Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

  • Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
  • The Gospel of Jesus Christ

    Heard of "The Gospel"? Want to know more?

    There is salvation in no other, for there is not another name under heaven having been given among men, by which it behooves us to be saved."

[_ Old Earth _] The Psinetic Theory of Psionics

2024 Website Hosting Fees

Total amount
$905.00
Goal
$1,038.00
...
hahahahahahahahahahhaha
Hilarious. :lol:

You seem to think that something moving at the speed of light moves slowly compared to something else.
The fast clock moving slower would not have the affect of making the universe look older, since all the matter in the universe was PART of that explosion, it is all aged at (roughly speaking) an equal pace.

This is all very silly. :lol:
 
i'm afraid i don't know where you're getting at. and i'm also afraid taht you have not read the rest of the theory. read the entire theory before making an unsuggestive comment.

cd
 
First off, don't call it theory. You'll excuse me for using imprecise terms, but I believe a better approximation is: gross conjecture.

First of all, during such an explosion, such speed would cause extreme time dilation, making someone on the outside of the explosion looking on the inside of the explosion see time more slowly than it is in reality.
There is no one outside the explosion, we're on the inside. At one time the clocks we hold in our hands had the exact same time as the clocks at the edge of the universe. It propogates at most, at c, thus the universe can only be ~13 billion years old, because the furthest back we see out into the universe is the CMB, and the clock it's holding says 13.7 billion years.

So, how does astral projection work, really? Do we even have a clue? This took a great deal of thinking and research to come to one to my greatest conclusions. Well, one would have to realize that the physical and spiritual bodies control each other and are connected at some point. Where is that point at exactly? It was relevant to now evaluate what connected all dimensions to all other dimensions. However, if you’ll notice, the spirit (once in the physical dimension) is not actually PART of the physical dimension. So, if a spirit can control something in the physical dimension, be connected to it some way, but not actually be part of it, how is that possible? First we need to discover exactly what connects all dimensions.
You've actual evidence of:
A "spirit," astral projection, an "astral plane?"

You ought to present your evidence for things not established as existing in any way before you posit them as part of your unified field theory.

To do this, reverting back to knowledge gained about the medieval time period, where head-removal was the way to go when punishing criminals, it was realized that, even though the head was severed in its connection with the rest of the body, the head itself was still alive and active for 15 minutes; however, the rest of the body died immediately. This kind of narrows the research down some.
How about: The brain is the controlling and thinking mechanism that runs the rest of the body, it is within the brain that the mind exists. Without the brain the body goes limp or twitches for a while due to general nevous system reactions that go on as it loses its control center.

I'll post more refutations later. Lunch HO!
 
I skimmed it. It seemed to be a lot of conjectures.

If you want to turn this into something more, I think you will need to apply experimental observation and equations. I would suggest building it up one piece at a time instead of everything at once.

Quath
 
You'll excuse me for using imprecise terms, but I believe a better approximation is: gross conjecture.

Thank you...I was going to say the exact same thing.

Now, CD, don't you think it's a little stupid and naive to have a "theory" (conjecture, actually) in physics that is formulated in terms of mathematics...heck, even topographical QFT is formulated in terms of weird abstract mathematics. And besides, it will never be a scientific theory because you do not assume metaphysical naturalism in your description, which is something required by the scientific method.
 
You're conjecture assumes that objects that are moving due to the expansion of space are subject to relativistic effects, when, in fact, they aren't. This is because they are technically at the same place in space.
 
well, at least this time there are people who know what they're talking about. thsi is really simply a hypothesis. anyways, it does make sense. i would just like to know how everyone here seems to have been at the beginning of the big bang enough to state that i am wrong 100%. now i know i wasn't there, i admit that, but i also admit that i may be wrong. but i ALSO admit that you may be as well. it's really all a matter of perspective in speculative data.

cd
 
I don't see anyone saying that you are wrong 100%....I see them saying that what you have is conjecture, and misinformation.
 
cd27 said:
well, at least this time there are people who know what they're talking about. thsi is really simply a hypothesis. anyways, it does make sense. i would just like to know how everyone here seems to have been at the beginning of the big bang enough to state that i am wrong 100%. now i know i wasn't there, i admit that, but i also admit that i may be wrong. but i ALSO admit that you may be as well. it's really all a matter of perspective in speculative data.

cd
Wow, thank you. Since you obviously understand all of quantum, mechanical, cosmological physics already, please explain how your theory works mathematically. Or makes any sense at all.

You're attempting to put together a theory to explain everything: bad move number one.
You're basing this all on your limited knowledge of physics and the existence of things which you can in no way corroborate: number two.

The fact is it's all wild conjecture, you're not actually basing this on science. You've got no reason to say that the electric pulses in the brain are controlled by a force in another dimension or say the idea of an illusion "becoming" real. Positing this is just short of ludicrous.

