Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: Yet another theory of the universe

  1. #1 Yet another theory of the universe 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    I have described a theory that explains time, gravity, dark everything, and has an unsolved equation for proof.

    It is easier to post a link to it than describe - though the theory itself is only around 35 lines long. No math (until the end linear equation), all logic.

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5..._gopid__599427

    I have discovered the structure of the human mind and the process where logic has been supplanted by belief.

    This is for the logical and inquisitive. Math experts need not bother.

    ScottV
    Solver of the Universe.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Yet another theory of the universe 
    . DrRocket's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    5,486
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    I have described a theory that explains time, gravity, dark everything, and has an unsolved equation for proof.

    It is easier to post a link to it than describe - though the theory itself is only around 35 lines long. No math (until the end linear equation), all logic.

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5..._gopid__599427

    I have discovered the structure of the human mind and the process where logic has been supplanted by belief.

    This is for the logical and inquisitive. Math experts need not bother.

    ScottV
    Solver of the Universe.
    Bold added. We won't.

    This crap belongs in Pseudoscience.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Please state your argument against any part of the theory.
    I will defend.

    You might wish to read this first . . .

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/5...man-cognition/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4 Re: Yet another theory of the universe 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    I have described a theory that explains time, gravity, dark everything, and has an unsolved equation for proof.

    It is easier to post a link to it than describe - though the theory itself is only around 35 lines long. No math (until the end linear equation), all logic.

    ...Math experts need not bother.

    ScottV
    Solver of the Universe.
    If you have an unsolved equation that proves your theory, I would think that you would be eager to have a few math experts look at it and, pehaps, solve it for you.

    I'm guessing that if a proof of your equation is found, it will be easier for you to argue the merits of your theory and refute unfounded criticisms.

    I've seen posts in this forum much longer than 35 lines long, so you certainly don't need to feel that posting it here will be an imposition.

    Posting your theory here shouldn't be too hard - just copy the text on your web page and paste it in the message box here.

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    I regret that that will not be possible.

    There are very many deep logical threads that require that the theory remain where it is.

    The backwards path is stepped.
    If you think my argument logic on the next forum then proceed to the next link.

    I will discuss it anywhere you please.

    The point of posting here was to create connections that may lead me to the data that I require to complete the equation.

    All I need is access to GPS time correction data for the last few years.
    With this I can complete the equation.


    I am a sculptor.
    It's just not the type of stuff I have lying around :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    162
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    I regret that that will not be possible.

    There are very many deep logical threads that require that the theory remain where it is....

    ...The point of posting here was to create connections that may lead me to the data that I require to complete the equation.

    All I need is access to GPS time correction data for the last few years.
    With this I can complete the equation.


    I am a sculptor.
    It's just not the type of stuff I have lying around :-)
    I can't imagine what "...deep logical threads.." would require that your theory remain where it is.

    Be that as it may, you can probably find the data you're seeking here:
    http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/RTData_WaasSatelliteData.htm

    Chris
    It is difficult to say what is impossible, for the dream of yesterday is the hope of today and the reality of tomorrow.
    Robert H. Goddard - 1904
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Thank You!
    Thank You!
    Thank You!

    I am indebted

    Damn.
    Now I have to figure out distance to the sun.

    Any pointers to astronomical software that could do that?
    Simpler the better, But I can figure out anything given enough time.
    After all, I am a mentat.
    ---
    I'm over here looking
    http://tdc-www.harvard.edu/astro.software.html
    Had to read the definition of "ephemeris" :-)


    Hey, I'll *get* there.
    It just would be quicker with help
    ---

    so the thing I need . . .
    satellite position in reference to the sun with corresponding time correction for that distance.

    just thinking aloud . . :-)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    I'm back.

    Had to recover from running into Einstein in "logic land".
    And I went on a reading binge.
    Also had to do my taxes :-)

    ---------------

    So I'm still short some data.
    The above WAAS link has weekly timecode.

    I need something with annual time connected to the data. Any leads?

