|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 15, 2022 17:04:39 GMT
If we perceive or view something in our heads do we see and operate our images or we operate our thoughts?
The same is about our hearing voices - do we hear the voices in our head or we can aim and control 'em as thoughts?
Or a thought is that image or that sound, etc? I wouldn't compare them, because what is in our mind is not the same what is out there.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 11:55:05 GMT
If we perceive or view something in our heads do we see and operate our images or we operate our thoughts? The same is about our hearing voices - do we hear the voices in our head or we can aim and control 'em as thoughts? Or a thought is that image or that sound, etc? I wouldn't compare them, because what is in our mind is not the same what is out there.
Interesting is how people often hear what they want to hear and refuse to see unpleasant facts.
Though the word "imagination" suggests that we are active in creating our impressions of the world.
A great example is my proof against the physics of "black holes", and what the implications are for academia and broader society.
It should come as a shock that the greatest science prize
in the world is a blatant farce.
And something SHOULD be done about it.
But the world will carry on with its delusions,
even as global society rips itself to pieces all around us; and the battleground for truth becomes all the more vital, even as the latest "black hole" nonsense takes up the
front page of the local daily newspaper.
Can you not see that all those "learned scholars" are corrupt liars who care nothing at all for truth, let alone integrity?
And yet by the million, the uniformed masses line up to be counted as "academic". Just as those with these false accolades continue to lie on a scale never before imagined outside of b-grade sci-fi movies as pantomime villains fill public offices by the legion...
And when utter disaster become in our face like never before, will they all still cry out?
"WHY?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 12:14:52 GMT
If we perceive or view something in our heads do we see and operate our images or we operate our thoughts? The same is about our hearing voices - do we hear the voices in our head or we can aim and control 'em as thoughts? Or a thought is that image or that sound, etc? I wouldn't compare them, because what is in our mind is not the same what is out there.
Interesting is how people often hear what they want to hear and refuse to see unpleasant facts.
Though the word "imagination" suggests that we are active in creating our impressions of the world.
A great example is my proof against the physics of "black holes", and what the implications are for academia and broader society.
It should come as a shock that the greatest science prize
in the world is a blatant farce.
And something SHOULD be done about it.
But the world will carry on with its delusions,
even as global society rips itself to pieces all around us; and the battleground for truth becomes all the more vital, even as the latest "black hole" nonsense takes up the
front page of the local daily newspaper.
Can you not see that all those "learned scholars" are corrupt liars who care nothing at all for truth, let alone integrity?
And yet by the million, the uniformed masses line up to be counted as "academic". Just as those with these false accolades continue to lie on a scale never before imagined outside of b-grade sci-fi movies as pantomime villains fill public offices by the legion...
And when utter disaster become in our face like never before, will they all still cry out?
"WHY?"
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the black holes theory, except for that these are such objects that absorb anything, including the light. And I don't know which stuff a black hole should emit. I don't know about that. But I think that in this case a black hole is the idea fix, or a fake. If this is true, then it's just a non-existent object. But if this object doesn't exist, when we think we're thinking about this object we're wrong. If to try to get closer my question with that, then, I guess, if a black hole is a fake concept, then it doesn't mean this concept cannot be conceivable at all. I think that we can imagine something, but that something would not be the black hole, it would be something else. But, a thought behind it would be broken. It is possible to think illogically. It happens when we put true statements as premises, and a false one as the inference (the conclusion). And when we think that our premises deduce the inference, we are wrong. For example, p1. the black hole gravity is not a curved space p2. the gravity has the gravitation-waves p3. the gravitational-waves would not be able to breach the escape velocity they themselves have generated C: the black hole should result in zero gravity If " p1-3+C" is true, then this is illogical, and since that "p1-3+C" - is false. So, either p1, or p2, or p3 is false, if C is true. But how I think it's possible to imagine something that is false? It's simple I can try to draw a mermaid thinking that it exists. But nothing confirms it. It's just my own opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 16, 2022 12:40:39 GMT
Interesting is how people often hear what they want to hear and refuse to see unpleasant facts.
Though the word "imagination" suggests that we are active in creating our impressions of the world.
A great example is my proof against the physics of "black holes", and what the implications are for academia and broader society.
It should come as a shock that the greatest science prize
in the world is a blatant farce.
And something SHOULD be done about it.
But the world will carry on with its delusions,
even as global society rips itself to pieces all around us; and the battleground for truth becomes all the more vital, even as the latest "black hole" nonsense takes up the
front page of the local daily newspaper.
Can you not see that all those "learned scholars" are corrupt liars who care nothing at all for truth, let alone integrity?
