Can we do any actual physics and science with ontological mathematics? In fact, we can do physics to a much more complete extent (in fact to the total extent) than materialist science can even conceive. Ontological Mathematics automatically unites thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and relativity theory in its very origin, and the reason is because ontological mathematics is the actual math that existence is made out of! We have the actual fundamental mathematical construct which establishes existence, hence, it should be no wonder that it automatically extends to explaining the laws of physics.
Categories
-
Join 496 other subscribers
- Follow Climate of Sophistry on WordPress.com
Recent Comments
- Philip Mulholland on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- CD Marshall on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- Joseph E Postma on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
- boomie789 on Livestream Q & A / Hang Out (today) Fri. Feb 17 6pm MST
Climate of Sophistry 
Joe,
Are you open to/for discussion of critical objections to the ontological mathematics as promoted by you which is inspired by Mike Hockney and his companions?
Her is how stupid ‘evenminded’ is over on Cfact. He believes that the plate problem proves that cooler can further warm warmer. Obviously that can’t happen. Then he says That Dr. Happer agrees with him with this quote: “”CO2 does indeed cause some warming of our planet, and we should thank Providence for that, because without the greenhouse warming of CO2 and its more potent partners, water vapor and clouds, the earth would be too cold to sustain its current abundance of life.” – Will Happer”
No where in that quote does Happer state that cooler further warms warmer. This is the stupidity that we are up against. The clown lurks here and I know that he’s reading this. YES, YOU ARE A MORON!
They just make shit up, constantly. That is all. Happer thinks that only because he thinks that the input is -18C…and forgets about the moon. Remember what I explained in my last book: these people are addicted to cognitive dissonance.
Joe, you are absolutely correct. Cognitive dissonance runs rampant in the science community when it comes to climate.
The clown thinks that I have whined about LOL being banned here. OK KOOK, here goes!: Joe, please let LOL to post here again. Thanks!
YOU GOT THAT MORON LURKER???
The clown links to Dr. Happer’s paper of 2 years ago:
Click to access 2006.03098.pdf
Joe, have you read it and what do you make of it?
It’s the usual confusion…pretending that absorption and scattering of a cool gas in front of a warm background means that the cold gas is making the background hotter. Cool gases of course do absorb thermal energy from a warmer background…but this does NOT extend to the cool gas warming the warmer background, and they never actually say that it does this, but they pretend that it does, given all of the complexity involved in demonstrating that a cool gas is warmed by a warm background…
@ Richard “Are you open to/for discussion of critical objections to the ontological mathematics as promoted by you which is inspired by Mike Hockney and his companions?”
Sure, you can give it a try. No walls of text please.
Which Richard is this Joe? I look forward to this. I have no bias, and enjoy good honest debate. Bring it on. Hope he shows up. This is the Pantheon, the online Amphitheatre of Dreams where names are made and broken. Let the games begin:
Interlude:
The crickets and the warm moist air of the Athenian air and the smell of pine wafting in the breeze makes me sleepy.
Καληνύχτα και όνειρα γλυκά. Είθε οι Θεοί να σας κοιτάζουν ευνοϊκά.
And to you.
Thankyou my friend. It’s midnight here in Athens. Goodnight Sleep well.
Thankyou my friend. It is midnight here in Athens. Sleep well. Kalinista.
From what i understand Russian language is most closely related to ancient Greek
What would make sense since they also have the Eastern orthodox church what derived from Alexander the Great conquered territory
That’s very true that MP. Very Orthodox. You know your stuff. Are you Dutch, or do you just live in Holland? Your English and grammar and knowledge of the English language is very impressive. Your knowledge of the septenary code and musical language makes me believe you are a very intelligent person. Good to know you. I love this forum for its diversity.
Us Europeans are very mixed anyway. It’s fun to mix.
But important to maintain our culture and heritage. The British, well the English are very insular when it comes to that lol
Well, I can see I’m going to have to dust off some maths books.
Interesting that you touched on life’s origins. Are you suggesting something was either involved or guided the process? And if monads were involved, then, as Dawkins would argue, why did they make it look as if nothing else contributed… that it was, and is, the non-randon selection of random mutations?