    And.
    The WAAS data is in WGS-84
    The ephemeris data . . . I just got back to working on.
    Do I get the earth wobble taken into consideration with this approach?
    Looking like a polar matrix transform - from WGS-84 to the origin of solar coordinates.
    That's where I don't see the wobble?

    So a transform from WGS-84 to "actual earth" coordinate system (in reference to solar coordinate) and *then* to solar. . .

    ---

    I figured out that in "modern" mythology I'm more of an "agent".
    I'm just old enough that mentat is more apt. There are plenty of previous mythologies to compare to . . .

    ---

    Holy cow.
    http://tinyurl.com/4x8t9p7
    this might take a while . . .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    The New Universe.
    By ScottTheSculptor


    Time is a fourth dimension, one dimensional "thing" that flows into the sun and can vary.
    If physics can accept this; dark energy, dark matter, missing radiowaves from the galactic core, long lived particles from up time-stream, planetary density discrepencies (Mercury too dense, Mars not dense enough), proton magnetism, jets from black holes, and other cosmic mysteries are explained.

    You may wonder how we missed this :-) I will attempt to explain . . .
    The crux of my argument is against Einstein's relativity *description* (his math was perfect).
    Einstein thought that time was constant. If it is then you *can* mathematically connect space with gravity since gravity is time. But as soon as the rate of time changes that model falls apart. Just one too many variables.
    In order to have "speed" light has to travel a set distance in a set amount of time. But his description locks time and distance within the "speed of light", yet allows "observed distance" and "observed time" to vary as you travel faster or slower relative to the "speed of light". This is illogical.
    But his description does work. This idea is adding to physics. The subset works, the new functional superset contains the subset.

    Light only happens at one speed. It is constant. This speed is "the rate of time" and just coincidentally "the speed of light". You can not travel faster than "the rate of time" (doesn't that sound better?).

    Try it. Change the value of C. What happens?
    I'm continually amazed by how many "church of science" members reject the idea as impossible without even considering the results. The solar system works just fine with a varying C.

    So,
    NO warping or bending of spacetime;
    Distance is constant. It is part of spacetime. It has no affect on light and doesn't "squash" if you "go real fast". Same with time. The reason time is changing was to compensate for the change in distance. You can only do that if the rate of time does not change. Imagine putting your hand between two massive bodies - does it "bend"in the warped space? You changed time to make gravity work. Time *is* gravity.

    All current physics still works. Our "rate of time" is based on the throughput of our time engine Sol. It does not vary at any set radius to the sun - other than rate differences in the "aging" of the star. We have geological evidence that the rate of time has increased over billions of years.
    If you get closer to the sun the rate of time increases. Interstellar distances are measured in light years. As the rate of time speeds up the distances are perfectly compensated. Faster time means more light years to the same distance. Distance is constant. *Time* is relative. ("speed of light = "rate of time"). This *is* the theory of relativity . . . with a new point of view, redefinition of a couple words and making a thing changable that you thought wasn't. The result is that almost all the cosmic mysteries disappear all at once.
    Imagine a spacecraft traveling to Mercury. The change in rate of time doesn't change it's gravitational relationship to anything else in the solar system since gravity is also relative and tied to the rate of time.

    Gravity is both the flow of time across great distances and magnetic (time ripple) forces generated when *any* matter moves in a timeflow.
    The universe is *not* expanding. Collision of galaxies precludes expansion. Map the direction that you are *getting* redshift readings. Notice that most readings are out the edges of the ecliptic plane. Time is flowing *in* in the direction that red reading are noted, blue is up and out the timejets, between is time shear that scrambles the spectral lines.
    Then ask why it is so difficult to "prove" light bends around a star. The statistics of failures - why is this so difficult? Why does it only work on some stars?
    Atom spin because of timeflow, protons have opposite charge from electrons, the ripples from the flow gets the electrons moving.
    The jets from black holes are time jets. Energy flows with time. The rate of time is dependant on the size and time throughput of a star which is tied directly to its mass conversion rate. Black holes have incredible time rates.
    There is a high probability that a gas giant can convert time and have jets. This would explain reported clock "malfunctions" when traveling over the poles of gas giants.
    Solar flares can carry time. There is evidence of odd long-lived particles and time discrepencies connected to the largest of them.
    The black holes at the center of galaxies are the main "time drains" that creates the gravity to hold them together. Different rates of overall timeflow perfectly describes mass anomalies in galaxies that have been describe to be caused by "dark matter".
    The time flow gradient isn't dramatic. USNO more commonly puts a leap second in at maximum distance to the sun and takes one out at minimum (summer and winter soltices). The mass variation of the sun will map perfectly to noted time rate changes.

