0
   

My idea for depression/pleasure that I want scientifically tested

 
 
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 08:07 am
@One Eyed Mind,
Quote:

You're talking to someone who has this Universe mathematically reverse-engineered.

Who is the only one on this planet that could prove the exact reason for Uranus' tilt.


Your mathematics suck.

You posted before your mathematical "perfect circumference" universal existence based in the circumference of our planet earth.

I told you that our planet earth's shape is not a circumference but that is oval. Your Pi theory can't be applied to earth and by consequence to the universe because the imperfection of the shape that will not be subjected to Pi.

Now, you come with the mathematical solution explaining the reason of Uranus tilt.

Anybody can play with numbers and with manipulation of numbers and equations one can "prove" everything in a piece of paper. A silly dude called Albert Einstein did it in the past, and his theories became exposed as fraud and stupid.

His theory explaining the cause of the perihelion forward with précised numerical calculation fails miserably when applied to the rest of planets. In other words, a theory that works with one planet alone is just a piece of crap.

The problem is that like many idiots who believe they are geniuses, you can't wake up to reality and recognize that your mathematics is abstract, and that there is no mathematical formula or equation ruling the universe. Such an idea is pure fantasy.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 11:12 am
Here are two main convincing arguments I have now posited that support my viewpoints:

Main Argument #1

From the perspective of who I am as a person, the suffering of others would certainly matter to me and I would feel bad in causing others harm. But from the perspective of my "scientific" beliefs (which are perspectives separate from who I am as a person), the suffering of others would actually not matter from my own perspective and that since I feel that they would, then I would be delusional. I have scientific reasons to back up what I'm saying here. If, let's pretend, that you were an empathetic person, but had a belief similar to mine that you believed has science to back it up, would you then not talk about it with others here just like how I am doing here? And would that make you less of a compassionate and empathetic person for having talked about it and for also having this belief as well? No, it wouldn't!

If you are going to say something such as that we can feel the pleasure and suffering of others with a statement such as that "Yes, we can. They are called mirror neurons. Your brain makes you feel the feelings of others to some degree," this would be false because it would only still be your own mirror neurons and your own reaction and experience. The only way for your experience to be of someone else's is if you were to somehow switch minds in which you would now be in this person's mind and that they would be in yours. Also, there are many many different types of feelings of pleasure in addition to the main ones such as motivation, love, etc. because there are even many different types of feelings of motivation, love, etc. So even if you were to feel motivated from knowing that someone else is experiencing motivation, it would still only be your own feeling of motivation that you would be experiencing while the person would be experiencing his/her own feeling of motivation.

As for the pain, pleasure, and despair of others either being good or bad from your perspective, that would just be nothing more than a thought (your own created meaning). Thoughts can tell us that things are good and bad. But only in the sense that they are still nothing more than neutral words, sounds, images, etc. Also, it doesn't matter whether your pleasure causes you harm or others harm, it still stands alone by itself separate from everything else in life as objectively good in of itself.

Also, since all atoms and particles are separate from the atoms and particles of our pleasure, then to say that harming someone in order to give you pleasure makes your pleasure bad, this would be false because the combined atoms and particles of the person suffering and other things do not have the same properties of the combined atoms and particles as a whole that make up our pleasure. It would be no different than saying that, since the combined atoms and particles of a piece of metal possess a certain function and properties (which, in this case, we would call "bad"), then that also makes the combined atoms and particles of other materials the same as well (that this also makes them "bad") which is false. Concepts such as good and bad (aside from our experience of pleasure, pain, and despair), these are the subjective thoughts themselves that create these concepts in the brain and are the functioning of the neurons and other things themselves responsible for the creation of these concepts in the brain that do have scientific properties. And, of course, they are also experiences in of themselves that are objectively good and bad and also have scientific properties (which would be the functioning of the neurons and other things that give us pleasure, pain, and despair).

If you are asking how concepts such as value, worth, and beauty can be the functioning of the neurons and other particles that come up with these concepts that can be measured in the future, what I would have to say to that would be that God, in terms of actually being someone or something existing in reality, does not exist at all. But God, in terms of a concept (a thought) does exist as the functioning of our neurons and other particles that have created this concept. But as of now, there might be no way to measure the activity and such of those particles and neurons (which would be measuring the amount of this concept that this person has). But in the future we might which would mean that we would be able to measure the amount of concepts such how much value, worth, and beauty someone has.

