The Instigator
QuadHelix
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
condeelmaster
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Sun rotation causes the Earth's rotation | the Sun and Earth revolve each other.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open with Elo Restrictions Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 589 times Debate No: 87233
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

QuadHelix

Pro

The Quad Helix Theory

The Quad Helix is a fundamental nature that transcends the universe; all of the universe is in it's image, this is called image dei. It's impossible to collect evidence for what is transcendent, but it's possible to sense the effect of the transcended nature in it's images. The Quad Helix can only be verified by a wise sense and never by the collection of evidence for that would void it's transcendent nature.

The theory is a theory of all.

There are four primary images of Quad Helix, these are referred to as 'The Four Realms': the Quad Helix realm; the transcended realm. The spatial realm; the collective planets and Suns Quad Helix. The planetary realm; the collective lands and seas Quad Helix. The natural realm, the collective fish and trees Quad Helix. The four realms form a hierarchy, and each realm is a fraction and power of the realm at the top of the hierarchy.

The Quad Helix has four attributes that are at equal and opposite polarities: realm, centre, rotation and revolution.

For example, the Sun at the centre of our solar system rotates, and causes the planets that surround it to rotate, and this combined rotation, causes revolution around the central Sun; this is part of the spatial realm.

The spacial realm is properly understood via the my terms Sol and Orbis, the collective Suns and planets in the universe.

There are many secondary images of Quad-Helix, every individual nature is in the image of the Quad-Helix- these are referred to as Quad Helix images. The Quad Helix images must be a part of The Four Realms.

Any Quad Helix image is a fraction of four; this accounts for the Quad Helix realm attribute- to a power of four; this accounts for it's Quad Helix centre attribute- and rotates and revolves, which accounts for the rotation and revolution Quad Helix attributes.

A “fraction of four” accounts for the realm attribute, because a Quad-Helix realm consists of three other attributes; centre, rotation and revolution. A realm is a fraction of four. A “power of four” accounts for the centre attribute, because a Quad Helix centre causes rotation and effects the revolutions fundamental to a realm. A centre is a power of four. “Rotation” and “Revolution” are self explanatory, but are effected by the Quad Helix images, and The Four Realms.

The planet Earth is a fraction of four, it has four quadrants. Earth's quadrants can be sensed by midday, midnight, evening and morning set simultaneously at four equidistant time-zones. Earth's quadrants are to a power of four, by interference of realms. Interference refers to, inter alia, collisions with other planets, the heat and light of the Sun that conditions Earth, etc. The planet Earth rotates and revolves, and is therefore a valid Quad Helix image.

Sol is the central attribute of the spatial realm, it's rotation is it's process and the effect of that process is rotation of Orbis. Revolution is a process of Orbis, and the effect of that process is the revolution of Sol- what we call a "day".

There is rotation at opposite polarities- positive Sol and negative Orbis; there is revolution at opposite polarities- positive Orbis and negative Sol.

The day is more commonly known as Earth's rotation, but Earth's rotation is the effect of the Sun's rotation. To forget the rotation of the Sun is to abstract the perception of the Sun, and concentrate on the rotation of the Earth, which is what happens in human reality.

What is a day without the Sun revolving Earth in the sky? To determine that the day is only the planet's rotation, is to forget the perception of the day. It's a sophist ideology when the Sun is subtracted from the day, it's a belief that Earth is a singularity.

The point is, there is equality between the two revolutions, the Sun that rotates and revolves around Earth, is as significant as, Earth that rotates and revolves around the Sun- they both contribute to the day. The problem is that words give authority to the literal and nil to the metaphorical; the sensed Sun in the sky is a metaphorical phenomenon.

For example, the illusion of the four wheels of a car appearing to rotate in reverse when the car moves at high speeds.

This is a perceived phenomenon, and although there is a scientific explanation, the phenomenon is as significant as the process that leads to it's occurrence. There are many metaphors in nature, our minds are metaphor receptors, we can understand the whole of the universe metaphorically.