And yet by the million, the uniformed masses line up to be counted as "academic". Just as those with these false accolades continue to lie on a scale never before imagined outside of b-grade sci-fi movies as pantomime villains fill public offices by the legion...
And when utter disaster become in our face like never before, will they all still cry out?
"WHY?"
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the black holes theory, except for that these are such objects that absorb anything, including the light. And I don't know which stuff a black hole should emit. I don't know about that. But I think that in this case a black hole is the idea fix, or a fake. If this is true, then it's just a non-existent object. But if this object doesn't exist, when we think we're thinking about this object we're wrong. If to try to get closer my question with that, then, I guess, if a black hole is a fake concept, then it doesn't mean this concept cannot be conceivable at all. I think that we can imagine something, but that something would not be the black hole, it would be something else. But, a thought behind it would be broken. It is possible to think illogically. It happens when we put true statements as premises, and a false one as the inference (the conclusion). And when we think that our premises deduce the inference, we are wrong. For example, p1. the black hole gravity is not a curved space p2. the gravity has the gravitation-waves p3. the gravitational-waves would not be able to breach the escape velocity they themselves have generated C: the black hole should result in zero gravity If " p1-3+C" is true, then this is illogical, and since that "p1-3+C" - is false. So, either p1, or p2, or p3 is false, if C is true. But how I think it's possible to imagine something that is false? It's simple I can try to draw a mermaid thinking that it exists. But nothing confirms it. It's just my own opinion.
Well this shows there are two quite different types of truth. Empirical and logical.
There is nothing illogical about a mermaid, such creatures likely exist on other worlds. Even though there is no empirical proof of this.
But the black-hole as it is defined CANNOT exist. Almost every characteristic of it, is a contradiction.
We cannot have an event-horizon that prevents anything crossing it, even if it moves at light-speed; and at the same time insist that the black-hole gives off gravity moving at light-speed.
There is nothing illogical in people living in water to such a great extent that they adapt to it eventually. In fact most scientists would be forced to conclude that humanity will eventually adapt and become aquatic, given enough time and occupation in the water.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 16, 2022 20:28:42 GMT
Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the black holes theory, except for that these are such objects that absorb anything, including the light. And I don't know which stuff a black hole should emit. I don't know about that. But I think that in this case a black hole is the idea fix, or a fake. If this is true, then it's just a non-existent object. But if this object doesn't exist, when we think we're thinking about this object we're wrong. If to try to get closer my question with that, then, I guess, if a black hole is a fake concept, then it doesn't mean this concept cannot be conceivable at all. I think that we can imagine something, but that something would not be the black hole, it would be something else. But, a thought behind it would be broken. It is possible to think illogically. It happens when we put true statements as premises, and a false one as the inference (the conclusion). And when we think that our premises deduce the inference, we are wrong. For example, p1. the black hole gravity is not a curved space p2. the gravity has the gravitation-waves p3. the gravitational-waves would not be able to breach the escape velocity they themselves have generated C: the black hole should result in zero gravity If " p1-3+C" is true, then this is illogical, and since that "p1-3+C" - is false. So, either p1, or p2, or p3 is false, if C is true. But how I think it's possible to imagine something that is false? It's simple I can try to draw a mermaid thinking that it exists. But nothing confirms it. It's just my own opinion.
Well this shows there are two quite different types of truth. Empirical and logical.
There is nothing illogical about a mermaid, such creatures likely exist on other worlds. Even though there is no empirical proof of this.
But the black-hole as it is defined CANNOT exist. Almost every characteristic of it, is a contradiction.
We cannot have an event-horizon that prevents anything crossing it, even if it moves at light-speed; and at the same time insist that the black-hole gives off gravity moving at light-speed.
There is nothing illogical in people living in water to such a great extent that they adapt to it eventually. In fact most scientists would be forced to conclude that humanity will eventually adapt and become aquatic, given enough time and occupation in the water.
I see. It is a definitely good addition. Of course, a mermaid isn't impossible, so are centaurus, tytans, hydras, etc. While a concept of the black hole is something the different. Could you explain this event-horizon, please? You know, I've heard of it, but still have no idea what is it? Or, I should say, I am not sure what it is. My own explanation may be wrong. I suppose that the event-horizon is the limit or a border that blocks any new events to happen. Or, let me continue about it using two concepts: eternalism and presentism. I think using these both terms allow me to explain my own view of that concept more clearly. Ok, so the eternalism supposes that all the events, things, stuff, whatsoever is co-exist. It's like there is no future, past, or present: all in one. Unlike to it, the presentism supposes that only the moment of the existence exist, or that only the precise moment when everything is conceivable exists. So, I think that the event-horizon - is the limit to the eternalism that says that some of events cannot be present already in the universe. And it seems like the event-horizon is the middle between the eternalism and the presentism. This is my view. I might be wrong, that is why I asked you about it. |
|
|
|
Post by karl on May 17, 2022 4:03:19 GMT
If we perceive or view something in our heads do we see and operate our images or we operate our thoughts? The same is about our hearing voices - do we hear the voices in our head or we can aim and control 'em as thoughts? Or a thought is that image or that sound, etc? I wouldn't compare them, because what is in our mind is not the same what is out there.