Now if we were to have no knowledge or thoughts and we were to experience pleasure, our pleasure would still feel good to us despite us not attributing any value to it which means that pleasure in of itself is always objectively good. Same thing for pain and despair being objectively bad. So our thoughts, values, and everything else in life besides pain, despair, and pleasure are all neutral since they do not tell us that anything is "good" or "bad" (they are not the "good" and "bad" messages in the brain). Thoughts can tell us that things are good or bad. But only in the sense that these thoughts are all nothing but neutral.

Some might say that we cannot separate our thoughts, knowledge, etc. from our pleasure because all functioning of our brains is all one thing as a whole. So if that's the case, then what I should be saying here is that the state of mind we would be in without our ability to experience pleasure would be a neutral state of mind as opposed to being in a state of mind in which we have pleasure regardless of how much we use that neutral state of mind in helping others and doing great things in our lives and it would make everything neutral from our perspectives no matter what and no matter how much we viewed things in life as being good anyway. Why? Because, as I've stated before, I believe in things like materialism and naturalism which state that everything is meaningless function of atoms, molecules, etc. that is neither good or bad. However, the experience of pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things as I've been explaining despite the fact that these things are also the functioning of atoms, molecules, etc.

Now if you are going to say something such as that "I'm not sure that's a scientific claim. For a start, an arguably more scientific definition of a person is as homo sapiens. I think either a person is a member of the species or not. I'd also have to say that I think there's a lot of difficulties with the concept of consciousness and even greater difficulties trying to use it as a conceptual tool in thinking about things like human rights," then what I would have to say to that would be that what would define a person as a homo sapiens in the first place would be his/her conscious as well because you cannot take out the mind and just say that the body itself is a complete homo sapiens. And even if this person's conscious didn't define him/her as a homo sapiens, then we can look at a specific grouping of atoms/particles that defines him/her as a homo sapiens and find a similiar grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious that are exactly the same and say that this specific grouping of atoms/particles in this person's conscious defines him/her as a homo sapiens.

Now how much something matters to you and how much value, worth, and beauty it has to you (how good it is to you) all solely depends on your own level of pleasure in life. If you have no pleasure, then life itself as well as everything and everyone will have no value, worth, and beauty whatsoever to you and will not matter to you at all no matter what you think otherwise. If you have little pleasure, then things will only matter little to you. But if you have a lot of pleasure, then things will matter greatly to you and the things and actions that give you the most pleasure would matter the most to you (again, even if it is harming or taking advantage of others). Actually, as I stated before, none of these things matter anyway and all these things besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral. That is, providing that thoughts/meanings and pleasure are two separate things. But if they are actually one thing only when it comes to experiencing pleasure (that our thoughts/meanings actually become the pleasure itself only when we experience pleasure), then these thoughts/meanings would be good (would matter) to us. So if you are then going to ask if that's the case, then why can't our pleasure be neutral or bad since neutral and bad thoughts can also become our pleasure? The answer to that would be that, in this case, there is no separation between pleasure and our neutral or "bad" thoughts (bad thoughts also being neutral anyway).

I stated before that pleasure feels good which is an objective scientific fact and I stated that the reason for that is because different functioning of atoms, molecules, etc. yields different things and also yields our experience of pleasure which always feels good in of itself. So to say that our pleasure can be bad or neutral would be no different than saying that a piece of metal (or in this case, pleasure) can be a different type of material entirely (that pleasure can be something different such as something good or bad) just because a majority of atoms/other particles that make up this piece of metal (the atoms/other particles that make up our pleasure in our brains) has some inherit characteristics of other types of material (or in this case, the characteristics of the functioning of atoms/other particles responsible for our "bad" and neutral thoughts). Therefore, pleasure can never be something different and will always be good in of itself no matter what while all thoughts/meanings and everything else in life besides pleasure and suffering are all neutral.

Finally, you mattering to others and them having value and worth towards you and viewing you as a beautiful person does NOT give you or your life value, worth, and beauty because, once again, you will be and forever will be in your own mind and it will only be your own pleasure that gives you these things. Other people cannot somehow magically "project" their mindset and their value, worth, and beauty towards you onto you.

