Light created Life [Archive]

Piggy

11th September 2006, 12:21 AM

Children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, so where did the characteristics of life come from?
Are you prepared for the infinite regression? Are you prepared for that?

And although the dichotomy is established, then if light is the progenitor, we have not 2 parents, but one parent with 2 sides, 2 sides of one coin -- the coin of light -- being attraction/repulsion, love/hate, mental/emotional, positive/negative, addition/subtraction, male/female.

Still, there is one thing missing, how the coin -- light -- engenders. No. There must be a division before there can be union to produce the child, to produce life, time, space. And that is missing so far in your analysis.

So what will that be? What you propose, it will explode the light, and from there the infinite regression, but not back to a Big Bang, not back to singularity, it's "elephants all the way down" when you do that.

Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Life experiences them (at one level) as No, Yes, I like you (love) and I don't like you (hate). Together they form the bases of the mental/emotional nature of life, and math to boot because negative is related to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication and repulsion to division.
And now we have an infinite progression forward, but still no mechanism for the primal division to engender the bifurcation of bifurcation.

The third iteration/bifurcation yields chaos. (You shall see.)

First, there is one thing (light, you say? wait, I'll get to it) and then comes the first bifurcation (from where? that's not explained in your theorizings, and not in mine... yet!) which creates being.

Why? Because if there is only one, there is no size, no space, no time. Not yet being. When there are 2, now there is I/you, me/thou, recognition face to face, and understanding that I am because you are and I am not you.

We also have time, as I see how you change and you how I change, and space, and dimension.

What does this mean for physics? Now we have not just the primal singularity, but matter and energy! These are the first children, do you not agree?!

The second bifurcation

The two themselves become two each, apparently 4.

Now we have a pair of pairs, which give rise to leptons and hadrons (matter, now protons and electrons) and energy yields (at this point, not earier) positive and negative.

But where has the light gone? Nowhere. All of this is still light!

Let us admit this, then -- let us face it -- we are all cooled light. That is all. We and everything around us are mere light trapped in circuits, so that the circuits, eddies of light on nano-nano-scale, appear as particles, but they are not, not at all billiard balls as the Great Minds of the Renaissance imagined, not even things at all, but events!

All things which appear to be objects are not objects, but events!

So now we have first light, then the first split which creates energy and matter and also space and time appear necessarily, then the second split which yeilds the proton and electron of matter, and the poles of energy.

The third bifurcation yeilds chaos, infinite complexity, the holographic universe in which every portion contains the whole in microcosm. Only at this point is life even thinkable.

If this does not fly for you, tell me what else would have the universal reach to do the job?

That is where you have omitted something.

What split the light?

Tell me that.

These are facts. If we are here and speaking, writing, sitting, eating, walking, then we cannot deny all this has happened because it is the universe we experience and which observations of all science reveals.

I can say what I think, what split the light to allow it to engender by reunion. But I won't, until I know your word on it from yourself.

RandFan

11th September 2006, 12:53 AM

But I won't, until I know your word on it from yourself. I think you are looking for relief in the corner of a round building. But that's just a guess based on my reading of the initial post and website. We will see. BTW, did you ever follow the odd history of timecube?

Piggy

11th September 2006, 01:12 AM

I think you are looking for relief in the corner of a round building. But that's just a guess based on my reading of the initial post and website. We will see. BTW, did you ever follow the odd history of timecube?
History?

I'm familiar with Time Cube, but as far as I'm concerned it's just gibberish.

I understand what lightcreatedlife is saying and I understand the Web site. Anybody can come on and pretend to be something they're not, but why not start with the benefit of the doubt?

If I get no answer, then that's where it ends, no? Otherwise we'll see. And perhaps we will see.

RandFan

11th September 2006, 01:50 AM

History?Oh yeah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Cube), including parodies and a debate.

I'm familiar with Time Cube, but as far as I'm concerned it's just gibberish. Agreed.

I understand what lightcreatedlife is saying and I understand the Web site. I understand what is being said but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense. I don't think it makes anymore sense than timecube. I could very well be wrong.

Anybody can come on and pretend to be something they're not, but why not start with the benefit of the doubt?

If I get no answer, then that's where it ends, no? Otherwise we'll see. And perhaps we will see.That's fair. Too often people on this forum (including me) jump to conclusions about the intentions and or reasonableness of posters. I was simply making an observation. Carry on.

Piggy

11th September 2006, 03:59 AM

I understand what is being said but that doesn't mean that it makes any sense. I don't think it makes anymore sense than timecube. I could very well be wrong.
Oh, I think it does make sense, tho not the kind of sense most folks around here are accustomed to making, or hearing. Time Cube, far as I could tell, was no-sense, just strings of strings of strings, word salet. Not saying I'm all on board with lightcreatedlife's postulations, but there's scientists I also don't sit in the same room with. We might be able to have a dialog, who knows?

Brainache

11th September 2006, 04:14 AM

But surely it wasn't light acting alone which created life. It was light interacting with matter wasn't it?
Shouldn't we also display some of the characteristics of rocks?

Piggy

11th September 2006, 04:17 AM

But surely it wasn't light acting alone which created life. It was light interacting with matter wasn't it?
Shouldn't we also display some of the characteristics of rocks?
We do, as we are solid and contain minerals, require in fact minerals, very rockish stuff that.

Brainache

11th September 2006, 04:20 AM

We do, as we are solid and contain minerals, require in fact minerals, very rockish stuff that.

Crikey! I believe!
Sign me up for the church of whateverthehelltheyaretalkingabout now!

DangerousBeliefs

11th September 2006, 06:09 AM

30 replies for a hit and run post?

I think the website explains it all...

http://www.lightcreatedlife.com

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:09 AM

Now what makes you think posting the link was a good idea????

tsk tsk

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:10 AM

Light is not electromagnetic. It is composed of photons.
Look it up again. Or google it-that's faster. Light is electromagnetic radiation.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:12 AM

Now what makes you think posting the link was a good idea????

tsk tsk Direct questions about what I posted please. I am busy.

Beerina

11th September 2006, 08:13 AM

I misread the topic and thought it was "Life created life", and was going to be the tired old argument that "only living things gave birth to living things", therefore what started it all? Must be god.

But it was something else. How refreshing!

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:16 AM

30 replies for a hit and run post?

I think the website explains it all...

The site is IN THE MATH

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:18 AM

We do, as we are solid and contain minerals, require in fact minerals, very rockish stuff that.
Surely not. I was unable to show my site, but it is IN THE MATH

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:22 AM

Oh, I think it does make sense, tho not the kind of sense most folks around here are accustomed to making, or hearing. Time Cube, far as I could tell, was no-sense, just strings of strings of strings, word salet. Not saying I'm all on board with lightcreatedlife's postulations, but there's scientists I also don't sit in the same room with. We might be able to have a dialog, who knows?
It is just an idea, thanks for the chance.

Cosmo

11th September 2006, 08:25 AM

The site is IN THE MATH

What math? Where?

scotth

11th September 2006, 08:26 AM

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Actually we are both objects and waves, but our wavelength is incredibly short.

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:30 AM

Direct questions about what I posted please. I am busy.

That line was not for you. But you didn't reply to any of the posts that were to you.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:31 AM

Still, there is one thing missing, how the coin -- light -- engenders. No. There must be a division before there can be union to produce the child, to produce life, time, space. And that is missing so far in your analysis.

So what will that be? What you propose, it will explode the light, and from there the infinite regression, but not back to a Big Bang, not back to singularity, it's "elephants all the way down" when you do that.

I was trying to ease into this thing unitil I was able to include my site, but it explains all. It is IN THE MATH.

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:32 AM

Actually we are both objects and waves, but our wavelength is incredibly short.

I've never heard that..... Source or explanation would be nice(preferably in a split)

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:33 AM

It's True :)

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:34 AM

That line was not for you. But you didn't reply to any of the posts that were to you.
I am sorry I just posted last night and went to sleep, after an hour. I had no idea that this forum was so potent.

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:40 AM

I am sorry I just posted last night and went to sleep, after an hour. I had no idea that this forum was so potent.

ok, in that case, what i wrote to you were.

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Welcome to the forum

RandFan

11th September 2006, 08:46 AM

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that My take is that attraction leads to procreation (go forth and multiplyl). Repulsion is divisive. It causes one to avoid another. JMO. of course, assuming this is the true, it is a bit simplistic, again, IMO.

Tricky

11th September 2006, 08:48 AM

I was trying to ease into this thing unitil I was able to include my site, but it explains all. It is IN THE MATH.
What kind of math are we talking about here? Are you a mathematician? Theoretical physicist? Biologist? Can you show us a good reason why we should believe you?

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 08:49 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:52 AM

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.
I stated the extremes, I thought it would be understood that everything else was inbetween them.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.
I said nothing about negative and positive poles?

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.
You are missing the layer of biology between life and a magnet. We can love, but reason ourselves away from stalking our intended, and then there are those who can't. They love so much that they feel compelled to kill. You see? The energy effect is there, but our biology allows us to "modify" the effects.

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.
Our macro lives are based on the quantum level.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.
If we look at the planet from far in space everything seem the same. Science has separated them for the sake of study, and we are all individual parts of one.

Welcome to the forum
Thanks for the welcome.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:59 AM

My take is that attraction leads to procreation (go forth and multiplyl). Repulsion is divisive. It causes one to avoid another. JMO. of course, assuming this is the true, it is a bit simplistic, again, IMO.
Of course it is simplistic, no one could possibly include everything in a 5 minute sitting. I have just begun, but do you see how the things that you just stated relates to math? Multiplication-bring things together and Division-taking them apart?

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 09:02 AM

What kind of math are we talking about here? Are you a mathematician? Theoretical physicist? Biologist? Can you show us a good reason why we should believe you?
I am none of those things, I was trying to say that that is the name of my web site. Things would have been allot easier if I could have included it in my post.

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 09:10 AM

I stated the extremes, I thought it would be understood that everything else was inbetween them.

I can't see how this

Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.

can mean anything about two poles.

I said nothing about negative and positive poles?

Sure you did

Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.

You are missing the layer of biology between life and a magnet.

What layer of biology between life and a magnet? i fail to see how biology can even be relevant when talking about a magnet.

We can love, but reason ourselves away from stalking our intended, and then there are those who can't. They love so much that they feel compelled to kill. You see?

No i don't. proof?

The energy effect is there, but our biology allows us to "modify" the effects.

what is your proof that the energy effect is there?

Our macro lives are based on the quantum level.

Sure they are, but the quantum effects are so small ont he macro scale that they are irrelevant for us as humans beings when interacting with other macro things.

If we look at the planet from far in space everything seem the same.

what does that mean?

Science has separated them for the sake of study, and we are all individual parts of one.

So if science have seperated them(after we were made), then that doesn't really change the nature of them in any way. And science has unified them again. It still doesn't hold. You are using the words from one context in another context that they weren't intended.

Thanks for the welcome.
no problem.

Also, you failed to respond properly to the following:

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Lothian

11th September 2006, 09:16 AM

LCL.hom

Very quick and easy question .

In terms of electrical characteristics in what way is positive = addition and negative = subtraction ?

Thanks

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 09:33 AM

RandFan

11th September 2006, 09:37 AM

Of course it is simplistic, no one could possibly include everything in a 5 minute sitting. That's not what I meant by simplistic. Perhaps simplistic isn't even the right word I'm looking for. What I mean to say is that it seems to me that you are trying to find something trancendent or meaningful where there is nothing trancendent or meaninful.

I have just begun, but do you see how the things that you just stated relates to math? Multiplication-bring things together and Division-taking them apart?Yeah, so? Symbolic math figures could be applied to procreation and human socialization in the way that you are using them but I don't see anything significant to that fact.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 09:54 AM

LCL.hom

Very quick and easy question .

In terms of electrical characteristics in what way is positive = addition and negative = subtraction ?

Thanks
I did not say "equal to" I said "related to" positive is to addition what negative is to subtraction.
The way I posted, and at the site, what I said was meant to show a progressive relationship.
Positive and negative in physics were labels given to 2 observed characteristics. I understand that they are not good or bad, they are just doing what they do. But if you listed 5 of your best friends, one would wind up on the bottom. If I questioned you you may reveal some of why he is there, and the reason may only be that the others are better-or more positive than him. That is about how physics arrived at their names. Still, other things that are observed to have similiar characteristics would become related terms.
Addition in math is defined as moving in a positive direction, subtraction has the numbers moving in the other direction. In general. I know that math can get those numbers to move sideways somehow (I'm not mad at them) I am talking basic math here.

bruto

11th September 2006, 09:56 AM

Energy is the page on which life is written. Simple question: this is a metaphor, but what does it actually mean? How life behaves is based on the energy that makes it up. Simple question: What does this actually mean? If energy makes up life, then of course life is based on what life is. So what? What can we conclude from this, other than the obvious notion that life is made of something and the something does something? The attraction and repulsion of a magnet are (at our level) the bases of our emotions. Why? Which emotions? Is there actual evidence for this beyond your theory? In what way is this analogy real and meaningful, rather than just another metaphor? But while we can be attracted to someone, we have reason to control it, modify the effect. At least most can.
So if we can control it, what force, energy, input, or whatever, are we using to control it? You've just said we're made of energy, and our behavior is based on that energy, and then in the blink of an eye it appears that we can behave in a way that is explicitly not based on that energy. Something is missing here.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 10:05 AM

That's not what I meant by simplistic. Perhaps simplistic isn't even the right word I'm looking for. What I mean to say is that it seems to me that you are trying to find something trancendent or meaningful where there is nothing trancendent or meaninful.

Yeah, so? Symbolic math figures could be applied to procreation and human socialization in the way that you are using them but I don't see anything significant to that fact.
Simply put, what I am saying is that everything physical is written on an invisible page of energy. And that it is this energy (or energies) that determines how it looks and how it behaves, and that this applies as much to life, as it does to the conditions for life. Life though, has a greater degree over its behavior than the conditions for life. The higher the lifeform, the higher the degree of control.

RandFan

11th September 2006, 10:12 AM

Simply put, what I am saying is that everything physical is written on an invisible page of energy. Right. And this has what to do with mathematical symbology?

And that it is this energy (or energies) that determines how it looks and how it behaves, and that this applies as much to life, as it does to the conditions for life. Life though, has a greater degree over its behavior than the conditions for life. The higher the lifeform, the higher the degree of control. "Looks and behaves"? What does "looks" have to do with anything?

Kochanski

11th September 2006, 10:17 AM

Our macro lives are based on the quantum level.

Uh oh, time to call in the quantum police. Okay boy, get 'em.

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 10:34 AM

Me and you are on the wrong page. We need to start over. I never said anything about poles. And I was talking about the biology of life. Energy is the page on which life is written. How life behaves is based on the energy that makes it up. The attraction and repulsion of a magnet are (at our level) the bases of our emotions. But while we can be attracted to someone, we have reason to control it, modify the effect. At least most can.

yes you did

Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.

Magnetic attraction and magnetica repulsion are what is called "magnetic poles", which means
"Two aspects of an energy. The positive pole is an energy's true or love-based manifestation. The negative pole is the distortion or constriction of that energy by fear."

Besides for your pole argument, the rest of your statement makes no sence, and have no facts backing it up

We are made up of those things. Yes quantum effects are small, but how big is a thought?

That doesn't make sence. what does it even mean.

Small effect, small activator, big results.

Irrelevant, it is perfectly acceptable to say quantum physics doesn't work on a macro level, if it did you would be able to be in two places at the same time, walk through doors, be at a place before you arrived there, etc.

Electrical and magnetic are related, but they are 2 different things, though they share much the same properties. If science has "unified them again," there is a good chance that they may change their mind again.

How are they different. And no science won't do. Also you are working from your assumption that science split them up, which science didn't. Science said "these two things are manifastations of the same thing"

Could you submit whatever that was again, when I switch to quote I cannot see what I said, only what you are saying.
You know you could just keep another window open to have my post in it.(or scroll down a bit, under the reply box you can see my message.

but ok, here they are.

Also, you failed to respond properly to the following:

Quote:
As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Quote:
We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Quote:
How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

Quote:
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

Quote:
Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 10:34 AM

Simple question: this is a metaphor, but what does it actually mean?
Everything physical has energy to thank for how it looks and how it behaves.

Simple question: What does this actually mean? If energy makes up life, then of course life is based on what life is. So what? What can we conclude from this, other than the obvious notion that life is made of something and the something does something?
nonliving things have no chioce, lower lifeform have alittle control, higher lifeforms have the most control. It maybe because we have more of the special energy of mind to counter the effects.

In what way is this analogy real and meaningful, rather than just another metaphor? So if we can control it, what force, energy, input, or whatever, are we using to control it?
[quote]biology and mind.

[quote]You've just said we're made of energy, and our behavior is based on that energy, and then in the blink of an eye it appears that we can behave in a way that is explicitly not based on that energy. Something is missing here.
There is almost always greater control over a base something with distance from it. Look at all the math that coes from 4 basic operations. And what we use to do all that with is our mind.

scotth

11th September 2006, 11:01 AM

lightcreatedlife,

It is becoming abundantly clear that you don't know the first thing about light, electromagnetism (redundant, I know), or energy. Your ideas don't even rise to the level of "completely without merit". I am not even sure if the qualify as "ideas".

In order to push forward the frontiers of science it generally a good idea to have a clue where those frontiers are today.

ponderingturtle

11th September 2006, 11:04 AM

Is Tobias a communist?

I always thought he was a sort of mock-communist. A bit like mock-turtle soup.

.:cool:

Does that mean Tobias is the Mock Turtle?

ponderingturtle

11th September 2006, 11:11 AM

What kind of math are we talking about here? Are you a mathematician? Theoretical physicist? Biologist? Can you show us a good reason why we should believe you?

I can say this, he is a real boson.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:16 AM

yes you did

Magnetic attraction and magnetica repulsion are what is called "magnetic poles", which means
"Two aspects of an energy. The positive pole is an energy's true or love-based manifestation. The negative pole is the distortion or constriction of that energy by fear."
Once again. I said nothing about poles. Yes, they are called magnetic poles, but I said nothing about poles. Attraction and repulsion seems the base of what are called emotions at our level.

That doesn't make sence. what does it even mean.
How big is a thought, how much would it take to influence one?

Irrelevant, it is perfectly acceptable to say quantum physics doesn't work on a macro level, if it did you would be able to be in two places at the same time, walk through doors, be at a place before you arrived there, etc.
Is that what you want me to say? Again, how big is a thought? Is it at the macro level? And no one said that quantum physics worked at the macro level.

How are they different. And no science won't do. Also you are working from your assumption that science split them up, which science didn't. Science said "these two things are manifastations of the same thing"
when I plug into a wall socket it is understood that I am tapping into electrical energy, not magnetic energy-why would I want to confuse things and say that I am? Remember science defined them, if they redefined them it has not caught on yet. And since they are manifastations of the same thing, I am not wrong with how I am saying them, you just want me to say them your way-like with the pole thing.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math.
I wnet over this.

It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.
They could have been, but is + and - wrong? No? why bother it.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.
Objects and waves? Are you saying that we are not matter and energy?

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

I covered those.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.
I covered this too. You are taking it to extremes to confuse the matter.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:20 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:22 AM

Uh oh, time to call in the quantum police. Okay boy, get 'em.
matter is not made up of atoms?

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:26 AM

Right. And this has what to do with mathematical symbology? At some point, doesn't everything meet mathematics?

"Looks and behaves"? What does "looks" have to do with anything?
Science has always used those things as good indicators, they stopped now? What does the behavior of life look like to you?

Piggy

11th September 2006, 11:29 AM

Surely not. I was unable to show my site, but it is IN THE MATH
Surely yes. And I don't see how you can disagree or even why. Light created life, I'm not arguing there. Light created matter, too, no?, or if not then which things besides life are you saying then? It should not be surprising. Light is it, you see. If it's all light, then the rocks are our cousins. I think it follows without doubt.

scotth

11th September 2006, 11:31 AM

The site is at http://inthemath.com what do you know about what I know?

Ok.... let us start consider the opening graphic.

