Strict Laws, Strict Science

[7th]

Steven Hawkins recently published a book that agrees somewhat with my beleifs. In The Grand Divide (as I like to call it), he claimed that "over time the big bang was inevitable due to the nature of gravity". I also understand that recently the mathematical problem of P=NP was proven -- If we were to alter some of the (not 100% proven) laws that science currently abides by, we can predict the chain of events that lead to the big bang.

 

Using P=NP, we know that a black hole spins and therefore is in motion. Through it's spin it generates pulling power. If you'd like to strike this approach with 'laws' which are not proven to be correct, only to assist the current ideas, then it's completely unfair and ignorant; even if reason is applied, the human brain is far more capable to think freely and judge correct without the burden -- which is a good enough reason to conduct experiments with this basis.

 

The term God is thrown about on these forums, being a christian-scientist I take the term scientifically. I apply God and the bible to created-things as only the truth interests me. It is not incorrect for me to claim that the God I believe in is an element or essense, rather than an embodied being. An omnipotent that is apparent to everything and anything, whatever we do has a relation to God, and this God, I believe can be measured in life.

 

Judgement

Before Gravity can be set in motion it requires the wisdom to do so. Something cannot appear without it programmed to 'appear' before hand. So first it requires the wisdom of motion. Once this wisdom is applied, it requires the courage' to start -- rather like an engine of a car, without the ignition it is useless (but first you require the structure of an engine). Once both have been applied we have the pulling power generated through the spin. Due to the nature of gravity, the impulse generated from the first 'push' or 'ignition' would eventually reach the middle, which would inevitably cause the big bang, the impulse meeting the center creating an explosion/expansion of power.

 

We know that time is measured by us and it is simply a product of how we interpret our surroundings and 'live'. We know that Gravity causes time. Therefore as I believe that everything and anything is in God's image, time is God and time was the wisdom that caused the motion. If we are nothing but motion, with education, wisdom and courage, then we are also in times image. Time induced gravity, and gravity induced time. It's impossible for something to come from nothing, something must set the 'spark', for anything to begin.

 

Pantheism

Panspermia

Gaia Theory

 

I think these theories relate somewhat to this one.

Feel free to debate, but please try to be less strict and more reasonable.

Edited September 7, 2010 by 7th

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why does P=NP have anything to do with the big bang? Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning there.

[CaptainPanic]

Why does P=NP have anything to do with the big bang? Perhaps you could clarify your reasoning there.

May I propose that there is a relation between P=NP and vampires?

 

And, that if there is no established relation between those two yet, then undoubtedly 7th will explain that relation for our entertainment in the next couple of days?

[7th]

Can we discuss the original post fully before we move on into tid bits, otherwise this whole thread will be based on "P=NP". I'll explain now why it has been used in context, however I assume you will give me some decent discussion on terms of the rest of the statement/hypothesis without simply saying, "no, it's nonsese".

 

P = NP shows that it is quicker to use the process than it is the product, example being: (P = (x / x = y)) = NP.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Why would that imply that black holes spin?

 

That's not the correct definition in any case.

[7th]

Every planet spins, without the intial spin we would be static, aka no motion. The first blackhole definetly spinned otherwise we wouldn't be in a vacuum. Think of it like water going down a drain, accept pressure spinning around and causing a funnel like entropy, pulling everything around it inwards. After this entropy, the original impulse circles the center until finally hitting it, then BANG!. It's really simple. You can think of it as time being the sperm (the program), and gravity/blackhole being the egg. Nothing is not in-motion, even if it's a sign post, it's still moving due to the rotation of our planet.

 

Our natural symmetry proves (if correct) that time (the progam) is composed of a cubic-nature (not law). Motion enters facing fowards, and spins around the center. So already in the first seconds of the universe we would have:

 

1. Inside

2. Outside

3. Frontside

4. Backside

5. Leftside

6. Rightside

7. Topside

8. Bottomside

I don't believe in God. I believe in Time. God is poison in my opinion, to delude us from the truth. I know why this happened but I'll bring that up in the Religion section.

 

That would mean that nowhere in the universe will abide by different nature, it will be the same everywhere. No matter what the nature, if there were species that had 3 eyes, they would still have the same cubic-nature. In my opinion. What can I do to provide evidence for this.

 

1. Look up

2. Look down

3. Look left

4. Look right

5. Look in front

6. Look behind

7. Look at your outside

8. Know your inside

 

I understand science doesn't beleive in: up, down, etc etc. I do, it's against some of the (not 100% proven) laws, and therefore shouldnt be discriminated. Have you read The Grand Design yet?

 

Edit: The Christian Cross explains the cubic nature of time. (I studied this for a long time)

Edited September 7, 2010 by 7th

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And what role does P=NP have in that? Your explanation does not connect to your stated definition of P=NP.

[7th]

Because black holes do spin, and black holes do pull. That's what the ultimate processes are. Have you anything to contest a black hole spinning (especially the first one)?