Main Argument #2

I am now going to post another convincing argument here which is that good and bad can only be defined in terms of evolution. Pleasure is what encourages our survival and this is the only thing that makes pleasure good. Bad feelings such as fear may also encourage our survival in the sense of escaping from danger, but it's still bad because it is evolution's "warning." So "warning" (things such as pain and despair) in terms of evolution is the only thing that is bad while "encouraged survival" in the sense of us being encouraged in benefiting our species is the only thing that is good. Knowledge and thoughts alone may be used to make us do great things in life, help others, and benefit our survival, but these knowledge and thoughts are not the same as our "encouraged survival" (which is our pleasure). Thoughts and knowledge do not "encourage" us. They only merely make us do things in the sense of being neutral and our lives being neutral from our perspectives without our pleasure. Again, all things separate from our pleasure (such as the survival and benefiting of others) does not matter from our perspectives and is not good at all. Only our pleasure is good.

As for things such as rats pleasuring themselves to death through electrocutions, it's not the survival and benefiting of us that is good or bad (if they are things aside from our own pleasure and suffering). It's only our encouragement to benefit our survival (pleasure) that is the only thing defined as good in terms of evolution (even if it is used in not benefiting our survival and even harming ourselves and others). Again, knowledge and thoughts alone do not "encourage" us. And the idea of obtaining more pain from experiencing pleasure is just a thought that is neutral. So the idea of the rats not surviving is neither good or bad nor the idea of them experiencing suffering and pleasure is anything good or bad either. Only the suffering itself that the rats were experiencing was bad and it is only the pleasure itself that the rats experienced that was good.

As for from whose point of view would it be considered that their pleasure was actually good and that their suffering was bad? It would only be from their own perspectives. You might then be saying that this doesn't make it objective, but this is false. Feelings of pleasure are objectively good in of themselves for everyone while feelings of pain and despair are objectively bad for everyone regardless of our own personal thoughts (our own created meanings) regarding these feelings being good or bad for us because our thoughts are completely independent of them actually feeling objectively good and bad in of themselves. Or you could look at it from the perspective of science itself. For example, the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is not something subjective. We can have different created meanings regarding that such as that this is good or bad, but that still doesn't change the scientific fact that the Earth revolves around the sun. So only our thoughts are subjective while the feelings themselves are objective.

Now if you think there is a difference between something being objectively good and bad (our pleasure and suffering) in terms of the perspective of science as opposed to them being good and bad from our perspectives, there is not. Both say that the feelings of pleasure and suffering are the objectively good and bad things only from our own perspectives (which would be our own pleasure and suffering) while the pleasure and suffering of others from our own perspectives is still neither good or bad (neutral). If you are going to say something such as that this still makes our own feelings subjectively good or bad, I will then ask you what would be the difference between saying that it's a scientific fact that our minds are what they are and how they work despite the fact that they are subjective organs with different wiring and neuronal activities? Same thing with our feelings of pleasure and suffering since they are what they are (which would be good and bad) despite the fact that our thoughts and the activity in our brains are subjective. So this would be objective in the sense that our brains are what they are and is how they work in terms of science and it would also be subjective in the sense that the activity and wiring of our brains is different for each individual. Same thing applies for pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life. It's subjective only in the sense that the activity of the neurons and other particles that elicit states of pleasure and suffering are different for everyone (yielding different levels and forms of "good" and "bad"). But it is objective in the sense that pleasure and suffering are the only good and bad things. So pleasure and suffering being the only good and bad things in life is both objective in one scientific sense and is also subjective in another scientific sense at the same time.

Now you may notice that I am using a lot of words such as "if" and "were" which are not scientific nor are they scientific facts. However, we can say the words "if" and "were" and it can still be a scientific fact. For example, the phrase "If someone were to have depression," we can ignore the words "if" and "were" since the depression itself is a scientific fact that happens to people (which would be all the combined scientific phenomenon that occurs during depression such as a loss of pleasure activity and other things and we would then add up all those things and call that 'depression'). The only non-fact that these words refer to in that quoted statement is the imagined situation of actually having the depression. Same thing with my argument. The things I'm saying in that argument are the scientific facts while all the words such as "if" and "were" only refer to the imagined version of that situation.

Also, if the definition of the word "good" means "that which is desired," then pleasure is the only thing that can achieve this because our thoughts and such alone are not "desires" (despite the fact that they may be thoughts of desiring something in life). They are just used for problem-solving and benefiting our survival. They are not desires. Pleasure is desire since it urges (encourages) us to benefit our survival in life although it may actually be detrimental at times. But if somehow pain and despair are desires, then they would still be bad because they are the "warning" version of desires. "Warning" being what is bad in terms of evolution while the opposite of "warning" would be what is good in terms of evolution (which would be pleasure). Thoughts would obviously be neither good or bad in terms of evolution since, again, they are not desires since they are not the urges that encourage us to survive either in "warning" version or in the "good" version.

