I am What?

[Iamwhat?]

Theory: A contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking. Depending on the context, the results might for example include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several different related meanings. A theory is not the same as a hypothesis. A theory provides an explanatory framework for some observation, and from the assumptions of the explanation follows a number of possible hypotheses that can be tested in order to provide support for, or challenge, the theory.

One modern group of meanings emphasizes the interpretative, abstracting, and generalizing nature of theory. For example in the arts and philosophy, the term "theoretical" may be used to describe ideas and empirical phenomena which are not easily measurable. Theory abstracts. It draws away from the particular and empirical. By extension of the philosophical meaning, "theoria" is a word still used in theological contexts to mean viewing through contemplation — speculating about meanings that transcend measurement. However, by contrast to theoria, theory is based on the act of viewing analytically and generalizing contextually. It is thus based upon a process of abstraction. That is, theory involves stepping back, or abstracting, from that which one is viewing.[1]

A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive),[2] meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards".[3] A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.[4]

As already in Aristotle's definitions, theory is very often contrasted to "practice" (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for "doing", which is opposed to theory because pure theory involves no doing apart from itself. A classical example of the distinction between "theoretical" and "practical" uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.[5]

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[6] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which is better defined by the word 'hypothesis').[7] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.

 

A theory can be "normative (or prescriptive), meaning a postulation about what ought to be. It provides "goals, norms, and standards". A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.

 

 

It has taken two years to develop this theory,and it is still being developed.

 

 

 

 

I am interested in quantum mechanics. If you do not fully understand theory, read no further. http://youtu.be/qtYfz72MmtM

 

 

 

 

Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate. Boundless, unbounded, unlimited, never-ending, interminable.

When we look out into the universe there appears to be some kind of duality, male, female, light, darkness, positive, negative on and on, from the macro to the micro. One could make the assumption that this duality must exist through all of creation.

After all, how could any thing be created without the male and female union? So we are left with a universe that is endlessly trying to balance it's self out, or to put it another way, to find zen. One could make an assumption that in order to achieve zen all the universe needs to do is stay in the middle, not too much light, not too much darkness.

If this were the case however, the universe would become stable and no longer expand. Science shows us that the universe is expanding presumably forever. The universe is not infinite. It can be measured and it has an edge.

It's the space that the universe is expanding in that is infinite. Science works by proving it's self wrong. There is no such thing as scientific fact, only theory.
A simple example: At one time scientific minds thought the Earth was flat and that the sun and planets revolved around it.

Something stands as scientific fact only until science proves it wrong. What is fact today, is tomorrows fiction. So one could say that we acquire knowledge not by knowing
what is right, but by learning what was wrong.

When we use the word "God", what do we mean? God: The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being. Clearly because the universe is not infinite this definition will not do.
I would like to use the term "the all" as I feel it more closely represents what I would consider truth.

All: used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing. Everyone, everybody, each person, every person "all are welcome" each one, the sum, the total, the whole lot. Everything, every part, the whole amount, the (whole) lot, the entirety. For something to exist, it would mean that it is indeed part of the all, not somehow outside,
the all has no edge.

The all is all knowing and is the source of all thought. Enlightenment: Insight, understanding, awareness, wisdom, education, learning, knowledge, illumination, awakening, instruction, teaching,
sophistication, advancement, development, culture, refinement, cultivation, civilization.

In the word enlightenment there is the word light, and in the definition the words illumination, wisdom, and knowledge. So we could make the assumption that knowledge is light.
Light is energy and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Force: strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement. Strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion;
impact, pressure, weight, impetus.

The light force is the driving force behind the expansion of the universe, and therefore, our awareness because as the universe expands so too does our knowledge of the universe it's self.
Ignorance: Lack of knowledge or information, unawareness of, unconsciousness of, unfamiliarity with, inexperience with, lack of knowledge about, lack of information about.

Darkness: The partial or total absence of light, blackness, gloom, dimness, murkiness, shadow, evil, wickedness, sin, iniquity, immorality;devilry, the Devil. Now with the understanding of "the all", and that light is knowledge, how can there be any darkness?

There is no such thing as an evil plant or animal, or man. There is only ignorance and ignorance generates fear of the light. We are not male or female, black or white, American or Russian, human or animal.