A line that begins with Gravity in the top left and ends with EM (light) in the bottom right with the Strong and Weak nuclear forces dangling off each side. Completely opaque and completely at odds with existing physics.

Your stuff is so insane/nutty that it isn't even possible to refute coherently other than to say it doesn't make any sense at all.

And answering your question directly, I cannot tell what I know that you know. I cannot tell because I cannot tell what you know. By the looks of things, it is close to nothing.

However, if your rediculous theory is really the one that "unites the forces", explaining the properties of a diffraction grating quantatively should be childs play for its creater. Go for it. Show me that your theory that is supposed to supercede all others can calculate anything that is calculable in existing theories. If you can't, .....

Piggy

11th September 2006, 11:31 AM

I was trying to ease into this thing unitil I was able to include my site, but it explains all. It is IN THE MATH.
I am not a math person. In fact, I started an entire thread asking people here to recommend math books to me. But I haven't finished my current books, so still having a hard time with some math. Point me, please? Or if you can summarize verbally?

TobiasTheViking

11th September 2006, 11:53 AM

Once again. I said nothing about poles. Yes, they are called magnetic poles, but I said nothing about poles. Attraction and repulsion seems the base of what are called emotions at our level.
YOU made the connection between light and the magnetic posetive and negative to attraction and repulsion. YOU DID THAT IN YOUR VERY FIRST POST.

How big is a thought, how much would it take to influence one?
That doesn't make sence. what does it even mean

Is that what you want me to say? Again, how big is a thought? Is it at the macro level?

That doesn't make sence, what does it even mean

And no one said that quantum physics worked at the macro level.

you insinuated it by saying "We are made up of those things."

when I plug into a wall socket it is understood that I am tapping into electrical energy, not magnetic energy-why would I want to confuse things and say that I am?
That is because you aren't working as a scientists on that level. If you were looking at it as a scientist you wouldn't make a distinction.

Remember science defined them, if they redefined them it has not caught on yet. And since they are manifastations of the same thing, I am not wrong with how I am saying them, you just want me to say them your way-like with the pole thing.

science did NOT redefine them.

I wnet over this.
When? please say it again then.

They could have been, but is + and - wrong? No? why bother it.
What does that mean? and it doesn't answer my statement.

Objects and waves? Are you saying that we are not matter and energy?
you are not answering my question, i'm just saying that we are not the same as light(because we don't move around as waves as well as particles at the same time). That is what i said, and you know it . we are made of matter and energy, i never said anything else. please answer the question.

I covered those.
When? please say it again then.

I covered this too.
When please say it again then.

You are taking it to extremes to confuse the matter.
I'm taking it to the extremes to show your argument doesn't hold water. not to confuse the matter, but to showcase why you are wrong...

Kochanski

11th September 2006, 11:54 AM

matter is not made up of atoms?

You are attempting to misuse quantum mechanics, hence I am calling the quantum police.

ponderingturtle

11th September 2006, 12:16 PM

You are attempting to misuse quantum mechanics, hence I am calling the quantum police.

Does this board have an official deputy for the quantum police? It should

Lothian

11th September 2006, 12:50 PM

I did not say "equal to" I said "related to" positive is to addition what negative is to subtraction.
The way I posted, and at the site, what I said was meant to show a progressive relationship.
Positive and negative in physics were labels given to 2 observed characteristics. I understand that they are not good or bad, they are just doing what they do. But if you listed 5 of your best friends, one would wind up on the bottom. If I questioned you you may reveal some of why he is there, and the reason may only be that the others are better-or more positive than him. That is about how physics arrived at their names. Still, other things that are observed to have similiar characteristics would become related terms.
Addition in math is defined as moving in a positive direction, subtraction has the numbers moving in the other direction. In general. I know that math can get those numbers to move sideways somehow (I'm not mad at them) I am talking basic math here.OK what is the relationship between positive in electrical terms and addition. It sounds as if you are saying there is no relationship other than a linguistic co-incidence. Please clarify.

Tricky

11th September 2006, 02:30 PM

The site is at http://inthemath.com what do you know about what I know?
I'm looking at that website. I don't see any math there. I see simplistic diagrams with labels placed seemingly at random. I see gobbledygook explanations of something, but I can't tell what. But no math. No physics. No biology. Not even understanding of the terms being used.

If that website means anything, then it is a meaning that only you understand. It cannot explain to others what it means, so naturally, it can't convince anyone of your "theories".

supercorgi

11th September 2006, 03:14 PM

The site is at http://inthemath.com what do you know about what I know?
LCL@hom, I'm not a medical professional, but I believe you are suffering from some sort of mild psychosis. Some forms of psychosis are characterized by belief that they have discovered the secrets underlying life and the universe. These secrets are painfully obvious to them but are not understood by others. Such persons experiencing this disorder feel compelled to explain their special knowledge to others - however that special knowledge is not based on reality. Recreational drug users will often experience this type of thought where suddenly they think they have profound revelations into the true nature of reality but when not stoned, they realize that their profound thoughts were really so much nonsense. With long term drug users, these thoughts may persist to their non-high moments and it at this point where they've developed a psychosis.

I've known people with this type of disorder. I had a friend who was bipolar, in her manic episodes she would develop a psychosis where she thought she had this secret knowledge.

I'm not saying you're a drug user but your bizarre theory, and your adament insistence that this is really how the whole universe works, makes me worry about you. Please get some medical attention. I think you'll find that it will calm your thoughts and make it easier to interact with other people.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 04:12 PM

Can I have some of what you are taking?

Oh! And a bottle of that negatively charged light as well please.

.

ETA: Welcome to the forum even though I haven't a clue what you are talking about. :D

. I guess so. I never said anything about negative charged light. I said negative was one of the characteristics of electricity.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 04:21 PM

What exactly is meant by "no problem"? What about a star that is 1 million light years away, is that a problem?
No matter what, some people always wants more. Perhaps those who are 20 lightyears away have have away around that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 04:34 PM

That is where you have omitted something.

What split the light?

Tell me that.

These are facts. If we are here and speaking, writing, sitting, eating, walking, then we cannot deny all this has happened because it is the universe we experience and which observations of all science reveals.

I can say what I think, what split the light to allow it to engender by reunion. But I won't, until I know your word on it from yourself.
If I trust the graph, at http://inthemath.com it says that gravity split it, though I can't reason how or why. I can't reason what caused the big bang either. Science knows that there is a unity formula that unites the forces because it is already a fact that the forces are united in creating the universe.

qayak

11th September 2006, 04:42 PM

If that website means anything, then it is a meaning that only you understand. It cannot explain to others what it means, so naturally, it can't convince anyone of your "theories".

Wait a minute!! How brilliant! The website inspired me to realize something. Scientists have always been looking for the connection between light and gravity.

GRAVITY________________________________________LIG HT

See that line, between gravity and light? That's the connection. I call it the "Thin Black Line Theory."

I am a genius! Can I get an "AMEN" with that and someone call the Nobel people.

scotth

11th September 2006, 04:43 PM

I've just joined supercorgi's camp of recommendation.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 04:54 PM

Surely yes. And I don't see how you can disagree or even why. Light created life, I'm not arguing there. Light created matter, too, no?, or if not then which things besides life are you saying then? It should not be surprising. Light is it, you see. If it's all light, then the rocks are our cousins. I think it follows without doubt.
I meant to say surely "so" that we are made up of those things. I started somehow in the middle of the thread and didn't see that someone had already given the website.
Have you ever seen a polished rock collection? Different type of rocks have colors and patterns unique to them that rival the beauty of any life form. I thought, why would they need them? They don't need to mate? Then I reasoned that they are showing that the same things that made life, effected the conditions for life. That there is one soul.

Polaris

11th September 2006, 05:01 PM

There are ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean around deep sea vents that survive and thrive without light, not the effects of any organisms that do require light.

If the Snowball Earth theory is true, there was a time when all life on earth was in these ecosystems or in subterranean microorganisms. If that was true, than all life on earth today came from these colonies. Those conditions would be constant, compared to the relatively fragile surface organisms, which makes the deep sea vents a better candidate for life on earth - if that was true, light was completely unnecessary.

bruto

11th September 2006, 05:36 PM

The site is at http://inthemath.com what do you know about what I know?

What do you think we know about what you know? We know about what you know exactly what you and your website tell us. We cannot know anything else, obviously. What your website and your postings imply is that you know little of what you're talking about, if anything at all, and if you do know, you lack the ability to impart it in a way that others find meaningful. Sorry to sound harsh, but seeing a bunch of interesting analogies and drawing diagrams just doesn't tell us anything useful.

E.T.A.: By the way, perhaps it's a quirk on my part, but when I see conspicuously careless writing, and neologisms in writing, I have a hard time crediting the person doing the writing with careful thought. I mean, how can I believe you've taken the care and exercised the scholarship to understand the math and the physics when you do not take care with your writing? Please, at the very least, would you research the meaning of the word "allot?" Allot is a verb which means, more or less, to apportion or dole out something. We are all allotted a certain amount of intelligence, though it obviously varies. Some of us have "a lot." Others do not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 06:33 PM

=Piggy;1912978]I am not a math person. In fact, I started an entire thread asking people here to recommend math books to me. But I haven't finished my current books, so still having a hard time with some math. Point me, please? Or if you can summarize verbally?
Again here I am misunderstood. What happened was I posted and went to sleep. When I woke up I had 30 replies and I paniced and started answering as fast I could. You may have noticed that I seemed confused-at best. I have been around, but that never happened. I am okay now.
I was told that I couldn't give a website, so I tried to give on in code, not seeing that someone had already gave it. By doing that it may look to some like I was screaming that what I was saying was IN THE MATH, but that is the name of the site. I meant nothing like that to anyone, anywhere, anyhow and I want everyone to know that.
You see my name? Not what I meant. When I registered some time back that was going to be the name of my site, I guess I put it in the wrong place, and despite all I tried I could not change it. I think I hit a bad patch in the road, I hope to get better.

ponderingturtle

11th September 2006, 06:46 PM

E.T.A.: By the way, perhaps it's a quirk on my part, but when I see conspicuously careless writing, and neologisms in writing, I have a hard time crediting the person doing the writing with careful thought. I mean, how can I believe you've taken the care and exercised the scholarship to understand the math and the physics when you do not take care with your writing? Please, at the very least, would you research the meaning of the word "allot?" Allot is a verb which means, more or less, to apportion or dole out something. We are all allotted a certain amount of intelligence, though it obviously varies. Some of us have "a lot." Others do not.

I would take some issue with that, some people have dysfunctions with language that make it much harder to write than it is for most people, but have aptitude in math and science. I am such a person. OF course I would not accept the math without seeing his proofs, and as I see nothing but some very odd diagrams I don't see why he is even bring math into it.

I see nothing indicating any understanding of maxwells equations on that website.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 06:47 PM

Wait a minute!! How brilliant! The website inspired me to realize something. Scientists have always been looking for the connection between light and gravity.

GRAVITY________________________________________LIG HT

See that line, between gravity and light? That's the connection. I call it the "Thin Black Line Theory."

I am a genius! Can I get an "AMEN" with that and someone call the Nobel people.
Believe it or not I thought of that myself. Because I believe that graph has a mathematical relationship to what actually happened. It is made up of equals and opposites, whatever is on one side, has to fit on the other. If one thing is off, it can throw off the rest. Noticed that Gravity and light are long range forces, and the nuclear forces are short range. Gravity and light stretch down the center of the graph, but look at the short distance that the other 2 travel to get to where they all meet at the end of the 1st box. And notice that the nuclear forces from the corners do not directly touch the center box.

H3LL

11th September 2006, 07:03 PM

I guess so. I never said anything about negative charged light. I said negative was one of the characteristics of electricity.

And part of light.

Your first post:

Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive

No wonder I didn't know what you were talking about.

You don't either.

.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 07:06 PM

There are ecosystems at the bottom of the ocean around deep sea vents that survive and thrive without light, not the effects of any organisms that do require light.
When I say light I am not only talking about the visible kind. But yeah, I don't know of any kind that could reach down there. But what you point out is that down there life can very well be said to be in the "womb," getting all that it needed from its mother. And its mother is electromagnetic too.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 07:12 PM

And part of light.

No wonder I didn't know what you were talking about.

You don't either.
I am saying that negative is a characteristic of the electrical part of light. From what you are saying there is negative light, positive light, repulsive light, and attractive light. And I am not saying any of that. Though in a way someone could say that, I am just saying that I am not.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 07:21 PM

H3LL

11th September 2006, 07:33 PM

From what you are saying there is negative light, positive light, repulsive light, and attractive light.

Could you just quote me saying that?

I don't seem to be able to find it.

.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 07:36 PM

What do you think we know about what you know? We know about what you know exactly what you and your website tell us. We cannot know anything else, obviously. What your website and your postings imply is that you know little of what you're talking about, if anything at all, and if you do know, you lack the ability to impart it in a way that others find meaningful.
I drew step by step pictures for Gods sakes. How much more simple can I make it? I don't get "a lot" of people telling me that they don't understand. They may not always agree, but they see what I am saying. So it is possible that it could just be you. But the burden is on me of course, tell me what you find hard to understand and I will address it.

[/quote]E.T.A.: By the way, perhaps it's a quirk on my part, but when I see conspicuously careless writing, and neologisms in writing, I have a hard time crediting the person doing the writing with careful thought. I mean, how can I believe you've taken the care and exercised the scholarship to understand the math and the physics when you do not take care with your writing? Please, at the very least, would you research the meaning of the word "allot?" Allot is a verb which means, more or less, to apportion or dole out something. We are all allotted a certain amount of intelligence, though it obviously varies. Some of us have "a lot." Others do not.
[/quote] You are right about that word, and I am sure that I misuse others (you wait unitl I use "you all") but I must been using it for years before you pointed it out. Still, I got the point across. With all the typing that goes on in these places, those things matter least.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:29 PM

Yeah, so? Symbolic math figures could be applied to procreation and human socialization in the way that you are using them but I don't see anything significant to that fact.
They could be, I guess, but I didn't just make some up, they are the ones said to be there, and just not by christians. My reasoning went, "how can that be true?" But when I plugged in what a lot of people said it was-light-the picture filled itself in. Now that does not say that it is right, but that don't necessarily make it wrong either. Especially since what they said it was fits the bill so nicely. I used the characteristics of it to fit it there, and they were defined by science, not made up by me. And I used the characteristics that those things are well known for, not some nobody ever heard of just so that it would fit what I was saying.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 08:32 PM

Could you just quote me saying that?

I don't seem to be able to find it.

.I didn't say you said it I said you "would be" saying that. And you did say negative light.

DangerousBeliefs

11th September 2006, 08:48 PM

I've just joined supercorgi's camp of recommendation.

Yes, he was very polite. Didn't even mention Cocoa Puffs.

RandFan

11th September 2006, 08:57 PM

No matter what, some people always wants more. Perhaps those who are 20 lightyears away have have away around that."Those"? I thought it was light that didn't have the problem. Are you talking abput "those" photons? "Those" lightwaves? You've lost me.

RandFan

11th September 2006, 09:05 PM

Have you ever seen a polished rock collection? Different type of rocks have colors and patterns unique to them that rival the beauty of any life form. I thought, why would they need them? They don't need to mate? Then I reasoned that they are showing that the same things that made life, effected the conditions for life. That there is one soul. Beauty isn't intrinsic to anything. The appreciation of aesthetics is largely a human trait though it could very well be manifest in other primates, dolphins, parrots and a handful of other species (forgive my ignorance on the subject). In any event, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. A rock isn't necessarily beautiful we just think that it is. Now if you want to discuss environmental triggers that stimulate mating, well, many of the things that other species find attractive humans don't care for so much. So I can't find any universal beauty, attraction, aesthetics, etc. Maggots just love the look, smell and taste of rotting flesh. I don't.

bruto

11th September 2006, 09:20 PM

I would take some issue with that, some people have dysfunctions with language that make it much harder to write than it is for most people, but have aptitude in math and science. I am such a person. OF course I would not accept the math without seeing his proofs, and as I see nothing but some very odd diagrams I don't see why he is even bring math into it.

I see nothing indicating any understanding of maxwells equations on that website.

I'm not talking about his carelessness in typing here. Of course many people have difficulty spelling, constructing sentences etc. But he has a web site that he is trying to convince us contains the great truths of the universe. He could proofread the damn thing and pay attention to whether the words he's using are standard English. There's time for that. There are even computer programs to help with that. It's supposed to be a finished product, not a forum posting. It's like wrapping an anniversary gift in yesterday's newspaper. It does not inspire confidence that the gift was chosen with care.

Jimbo07

11th September 2006, 09:36 PM

LCL@hom, I'm not a medical professional, but I believe you are suffering from some sort of mild psychosis. Some forms of psychosis are characterized by belief that they have discovered the secrets underlying life and the universe.

How do people differentiate this psychosis from the times that I've thought that I've had really profound experiences when drinking beer and philosophizing with good friends at 2 am? Are we all psychotic?

BTW, puppy border collies and puppy corgis look very similar. At first I thought your avatar was a picture of our bc puppy. She's a year old now and big enough to cause hell with all of her leftover puppy energy... :boggled:

bruto

11th September 2006, 09:46 PM

I drew step by step pictures for Gods sakes. How much more simple can I make it? I don't get "a lot" of people telling me that they don't understand. They may not always agree, but they see what I am saying. So it is possible that it could just be you. But the burden is on me of course, tell me what you find hard to understand and I will address it.

It's almost impossible to reply to that. Yes, you drew pictures. As far as I can see, the pictures are devoid of useful meaning. You can label the sides of a square with anything you like, but it does not mean that it is true.

I pick at random a little passage:

The base characteristics of male and female can be seen in the two parts of electromagnetism. The energitic, violent, nature of males, and the emotional, loving nature of females. And stars and planets have male and female characteristics.

Here is an example of part of the problem. The first sentence is a statement without any visible foundation. I could as easily say "The base characteristics of male and female can be seen in the two facets of yin and yang or the two colors of black and white, or the two knobs of bass and treble." Is it true? Who knows? Is it useful? No. The second sentence is a sweepingly general characterization of the two sexes that jumps to the conclusion that these characteristics correspond in some way to electromagnetic polarites, but I, for one, would have only a 50/50 chance of guessing which matches which. It hardly matters since the actual characterization of the sexes is to my mind at least an egregious falsehood. The third sentence is another statement that seems to come out of thin air with no evidence to support it, and little apparent meaning anyway. Since you've just strung together a bunch of apparently metaphorical senses of polarity and opposition, of course, everything can be described as having two aspects, two sides, two polarities, yin and yang or whatever. It's like saying "Oh wow, I just discovered that when you go into this room you have to go out of the other." But why should we bother to believe that planets have sexual characteristics, and even if we see some analogy there, why should we assume that the characteristics of the planets are sexual and not the characteristics of the sexes planetary?

I really did select that little paragraph at random from your site. It is not unique in consisting entirely of gibberish.

You are right about that word, and I am sure that I misuse others (you wait unitl I use "you all") but I must been using it for years before you pointed it out. Still, I got the point across. With all the typing that goes on in these places, those things matter least.

I do not think those things matter least when you are trying to convince people that you have thought out, reasoned and researched something as important as the theory of everything. I responded to another post on this subject tonight, so refer you to that one, but I think that if you want people to believe that your site is a careful presentation of ideas and not a manic exercise in self-delusion, it would be a good idea to tighten up the writing a little. I don't think it will help all that much in the end, but at least you won't be singing your song out of tune.

Jimbo07

11th September 2006, 09:53 PM

Well, I've finally checked out the link.

The diagrams on the site are utterly meaningless, at least from the point of view of having any utility in physics.

Sometimes, when exposed to a diagram for the first time, it can be utterly meaningless to me. That's okay, if there turns out to be a useful theory underlying them. I don't know every economics graph, for example, but I could quickly learn.

If this site had not tried to hijack physics terms in a totally random manner, perhaps the diagrams could have been made a little more robust. This is probably a non-physical theory, and the two should not be confused.