Now if you are going to say something such as that "I can think of so many exceptions that it would be difficult to list them all. But the one that comes to mid the most would be giving birth. Very painful i have been told. And according to you then, giving birth is detrimental to the survival of the species," what I would have to say about that would be that the pain in of itself is a warning (something that is "bad"). It only encourages our survival in the sense that something is wrong (bad) in our lives. So the pain of the mother giving birth is a warning that a certain situation is bad (such as the tearing of the muscle tissue as the baby is in the process of being born). Therefore, since the opposite of that which would be having gotten out of that situation and now being in a happy situation in life free of suffering and despair, this would mean that our lives are good. So the baby now being born and the mother being happy with no pain and despair at the moment is the good situation. So even obtaining pleasure from harming others would be objectively good (although this situation would be good even though it is not benefiting his/her and others survival). But as I said before, the actual situations themselves are neutral while it's only your own pleasure and suffering that is objectively good and bad. But if you are going to say something such as that pleasure does not encourage our survival and that it is just simply a by-product of evolution (hence the reason why obtaining pleasure can be detrimental to yourself and others), this would be false. Pleasure is something that encourages our survival, but can be misused in terms of benefiting our survival.

Now I know that many people here would say that even our own feelings are arbitrary. But I ask you. If you were to go through the worst experience of pain and/or despair that a human being could ever possibly experience while having no thoughts and knowledge (no attributed values to your experience of pain and/or despair), are you saying that these things would not feel bad at all to you and that they would just feel like nothing more than "sensations" (such as touch, smell, etc.)? Same question applies for having the best experience of pleasure that a human being could ever possibly experience. Now if you are going to say something such as that these feelings feel differently for different people (such as that pain and despair can actually feel good), so what you are saying is that depression (hopelessness) can actually feel good to someone (despite the fact that it is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in the brain)? Isn't it only pleasure that allows us to feel good and, therefore, people who claim that pain feels good to them would actually be lying and that it is only the pleasure itself obtained from the pain that feels good? Also, hopelessness can never feel good. If you claim that it somehow does, then that would mean that you would be having moments of pleasure separate from your experience of hopelessness since you cannot experience both hopelessness and pleasure at the same time. Meaning, that since hopelessness is the shutting down of our pleasure activity and is not a good experience in of itself, that pleasure is the only good thing. But the fact that you can experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time means that the physical pain and the pleasure are two different experiences going on at once and that only the pleasure in of itself is good while only the pain in of itself is bad.
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:14 pm
@carloslebaron,
Your ability to understand how the Universe evolved from metaphysical properties is the reason why you say my math sucks when my math is legitimately surfacing shapes from space itself based entirely on mathematical knowledge that you will never find in today's text books because what I work with is the definition of genius. Don't be so quick to tell me my math sucks, when your argument is built entirely upon your ignorance towards the meticulous design of this Universe.
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:15 pm
@MozartLink,
You're doing it again.

You say everything is neutral, but pleasure is good - because... You made it up.

I can do that too.

Everyone around me is neutral, and I am good - therefore... I am good and everyone is neutral.

You are a lunatic.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 01:34 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
I will just present something here that is very brief for you to refute then. It is my premise for all my entire arguments I made in this topic. If you can just debate about this and refute it, then that just might make me feel less frustrated knowing that my pleasure is not the only good and greatest thing in life (which I've lost) and that there are other things in life of greater value. So I will present my premise which is quoted below:

Quote:
Now I know that many people here would say that even our own feelings are arbitrary. But I ask you. If you were to go through the worst experience of pain and/or despair that a human being could ever possibly experience while having no thoughts and knowledge (no attributed values to your experience of pain and/or despair), are you saying that these things would not feel bad at all to you and that they would just feel like nothing more than "sensations" (such as touch, smell, etc.)? Same question applies for having the best experience of pleasure that a human being could ever possibly experience. Now if you are going to say something such as that these feelings feel differently for different people (such as that pain and despair can actually feel good), so what you are saying is that depression (hopelessness) can actually feel good to someone (despite the fact that it is the shutting down of the pleasure activity in the brain)? Isn't it only pleasure that allows us to feel good and, therefore, people who claim that pain feels good to them would actually be lying and that it is only the pleasure itself obtained from the pain that feels good? Also, hopelessness can never feel good. If you claim that it somehow does, then that would mean that you would be having moments of pleasure separate from your experience of hopelessness since you cannot experience both hopelessness and pleasure at the same time. Meaning, that since hopelessness is the shutting down of our pleasure activity and is not a good experience in of itself, that pleasure is the only thing that feels good. But the fact that you can experience physical pain and pleasure at the same time means that the physical pain and the pleasure are two different experiences going on at once and that only the pleasure in of itself is good while only the pain in of itself is bad.
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 02:11 pm
@MozartLink,
My friend and I are currently working on a project that deals with mathematically reverse-engineering the Universe's fractal formulas to recreate the shapes and forms that make up the physical realm as we know it today - this will show you that there is far more to life than "pleasure". Labor is the backbone of genius:

144 is the mathematical formula for this mathematically designed Universe.