We are light and we can not be created or destroyed. We are eternal, there is no difference between us and "the all", we ARE "the all'. The universe is mental: when we look out, we are really looking in.

When a person uses certain psychedelic plants they experience other realities beyond our current ability of understanding. When they make these journeys they are not blasting off to some new place. It is in fact a journey deep into ones own mind and the higher intelligence is their own.

When I say light what I really mean is information or knowledge or thought. When we see light what we are really seeing is the information that indicates light. It's the same principle as listing to music with an electronic device. Electronic information is sent to the speaker.

The speaker vibrates and causes sound. The sound is picked up by our ears. Then brain then takes the audio information and converts it into thought, that then paints the picture in our mind witch allows us to hear and understand the information as music.


So there really is no light or darkness, just thought. It is indeed a paradox in the since that from nothing came something. To illustrate this point I would like you to imagine this:

Nothing...but to try an imagine something is not nothing, it is something. The nothing is not black or white it is nothing. The nothing is like air, it is colorless and see through. The nothing is not air because air is something. The nothing is thought. Since we cannot imagine the nothing as nothing I will ask you to imagine it as a black void.

Out of this void a single thought: What? Intensely a single white dot appears off in the distance. The dot immediately produces another thought: What is that? Now time does not exist in the void but I would like you to think of this thought as repeating over and over for a very long time. As the time that doesn't really exist goes by the dot grows bigger and bigger until the black void becomes the white void.

When this happened the void realized that the white dot was it. Like looking in the mirror. The shock of the realization causes the mirror to shatter and the void or nothing becomes the creator.(The big bang) Where you able to imagine anything I just described? If so the you proved my next point. The universe is mental: You where able to take information into your brain and convert it into thought and produce a reality in your own mind.
_________________________
I was asked: "I can imagine that you have seen everything at the same time, I have not been able to do this, but I can imagine that someone would be able to do so. As to duality, its true, our body is symmetrical and many parts of our body are in pairs. When looking at the Mona Lisa we could say we use doublethink, we see different with our conscious mind and different with our subconscious (I'm not going to discuss multithink right now). As to infinite I claim that it is possible that there is more than one infinity if one accepts the notion that infinity is a finite set. You seem to see everything in a duality, a person posted on this forum before and claimed phenomena showing up in threes (Pathos, Ethos, Logos etc etc). When you talk about "the all" it conjures up my notion of Totality. I think Energy=Matter and Matter=Energy=Light, so yes, you could say everything is light at a different frequency. Light (Energy) can be on a scale (0%-100%). Question: What is the speed of thought? I stated: I am everything anything and nothing at the same time, at once. If our universe is a computer simulation, what is the frequency of it's CPU?"

Think of thought as being a force, like gravity. What is the speed of gravity? Gravity's speed is consent. It is always happening and effects everything in the universe. Thought is always happening, and is everywhere in the universe. You are not in your head. You are the outside information or thought we see as our world , our solar system, and everything we can see in the universe. If we can observe in the the universe, a thought created what we observed. Quantum mechanics shows us this. The moon is only the moon when your looking at it. Thought is a force , energy who's speed is consent and is everywhere. As we know energy cannot be created or destroyed, thus we can never be created or destroyed. As for the frequency, theoretically since all there really is is thought it can be any. It would automatically be tailored to the receiver.

Theory of everything taken from Wikipedia: A theory of everything (ToE) or final theory, ultimate theory, or master theory refers to the hypothetical presence of a single, all-encompassing, coherent theoretical framework of physics that fully explains and links together all physical aspects of the universe.[1] ToE is one of the major unsolved problems in physics. Over the past few centuries, two theoretical frameworks have been developed that, as a whole, most closely resemble a ToE. The two theories upon which all modern physics rests are General Relativity (GR) and Quantum Mechanics (QM). GR is a theoretical framework that only focuses on the force of gravity for understanding the universe in regions of both large-scale and high-mass: stars, galaxies, clusters of galaxies, etc. On the other hand, QM is a theoretical framework that only focuses on three non-gravitational forces for understanding the universe in regions of both small scale and low mass: sub-atomic particles, atoms, molecules, etc. QM successfully implemented the Standard Model and unified the interactions (so-called Grand Unified Theory) between the three non-gravitational forces: weak, strong, and electromagnetic force.

Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed with tremendous accuracy virtually every prediction made by these two theories when in their appropriate domains of applicability. In accordance with their findings, scientists also learned that GR and QM, as they are currently formulated, are mutually incompatible - they cannot both be right. Since the usual domains of applicability of GR and QM are so different, most situations require that only one of the two theories be used. As it turns out, this incompatibility between GR and QM is only an apparent issue in regions of extremely small-scale and high-mass, such as those that exist within a black hole or during the beginning stages of the universe (i.e., the moment immediately following the Big Bang). To resolve this conflict, a theoretical framework revealing a deeper underlying reality, unifying gravity with the other three interactions, must be discovered to harmoniously integrate the realms of GR and QM into a seamless whole: a single theory that, in principle, is capable of describing all phenomena. In pursuit of this goal, quantum gravity and quantum field theory have recently become an area of active research.

Over the past few decades, a single explanatory framework, called "string theory", has emerged that may turn out to be the ultimate theory of the universe. Many physicists believe that, at the beginning of the universe (up to 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang), the four fundamental forces were once a single fundamental force. Unlike most (if not all) other theories, String theory may be on its way to successfully incorporating each of the four fundamental forces into a unified whole. According to string theory, every particle in the universe, at its most microscopic level (Planck length), consists of varying combinations of vibrating strings (or strands) with preferred patterns of vibration. String theory claims that it is through these specific oscillatory patterns of strings that a particle of unique mass and force charge is created (that is to say, the electron is a type of string that vibrates one way, while the up-quark is a type of string vibrating another way, and so forth).

Initially, the term theory of everything was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy — a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of the 1960s — was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis[2] claims to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[3] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of theoretical physics research.

I ask. Dose my theory not answer all of the requirements as stated above?

[Iamwhat?]

I am what?.....

 

[Klaynos]

There is light we can detect it with instruments which do not require a presence.

[Iamwhat?]

Your splitting hairs and missing the point. What does quantum mechanics tell us about the universe?

I am not hear to explain how it works. If you want to know how it works study(and learn) quantum mechanics.

I am hear to tell you why it works. I am what, what is? The problem you can't solve consumes all, what-are-YOU?

[Iamwhat?]

The universe has an edge it is not infinite.

/www.google.com/search?q=cosmic+background+radiation+picture&client=firefox&hs=xII&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=EI6bU-uxKIqqyAS4n4HoBg&ved=0CBwQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=915

[Iamwhat?]

Particles that move faster then the speed of light.

 

[Phi for All]

I am not hear to explain how it works. If you want to know how it works study(and learn) quantum mechanics.

I am hear to tell you why it works.

 

You're mixing God in with what you're calling a scientific theory, you don't know how quantum mechanics works but you want us to believe you when you tell us why it works, and the one reply that dealt with reality was dismissed as being hair-splitting.

 

Why is this theory better than mainstream?

[Iamwhat?]

 

You're mixing God in with what you're calling a scientific theory, you don't know how quantum mechanics works but you want us to believe you when you tell us why it works, and the one reply that dealt with reality was dismissed as being hair-splitting.

 

Why is this theory better than mainstream?

You are mixing up understanding with knowing. Scientist understand how weather works, a Shaman knows how weather works, and can make it rain. The Shaman is the rain. You are correct in the sense that I do not understand quantum mechanics, I know them....Do you? Did you even watch the video I posted? No you did not because I posted it three hours ago and the video is 3.5 hours long. Thank you for your opinion

[Phi for All]

You are mixing up understanding with knowing. Scientist understand how weather works, a Shaman knows how weather works, and can make it rain. The Shaman is the rain. You are correct in the sense that I do not understand quantum mechanics, I know them....Do you? Did you even watch the video I posted? No you did not because I posted it three hours ago and the video is 3.5 hours long. Thank you for your opinion

 

I was looking for a reason to invest so much time by asking some clarifying questions. I did NOT offer any opinions. Don't worry, I got my answer.

[Iamwhat?]

 

I was looking for a reason to invest so much time by asking some clarifying questions. I did NOT offer any opinions. Don't worry, I got my answer.

I understand asking questions and in fact I encourage them. The videos I posted may have answered the very question you wanted answered, or not and you could've asked and I would of tried to explain.

As for reason, only you can help yourself in that department. Thanks for reading anyway

[Iamwhat?]

Mckenna's theory is sound. Where he went wrong was trying to pin it down to a specific date in time. Quantum mechanics refuses to be pined down or in.

