[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul You have a number of complaints and I will try to respond to a few of them.

Not complaints. Just pointing out that your previous post was nonsense.

Quote by: Technosoul First off, I am not a scientist and never stated such.

Actually, your scientific illiteracy makes it clear that you are not a scientist.

Quote by: Technosoul Nor are you (based on your words).

You apparently have a reading problem too since I am (or was before I retired) a scientist and a teacher of science.

Quote by: Technosoul Science is about using things (like chemicals and so forth) to do things, workable things that they have already discovered through experiments and testing.

Nope. The application of scientific knowledge is not science. My dictionary of science defines science as "The investigation of natural phenomena through observation, theoretical explanation, and experimentation." Science isn't about using things. It is about explaining nature. Science progresses by means of the scientific method in which a scientist makes an observation, offers a speculative explanation for that observation (called an hypothesis), makes a prediction based on the hypothesis that must necessarily be true if the hypothesis is true, and devises an experiment or test to verify the prediction. If the prediction is supported, then the hypothesis may be called a theory.

Quote by: Technosoul A theory is speculation that is based on a few known factors and then coming up with a possible reality, which must remain only as a theory until all peer reviews and future testings have been completed and it can be said to be a fact. A theory is not " a completed scientific project" nor even all that scientific in most cases.

You mean like the heliocentric theory? How about the germ theory of disease? How about nuclear theory that is used to operate nuclear power plants? A scientific theory isn't speculation in any sense. That would be an hypothesis. Again from my dictionary of science, a theory is "A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena." After the results of the scientific method are published in peer reviewed journals, and after they have been confirmed, then the hypothesis is called a theory. It never becomes a fact since it is an explanation of facts.

Quote by: Technosoul Again science is about creating chemical compounds, electric light bulbs, and things that we can use in everyday life.

Again, nope. Please go and learn at least the basics of what you are discussing before talking. You are making yourself look foolish.

Quote by: Technosoul Math (by any name) is not science, so why ask for that?

I didn't. However, if you are going to be doing most science (physics, astronomy, population genetics, genetics, chemistry, astrophysics, and so on) you will be doing math. Math is the language of most science. Even in unsuspected fields, like wildlife biology, math is a necessary tool.

Quote by: Technosoul Math is a useful tool for some science projects but when it is used to create theories that is all it does, create a theory but not an abosolute fact.

So you're pretty much a math illiterate too?

Quote by: Technosoul You can find the math to prove anything if you got the brains to do so, everyone in that Biz knows that.

Pure nonsense. I have seen both of my sons attack bad math (which is what you are talking about, whether you know it or not). My elder son is an applied scientist (i.e., a nuclear engineer), and my younger son is a math major. Everyone in the "Biz" knows that you can only buffalo the math illiterates.

Quote by: Technosoul I am offering something for others to think about.

You are offering scientific nonsense.

Quote by: Technosoul According to most scientific thinking since Darwin people have believed that one thing led to another thing, meaning that the same basic principle is repeated over and over and evolved upon or slightly alternated from.

Did that actually make sense to you when you typed it?

Quote by: Technosoul That is why the seed of a tree is much like the egg of a tultle - the same idea of "hatching" is evident in an wide range of living things. Your own body was formed inside of a womb and channeled "into the light" from a black hole. Like it or not (we know that much nowadays).

Like it or not, that was pretty much nonsense, especially in light of your following discussion. Maybe your mother's womb was a black hole, I don't know her. The analogy is simple minded. By the way, what's a "tultle"?

Quote by: Technosoul The theory I presented conforms to that standard "process". That process had to have some "background" as part of the on-going mementum that was begat at the first moment of time (asumming time is not orbital). The theory fits the mode of operation that we know about in the universe as expressed in life on earth.

Please see again the definition of pseudoscience. You didn't read it, did you?

Quote by: Technosoul The illuminated solar system is one with a sun. The sun is light energy but we can also have dark energy, a black hole would be a mass of dark energy before it transforms into light energy.

Actually, the sun is mostly hydrogen. The energy emitted from the sun (only part of it is light) is produced by the fusion of hydrogen into helium. Our sun, being a rather small star, will eventually run out of hydrogen and then become a red giant, a white dwarf, and then a brown dwarf. Larger stars die more violently and colapse into neutron stars. Very large stars end in a violent colapse into a black hole. A black hole is not energy, but very dense matter. Black holes never transform into light.

Quote by: Technosoul Which differences only has to do with human abilites to see things in those terms.

You mean in terms of wild fantasy?

Quote by: Technosoul The earth's dark energy can transform into light energy as Ben Franklin found out, as a "lightening bolt" when it conflicts with energy from storm clouds.

What kind of mumbo jumbo is that? You don't seem to be aware that lightning is electricity.

Quote by: Technosoul In the Big Bang theory they report that imploding gass triggered the nuclear type reaction that effected the universe (more details are outlined).

Pure balderdash. Who reported such a thing? What does that even mean? Since for some time after the beginning of the big bang there was no such thing as a nucleus, how could it have been a nuclear explosion? Do you know what a nuclear explosion is?

Quote by: Technosoul In my theory a timewave of energy imploded into a whirpool motion and impacted it's (relatively) still center of "nowness" and then exploded through the otherside as "light energy" ( aka the sun or as a star). The sun would then represent the "now" center of our solar system from which we gather our interpretaion of time in motion.

Please read again the definition of pseudoscience.. Of course, by "theory", you mean wild, unsupported speculation based on no evidence.

Quote by: Technosoul This theory conforms to the theory of relativity.

No it doesn't. My bet is that you can't give a rational explanation of the theory of relativity. Even a most basic understanding of relativity requires some awareness of physics and math, neither of which you seem to possess.

Quote by: Technosoul That is why a Buddist type person can focus inwardly and as they move close to their still center of their mind they experience a profound "moment of nowness" and new ideas come froth from out of that enlightenment which came out of a black hole in the center of all thoughts that are in motion around a relative center of sitllness.

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Ever hear of pseudoscience?

Quote by: Technosoul Be still and know.

Read a book and learn.

Quote by: Technosoul It "fits" because it is repeated in all factors of being that we might concider.

What fits?

I encourage everyone to read the Wikipedia discussion of pseudoscience, and then reread Technosoul's posts. Isn't it amazing the kind of crap that some people try to put forward as science?