My friend's writings:
Quote:

Ok do you realize what is happening here, with the 144? This is leading us into the direct conversion process between base rotations of energy around the wheels; it is not only about the number wheel divided into 9 parts, it is also about the transpositions upward into more derivative orders of being, which is apparent when we combine both of God's triangles (90 degree turns, 9x4=36 (360), and 60 degree turns, 6x6=36 (360)), 4x6=24 (12/2)

As both quark-producing divine geometric systems work together to create what we call spin (angular momentum) and charge (electrical) (space and time or time and space, I am beginning to think the c^2 dimensional transformation is giving us space x time = time x space) their root turn values combine. Those root values are 4 and 3 for the twin and perfect triangle respectively.

At first I couldnt see how the perfect triangle 60 degree turns was producing a value of 3 instead of 6, until I see again the angle between turn moments is actually 120 degrees (three turns around the system), like here,

http://s1.postimg.org/3km0sz1n3/14150132812406.png

4x3=12
12x12=144

What does "12x12" mean? It means 12^2, a dimensional shift upward. Like e=mc^2 conversions from length to area or area to length.

144 is the magic value showing how the conjunction of both divine triangle systems fundamental to reality and working together are expressed as they not only work together but as their conjunction (perfect x twin) makes its way one full turn around the base 9 number wheel.. When it does that the answer is 12x12.

Now I'm about to blow your mind.

Observe what happens when the 12 cycle meta-wheel of the perfect x twin product system is cross-divides into a base 9 wheel,

1.333...
2.666...
4
5.333...
6.666...
8
9.333...
10.666...
12

Remember those strange discrepancies in the 144 (144/54 and 144/27)? They appear on this table of a 12 cycle transposed into a 9 cycle,

2.666... (2 and 2/3) x 54 = 144
5.333... (5 and 1/3) x 27 = 144

144/9=16 (O2, the molecular formula for oxygen in its stable form, dioxygen).

Atomic weight of oxygen is 15.999

That's a 12-wheel rotation of 1 plus another 1/4 rotation as a 4 value on the base 9 wheel which corresponds to the 3 (1/4 of 12) on the 12-wheel.

Remember the 12 wheel is only the product of space x time (God's perfect x twin triangles, or "spin" x "charge" values). Oxygen reveals itself to be very special. That ".999" might be showing how there are three tiered stages of meta-derived cyclical transformations involved in forming the element of oxygen out of the fundamental geometric relations of the universe; 1 (12) + 1/4 (3) turns x regress to three FULL tiers of the base 9 wheel givimg oxygen as truly embedded in this reality across four dimensions. Free oxygen will combine with hydrogen to form water, another perfect 3 system H + H + O and due to the special proportions of this molecule it increases in volume when frozen, unlike all other liquids, thus allowing ice to float on top of rivers and lakes which is a key reason why life is able to evolve.

Also we get with carbon (number 6, weight 12.0107) we can then get the beautiful C6H12O6, the base group molecular structure of which the essential compound glucose is a member.

http://s29.postimg.org/bbqr47vdv/image.jpg

That beauty is absolutely essential to plant and animal life. Guess what its total atomic weight is?

180.1559



In other words, my number "144" is basically the fundamental way of saying "E=MC^2".

That means that "I" broke down Einstein's formula with shapes and numbers with the help of my friends.

I have been through hell and back. I do not seek pleasure.