[Klaynos]

You are mixing up understanding with knowing. Scientist understand how weather works, a Shaman knows how weather works, and can make it rain. The Shaman is the rain. You are correct in the sense that I do not understand quantum mechanics, I know them....Do you? Did you even watch the video I posted? No you did not because I posted it three hours ago and the video is 3.5 hours long. Thank you for your opinion:-p

No interest in doing science, why are you posting on a science forum?

[Phi for All]

I understand asking questions and in fact I encourage them.

 

I haven't seen this. I've seen how you reacted to my question (Why is this theory better than the mainstream explanations?), and it wasn't with encouragement.

 

The Shaman is the rain.

 

Yeah, you're going to have to explain this one, since a literal interpretation is demonstrably false. These are the kinds of things that I ask clarifying questions about, to see if it's worth 3.5 hours of my time.

 

The shaman is the rain?! Please. AFAIK, there's never been documented experiments showing shaman can affect rainfall. If they could make it rain on command, why wouldn't this be testable? JREF still offers a million dollars to any dowser that can make it rain on command. There have been numerous studies testing all kinds of people who claim to be able to find water, make it rain, or otherwise affect the weather. None, repeat NONE, have ever found anyone who could do more than chance alone could.

 

It's one thing to philosophize on nature, and another to actively support reality. Belief in the ability to make it rain, or find water by dowsing, has led to some very dangerous behavior. I'm reminded of the story of the dowsing technology sold to the Iraqis for finding IEDs. Hundreds of people died from this, and the man responsible for the fraud has been convicted. All because a lack of an education in rational thought makes a person easy to exploit.

[Iamwhat?]

How does the Shaman make rain...? If you read and understood any of my theory, you would know how the Shaman made it rain.

I am not here for money and do not care about the million dollar reward, nor does any other Shaman.

 

It rained all day yesterday where I live. How about where you live?

This is the Philosophy section of the science forum, there is over five hours of proven science in my post, which you would know if you watched any of it.

 

All our disappointment in life comes from our own expectations...Quit expecting life to be a certain way, and you will never be disappointed when it's not.

AFAIK says it best as far as you know...Have you had enough or shall I continue?

[Iamwhat?]

At this time I would like to thank any at Science forums.net working behind the scenes to keep this post active.

 

I am aware of the touchy nature of my post and mean no disrespect.

 

I know some might take offense to my post and would like nothing more then to see it deleted.

 

At this time I would also like to thank ACG52 (http://www.scienceforums.net/user/69731-acg52/) for reading my post.

 

I would also like to remind ACG52 (http://www.scienceforums.net/user/69731-acg52/) that "this belongs in a cesspool" is only an opinion that you are entitled to

[Iamwhat?]

Spooky: Sinister or ghostly in a way that causes fear and unease.

eerie, sinister, ghostly, uncanny, weird, unearthly, mysterious;

frightening, spine-chilling, hair-raising;

creepy, scary, spine-tingling

"Spooky action at a distance" I do not think I could have named it better myself.

[Phi for All]

I am aware of the touchy nature of my post and mean no disrespect.

 

I'm not sure if I'd call it disrespectful. The real problem for this discussion is you've put the thread in Philosophy but you're talking about a speculative theory. If this were in Speculations, you'd need to back up your assertions with evidence. Not required in Philosophy, but most of those threads are discussing questions, not positing theory. You're straddling the fence in terms of rigor, not quite committing to the standards of a theory, but being far too assertive about your philosophy.

 

If you're going to say, "This is the way things are", you have to back that up, support yourself with as much evidence as possible. If you want to say, "I think this is the way things are, and this is why", then it's appropriate philosophy, and we discuss it differently.

 

You've told people often enough that their comments are opinion, but until you can support your declarations, they're just opinions too. They're not facts.

[Iamwhat?]