A nicer way of putting it might be this:

There seem to be a number of poetic metaphors waiting to spring forth, assuming that the thoughts on the linked site could be tidied up. They would be better presented as an allegory, perhaps with some editing, but they are not in any way a useful physical theory. They are not the TOE, or GUT or anything remotely close. Science doesn't have to 'worry,' because not only is science not some sort of monolithic juggernaut, but most scientists wouldn't take this site's contents seriously as a valid theory.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:16 PM

"Those"? I thought it was light that didn't have the problem. Are you talking abput "those" photons? "Those" lightwaves? You've lost me.
It was a joke. "Those" were suppose to be other lifeforms in space more advanced than us with a device to move faster. But light doesn't move any faster, and in spirit there shouldn't be machines.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:25 PM

Beauty isn't intrinsic to anything. The appreciation of aesthetics is largely a human trait though it could very well be manifest in other primates, dolphins, parrots and a handful of other species (forgive my ignorance on the subject). In any event, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. A rock isn't necessarily beautiful we just think that it is. Now if you want to discuss environmental triggers that stimulate mating, well, many of the things that other species find attractive humans don't care for so much. So I can't find any universal beauty, attraction, aesthetics, etc. Maggots just love the look, smell and taste of rotting flesh. I don't.
What the? Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but there are things that trigger that response in most people and maybe in animals. We are attracted to shapes, the math behind things. Symetry I think it is called. Chao seems to be a turnoff for most.

lightcreatedlife@hom

11th September 2006, 11:37 PM

I'm not talking about his carelessness in typing here. Of course many people have difficulty spelling, constructing sentences etc. But he has a web site that he is trying to convince us contains the great truths of the universe. He could proofread the damn thing and pay attention to whether the words he's using are standard English. There's time for that. There are even computer programs to help with that. It's supposed to be a finished product, not a forum posting. It's like wrapping an anniversary gift in yesterday's newspaper. It does not inspire confidence that the gift was chosen with care.
Obviously some people care more about something over others. For instance, could you imagine revealing a great truth to someone and all they comment on is a word that is not spelled right?

RandFan

12th September 2006, 12:02 AM

It was a joke. "Those" were suppose to be other lifeforms in space more advanced than us with a device to move faster. But light doesn't move any faster, and in spirit there shouldn't be machines. Then we are back to square one and you haven't answered my question.

H3LL

12th September 2006, 12:24 AM

I didn't say you said it I said you "would be" saying that. And you did say negative light.

I see. "are" means "would be" now. I think I'm beginning to understand.

.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 02:36 AM

LCL@hom, I'm not a medical professional, but I believe you are suffering from some sort of mild psychosis. Some forms of psychosis are characterized by belief that they have discovered the secrets underlying life and the universe.
You know that very same thing worried me for a long time. Believe me even a fool does not want to look like one. But I had a choice, to keep "pretending" to write by saying I ain't finish yet, or see if the baby can walk. I wanted to be through with it one way or the other. So here I am. And this is not the 1st place I've been and most people sound like you do. But plenty of people with a new idea were called crazy, right?
Only, while you are talking about what you think my mental state is/was (and some of it is true) you are not talking about the many things that you say are wrong with the graph. Logically that should be the first target, then after I refuse to leave stuff that is obviously wrong, then comes the examination of my mental state. That is, if you were really interested in being fair. Because if not, it sounds as if your mental state may be in question as to why something not directly aimed at you offends you so much. I found that common among athiest.

These secrets are painfully obvious to them but are not understood by others.
Help me see it by showing me.

Such persons experiencing this disorder feel compelled to explain their special knowledge to others - however that special knowledge is not based on reality. Recreational drug users will often experience this type of thought where suddenly they think they have profound revelations into the true nature of reality but when not stoned, they realize that their profound thoughts were really so much nonsense. With long term drug users, these thoughts may persist to their non-high moments and it at this point where they've developed a psychosis.
God I hope that this is not true, but I must admit it sounds very logical. At least I hope that it is not true in my case, because as I said, it sounds very logical. Hey wait. I was able to recognize the logic in these words, maybe I got a chance.

I've known people with this type of disorder. I had a friend who was bipolar, in her manic episodes she would develop a psychosis where she thought she had this secret knowledge.
I have seen them too. Oh boy. I tell you. The one thing that I did not want to be is a babbling idiot-or be looked upon as one. Please tell me it ain't true?

I'm not saying you're a drug user but your bizarre theory,
Good... Don't ask, don't tell, right?

and your adament insistence that this is really how the whole universe works, makes me worry about you. Please get some medical attention. I think you'll find that it will calm your thoughts and make it easier to interact with other people.
Judging by how you are talking to me, you may need a "tune up" in your social skills as well. But who am I to make such a judgement, we just met, right? To be fair I never insisted that it had to be true, (I believe this, but I have to) I just ask that before I let it go, that it logically be wrestled from my hand. You have to be able to see my point there. I worked on this thing for a good part of my life, I simply can't throw it in the trash because you say so. But, you seem like a smart person, and concerned about my welfare, can you show me why what you say is true, by logically ridding me of that thing?

I only ask that you don't use many big words so that all can instantly understand what is being said.

Don't call me names.

And can you post short because I can't see what I said in relation to what you say. 4 questions at a time would be great.

The time that I am most likely here is 12pm to 2am but tell me the best time for you and I'll see what I can do. You see I want to get better (or is saying that just another part of the psychosis) boy I hope its not.
Hey wait a minute. You said that your weren't a medical professional. But of course that does not mean that you do not know what you are talking about-keep that part in mind in reference to me as well.

wollery

12th September 2006, 03:01 AM

LCL, I don't want to sound harsh, but your "theory" is little more than vague supposition. Your graphs convey no actual information, other than, "Ooh look, I can draw squares, and label the sides with different things." And I seem to remember you mentioning something about maths, although there is precisely none evident on your webpage.

So would you please be so kind as to explain to me how your mathematics describes the interactions between the four fundamental forces.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 03:23 AM

If this site had not tried to hijack physics terms in a totally random manner, perhaps the diagrams could have been made a little more robust. This is probably a non-physical theory, and the two should not be confused.
Non physical, yes, it is a life energy flow chart. And there is nothing random about it, all the terms there are well known and related. You talk like I am trying to put together trees and airplanes.

A nicer way of putting it might be this:

There seem to be a number of poetic metaphors waiting to spring forth, assuming that the thoughts on the linked site could be tidied up. They would be better presented as an allegory, perhaps with some editing, but they are not in any way a useful physical theory. They are not the TOE, or GUT or anything remotely close. Science doesn't have to 'worry,' because not only is science not some sort of monolithic juggernaut, but most scientists wouldn't take this site's contents seriously as a valid theory.
Why would science need to worry? I think a lot of people around science seem to be taking ideas more and more personal, instead of the science that is suppose to let things fall where they may. I think that it is science that started the whole intelligent design debate in the first place, by most under its banner refusing to accept that it has to be possible that the universe had at least one designer, with evolution as the design.

And my aim is to make science easy to be understood by common folk.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 03:55 AM

I see. "are" means "would be" now. I think I'm beginning to understand.

. Hey. Remember you did it to me first with negative light. You know what they say, if you don't like it.....

Anacoluthon64

12th September 2006, 04:05 AM

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 04:14 AM

LCL, I don't want to sound harsh, but your "theory" is little more than vague supposition.
Don't mean harsh, huh? What do you say when you do? Now you have heard of all the terms there, how is that vague?

Your graphs convey no actual information, other than, "Ooh look, I can draw squares, and label the sides with different things."
And that is all you seen? That is the problem with conveying information now that everybody thinks that they are smart. Anytime anyone shows anything new, he is accused of just trying to show off the size of his head. Even though that is true to a degree, I am in a no win situation. How else would something like that graph come across? Thus is my lot in life.

And I seem to remember you mentioning something about maths, although there is precisely none evident on your webpage.
That was just the name of the site. But a graph is math, right? You want me to give love, hate, and such number values, or don't you see the math of how they are arranged without them? I think I can claim
symetry.

So would you please be so kind as to explain to me how your mathematics describes the interactions between the four fundamental forces.
Someone was talking about that even when science did find the unity formula that it would still not explain everything, because how could it explain consciousness? Well, that graph is how.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 04:27 AM

There is no mathematics or physics here, just an infantile and mind-numbingly meaningless jumble of terms hijacked chiefly from those fields of study and strung together in no cogent order.

Please try explaining the universe again, or, failing this endeavour, point to the appropriate psychotropic nostrum that would render comprehension superfluous.

'Luthon64

God. All that? I could swear that I was cursed at, but I can't see where? It was aimed at me and I still think that it sounded good. I appreciate your comment, but it is so general it has no meaning-other then you don't like it. That part is very clear. But in order for me to poke you in the eye with that finger, I need for you to point something out. It is okay if you don't, I'll just assume that you can't, psycho-babble is safer.

Dancing David

12th September 2006, 06:24 AM

The site is IN THE MATH

At least you are not hiding behind , "quantum mechanics".

BTE light does not have a 'negative' or 'positive' value so a lot of what you said is noy parsing well.

magnetism can be considered to come from the existance of electrons, and it contains a contadictory lack of polaririty. In that electrons want to fill in the space that protons occupy and visa versa and that they don't want to occupy the space of other electrons.

I am sorry but the analogy is much too simple, love vs. hate is much too simplistic. One thing I can say with confidence is that the universe is not dualistic.

So I say that you are not correct from the beggining, there are more than two types of most things and I would argue that you are just showing a dualistic bias.

TobiasTheViking

12th September 2006, 06:28 AM

bruto

12th September 2006, 07:36 AM

Obviously some people care more about something over others. For instance, could you imagine revealing a great truth to someone and all they comment on is a word that is not spelled right?

Yes, I could, if the person was trying to convince me he's really taken care in setting it out.

Anacoluthon64

12th September 2006, 07:59 AM

God. All that? I could swear that I was cursed at, but I can't see where? It was aimed at me and I still think that it sounded good. I appreciate your comment, but it is so general it has no meaning-other then you don't like it. That part is very clear. But in order for me to poke you in the eye with that finger, I need for you to point something out. It is okay if you don't, I'll just assume that you can't, psycho-babble is safer.Taking it personally or not is entirely up to you. My criticism was aimed chiefly at the gormless drivel published at the website (http://inthemath.com/) whose link you provided, and also at the greater part of your responses to queries and observations thereon here in this thread, which responses are a mostly impenetrable potpourri of twaddle, delusion and misapplied terminology. It is, therefore, a profound irony that you should accuse me of engaging in 'psychobabble' and meaningless generality, and you may wish to note that I am not at all offended by the suggestion, merely mildly amused.

But no matter. Poke, then, at these specifics if you must: abducting the terms positive, negative, multiplication and division as a means towards entitlement to real mathematics™ is of a kind with taking an ability to spell raft foundation as sufficient warrant to label oneself material scientist. The webpage in question shows nil evidence that its author – you, presumably – knows the first thing about the finer details of any of the appropriated concepts: positive and negative are conventions that carry with them no ethics baggage, while multiplication and division are, beyond their usual arithmetical use, rather more complicated than the webpage's content implies. The misappropriations from physics are even more gobbledegooky.

'Luthon64

Freethinker

12th September 2006, 08:51 AM

Jimbo07

12th September 2006, 01:53 PM

Non physical, yes, it is a life energy flow chart.

Care to define that energy in anything approaching precise mathematical terms? If you want to deal with electrical energy, you are free to use potential, V. I'll start you off with kinetic energy:

K.E. = (0.5)mv2

life energy, L.E. = ?

And there is nothing random about it, all the terms there are well known and related. You talk like I am trying to put together trees and airplanes.

As far as having any physical meaning, it is esssentially random. You have essentially tried to, "put together trees and airplanes."

Why would science need to worry?

Oh, it has no need to worry. I'm just regurgitating what you stated on your site.

I think a lot of people around science seem to be taking ideas more and more personal, instead of the science that is suppose to let things fall where they may.

Ummm... I can't speak for anyone else, so I don't know what they would do as far as taking ideas "more and more personal." What I can say is that the practice of science is probably not supposed to, "let things fall where they may."

I think that it is science that started the whole intelligent design debate in the first place,

Nope. Factually incorrect. ID is a political movement.

by most under its banner refusing to accept that it has to be possible that the universe had at least one designer, with evolution as the design.

Anything's possible, but a good theory that physically relates the two has not been advanced... yours not the least amongst them!

And my aim is to make science easy to be understood by common folk.

That is a concern of mine as well, so I'll start with you. Because I am not a science teacher, I highly recommend that you find some credible sources for science. A good general course in first-year physics at the local university might be a good place to start. You might be able to register in an open studies program. Work hard. Even elementary mechanics lessons have profound implications later on. Embrace Newton's 2nd Law (F = ma). So many other theories are so highly dependent on it.

Once you have done at least that, then it may be time to revise your theory (preferably discarding any physical sense), before making science, "easy to be understood by common folk."

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 04:10 PM

Beauty isn't intrinsic to anything. The appreciation of aesthetics is largely a human trait though it could very well be manifest in other primates, dolphins, parrots and a handful of other species (forgive my ignorance on the subject). In any event, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It is subjective. A rock isn't necessarily beautiful we just think that it is. Now if you want to discuss environmental triggers that stimulate mating, well, many of the things that other species find attractive humans don't care for so much. So I can't find any universal beauty, attraction, aesthetics, etc. Maggots just love the look, smell and taste of rotting flesh. I don't.

A great example of this is the fascinating Bowerbird (http://montereybay.com/creagrus/bowerbirds.html).

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 04:15 PM

You know that very same thing worried me for a long time. Believe me even a fool does not want to look like one. But I had a choice, to keep "pretending" to write by saying I ain't finish yet, or see if the baby can walk. I wanted to be through with it one way or the other. So here I am. And this is not the 1st place I've been and most people sound like you do. But plenty of people with a new idea were called crazy, right?
<snipped remainder of post>

You know what, your post is so rambling and incoherent that I'm not going to waste my time with a point by point response. Other people here have repeatedly pointed out that your theory is nonsensical and nonscientific -- and they've addressed the particulars quite well. Yet you won't listen to them so why should I think you'd listen to me. I give them a lot of credit for even trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Frankly I have better things to do with my time.

Crazy for Coco Puffs! :rolleyes:

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 04:28 PM

Yes, I could, if the person was trying to convince me he's really taken care in setting it out.
You have already commented on the site, if you look back you would still see the same mistakes you did before, obviously those things are not as big a deal to me as they are to you. I think the thing is enough to get my point across. For instance you were right about the word allot, I now use it the way you said, but i I'm not rushing around looking for it at the site because even if it is wrong it still gets the point across. Now if I had said something like "gravity made things go up" I would rush. My point is this, look at the time we have both spent on this when you indicate that there are other problems? If spelling of minor words is all you got....save it for another time.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 05:11 PM

Taking it personally or not is entirely up to you. My criticism was aimed chiefly at the gormless drivel published at the website (http://inthemath.com/) whose link you provided, and also at the greater part of your responses to queries and observations thereon here in this thread, which responses are a mostly impenetrable potpourri of twaddle, delusion and misapplied terminology. It is, therefore, a profound irony that you should accuse me of engaging in 'psychobabble' and meaningless generality, and you may wish to note that I am not at all offended by the suggestion, merely mildly amused.

You may wish me to note. Why would that be important to me?

But no matter. Poke, then, at these specifics if you must: abducting the terms positive, negative, multiplication and division as a means towards entitlement to real mathematics™
Poke. Positive, negative, multiplication and division? check again, I did not put those 4 together. I do have addition, subtraction, multiplication and division together, but they are not random and mixed as you had them. When and where I used them they are real mathematics, aren't they the 4 operations of math? And I did not abduct them, each of them are there of their own freewill... They can't leave when they want, but then no word can.

The webpage in question shows nil evidence that its author – you, presumably – knows the first thing about the finer details of any of the appropriated concepts: positive and negative are conventions that carry with them no ethics baggage, while multiplication and division are, beyond their usual arithmetical use, rather more complicated than the webpage's content implies. The misappropriations from physics are even more gobbledegooky.

You see above you again mix 4 things that I did not. Some of your problem with it may be that you are just seeing things wrong. What do you know of the "finer details" of my knowledge. I know the details of the labelings of negative and positive and that they don't actually have negative or positive natures. But I didn't name them, or the words they are related to.

fuelair

12th September 2006, 05:24 PM

Children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, so where did the characteristics of life come from? Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Life experiences them (at one level) as No, Yes, I like you (love) and I don't like you (hate). Together they form the bases of the mental/emotional nature of life, and math to boot because negative is related to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication and repulsion to division. If this does not fly for you, tell me what else would have the universal reach to do the job?

(Quoting from the original The Fly) "Heelp Meeee! Heelpp Meee!!!!"

Zombified

12th September 2006, 05:29 PM

When and where I used them they are real mathematics, aren't they the 4 operations of math?
Real mathematics consists of well-formed propositions. Those operators do not appear in a well-formed proposition. Therefore, they are not math.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 06:00 PM

So are your ideas about positive and negative in electricity related to the conventional view of positive and negative as postulated by Franklin, or the electron flow concept? This would seem to be a big deal, as they are complete opposites..

Or are you referring to particle charges? You are aware that the designation of an electron having a "negative" charge is just a matter of choice, aren't you? If we had known then what we know now, the electron would likely have been designated a positive charge. This would seem to mean that your whole concept is based on a random choice of words.
No. I did not make a random choice of word. I used the words that science used. How can that be random? Either way, I am aware of what you have stated above. You are saying that positive is really negative and negative is really positive. That means that all I have to do is flip the 2 around. They still exist, they are just backwards. The graph survives with hardly a sideways glance.

Tricky

12th September 2006, 06:09 PM

Zombified

12th September 2006, 06:23 PM

No. I did not make a random choice of word. I used the words that science used.
That's not science. That's not mathematics. That's not even philosophy.

Basically, what you're doing is idolatry. You think these words have power, so you invoke them as if they were magical. But you do not comprehend the ideas behind them in the slightest. You're the Internet equivalent of a cargo cult.

bruto

12th September 2006, 06:26 PM

No. I did not make a random choice of word.

Not random, perhaps, but you have acknowledged repeatedly that you do not regard the choice of words as very important, right? So how can we be sure when you are being careful and when you are not? :confused:

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 06:39 PM

Care to define that energy in anything approaching precise mathematical terms? If you want to deal with electrical energy, you are free to use potential, V. I'll start you off with kinetic energy:

K.E. = (0.5)mv2

life energy, L.E. = ?

Who said that I wanted to define energy in mathematical terms?
Why would I want to do that?

As far as having any physical meaning, it is esssentially random. You have essentially tried to, "put together trees and airplanes."
What part of energy flow chart do you not understand. In that way it is not comparing trees and airplanes. You understand all the terms there, even if you do not like them, and they are related.

Oh, it has no need to worry. I'm just regurgitating what you stated on your site.
Don't do that, it sounds nasty.

Ummm... I can't speak for anyone else, so I don't know what they would do as far as taking ideas "more and more personal." What I can say is that the practice of science is probably not supposed to, "let things fall where they may."
Science is not suppose to be unbiased?

Nope. Factually incorrect. ID is a political movement.
Yes, but if science said a designer was possible, but more than likely nothing heard so far, that movement would be weaker.

That is a concern of mine as well, so I'll start with you. Because I am not a science teacher, I highly recommend that you find some credible sources for science. A good general course in first-year physics at the local university might be a good place to start. You might be able to register in an open studies program. Work hard. Even elementary mechanics lessons have profound implications later on. Embrace Newton's 2nd Law (F = ma). So many other theories are so highly dependent on it.
I have already had 5 years of electronics as a radar tech, but how much physics do I need to correctly state that the shape and behavior of everything physical has to do with energy? How much do I need to know to see the charteristics of electromagnetic radiation, the EMF, WNF, the SNF and gravity? Especially since they are well defined by science? How can I be wrong when I said what they said? I don't need to know how to swim if I stay in 5 feet of water. And nothing that I said is any different from what the characteristics of those things say.
I have heard that the characteristics of negative and positive should be reverse, fine. Even science is not perfect. But I was not wrong, I said what they said, and reversing what they say does not change the graph.