Both. When we recall an image or a sound the mind would typically attach one or more concepts to what we recall.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 17, 2022 9:56:39 GMT
Well this shows there are two quite different types of truth. Empirical and logical.
There is nothing illogical about a mermaid, such creatures likely exist on other worlds. Even though there is no empirical proof of this.
But the black-hole as it is defined CANNOT exist. Almost every characteristic of it, is a contradiction.
We cannot have an event-horizon that prevents anything crossing it, even if it moves at light-speed; and at the same time insist that the black-hole gives off gravity moving at light-speed.
There is nothing illogical in people living in water to such a great extent that they adapt to it eventually. In fact most scientists would be forced to conclude that humanity will eventually adapt and become aquatic, given enough time and occupation in the water.
I see. It is a definitely good addition. Of course, a mermaid isn't impossible, so are centaurus, tytans, hydras, etc. While a concept of the black hole is something the different. Could you explain this event-horizon, please? You know, I've heard of it, but still have no idea what is it? Or, I should say, I am not sure what it is. My own explanation may be wrong. I suppose that the event-horizon is the limit or a border that blocks any new events to happen. Or, let me continue about it using two concepts: eternalism and presentism. I think using these both terms allow me to explain my own view of that concept more clearly. Ok, so the eternalism supposes that all the events, things, stuff, whatsoever is co-exist. It's like there is no future, past, or present: all in one. Unlike to it, the presentism supposes that only the moment of the existence exist, or that only the precise moment when everything is conceivable exists. So, I think that the event-horizon - is the limit to the eternalism that says that some of events cannot be present already in the universe. And it seems like the event-horizon is the middle between the eternalism and the presentism. This is my view. I might be wrong, that is why I asked you about it.
The 'event horizon' is the surface of their 'black hole'.
I conclude that this 'event horizon' is the modern equivalent
of falling off the end of the earth. Except its said to be the edge of the universe. Its an impossible idea because its contrary to logic.
The "Einsteinians" define it "mathematically" in two ways. They say here that because gravity is so strong, time comes to a halt.
They also say here, that the gravity is so strong that anything trying to move past this event horizon, even if it moves at light-speed, will be pulled back down.
So they have 2 math equations which they say prevents any information from getting across it.
Nothing gets out of their black hole because of the strong gravity, but nothing can even get in because "time stops".
Of course they forgot that they have already concluded that the gravity itself must get out to be able to pull another object in. They also neglect that they have concluded that gravity moves at the same speed of light.
So its an impossible idea because the conclusions they reach are in direct blatant contradiction to themselves.
Here is my detailed analysis of Einstein's general relativity which shows numerous other blatant faults in their theory.
This is why i keep saying that computer algorithms will clearly
show up the errors in any math theory.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 17, 2022 17:56:49 GMT
I see. It is a definitely good addition. Of course, a mermaid isn't impossible, so are centaurus, tytans, hydras, etc. While a concept of the black hole is something the different. Could you explain this event-horizon, please? You know, I've heard of it, but still have no idea what is it? Or, I should say, I am not sure what it is. My own explanation may be wrong. I suppose that the event-horizon is the limit or a border that blocks any new events to happen. Or, let me continue about it using two concepts: eternalism and presentism. I think using these both terms allow me to explain my own view of that concept more clearly. Ok, so the eternalism supposes that all the events, things, stuff, whatsoever is co-exist. It's like there is no future, past, or present: all in one. Unlike to it, the presentism supposes that only the moment of the existence exist, or that only the precise moment when everything is conceivable exists. So, I think that the event-horizon - is the limit to the eternalism that says that some of events cannot be present already in the universe. And it seems like the event-horizon is the middle between the eternalism and the presentism. This is my view. I might be wrong, that is why I asked you about it.
The 'event horizon' is the surface of their 'black hole'.
I conclude that this 'event horizon' is the modern equivalent
of falling off the end of the earth. Except its said to be the edge of the universe. Its an impossible idea because its contrary to logic.
The "Einsteinians" define it "mathematically" in two ways. They say here that because gravity is so strong, time comes to a halt.
