The Final Theory

[Christ slave]

Good luck with that.

Can you make this sentence a bit clearer?

His hypothesis presupposes a tube through the earth for the purposes of his gravity example. You're disagreeing with his hypothesis because his supposition doesn't suit you.

 

No, because it doesn't physically work out. If you want to make gravity out to be then some little focal point(s) by which all things are moved, be my guest. If you put a tube through the earth, it's absolutely insane to think things are going to speed up and all of a sudden zoom to the center of it and then suddenly stop.

 

We all know gravity speeds up the further you move toward the center, and I for one blame this on the surroundings above us--rather than moving closer or further away to a given center. Why? Because I believe the earth is like a bubble, and given the opportunity, earth would eventually settle the heaviest elements outward and the lightest up top--storms, weather, evolution, etc. are all biproducts (or, products, rather) of this process, as the larger whole (the universe) is likewise attempting to settle into the final state by which the laws are uphelp to perfection and everything is settled and fit like a finished puzzle.

 

You guys are the ones arguing with people, and now that I come in and tell someone they're wrong, you act like I am somehow intruding. Isn't that a little one-sided? And if you too argued (I don't know, I didn't read all your posts in this thread), then you're a hypocrite if you claim you too are not doing the same. So why cast stones at me?

[Phi for All]

No, because it doesn't physically work out. If you want to make gravity out to be then some little focal point(s) by which all things are moved, be my guest.

I'm not making anything out. I made no comments on the hypotheses in question, merely the methods by which you were attempting to refute them.

If you put a tube through the earth, it's absolutely insane to think things are going to speed up and all of a sudden zoom to the center of it and then suddenly stop.

I agree, they would not come to a sudden stop, but that was not what my earlier comment was about. Jonfraz was presupposing a tube through the earth and you were criticizing his hypothesis based on the fact that his supposition was impossible. Suppositions are often made for the theoretical purposes. He was asking you to assume the tube was a given.

You guys are the ones arguing with people, and now that I come in and tell someone they're wrong, you act like I am somehow intruding.

Again, your beliefs and theories were not in question. I was pointing out that asking you to suppose there was already a tube through the middle of the earth was key to Jonfraz's example. For you to argue his supposition was superfluous.

Isn't that a little one-sided? And if you too argued (I don't know, I didn't read all your posts in this thread), then you're a hypocrite if you claim you too are not doing the same. So why cast stones at me?

If your paranoia in this instance has been brought about by unfair persecution from fellow SFN members, I encourage you to report offensive posts by clicking on the middle button at the lower left of each post.

 

For my part, when I get the time, I will follow some of your posts to see what has brought on this defensive posture.

[Christ slave]

Jonfraz was presupposing a tube through the earth and you were criticizing his hypothesis based on the fact that his supposition was impossible. Suppositions are often made for the theoretical purposes. He was asking you[/i'] to assume the tube was a given.

 

Oh, absolutely, and while he was arguing with a theoretical assumption, I too chose to jump in and give my side by arguing that while theoretical and debatable, it can be debated even further to stop making flawed assumptions which can lead to manipulation and influence, but let us look at the larger picture and see the truth.

 

Would it not be better to point out where there are flaws just in case somebody has been misled by these assumptions? Speaking of paranoia, why do you then intend to paint a bad agenda in my post?

 

Again, your beliefs and theories were not in question. I was pointing out that asking you to suppose there was already a tube through the middle of the earth was key to Jonfraz's example. For you to argue his supposition was superfluous.

 

No, he argued using an assumption, and since he was pointing out errors and calling someone an idiot, I figured that meant it would be okay for me to stop a potentially destructive-influence of an assumption by pointing out the flaws in it and adding some truth. If all people knew the absolute truth of all things, we would all be free.

 

If your paranoia in this instance has been brought about by unfair persecution from fellow SFN members, I encourage you to report offensive posts by clicking on the middle button at the lower left of each post.

 

Well thank you for understanding.

 

For my part, when I get the time, I will follow some of your posts to see what has brought on this defensive posture.

 

Partly others, and also because you made me out to have a critical agenda.

[Christ slave]

I disagree, because I believe physics are echoed...whereby you can equate different elements to that of other elements (i.e. a sea of water, a sea of air, a sea of dirt, etc.).

 

Can you make this sentence a bit clearer?

 

Okay, I am glad you made it clear that you understand my defensive posture is influenced also by the SF community, as it has allowed me to view your post in a different light...likewise, that being said, you can see that I am not more prone to believe this question is not to undermind my comment, but perhaps it was out of a genuine request.