We also have a heart, and it's important to stress the mind in the hearts favour- this is the true process of science. We cannot survive without science, it's for our own health and prosperity.

The day is not a tool but can be measured, measurement uses utility, the day is not the tool, it's the utility such as a clock or dial.

The day is equally the Sun's revolution of the planet as it's the planets rotation. These occur simultaneously and are opposites; the opposites cancel each others individual nature, meaning that their bond is vital as a neutrality and nil as one or the other.

The only way to concentrate on the connection between the Sun and planets is to be wordless and wise, word-illness is the abstracted circumstances of belief in a singularity Earth {i.e the Earth that revolves the Sun, minus Sun process}.

Words cause humans to focus on one at a time in a universe of opposites; humans have a word-illness and can't think in opposites, and can barely think opposite to what they are taught to think. The reason why most won't understand my frames of references is because words don't allow opposite thought, and they have been taught to adhere to word-systems as if they're beneficent.

"Quad Helix" are the positive and negative rotations and positive and negative revolutions around a centre occurring simultaneously in one of the Four Realms.

Humans can comprehend Quad Helix, a very powerful thought process with a very merciful effect, but only wordlessly and with wisdom. There are a plentiful amount of Quad Helix implications, such as: the root of the human psyche, transcendence to heaven, hell, spiritual unity, and more implications.

We can learn from Quad Helix, and it will help and not hinder the Earth.

I'm redefining all of academia; it's all wrong because it lacks Quad Helix wisdom, and isn't wordless. Humans are word-ill who will annihilate themselves, who worship death facts and act childishly in the face of great danger.

condeelmaster

Con

As the burden of proof is in the one trying to prove something, I will wait for Pro to give a proof of his claims. Cheers!
Debate Round No. 1
QuadHelix

Pro

As stated at the beginning, “it's impossible to collect evidence for what is transcendent”, but, “it's possible to sense the effect of the transcended nature in it's images”(referring to the image dei explained in the original post).


The claims in the Quad Helix Theory (as explained in round 1) must fall under scrutiny. By lazy logic (Lazy; a reference to a short answer used to scrutinize a whole post and nature)., 'the burden of proof is on the one making the claims”, a greater truth and debate is obstructed.


Con believes that it's science when “the burden of proof is on the one making the claims”, and that what I'm claiming isn't science for it cannot be proven through observation and experiment, and that is his argument- he will not scrutinize the Quad Helix theory.


If I stand in a room of four symmetrical walls and a door, rest my head on the wall away from the door, and look directly at the door, I can verify by a wise sense of the room that I'm leaning on the wall the other side of the door, and that it exists. Of course, I cannot provide evidence for this “wise sense” of the wall, but it's logical- so before Con comes back with 'it's illogical if the burden of proof doesn't apply' and another low-effort response, I will put this logic out there, and again, ask con to scrutinize the original post.


To further reinforce that example, I understand that the room itself can be taken as evidence, and we could experiment to determine that was the back wall; but the point I'm making is that a wise sense of my position in the room acts as a form of proof. Con is not looking for proof, he is looking for evidence of observation and experiment (adherence the the scientific method).

Scrutinize the Quad Helix theory, and without lazy logic; and without lazily hanging onto accepted theories, when I have claimed to “redefine all of academia”, sense nature to resolve my claims. It would also help to apply the Quad Helix theory to nature to understand the criteria of my argument; such as “The Four Realms”, “The Quad Helix images”, etc.

condeelmaster

Con

If what you claim can't be proved, then it is insignificant to talk about it. Let's take this quote from Bertrand Russell:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”

Your Quad Helix Theory is the same as the china teapot.




However, let's analyse some parts of the theory:


"For example, the Sun at the centre of our solar system rotates, and causes the planets that surround it to rotate, and this combined rotation, causes revolution around the central Sun; this is part of the spatial realm."