    I have emailed all the leading living physicists that have an email address - no answers.
    I *am* banned from physicsforums.com for being a crackpot - I dared to change the "speed of light". I *was* gagged at science forums for attempting to argue the above, thrice.
    I am not a physicist and would't know how to "publish in a peer reviewed journal" So here is knowledge.
    May it rest in peace.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
    Yeah, well the first way to get published in a peer reviewed journal is to have rigorous proof for your claims.

    Einstein's theory has withstood EVERY test. What does your idea make as a testable experiment that would show it's more valid or applicable?
    It does not modify Einstein other than the definition of words.

    How rigorous can I be?

    The redefinition answers all the mysteries without changing physics.


    Is this why it took a hundred years to figure out?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    It does not modify Einstein other than the definition of words.
    Let me get this clear. Your speculation - it is offensive that you keep calling it a theory - is that Einstein's maths are correct, but he had incorrectly defined some things. Is that correct?

    If so, would you explain why it is that you think Einstein's theories are more about the words than the maths?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    If so, would you explain why it is that you think Einstein's theories are more about the words than the maths?
    "speed of light " = "rate of time"

    Time is not constant. I don't believe he ever really said it, but it is assumed in his theory.
    I'm pretty sure that varying C *was* the last thing he was working on.

    That's it.

    After that the observed phenomena make sense if time flows through stars.

    All the old physics still work.

    Just new stuff to play with, a lot of old mysteries solved.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Thank you.

    Seek help. You are under the delusion that you know what you are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Thank you.

    Seek help. You are under the delusion that you know what you are talking about.
    Sound like just another brainwashed science zealot.


    Which part do you find "impossible" acxcording to your religion?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,787
    It's not a case of being a "brainwashed science zealot", it is a case of understanding the concepts involved and knowing what we are talking about.



    How would you like it if someone came along and challenged something you fully understand, and because you fully understand it you can see the error they are making, but when you point out they are making an error you are accused of being "brainwashed" or "closed minded"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Thank you.

    Seek help. You are under the delusion that you know what you are talking about.
    Sound like just another brainwashed science zealot.


    Which part do you find "impossible" acxcording to your religion?
    I've been in the oil industry since 1971. I don't need to know any physics in this situation. I can smell bullshit down any fibre optic cable on the planet. If you genuinely believe you have something of substance then immediately take a course in written communication and another one in logic. Then apply what you have learned.

    You may not be a self deluded con-artist, but you sure as hell write exactly like one and that's all I need to know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    and another one in logic. Then apply what you have learned.

    You may not be a self deluded con-artist, but you sure as hell write exactly like one and that's all I need to know.
    So your logic is?

    Tou can't say what is wrong with it. But it is still wrong?

    The problem is impossible to solve so no one can solve it?

    Please elaborate.

    -
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    and another one in logic. Then apply what you have learned.

    You may not be a self deluded con-artist, but you sure as hell write exactly like one and that's all I need to know.
    So your logic is?
    -
    My logic is that I have an exceptional track record on spotting bullshit. Your posts reek of it, therefore - based upon empirical observation and validated experience - it is probable that you are spouting bullshit.

    Tou can't say what is wrong with it. But it is still wrong?
    Absolutely correct. My approach is not an analytical one, it is a purely empirical one. I do not need to know how it works, only that it does, with a high degree of reliability.

    I am not exploring or dissecting your arguments, I am observing the methods by which you present your arguments. There is a very high correlation between persons who present their arguments as you do and instances where those arguments are bullshit. Such seems to be the case here.

    The problem is impossible to solve so no one can solve it?