Forty-Two

12th September 2006, 06:41 PM

You're the Internet equivalent of a cargo cult.
Wow. I applaud you for your apt description.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 06:56 PM

A great example of this is the fascinating Bowerbird (http://montereybay.com/creagrus/bowerbirds.html).
I have already stated that most of what is considered beautiful has to do with the underlying math behind them. Symetry it is called. That is how we are able to arrange everyday words in a way that they sound beautiful as a poem. When shapes, colors, timing, and/or an endless parade of other things combine in just the right way, they all have a chance of being seen as beautiful. It is far from just a random occurance.
With that said, this ability is not just our own. Life uses beauty in all sorts of ways to get its point across. And it is no coincidence that most of what they "seem" to consider beautiful, so do we. Afterall, we are all part of the same drama, different levels of the same thing.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 07:13 PM

You know what, your post is so rambling and incoherent that I'm not going to waste my time with a point by point response. Other people here have repeatedly pointed out that your theory is nonsensical and nonscientific -- and they've addressed the particulars quite well. Yet you won't listen to them so why should I think you'd listen to me. I give them a lot of credit for even trying to figure out what you're trying to say. Frankly I have better things to do with my time.
I wanted you to understand beyond a doubt where I was coming from. And you are my proof as to why that thing stands. You call it crazy and leave it as that as if somehow just your word is enough. I challenged you to a logically battle-you pick the time-and you declined. How am I to see the strength of your logic when you don't have any? Psycho-babble is easy, and from what you say, handling me should also be easy, and fun. Let us put the fool hat in the middle of the field and see which one of us ends up wearing it. I have answered everyone of my encounters with others, and more often then not they end up with the hat in their hand. Or they do what you just did, "I am too smart to be wrong, therefore I am right." And you want to give advice? Maybe you should take some, "if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk."

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 07:44 PM

I have already stated that most of what is considered beautiful has to do with the underlying math behind them. Symetry it is called. That is how we are able to arrange everyday words in a way that they sound beautiful as a poem. When shapes, colors, timing, and/or an endless parade of other things combine in just the right way, they all have a chance of being seen as beautiful. It is far from just a random occurance.
With that said, this ability is not just our own. Life uses beauty in all sorts of ways to get its point across. And it is no coincidence that most of what they "seem" to consider beautiful, so do we. Afterall, we are all part of the same drama, different levels of the same thing.

Nonsense. Much of what we find beautiful is culturally defined. I doubt that many North American's or Northern Europeans would find footbinding (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding), neck elongation (http://www.geocities.com/tamaraoleary/Padong_Ban_Huai_Seau_Tao.html), and lip stretching (http://www.africanconservancy.org/member/bodyart/surmadisk.html) beautiful, but the cultures that these practices developed in found them beautiful and alluring.

Freethinker

12th September 2006, 07:58 PM

No. I did not make a random choice of word. I used the words that science used. How can that be random? Either way, I am aware of what you have stated above. You are saying that positive is really negative and negative is really positive. That means that all I have to do is flip the 2 around. They still exist, they are just backwards. The graph survives with hardly a sideways glance.

I didn't say you made a random choice. The original experimenters who first studied these things chose the nomenclature, and in Franklin's case made an error in an assumption about what he observed. In the case of particle charges, they could have decided the electron had a blue charge and the proton had a yellow charge. Positive and negative here have no meaning other than that positive and negative attract each other and repel like charges. Your chart associates positive and attraction, and associates negative with repulsion, and it seems you somehow see this as "the way it should be". If you "used the words that science used", which convention are you following? One uses positive and negative one way, and the other uses them the opposite. A physicist and an engineer will describe the flow of electricity in a circuit in completely opposite ways. Your chart means no more than if you had called them blue and yellow.

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 08:08 PM

I wanted you to understand beyond a doubt where I was coming from. And you are my proof as to why that thing stands. You call it crazy and leave it as that as if somehow just your word is enough. I challenged you to a logically battle-you pick the time-and you declined. How am I to see the strength of your logic when you don't have any? Psycho-babble is easy, and from what you say, handling me should also be easy, and fun. Let us put the fool hat in the middle of the field and see which one of us ends up wearing it. I have answered everyone of my encounters with others, and more often then not they end up with the hat in their hand. Or they do what you just did, "I am too smart to be wrong, therefore I am right." And you want to give advice? Maybe you should take some, "if you can't walk the walk, don't talk the talk."

Yawn. He who argues with fools is doubly a fool.

bruto

12th September 2006, 08:21 PM

I have already stated that most of what is considered beautiful has to do with the underlying math behind them. Symetry it is called. That is how we are able to arrange everyday words in a way that they sound beautiful as a poem. When shapes, colors, timing, and/or an endless parade of other things combine in just the right way, they all have a chance of being seen as beautiful. It is far from just a random occurance.

IN visual art, it is often not symmetry that makes beauty but asymmetry. Not that that asymmetry is random: I'm willing to concede that much of this may depend on "underlying math," but this does not make it symmetry. You have not evinced any understanding of what that underlying math is, and I suspect that this is because you do not know.

With that said, this ability is not just our own. Life uses beauty in all sorts of ways to get its point across. And it is no coincidence that most of what they "seem" to consider beautiful, so do we. Afterall, we are all part of the same drama, different levels of the same thing.

To say that life "uses" beauty is to assume things we cannot know, and to ascribe to nature a teleology for which we have no evidence. Life creates things that, because we live in the world, and have evolved in the world, we sometimes find beautiful. But not always. Flies are attracted to dung, but most of us are not. We cannot know whether a hummingbird finds its chosen blossoms beautiful or just easy to identify and good tasting. It is possible that baboons find each other's swollen pink buttocks beautiful, but most of us do not.

Jimbo07

12th September 2006, 08:32 PM

Yawn. He who argues with fools is doubly a fool.

What, you're not up for a "logically battle?"

:D

btw, light,

how much physics do I need to correctly state that the shape and behavior of everything physical has to do with energy? How much do I need to know to see the charteristics of electromagnetic radiation, the EMF, WNF, the SNF and gravity? Especially since they are well defined by science? How can I be wrong when I said what they said? I don't need to know how to swim if I stay in 5 feet of water. And nothing that I said is any different from what the characteristics of those things say.

How much do you need to know? Apparently more than you currently do. To make a new statement that gets at a GUT, you'd need to know more than I know. It's important to note that you have said nothing at all like what is said in current physical theories. Physics is not a collection of random graphs and 'math-sounding' statements thrown together.

There are a couple of things you should note:

i) Most of us are not saying these things because we're smarter than you. I'm probably not, in fact. What has happened, though, is that some of us have paid for our educations with money, sweat and tears. Physics can be hard work. It can also be a passion. There are posters here with... well... much more physics education than I have. What's happening, though, is that a consensus is building that you are not saying anything physical. You should seriously take note of this.

ii) On a technical note, physics relies heavily on math. You need to know some basic math. You have to express your claims mathematically. It is important for you to know that if you don't know what I mean by 'basic math,' or expressing your claims 'mathematically,' then you do not know enough math to proceed down this path. You will want to express any claims about energy in terms of the underlying math. Without the math, the claim is not useful. 'Not useful' may as well be the same as essentially unphysical... especially when using already well-defined terms such as energy.

So take heed... please. You are making unphyiscal statements. If you are okay with this, then great! Nobody is saying this out of a sense of 'smartness,' but from experience. It's not simply a case of sitting down with one of us and making a few tweaks such as swapping positive for negative. You've tried to relate totally unrelated concepts, without showing a rigorous mechanism for doing so. You have tried to combine trees and airplanes, and you won't take 'no' for an answer.

RandFan

12th September 2006, 08:55 PM

A great example of this is the fascinating Bowerbird (http://montereybay.com/creagrus/bowerbirds.html).:) Nature is so damn cool. I did not know this.

Thanks

RandFan

12th September 2006, 08:58 PM

RandFan

12th September 2006, 09:06 PM

I have already had 5 years of electronics as a radar tech, but how much physics do I need to correctly state that the shape and behavior of everything physical has to do with energy? How much do I need to know to see the charteristics of electromagnetic radiation, the EMF, WNF, the SNF and gravity? It's now how much you have but the quality of your arguments. Your arguments need to appeal to the intellect in a way to cause us to consider them. I have to say that you fail at that. It's not personal and I don't mean to be rude but there is just nothing there of any significance. I understand that it seems important to you but there is no reason for it to be important to us.

Sorry.

Especially since they are well defined by science? How can I be wrong when I said what they said? I don't need to know how to swim if I stay in 5 feet of water. And nothing that I said is any different from what the characteristics of those things say. You haven't really said anything of significance as far as I can tell.

I have heard that the characteristics of negative and positive should be reverse, fine. Even science is not perfect. But I was not wrong, I said what they said, and reversing what they say does not change the graph.The graph doesn't really tell us much. After looking at your graph I don't feel I know anything that I didn't before I looked at the graph. My view of the natural world has not been advanced. My understanding of physics has not been advanced (I don't claim any great understanding of physics). It's possible that it is all over my head. I doubt it but I'll concede the possibility.

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 09:13 PM

What, you're not up for a "logically battle?"

:D

I guess not. It must be because of the weak nuclear force that I'm feeling weak. :D

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 09:18 PM

:) Nature is so damn cool. I did not know this.

Thanks

Exactly! I celebrate the amazing diversity that evolution produces at every step. Vive la differance! Nature comes up with stuff that Intelligent Design never could. Don't you just love the amazing range of life forms that nature comes up with? :)

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 09:33 PM

(Quoting from the original The Fly) "Heelp Meeee! Heelpp Meee!!!!"
You see what I have to deal with? I am told that I am crazy, but look at this? Who is the crazy one here? I hope this guy is not a physicist or something like that.

RandFan

12th September 2006, 09:34 PM

Exactly! I celebrate the amazing diversity that evolution produces at every step. Vive la differance! Nature comes up with stuff that Intelligent Design never could. Don't you just love the amazing range of life forms that nature comes up with? :)Yes but Corgi had a helping hand. :)

It amazes me watching Discovery chanel that it seems there is always something new. I've been learning about new and amazing species for decades.

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 09:36 PM

You see what I have to deal with? I am told that I am crazy, but look at this? Who is the crazy one here? I hope this guy is not a physicist or something like that.

Hint. If more than one person is telling you that you are crazy, maybe you are. And what does being a physicist have to do with appreciating classic cheesy sci fi?

supercorgi

12th September 2006, 09:39 PM

Yes but Corgi had a helping hand. :)

It amazes me watching Discovery chanel that it seems there is always something new. I've been learning about new and amazing species for decades.

Sometimes educational TV (as bad as some Discovery channel programs are) is a good thing. I was watching one of my favorite shows tonight (House M.D.) and they were pondering why a boy might have 2 different sets of DNA. I was shouting "Chimerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimerism)!" at the TV and it took me a lot less time to solve the mystery than the TV doctors. Discovery Health Channel was the cause of my amazing insight. :D

RandFan

12th September 2006, 09:41 PM

You see what I have to deal with? I am told that I am crazy, but look at this? Who is the crazy one here? I hope this guy is not a physicist or something like that. I don't know if you are crazy. I'm quite certain that if you have a mental issue that we couldn't convince you of it. Hell, maybe we are all crazy. In any event you don't want my opinion.

bruto

12th September 2006, 09:53 PM

Zombified

12th September 2006, 09:59 PM

You see what I have to deal with? I am told that I am crazy, but look at this? Who is the crazy one here? I hope this guy is not a physicist or something like that.
Why do people like you never seem to have a sense of humor?

PS HI WAFFLES *ear scratch*

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:03 PM

It's now how much you have but the quality of your arguments. Your arguments need to appeal to the intellect in a way to cause us to consider them.
Well first off it puts everything together in relation to each other, in one box. A box that shows the characteristics of those things, the way they are thought to be. The big bang, judgement, the cross in the right place, the star planet and life, death and the after life. The graph forms a pyramid, the one on the back of the dollar. It includes ying and yang balance, adam and eve, the garden of eden and I can go on. Lets say that it is not true. That is quite a feat for someone as dumb as I suppose to be. That is unless everybody has something like that. Then it would be so common to be laughable. But that is not the case. Is it?

Now here are people telling me that it is nothing. I mean, nothing at all.
And this is coming from someone who thinks that beauty is a random thing? If you noticed you dropped that point, and this is what I have been dealing with. It is not me who is coming out and saying things that I have to back down from because of their obvious nonsense. Yet these same people are telling me how wrong I am. And this is all done without any examples of why that is so.

The graph doesn't really tell us much. After looking at your graph I don't feel I know anything that I didn't before I looked at the graph. My view of the natural world has not been advanced. My understanding of physics has not been advanced (I don't claim any great understanding of physics). It's possible that it is all over my head. I doubt it but I'll concede the possibility.

Look at this?
You haven't really said anything of significance as far as I can tell.

This is what the majority of my doubters do. How could I feel beaten by an augument like this? Would you?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:06 PM

Why do people like you never seem to have a sense of humor?

PS HI WAFFLES *ear scratch*

Here is another one? Smart people-supposely-that are telling me that I am crazy. Is it any wonder that I don't believe them. Would you?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:10 PM

Real mathematics consists of well-formed propositions. Those operators do not appear in a well-formed proposition. Therefore, they are not math.

I list use the 4 operations of math and this guy tells me that they are not real math. Don't youo need them to do any math?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:13 PM

Yawn. He who argues with fools is doubly a fool.

Then why bother to even bother? You said you had a lot to say, but no time to say it, but you have time to do this? I think the fool hat belongs to you?

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:16 PM

Exactly! I celebrate the amazing diversity that evolution produces at every step. Vive la differance! Nature comes up with stuff that Intelligent Design never could. Don't you just love the amazing range of life forms that nature comes up with? :)
And this guy was recently giving out mental advice. The one with no time to debate, but time to act the fool?

RandFan

12th September 2006, 10:20 PM

Well first off it puts everything together in relation to each other, in one box. A box that shows the characteristics of those things, the way they are thought to be. A locked box?

The big bang, judgement, the cross in the right place, the star planet and life, death and the after life. The graph forms a pyramid, the one on the back of the dollar. It includes ying and yang balance, adam and eve, the garden of eden and I can go on. Lets say that it is not true. That is quite a feat for someone as dumb as I suppose to be. That is unless everybody has something like that. Then it would be so common to be laughable. But that is not the case. Is it?No, I'm sure that only you have something like that. Good luck with that.

Now here are people telling me that it is nothing. I mean, nothing at all.I can't speak for others but it seems to me that what is being said is that it means nothing to them.

And this is coming from someone who thinks that beauty is a random thing? I never used the word random. I said that not all species appreciate aesthetics and that environmental triggers for sexual reproduction are not consistent.

If you noticed you dropped that point...No, I hadn't noticed. Must be a deep seated fear on my part.

...and this is what I have been dealing with. It is not me who is coming out and saying things that I have to back down from because of their obvious nonsense. Yet these same people are telling me how wrong I am. And this is all done without any examples of why that is so. "Examples"?

This is what the majority of my doubters do. How could I feel beaten by an augument like this? Would you? It's not an argument. It's an observation. It is a sincere one. It wasn't meant to make you feel "beaten".

Again, Good luck.

RandFan

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:21 PM

Speaking of nature and the wonderful creatures it provides reminds me that it's just about time for this thread to have a kitten. In keeping with JREF's policy on images, however, I find that I don't have a certifiably uncopyrighted kitten handy, so I'm afraid I'll have to make do with a cat. Meet my nephew's cat Waffles:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/5941/catcloseupbw1.jpg (http://<a href=)

This is pathetic. How is any of these people to tell anyone, anything? But this is how it goes. They start out with a bit of logic at first, and then they snap. This group has snapped faster then others, but here it is? This is why that grpah stands. It drives my weaker doubters insane. Why should I drop something that can do that?

Zombified

12th September 2006, 10:25 PM

Where did I call you crazy? I said you didn't understand math, science or philosophy and that you didn't have a sense of humor. I don't remember crazy. Of course, I'm not saying you're not, either.

I list use the 4 operations of math and this guy tells me that they are not real math. Don't youo need them to do any math?
It's not math if you don't have a well-formed expression. There are rules. You have a picture with the word "multiplication" written on it, and that's it. It's about as mathematical as sweet Waffles there. You aren't multiplying anything. You make no assertion, no proof, and no prediction. Hang this stuff in an art gallery if you like, but don't call it math.

Also, there's math that does not require these operators... so the literal answer to your question is actually "no".

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 10:27 PM

It's not an argument. It's an observation. It is a sincere one. It wasn't meant to make you feel "beaten".

Again, Good luck.

You see. This is why that thing stands. That thing can trash my doubters in no time. The logic leaves them, some start throwing things and they go. This is the sought of things they say that I should do.

RandFan

12th September 2006, 10:35 PM

You see. This is why that thing stands. That thing can trash my doubters in no time. The logic leaves them, some start throwing things and they go. This is the sought of things they say that I should do. There are at least two non sequiturs in there.

lightcreatedlife@hom

12th September 2006, 11:12 PM

I don't know if you are crazy. I'm quite certain that if you have a mental issue that we couldn't convince you of it. Hell, maybe we are all crazy. In any event you don't want my opinion.
You could convince me. I told that other guy that. Show me the logic. I shouldn't have to be asking smart people like yourselves to produce the many things that they say is wrong with the thing. They should be telling me. What? They don't want to hurt my feelings? At this stage that is all they are trying to do, logic coming at me is hard to come by here of late. Answer this question, have you seen anything presented here that you think is potent enough to prove that graph wrong?

wollery

13th September 2006, 12:52 AM

Don't mean harsh, huh?No, I was being honest, and attempting to do so in a polite way.

What do you say when you do?We'll get to that later!

Now you have heard of all the terms there, how is that vague?Yes, I know all of the terms. That does not make the stuff on your website any less vague. Let me illustrate;

The electromagnetic waffle cauldron abuses weak nuclear force in an incredibly placid way. When it needs to stroke the strong nuclear force it calls gravity on the hair curlers.

I'm pretty sure that you know all the terms and words I used in that short message, but did it make any sense? Would you say that it conveyed any meaning?

And that is all you seen? That is the problem with conveying information now that everybody thinks that they are smart. Anytime anyone shows anything new, he is accused of just trying to show off the size of his head. Even though that is true to a degree, I am in a no win situation. How else would something like that graph come across? Thus is my lot in life.I never suggested that you were showing off, I was pointing out, in a sarcastic way, that your graph represented absolutely nothing. A graph should convey information, yours conveys none.

That was just the name of the site. But a graph is math, right? You want me to give love, hate, and such number values, or don't you see the math of how they are arranged without them?No, a graph is not maths. It can display the results of maths, but is not, in and of itself, maths.

I think I can claim symetry.You can claim anything you want, it doesn't make it so.

Someone was talking about that even when science did find the unity formula that it would still not explain everything, because how could it explain consciousness? Well, that graph is how.Depends on your particular philosophy. The idealists and dualists would say that an explanation of conciousness is beyond the reach of science, whereas materialists would say that it's merely the result of chemical and physical interactions in our brains. And your graph does not explain conciousness, it doesn't explain anything.

You could convince me. I told that other guy that. Show me the logic. I shouldn't have to be asking smart people like yourselves to produce the many things that they say is wrong with the thing. They should be telling me. What? They don't want to hurt my feelings? At this stage that is all they are trying to do, logic coming at me is hard to come by here of late. Answer this question, have you seen anything presented here that you think is potent enough to prove that graph wrong?Show us the logic. You haven't shown us anything to argue against. The question isn't what has been presented to prove you wrong, but what have you presented that really needs to be proved wrong.

Okay, back to the start, you asked what I would say if I were being harsh.

Having read some more of your replies to other posters and reread your site I'd say that you are seriously lacking in understanding of maths and science, which is particularly disappointing as you say you've spent 5 years as a radar tech, a job that I'd hope would require a reasonable amount of physics knowledge. Your spelling is appalling, and is matched only by your atrocious grammar. Your graphs are meaningless, convey no information, and look like they were drawn by a 12 year old. And while we're on the topic of design and appearance, your website also looks like it was designed by a 12 year old and takes ages to load, which is astounding given how small the contents are.