 

So, let me explain. And, since the reply I posted was so long, here:

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=10411

[Phi for All]

Okay, I am glad you made it clear that you understand my defensive posture is influenced also by the SF community, as it has allowed me to view your post in a different light...likewise, that being said, you can see that I am not more prone to believe this question is not to undermind my comment, but perhaps it was out of a genuine request.

Thank you for the link to the other thread. It cleared up for me what your earlier sentence meant. I think I understand now that you see a correlation between many different aspects of the physical world. I, too, have observed such things many times (some are interrelated, some are merely coincidence).

 

I think I also see the reason behind some of the friction you are experiencing here at SFN. First thing, your user-name suggests an unbending, unopposable adherence to Christian religious doctrine. I must say, however, that the community seems to have overlooked this in their first few posts after your initial ones.

 

I think the problems started to form when you began to make statements of belief (some spiritual beliefs, some scientific ones) without citing other sources or at the very least stating that they were personal. You must be careful in a scientific community to preface your beliefs and conclusions with "IMO (in my opinion)", "I believe", "it seems to me" or any phrase that makes the statement refutable. Without this, you are stating as fact something that can't be proven.

In fact, time is healing--if something cannot be hurt, injured, nor does it die, then time does not apply to it, because it experiences no need for healing. There is no loss, so all that applies is growth and gain. This is God. God is the being--the perfect state of being that is not hurt. God does not need healed.

Again, personal opinion, stated as fact as if we all should know this. Nothing will raise the hackles of our fellow members faster because we all have these opinions, and they can't all be right. So we can express them as opinion and get feedback, or we can club each other with them as fact and get ridicule.

It's perfectly normal to anticipate dispute in a thread that's turning into a debate, especially where flat claims are made without citation or any point of reference.

Couple this with what I said about your user-name and you begin to look like some of the fundamentalist types who come here to preach. And I don't think that is your approach at all. From what I have read of your posts, you seem sincere in tying your spiritual beliefs together with the science you know, something that is very important to me as well. I think you will be more effective if you draw the line between your opinions and what you state as fact. And be sure to list citations or give links to the latter.

 

Thanks for listening to my opinion.

[Christ slave]

You certainly are a wise person, and you seem to understand things pretty vividly.

 

That being said,

 

I think the problems started to form when you began to make statements of belief (some spiritual beliefs, some scientific ones) without citing other sources or at the very least stating that they were personal. You must be careful in a scientific community to preface your beliefs and conclusions with "IMO (in my opinion)", "I believe", "it seems to me" or any phrase that makes the statement refutable. Without this, you are stating as fact something that can't be proven.

 

You'd think my username would be enough to make it clear that I am spiritual...so, as it stands, anything spiritual must be tied to, "It seems to me", "It is possible", "Maybe", "I think", "I wonder", or some other means of interpreting it as opinion or refutable...so, it's a little ridiculous for someone who is very spiritual to constantly have to play the "uncertainty" and "doubt" game...especially when spirituality is all about faith!

 

Like I've said in another thread, it's unfair for materialists to speak so confidently with their materialistic proof, having the bond to be fair and sure with each other, while those who cannot or have not experienced the spiritual higher life are forcing those who are spiritually awakened to act as if their reality is of lesser value.

 

Why should the emphasis on materialists be greater and stronger than spiritualists? Why do they deserve communication and to make the rules, expressing their selves freely like whore-for-alls while everyone else who is not like them, but does understand and wish to bond, such as those who are spiritual and understand each other because of their higher consciousness/thinking, has to lurk around in shadows? Like I said, such a philosophy is unfair, and it does indeed make those who impose it seem like whore-for-alls (no offense intended, and I do suggest people look into the meaning of my words, such as things discussing "whores", sex, pleasure, money, being kicked in the testicles, etc. as analogies, rather than a rude, obnoxious, or attempts at being funny).

 

You see, if someone does not understand spirituality, and I do, should I not be able to discuss them freely? Instead of trying to separate and destroy them (and people pretend they aren't trying to destroy it), why not separate it, then, and let those who are spiritual speak on behalf of spirituality and their wisdom, and those who do not, let them not. Why must I be subject to an unspiritual person's ways of speech or conduct? If they cannot understand it, that is not my fault. Why should I then weaken myself spiritually by speaking as things are refutable, when in fact I may know something is absolute spiritual fact?

[Christ slave]

For instance, wouldn't it be sad if Jesus had always spoken, "In my opinion, God exists. In my opinion, God is love. It seems to me that if you hate your brother it is committing murder. Maybe you shouldn't steal because it is possible that stealing is harmful. Maybe rape is harmful. I think God hates divorce."

 

That's very weakening, and spirituality is about faith and certainty. This is why people ought to profess their faith in God, that way no one ought to be surprised when such a person refuses to pretend that spiritual truths are refutable.