Planets rotate because there's no friction in space, so nothing can stop their rotation. Anyway, if you meant traslation, that is also not caused by the sun rotation. Actually, gravity curves the space and causes planets' traslation.



"There are many secondary images of Quad-Helix, every individual nature is in the image of the Quad-Helix- these are referred to as Quad Helix images. The Quad Helix images must be a part of The Four Realms.Any Quad Helix image is a fraction of four; this accounts for the Quad Helix realm attribute- to a power of four; this accounts for it's Quad Helix centre attribute- and rotates and revolves, which accounts for the rotation and revolution Quad Helix attributes."

Not everything has that power of four thing con says. I mean, what about the golden ratio? What about pi and phi? They don't seem to fit in the quad helix. What about spirals or proportions in the body? They don't fit either.



"Earth's quadrants can be sensed by midday, midnight, evening and morning set simultaneously at four equidistant time-zones. "

Well, time zones are relative, not only because of their subjective definition, but for the different length they have according the location.



"What is a day without the Sun revolving Earth in the sky? To determine that the day is only the planet's rotation, is to forget the perception of the day. It's a sophist ideology when the Sun is subtracted from the day, it's a belief that Earth is a singularity."

Back to school fact: the sun does not revolve the Earth.



"The only way to concentrate on the connection between the Sun and planets is to be wordless "

As many philosophers have stated, we think in words. Thinking is doing something with words, like Austin said. If we don't have words, we don't think.


"I'm redefining all of academia; it's all wrong because it lacks Quad Helix wisdom"

Interesting how to prove Quad Helix, he uses Quad Helix as a premise. That's circular thinking my friends.



"If I stand in a room of four symmetrical walls and a door, rest my head on the wall away from the door, and look directly at the door, I can verify by a wise sense of the room that I'm leaning on the wall the other side of the door, and that it exists. Of course, I cannot provide evidence for this “wise sense” of the wall, but it's logical- so before Con comes back with 'it's illogical if the burden of proof doesn't apply' and another low-effort response, I will put this logic out there, and again, ask con to scrutinize the original post."

This example has nothing to do with what you say. You have evidence in this case, you have the empirical evidence of touching the walls and seeing the door. But with Quad helix theory this doesn't happen.



Please give real proof next time, and use a bigger font!!













Debate Round No. 2
QuadHelix

Pro


Con, I'm being honest with you, you've ignored the key points of my second round argument; and these key points contradict many of your points of your second round argument. You have beaten around the bush, in effort to make a sculpture that fits in your garden but not mine, or ours.


From now on I hope you'll give a second thought to my words, and take in some of what's being said. In the case of Quad Helix theory, I'm your teacher. You should begin by accepting my teaching so that Quad Helix theory makes sense to you, and so that you can form a viable argument against it. I also advise you to argue against the entire semantics and not dissect the text into bite-size parts, because that would abstract what's expressed.


Right now, discussing with you is impossible as you're lost in your love for the academic body of knowledge. Your arguments are references to other people, references to theories and other references. Where is your part in this argument? You're no scientist so why did you accept this debate?


To round three then...


'If what you claim can't be proved, then it is insignificant to talk about it.'


Con, I specifically claimed that I proved Quad Helix theory by wise sense, and said that I couldn't prove 'a wise sense'; implying that if you were wise, with your senses you could prove Quad Helix theory.


The total Sol [referral; round 1 definition of Sol] power in the universe causes planets to be spherical. The Sun in the centre of our galaxy stabilizes Earth's rotation; had the Sun not been there, Earth's mass wouldn't hold, and in frictionless space it would become void. The Sun is the force which causes the “day rotation of Earth” effect. The anti rotation which you speak about is only logical moments after Earth's genesis, where it's rotation was chaotic, not in harmony with a Sun, but rather primal Sol power.


'Not everything has that power of four...'


You're completely wrong, everything is a fraction of the transcendent Quad Helix, and a power of the transcendent Quad Helix. It most definitely accounts for spirals, for they can be divided by four quarters or quadrants. It also accounts for proportions of the body, for we have symmetrical sides, front facing senses and more attributes that are a fraction of four.