If you want to understand physics, start by learning calculus and introductory mechanics.
 
cd27 said:
i would just like to know how everyone here seems to have been at the beginning of the big bang enough to state that i am wrong 100%.
You don't have to see the birth of a dinosaur to believe they existed. Likewise, there are fossils from the Big Bang that show it is a great model for the universe.

Quath
 
i would just like to know how everyone here seems to have been at the beginning of the big bang enough to state that i am wrong 100%. now i know i wasn't there, i admit that, but i also admit that i may be wrong. but i ALSO admit that you may be as well. it's really all a matter of perspective in speculative data.

I don't know whether I'll be attacked by a vampire tommorow or not, but it would be stupid to think that I would due to all of the evidence saying that they don't exist...while we don't know everything about the big bang (it's an incomplete conjecture, mostly because we haven't found a good model for q-gravity), what we do know works. It makes predictions we can observe. It would be stupid to reject something that has all of the evidence on it's side.

Also, I love how in your profile you mention quantum mechanics and theoretical physics as your interests, yet you don't even know enough about them to apply them to your conjecture. Don't try and solve world hunger if you're starving...
 
well, you guys are right to some extent, i do agree that most of it is conjecture. but you must also agree that the laws of physics, even though they have been tested on muliple occasions and seem to work a certain way, can not be totally 100% positive taht they MUST work that way in all occations. read my section on the time barrier. see how einstein's equation was wrong at some point. even though i do not fully understand physics or quantum mechanics (as if ANYONE does; to do so they would have to already understand the entire universe makeup and how it competely works, seeing as they have not done that yet, i don't think anyone truly understands), i can say that no one has ever duplicated physics (inother words recreated it to prove it beyond a doubt), it's all basically, "well, it does this all the time, so it must do this for this reason", and if that checks out, so what, that doesn't mean that there won't be ANOTHER way to do the same thing, a way that works, but defys all "laws" of physics. i have been studying and trying to get better evience, but i'm afraid the only way to do that, is if i test it, i don't have that kind of money. so bear with me, just give me your thoughts on the theory, not wheter or not it's conjecture, because i know it is.

cd
 
but you must also agree that the laws of physics, even though they have been tested on muliple occasions and seem to work a certain way, can not be totally 100% positive taht they MUST work that way in all occations.

I can't be 100% positive that when I walk outside I'll be attacked by a vampire, but that doesn't stop me from doing it. The scientific method requires that we assume that the laws of nature work the way we observe them to...so until we observe a deviation, or some indirect evidence of one, it would be stupid to assume that they exist. You show such careless disregard of the scientific method...pssshh.

read my section on the time barrier. see how einstein's equation was wrong at some point.

Just post it...I'm not going to waste my time reading through that whole paper when there's so much wrong in the first few paragraphs. But please, post it, because I bet you're wrong.

even though i do not fully understand physics or quantum mechanics (as if ANYONE does; to do so they would have to already understand the entire universe makeup and how it competely works, seeing as they have not done that yet, i don't think anyone truly understands)

Ok, you're right...nobody knows everything about quantum mechanics, however, you don't even have a basic high school level knowledge, let alone the knowledge of any quantum field theory, the mathematics behind any of them, etc. You have to learn to walk before you can run.

i can say that no one has ever duplicated physics

Duplicated physics? What does that mean?

"well, it does this all the time, so it must do this for this reason", and if that checks out, so what, that doesn't mean that there won't be ANOTHER way to do the same thing, a way that works, but defys all "laws" of physics.

HAHAHAHA. Well, if the other way does work out, it would be a law of physics, so your argument is circular and thus illogical.

but i'm afraid the only way to do that, is if i test it, i don't have that kind of money.

You're going to need a mathematical foundation to test it.

so bear with me, just give me your thoughts on the theory, not wheter or not it's conjecture, because i know it is.

If you know it's a conjecture why did you just ask us to give you our thoughts on "the theory?"
 
okay, fine, the conjecture then. w/e. it really doesn't matter. the idea of coming up with something else is because i HAVE observed things diferent than what physics allows. things that would seem to be impossible. but obviously they are not. i'm talking about paranormal occurences. you don't have to have a high school education to understand these things. i just understand them. i've already had friends of mine test this "theory"/"conjecture" more than once (of course using what some would say are lies and "unproven" paranormal events) and it has been proven true. in a christian forum site, there sure is a lot of negativity here. i am quite sure nikola tesla had no idea what he was doing when he built the alternating current generator for the first time in human history. he just saw it in his mind and made it. no blue prints, no nothing. he just made it and understood it. do you think he used math to do this? no. none. he knew the exact measurements unconsciously. believe it or not, paranormal event occur every single day, and no one can explain them. even though i have not tested my "conjecture", it still makes perfect sense when you apply it to paranormal phenomena. AND it doesn't seem to go against modern physics either. (well, to some extent). if i talk about the universe being different form your perspective, you will say that i am wrong, but even so, i must say that no one can absolutely and surely say that they themselves are correct in the fullest extent. do you understand what i'm saying?

