Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Without a Past there would be no Future. So there can be no begining? Without the Sky there would be no Land. Yes there is, the existence of the sky does not depend on land or ocean or even a planet. Without the right side of my computer screen, there would be no left Tell that to a radial symmetry creature.... I can't give any more reasoning. To me, this is enough reason - as I said at the start, I'm not forcing my beliefs on you - it's entirely up to you. This is the case, so... personally, God exists, and my reasons I've explained - calling religion dumb/wrong shouldn't be so easy now, because I've explained as to why some may believe in God. It's even easier now, you keep making the point of the opposition over and over....
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 Singularity says otherwise. Past Present Future 010 My angle grinder begs to differ. You'd then have two seperate parts, and the computer screen is no longer a computer screen. It would be two parts of a computer screen, no longer a duality, but two dualitys. There's nothing dumb about my 'assertions' - it's truth.
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Yes there is, the existence of the sky does not depend on land or ocean or even a planet. Or rather the other way around - the existence of the land is not contingent on the existence of the sky. Tell that to a radial symmetry creature.... Or to one of the many species of sea sponge which can reintegrate themselves after being chopped up into little tiny bits.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Past Present Future 010 You'd then have two seperate parts, and the computer screen is no longer a computer screen. It would be two parts of a computer screen, no longer a duality, but two dualitys. There's nothing dumb about my 'assertions' - it's truth. So what happens when you cut a magnet in half? You make no sense what so ever. DNKSFA
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Past Present Future010 Meaningless terms provided without a conceptual framework are not a counter-argument. I suggest that instead of leaping to the "reply" button you actually do some research into the concept of singularity. You are bound to like it, seeing as you claim to embrace mathematics. You'd then have two seperate parts, and the computer screen is no longer a computer screen. It would be two parts of a computer screen, no longer a duality, but two dualitys. Ah, so "left" and "right" are arbitrary descriptors one minute and then null and void the next. How convenient. There's nothing dumb about my 'assertions' - it's truth. It's not; it's mental masturbation.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 If you cut a magnet in half then you would have a Male/Female opposites, which also exist as opposites/dualitys. If you cut a line in half ____________________ _________ _________ The original duality becomes two dualities. The sky wouldn't exist without land. It's called the sky because it is above land, it wouldn't be a 'sky' if no land was beneath it. From what side to you begin typing? And what side do you end typing?
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 If you cut a magnet in half then you would have a Male/Female opposites, which also exist as opposites/dualitys. Actually you wouldn't. Depending on how aggressively you made the cut, you would either get two smaller magnets, or two lumps of material that are essentially magnetically inert in terms of reinforced polarity. If you cut a line in half ... The original duality becomes two dualities. You don't know about object instances, do you? The sky wouldn't exist without land. It's called the sky because it is above land, it wouldn't be a 'sky' if no land was beneath it. However, you said "Without the Sky there would be no Land." This would seem to dictate that if one takes away the sky, then by necessity the land must also disappear. Which is patent nonsense. From what side to you begin typing?And what side do you end typing? That depends on whether I have set my paging preference to RTL or LTR.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 LTR RTL 010 Also, are you saying if the sky didn't exist, the land would still exist? What does DNKSFA stand for? And Ein +1 = n, what if this is correct?
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 If one of the rules ceased to exist then everything else goes under aswell. Also, I believe that using this symbol for pi - 'n' Ein + 1 = n Funny how that looks remarkably like Einstien lewl. What does Euler's formula have anything to do with your discussion about God? And why are you making ridiculous substitutions for commonly described symbols? As I've said before you can't arbitrarily make a set of rules, and say that this proves or shows some sort of deep pattern. IF Ein +1 = n What about? E=MC^2 [math] e^{i\pi}+1=0\neq\pi[/math] So your given is completely wrong. Also your syntax is poor since the "E" in Einstein's theorem stands for energy not the natural base [math] e[/math] Also I am not sure what you are trying to point out by using random equations. Also if you are working with relativity you should probably use the correct formula: [math] E^2-p^2c^2=m^2c^4[/math] I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. I have 2 genetically opposite sides. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need? I feel like we've already had the discussion on whether you have perfect halves. You do not have two genetically opposite halves, or and inside and an outside. You cannot look backwards. You only ever look forwards with respect to your head, and just rotate your body and or face. Aside from the fact that virtually all your statements are false how does with help you disprove science and prove God?
