Big bang and bubbles: some philosophy

[Christ slave]

CS' date='

you placed a quote of mine in post #17. In this quote I asked a question. You followed the quote with three paragraphs of what I took to be a response to my question. In these you cleary said "When [b']you [/b]remain closed-minded and constantly terrorize people .............". Naturally, I took the "you" in this case to be me. So I asked for examples.

So, yes, I did take the remarks personally, in the sense that I thought you were referring all of those characteristics to me. Personally, in the sense of 'offended' - No.

I did ask for references - examples of when people had been prevented from their right to pursue further analysis of gravity. It had never occured to me that:

a) You considered your poetic and flawed speculations about the nature of gravity to be analysis.

b) That the opinions of a few anonymous entities expressed on a public forum could ever prevent someone from pursuing what they thought worthwhile.

 

Clearly I am having as much difficulty making myself understood by you, as you have in making yourself understood by me.

[Your not my wife by chance?]

 

Perhaps it is because you do not realize when I am speaking hypothetically and generally. When I said, "you", I meant it as in general (a plural, as well). You did ask for references to people, and so likewise since the topic was a general reference to people, I figured you would understand that I was likewise responding generally...and, I suggest, it appears you lost track.

 

Moreover, the quote was, "people go around refusing anyone the right to pursue further analysis". I did not say anyone is preventing further analysis, as you suggest, but that they refuse it. Such a thing is a person's conduct and behavior--when you go insulting, condescending, and/or particularly terrorzing people by degrading and ridiculing them and their efforts by simply suggesting whatever they're suggesting is wrong (as if you have all the answers and absolute knowledge of the universe), and then chauking it up to being "poetic", or, "short of poetic at that", then yes, you are refusing their right to pursue further analysis by attempting to intimidate them. Whether or not I care about your attempts at refusing, and decide to be Rosa Parks here and refuse to give up my seat to one who refuses my rights, that is my own life's story, now isn't it?

 

Now that I have explained myself, and as it appears you were obviously mistaken, let's move on.

[Ophiolite]

Now that I have explained myself, and as it appears you were obviously mistaken, let's move on.

Right.....

 

Paragraph two of your opening post:

I also wonder if gravity is atmosphere and friction.

That was a reasonable thing to wonder. Several posters, myself included, have indicated that it is, however, not so. Are you ready to abandon the idea and move onto more productive speculation, or do we require to provide further evidence to convince you?

[Sayonara]

Ugh? What question(s)? I see only two questions, and if it the standard conduct of this forum that people answer any and every question regardless how petty and off-topic it is, then let me know and I will be more than happy to leave (as even the moderator seems to jump in with a rude two-cent warning for me for absolutely no reason).

Administrators don't jump in with warnings for "absolutely no reason". Please be more judicious in what you decide to post.

[Christ slave]

Right.....

 

Paragraph two of your opening post:

That was a reasonable thing to wonder. Several posters' date=' myself included, have indicated that it is, however, not so. Are you ready to abandon the idea and move onto more productive speculation, or do we require to provide further evidence to convince you?[/quote']

 

Just because you were mistaken, why now are you mad at me? I didn't make your mistake(s) for you. I am not ready to abandon the idea because as it stands, I was quite aware of people's unbelief of gravity being surface tension/friction before I posted this thread and when I posted it.

 

You simply reinforcing the majority's view doesn't mean that my attempt at further analysis of gravity should stop. I am still not convinced, and as it stands, I have come to a further agreement of my views as I spit my toothpaste into the sink last night and watched it swirl in the water through the drain, forming the shape of a galaxy.

 

I believe then perhaps galaxies are like drains, with bubbles (stars). If this is so, gravity deserves much deeper analysis. Perhaps also there are many bubbles all over the place, and where galaxies are, like bubbles, the material(s) are draining into other bubbles, until eventually two bubbles become one. Likewise, this could be why galaxies are moving further apart from each other, because the sizes of the bubbles, as the galaxies (the drains) continue on, so the shapes, sizes, and likewise distances of them all are shifting and changing (being altered).

[Christ slave]

Administrators don't jump in with warnings for "absolutely no reason". Please be more judicious in what you decide to post.