the reason i do not want to post the time barrier, is because i feel that it makes things too easy for a very intelligent person like yourself, get off your lazy butt and look for it, it's near the end of the document. look on the 6th or 7th page.

cd
 
Tesla was an educated scientist, cd, he knew what he was doing current worked and understood the science of it. Alternating current was created because it could be used to take advantage of certain harmonies that exist in electrical circuits with capacitors, resistors and inductors. That harmonization was the reason he pushed it and it made long range electical current possible.
AND it doesn't seem to go against modern physics either.
Now that's an exaggeration. You don't fully understand enough about relativity or particle physics or QM to make your conjecture sound in any way. You're going too far to explain everything and making too many unnecessary assumptions that you cannot support with evidence.
Occam's razor cuts your 'theory' to ribbons.
 
cd27 said:
okay, fine, the conjecture then. w/e. it really doesn't matter. the idea of coming up with something else is because i HAVE observed things diferent than what physics allows.

Such as?

the reason i do not want to post the time barrier, is because i feel that it makes things too easy for a very intelligent person like yourself, get off your lazy butt and look for it, it's near the end of the document. look on the 6th or 7th page.

cd

Great way to debate, make a claim, then tell the other person to look for your substantiation....
 
the idea of coming up with something else is because i HAVE observed things diferent than what physics allows. things that would seem to be impossible. but obviously they are not. i'm talking about paranormal occurences. you don't have to have a high school education to understand these things. i just understand them. i've already had friends of mine test this "theory"/"conjecture" more than once (of course using what some would say are lies and "unproven" paranormal events) and it has been proven true.

Great, so you have a way to test and reproduce these findings. Tell me how...heck, I bet this'll make you famous. High school kid with no knowledge of physics somehow discovers occurances that physicists have overlooked for centuries that disprove the laws of physics. So please, how did you test these things?

in a christian forum site, there sure is a lot of negativity here.

We're not being negative, we're being critical. Science wouldn't be anywhere if it weren't for critical thinkers.

i am quite sure nikola tesla had no idea what he was doing when he built the alternating current generator for the first time in human history. he just saw it in his mind and made it. no blue prints, no nothing. he just made it and understood it. do you think he used math to do this? no. none. he knew the exact measurements unconsciously. believe it or not, paranormal event occur every single day, and no one can explain them.

Intuition is not a paranormal phenomenon.

even though i have not tested my "conjecture", it still makes perfect sense when you apply it to paranormal phenomena. AND it doesn't seem to go against modern physics either.

I thought you just said you've found done tests on this paranormal phenomena and that it does go against modern physics...

if i talk about the universe being different form your perspective, you will say that i am wrong, but even so, i must say that no one can absolutely and surely say that they themselves are correct in the fullest extent. do you understand what i'm saying?

You're talking philosophy now, not science. If you want philosophy along these lines, read Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." He'll set you straight.

the reason i do not want to post the time barrier, is because i feel that it makes things too easy for a very intelligent person like yourself, get off your lazy butt and look for it, it's near the end of the document. look on the 6th or 7th page.

Exactly. I'm lazy. I'm not going to waste my time analyzing something that has no scientific basis if I have to go off and look for it. My life will go on.
 
great critical thinker if you can't reach out and take the information handed to you. you have a link, i even told you what page it is on. if you can't do that, what critical thinker are you? you're simply lazy and only analyze what you "feel" you have enough power to analyze.

"i've already had friends of mine test this "theory"/"conjecture" more than once (of course using what some would say are lies and "unproven" paranormal events) and it has been proven true"

since when did i say "I" tested anything? and besides, telling you how to test my theory would not be any advantage for me, considering how you don't even believe that it works. why spend the time to go over somethin you don't trust? i can tell you right now, there are many people who trust this kind of work, and no, science is not made from critical thinkers, science is made from people who give other ideas a chance. if you keep pushing away the ideas in front of you, how would science ever expand? that's why it's so narrow today. if these stupid and idiotic critical thinkers were not butting into everything and trying to put good ideas down, science would be much broader. it would have more, and be thicker, we as a whole would understand alot more. but people like you tear it appart, not in attempt to make it better, but in attempt to ruin it.

the things i have observed....let's see. kinetics. telekinetics, psionics, pyrokinetics, hydrokinetics, you name it, i've seen it. and no, you don't have to have a perfect understanding of physics to say that something works with it. it's what you analyze and see and observe that means it works. regardless of what "physics" has to say about it, if it works, it works, and if physics doesn't apply to it, that means physics is wrong. am i not correct? no one could explain a black hole, not until they FOUND the physics for it. no one could explain why a ball hit the ground, until the DISCOVERED the physics to it. people every day put people who discover new things down, and say that they are wrong, when they are in fact riht. a good lesson of this is einstein himself. you people should learn from your mistakes.

cd
 
Back
Top