 

It's obvious it spins really, isn't it? It's not like it's rocket-sciecne.

[Klaynos]

I'm wondering if you have any evidence for a first black hole, or that it/they all must spin? And what do you mean by spinning? The singularity itself spinning or some assymetrical event horizon that is spinning? What is spinning?

[Mr Skeptic]

Because black holes do spin, and black holes do pull. That's what the ultimate processes are. Have you anything to contest a black hole spinning (especially the first one)?

 

Well, I'd have to ask what is spinning in the opposite direction. Law of conservation of angular momentum and all that.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Because black holes do spin, and black holes do pull. That's what the ultimate processes are. Have you anything to contest a black hole spinning (especially the first one)?

 

It's obvious it spins really, isn't it? It's not like it's rocket-sciecne.

 

I'm contesting that P=NP applies. You said this:

 

P = NP shows that it is quicker to use the process than it is the product, example being: (P = (x / x = y)) = NP.

 

How does this have anything to do with black holes? This has nothing to do with spinning or pulling.

[7th]

I'm contesting that P=NP applies. You said this:

 

 

 

How does this have anything to do with black holes? This has nothing to do with spinning or pulling.

 

All it means is it's quicker to use the process, than the product. So inevitably I believe that a black hole spins and pulls; it doesn't matter about why it spins or pulls if they are inevitably the foremost processes. That's what I mean by P = NP.

 

 

Well, I'd have to ask what is spinning in the opposite direction. Law of conservation of angular momentum and all that.

 

Whatever the impulse was made from, I believe that's electric or 'antimatter'(which I believe is electric). It would also combine with my belief about humans being a mixture of black and white holes. Our soul or sceintifically speaking, 'energy', is in the image of a white hole, and our body or 'vessel' is in the image of black hole. So spinning around the black hole in the opposite direction is a identical white hole made from antimatter. This could be how hyperspace is made also.

 

I'm wondering if you have any evidence for a first black hole, or that it/they all must spin? And what do you mean by spinning? The singularity itself spinning or some assymetrical event horizon that is spinning? What is spinning?

 

Without going too pseudo, please try an imagine nothing for a second, give yourself an empty canvass in your head. Now apply motion to that vision and what do you have? 'Spinning Nothing', a lot like a black hole. Next step is to imagine it turning into a funnel, a bit like a tornado (stupid example, but like it). Next remember the initial impulse, it should be travelling down towards the center, round the outskirts of the motion, getting nearer to the center -- then finally, bang! I have no evidence bar mental logic. "Pseudo-Evidence"

Edited September 7, 2010 by 7th

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

All it means is it's quicker to use the process, than the product. So inevitably I believe that a black hole spins and pulls; it doesn't matter about why it spins or pulls if they are inevitably the foremost processes. That's what I mean by P = NP.

 

That's not what P = NP actually means, and P = NP has not yet been proven as it is. (It's more likely that it'll be proven that P [imath]\neq[/imath] NP anyway.) P = NP relates to whether certain problems can be solved by computers. This has no relation to how black holes may behave.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_%3D_NP

[7th]

All you've done is focus on P=NP nothing more. You haven't touched the 'theory', but rather pick out little parts of it. That's not science.

[mississippichem]

All you've done is focus on P=NP nothing more. You haven't touched the 'theory', but rather pick out little parts of it. That's not science.

 

No, that's just what science is. Confirming that your first, and seemingly central, hypothesis is viable before moving any further.

[7th]

Aight I suppose. I'll do some research, sorry for being on the offensive :3. Just a bit tired, been computing all day. I'll look for ways to prove it, give me a few days.

[Klaynos]

I'd suggest some general reading on black holes is done too, as your above spinning explanation doesn't seem to make sense.

[7th]

Of course it makes sense. You just don't want it to.

[Mr Skeptic]

Of course it makes sense. You just don't want it to.

 

Ah, it all makes sense now. Things make sense only when you want them to. I'm afraid you and science have a different idea of what "making sense" means.

[7th]

Well it's more than just saying, "God did it." It means that people can have substance to their beliefs, not just blind-faith.

[Klaynos]

Blaming the reader for not understanding. Now I understand.. it doesn't make physical sense and you have no evidence. You couldn't even say what was spinning. And now you're talking about belief. Well it's clearly not science then.

[7th]

You're on the offensive, which implies you're attempting to suppress. You're not discussing, you're attacking; there is a difference.

 

Theism/Religion(partly): God

Atheism/Science(partly): No God

 

 

Here is my campain picture.

 

Religion forces imagination in one direction, giving people the weight of beleif throughout their whole life; whilst arguing with atheism, who constantly promote the idea of their religion, "no-God". Science alters imagination into advancement. Officially making progress off of human nature, through illusion and deciet. Through laws and strict approaches.

