checklist that can tell you if my theory is feasible or not. This will probably prevent future arguments that are not really connected to the main issue. (like this >> I am sorry to agree with you that gravity does not "use" anything. Gravity only survives because their are at least two masses that exist)

 

And if we can lay down our rules, methodology and requirements maybe your wish to become happier and prouder will come true. And I assure that you will! Because I have the facts, I have the mathematical proof, I have my isodimesional morphical models and I have brilliant peers like you guys who will back up me and my theory to be true.

 

 

 

"Harmony, and not peace, is the key element for all countries to unite. In science we can not prove peace, but we can prove what frequency is!"...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

Edited August 26, 2008 by lawsinium

[iNow]

Why hasn't this thread been locked yet?