    Please elaborate.
    Sorry, which problem? The Life, The Universe and Everything problem you claim to have sussed out, or a sub-set of that?[/quote]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    So you accuse someone of being delusional.
    Delusional means that someone believes something that is demonstratably untrue.
    You can not demonstrate that the individual said anything untrue.

    This means that you are delusional about someone else being delusional.
    *you* have shown your statements to be untrue.

    Then.
    You suggest that the author is a "bullshit artist" but then suggest that furtrher education in communication skills are needed.
    In the same line suggesting that the authors logic is faulty and need of further educating. . .while using faulty logic.


    The above is an example of a logical argument.
    Give the argument against, present the evidence.

    So,
    Time can not flow and C can not vary because . . .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    So you accuse someone of being delusional.
    Let us be clear: I accused you of being delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Delusional means that someone believes something that is demonstratably untrue.
    You can not demonstrate that the individual said anything untrue. .
    No. That is a faulty definition. If you believe something that lacks substantive support, is contrary to well established understandings, and continue to believe this with the complete absence of any scpeticism as to your own position then you are, automaticallly, delusional.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Then.
    You suggest that the author is a "bullshit artist" but then suggest that furtrher education in communication skills are needed. . .
    Correct. I said you were a bullshit artist. I didn't say you were any good at it.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    In the same line suggesting that the authors logic is faulty and need of further educating. . .while using faulty logic.. .
    Specify what was faulty in my logic, other than the incorrect claim I have just dealt with.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    The above is an example of a logical argument.
    Give the argument against, present the evidence.. . .
    Unecessary. There is a high probability, based upon your writing style, logic flow (or lack of it) and general demeanour, that your are talking rubbish. Of course Dr. Rocket had already spotted this early on page 1, and he was basing his conclusion on the physics of your claim. So, you have lost out on two counts: your ability as a scientist and your ability as loigcal, objective human.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Okay!
    I give up!

    You have barked louder.

    By defitition humans are incapable of reason when emotional.
    You have become emotional and irrational.

    Calm down.
    Take a deep breath.

    Have a cup of tea.

    Then have someone read your last post and explain the obvious faults in the logic.
    You actually may be able to see it yourself when calmer.

    I am a savant.
    My emotional system is broken.
    I see all data as equal and unprioritized.
    From all the available data in my head (30 years of hard science) this is a reasonable extrapolation.
    I wish to engage in real discussion of the theory.

    You seem to be avoiding the subject.
    With passion!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22 Re: Yet another theory of the universe 
    Veracity Vigilante inow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    3,499
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    I wish to engage in real discussion of the theory.
    This statement is shown false by the evidence both here and also within the link you shared in your OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/56258-the-whole-dang-universe/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    When a topic starts with the title "Yet another theory of the universe" it sort of speaks for itself...

    It's the 50th one, all of which wind up, justifiably, in Pseudoscience.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Calm down.
    Take a deep breath.
    Please don't be so silly. I have no emotional investment in this and wrote my last post objectively. The only emotion was mild amusement at your demeanour in prior posts. I have, for the last few posts, been simply replying to points you raised.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Then have someone read your last post and explain the obvious faults in the logic.
    You actually may be able to see it yourself when calmer.
    Since I cannot get any calmer than the state of relaxation and contenment I was in when I wrote the post you will have to take responsibility and point out the logical flaws yourself - or admit that there are none and once again you were talking crap.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    I am a savant.
    My emotional system is broken.)
    I do not know whether you mean you are a wise person, or you are an individual with focused brilliance, but personality/socialisation issues akin to autism. The second line suggests you mean the second option.

    I'm not sure what relevance that might have to the discussion.

    I see all data as equal and unprioritized.
    That would appear to be a weakness, not a strength.

    I wish to engage in real discussion of the theory.
    It isn't a theory. You claim to have thrity years experience of hard science. If this is true you must know that what you have is a poorly expressed speculation. You cannot even reasonably call it a hypothesis. You most certainly cannot call it a theory.

    The fact that you do call it a theory suggests strongly that your exposure to hard science was not as a scientist and that your grasp of the scientific method is questionable.