What If I was correct about time being God? Eh? What if you spent your whole life in your lab making progress through the universe whilst slowly destroying the earth, only to find out I was correct. It's fine wanting advancement when you need it, but when you don't it is time to stop.

 

Divine Judgement used to decide which kings kept the throne, and which criminals were sent to death. Through battle, the last one standing was said to be God's chosen victor, and the loser was judged as guilty. I don't see how this relates to a "man in the skies" or "spagetti monster," it's completely relative to time, and that is all. We may interpret that differently but that is our opinion, and it's probably not true.

 

We don't need tags of Atheism. Science would say, "If you don't believe in God, then you ARE an atheist." To which I would reply, "No, I'm human, don't tag me with anything. I don't even care for you stupid God/No God games."

 

On terms of time being "God," I mean by definition. The omnipotent for all creation is 'Time', without the wisdom of 'Time', nothing would have began and nothing would have produced motion (which are both in times image, or parts of time). That's enough proof to allow me to continue with my campain of spreading this -- it's not fair that you force adulthood upon people, removing all freedom of imagination, or suppressing and killing it, so it's worthless and less pleasurable. You destroy humans, and split them into "Religious" and "Not-Religious". I'm sorry, I won't let you continue.

 

Science looks into space, and forces children to look in the same direction by telling them laws as if they were fact, even placing percentages of probability on them; when really they are just a theory, and my theory is that, it is bollocks. You can't say that:

 

1. There is no UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK

2. Natural symmetry accounts for nothing.

3. Nothing created the universe.

 

When we CAN:

 

1. Look UP, DOWN, LEFT, RIGHT, FORWARDS, BACKWARDS

2. Have TOP, BOTTOM, LEFT, RIGHT, FRONT, BACK

[1 + 2]a. Even if they are just opposites. E.g: B + T, L + R, F +B

3. Even the world follows the same principle as us, (only sciences laws are claiming it doesn't)

4. Nothing can't create something. We know that from life. Nothing comes from... nothing. Something can only come from something.

 

Basic logic here.

 

A few people who agree with me.

J F Kenedy,

Nelson Mandella,

Ghandi,

Guy Fawlkes,

Lincoln,

+ More.

Edited September 8, 2010 by 7th

[vuquta]

Steven Hawkins recently published a book that agrees somewhat with my beleifs. In The Grand Divide (as I like to call it), he claimed that "over time the big bang was inevitable due to the nature of gravity". I also understand that recently the mathematical problem of P=NP was proven -- If we were to alter some of the (not 100% proven) laws that science currently abides by, we can predict the chain of events that lead to the big bang.

 

Using P=NP, we know that a black hole spins and therefore is in motion. Through it's spin it generates pulling power. If you'd like to strike this approach with 'laws' which are not proven to be correct, only to assist the current ideas, then it's completely unfair and ignorant; even if reason is applied, the human brain is far more capable to think freely and judge correct without the burden -- which is a good enough reason to conduct experiments with this basis.

 

The term God is thrown about on these forums, being a christian-scientist I take the term scientifically. I apply God and the bible to created-things as only the truth interests me. It is not incorrect for me to claim that the God I believe in is an element or essense, rather than an embodied being. An omnipotent that is apparent to everything and anything, whatever we do has a relation to God, and this God, I believe can be measured in life.

 

Judgement

Before Gravity can be set in motion it requires the wisdom to do so. Something cannot appear without it programmed to 'appear' before hand. So first it requires the wisdom of motion. Once this wisdom is applied, it requires the courage' to start -- rather like an engine of a car, without the ignition it is useless (but first you require the structure of an engine). Once both have been applied we have the pulling power generated through the spin. Due to the nature of gravity, the impulse generated from the first 'push' or 'ignition' would eventually reach the middle, which would inevitably cause the big bang, the impulse meeting the center creating an explosion/expansion of power.

 

We know that time is measured by us and it is simply a product of how we interpret our surroundings and 'live'. We know that Gravity causes time. Therefore as I believe that everything and anything is in God's image, time is God and time was the wisdom that caused the motion. If we are nothing but motion, with education, wisdom and courage, then we are also in times image. Time induced gravity, and gravity induced time. It's impossible for something to come from nothing, something must set the 'spark', for anything to begin.

 

Pantheism

Panspermia

Gaia Theory

 

I think these theories relate somewhat to this one.

Feel free to debate, but please try to be less strict and more reasonable.

 

I read your logic.

 

You and them require emergence.

Your emergence is pre-programmed whereas theirs simply evolves all of a sudden out of no where.

 

It is all the same to me. It is all religion.

[Klaynos]

Not on the offensive, science is trial by fire. You need to be able to defend your ideas, you are not doing science though.

 

And nice, backing up your idea by saying you're supported by a group of people who are mostly dead non-scientists and a terrorist (Guy Fawlkes) I would say this was an appeal to authority fallacy but I don't see any authorities there.

[uncool]

7th:

 

What does your theory predict that can be tested?

=Uncool-