The conclusion I draw from all the above is that you are either suffering from a mild psychosis, are far less intelligent than you think you are, or are a troll. My guess would be the second option, but I don't rule out the other two.

But I reserve the harshest criticism of all for last;
Lifegazer knows more science and makes more sense than you.

RandFan

13th September 2006, 12:59 AM

You could convince me. I told that other guy that. Show me the logic. I shouldn't have to be asking smart people like yourselves to produce the many things that they say is wrong with the thing. They should be telling me. What? They don't want to hurt my feelings? At this stage that is all they are trying to do, logic coming at me is hard to come by here of late. Answer this question, have you seen anything presented here that you think is potent enough to prove that graph wrong?Convince you of what? In all honesty I haven't a clue what your graph is about. I can't demonstrate logic for what is wrong with the graph when I don't even know what it is or what it is supposed to mean. As I said before, the graph doesn't alter my view of the natural world, the laws of physics or anything else. It doesn't help me understand the relationships of energy and matter. It seems to me that your website is incoherent. I responded to you not because I think your graph wrong but because there are a number of logical mistakes in your statements.

Children are expected to take on the characteristics of their parents, so where did the characteristics of life come from? This statement presupposes that light is analogous to biological systems that sexually reproduce. Perhaps it is. I lack the authority to say categorically that it isn't but as is it is the notion doesn't mean anything to me. It seems to me that the question at the end of the statement doesn't logically follow from the premise stated at the beginning.

I see 3 options:

1.) You have come up with a brilliant observation and I'm not capable of comprehending it.

2.) The graph and the accompanying information don't adequately convey your insights into a significant and important concept/truth/?.

3.) There is little or no significant meaning.

You choose, it doesn't make any difference to me. If this is important to you and your emotional health is tied up in it then by all means believe that it is important for others to know and understand.

RandFan

13th September 2006, 01:02 AM

Lifegazer knows more science and makes more sense than you. Ouch!

Anacoluthon64

13th September 2006, 01:57 AM

You may wish me to note. Why would that be important to me?To dispel any reason that you seem to have taken my earlier post as a personal affront. But I see now that such a thought is probably wasted.

Poke. Positive, negative, multiplication and division? check again, I did not put those 4 together. I do have addition, subtraction, multiplication and division together, but they are not random and mixed as you had them.So the order in which they are listed decides the validity of your curious associations? How peculiar.

When and where I used them they are real mathematics, aren't they the 4 operations of math?No and no.

And I did not abduct them, each of them are there of their own freewill... They can't leave when they want, but then no word can.They are there in the same way a budgie is in a cage.

You see above you again mix 4 things that I did not.No, quite the reverse.

Some of your problem with it may be that you are just seeing things wrong. What do you know of the "finer details" of my knowledge.First, it is you, not I, with the problem: clearly, you seek to convince people of the great value of the sorry mélange of vacuity served up at that website, but you are unwilling or unable to grant its stunning mediocrity. Second, I know about your knowledge only that which you present for scrutiny, and do not pretend otherwise; it is entirely this fact that authors my comments.

I know the details of the labelings of negative and positive and that they don't actually have negative or positive natures. But I didn't name them, or the words they are related to.Yet the abuse of these terms remains.

'Luthon64

Beerina

13th September 2006, 09:31 AM

1.) You have come up with a brilliant observation and I'm not capable of comprehending it.

- Electrical negative and positive are opposites

- Life and unlife are opposites

- Therefore whatever applies to the first, may be, by inductive analogy, applied to the second, deriving new, deep insights into reality

Personally, when deriving keen, new insights into reality, I prefer to ponder the headily organic contrasts between black hair and creamy white skin, such as posessed by your own Janeane Garofalo.

RandFan

13th September 2006, 09:53 AM

Personally, when deriving keen, new insights into reality, I prefer to ponder the headily organic contrasts between black hair and creamy white skin, such as posessed by your own Janeane Garofalo.
:) I couldn't agree more.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 02:02 PM

It's not math if you don't have a well-formed expression. There are rules. You have a picture with the word "multiplication" written on it, and that's it. It's about as mathematical as sweet Waffles there. You aren't multiplying anything. You make no assertion, no proof, and no prediction. Hang this stuff in an art gallery if you like, but don't call it math.

Also, there's math that does not require these operators... so the literal answer to your question is actually "no".
You may be reacting to the name of the site. The title was not intended for what is presented. I think that graphs are mathematical, but I never intended to scream "math." The only real intention of the graph where math is concerned is to show the relation of it to the characteristics of light. The proof of the 1st part of the graph is well known, it asserts that life is part of a plan, and it predicts that life continues.

And what math does not require at least one of the 4 operations of math?

bruto

13th September 2006, 03:07 PM

You may be reacting to the name of the site. The title was not intended for what is presented. I think that graphs are mathematical, but I never intended to scream "math."

Then your site is badly named, and it would be wise to include a disclaimer.

TobiasTheViking

13th September 2006, 04:09 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom: Please reply to my questions

Zombified

13th September 2006, 05:37 PM

The only real intention of the graph where math is concerned is to show the relation of it to the characteristics of light.
The relation of math to the characteristics of light would be the Langrangian for electromagnetic interactions.

The proof of the 1st part of the graph is well known, it asserts that life is part of a plan, and it predicts that life continues.
The proof is by no means well known, and your graph asserts neither of these things except by your insistance that it does. Color me unimpressed.

And what math does not require at least one of the 4 operations of math?
The theory of natural numbers requires only a successor function with certain properties; the four beloved operations are not fundamental in the slightest even for numbers. Set theory uses union, intersection, and difference as its operators. Operator algebra is essentially function composition, although the notation used is sometimes similar to that used for multiplication. Function application is fundamental to lambda calculus. I can come up with lots of other examples.

tracer

13th September 2006, 06:27 PM

Actually we are both objects and waves, but our wavelength is incredibly short.

I've never heard that..... Source or explanation would be nice(preferably in a split)
This is a simplification of the actual quantum mechanics involved, but bascially, all particles behave in some ways like waves.

This has been demonstrated experimentally. If you fire a stream of electrons through a very narrow slit (or pair of slits), and then place a detector on the other side, the pattern of electron hits-and-misses that shows up on the detector will be the same as the kinds of interference patterns you get for light or sound or ocean waves.

The thing is, this effect isn't limited to electrons. If you fire whole atoms -- each of which is the aggregate of a heavy nucleus and several bound electrons -- through a slit, they will also produce an interference pattern on the other side. The same is true with whole molecules, and the same would also be true with aggregates of molecules.

However, as the momentum of the particles increases, the interference patterns get smaller and smaller. The "wavelengths" of the particles are in fact inversely proportional to their momentum. Ergo, a teensy tinsy electron going at 100 meters per second is going to have a much longer wavelength than, say, a whole glucose molecule going 100 meters per second, which will in turn have a much longer wavelength than a bacterium going 100 meters per second, which will in turn have a much longer wavelength than a Ford Mustang going 100 meters per second.

The exact relationship is:

Wavelength = h / momentum

... where h is Planck's Constant, 6.626 x 10-34 kg·m²/s.

For a 100 kilogram human being walking at 1 meter per second, the wavelength works out to 6.626 x 10-36 meters. For comparison, the nucleus of an atom is on the order of 1021 times bigger across than this.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 06:55 PM

The relation of math to the characteristics of light would be the Langrangian for electromagnetic interactions.
I have never seen that word before, but it appears that you are saying that there is math behind light, I believe that, and you are able to produce it. I see no problem.

The proof is by no means well known, and your graph asserts neither of these things except by your insistance that it does. Color me unimpressed.
Everything there you heard of.
The graph shows all those things in the right relationship with each other. Tell me where it does not. As for being unimpressed, that happens.

The theory of natural numbers requires only a successor function with certain properties; the four beloved operations are not fundamental in the slightest even for numbers. Set theory uses union, intersection, and difference as its operators. Operator algebra is essentially function composition, although the notation used is sometimes similar to that used for multiplication. Function application is fundamental to lambda calculus. I can come up with lots of other examples.
Okay. You are telling me that math is complex. I know that. I never even got past algebra, but I know that. And I trust the people who know how to use it. I have too. But doesn't a "successor" mean addition at least, and multiplication at best? Isn't anything that moves doing something mathemathical? Backwards is subtraction, shorter steps can be said to be division.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 06:59 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom: Please reply to my questions
Hey. You could have helped by repeating them here, or you could have waited till I got to them. I know there is a picture of a baby by your name, but everything is not only you. I am only one person, and there are many here.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 07:02 PM

Then your site is badly named, and it would be wise to include a disclaimer.
Sorry. I am a poor man. And that may be wise but....

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 07:05 PM

There are at least two non sequiturs in there.
Whatever that means. But if it has anyhting to do with english-save it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 07:28 PM

Yes, you could flip the graphs and they it would make just as much sense as before. That is to say, none at all.
I didn't say I could flip the graphs. I said that all I have to do is switch negative and positive.

You don't understand math. You don't understand biology. You don't understand physics.
I have to understand something, I have not used any term out of place. How do you think I am doing that-luck?

But if you truly want to learn, there are those here who can help. We have some brilliant people here (though I am not among them).I have opened the thing up to comment, present it.

It is incredibly presumptuous of you to believe that you have discovered something new by using your four-function calculator and your beginners graphics program.
This is what I think is bothering a lot of people; "how dare you?" But like I said, I had no choice. Though, I do like the choice I made.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 07:44 PM

well, since lightcreatedlife@hom refuses to answer my questions, it seems apparant that nothing good will come of this thread..

lightcreatedlife@hom, please answer my questions, or stop this nonsense.
Wow. You really are a baby, Nothing good can come from not answering you? I have been unable to find you questions, but may search has turned up this and another reply where you could have repeated them? Submit again please.

Tricky

13th September 2006, 07:58 PM

I didn't say I could flip the graphs. I said that all I have to do is switch negative and positive.
That would flip the graph, which you would know if you knew anything about math. Or graphs.

I have to understand something, I have not used any term out of place. How do you think I am doing that-luck?
You have used almost every term out of place. No terms have any of their usually-defined meanings. Luck? If so, it is very bad luck.

I have opened the thing up to comment, present it.
Yes, and several people have commented. I am one of them. I hope it doesn't disturb you that the comments are overwhelmingly uncomplimentary, but perhaps you should realize there is a very good reason for that.

This is what I think is bothering a lot of people; "how dare you?"
Believe me, that is not it at all. This sort of stuff plagues the internet. You are not the least bit shocking. You are commonplace. Your site is not even interesting enough to garner a "camp comedy" following.

But like I said, I had no choice. Though, I do like the choice I made.
You had no choice but you like your choice? This sort of internal contradiction is just the thing that renders your musings invalid.

I suppose that in some ways it is good that you are pleased with yourself. Do not expect many (if any) others to find pleasure with your choice.

bruto

13th September 2006, 09:16 PM

Sorry. I am a poor man. What does being poor have to do with giving your site a misleading name? And that may be wise but....but...but...but wisdom would not suit you, would it?

CardZeus

13th September 2006, 09:33 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 09:43 PM

HaHaHa - I just wasted 5 minutes of my time looking at your website - I have a Master's degree in physics and a physics PhD - you don't know what you are talking about. You should really seek psychiatric help and say hello to Christophera while you're there
Wow. You are just the guy I was looking for. You see, I can't believe that that thing is right, but I have yet to find anybody to knock it down. Can you help me? Lets put all that education to work. Just tell me what is wrong with it 4 or 5 questions at a time. Use the smallest words that you can so that everyone would be able to understand what is being said without a dictionary. I am usually here from 12pm to 2am, but if you give me a good time for you I will see what I can do. I am sure you can help, because you understrood what was there in 5 minutes, (even though you did not like it) so you are the best person to show me where I am wrong. What do you say?

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 09:54 PM

That would flip the graph, which you would know if you knew anything about math. Or graphs.
No it won't. It would just move the word positive to the top and put negative at the bottom. You would not not this, but I always had a problem with negative next to the star. Tell me why you think the whole thing would flip.

Yes, and several people have commented. I am one of them. I hope it doesn't disturb you that the comments are overwhelmingly uncomplimentary, but perhaps you should realize there is a very good reason for that.
Don't worry about me. Most of those (like your own) lack anything in particular to point at. As I have already told someone else, I need for you to point something out to be able to poke you in the eye with that very finger.

Ask yourself, if you were me, would you give up on something due to what you have just told me?

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 09:58 PM

What does being poor have to do with giving your site a misleading name?
How about not wanting to pay for anothe domain name. Something which I later found was not that much, but by then...
But I am sure that with all you say is wrong, you have better things to poke fun at...right? Lets hear some of that.

lightcreatedlife@hom

13th September 2006, 10:07 PM

So the order in which they are listed decides the validity of your curious associations? How peculiar.
Of course it does. If I rearranged one of your sentences and said you said it, that would matter. And why actually were you unable to see what was there anyway? You see, if you see it wrong, it would always be wrong no matter what.

First, it is you, not I, with the problem: clearly, you seek to convince people of the great value of the sorry mélange of vacuity served up at that website, but you are unwilling or unable to grant its stunning mediocrity. Second, I know about your knowledge only that which you present for scrutiny, and do not pretend otherwise; it is entirely this fact that authors my comments.

Is it just me or is most of the people here avoiding pointing out actually what they see wrong with the thing? From what you say, that should be easy. Unless you all believe that just your word is enough, do you? I feel like a beggar here "anybody got any logical, related questions to spare?"

wollery

13th September 2006, 11:14 PM

Wow. You are just the guy I was looking for. He's not the only one, I have a PhD in Astrophysics.

You see, I can't believe that that thing is right, but I have yet to find anybody to knock it down. Can you help me? Lets put all that education to work. Just tell me what is wrong with it 4 or 5 questions at a time. Use the smallest words that you can so that everyone would be able to understand what is being said without a dictionary. I am usually here from 12pm to 2am, but if you give me a good time for you I will see what I can do. I am sure you can help, because you understrood what was there in 5 minutes, (even though you did not like it) so you are the best person to show me where I am wrong. What do you say?The relevant question about your website, as I've said before, is not "what's wrong with it?" The relevant question is "what's right with it?"

Sadly the answer is nothing, nil, nought, nada, zip, rien, keines, zilch, ling, not a sausage!

This is because it contains no science, no maths, no philosophy and makes no sense.

Are those words small enough for you?

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 12:13 AM

No, I was being honest, and attempting to do so in a polite way.

We'll get to that later!

Hey. Do you think you are the only one who knows their way around nasty? But I do not see where any of that is called for. It is an idea. Not personally directed at anyone. Why would anyone take it personal? I'll tell you what I think. Some peoples ego is tied to what they think they know. They feel threatened by anything that does not fit it.
When you feel you can no longer talk to me logically-or what you think goes for that-you don't have to come to this thread. Now wouldn't that be the logical thing to do? I keep hearing about how intelligent some think they are, but in the next moment they act like they are still on the playground.

Yes, I know all of the terms. That does not make the stuff on your website any less vague. Let me illustrate;

The electromagnetic waffle cauldron abuses weak nuclear force in an incredibly placid way. When it needs to stroke the strong nuclear force it calls gravity on the hair curlers.
Now tell what any of this has to do with anything? From all that I presented, can you find something that I can answer?
If there was something that you felt you could touch, you would not have needed to make up an example. Use what is there as an example, duh.

Depends on your particular philosophy. The idealists and dualists would say that an explanation of conciousness is beyond the reach of science, whereas materialists would say that it's merely the result of chemical and physical interactions in our brains. And your graph does not explain conciousness, it doesn't explain anything.
And the mental/emotional nature of life are not the bases for consciousness? The energy/energies that make the universe what it is, are based in mathematics. Since those same things make up living things, wouldn't some of that carry over? Thinking/thought is based in mathematics too-DO THE MATH-logic is based in mathematics.

Show us the logic. You haven't shown us anything to argue against. The question isn't what has been presented to prove you wrong, but what have you presented that really needs to be proved wrong.
So can you explain to me why you have wasted your time here on nothing? Does that make sense to you?

Your spelling is appalling, and is matched only by your atrocious grammar.
Do you realize that you refer to math as "maths?" And you did it 5 times on this page. Sometimes people can spend so much time trying to find fault with someone else, that they don't see the same thing in themselves.

Do you realize that in all of that you have not once pointed to anything in particular that you find wrong, even though you say everything is? Spare me the psycho-babble and pick something in particular. What kind of logical augument starts and ends with "it is wrong because I think it is?"

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 12:14 AM

This is a simplification of the actual quantum mechanics involved, but bascially, all particles behave in some ways like waves.

This has been demonstrated experimentally. If you fire a stream of electrons through a very narrow slit (or pair of slits), and then place a detector on the other side, the pattern of electron hits-and-misses that shows up on the detector will be the same as the kinds of interference patterns you get for light or sound or ocean waves.

The thing is, this effect isn't limited to electrons. If you fire whole atoms -- each of which is the aggregate of a heavy nucleus and several bound electrons -- through a slit, they will also produce an interference pattern on the other side. The same is true with whole molecules, and the same would also be true with aggregates of molecules.

However, as the momentum of the particles increases, the interference patterns get smaller and smaller. The "wavelengths" of the particles are in fact inversely proportional to their momentum. Ergo, a teensy tinsy electron going at 100 meters per second is going to have a much longer wavelength than, say, a whole glucose molecule going 100 meters per second, which will in turn have a much longer wavelength than a bacterium going 100 meters per second, which will in turn have a much longer wavelength than a Ford Mustang going 100 meters per second.

The exact relationship is:

Wavelength = h / momentum

... where h is Planck's Constant, 6.626 x 10-34 kg·m²/s.

For a 100 kilogram human being walking at 1 meter per second, the wavelength works out to 6.626 x 10-36 meters. For comparison, the nucleus of an atom is on the order of 1021 times bigger across than this.

Yeah, he explained that in a PM. I knew that all particles were waves, but i didn't know that the frequency would decrease as the energy increased. Also i misunderstood what he meant.

Thanks :)

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 12:29 AM

Hey. You could have helped by repeating them here, or you could have waited till I got to them. I know there is a picture of a baby by your name, but everything is not only you. I am only one person, and there are many here.

Ok, we are now on page 5.. FIVE of this thread. I asked the questions on page one and two.. repeatedly..

But, ok, i'll ask the questions again.

First post 3 in this thread
The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Welcome to the forum

I posted that, which you ignored.

Then i reposted it here, which is post 47 in this thread

I am sorry I just posted last night and went to sleep, after an hour. I had no idea that this forum was so potent.

ok, in that case, what i wrote to you were.

The argument is flawed from the simple premise that things aren't only bipolar.. There are many degrees between i love you and i hate you.

As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

While light did create life(by giving energy to it), it haven't given us any characteristics by the way light is. For one we are way too big, and because we work on a macro level quantum physics is mostly irrelevant, whereas it is very relevant for light and how light behaves.

We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Also, the electrical negative and positive and the magnetic attraction and repulsion is exactly the same.

Sincerely
Tobias

Welcome to the forum

Then in post 54

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom View Post
I stated the extremes, I thought it would be understood that everything else was inbetween them.

I can't see how this
Quote:
Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.
can mean anything about two poles.

Quote:

I said nothing about negative and positive poles?
Sure you did
Quote:
Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.

Quote:
You are missing the layer of biology between life and a magnet.
What layer of biology between life and a magnet? i fail to see how biology can even be relevant when talking about a magnet.

Quote:
We can love, but reason ourselves away from stalking our intended, and then there are those who can't. They love so much that they feel compelled to kill. You see?
No i don't. proof?

Quote:
The energy effect is there, but our biology allows us to "modify" the effects.
what is your proof that the energy effect is there?

Quote:
Our macro lives are based on the quantum level.
Sure they are, but the quantum effects are so small ont he macro scale that they are irrelevant for us as humans beings when interacting with other macro things.

Quote:
If we look at the planet from far in space everything seem the same.
what does that mean?

Quote:
Science has separated them for the sake of study, and we are all individual parts of one.
So if science have seperated them(after we were made), then that doesn't really change the nature of them in any way. And science has unified them again. It still doesn't hold. You are using the words from one context in another context that they weren't intended.

Quote:
Thanks for the welcome.
no problem.

Also, you failed to respond properly to the following:

Quote:
As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Quote:
We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Quote:
How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

Quote:
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

Quote:
Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

then post 63:

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom View Post
Me and you are on the wrong page. We need to start over. I never said anything about poles. And I was talking about the biology of life. Energy is the page on which life is written. How life behaves is based on the energy that makes it up. The attraction and repulsion of a magnet are (at our level) the bases of our emotions. But while we can be attracted to someone, we have reason to control it, modify the effect. At least most can.

yes you did

Quote:
Light is electromagnetic radiation and the characteristics of its electrical part are negative and positive, and those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion.
Magnetic attraction and magnetica repulsion are what is called "magnetic poles", which means
"Two aspects of an energy. The positive pole is an energy's true or love-based manifestation. The negative pole is the distortion or constriction of that energy by fear."

Besides for your pole argument, the rest of your statement makes no sence, and have no facts backing it up

Quote:
We are made up of those things. Yes quantum effects are small, but how big is a thought?
That doesn't make sence. what does it even mean.

Quote:
Small effect, small activator, big results.
Irrelevant, it is perfectly acceptable to say quantum physics doesn't work on a macro level, if it did you would be able to be in two places at the same time, walk through doors, be at a place before you arrived there, etc.

Quote:
Electrical and magnetic are related, but they are 2 different things, though they share much the same properties. If science has "unified them again," there is a good chance that they may change their mind again.

How are they different. And no science won't do. Also you are working from your assumption that science split them up, which science didn't. Science said "these two things are manifastations of the same thing"

Quote:
Could you submit whatever that was again, when I switch to quote I cannot see what I said, only what you are saying.
You know you could just keep another window open to have my post in it.(or scroll down a bit, under the reply box you can see my message.

but ok, here they are.

Also, you failed to respond properly to the following:

Quote:
As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.

Quote:
We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Quote:
How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

Quote:
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

Quote:
Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

then post 75

Originally Posted by lightcreatedlife@hom View Post
Once again. I said nothing about poles. Yes, they are called magnetic poles, but I said nothing about poles. Attraction and repulsion seems the base of what are called emotions at our level.
YOU made the connection between light and the magnetic posetive and negative to attraction and repulsion. YOU DID THAT IN YOUR VERY FIRST POST.

Quote:
How big is a thought, how much would it take to influence one?
That doesn't make sence. what does it even mean

Quote:
Is that what you want me to say? Again, how big is a thought? Is it at the macro level?
That doesn't make sence, what does it even mean

Quote:
And no one said that quantum physics worked at the macro level.
you insinuated it by saying "We are made up of those things."

Quote:
when I plug into a wall socket it is understood that I am tapping into electrical energy, not magnetic energy-why would I want to confuse things and say that I am?
That is because you aren't working as a scientists on that level. If you were looking at it as a scientist you wouldn't make a distinction.

Quote:
Remember science defined them, if they redefined them it has not caught on yet. And since they are manifastations of the same thing, I am not wrong with how I am saying them, you just want me to say them your way-like with the pole thing.
science did NOT redefine them.

Quote:
I wnet over this.
When? please say it again then.

Quote:
They could have been, but is + and - wrong? No? why bother it.
What does that mean? and it doesn't answer my statement.

Quote:
Objects and waves? Are you saying that we are not matter and energy?
you are not answering my question, i'm just saying that we are not the same as light(because we don't move around as waves as well as particles at the same time). That is what i said, and you know it . we are made of matter and energy, i never said anything else. please answer the question.

Quote:
I covered those.
When? please say it again then.

Quote:
I covered this too.
When please say it again then.

Quote:
You are taking it to extremes to confuse the matter.
I'm taking it to the extremes to show your argument doesn't hold water. not to confuse the matter, but to showcase why you are wrong...

That was post 75.. Then i wait. and post 119 happens, and you STILL haven't replied to me.
So i say
well, since lightcreatedlife@hom refuses to answer my questions, it seems apparant that nothing good will come of this thread..

lightcreatedlife@hom, please answer my questions, or stop this nonsense.

I gave you from post 75 till post 119 till reply, and you didn't.

From post 120 till post 174 i again don't bother you, but when you still haven't replied, now from post 75 till post 174.. that is 99 posts between your last response to me, and you still ahven't replied back.

in post 175 i say
lightcreatedlife@hom: Please reply to my questions

To which you replied
Hey. You could have helped by repeating them here, or you could have waited till I got to them. I know there is a picture of a baby by your name, but everything is not only you. I am only one person, and there are many here.

i HAVE repated them, often. very very often. Now PLEASE Answer my question.

And don't use ad homin attacks. That just weakens your position.

I have given you more than enough time to respond, and you just don't do it.. why is that?

Wow. You really are a baby, Nothing good can come from not answering you? I have been unable to find you questions, but may search has turned up this and another reply where you could have repeated them? Submit again please.

And here comes the ad homin again. Why should i repost my questions? you can just go back and look for them, like everyone else does when they have missed a question.

I have reposted them many many many MANY times.. and here i did again. Now please. for the love of god and everything decent, answer my questions.

To summerize, the most important questions you have been evading and not answers(but by no means all) are the following:

Quote:
As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.(You claimed it was still relevant, but didn't explain why)

Quote:
We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

Quote:
How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

Quote:
How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

Quote:
Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

ETA: This is post 194.. ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY FOUR. And you have been making a great deal of effort to NOT answer me ever since reply 75.. Don't you think that stalling for 119 posts is enough? don't you think you have ignored me long enough.

Now. PLEASE answer the question. And EXPLAIN your answer. a simple "yes" is an answer, but is isn't a reply.

CardZeus

14th September 2006, 12:34 AM

... Do you realize that you refer to math as "maths?" And you did it 5 times on this page. Sometimes people can spend so much time trying to find fault with someone else, that they don't see the same thing in themselves.

Obviously he's not American. The British refer to mathematics as maths. Americans omit the 's' for reasons unknown.

And I agree with the earlier poster - there is no substance to anything presented in your website. None of it makes any sense (except, maybe, to you). Incredible that you, who didn't get past algebra in school, can imagine that they've discovered some previously unknown connection between electromagnetism and 'the meaning of life'. Try explaining your theory to a shrink - you'll be sectioned within 10 minutes. ('sectioned - another Brit term - to hold under Section 28 of the mental health act). There's one item missing from your "graph" - lithium, you should be taking large doses of it.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 12:58 AM

Obviously he's not American. The British refer to mathematics as maths. Americans omit the 's' for reasons unknown.
Good enough. I'm sorry.

And I agree with the earlier poster - there is no substance to anything presented in your website. None of it makes any sense (except, maybe, to you). Incredible that you, who didn't get past algebra in school, can imagine that they've discovered some previously unknown connection between electromagnetism and 'the meaning of life'. Try explaining your theory to a shrink - you'll be sectioned within 10 minutes. ('sectioned - another Brit term - to hold under Section 28 of the mental health act). There's one item missing from your "graph" - lithium, you should be taking large doses of it.
And that is the whole of the problem that I have been having. I didn't need to say anything about my lack of algebra, but I have no problem with what is the truth. But what does algebra have to do with anything that I posted? I don't even need physics to read what science has said about it. They defined the characteristics, I read them. None of that required anything to do with algebra. What I am getting here is that I couldn't have found anything, because people who are smarter then me would have. But anyone with any real sense would know that you can learn something at any time, and from any place. That just comes to show you that smart does not mean wise.
And again, somehow you are trying to convince me it is wrong by simple you saying so, where are the many examples (from it) saying why that is?
I see plenty about me, of which I have no idea how you would know me, but nothing about what I have posted. If I acted like that I would be accused of avoiding the issue and acting childless, how come that same thing does not apply to you all?

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 01:05 AM

Ok, we are now on page 5.. FIVE of this thread. I asked the questions on page one and two.. repeatedly..
You really are a baby aren't you? There are a lot of people here other then you. I answered you many times over the last 2 days, and I will get back to you. Please submit your questions 5 at a time, because that thing is too long, and I was answer them.
And I remember answering some of them. Repulsion and division. Division divides and so does repulsion. Repulsion as in moving away.
Are you sure that you are sane?

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 01:38 AM

You really are a baby aren't you?
I told you to stop with the ad homin, it gains you nothing and just makes your position weaker.

There are a lot of people here other then you.
True, and i have given you ample chance to answer them and get back to me.

I answered you many times over the last 2 days, and I will get back to you.
No, you haven't answered me, you have replied, but that isn't the same.

Please submit your questions 5 at a time, because that thing is too long, and I was answer them.
Wait, so when i ask you my questions, you won't answer because it is too long?

What is wrong with you, i have repated the same questions a dusin times now, and yet whenever i ask "could you please answer my question" you want me to ask them again, just because you can't be bothered to answer the first time, and then can't be bothered to go back and look it up.

And I remember answering some of them. Repulsion and division. Division divides and so does repulsion. Repulsion as in moving away.
Sorry, does not parse. That is based on an artifact of the meaning of the two words.

Division is "Seperating into portions"
Repulsion is "repel: force or drive back;"

Are you sure that you are sane?
Why would my sanity matter?

And why the ad homin?

And can i answer that in any way where you won't ridicule me for my answer?

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 01:40 AM

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.(You claimed it was still relevant, but didn't explain why)

2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Please answer the questions. A reply of "yes" or "it is" is a reply, but not an answer. Please make an answer that explains why it is so instead of just stating it is so.

wollery

14th September 2006, 01:45 AM

Now tell what any of this has to do with anything? From all that I presented, can you find something that I can answer?
If there was something that you felt you could touch, you would not have needed to make up an example. Use what is there as an example, duh.The example was an analogy for what's on your site. The words are all there, and individually they all have meanings, most of them very specific, but combined in the way they are they are utterly meaningless. It's a fairly simple analogy.

And the mental/emotional nature of life are not the bases for consciousness?No, I think you've got it back to front. Conciousness is the basis for the mental and emotional nature of life.

The energy/energies that make the universe what it is, are based in mathematics. Nope, again you have it the wrong way round. The maths describes a model of how the Universe works.

Since those same things make up living things, wouldn't some of that carry over?Maybe, maybe not. You certainly haven't shown anything to suggest that it should.

Thinking/thought is based in mathematics too-DO THE MATH-logic is based in mathematics.I'll agree that logic is based in maths, but not all thinking is logical, so it doesn't follow that all thought is mathematical.

So can you explain to me why you have wasted your time here on nothing? Does that make sense to you?If I can help you see the error of you thinking then it isn't wasted, is it?

Do you realize that you refer to math as "maths?" And you did it 5 times on this page. Sometimes people can spend so much time trying to find fault with someone else, that they don't see the same thing in themselves.I'm English, and maths is the way we spell it. It's short for mathematics.

Do you realize that in all of that you have not once pointed to anything in particular that you find wrong, even though you say everything is? Spare me the psycho-babble and pick something in particular. What kind of logical augument starts and ends with "it is wrong because I think it is?"Fine, I'll address your site directly.

This formula is the life part of the "Theory for everything" that science is looking for.You don't supply a formula of any sort!

It easily tells the whole story,No, it doesn't tell any story, and certainly not easily.

unites the forces, How? You never explain this.
science with religion, Again, this isn't actually explained.
and covers the life part of the equation What equation?
from over 200 anglesWhat angles are being referred to here? This is the only time you refer to these 200 angles.
without anything being moved around.
And science, don't worry, heaven and hell do not necessaily mean religion,Even though you said earlier that you had combined science and religion.
they are showing the flow of the "processed" energy that leaves the body. The energy has to be there, and it has to leave, the only question is where and why.It's heat and chemical binding energy, the heat dissipates fairly rapidly after death, the chemical binding energy is either broken down rapidly by cremation, or slowly after burial.
I say where they go has to be part of a recycling process.It is indeed, the heat energy goes into the atmosphere, and the chemical binding energy either goes into the atmosphere, or into bacteria and small animals.
I'll show you where this came from easy and logical all the way.Umm, okay.
Science says that four fundamental forces made the Universe what it is, and they are:No, the four fundamental forces are just the current best fit model of how the Universe works. No scientist worth the title would suggest that they are the end of the story.

Gravity, The Weak Nuclear Force, The Strong Nuclear Force and the Electromagnetic force. Well, okay, you couldn't really get that bit wrong (except that you're missing Dark Energy, but we won't go there now).
Gravity is the force most known to effect life, it holds us to the ground,And far more besides, but again, we won't go there now.
but the electromagnetic plays a very visible role in the form of light. Light is electromagnetic radiation, and electromagnetism plays is at the base of how we think, and feel.That sentence makes no sense (even ignoring the appalling grammar). How does EM radiation "plays is at the base of how we think, and feel"?
The key to seeing the part it plays is to know that it is 1 force, made up of 2 parts. No, it's actually two forces which are different aspects of the same underlying effect. Electromotive force occurs when there is a difference in the amount of electrical charge between two places. The electric charge will flow towards the lowest energy state, and that is the one where charge is spread out equally. Magnetic force occurs when electron spin orbits line up, or electric charges are moving in the same direction. Motion of electric charge creates magnetic fields, and magnetic fields induce movement in electric charges.

The characteristics of the electrical part of light are negative and positive, those of its magnetic part are attraction and repulsion. Again, you are wrong. Negative and positive are the names applied to the opposite charges of electrically charged particles. EM radiation does not consist of electric particles, so has no charge, either way. And the terms positive and negative are just naming conventions, they could just as easily have been called Kang & Eng, or Fooble and Furble, they do not in any way relate to the ideas of yes & no, or addition & subtraction, as you suggest they do. Similarly, magnetism, being caused by moving charges has two opposite senses, which are commonly called North & South (this is due to the direction of the Earth's magnetic field, caused by the dynamo effect of the rotating molten iron core). Again, magnetic fields will try to get into the lowest energy state, and this occurs when they are aligned North to South (it's not quite that simple actually, since magnetic field lines are not straight).

That's enough to be going on with. I'll post more later.

wollery

14th September 2006, 02:49 AM

Life experiences them as "yes" "no" "I like you" (love) and I don't like you" (hate). Together they make up the bases for the mental/emotional nature of life. The four characteristics of light also connects to the four basic operations of mathematics. Negative is related to subtraction, positive to addition, attraction to multiplication, and repulsion to divsion.Dealt with in my last post. But just to recap, positive & negative are just name conventions and bear no relation to yes & no, attraction & repulsion are misrepresentative, it's about physical systems trying to attain low energy equilibrium states.
A graph of this looks like this. You mean a vague misrepresentative sketch, that's not a graph.
The base characteristics of male and female can be seen in the two parts of electromagnetism. The energitic, violent, nature of males, and the emotional, loving nature of females.The men and women you know must be boringly predictable.
And stars and planets have male and female characteristics.Nonsensical. If you want to know anything about stars and planets please feel free to ask me, it's what I do for a living.
Adam and Eve could not have been a man and a woman,Why not?
but if they were a male of a female force, they fit the role of the mother and father of life.Once again this makes no sense, either grammatically or philosophically.
Everywhere.Umm, a single word counts as a sentence fragment and therefore doesn't parse.
Here is where the thoughts of peoples and religions meet.Wow, all ancient peoples came up with creation myths, what a revelation. (Sorry, sarcasm, I'll try to avoid it in future)
Remember, we are all made up of "stardust," and the energies that saw/helped it all happen.
Some have "felt" what happened through what can really be called divine spirit/spirits.Are you sure you mean to use the word "really"?
Maybe not exactly, but sought of.Ah, apparently you didn't.
The trick is in knowing/seeing/being able to tell the difference.What difference?
Seeing the basic pattern of the two genders throughout nature is not hard, and can give one a hint of a cosmic mother and father.There are many instances of gender neutrality in nature, and a
Just like seeing the sun and the moon can give one a hint that the planet they are standing on is round.No need for the Sun and Moon to work that out, simple observation of the horizon, a ship sailing towards or away from you, or the lengths of shadows at different places should tell you all you need to know.

Okay, I have to go now, I'll continue tomorrow.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 03:27 AM

The example was an analogy for what's on your site. The words are all there, and individually they all have meanings, most of them very specific, but combined in the way they are they are utterly meaningless. It's a fairly simple analogy.
Do you agree that:
1)a person has a mental/emotional nature?
2)That logic/math governs the thought process?
3) That everything has some math behind it?

No, I think you've got it back to front. Conciousness is the basis for the mental and emotional nature of life.
Why and how then is it uniform throughout life, and the conditions for life?

Nope, again you have it the wrong way round. The maths describes a model of how the Universe works.
"Mathematics is the study of quantity, structure, space and change...and the study of the shapes and motions of physical objects."
Since everything has these things, there is math behind everything. Science expects to find a mathematical unity formula because there is math behind everything.

Maybe, maybe not. You certainly haven't shown anything to suggest that it should.
Remember, we are made of star dust, what the universe is, we are too. Just because I have not shown it, does not mean it isn't there. This is not a court room, and science should not be hid. If you know it does, you should'nt omit it. You sound as if you agree it does.

I'll agree that logic is based in maths, but not all thinking is logical, so it doesn't follow that all thought is mathematical.
The logic behind a thought, may be wrong, but it still follows a certain logic. The math behind it was just wrong. Don't dance, thinking is governed by math.

Fine, I'll address your site directly.

You don't supply a formula of any sort!
You may not like it, but it does show energy being converted through life. Energy in, processed energy out. I think that is a formula: This + that = this other thing.

No, it doesn't tell any story, and certainly not easily.
I don't know how to make it any simpler. I had someone here say they covered it in 5 minutes. Tell me where you can't follow it.

I am going to have to break this thing up because it is too big. I will get to everything.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 04:07 AM

Dealt with in my last post. But just to recap, positive & negative are just name conventions and bear no relation to yes & no, attraction & repulsion are misrepresentative, it's about physical systems trying to attain low energy equilibrium states.

Let me try another approach to the center box. I want to describe the soul of life. Since you agree that life has a mental/emotional nature, I think the best words to represent them would be: No, Yes, Love, Hate.
And if I wanted to add the characteristics of light to that box, I would use the words that best describe its characteristics, Negative, Positive, Attraction and Repulsion.
What else should I add? Math is very important, I'll add that. What best represents it? The 4 operations of course. Subtraction, Addition, Multiplication and Division.
Since the soul includes everything, I could keep adding tiers to that box, but I think I will stop here. Now those things have no relationship to each other, them seeming to form analogies is purely a coincidence. But it is nice how they line up, perhaps they are different levels, stages, or come from one another, who knows. Does that solve the problem of those things in the center box?

Mashuna

14th September 2006, 04:13 AM

I think that is a formula: This + that = this other thing.

And to think, people accused you of not supplying a proper mathematical formula for your TOE. You've sure proved them wrong!

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 05:42 AM

The men and women you know must be boringly predictable.
If you agree that life has a mental/emotional nature, a soul, that sentence looks boring. But since you know that is the driving force behind life, you know that the universe is in that statement. The same goes for the basic nature of male and female. The sentence looks boing, but you know all that they are is included. Unless it would be clearer to you if I had written a paragraph? Then I would have to write one for everything. You just started looking smart, why ruin it?

Nonsensical. If you want to know anything about stars and planets please feel free to ask me, it's what I do for a living.
I didn't ask how big your head was. That is your problem. Mother Earth been called that since man could speak. It does not take a big head to see that life literally comes from the body of both the planet and females. Mother nature is another term I am sure you heard, and I didn't make up. Give yourself a break.

Why not?
Because Adam and Eve as forces covers everything, everywhere while as humans they only cover us.

Once again this makes no sense, either grammatically or philosophically.
Adam and Eve makes more sense as people then forces? Why?

[quote]Umm, a single word counts as a sentence fragment and therefore doesn't parse.
You don't have to comment on everything. I am not going to answer stuff like that, but if you think it important enough submit it again.

There are many instances of gender neutrality in nature,
And room for other things, biology is very nimble.

No need for the Sun and Moon to work that out, simple observation of the horizon, a ship sailing towards or away from you, or the lengths of shadows at different places should tell you all you need to know.

Yes of course, but my method would work in the middle of the desert, and easy enough for a cave man to do it. "That one is round, and that one, maybe this one too."

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 05:46 AM

And to think, people accused you of not supplying a proper mathematical formula for your TOE. You've sure proved them wrong!
That just comes to show you that I'll do what I want. Did you understand what I meant? That is all I am looking for. And if you didn't understand it....

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 05:59 AM

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.(You claimed it was still relevant, but didn't explain why)

2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Please answer the questions. A reply of "yes" or "it is" is a reply, but not an answer. Please make an answer that explains why it is so instead of just stating it is so.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 06:02 AM

How? You never explain this.
The forces are united in life.

Again, this isn't actually explained.
Draw a line from the WNF to the SNF and everything on the left side is what science shows interest in. Everything on the other side religion deals in.

What angles are being referred to here? This is the only time you refer to these 200 angles.
The big bang, judgement, adam and eve, the cross, the soul, stuff like that.

Even though you said earlier that you had combined science and religion.
To some those things are religion, to others not. How do you want to see it? I believe in God but have no religion. Good and Evil are talked about a lot in religion, yet they are also mentioned in the news without having anything to do with religion. Judgement? It only seems right that you "reap what you sow," without God being involved. Spirits? That is just what happens next.

TobiasTheViking

14th September 2006, 06:14 AM

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.(You claimed it was still relevant, but didn't explain why)

2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Please answer the questions. A reply of "yes" or "it is" is a reply, but not an answer. Please make an answer that explains why it is so instead of just stating it is so.

Tricky

14th September 2006, 06:33 AM

No it won't. It would just move the word positive to the top and put negative at the bottom. You would not not this, but I always had a problem with negative next to the star. Tell me why you think the whole thing would flip.
Do you have any concept of how graphs work? The words "positive" and "negative" are the scales. If you swap the scales, then you must also flip the values within the graphs. If you don't, then it is not a graph or a chart at all, but just random pictures. If you don't know this, then your little pictures are worthless.

Don't worry about me. Most of those (like your own) lack anything in particular to point at. As I have already told someone else, I need for you to point something out to be able to poke you in the eye with that very finger.
I've just pointed one thing in particular out. Other people have pointed others. You either don't understand them or you are ignoring them.

Ask yourself, if you were me, would you give up on something due to what you have just told me?
If I were you, I would have your mental problems, so it is hard to say just what I would do. It would probably be just as irrational. Get some help.

Cosmo

14th September 2006, 07:19 AM

Do you agree that:
1)a person has a mental/emotional nature?

No. Terry Schiavo comes to mind.

2)That logic/math governs the thought process?

No. Some individuals, in mental institutions perhaps, certainly appear to be devoid of logic or math.

3) That everything has some math behind it?

Unclear, at this point. Science has much work to do in this area.

LCL, you can count me among the (growing) population of users here who think your site is nonsensical. You offer us no new revelations about our world, we learn nothing from following your worldview, and your so-called "maths" have no explanatory power.

Freethinker

14th September 2006, 07:43 AM

If you don't, then it is not a graph or a chart at all, but just random pictures.

I believe you've summed it up well, Tricky.

bruto

14th September 2006, 08:02 AM

Good enough. I'm sorry.

And that is the whole of the problem that I have been having. I didn't need to say anything about my lack of algebra, but I have no problem with what is the truth. But what does algebra have to do with anything that I posted? I don't even need physics to read what science has said about it. They defined the characteristics, I read them. None of that required anything to do with algebra. What I am getting here is that I couldn't have found anything, because people who are smarter then me would have. But anyone with any real sense would know that you can learn something at any time, and from any place. That just comes to show you that smart does not mean wise.
And again, somehow you are trying to convince me it is wrong by simple you saying so, where are the many examples (from it) saying why that is?
I see plenty about me, of which I have no idea how you would know me, but nothing about what I have posted. If I acted like that I would be accused of avoiding the issue and acting childless, how come that same thing does not apply to you all?

WOW!That appears to be a statement of incredible arrogance and ignorance. Are you really saying that you do not need to understand physics to use its terminology to claim that you know more about the universe than any physicist? Are you really saying that there's no algebra required in understanding physics?

You say we are accusing you of being wrong by simply saying so, but everything you are asserting is essentially being put forth by "simply saying so." That's really all you're doing. You're saying "this is so, that is so," without corroboration, proof, evidence, or any useful indication that you know anything at all about the subjects at hand. Since many of the things that you do assert appear to be errors, falsehoods, oversiimplifications and jargon, it is hard to credit the conclusions you reach from them as anything better. You ask us to be confident in your wisdom and in the accuracy of your ideas, while stating expicitly that you do not believe that it is important to state them with accuracy and care, or to have more than a passing acquaintance with the subjects from which you borrow your terminology. This is not some elitist atack on your supposed lack of education or intelligence. Anyone with a grade school education can continue to educate himself to whatever level he wants. But you do have to continue, and evidence that you have done so with diligence or success is very sparse in your writing.

I don't think anyone here is attacking you personally. We are attacking your ideas and your presentation of them. You can't expect to post a grand theory of everything on a skeptics' forum without encountering skepticism! What we know of you, we know from what you write here and on your web site. What I see in those places is ignorance, error, sloppy thinking and arrogant silliness. If you take that personally, too bad, but we can't know any more about you than you reveal in what you write here, and that does not inspire confidence.

Finally, if you are going to be thin-skinned and humorless, you have set yourself a very difficult task posting here.

Anacoluthon64

14th September 2006, 09:50 AM

3) That everything has some math behind it?Unclear, at this point. Science has much work to do in this area.Actually, there is an answer of sorts to this one. Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to all axiomatic formal systems of sufficient complexity to include arithmetic. Mathematics clearly qualifies in that regard. The theorem is a piece of metamathematics, i.e. mathematics about mathematics. This fact - that there is a mathematics that can peer at itself - is quite astonishing, even in the absence of Gödel's surprising result.

The theorem asserts that there are propositions within the system in question that can be neither proved nor disproved and a position must be taken on their truth or falsity. An example is Euclid's Parallel Postulate - taken as true, we have plain vanilla-flavour Euclidean geometry, while taken as false, we end up with the non-Euclidean geometries of Riemann and Lobachevsky.

So it seems that anything found to lie outside the realm of mathematics can, at least in principle, be included in the mix through an appropriate choice of axioms. This is not to say that the result will be in any way fruitful or meaningful, a point our unenlightened friend in this thread keeps skipping over. On the other hand, it is surprising that a considerable amount of mathematics finds physical application only long after it has been established; logically, one might expect it not to be so common.

'Luthon64

tracer

14th September 2006, 12:32 PM

You know what?

If Quantum Electrodynamics has shown us anything it's that our terminology is backwards: It's not so much that light is an electromagnetic phenomenon, as that electrical and magnetic effects are light.

Quantum Electrodynamics established that electrical (and therefore magnetic) forces are carried by virtual photons. Two negatively-charged electrons in close proximity to each other, for example, are actually exchanging very short-lived photons between each other. It's the momentum of these photons that pushes the two apart, which is what we measure as electrostatic repulsion. An electric field, therefore, is nothing more than the potential for all the charged particles in the field to create and exchange virtual photons.

I'm guessing that a "real" photon -- which has no electric charge -- just induces an electric field by cutting out the middleman. It imparts its momentum and kinetic energy to an electron it hits, causing it to move in one direction or the other. This is how a radio antenna works: the metal atoms making up the radio antenna contain free electrons which can be pushed in either direction by the radio photons that hit the antenna, thereby flowing as a weak alternating-current.

Why am I writing this here?

Because Mr. Light-created-life seems obsessed with the notion of a positive/negative electric charge dichotomy. His thinking seems wrapped around the notion that, because light is an electromagnetic wave, it must therefore have "positive" and "negative" properties. Quantum Electrodynamics pretty much shows that this line of reasoning is putting the cart before the horse.

Jimbo07

14th September 2006, 01:31 PM

Mashuna

14th September 2006, 02:25 PM

Tricky

14th September 2006, 02:43 PM

I'm really rather new to looking at people's ideas as presented in online forums. Having looked at this one, is anyone able to reassure me that it's just some kind of joke that I don't quite understand? :confused:

It's all too depressing to think otherwise.
No, he is for real. All forums get a few of these people from time to time. I blame the computer industry for failing to regulate the sale of their products to mentally unstable people.

Mashuna

14th September 2006, 03:03 PM

No, he is for real. All forums get a few of these people from time to time. I blame the computer industry for failing to regulate the sale of their products to mentally unstable people.

Wow :jaw-dropp

In which case, I think I'll just back away slowly, to the relative sanity of the conspiricy theory. . .no. . .better make that science, medicine and technology section then.

Zombified

14th September 2006, 04:00 PM

better make that science, medicine and technology section then.
A quick guide to the science section: If the thread is three pages or less, it's probably about science, medicine, or technology. If its more than four pages, its either a misfiled philosophy or politics thread (or something that morphed into one) or a debate with a homeopath or anti-vaxxer. ;)

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 05:54 PM

light...@hom:

There's something useful you might want to consider.

You're taking the position that you may be some sort of prophet, or wise man who has been blessed with a revelation about the physical universe, and that you must communicated. It may also be that you believe that your 'theory' will be the one powerful theory that shakes physics to its core, and will overturn or set a new physics in motion.

You may draw analogies to Einstein, Newton and any other hard soul who has had a massive impact on the body of the human knowledge.

You're forgetting only one thing:

They knew the tools of their trade!

You do not.

...

There are many amazing things to learn about the world we live in, if only you'll take the opportunity to properly learn about them! If you're looking for acceptance here, discard your current theories and learn what some have to say.
If you believe any of that you would be completely wrong. I have no religion, and I believe no one has any greater connection to creation or creator, than anyone else. As for the great men that you mentioned, no, I cannot fill their shoes. What I believe though, is that anybody can observe, stumble on, or find something that has been overlooked. Sometimes this is called thinking outside the box. The walls of the box can sometimes blind the smartest people as to how their box "may" connect to the next box.

nescafe

14th September 2006, 06:29 PM

If you believe any of that you would be completely wrong. I have no religion, and I believe no one has any greater connection to creation or creator, than anyone else. As for the great men that you mentioned, no, I cannot fill their shoes. What I believe though, is that anybody can observe, stumble on, or find something that has been overlooked. Sometimes this is called thinking outside the box. The walls of the box can sometimes blind the smartest people as to how their box "may" connect to the next box.
That does not change the fact that your site is not much more than grammatically passable gibberish. You may have an astounding insight into the nature of things, but it makes no sense at all as currently stated.

(in fact, it reminds me of the stunning revalations I have had whilst hitting the ol' hippie crack).

qayak

14th September 2006, 06:40 PM

I have no religion,. . .

This statement is okay. However. . .

and I believe no one has any greater connection to creation or creator, than anyone else.

. . . this statement completely contradicts it. The belief in a creator is a religion?

Sometimes this is called thinking outside the box. The walls of the box can sometimes blind the smartest people as to how their box "may" connect to the next box.

Sometimes it is called "thinking outside the box" but this isn't one of those times. I don't know if you actually made the website yourself but it amazes me that someone, even with below average intelligence, could write this stuff and not immediately see the problems with it. Actually, I can't believe they didn't see the problems when they dreamed this garbage up.

The problem is not that people here have not demonstrated that it is completely wrong, the problem is that you are incapable of comprehending this. Just because you either will not or cannot comprehend simple logic doesn't prove that your ideas are correct, it demonstrates that you are outside your ability to understand. Science demands that something be able to be falsified. I think we can say that, to be a scientist one must have the mental and intellectual ability to falsify ideas. You completely lack these abilities.

This takes you and your ideas out of the realm of science. Where you land is anybody's guess. I'm betting somewhere between "freakin' wacko" and "really freakin' wacko."

Tricky

14th September 2006, 08:06 PM

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 08:55 PM

Without any basic knowledge of physics, biology or math, you cannot think "outside the box" regarding physics, biology and math. You must first know where the box is to know when you are outside of it.
How can you claim I haven't? I am one person and handled over 50 replies, in 2 days saying nothing out place. I cannot go deep into any of those boxes, but I know where the edges are-mostly. Again, I don't have to know how to swim to wade through 5 feet of water. What I lack only binds me to science more, I do not stray far from anything I can't quote science as having said, and this computer allows me instant access to all the things you mentioned. Maybe even you might admit that I have the basics of reading down. Do you have a question that I can "try" and address, or are you just into personal attacks that have nothing to do with fact?

Cosmo

14th September 2006, 08:58 PM

I am one person and handled over 50 replies, in 2 days saying nothing out place.

:dl:

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 09:24 PM

This statement is okay. However. . .

. . . this statement completely contradicts it. The belief in a creator is a religion?
I believe in at least one designer, with evolution as that design. I have no creed, and no idea what that designer/creator looks like, though I doubt it is anything too physical, though I may be wrong.

Sometimes it is called "thinking outside the box" but this isn't one of those times. I don't know if you actually made the website yourself but it amazes me that someone, even with below average intelligence, could write this stuff and not immediately see the problems with it. Actually, I can't believe they didn't see the problems when they dreamed this garbage up.

The problem is not that people here have not demonstrated that it is completely wrong, the problem is that you are incapable of comprehending this. Just because you either will not or cannot comprehend simple logic doesn't prove that your ideas are correct, it demonstrates that you are outside your ability to understand. Science demands that something be able to be falsified. I think we can say that, to be a scientist one must have the mental and intellectual ability to falsify ideas. You completely lack these abilities.
I never claimed to be, or said I wanted to be a scientist, and that is where your problem "begins." You see, ideas are not just the domain of scientist. Scientist make up a very small part of the total population of the planet, yet a lot of things function just fine. PLenty of good and real ideas, and yes science, has come from someone in their garage, or even someone sitting on the toliet.
As for being able to be falsified, if anything life did not have a mental/emotional nature would do it. If the star was not on the side of the WNF, that would do it. If the life forces did not have universal reach, that would do it. I am sure that there are plenty of things in this world that work without being able to be falsified. I was a radar tech for 5 years but electronics is still considered a theory and it works.

This takes you and your ideas out of the realm of science. Where you land is anybody's guess. I'm betting somewhere between "freakin' wacko" and "really freakin' wacko."
Do you have a direct, related, rational question that I can address? If not can you spare me your personal opinion of me, I can very well respond to you with the same stupidity that you are directing at me, but then there would be 2 of us looking stupid.

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 09:30 PM

That does not change the fact that your site is not much more than grammatically passable gibberish. You may have an astounding insight into the nature of things, but it makes no sense at all as currently stated.

(in fact, it reminds me of the stunning revalations I have had whilst hitting the ol' hippie crack).

Did you take those revaluations to a forum to be tested? This should even be obvious to you, how can I know what you are talking about if you don't point to something in particular?

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 09:32 PM

:dl:
I can see that you are at a lost of words. Do you have a direct, related, rational question that I can answer?

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 09:33 PM

A quick guide to the science section: If the thread is three pages or less, it's probably about science, medicine, or technology. If its more than four pages, its either a misfiled philosophy or politics thread (or something that morphed into one) or a debate with a homeopath or anti-vaxxer. ;)
Do you have......why bother?

nescafe

14th September 2006, 09:45 PM

Did you take those revaluations to a forum to be tested? This should even be obvious to you, how can I know what you are talking about if you don't point to something in particular?
No, because I know that "we misunderstand time for the same reason that the set of all rational numbers cannot fill the set of all real numbers" is just a neat-sounding metaphor. At the time, it was very profound, but a couple of weeks spend thinking about what it implies led me to nothing useful. It only seemed profound because of the drug.

qayak

14th September 2006, 09:55 PM

I don't have to know how to swim to wade through 5 feet of water.

Unfortunately for you this isn't 5 feet of water. You have stepped into the Challenger Deep and you forgot to bring your Water Wings.

Cosmo

14th September 2006, 10:11 PM

I can see that you are at a lost of words. Do you have a direct, related, rational question that I can answer?

Do I have such questions? Yes.
Do others have such questions? Yes.
Have such questions appeared in this thread? Yes.

Have you answered any of them? No.
Can you answer any of them? It certainly seems not...

Tricky

14th September 2006, 10:15 PM

(double post)

Tricky

14th September 2006, 10:25 PM

How can you claim I haven't?
Easily. I am in fact a scientist. I know a reasonable amount (more than a layman) about physics and math, and a good bit more about biology, and I can see that you have no familiarity with any of those disciplines. Others here have asked you specific questions which you have demonstrated that you are incapable of answering.

I am one person and handled over 50 replies, in 2 days saying nothing out place.
As the laughing dog gif succinctly indicated, you have said a great deal out of place. That you are unable to recognize this is further evidence of your scientific incompetence.

I cannot go deep into any of those boxes, but I know where the edges are-mostly.
No you don't. You don't have a clue. Such ignorance is not shameful. All of us are born ignorant. But to deny ignorance when it is so obvious is shameful. I am ignorant about a great many things, such as quantum mechanics, which I freely admit. You should admit that you are ignorant about math, physics and biology.

Again, I don't have to know how to swim to wade through 5 feet of water.
You are not in five feet of water. You are in way over your head. And you're getting in deeper by the moment.

What I lack only binds me to science more, I do not stray far from anything I can't quote science as having said, and this computer allows me instant access to all the things you mentioned.
You know, that is one of the problems with the computer generation. Everybody who can parse a Google query thinks he knows what he is talking about. You have not come within a hundred miles of science. Not once. And even sadder, you don't even know it.

You can't Google science, LCL. You have to study it. Long and hard. That's the only way to be able to separate real science from internet BS. Your website is 100% internet BS. Real scientists know the difference.

Maybe even you might admit that I have the basics of reading down.I admit that you can read. I do not believe that you can read with comprehension. There are tests for this. Perhaps you should consider taking some. You might realize that you don't know as much as you think you know.

Do you have a question that I can "try" and address, or are you just into personal attacks that have nothing to do with fact?Others have asked you specific questions, which you have either ignored or answered with non-sequiturs.

But since you ask, I will oblige with one that should be easy for you. Here is my question.

How did light create life? Please outline the steps and provide references to reputable scientific studies (i.e. not your own website).

Answer this question plausibly and I will retract any personal attacks I have made and make a public apology.

qayak

14th September 2006, 10:32 PM

I believe in at least one designer, with evolution as that design. I have no creed, and no idea what that designer/creator looks like, though I doubt it is anything too physical, though I may be wrong.

In order for people to not have to continuously write out long descriptions of what they mean, we assign specific words to specific definitions. In your example above, you use 38 words and some punctuation when the accepted word for that definition is religion. Children are taught these concepts and words as they grow up so that when they reach adulthood and someone says religion, they don't make the foolish mistake of saying "No I don't mean religion. I believe in at least one designer, with evolution as that design. I have no creed, and no idea what that designer/creator looks like, though I doubt it is anything too physical, though I may be wrong."

I never claimed to be, or said I wanted to be a scientist, and that is where your problem "begins." You see, ideas are not just the domain of scientist. Scientist make up a very small part of the total population of the planet, yet a lot of things function just fine. PLenty of good and real ideas, and yes science, has come from someone in their garage, or even someone sitting on the toliet.

I am afraid that you have mistaken the garbage on your site for an actual idea. In truth it is no more than mental diarrhoea. You have now stated that you are not a scientist, your ideas are not science, you are not religious and your ideas are not religion. WHAT IS LEFT??

Do you have a direct, related, rational question that I can address? If not can you spare me your personal opinion of me, I can very well respond to you with the same stupidity that you are directing at me, but then there would be 2 of us looking stupid.

This is not my personal opinion of you. This is my opinion or your so called ideas, which seems to be shared fairly closely by a lot of people here.

But I do have a question. In fact several but I will keep it to five at a time as you requested. On your site, it says:

"This formula is the life part of the "Theory for everything" that science is looking for. It easily tells the whole story, unites the forces, science with religion, and covers the life part of the equation from over 200 angles without anything being moved around. And science, don't worry, heaven and hell do not necessaily mean religion, they are showing the flow of the "processed" energy that leaves the body. The energy has to be there, and it has to leave, the only question is where and why. I say where they go has to be part of a recycling process. I'll show you where this came from easy and logical all the way."