    You seem to be avoiding the subject.
    Of course I am. I have made no secret of this. The subject doesn't interest me because I have provisionally concluded that you are talking nonsense. Why should I invest time in discussing a poorly presented speculation that others, who can make a technical judgement, have condemned.

    Thank you for your time.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    This may help

    Humans, By ScottTheSculptor

    The evolutionary step that created humans was the ability to store emotional information in their memories.

    But first.
    The main evolutionary drive is logic. Yes, the ability to survive is underneath but the only "advancement" in that ability is provided by logic. It is logic that a stronger predator has advantage over a less strong, a faster herd animal will logically survive one that is slower.
    Every creature on the planet takes sensory information and "decides" the appropriate action warranted from that collected data. If food is detected a creature has to perform a logical sequence of tasks to procure it. Even an act as simple as reaching out and picking up another cheezy-poof takes a logical extrapolation based on a sensed, three dimensional dataset that contains both the environment and the abilities of the host. This process is also convenient if you are avoiding a predator. The better the ability the better the *individual* can flourish in the environment. The further ahead an individual can extrapolate the more advantages to that individual.

    So evolution drives greater abilities in logical extrapolation. Humans are the peak land animal in these abilities.

    Then why oh why are we so stupid? :-) Let me explain . . .

    A basic ability to store emotional information is present in any herd mammal (flocks and schools are a different mechanism). It takes an emotional attachment to another individual to "want" to stay together. All mammals are conscious enough to recognize these emotional attachments. Obviously a cat and a bison have different levels of emotional storage/attachment abilities. The enhanced ability has evolutionary advantage in increased birthrate through constant contact with a variety of individuals across many bloodlines and corresponding protection of the young from the mass of the herd. Though this can lead to mindless overpopulation.

    All creatures have their senses directly hardwired to memory, humans can store emotional memory with sensed data and use that to sort the memories for both faster access and to emotionally attach to people, things, places, ideas, etc. The learned ability to “share” these emotional attachments among the pack by representing them with a commonly agreed symbol was a leap of pure genius. The first Leonardo/Galileo/Einstein. Though this did take tens of thousands of years after our homo sapient step it eventually did happen. The evolutionary drive towards more effective logical extrapolation has slowly increased human logical ability and probability that symbolism would be discovered. This also increased capability to manipulate symbols.

    Humans use both the logic and pack abilities in their civilization. All human children are in full logic mode. They sequentially write their memories and logically extrapolate from the unsorted data. Their minds are like animals and can learn complex tasks at an amazing rate. This is the mode a squirrel is in. That tiny brain can figure out incredibly complex ways to access food. Magnify that to human size and a few million more years of logical evolution. A human mind at full logic power is Leonardo Galileo Franklin Einstein Maxwell. But humans are so logical and herd-like that they only need to use the full capability of their logic in childhood. As they switch to pack mode and store emotional information with their data it gets permanently sorted in counter-logical ways. Left_brain/right_brain=logical/symbolic.

    Humans revert to the earlier evolutionary mode in emergencies. Under extreme physiological stress they store their memories sequentially (photographically and turn off emotional information storage. This also decreases reaction time by bypassing the emotional sorting and gives full access to the pure logic mode of the brain. “I don't know how I survived”. Illness or accident can give full access to the logic core. Extreme logical extrapolation ability combined with over-prioritized memories is the source of many spiritual experiences. “All of a sudden everything made sense”.

    This primitive logical core is the source of savants and geniuses. Humans damaged in development are hampered in the ability to store emotional information. They are in both survival and pure animal logic mode. Genius is the minimal sorting of information. Even a slow, small logic ability will eventually come to the correct answer with unfiltered data. If the data is collected. Geniuses have minimal social skill due to the limited ability to store emotional info.


    Now the scary part.

    Predators are the absolute peak of the logical extrapolation ability. Pack predators add the ability to work together to accomplish the kill. Humans are pack predators. Even wolves/dogs will work with us to accomplish the kill. They share information in much the same way as proto humans. We now use symbols to denote “kills”. The uber symbol is $.