Life is more than reapplying dopamine chemicals. Life is about transcending from your emotional experience into a universal experience. As long as we forget the truth that we are simply a bubble within the Universe's universal sea, as long as we get caught up in our bubble's reflection, we will never live truly within this Universal sea because of relativity. The moment you kill off your need to create your own personal relation to this Universe and give yourself to this Universe to become one with it, is when you start "living" it as you should. We are born into this world on "theta waves" - when we grow and expand we reach "gamma waves" - when we hold ourselves back we only experience "theta" and "delta". Therefore, pleasure is a red frequency based on "theta waves" - the human experience was emerged from this Universe before stars were born in the form of photo receptors so we could transcend just like the Universe by reaching "gamma waves" and the violet frequency.
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 04:23 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
You can be in this state of transcendence you describe through pure pleasure alone. Pleasure can certainly make you feel all powerful in the sense of being one with this universe like you describe and you would really be as such. Whereas, intelligence alone without pleasure are nothing more than knowledge, thoughts, memory, etc. that define a being that is similar to something like a biological robot and not a human being. Emotions are what separate us as human beings from robots. Therefore, without our pleasure (which is one of our vital emotions), we would be less human and more towards being something like a biological robot. Also, I think you stereotype the type of person who only sees pleasure as the good and greatest thing in life as someone who does nothing with their life such as sitting on a couch watching television. This stereotype is false because there are people such as me who do great things in their lives and help others through pure pleasure alone such as tapping into and channeling our feelings of pleasure in creating musical compositions that can be just as good (and even better) than if we composed through our suffering/despair and/or intelligence alone. Once again, this can be achieved through the pleasure in dark, gothic, tragic, etc. things and we can come up with great compositions that portray those feelings described despite the fact that we, ourselves, are experiencing a different feeling (which would, again, be pleasure).
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 04:29 pm
@MozartLink,
"You can be in this state of transcendence you describe through pure pleasure alone."

See what I'm doing?

While you're wanking it off in a sock, driving a car inebriated beyond conscious control, twisting people's minds and hearts, I'll be demonstrating to people how to recreate this Universe's mathematical framework. All you can do is go up to a podium and say "I wank off in a sock, I drive my car irresponsibly, I twist people minds and hearts, because I think pleasure is the only good thing - everything else is neutral because I can't live without pleasure, which makes me a broken man that leaves you with a broken car and a broken heart."
MozartLink
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 04:35 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
If you read on in that post, the things you are saying are just stereotypes which are false for some people like me who would do great things in life through pure pleasure alone such as tapping into and channeling our feelings of pleasure in creating great musical compositions and doing other great things in life as well as helping out even more people.
One Eyed Mind
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 04:40 pm
@MozartLink,
You might as well say it because you are enabling others.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2014 09:28 pm
@One Eyed Mind,
Quote:
Your ability to understand how the Universe evolved from metaphysical properties is the reason why you say my math sucks when my math is legitimately surfacing shapes from space itself based entirely on mathematical knowledge that you will never find in today's text books because what I work with is the definition of genius. Don't be so quick to tell me my math sucks, when your argument is built entirely upon your ignorance towards the meticulous design of this Universe.


OK,

This is how "mathematics work":

In the past, the famous idiot called Albert Einstein invented a mathematical thought "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity."

This was the year 1917.

A friend of him, Alexander Moszkowski made an interview in Berlin, where this new idea was discussed.

The idiot of Albert Einstein (because surely he never was a genius in physics) was asked about the size of the universe applying that Cosmological Considerations this is to say, that imaginary force working against gravity and causing stars traveling away with faster acceleration.

Read carefully about Einstein's answer:

Quote:
"The whole Universe has a diameter of about 100 million light years, in round numbers.... It follows the mathematical calculations which I have presented in "Cosmological Considerations Arising from the General Theory of Relativity", in which the figure I have just quoted is not given. The exact figure is a minor question. What is important is to recognize that the universe may be regarded as a closed continuum as far as distance measurements are concerned."


I want you to understand the following, those 100 million light years for the universe diameter in 1917 is well below to the billions of years calculated today in 2014.

So, if the calculations made by Einstein were correct, when you apply his formulas and equations adapting the new "billions of light years diameter" against the "100 million light years diameter of Einstein", then, according to this idiot of Albert Einstein, our universe doesn't exist yet but "will become to exist between 150,000,000 year current era and 350,000,000,000 future year." ha ha ha ha...

You can make your own mathematical calculations and you will come with similar results.

Now, I have showed you how ridiculous is to pretend the calculation of the universe size and age.

The Cosmological Considerations of Einstein is the best evidence of how lunatics are some people trying to measure what they ignore completely.

So, do a favor to yourself, do not follow the example of that idiot Albert Einstein.

His ideas are proven to be stupidities to the square when put under scrutiny. Your mathematical calculations will have the same treatment and your name will be pointed as another famous lunatic.

(good side is that you might become famous anyway as a lunatic, because "nothing" (not being famous) is worst, right?)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/16/2022 at 03:47:58