They also say here, that the gravity is so strong that anything trying to move past this event horizon, even if it moves at light-speed, will be pulled back down.
So they have 2 math equations which they say prevents any information from getting across it.
Nothing gets out of their black hole because of the strong gravity, but nothing can even get in because "time stops".
Of course they forgot that they have already concluded that the gravity itself must get out to be able to pull another object in. They also neglect that they have concluded that gravity moves at the same speed of light.
So its an impossible idea because the conclusions they reach are in direct blatant contradiction to themselves.
Here is my detailed analysis of Einstein's general relativity which shows numerous other blatant faults in their theory.
This is why i keep saying that computer algorithms will clearly
show up the errors in any math theory.
(Also wanted to say that almost each time I read your comment I feel like I'm a pupil in the middle school =) It is very good! Because sometimes I want to get back to my younger ages... I spend many good times when I was young. But I almost never had any friends, I always was alone. I liked it, I like it now also.) "Except its said to be the edge of the universe. Its an impossible idea because its contrary to logic" - I remember a book about logic of Cohen and Nagel of 1936. It was a really great logic textbook, maybe one of the best in history (over 60 re-issues). And in that textbook there was an exercise taken from Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason", where Kant criticized exactly the same example you've brought. I mean that it's impossible to conceive the edge of the universe. (In that exercise a one had to formalize Kant's thoughts into correct logical structure.) "Of course they forgot that they have already concluded that the gravity itself must get out to be able to pull another object in. They also neglect that they have concluded that gravity moves at the same speed of light" - must confess - it's not so easy for me to understand. I'm not a good one in Physics... unfortunately. But from my point of view it seems to be correct, because here can be applied only logical explanation. I mean - that about the gravity. Surely, if (as I suppose) the gravity works on a distance D, then why not it shouldn't work on the distance D`? So, for me it's like this: it's impossible that ( the gravity's speed > the speed of light), but at the same time (an object at the edge is being hold by gravity...). Nonsense. Quite similar thing was noted by one russian broadcasting company who shared a video where russian sappers were walking by fields searching for bombs, while at the same times an operator with a camera was filming them from the front... Here it is: 9gag.com/gag/ay9WOdqI think this case can illustrate your thought from the interesting point =) |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 17, 2022 19:50:03 GMT
Eugene 2.0i'm a bit off at a tangent here, but elsewhere you said your cat was sneezing - both my cats had the same problem and i fixed it by changing the cat food - something allergic in the food they really cheapen catfood at every chance they get i always give mine a piece of whatever meat or fish i am eating i use the Dr Hanz food now - not sure if you can get it though
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on May 17, 2022 20:55:04 GMT
Eugene 2.0 i'm a bit off at a tangent here, but elsewhere you said your cat was sneezing - both my cats had the same problem and i fixed it by changing the cat food - something allergic in the food they really cheapen catfood at every chance they get i always give mine a piece of whatever meat or fish i am eating i use the Dr Hanz food now - not sure if you can get it though Alright!! Thank you so much!! This might have been a reason! I'm going to check this out. |
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on May 23, 2022 6:27:01 GMT
I was meditating a few weeks ago and started to think about black holes and realized, how would we see a black hole? I mean if it's what science says it is then we can't see it
And yet the history channel loves to show us 3d fake ones in fake space and fails to mention that it's not actual video of real stuff in space
Which might seem like an obvious thing to someone mature
But to people born in the time of cell phones and grew up with electronics (not me but from I'd say 15yrs old till now I've had digital technology available at my fingertips in one way or another
But to people born from the year 2000 till now it's not common knowledge or obvious that those videos are fake because they have no reason to question the authenticity of something like that due to being brainwashed all throughout school not to question things or be independent to not being taught how to logically assess things independently
and being children born of the system because anybody born after the year 2000 is most likely raised by the government not by parents and so they think like their parents AKA the government and the government has made very obedient children that don't use their brain and will comply
Of course to somebody that's the opposite of that this makes life a bit stressful it feels like you're walking through a store full of zombies that just luckily don't eat human flesh but have all the other habits of a zombie it can be a very alone feeling
but I digress from getting them but my original point
So I did a little research and found out that I was correct that it's only a theory of black holes not a fact that has been truly proven, no not hardly.
It's just a theory and yet call academia speaks about black holes as if it's a fact that they've seen with their own eyes and if you ask any young person if you say
You know black holes might not be a thing they haven't been proven they will look at you totally weird and say
no we've seen them before we had to have
It drives me nuts how much of science is not a proven fact but yet talked about as if the scientist has touched it themselves
Learning that black holes are just a hypothesis was about as annoying as when I found out what virtual particles were.
|
|