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 010 Again, a meaningless term provided without any conceptual framework. Also, are you saying if the sky didn't exist, the land would still exist? Yes. What does DNKSFA stand for? Do Not Know Sweet FA. FA is in itself an acronym for "f**k all". And Ein +1 = n, what if this is correct? I can find some numbers that will allow the equation to solve correctly. However I suspect that this won't be what you mean by "correct".
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 No I didn't say the E in E=mc^2 is the same as in Eulers, I meant if we misinterpreted Eulers then we may have misinterpreted Energy. Ein +1 = n Which means that instead of 0, we would get pi as the result - rather than 0. In my assertion, I've said that 0 = opposite and 1 = singularity. So pi would also mean opposite/duality, and therefore Ein + 1 = n would be correct maths, rather than our oneist maths which we assume is truth. I need sleep, goodnight. And the sky wouldn't exist without land. That's like saying matter would exist without space.
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Which means that instead of 0, we would get pi as the result - rather than 0. In my assertion, I've said that 0 = opposite and 1 = singularity. So pi would also mean opposite/duality, and therefore Ein + 1 = n would be correct maths, rather than our oneist maths which we assume is truth. It's not assumed to be "truth", it's assumed to be an internally consistent descriptor for event spaces. And the sky wouldn't exist without land. Except in nebulae. So it depends what you mean by "sky", doesn't it? Every assertion you have made can be traced back to semantic selection. That's like saying matter would exist without space. No it isn't. It's like saying that a beach can't exist without a sea. Which it can.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 DNKSFA ... I was gonna tell you but my grandfather (the single most naturally intelligent human I have ever met) might object to anyone knowing the family trueism.... even from beyond the grave
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 No I didn't say the E in E=mc^2 is the same as in Eulers, I meant if we misinterpreted Eulers then we may have misinterpreted Energy. Ein +1 = n Which means that instead of 0, we would get pi as the result - rather than 0. In my assertion, I've said that 0 = opposite and 1 = singularity. So pi would also mean opposite/duality, and therefore Ein + 1 = n would be correct maths, rather than our oneist maths which we assume is truth. We did not misinterpretation Euler's Identity, you are just making random, and incoherent substitutions that have no mathematical basis. As for relativity, it has been tested and validate in numerous experiments so I doubt we have misunderstood his theorem.
Mr Skeptic Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 I don't understand how you don't understand my reasoning. Because you're not reasoning. To reason you must give reasons, not gibberish. Clearly state your premises and work step by step towards your conclusion, with each of your steps necessarily having to be true (otherwise it's invalid). To learn more, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic I have 2 genetically opposite sides. They are in no way genetically opposite. In fact, they are nearly genetically identical. Heck.. My chromosomes are even dualities. Chromosomes come in nearly identical pairs. In fact, the pairs can be identical, and those who are like this are called homozygous. I have a inside and outside... I can look forwards and backwards... I have a top and bottom. What more reasoning do I need? Nearly everything has all of these, because they are defined as opposites. However, some things do not. A moebius strip, for example, has only one side, not a top or bottom, not a start and a finish, no left and no right, etc. Then you have the left side of your right hand, or the top of your bottom, etc. But you can have a left hand without a right hand, but the left hand will still have a right side.
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 And let's not even get onto Klein Bottles. Yeah, it's difficult to get the tequila out of them.... 1
CharonY Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Many (most) cells have no polarities, chromosomes can be circular, symmetrical body plans are the result the evolution of certain developmental mechanisms, nomenclature is often arbitrary, bla bla etc.
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 A klein bottle is man-made - pfft, when will you learn. It's actually a cubic universe we live in. Cubic opposites. My source of evidence: www.cubicao.com No it isn't. It's like saying that a beach can't exist without a sea. Which it can. It wouldn't be a beach without water. Can anyone hear me? Can you hear me?