However we have been conquered so many times, its hard to keep track of who we are and where we came from. Some say the Welsh are the Cimmerians, English are Saxons, and Scottish Gauls.
J Cuttance, are you Richard? You are are a good man, we know you well. Over to you sir: Thanks for contributing. It’s all done in a good nature.
@ Zelator
Ty Z
Yea my family roots go very far back as Dutchman. My grandfather had a family bible with a long list of family root married couple names written in it
Wasn’t raised religious tho, my parents also not
Half of Netherlands (south) is mainly catholic and the north protestant. It gave problems to be for either side back then like not allowed to marry the other side
Wow that sounds like Ireland MP. Very sectarian and even Scotland to a certain degree. Luckily England hasn’t got that but instead all the other Home Nations hate the English. No-one likes us Lol. I suppose it goes back to our Imperial days etc.
It is sad as both Holland and Ireland are beautiful countries but I know Ireland is badly divided due to religion. Hope one day that dissolves for you both. It really is madness and a shame.
Right it’s well past by bed time lol. Will catch up tomorrow, Good night again, and this time I’m going lol. Z zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz snore zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
JC: “Are you suggesting something was either involved or guided the process? And if monads were involved, then, as Dawkins would argue, why did they make it look as if nothing else contributed… that it was, and is, the non-random selection of random mutations?”
Very excellent question! On point.
One thing to think about is simply: that Dawkins merely asserts this. He just…SAYS that. Granted, of course, they say that because they are scientific materialists and 1) cannot conceive of an immaterial order directing things, and 2) even if they could conceive it, they don’t know how to experiment on it. And so, the atheist position is to simply say that it is all random and accidental.
There is a good meme which makes an excellent point though: there is a vastly higher probability of a tornado assembling a fully-functional and fueled Boeing 747 than there is of a simple single-celled organism randomly coming together.
And so, in fact, it does NOT look like nothing at all contributed…it doesn’t look like that at all. The thermodynamic and astronomical improbability of life has been well known and computed for over a century. It most definitely looks like something contributed. Dawkins simply says that it doesn’t.
There is no evidence that it is random mutation. This is simply a postulate. They postulate that it is random simply because they do not wish to postulate anything else, because anything else, anything other than the random, necessitates order, purpose, and design, which then conflicts with atheist materialism.
Granted, we cannot and must not simply ascribe to “God” those things which seem difficult to understand or explain “scientifically”. And we don’t, when it comes to physics and the like.
But life has always been a problem. And today, consciousness is the biggest problem of all…well, and interpreting quantum mechanics, etc. But…life has always been, and is, a really big problem.
Even in the scale of the cosmos it is not at all something which should occur by accident…by statistical probability, that is.
Matter is inert. Matter has no drive. Matter is entropic. Matter decays, and doesn’t sustain itself in awkward configurations.
The laws of physics to direct planetary motion is one thing.
We literally know of no laws, whatsoever, nothing at all approaching, that which would explain the origin and then development and evolution of life.
So you see? This is why it is called “random”. The laws of physics directing the motion of the planets we do not call random…we call it a law which we can write down mathematically, and understand.
There is no such law or physics principles which we have for life, though. Nothing at all. And so the only resort, for the materialist, is to call it “random”. If it is not a law, then they call it “random”.
Perhaps scientists should actually stop calling things “random” which in fact must have a rational explanation. They call processes in quantum mechanics “random”, but this is like their own “God of the gaps”. They call the emergence of life “random”, but this is their god of the gaps. They call evolution “random”, but again, this is their god of the gaps. Anything a materialist scientist cannot explain, they simply call “random”!
Randomness is the God of the scientific materialist!
With their God of randomness, the scientific materialist can explain ANYTHING. Explain it away, that is, without explaining anything, not the least of which neglecting to explain why randomness should exist in the first place, as opposed to cause and effect. Scientific materialists literally reject cause and effect, and go in for randomness and rejecting cause and effect when it suits them. And it suits them to do that just fine when it comes to 1) the origin and evolution of life, and 2) the origin of the universe. Random! Presto…you’ve explained existence, while explaining nothing in fact.
So yes, mutation is directed. But the monads directing it experiment with what works and what doesn’t, and this leads directly to mutation and subsequent selection. The mutations appear random, but, they are being directed by the monad.
@ JP
Feel free to look into microscopy
The concept of a single stranded virus is a base concept of Darwinism evolution path
research on exosomes suggest that viruses have super hero twin brothers of exosomes to deal with cell toxosis, like the current status quo suggests
Maybe viruses are actually exosomes, a good thing instead of bad?
If so it would destroy the build up of the Darwinism theory
Since exosomes only start as endosomes inside the cell
Need a cell first to create it
Joe,
It all starts with nothing so it seems but your notion of nothing is caused by the concept of something.
What is something is the question.
You wrote:
“Movement is then what allows nothing to exist as something, and this movement, the circling, is energy, which is mind, which is mathematics. The resolution of the paradox in movement is what allows nothing to exist as something which nets to nothing” in .https://climateofsophistry.com/2022/04/11/ontological-mathematics-the-t-o-e-part-1b-paradox-of-nothing-as-generative-principle/#:~:text=limit%20of%20integration.-,Joseph%20E%20Postma%20says%3A,2022/04/11%20at%203%3A24%20PM,-%E2%80%9CWhat%20was%20the
This is a description of an action, it is not about of what this something is.
Yes, that’s all correct Richard. Please re-watch the video series if you like.
What IS the something as nothing? It is movement in “mental” space…in abstract, logical space, as a necessary logical process.
Joe in the golden proportion 1:1.618 there is a constant yin and yang to find balance. This constant movement is the circling is it not? It never stops circling? Nothing is stationary everything is moving. Looking for a starting point to start the circling is the chicken and the egg. It just is. This is the egg of creation. Humpty Dumpty.
Does that make sense? Humpty Dumpty had a great fall and all the kings horses and all the Kings men couldn’t put Humpty together again. It is the constant striving for balance. aka movement. It exists in perpetuum as without it ( movement) existence wouldn’t exist.
More or less, Z.
Well, except Humpty would be the last universe, his fall and breaking up was the Big Bang of the start of this universe, and however, he CAN be put back together again, and will be.
The constant imbalance of the ratio 1: 1618 is the perturbance that creates the movement. Balance sought.
I agree he can be built again only to crack again, its not permanent. He will break again.
rinse repeat. But obviously those living through the break will believe it is the end of time, but its just an end of their cycle. The circling will never stop as it is seeking balance, which keeps it circling.
I think the golden ratio is key to the circling.
do you see what Im saying, if the ratio of forces ( probably di-electricity aka black light versus magnetism) were 1:1 there would be no movement. The golden ratio is the key to movement of the circle.
If I am talking bollocks just say. I have this as my own theory, well a researched theory of giants lol
Yin and yang are 1:1.1618 that is the dance of movement.
It doesn’t mean much to me personally. Not sure I see any ontological math connection in there quite…obviously though the golden ratio is very important, etc.
the ontological maths is that what creates the circling mathematically? , and it is the golden ratio.
Joe,
It is abacadabra to me. Something is nothing because it moves in space. The next question is then, what is space?
The only way to put Humpty back together again, i.e at the end of a cycle and the only way to stop the dance of the golden ratio, would be to reduce the temperature to absolute zero or -273 ° C in a vacuum environment which would also need to be shielded from electromagnetic interference by some form of giant Faraday Cage. Then all motion would stop, and you would get the zero point.
The point within the circle with all the potential stored up. This is your Singularity. The Grand Monad. The complete egg of existence. The Orphic egg.
Hence skull and bones 322. Phanes who breaks open the golden egg and releases 322 = Chaos. 322 is “water day”. I.e the ether/torsion.
NWO = order out of chaos. Putting humpty back together again.
The subtle energetic phenomenon of ‘torsion’ has been theorised to be the hidden ‘fifth force’ of physics that gives rise to the existence of the other known forces. The AC didn’t want to mention the ether. Or Torsion as it’s now known but it is clear this is what they alluded to.
The yin and yang symbol address this dance, the black yin = rest the white yang = motion = the 1:1.168 the interaction between the two main modalities gives rise to a hybrid 3rd modality of Electricity.
Also, the Hyperian symbol actually created by AC is actually the 3 field modalities : black-light, white light and electricity (red shift blueshift).
1) Dielectric: ( Neutron) Yin Is CAUSE as Rest the Source Creator – the energetic i.e Chrishna, Christ etc Brahma
2) Magnetic : (Proton)Yang Is CAUSE as Motion
3) “El”ectric (Electron) : Is Effect i.e the effect of the struggle between the two field modalities 1) and 2) above results in = electricity (SOUND??) God El = Sound i.e Bel ( Bell)
The 4th modality is conventionally called gravity = actually just dielectric acceleration/magnetic attraction.
See the point in the circle is the golden egg. Uncaused, full potential. The yin and yang is the broken egg, the friction between movement and rest which doesn’t balance out i.e the golden ratio at play, the spiral in 3D. The circle being 2D as Richard and Kooks mentioned.
So the cause is the electric world in which we live i.e chaos = EL. The God El.
Isaac Newton the Grand Master of the Illuminati had this to say about the ether:
In a letter to Robert Boyle (28 Feb 1678/9), H. W. Turnbull (ed.), The Correspondence of Isaac Newton, 1676-1687 (1960), Vol. 2, Page 289, Newton says:
1) And first I suppose that there is diffused through all places an aethereal substance capable of contraction & dilatation, strongly elastick, & in a word, much like air in all respects, but far more subtile.
2) I suppose this aether pervades all gross bodies, but yet so as to stand rarer in their pores than in free spaces, & so much ye rarer as their pores are less …
3) I suppose ye rarer aether within bodies & ye denser without them, not to be terminated in a mathematical superficies, but to grow gradually into one another.”
Aether was synonymous with physics during its early development. Until the Michelson-Morley experiment and Einstein saw his chance of fame with Relativity.
Hear is a brief historical summary of the history of the aether/ether:
This from The Guardian Newspaper: Mark Pilkington.
Thu 12 Feb 2004 02.24 GMT
Filling Space-The Aether:
“What is there in places empty of matter?” asked Isaac Newton in 1706. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do people. For as long as we have considered the universe, we have sought to fill its emptiness.
In the fourth century BC, Aristotle proposed “aether” as a name for the fifth element postulated by his teacher Plato. Aether, or ether, made up the worlds of the outer celestial spheres believed to surround our own.
By the middle of the 17th century, René Descartes was using the word to describe the medium of space. Vortices in this aether, he felt, were responsible for the accumulation of the particles that formed matter and shaped solid objects from pebbles to planets.
Later, the word encompassed a number of related ideas about the subtle matter keeping the stars and planets in place. Many 18th-century astronomers would invoke the aether to account for the variations and discrepancies in the motions of celestial bodies, or the way light travelled through space.
Newton’s version of the aether – a strong, subtle and elastic medium – was responsible for what we now recognise as gravity and electromagnetism, as well as our own physical movements and sensations. He wondered if this aether wasn’t a living force – essentially, spirit – though he knew he could never prove this to be the case.
The aether was still very much alive in the 19th century. Following James Clerk Maxwell’s unification of electricity and magnetism, visible light was revealed to be another wavelength in the electromagnetic spectrum. Maxwell’s “undulations” still needed a medium through which to
travel – emptiness was not an option. The Luminifeous Aether was proposed to answer that need.
For the most part, the aether vanished after the Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which unsuccessfully sought to record “aether wind” as a measurable effect of the Earth moving through the ether. Their failure was taken as proof the aether had never existed.
Subsequently, modern theories of subatomic physics and Einstein’s space-time continuum have relegated the aether to the domains of mysticism
and pseudoscience. Its spirit lives on in dark energy, a modern manifestation of this most ancient idea.”
However since then Tesla, Faraday, Walter Russell and Viktor Schauberger along with the De Broglie–Bohm Pilot Wave theory were Louis de Broglie stated, “Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous “energetic contact” with a hidden medium.
However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium “could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to Einsteins relativity theory, which was preferred over the ether theory.
Idealism and concepts of mind and matter, have re-energised the theory although it is still considered fringe in scientific peer reviewed circles.
The Michelson-Morley experiment, was an attempt to detect the velocity of Earth with respect to the hypothetical luminiferous ether, a medium in space proposed to carry light waves. First performed in Germany in 1880–81 by the physicist A.A. Michelson, the test was later refined in 1887 by Michelson and Edward W. Morley in the United States.
The procedure depended on a Michelson interferometer, a sensitive optical device that compares the optical path lengths for light moving in two mutually perpendicular directions. Michelson reasoned that, if the speed of light were constant with respect to the proposed ether through which Earth was moving, that motion could be detected by comparing the speed of light in the direction of Earth’s motion and the speed of light at right angles to Earth’s motion. No difference was found. This null result seriously discredited the ether theories and ultimately led to the proposal by Albert Einstein in 1905 that the speed of light is a universal constant.
The outcome had two distinct conclusions:
1) either the earth was stationary, and thus went against Copernicus or
2) the ether did not exist.
Enter Albert Einstein. Einstein who was a Khazarian Name Stealer, and part of the Jesuit conspiracy to demean mans place at the centre of the universe. So the ether was buried. And Relativity born.
Since the fateful Michelson Morley experiment, subtle energy and the ether in particular has been put on the back burner and purposely discredited, by khazarian name stealer Albert Einstein. His theory of relativity did not mention etheric forces and it became unfashionable to give any credence to an ether.
As Nobel Prize winning physicist Leon M Ledeman said: ” The ether, invented by Issacc Newton, re-ivented by James Clerk Maxwell. This is the stuff that fills up the empty space of the universe. Discredited and discarded by Einstein, the ether is now making a Nixonian comeback. It’s the vacuum but burdened by theoretical, ghostly particles.”
This taboo was addressed by Apollo Astronaut Edgar Mitchel, after he had a mystical experience on the way home from the moon.
He said: ” I realised that the story of ourselves as told by science; our cosmology, our religion was incomplete and likely flawed. I recognised that the Newtonian idea of separate, independent, discrete things in the universe wasn’t a fully accurate description. What was needed was a new story of who we are, and what what we are capable of “Becoming.”
This taboo is prevalent in the peer review process. However fringe researchers and secret societies are dusting off the theories of old and giving them new vigour in light of quantum physics and subtle energy research into things like, radionics, scalar technology, remote healing, etc.
See the concept of the ether has been around for a long time in esoteric circles, amid tales of success and growth.
When I compare the ether to the matrix, people get hung up on the movie and not the metaphor/analogy.
When I was young there was a book I read many time growing up and it was by an author called Wallace D Wattles.
It was called “The Science of Being Great. First published in 1910, but republished numerous times up till modern times.
His message was ” There is a spirit substance that thinks. Just as the spirit substance of man permeates his body, and thinks and knows in the body, so the Original Spirit Substance, God, permeates all nature and thinks and knows in nature.
Nature is as intelligent as man, and knows more than man; nature knows all things. The All-Mind has been in touch with all things from the beginning; and it contains all knowledge.”
Here is a copy for you to read:
https://archive.org/details/TheScienceOfBeingGreat_2020/page/n5/mode/2up
And here is an audio version:
https://archive.org/details/science_of_being_great_1203_librivox
In “The Science of Getting Rich”, which he wrote in the same year he said: “Man can form things in his thought, and by impressing his thought upon formless substance, can cause the thing he thinks about to be created”.
This formless substance is the ether. The thing that gives humans the ability to do this is consciousness. Sentience of animals is not enough. So you see, we humans really are special as “creators” on this planet, but we are led away from this knowledge or brainwashed into not being able to see this or believe this about ourselves ( well most of humanity are anyway).
This is purposely done. So yes we really are special. We are special in this 3D Material Plane that ONLY we humans can manipulate via consciousness. No other forms can do this as we would be able to see them and see their creations.
The Matrix, the ether the formless stuff is a creation of out OUR communal minds. So we create our own prison, but NOW “knowing” that we created it means we can un-create it, and create alternative better realities for ourselves and for our future.
So yes, we really are “Kings of our Realm” whether science tells us otherwise or make us sceptics, or to believe it to be a big headed joke and instead prefer to put us down as mere Darwinian accidents of random evolution, to keep us small and unimportant and enslaved.
Here is a link for The Science of Getting Rich:
Click to access the_science_of_getting_rich.pdf
Sorry if this jumps about about a bit but it was necessary to go off on a tangent to make a point and to bring the picture together. So to continue:
Zero Point. The Motionless Point in a circle.
This zero point, the point of no motion but just pure potential as a point, was described by Physicist Dr. Puthoff, who called this a “seething cauldron” of power.
See this extract from the book ” A Subtle Energy Field Guide (p 100). Joness Jones Studio. Kindle Edition. by Joness Jones and Eric Thompson.
Eric by the way has a website called Subtle Energy Science here:
https://subtle.energy/
So Dr Puthoff, was:
“Astonished that this power might still be discovered at absolute zero, this energetic phenomenon was called “zero-point power” or ZPE.
Whereas Russian researchers generally call it the “physical vacuum” or PV. These experiments showed an incredible amount of non-electromagnetic energy in the ever-present void of space, contrary to the idea that the vacuum was empty. Mainstream physicists Dr. John Wheeler and Dr. Richard Feynman estimated that the quantity of quantum vacuum energy in the area of a solitary light bulb is sufficient to boil all the oceans of the world. It is theorized that this hidden energy source is the unseen power that holds all matter together. If this is the case, there is an immense
sea of energy from which all existence springs and returns. This would, in fact, be the very source of electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong & weak nuclear forces. After conducting a careful study in 1891, Nikola Tesla stated that the aether “behaves as a fluid to solid bodies, and as a solid to light and heat.” Tesla hints that free energy and anti-gravity applications are accessible through “sufficiently high voltage and frequency.”
Tesla’s claim that the aether (i.e., torsion) behaves like a fluid to solid objects was later verified by Kozyrev’s research. And in fact, many of the world’s wisdom traditions have echoed this idea that the subtle energetic substance from which all things are derived behaves like water. Cross-cultural creation stories feature water as the birthing source of all creation. For example, the Tao te Ching’s proclamation of the “watercourse way,” the perennial tradition, consistently alludes to water as a metaphor for the workings of this hidden energy we refer to as “torsion” or the aether.
Dr. Nikolai Kozyrev began research into subtle physics in late 1951 with the very first of 33 years of unorthodox yet scientifically-sound experiments. He became aware of the spiraling patterns of nature while serving in a Russian labor camp as a prisoner of war. After experimentation and many hours of continuous contemplation, Kozyrev realized that this spiraling energy comprised the subtlest body behind the phenomenon known as “time.”
@Richard: “It is abacadabra to me. Something is nothing because it moves in space. The next question is then, what is space?”
It does not move in space. It moves in thought, in abstraction, immaterially. The movement is thought itself, in numbers…it is thought moving through numbers.
Space didn’t always exist. Space, and time too of course, only made their appearance with the Big Bang and this universe. Therefore, they cannot be eternal.
Space is simply the perception of the ordering of numbers; it is numbers as Fermionic, rather than Bosonic…numbers with the Pauli Exclusion Principle applied.
Something is net nothing because the circling reduces to nothing, because it balances to zero over a cycle.
On relativity and aether issues, Z, and all, see this new book:
Thanks Joe, will pick up a copy.
Ok just purchased that Joe for my Kindle. Will read it tonight and hopefully we can all discuss it soon?
Joe,
It seems that it starts not with nothing but with the so called big bang. This big bang event is a misconception, I cannot talk you out of this I suppose. I listened to your discussion with Steve Crothers and I noticed that you just don’t get it, so further discussion with you is hopeless.
The following I only state for the record. Compression to the level of a non existing point is not possible, so no black holes. Thinking that what you see is that what is coming from the past is a terrible mistake, there never was a big bang.
Richard – Stephen Crothers is a psychotic troll…he’s completely psychotic, and is not even conscious…his mind is completely controlled by subconscious psychotic-archetypal impulses. He is a danger to those around him, likely.
“It seems that it starts not with nothing but with the so called big bang.”
I didn’t say either of those things. 1) nothing never “started” or started anything…it has always been; 2) the Big Bang is not the beginning of existence, only the beginning of this universe
Read that book Joe. I enjoyed it, but nothing I didn’t already known. Lot of scientific validatory fluff
to back the premise that the aether is a non spatial field in the frequency domain of mind.
In other words it’s light, the ether and the matrix is made of light that doesn’t need a media
to pass through.
That’s what I’ve been saying all along . It is everywhere, it pervades everything as a field.
Light has nowhere to go, as it is everywhere, it is the ether the matrix, so it’s timeless, it’s instant light doesn’t travel!
The ether or light matrix can communicate instantaneous information across any distance because it does not experience distance as it is not in spacetime. Light is the singularity and therefore not in the spacetime domain, so its speed within the singularity has to be 1.
So this light/ether/matrix is the mind aka the grand monad or the singularity.
In my previous post were I elucidated that science decided there was no ether, well Einstein jumped all over it in favour of his flawed relativity, and Maxwell’s equations didn’t pick out any aether or any physical medium whatsoever for light it was because there is no physical medium as light is not in the physical world!
What we call matter is just light viewed from the perspective of a phase angle from perspective of
the etherical matrix of the mathematical light code.
Light does not need a medium to convey it. There is actually only one reason for that – light is the medium. It is the fiber and fabric of existence. It’s the real aether. It had no need of space and time because it is part of the space/time domain, therefore has no need of a physical medium because it itself is not physical.
The TRUTH is that space and time exist within light. Light doesn’t move through space and time. They move through light, the etherical light matrix that pervades the domain between frequency domain and material domain.
Light is a unique wave because all other waves are physical, whereas light is mathematical. That means it follows mathematical rules, not physical rules. It means, in fact, that it reflects the principle of sufficient reason (the true basis of mathematics, the true basis of thought).
The book conclusion from my perspective is that the speed of light is absolute, and there is no spatial aether, like I said, and trying to define a field or ether is impossible as it has no quanta (particles) i.e nothing that comprises a field that is empirical, the field operates instantaneously at a distance. They are particle free ether/ perturbations or inertia perturbations.
Btw I have all the books in the Truth Series by Dr Thomas Stark, besides Base Reality: Ultimate Existence – book 16 for some reason. I think I had it on Kindle unlimited, which is basically borrowing, and when you unsubscribe, they take all their books back, so will have to repurchase it.
Thanks for the book suggestion. Any others I would love to comment on.
Cheers Z
Hi Richard. So what is your theory of creation/evolution? Not being argumentative, we all have our opinions and therefore it’s worthy to discuss (you clearly have a reason for your comments) but just interested in different views. Thanks in anticipation. Z
Joe, what is this discussion with Steve Crothers? Is it available to listen to? I have never heard of Steve Crothers?…. would be interested if its available?
I made a fool out of Crothers here:
https://principia-scientific.com/listen-to-this-epic-big-bang-black-hole-debate/
I let him think that he had the game for a few minutes after his first salvo. And then I proceeded to destroy him.
Which one is Crothers in this pic. Is he the Aussie in the middle with the hat on? Like to know who is debating who. Sometimes I recognise faces and can’t put a name to it. It helps a google search to distinguish like names, and find relevant info. Is he a scientist?
He pretends that he’s a scientist…not that that counts for much these days.
No he’s not in that pic. That’s John OSullivan, Joe Olson, and me.
Look Crothers up…should find him easy. Yes he’s Aussie.
Joe,
You can call it the beginning of the universe if you want but this is then a beginning and it comes after the end of the something else that was there before? You want to end the infinite regress but you are still employing it. The word uni-verse is better not used to indicate something that begins.
I don’t believe in zero as a number, for me everything starts with the Unity or the Number One.
Hi Richard,
What I am actually talking about is existence in and of itself, not this universe. This universe cannot constitute the entirety of existence since this universe apparently has a beginning, whereas existence itself must be eternal.
What came before this universe was likely a different universe. Universes exist in the continuity of the eternal, which supersedes the universe.
Infinite regress must find a solution in sufficient reason. In fact, there is an infinite regression of universes, but this is couched within the sufficient reason of existence must having existed eternally, and being made out of nothing, reducing to net nothing.