    This ability to prioritize information makes that data more important than unprioritized data.
    Unprioritized data = reality. Over-prioritized data = hallucination

    You can control any human by repeated emotional experiences. Each repeated emotional experiences increases the bond with others sharing in it as well as “belief” in the symbols associated with the experience. This is the pack of pack predator. Sports, religions, political rallies, sex, wars, gangs, teams, incarceration, friends and entertainment based emotional experiences, advertisement, etc.

    Pack members identify with others in the pack and against any other packs. They use symbols to identify group emotional attachments. This is society. Members of packs are supportive of the pack and in competition with all other packs. They are emotionally attached to their ideas and increase the super-reality of the idea if challenged by other emotional humans pointing out the illogic in their “beliefs”.

    These are pack predators. They all prey on each other. The ones with better logical abilities learn to extract much labor and wealth from the rest. They support their pack while they do it. The rich industrial family pack preys on everyone. The government preys on those companies and the public while pretending to be in the supportive role in the State pack - but in reality is locked up in unsupportable belief wars. Factory workers are preying on their employers, employers are preying on their workers. Stockholders are preying on companies, companies on customers. We all agree how much is too much exploitation and call them laws. The general rule is to take all the money but don't hurt them.

    Wars are just predator packs against predator packs. They both want to fight. It is in their evolution. Both “believe” in their fantasy civilizations completely. Any attempt at change results in an overblown emotional response which then elevates the belief even higher. (Let's create a group that really believes god is a big pink bunny and record the war that results).

    The common ground between all is logic.
    Not science.

    Science is a pack and a learned belief system that is not much different than a religion. (A sport team is exactly like a religion and should get non-profit status – emotional conditioned "learning" on Sundays, idols, tithes). Though science claims to be based on logic it constantly argues. Argument = beliefs. As in all belief systems you can add, but you can not change "what is written". The current illogical belief in the science pack is that light has a speed, time rate does not vary,and space curves . . . it is written.

    So start teaching logic.
    Realize that humans are one evolutionary step from animals.
    Ponder your emotional conditioning.
    Protect the uber pack – humans themselves.

    Use logic, quit arguing for a moment and look at your surroundings. What are the long term consequences of your packs actions? Are you acting just to identify with the pack or against another?

    Money is a symbol for prey. In nature over-exploitation results in curtailing of or death to the predator. Our prey symbol system has no limits. Complexity combined with continuous emotional stress has pushed money to the apex of the worlds symbol systems. It is “believed”. Fantasy financial products are believed. The money is used to reap more raw materials from the environment to make more money. This is the new over-explotation limit.

    We should pledge allegiance to human survival with stirring speeches, lofty goals to support all humans and emotional examples of heroes to the cause. Every Sunday. This is how humans work. The "one god" idea is simply the "one pack". The goal of all religions and symbol systems. "Education" is teaching the pack dogma and conditioning members to identify solely with the pack. Instead, teach logic on Sundays. Gather raw information about the world. Talk to people, find out what they know. Read, the effort to store and pass on information should not be in vain. Good data needs to be recognized and celebrated.

    We need new rules.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    I may reply in more detail later, but for the moment I have to say that what you have written is a whimsical blend of Robert Ardrey and Ayn Rand, Sigmund Freud and an anemic Adam Smith. At best it is simplistic, at worst it is trite, and almost certainly, in toto, it is wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    14
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    At best it is simplistic, at worst it is trite, and almost certainly, in toto, it is wrong.
    I thought that it might help you realize why you are spending persecuting a stranger on the internet.

    You have admitted that you don't care whether my idea is valid.
    You continue to attack me instead of providing any supportable argument.
    Your logic is incredulously poor.

    You are in pack mode.
    You were forced at a young age to believe something totally illogical.
    From this you have two results.
    One is that you now have a rule that it OK to bully anyone into believing what that pack says.
    Second is that it totally broke your logic.


    So much so that you continue to bark at the stranger
    Without even knowing why

    It is sad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    At best it is simplistic, at worst it is trite, and almost certainly, in toto, it is wrong.
    I thought that it might help you realize why you are spending persecuting a stranger on the internet.
    Where have I persecuted you? you have freely posted ideas in a discussion forum. I have commented on these ideas. That's what happens in a discussion forum.