I have been as respectful as the opinions have allowed. I posted in the Philosophy section because it deals with god and such, and the TOE is just that The Theory Of Everything. As far as proof, it is quantum mechanics. Science likes to look at the painting one brush stroke at a time. All I did was step back and get the big picture. You are correct in the sense that this is technically a theory, because none of us really understand thought and how it works so really we can never truly know anything. It's like saying water is water doesn't help much. With that said I have offered videos with vast amounts of proven science and mathematics backing up my theory. Like I said I am not here to explain quantum mechanics brush stroke by brush stroke. I came to the science forum with the hopes that the reader would already "know how to paint." If that is not you then maybe this post is not for you. I am very much interested in further developing my theory with someone who knows how to paint. I am not interested in arguing someone, who in the end will never get it because their own personal hang ups will not allow it, and forces them to react with a knee jerk reaction saying this belongs in a cesspool. What is not to like about the cosmic background radiation pictures? I will not be brow beat by anyone just because you do not agree does not mean it is not true. Last time I checked there was over 150 views on this post and 6 replies from moderators only! People are afraid to reply because the thought police might get them. Be a good moderator look, listen, and learn. Now that is an opinion and it does nothing to further my theory.

[Phi for All]

I have been as respectful as the opinions have allowed. I posted in the Philosophy section because it deals with god and such, and the TOE is just that The Theory Of Everything. As far as proof, it is quantum mechanics. Science likes to look at the painting one brush stroke at a time. All I did was step back and get the big picture.

 

Mainstream science doesn't have a TOE. The people working in science today aren't as myopic and brush-stroke oriented as you would like to think. They're very concerned with the big picture, and it seems a bit irrational to think that just "stepping back to get the big picture" is something everyone but you has missed.

 

 

You are correct in the sense that this is technically a theory, because none of us really understand thought and how it works so really we can never truly know anything. It's like saying water is water doesn't help much.

 

This tells me your understanding of scientific theory is flawed. A theory isn't just a speculation. In science, a theory isn't what you start out with. Theories are the most solid explanations we have for the natural world, supported by evidence gathered and reviewed by multiple sources. The only reason we don't call them proof is because we want to continually refine them and make them better, but theories like evolution are as close to fact as we allow ourselves to get. And we understand thought a lot better than you probably assume.

 

 

With that said I have offered videos with vast amounts of proven science and mathematics backing up my theory. Like I said I am not here to explain quantum mechanics brush stroke by brush stroke. I came to the science forum with the hopes that the reader would already "know how to paint." If that is not you then maybe this post is not for you. I am very much interested in further developing my theory with someone who knows how to paint. I am not interested in arguing someone, who in the end will never get it because their own personal hang ups will not allow it, and forces them to react with a knee jerk reaction saying this belongs in a cesspool. What is not to like about the cosmic background radiation pictures?

 

With regard to the cesspool thing: if you appreciated the Mod who removed that unfelpful post, why do you continue to bring it up? It was removed to help you and it should no longer be a part of this discussion.

 

Watching hours of video when you have so many misconceptions is not a good use of my time. I'm sorry, but that's reality. I only have so much time, and I might invest if you're encouraging, but you're very obviously NOT. You're sort of demanding that I watch and agree, but not to criticize. That's not science.

 

I know you're thinking we'd "get it" if we'd just watch, but believe me, I've seen a lot of people try to post a TOE here. They always get tripped up early on minor points that make the rest of the idea wrong. Thus, it's hard to decide to watch hours of video after you tell us that shamans make it rain because it's raining where you live. Not inspiring, and sorry for putting it bluntly.

 

I will not be brow beat by anyone just because you do not agree does not mean it is not true. Last time I checked there was over 150 views on this post and 6 replies from moderators only! People are afraid to reply because the thought police might get them. Be a good moderator look, listen, and learn. Now that is an opinion and it does nothing to further my theory.

 

 

People here afraid to reply?! You must be thinking of another forum.

 

I'm sorry you think this is brow-beating. In science, this process is called peer-review, and ours is far less rigorous than you'd find if you submitted your hypothesis to a journal. We're trying to point out flaws in reasoning that may have led you to assume things you shouldn't have.

 

One of the phrases you used earlier that made me decide I wasn't going to invest in the 4-5 hours worth of videos you've posted was that you didn't know how quantum mechanics works, but you still feel qualified to tell us why it works. How would you react if a plumber told you he had a whole new way to run the pipes for your home, and then said, "I don't know how it works, but I can explain why if you'll just give me $20,000"? Would you make that investment? What if the plumber gave you other reasons to believe he might not really know plumbing that well?

 

You probably didn't know, but if an SFN moderator is involved in a discussion as a member, they don't moderate that discussion. Klaynos and I are conversing as members in this thread.