Question 1- Would you please explain the formula simply as promised.

Question 2- Do you not think that claiming this formula will unite science and religion and then telling science not to worry because it isn't really religion, claiming to not be a scientist and that your ideas are not science, is very contradictory? If not, explain please.

Question 3- Would you please list the 200 angles that the life part [sic] is covered from in the formula?

Question 4- Can you give a definition for "processed" energy?

Question 5- Can you clearly explain what the "Theory of Everything" that you claim science is looking for is?

lightcreatedlife@hom

14th September 2006, 10:45 PM

WOW!That appears to be a statement of incredible arrogance and ignorance. Are you really saying that you do not need to understand physics to use its terminology to claim that you know more about the universe than any physicist?
I do understand physics, but I do not need to understand everything about it in order to use its terminology. I was looking for characteristics, and they are found in adjectives. I can see the interactions of what they are talking about by the words they are using, can't you. If you received a letter that went on and on about how you think you are so "*****" smart, that it makes you look stupid, and that you even make dumb look bad. You wouldn't need to even read the whole thing to see that the writer did not like you.
Likewise if I read that the WNF interactions used words like, captured, violates, decay, and so forth while the SNF just used the word exchange, I can draw a comparsion. I know that you would have not did it that way, and science may even be apalled, but I can get it done. That is unless someone tried to tell me that those words don't mean that when science uses them (which someone did) then I have to have them explain why science used "Weak and Strong" the same way we all do in relation to the nuclear forces? How do they know when they are using the word their way, or the way we all use it, a secret wink?

Are you really saying that there's no algebra required in understanding physics?
I am saying you do not need algebra for a basic understanding of physics.

You say we are accusing you of being wrong by simply saying so, but everything you are asserting is essentially being put forth by "simply saying so." That's really all you're doing. You're saying "this is so, that is so," without corroboration, proof, evidence, or any useful indication that you know anything at all about the subjects at hand.
All those things are well known.

Since many of the things that you do assert appear to be errors, falsehoods, oversiimplifications and jargon, it is hard to credit the conclusions you reach from them as anything better. You ask us to be confident in your wisdom and in the accuracy of your ideas, while stating expicitly that you do not believe that it is important to state them with accuracy and care, or to have more than a passing acquaintance with the subjects from which you borrow your terminology.
I am asking you to be confident in your knowledge. Like I said, there is nothing there that you have not heard of. I just put them in relationship with each other on a graph that works.

This is not some elitist atack on your supposed lack of education or intelligence.
It isn't? You are telling me that there is no way I can be right in what I am saying, because I don't know all that you know. Even though from what I said, and how I said it, I have no need to go that deep.
Anyone with a grade school education can continue to educate himself to whatever level he wants. But you do have to continue, and evidence that you have done so with diligence or success is very sparse in your writing.
And what do you call what I am doing? You attack, I defend and "perhaps" something is gained. Like I said I never questioned anybodies education, and you come from all over the world, your combined education must be enormous. If I had nothing, or was as dumb as I have heard here, my skull would be cracked by now. Yet it is me who are begging some of you to act as intelligent as you say you are. Some of you act like children on the playground, complete with tongue licking, pictures, and making faces. And you have a problem with how I am presenting myself? Please. It is always easier to see fault in someone else, isn't it?

I don't think anyone here is attacking you personally. We are attacking your ideas and your presentation of them. You can't expect to post a grand theory of everything on a skeptics' forum without encountering skepticism! What we know of you, we know from what you write here and on your web site. What I see in those places is ignorance, error, sloppy thinking and arrogant silliness.
Oh no, that and wacko is not personal. Skepticism first is biased. If the first thing is "can't be" people with big heads have to stick with that. Their egos won't let them do anything else. They can't be wrong. So what some do is they try to make even simple observations that they have seen all their lives sound complex. Nothing I said requires algrebra, yet here it is. Then they say "for a deeper understanding..." but you see that is because I would be right where I am standing. "You know negative is just a label?" duh, all names are. And I am quoting what science said.

If you take that personally, too bad, but we can't know any more about you than you reveal in what you write here, and that does not inspire confidence.
Oh no, don't worry about me. I am doing okay. My confidence comes from seeing some of you bash your big heads up against the simple, while you pretend not to see it. You can't say yoou are smart, then turn around and say you can't understand a step by step diagram.
Finally, if you are going to be thin-skinned and humorless, you have set yourself a very difficult task posting here.
No. I have dealt with children before. I was just hoping better of you, afterall, look at the standard you seem to want to hold me too.

wollery

14th September 2006, 11:35 PM

Let me try another approach to the center box. I want to describe the soul of life. Does life have a soul? You are making an assumption here.
Since you agree that life has a mental/emotional nature, I think the best words to represent them would be: No, Yes, Love, Hate.You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment!
And if I wanted to add the characteristics of light to that box, I would use the words that best describe its characteristics, Negative, Positive, Attraction and Repulsion. The words that best describe the characteristics of light are; wavelength, frequency, flux, intensity.
What else should I add?It really makes no difference, since you seem, from this description, to be adding things at random because you think they should be included, not because there is any good reason to think there is an actual connection between them.
Math is very important, I'll add that. What best represents it? The 4 operations of course. Subtraction, Addition, Multiplication and Division.
Since the soul includes everything,What soul? I think I covered that point above. You are proceeding from an unprovable assumption.
I could keep adding tiers to that box, Ad nauseam, and that's pretty much my point - wake me up when you get to the 4 basic characteristics of the 4 hobbits from the Lord Of The Rings!
but I think I will stop here. Oh no, don't you were on a roll.
Now those things have no relationship to each other, them seeming to form analogies is purely a coincidence. My point precisely!
But it is nice how they line up, Ooh look, a pretty picture!
perhaps they are different levels, stages, or come from one another,Or maybe they aren't and don't.
who knows. Not you apparently.
Does that solve the problem of those things in the center box?No, because as I pointed out in a previous post, all you have done is draw a square, taken some unrelated things, used innacurate and misleading descriptions of them, and write those at various points around your square.

It's meaningless garbage.

You don't seem to understand any science, maths or philosophy. You said earlier that you wanted people to help you by pointing out where you were wrong, but when anyone does you either ignore them or post the same meaningless garbage as a response.

And are you ever going to answer TobiasTheCommie (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1921472&postcount=207)?
He keeps reposting the five questions, just the way you asked him to.

Zombified

15th September 2006, 12:11 AM

I do understand physics, but I do not need to understand everything about it in order to use its terminology.
You do not understand physics, and in particular you do not understand how to use its terminology.

The sign is irrelevent. The significance is the procedural, operational definition, and only the significance matters. Signs are merely conveniences for efficient communication. But if you do not understand the definition (the significance) then communication is not possible.

How do they know when they are using the word their way, or the way we all use it, a secret wink?
If a word is used in a physics contents, you use - always - the physics definition of the word. Definitions are either operational, in terms of objective measurements, or mathematical.

I am saying you do not need algebra for a basic understanding of physics.
That's basically false, and what is more, your misunderstanding of physics extends well beyond not understanding math.

wollery

15th September 2006, 01:33 AM

I was a radar tech for 5 years but electronics is still considered a theory and it works.Another example of your lack of understanding of scientific terminology. Most people seem to think that "theory" means something uncertain, a vague idea which has yet to be tested. However, in the context of science, a "theory" is something which is as good as proven to be 100% correct.

Anacoluthon64

15th September 2006, 02:02 AM

I have a few questions for you. Pay attention, please.

That is unless someone tried to tell me that those words don't mean that when science uses them (which someone did) then I have to have them explain why science used "Weak and Strong" the same way we all do in relation to the nuclear forces?Question 1: Ever hear of "colour" or "flavour" used in relation to quarks?

I am saying you do not need algebra for a basic understanding of physics.Question 2: How else are we to achieve precision and eliminate ambiguity?

I am asking you to be confident in your knowledge.Question 3: Are we not thus?

Like I said, there is nothing there that you have not heard of. I just put them in relationship with each other on a graph that works.Question 4: "Works" towards achieving exactly what?

So what some do is they try to make even simple observations that they have seen all their lives sound complex. Nothing I said requires algrebra, yet here it is.Question 5: How is what you present in any way novel or meaningful?

"You know negative is just a label?" duh, all names are.Question 6: Why, then, object to being labelled a "numbskull?"

Oh no, don't worry about me. I am doing okay.Question 7: You reckon so?

Question 8: What new and useful information and/or predictions does your "formula" give to the world?

Question 9: Will anyone be surprised when the answers are either pure evasion, nonsense or silence?

ETA: Question 10: Have you read my sig?

'Luthon64

TobiasTheViking

15th September 2006, 08:56 AM

Repeat of asking for questions, or asking you to reply to questions. Previously done in posts:
3 47 54 63 75 119 175 194 198 199 207 209

Five questions i have asked you repeatedly that you haven't answered

1 - As for the negative and positive poles in magnetism they have, afaik, nothing to do with math. It is just signs.. might as well have been # pole and ¤ pole instead of + and -.(You claimed it was still relevant, but didn't explain why)

2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

5 - Also, by taking your argument to the extremes it breaks down because opposites would attract, that means that since i hate 9/11 deniers they would love me, and they don't.

Please answer the questions. A reply of "yes" or "it is" is a reply, but not an answer. Please make an answer that explains why it is so instead of just stating it is so.

bruto

15th September 2006, 08:57 AM

I do understand physics, but I do not need to understand everything about it in order to use its terminology. I was looking for characteristics, and they are found in adjectives. I can see the interactions of what they are talking about by the words they are using, can't you. If you received a letter that went on and on about how you think you are so "*****" smart, that it makes you look stupid, and that you even make dumb look bad. You wouldn't need to even read the whole thing to see that the writer did not like you.
Likewise if I read that the WNF interactions used words like, captured, violates, decay, and so forth while the SNF just used the word exchange, I can draw a comparsion. I know that you would have not did it that way, and science may even be apalled, but I can get it done. That is unless someone tried to tell me that those words don't mean that when science uses them (which someone did) then I have to have them explain why science used "Weak and Strong" the same way we all do in relation to the nuclear forces? How do they know when they are using the word their way, or the way we all use it, a secret wink?

I think you are just plain wrong here. You are reading implications into ambiguous language that are not true or meaningful. Scientists and others often use language that appears similar to normal terms, either for convenience, humor or the lack of better words, but this does not mean that it carries the load of all other usages. A sound wave decays without any implication of anything but steady diminution. A propositionis violated without violence, an image is captured without force, the network adapter my computer is plugged into is "dumb" without being stupid, and so forth.

I am saying you do not need algebra for a basic understanding of physics. And I'm saying that so far at least, you have not demonstrated even a basic understanding of physics, so I suspect that you are also mistaken about this.

All those things are well known.

NO. Many of the things you claim to be well known are not well known. They may be popular misconceptions or oversimplifications, but their popularity does not make them right.

I am asking you to be confident in your knowledge. Like I said, there is nothing there that you have not heard of. I just put them in relationship with each other on a graph that works.

No, you are NOT asking me to be confident in MY knowledge, but in yours. There is a huge difference. There is indeed much I have heard of in your site, and when I have heard of it, I have deemed it nonsense. Nonsense can be graphed as neatly as anything else. It becomes neatly graphed nonsense. It does not become wisdom.

It isn't? You are telling me that there is no way I can be right in what I am saying, because I don't know all that you know. Even though from what I said, and how I said it, I have no need to go that deep.

It is not that you don't know all that I know. It is that you do not demonstrate in any way that you know what you think you know. What you do demonstrate is an obtuse and implacable insistence that you do not NEED to know very much, to think carefully, to research beyond your own premature conclusions, or to back up your assertions with anything remotely resembling evidence. You could be entirely right or entirely wrong in your conclusions. You could be the wisest man in the world or an utter fool. Unfortunately we will never know, because the presentation of your ideas is indistinguishable from that of an utter fool. Unfortunately, our only hint at the worth of your ideas comes from that presentation, which you obstinately continue to assert is good enough. Sorry to say, it is not.
And what do you call what I am doing? You attack, I defend and "perhaps" something is gained. Like I said I never questioned anybodies education, and you come from all over the world, your combined education must be enormous. If I had nothing, or was as dumb as I have heard here, my skull would be cracked by now. Yet it is me who are begging some of you to act as intelligent as you say you are. Some of you act like children on the playground, complete with tongue licking, pictures, and making faces. And you have a problem with how I am presenting myself? Please. It is always easier to see fault in someone else, isn't it? I have no way to know whether or not your skull is cracked. It might be. Some, at least, on this thread, have asked intelligent and meaningful questions which you have dodged or answered with nonsense. Others, myself included, have pointed to specific problems or errors in your presentation, which you have shucked off as insignificant. This is frustrating. Sometimes the only way to respond to nonsense is with humor or a kitten. The appearance of kittens is a way in which some people here indicate that a discussion has reached a dead end. Watch out. Recipes are not far behind!

Oh no, that and wacko is not personal. Skepticism first is biased. If the first thing is "can't be" people with big heads have to stick with that. Their egos won't let them do anything else. They can't be wrong. So what some do is they try to make even simple observations that they have seen all their lives sound complex. Nothing I said requires algrebra, yet here it is. Then they say "for a deeper understanding..." but you see that is because I would be right where I am standing. "You know negative is just a label?" duh, all names are. And I am quoting what science said.

Oh no, don't worry about me. I am doing okay. My confidence comes from seeing some of you bash your big heads up against the simple, while you pretend not to see it. You can't say yoou are smart, then turn around and say you can't understand a step by step diagram.
No. I have dealt with children before. I was just hoping better of you, afterall, look at the standard you seem to want to hold me too.

OK, let's say for the moment that you're very smart and I am not very smart. I am perfectly willing to admit this, but it's often the case that very smart people have difficulty explaining things to us dummies because they are starting at such an elevated level. Please, then, explain your diagrams in a way that a person who is not as smart as you can understand them, without relying on assumed physics, incomplete math, generalizations, metaphors and preconceived notions and popular maxims, or knowledge that you believe to be implicit but that others do not possess. Saying "everybody observes this," or "everybody knows that" is not good enough. Show me the observation. Explain the knowledge. If you say that the male nature is one way and the female the other, explain how you found this out, and where the evidence can be found, and be prepared to refute evidence to the contrary. If you say that a planet has gender characteristics, explain how and where you learned this. And so forth. Start at the beginning and convince us that you actually know anything at all about your subject.

But if you are indeed going to claim that you are smart, you need to give us some evidence of this. You can start by showing your ability to teach a fool like me, and to give meaningful answers on science to scientists like Tricky. Skeptics like evidence, you know, and so far it has been pretty thin!

There's an old saying: Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th September 2006, 04:02 PM

Question 1: Ever hear of "colour" or "flavour" used in relation to quarks?
Yes, and the word charmed. I understand that they are talking about a charcteristics related to that term. Capture however is something be hold/aquired/seize. Violates, is something infringing on something else. You see I know enough basic physics to get around, and as I said I studied electronics. A "sink", and a "drain" has nothing to do with plumbing in physics and a "heat sink" is not a sink that heats its own water.

Question 2: How else are we to achieve precision and eliminate ambiguity?
That is for you guys. You see when I need a doctor, I call a doctor. But there are plenty of things that you can treat yourself.
For the graph I went to my level, then I went to a forum where people know such things. If they can logically show me why it cannot stand, how can I logically stand against them?

Question 3: Are we not thus?
When you sound like this you are. I don't know why any logical being would do any of that other stuff. At least not at first. If logic can't work, and if someone is being offensive, maybe.

Question 4: "Works" towards achieving exactly what?
At the very least it packaged the important elements of the major players. Real, imagined and thought otherwise. My thinking was "can they logically have anything to do with each other?" Like I said, I am 99% proscience, but there is more to life then just that. Humans "felt" of something beyond words long before science introduced them to the universe. And science itself can be said to be responding to that feeling in its holy quest to know.
Religions, and their like keep walking over to a place and pointing. They are all pointing in about the same direction, and they are doing it despite scold, and the genuine fear of being label a fool. They talk about another world that is all around us but can't be seen, and there is. They are talking about the energy side of the equation. And science now knows that such a world exists, though "probably" nothing like what was earlier said about it-but who knows?

Question 5:
How is what you present in any way novel or meaningful?
My think is that the way the universe behaviors is due to energy, why not they way life behaves too? life continues, there is a plan, the nuclear forces "may" have another effect.

Question 6: Why, then, object to being labelled a "numbskull?"
For one thing it is not nice, but of course you should know that, right? There is that whole social thing. Like I said, science is not everything.

Question 7: You reckon so?
I so reckon.

Question 8:
What new and useful information and/or predictions does your "formula" give to the world?
Life continues. It is part of a plan. The 4 forces have influence on life. The recycling process, Why, and what, is a "possible" reason for the drama. The energy and the effort is not wasted.

Question 9: Will anyone be surprised when the answers are either pure evasion, nonsense or silence?
You be the judge. Oh wait. You already listed the 3 things that you are looking for (have to have) so you already did.

Question 10: Have you read my sig?
What?

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th September 2006, 04:17 PM

I never said anything about negative and positive poles in magnetism? And besides I changed my mind about the center box. While I think that those things are emergent properties of each other, I understand why people see them as analogies-they are-I already posted another view there of. Somewhere. I don't know how to get it an bring it here. Maybe you could tell me, or bring it here.

[quote]2 - We are not both objects and waves. But light is both objects and waves.
We are matter and energy, and so is light.

3 - How is attraction related to multiplication? i don't see that

4 -How is repulsion related to divison? i don't see that

See explanation above.

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th September 2006, 05:47 PM

Wow. I applaud you for your apt description.
Is that all yopu can do? Lets here your logic? Do you have a direct logical, related, question?

lightcreatedlife@hom

15th September 2006, 06:28 PM

I think you are just plain wrong here. You are reading implications into ambiguous language that are not true or meaningful. Scientists and others often use language that appears similar to normal terms, either for convenience, humor or the lack of better words, but this does not mean that it carries the load of all other usages. A sound wave decays without any implication of anything but steady diminution. A propositionis violated without violence, an image is captured without force, the network adapter my computer is plugged into is "dumb" without being stupid, and so forth.
All that is true but they don't use too much humor in an Encyclopedia. My reference is the McGraw-Hill Concise Encyclopedia of Science and Technology. And when they do use humor they make it understood. Of course all your examples are correct about word use, but they are too wide spread. Within one subject it gets easier.
When science named one Nuclear force Strong and the other Weak, they were talking about the strength of them in relationship to each other. You think they may have been joking? Or that they did not mean strong and weak as we know them. Science is a place devoted to understanding, why would they choose to confuse?

And I'm saying that so far at least, you have not demonstrated even a basic understanding of physics, so I suspect that you are also mistaken about this.
You suspect? Don't you know? So what is your bases for thinking that I am wrong? I just have to be?

Sometimes the only way to respond to nonsense is with humor or a kitten. The appearance of kittens is a way in which some people here indicate that a discussion has reached a dead end. Watch out. Recipes are not far behind!
How about this as a method, stop talking and go someplace else.
the other thing does not get your point across any better, and it makes you look dumb. How can you claim to be smart after that?
I know this might sound strange too, but some people even agree to disagree. Though I don't like that method much myself. Neutral lacks energy.
I know, what I do sometimes is summerize my position and point out where "this and that" did "this and that."
People talk about the scientific medthod, but no where have I ever heard of any class, or teacher, pushing the things that you are talking about as debating methods.
As for dead ends? I can always find something else. But that is just me. I figure that if I got the time to find the picture of a cat, I can find something else to say.

But if you are indeed going to claim that you are smart, you need to give us some evidence of this. You can start by showing your ability to teach a fool like me, and to give meaningful answers on science to scientists like Tricky. Skeptics like evidence, you know, and so far it has been pretty thin!
I hope he has been behaving like one. If he hasn't that does not help his case, anymore then the things that you pointed out about me, helps mine. As for the graph I will make it simpler, I thought I has done all I can.