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 I hear you, but all I hear is a bunch of incoherent fallacious gibberish. The site you linked to has no credibility what so ever, and is not science based in the least. Here are some of the gems I pulled from that website: Time Cube debunks god lies. Evil people deny Time Cube. Educators are flat-out liars. Evil media hides Time Cube. -1 x -1=+1 is stupid and evil. Word worship equatesto evil. Bible induces a barren Earth. Evil 1 day Bible killschildren. Divide past,present,futureby 4.Rotate 4-corner scribes to create 4 squared circles. Education is 1 stupid corner. 4 is the supreme number of the universe. There is no 1 in 4-corner metamorphosis. YOU can't handle Cubic Time, Cubic Life or Cubic Truth - for inside of Time Cube equates the most magnificent Symmetry of opposites existing within the universe - for every corner has an equal opposite corner, every 2 corners has an equal opposite 2 corners, every tri-corner has an equal opposite tri-corner and every 4 corners has an equal opposite 4 corners. No human or god can utter such powerful ineffable opposite Cubic Truth. God is singularity. Evil singularity dooms Opposite Creation. Oh and as further proof that this site is complete crackpot gibberish, in an article from PC Magazine: Metasites that track crackpot sites often say this [time cube] is the number one nutty site. What was the point of the picture of the Mona Lisa? Or was it just another random pointless non-seqiutur. Also why do you only pick and choose what points you respond to? If your theory is correct, which it is obvious that it is not, then you must be able to respond to all the questions and critiques of it.
Sisyphus Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Wasn't it already shown that humans are not symmetrical in one of your other threads? Plus, I have a top, a bottom, and a middle. OMG everything is thirds! 1
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 Wasn't it already shown that humans are not symmetrical in one of your other threads? Plus, I have a top, a bottom, and a middle. OMG everything is thirds! It was discussed in one of his threads, and another one, which he hijacked and was then separated by a mod: - "Isn't Everything Literally 2 Things?" - "Satanic Rants Against Science"
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) You plucked quotes from Gene Ray, an 80 year old, obviously not as conditioned as myself or the other young man who created the cubic awareness webstie. It's not easy to understand Gene's words, but if you try hard you can - you treat it as some kind of joke, and that is evil. We have a top, bottom and middle - but the middle is between the two; how can you call yourself a scientist if you ignore basic truths. Does it take education to reach this level of ignorance? We can sit here and play idiocracy as long as you like, but who's truly an idiot, the one applying truth to his claims, or the one(s) ignoring it and babbling nonsense and insults. You notice the symmetry, but you ignore it, insult it and pass it off as nothing but a occurence in nature - this occurence is everywhere and part of everything. What makes you believe this has nothing to do with the universe? Because I can see clearly how relivant it is to existence. Here are some 'satanic rants against science': We are born, and then we grow through four stages; baby, child, father/mother, grandfather/grandmother, and then we die. This is truth, any interpretation around that is just adding human application and marking points on the timescale - that's not natures decision, that is ours. We choose the name 'Teenager, Young-Adult, Adult, Mid 40's, etc. An adult male is a father, and an adult woman is a mother. A male or female who is incapable of reproducing is a child, and stays a child before he evolves/grows the nessisary vitals to reproduce. Excluding twenty-four hour clocks, a twelve-hour clock is wrong and and intended evil to mankind. A clock should have 4, 8, 12, 16 - and GMT would become exempt - GMT is an unessisary ploy to help destroy the human mind, and educate us this dumb-founded oneism. Truly four days occur on earth at once; there's nothing 'matrix-like' about it, it's just truth. If it were 16'oclock where I live, directly the other side of the planet it would be 8'oclock. On top of that we have four seasons. Winter, Summer, Spring, Autumn. The surface of water is not the same as the deep - they're opposites. If there were no surface, there would be no deep, and vice versa. Water is prime example of an opposite existing within opposites. Water/Liquid (as a duality) then exists next to Earth/Solids, which is also a duality composed of an inside and outside - try not to be critical about my choice of words, I know that's how you guys like to debate, ignore the point, focus on the vocabulary used. A hearts opposite is a heartbeat, and a brains opposite is a thought. The heart requires the brain and the brain requires the heart. Another set of opposites existing between opposites. The dictionary defined 'opposite' won't agree with this - that's because diction is man-made, and evil. A lot of people run a race to see who is fastest. I run to see who has the most guts, who can punish himself into exhausting pace, and then at the end, punish himself even more. That's from your signature - I don't see any resemblence to that in your actions, so far you've shown no guts, and you're not punishing youself, in-fact you're being rather lazy and ignorent. Edited July 25, 2010 by Klaplunk
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Posted July 25, 2010 It wouldn't be a beach without water. So oceans, lakes and rivers aren't made of water now?
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) We name ocean, lake and rivers - water is water. An ocean wouldn't be an ocean without water. A beach wouldn't be a beach without some source of water to signify a beach. You wouldn't have a beach in the middle of a city, if you did, it would just be sand. This also means that time is not progressing, as the beginning and end are already here. Time is static, we move through time. Edited July 25, 2010 by Klaplunk
Recommended Posts