[Iamwhat?]

Phil you continue to say what I think is wrong. You say that you know a lot more about how thought works then I realize, yet you cant seem to figure me out. The thought police would think they know more about thought or they wouldn't be the thought police would they? What you call peer review I call group herd mentality. I'm not trying to "run new pipes" quantum mechanics was discovered in the 1920s, and science has been banging its head on them ever since. I have proven my case and will continue to do so. You on the other hand have only offered your opinion as to why you think I am wrong. Show me the money Phil, let me see your proof that will set me straight once and for all. As for the whole cesspool thing, you do not see on the thread not because Science Forums.net took it off, but because whoever sent it did not have the courage to post it. I just wanted people to realize just how far some people will sink when something they do not like is presented to them. They sent it to my email, which is fine and in fact I would prefer it be done like that anyway. In life if you start an argument you never win, on the other hand if you never start the argument you will always win, but you probably already knew that. This is not Facebook, if you wish to continue this Facebook style conversation just email me your onions at paidto96@yahoo.com and I will return in kind. If on the other hand you have some new scientific knowledge to prove or disprove my theory please post it that's why we are here!

[Phi for All]

OK, well, best of luck in your endeavors. I can't take the time to scientifically refute your idea when it's hiding as philosophical opinion. It would be pointless since I would be refuting the "how" while you're arguing the "why".

 

Thanks for your time, though. I do appreciate it.

[Ophiolite]

...Have you had enough or shall I continue?

On balance, I'd rather you not.

I am aware of the touchy nature of my post and mean no disrespect.

Not touchy, unless you mean touchy-feely. i.e. governed by emotions, not rational thought; based on expectation, not observation; self-indulgent, rather than self-critical. In summary, I think posting your proposition in Philosophy would be in danger of giving philosophy a bad name, if anyone were to entertain it seriously.

 

You are correct in the sense that this is technically a theory, because none of us really understand thought and how it works so really we can never truly know anything.

 

No. What you have is most definitely not a theory. It doesn't even rate as a hypothesis. I question whether it has enough meat to merit being called a speculation. An idle, ill-conceived, unsubstantiated thought would be the fairest description. Unflattering, true. Disrespectful? No. Disrespectful would be pretending you had something of value.

 

I will not be brow beat by anyone just because you do not agree does not mean it is not true.

Equally, it does not mean it is true. And you have provided many reasons to suspect it is not. (Itemised by several other posters.)

 

 

By the way I am not a moderator. I am, however, a forum Expert. My two areas of expertise are Earth Science and Bullshit. It was interest in the latter that led me to this thread.

[Iamwhat?]

Hello Ophiolite,
I think the only one emotional and unable to think clearly is you. I do not think you are the expert in bullshit you claim to be. Any true bullshit expert knows that the last thing you do when you see bullshit is step in it! Phil had enough and I did not post the email address for him. I knew your where out there somewhere I now I found you:) It is a filter you see for people just like you. Question: Did you chose to be born, or where you put here? I do not think you realize where you are at , who I am, and who you are. A true expert in bullshit can smell a fellow bullshit expert a mile away, and Ophiolite I smell you from here. You smell scared;)

[Ophiolite]

Phil had enough and I did not post the email address for him.

Between the way you spell Phil and he and I spell Phi, there is one 'ell of a difference.

[Iamwhat?]

Yes we have a winner! Funny thing about our English language is I can spell witch, whichever way I chose, your brain gets the point dose you no what I mean. Your brain is able auto correct the wrong information into the correct version so that you the reader is better able to understand what you are reading. I am an audio visual person, I learned more from a video explaining math, or science, then I ever did reading about it. Something very interesting occurred to me about mathematics. It is only a language just like English. 2 + 2 = 4 ONLY because we say it does, we could've just as easily said 2 + 2 = 8. This is the foundation science is built on. I have often heard it said a picture is worth a thousand words. How much is a song worth, or a movie? Next time you hear a song on the radio listen to it. Do not just hear the music or the words but listen to what the song is about. Next time your looking for a movie to watch realize what the movie is about. Something I have come to realize is, that there are a lot of music, and movies that talk a lot about the issues I bring up in my post. Why is that, what is the universe trying to tell mankind? Jung said that because man invented the atom bomb we must use it, and we did. Why? Whats up with all the zombie stuff? Who are the zombies?