    On a science forum the comments will often be critical. This is part of the effective methodology of science. If an idea cannot stand up to criticism, then it is likely a poor idea. I have attacked your idea. I haven't persecuted you. Indeed, if you think a few robust comments on an internet forum constitute persecution, then you are offending the memory of every individual who was persecuted by their state, whether Russians in the Gulags, or intellectuals in Pol Pot's Cambodia.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    You have admitted that you don't care whether my idea is valid.
    You continue to attack me instead of providing any supportable argument.
    Your logic is incredulously poor.
    Scott, for the second or third time, I continue to respond to you because you continue to respond to me - that's good, it's what forums are for, but you can hardly complain if, having come here for a discussion, you wind up in a discussion.

    Again, I have explained that I believe your idea to be invalid on empirical grounds. The method I am using to establish that probable invalidity has a highly successful track record. I'm comfortable that it is likely correct in this instance also. I've already suggested how you can convince me otherwise, but rather than do so you keep on whining.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    You are in pack mode.
    I assure you I take full and total responsibility and credit for my posts here. I am acting as an independent agent. The only one influencing my posts is you.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    You were forced at a young age to believe something totally illogical.
    And what was this thing I was forced to believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    One is that you now have a rule that it OK to bully anyone into believing what that pack says.
    Please stop being pathetic. I am incapable of bullying you. Either your ideas are valid, or they are not. I think they are not. Indeed I believe them to be seriously flawed. So, ignore my opinion. What am I to you? Sure I would prefer you wised up and realised your speculations were faulty, but if you want stew in stupidity it's your choice.

    You've just 'bullied' me by trying to undermine my self confidence, by suggesting I was emotionally scarred as a child and it has left me without logic and with an anti-social character. Oh what a nasty, horrible thing to say to someone.

    Now, do I feel intimidated, or bullied by your remark? Of course I don't because I believe you to be mistaken. Perhaps the reason you feel bullied is that you believe me to be correct.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator TheBiologista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    2,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor

    So evolution drives greater abilities in logical extrapolation. Humans are the peak land animal in these abilities.
    I've chosen this point as it stands out to me as quite strikingly wrong.

    This is not what evolution does at all. It creates a pressure or tendency in living things to fit to a set of selective pressures. There's no drive towards 'advancement' as such, just towards what we call 'fitness'- fitness to that set of pressures. Fitness may mean complexity, simplicity, logic or illogic. Intelligence or none. Speed or a total lack of it. What is fit is not an absolute, but entirely defined by shifting contingency and a shifting environment. There are no 'peak' organisms, there are only ones that are fit to their environment or those that are not. The fit ones grow in numbers and the unfit decline. Humans are fairly successful land animals, and they've arguably had more far-reaching influence on their environment than most, but they're not the most successful land animals. Not by a long shot.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    Science is a pack and a learned belief system that is not much different than a religion. (A sport team is exactly like a religion and should get non-profit status – emotional conditioned "learning" on Sundays, idols, tithes). Though science claims to be based on logic it constantly argues. Argument = beliefs. As in all belief systems you can add, but you can not change "what is written". The current illogical belief in the science pack is that light has a speed, time rate does not vary,and space curves . . . it is written.
    Science is not a belief system. It's a methodology. It's practitioners are human, and thus subject to human failings such as dogmatic thinking. The methodology, however, is demonstrably based upon logic and empiricism. And it is demonstrably not dogmatic in itself. Indeed, it does not accommodate those who think too rigidly or are unwilling to overturn established thinking. The greatest rewards go to those who can demonstrate new understanding. The community that has arisen amongst practitioners of the scientific method further enhances that innate tendency to reward the open minded and progressive. Were this not the case, we would expect our understanding of the world to stagnate, and with it the practical extensions of that knowledge, ie technology. This has not occurred. Indeed, to judge from technological advancements, our knowledge of the world is increasing at an accelerating rate.

    Quote Originally Posted by ScottTheSculptor
    We need new rules.
    There are lots of things that would make research and the scientific community work better, but the core rules of the scientific method are absolutely not part of the problem.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •