How Earth was Created.

[Technosoul]

What is in darkness shall come to light.

Our solar system was created by what I will call the "Black hole theory". Athough it is not a theory because scientist can observe it happening through telescopes.

Many years ago they discovered the black holes at what they believed was the far distant "other side" of the universe. They noticed that it seemed as if the black holes were consuming a illuminated solar system.

The first observations failed to take into account the curved natue of space and time, for as we look through the curved lens we see things upside down and back to front. So what they were watching was time in reverse, meaning they were watching a lighted solar system come out of a black hole, much like a human is born out of a womb.

Based on that eyewitness observation by science we now know that our own solar system no doubt also came out of such a black hole. This would be the best "fact" we can report of with supportive evidence.

And so we know where we came from but are still speculating on "what" that "where" might be. What is a Black Hole? A portal to another dimention, a void of creative nothingness? The womb of a Goddess? Or - and most logically - something else not yet comprehended.

This idea will soon become the most pouplar teaching form science but it might take ages for science to give us a nice sounding theory about what a black hole is, meanwhile religions and phylosophy (and science fiction writers) will fill in the gap, as expected.

[Jack]

The first observations failed to take into account the curved natue of space and time, for as we look through the curved lens we see things upside down and back to front. So what they were watching was time in reverse, meaning they were watching a lighted solar system come out of a black hole, much like a human is born out of a womb.

I'm confused. Mirroring can reverse left and right, up and down, but it can't reverse motion. Curved space/time might distort events, but not cause them to run in reverse. Wouldn't that make the Big Bang a future event?

[The Architect]

Hold on, the big bang theory is that the universe started as a singularity ( point) and some event triggered a rapid expansion of all the particle inside that point. ( Big Bang )
Im not understanding this "Black Hole Theory" so everything in the known universe all came from a black hole. So whats on the other side of that black hole, another universe. Im confident that blacks holes do have two sides. Please explain more, is there a website on this?

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul What is in darkness shall come to light.

But it won't be done in this little bit of pseudoscience.

Quote by: Technosoul Our solar system was created by what I will call the "Black hole theory".

You can call it whatever you want, but it is not, never has been and never will be a scientific theory.

Quote by: Technosoul Athough it is not a theory because scientist can observe it happening through telescopes.

Truly, it is not a theory but not for the reasons that you state. You see, a theory is an explanation for observed events. If something can be observed, then it may, in fact, have a theory that explains it. You speak like most scientific illiterates in that you think that a scientific theory is some sort of wild guess that can some day grow up to be a fact. Go and learn something.

Quote by: Technosoul Many years ago they discovered the black holes at what they believed was the far distant "other side" of the universe. They noticed that it seemed as if the black holes were consuming a[n] illuminated solar system.

Note in the definition of pseudoscience that your statements so far are excellent examples of the first point: pseudoscience makes use of vague and exaggerated or untestable claims. First of all, do you even know what a black hole is? What is the "other side" of the universe? Specifically, where have they been observed to "seem" to consume "illuminated" solar systems. What do you mean by "illuminated?" What is a solar system?

Quote by: Technosoul The first observations failed to take into account the curved natue of space and time, for as we look through the curved lens we see things upside down and back to front.

Obviously you have no understanding of what is meant by the relativistic terms used in talking about the nature of space/time. The curvature of space does not act as a lens that reverses what we see. Your statement is a prime example of pseudoscience.

Quote by: Technosoul So what they were watching was time in reverse, meaning they were watching a lighted solar system come out of a black hole, much like a human is born out of a womb.

But why would time be reversed? What does that have to do with the curvature of space?

Quote by: Technosoul Based on that eyewitness observation by science we now know that our own solar system no doubt also came out of such a black hole.

Balderdash. Since there were no such "eye witness" observations, we know nothing of the sort. Where is this magical black hole that spits out solar systems? Please explain the physics by which the alleged production of solar systems happens. You know, you're going to have to rewrite a whole bunch of well understood physics before your "theory" can be given consideration without gales of laughter. Good luck with that.

Quote by: Technosoul This would be the best "fact" we can report of with supportive evidence.

What supportive evidence? You haven't given any?

Quote by: Technosoul And so we know where we came from but are still speculating on "what" that "where" might be. What is a Black Hole? A portal to another dimention, a void of creative nothingness? The womb of a Goddess? Or - and most logically - something else not yet comprehended.

Maybe speaking in mumbo-jumbo should be added to the list of the characteristics of pseudoscience. Do you think that your above statements actually carry meaningful discussion?

Quote by: Technosoul This idea will soon become the most pouplar teaching form science but it might take ages for science to give us a nice sounding theory about what a black hole is, meanwhile religions and phylosophy (and science fiction writers) will fill in the gap, as expected.

Or, the gap will be filled with meaningless and obscure pseudoscience that teach us nothing and explain nothing while bordering on religion itself.

Quote by: Isherwood I'm confused.

No doubt what he was trying to do. He certainly didn't explain anything.

Quote by: The Architect Hold on, the big bang theory is that the universe started as a singularity ( point) and some event triggered a rapid expansion of all the particle inside that point.

He was talking about the solar system, not the universe.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Isherwood I'm confused. Mirroring can reverse left and right, up and down, but it can't reverse motion. Curved space/time might distort events, but not cause them to run in reverse. Wouldn't that make the Big Bang a future event?

I did not mention anything about a Big Bang nor do I find that theory worthwhile. Nor about mirrors.

I was speaking in terms of a lens, like the kinds in cameras that are clear and that are curved also, when you look through the single lens things are turned around, upside down, etc. A completed camera has another lens to make corrections for the photo shooter. But the negitives are in revserse until printed out on photo paper.

[Technosoul]

[quote=The Architect;305663]Hold on, the big bang theory is that the universe started as a singularity ( point) and some event triggered a rapid expansion of all the particle inside that point. ( Big Bang )
Im not understanding this "Black Hole Theory" so everything in the known universe all came from a black hole. So whats on the other side of that black hole, another universe. Im confident that blacks holes do have two sides. Please explain more, is there a website on this?[/QUOTE)

I came up with this idea a few years ago and some science minded people agreed, last year a friend of mine told me that he had just read the same thing in one of the Science magazines, which gave me some confidence that my speculation was correct - I do not have a webpage anymore and I did not try to find one on this topic - but no doubt a number of them can be found about Black Holes. But mostly relating the older theories.

You can find some webpages about the idea that the black hole is like a tunnel that has another universe on the other side, these concepts are mostly on sites devoted to "new agers" and "intellectual drugies" of the 60s type. Those who think like unto Terrence McKenna.

Native Americans also have legends about creation coming from a "hole in the sky" but no one knows for sure the orgins of that legend, or if the modern version was "watered down" from a more scientific source of knowledge.

In short, no one really knows much about black holes. Nor turnels with lights at the other end as reported in memory flashbacks during a N.D.E.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo But it won't be done in this little bit of pseudoscience. You can call it whatever you want, but it is not, never has been and never will be a scientific theory. Truly, it is not a theory but not for the reasons that you state. You see, a theory is an explanation for observed events. If something can be observed, then it may, in fact, have a theory that explains it. You speak like most scientific illiterates in that you think that a scientific theory is some sort of wild guess that can some day grow up to be a fact. Go and learn something. Note in the definition of pseudoscience that your statements so far are excellent examples of the first point: pseudoscience makes use of vague and exaggerated or untestable claims. First of all, do you even know what a black hole is? What is the "other side" of the universe? Specifically, where have they been observed to "seem" to consume "illuminated" solar systems. What do you mean by "illuminated?" What is a solar system? Obviously you have no understanding of what is meant by the relativistic terms used in talking about the nature of space/time. The curvature of space does not act as a lens that reverses what we see. Your statement is a prime example of pseudoscience. But why would time be reversed? What does that have to do with the curvature of space? Balderdash. Since there were no such "eye witness" observations, we know nothing of the sort. Where is this magical black hole that spits out solar systems? Please explain the physics by which the alleged production of solar systems happens. You know, you're going to have to rewrite a whole bunch of well understood physics before your "theory" can be given consideration without gales of laughter. Good luck with that. What supportive evidence? You haven't given any? Maybe speaking in mumbo-jumbo should be added to the list of the characteristics of pseudoscience. Do you think that your above statements actually carry meaningful discussion? Or, the gap will be filled with meaningless and obscure pseudoscience that teach us nothing and explain nothing while bordering on religion itself. No doubt what he was trying to do. He certainly didn't explain anything. He was talking about the solar system, not the universe.

You have a number of complaints and I will try to respond to a few of them.

First off, I am not a scientist and never stated such. Nor are you (based on your words). Science is about using things (like chemicals and so forth) to do things, workable things that they have already discovered through experiments and testing. 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. Again science is about creating chemical compounds, electric light bulbs, and things that we can use in everyday life. Math (by any name) is not science, so why ask for that? 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. You can find the math to prove anything if you got the brains to do so, everyone in that Biz knows that.

I am offering something for others to think about.

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. 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). 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.

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. Which differences only has to do with human abilites to see things in those terms.

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.

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

This theory conforms to the theory of relativity. 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.

Be still and know.

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

[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?

[Technosoul]

I already know about pseudoscience and have already stated that I am not a scientist and do not claim otherwise.

As a science teacher you might be aware that Steven Hawking is having a problem with his theory about the black hole consuming everything, due to the paradox as outlined at this webpage.... (see bottom of page).

A Turtle. As a former science teacher you should know a typo when you see one and be able to make the apparent correction in spelling with your brain power.

You keep saying "read a book and learn" and yadda da da, A new theory is not a repeat of fomer theories. You cannot read about a new idea in an old book. You are like those people who read the Bible and thought the earth was flat because everyone said so, you think the guy on the Mayflower is "crazy" or poorly educated. You laugh at the new idea because it would mean that all that stuff you learned is no longer right. Times they are a-changin'. Well, the earth is not flat and the universe is not flat and you will not fall off the "edge of the universe" into a Black Hole like they did in that Star Trek movie. That is if my theoretical explaination is correct once all the peer reviews and testing is completed.

Next you will be telling me that someone went out to the sun and collected "samples" of it so they can prove what it is made out of.

As the debate continues about the nature of Black Holes we might wish to take note of the following concept.

SPACE.com -- The New History of Black Holes: 'Co-evolution' Dramatically Alters Dark Reputation

Whatcha think about that?

Meanwhile some folks are speculating that Black Holes are Gravity Forces that result from curved space and "circular orbits" as reviewed here....

More Yadda da da

Orbits in Strongly Curved Spacetime

And so while you scientists go on guessing about the observations concerning black holes I will cut through all that red tape and present the right "answer".

The following is a webpage that shows how "time" can be reversed (back to front - upside down) when you look at the other side of the universe through the "lens" of curved (clear) space.

Lens (optics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Which fact supports my theoretical explaination (aka - theory).













Hawking cracks black hole paradox - 14 July 2004 - New Scientist

Now in organic life forms the body has two black holes, one for creating new life and one at the other end for eating food (not counting the rear one). So if the Black Hole is consuming solar systems like a preditor eating food then I would ask you .... why? Is it because the universe must be kept in balance so that solar systems do not overpopulate the space - causing the universe to expand and get too "fat"? The whole idea sounds a litte nutty if you ask me. That a "dark force" is running around eating the "children of light" - sounds too biblical or too much like a Star Wars movie for my taste.

So again I ask; Why must solar systems be eliminated by preditor Black Hole "monsters"?

According to you "dictionary of science" it would seem then that the theory of evolution, the theory of the Big Bang, and Hawkings theory of the Black Hole, all do not really meet the standards for being called a "theory", because they are still being debated and undergoing peer reviews.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I already know about pseudoscience and have already stated that I am not a scientist and do not claim otherwise.

No need to explain, really. That you are not a scientist is quite apparent.

Quote by: Technosoul As a science teacher you might be aware that Steven Hawking is having a problem with his theory about the black hole consuming everything, due to the paradox as outlined at this webpage.... (see bottom of page).

I had to look at the web site to find out what you were talking about. Did you actually read your own link? It's old news. By the way, Stephen Hawking (it would be nice if you at least spelled the man's name correctly if you are going to talk about him) doesn't have a theory about "the black hole comsuming everything." You left off an important qualification - "...that falls into it." And, as the link says, Hawking thinks that he has solved his problem that he has had since he developed his theory about black hole radiation (known as Hawking radiation). I think that maybe you didn't understand what you read.

Quote by: Technosoul A Turtle. As a former science teacher you should know a typo when you see one and be able to make the apparent correction in spelling with your brain power.

OH!!!! A turtle! Well, your whole analogy was so senseless I just couldn't figure out what you were talking about. Know that I know you were talking about a turtle, it makes even less sense.

Quote by: Technosoul You keep saying "read a book and learn" and yadda da da, A new theory is not a repeat of fomer theories. You cannot read about a new idea in an old book.

But if you had made any effort to learn the basics of what you are trying to discuss, you would know that new theories are extensions of old ones. If you don't understand the basics and the history, then you are liable to spout nonsense. Also, if you actually had read a book or two on cosmology and astrophysics (and understood them - I also see a problem with your reading comprehension) you would be aware that you are babbling nonsense.

Quote by: Technosoul You are like those people who read the Bible and thought the earth was flat because everyone said so, you think the guy on the Mayflower is "crazy" or poorly educated.

Because I think that you are talking nonsense? What does any of that have to do with your misunderstanding of some 6th grade science?

Quote by: Technosoul You laugh at the new idea because it would mean that all that stuff you learned is no longer right.

No, I laugh at your idea because it is absolute nonsense.

Quote by: Technosoul Times they are a-changin'. Well, the earth is not flat and the universe is not flat and you will not fall off the "edge of the universe" into a Black Hole like they did in that Star Trek movie. That is if my theoretical explaination is correct once all the peer reviews and testing is completed.

Your "theoretical explanation" is neither "theoretical" nor an "explaination" [sic]. It is wild fantasy at best and isn't likely to undergo any peer review. Do you even know what peer review is?

Quote by: Technosoul Next you will be telling me that someone went out to the sun and collected "samples" of it so they can prove what it is made out of.

So you don't even know enough to understand how scientists have learned what the sun is made of. No surprise there.

Quote by: Technosoul As the debate continues about the nature of Black Holes we might wish to take note of the following concept. SPACE.com -- The New History of Black Holes: 'Co-evolution' Dramatically Alters Dark Reputation Whatcha think about that?

I think that you don't understand what that article is saying. It isn't really all that shocking. Moreover, it has no relevance whatsoever to your fantasy.

Quote by: Technosoul Meanwhile some folks are speculating that Black Holes are Gravity Forces that result from curved space and "circular orbits" as reviewed here.... More Yadda da da

And you didn't understand that one either, did you? It isn't about any speculation about black holes being gravity forces. They have gravity because they are matter.

Quote by: Technosoul And so while you scientists go on guessing about the observations concerning black holes I will cut through all that red tape and present the right "answer".

Read the definition of pseudoscience. You aren't a scientist, don't even understand simple physics (much less astrophysics and cosmology) and yet you know the answer. You haven't even stated the question.

Quote by: Technosoul The following is a webpage that shows how "time" can be reversed (back to front - upside down) when you look at the other side of the universe through the "lens" of curved (clear) space. Which fact supports my theoretical explaination (aka - theory).

You don't have a theory since you have no observations, no hypothesis, no prediction and no testing. Your babble is meaningless and an article on optics certainly doesn't support it. It only makes you look foolish.

Quote by: Technosoul Now in organic life forms the body has two black holes, one for creating new life and one at the other end for eating food (not counting the rear one).

BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA You're a troll, aren't you? Nobody could be serious about such bilge.

Quote by: Technosoul So if the Black Hole is consuming solar systems like a preditor eating food then I would ask you .... why?

Really, really bad analogy. Pure nonsense, in fact.

Quote by: Technosoul Is it because the universe must be kept in balance so that solar systems do not overpopulate the space - causing the universe to expand and get too "fat"? The whole idea sounds a litte nutty if you ask me. That a "dark force" is running around eating the "children of light" - sounds too biblical or too much like a Star Wars movie for my taste.

The idea sounds more than "a litte [sic] nutty."

Quote by: Technosoul So again I ask; Why must solar systems be eliminated by preditor Black Hole "monsters"?

Are you really not aware that your question is is pure nonsense? Anyway, what's a "preditor," black hole or otherwise?

Quote by: Technosoul According to you "dictionary of science" it would seem then that the theory of evolution, the theory of the Big Bang, and Hawkings theory of the Black Hole, all do not really meet the standards for being called a "theory", because they are still being debated and undergoing peer reviews.

Or, it would seem that you don't know what science is or how it works. It would also seem that you have a bit of a reading comprehension problem. Where would you ever get the idea that scientific theories aren't debated among scientists?

[The Dunedan]

Gallo,
I think I should warn you that you're headbutting the proverbial dead horse. Techno is, unfortunately, known for "ideas" of this sort. He/she once posited that the Universe came into being as a result of "whirlpools" in time, and that Jesus had used "Wicca [sic] magic" to raise Lazarus. He's also suggested that one "use one's wisdom" in order to get away from an armed robber, and that the ideal home-defense weapon is a crossbow. His latest offing is the "idead" that humans allegedly have larger heads than other primates because cavemen clubbed their wives. I'm also reasonably sure he's not a troll, since he's been around for several years. As usual, I see he lacks evidence, or didn't bother to comprehend what he puts forth as such.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: The Dunedan Gallo, I think I should warn you that you're headbutting the proverbial dead horse. Techno is, unfortunately, known for "ideas" of this sort. He/she once posited that the Universe came into being as a result of "whirlpools" in time, and that Jesus had used "Wicca [sic] magic" to raise Lazarus. He's also suggested that one "use one's wisdom" in order to get away from an armed robber, and that the ideal home-defense weapon is a crossbow. His latest offing is the "idead" that humans allegedly have larger heads than other primates because cavemen clubbed their wives. I'm also reasonably sure he's not a troll, since he's been around for several years. As usual, I see he lacks evidence, or didn't bother to comprehend what he puts forth as such.

Why spoil all his fun?

I do not recall ever saying that Jesus used wiccan magic to raise Lazarus, unless you are taking a single part of a post way out of context. Wicca people do not raise dead people from their graves. At least not in a physical sense. I might have created a post

And you did not comprehend my other post you mentioned. It was not simply "whirlpools in time" as you pretend. It was about impluses (virbrations) that created a force field of energy and that when some of the lesser impulses doubled back over into the oncoming flow of impulses that created a circular motion of energy (like a whirlpool in a stream of water), as the energy impulses spun inwardly they then exploded as a Big Bang. The energy like impulses were generated by thinking deisre in the Creative Mind that people nowadays call a God. That was a religious posting.

May the circle (circut) remain unborken.

Some of you guys or gals are as slow as turtles when it comes to really comprehending my postings. Knowing how to spell and read is useless if you cannot also understand what someone is communicating.

[The Dunedan]

Some of you guys or gals are as slow as turtles when it comes to really comprehending my postings. Knowing how to spell and read is useless if you cannot also understand what someone is communicating.

You would be much easier to understand if you had a grain of knowledge in the fields you posit. You're pulling things out of your Fourth Point Of Contact and calling them facts, even when you admit that they "came to you from the blue." You've tried to use "remote viewing" as a form of evidence on more than one occaision, and your "scientific" posts are mind-blowingly ignorant. When someone points you to the correct information, you simply brush them off and blather on.

I don't care what kind of nonsense contest you want to start in philosphical or religious threads, but when you trumpet "facts" that are simply untrue and call it science, when your misapplication of scientific terminology makes it clear that you know absolutely -nothing- about how science works or what the current knowledge-base is, you are hedging dangerously towards dishonesty.

Again, PLEASE, do some bloody research...with a -book- this time, not the 1,000 year-old disembodied spirit of a Navajo medicine-man. Several books would be even better, I can send you a list if you want.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo No need to e