 

I fail to agree that every person in power lacks corruption or fallibility. But, sure, if the Lord is willing (and he is), I can try to be more judicious in what I decide to post.

[Ophiolite]

Just because you were mistaken, why now are you mad at me? I didn't make your mistake(s) for you.

Why would I be mad at you? What is there in my post that suggests I am mad at you? For the record I am not mad at you. I am frustrated by your poor communication skills, but am working my butt of to work around that. Can we get back to a proper discussion please.

I am not ready to abandon the idea because as it stands' date=' I was quite aware of people's unbelief of gravity being surface tension/friction before I posted this thread and when I posted it.

You simply reinforcing the majority's view doesn't mean that my attempt at further analysis of gravity should stop. [/quote']I am indifferent to whether the view is I am reinforcing lies with the majority or the minority - science is not a democracy. I am interested in facts and delineation of possibilities.'

Let me ask you why you think I am trying to halt your "further analysis of gravity". Give that one some thought, then we can proceed to the next stage.

[Christ slave]

Why would I be mad at you? What is there in my post that suggests I am mad at you? For the record I am not mad at you. I am frustrated by your poor communication skills, but am working my butt of to work around that. Can we get back to a proper discussion please.

 

I'd like to.

 

I am indifferent to whether the view is I am reinforcing lies with the majority or the minority - science is not a democracy. I am interested in facts and delineation of possibilities.'

Let me ask you why you think I am trying to halt your "further analysis of gravity". Give that one some thought, then we can proceed to the next stage.

 

Okay, well I see that you were responding to paragraph two of my opening post. I do hope then you realize my type of "plants" is actually supposed to say "planets". As such, you will see how "paragraph two" is really part of my whole proposal--so if you want me to stop discussing my entire proposal, then indeed I have the impression you're attempting to halt "further analysis of gravity". Did you recognize the word "plant" was supposed to say "planet"?

[Ophiolite]

Again I seem to have failed to communicate. You have suggested that I wish to halt or obstruct your "further analysis of gravity".

I am not asking you why you think this.

I am asking you what you think my motivation for this would be.

You seem to possess intelligence and an imagination. You also seem to have used these to acquire some peculiar notions.

I can address this in a few ways:

a) Ignore your views and you.

b) Laugh at your views, and at you.

c) Seek to convince you of your errors, so that you may apply your intellect and imagination more effectively.

 

b) is destructive to all concerned. a) is viable, but since I have some time I have opted for c).

 

[i assumed you meant planets, not plants, but I am not going past the first sentence of para 2 yet. Gravity is [b]not [/b]friction. ]

[Christ slave]

Again I seem to have failed to communicate. You have suggested that I wish to halt or obstruct your "further analysis of gravity".

I am not asking you why you think this.

I am asking you what you think my motivation for this would be.

Well, you did indeed fool me.

Let me ask you why you think I am trying to halt your "further analysis of gravity". Give that one some thought, then we can proceed to the next stage.

 

But, as such, why would you...? Many people do many things for various reasons. Do you want me to play the psychologist? Many people like to halt further analysis as a means of justifying their present understanding--because when you awaken people to simpler and more realistic views/analogies/comparisons, it will indeed frustrate their current understanding to a degree as revision takes place. Perhaps you simply don't like me, I do not know. There are people who have stereotypes, and they hate such stereotypes.

 

[i assumed you meant planets, not plants, but I am not going past the first sentence of para 2 yet. Gravity is [b]not [/b]friction. ]

 

I believe it could be...or of some sort? We all have seen magnets, we all seen solid objects where atoms are fused together...and we all have seen bubbles of air and other materials floating in water, as the water fails to dissolve them. What if planets and whatnot are like giant models taking on the characteristics of the molecular level? What if gravity is really like a model of the molecular level by which things go and function? What if friction has something to do with this?

 

We see bubbles and outwardly water surrounds them. We see planets, and outwardly space surrounds them. We see stars, and outwardly space surrounds them. We see an object's shadow as it extends very far out in whichever direction. What if this shadow is sort of like some "atmosphere"...? Whereby the moon doesn't have to be touching a particularly object PHYSICALLY (in the sense of its rock-structure), but the auras are actually interacting.