The Quad Helix theory describes intricately the proportions of a human but I haven't mentioned it in this argument; I'm sure you won't understand, so let's focus on what I have mentioned.


'Back to school fact: the Sun does not revolve the Earth.'


Your school was wrong, your teachers were wrong, and you're wrong; the only thing schools and teachers are producing in the modern era is a barren Earth.


'As many philosophers have stated, we think in words...'


We do not only think in words, there are many types of thought; types of thought that are diminished by words, wisdom that is neglected by words, and many more maleficent side-effects of thinking in words. We can't think opposite, and you can barely think opposite to what you were taught in school; that's the main brain-damage of words.


Again, these philosophers, like your teachers in school, were wrong, most of those who found success in support of thinking in words were unintelligent.


'Interesting how to prove Quad Helix, he uses Quad Helix as a premise...'


I had proven Quad Helix to myself prior to communicating it with anybody. Quad Helix wisdom is necessary for education to be beneficent, without it we only harm ourselves. We are all in the image of Quad Helix, so I guess that's why it seems like circular thinking- in fact, circular would be a good metaphor for image dei.


'This example has nothing to do with what you say...'


Yes it does, it shows that things can be proven through wise sense, and not only communication. The difficulty is proving to the unwise what a wise sense is, that's why we're stuck in this stalemate. I hope you agreed to what I said at the start of this third round argument, and take in the whole semantics before coming up with contradictions and listen to the teachings of that which you do not understand.


Con, will not change; Con, is an academic slave like most of the world. The slavers are leading us to a fool's death, and the academic slaves are laughing and engaging in perversity, even when prompted with the fact that our children will inherit an inhabitable Earth. There's not much I can do to save Con's mind, it's pretty much set in stone, but I'm sure I'm of a higher intelligence called Quad Helix, an intelligence greater than any academic long-transcript of knowledge.




condeelmaster

Con

"In the case of Quad Helix theory, I'm your teacher. You should begin by accepting my teaching so that Quad Helix theory makes sense to you"

Basically, Pro is saying I must accept everything he says just because he says so.



"Con, I specifically claimed that I proved Quad Helix theory by wise sense, and said that I couldn't prove 'a wise sense'; implying that if you were wise, with your senses you could prove Quad Helix theory."

But using the same logic I could say something like : Quad helix is false because I'm so wise and fantastic that my six sense feels the falseness of that theory, if you were so wise as me you would understand.



"The total Sol [referral; round 1 definition of Sol] power in the universe causes planets to be spherical. The Sun in the centre of our galaxy stabilizes Earth's rotation; had the Sun not been there, Earth's mass wouldn't hold, and in frictionless space it would become void. The Sun is the force which causes the “day rotation of Earth” effect. The anti rotation which you speak about is only logical moments after Earth's genesis, where it's rotation was chaotic, not in harmony with a Sun, but rather primal Sol power."

But in the same way, if the other things that caused the sun didn't exist, we wouldn't have an earth. So the sun is not the only thing that makes our existence possible.
Also, the sun is not the center of our galaxy.



"You're completely wrong, everything is a fraction of the transcendent Quad Helix, and a power of the transcendent Quad Helix. It most definitely accounts for spirals, for they can be divided by four quarters or quadrants. It also accounts for proportions of the body, for we have symmetrical sides, front facing senses and more attributes that are a fraction of four."

Spirals are formed with the golden ratio, not a power of 4. Symmetry implies two, and two is not a power of four. Also, pi is not a power of four. Saying everything is a power of four is nonsensical, reminds me of the movie 23.



"The Quad Helix theory describes intricately the proportions of a human but I haven't mentioned it in this argument; I'm sure you won't understand,(...) Your school was wrong, your teachers were wrong, and you're wrong; the only thing schools and teachers are producing in the modern era is a barren Earth."

Just some arrogant statements with no proof or logic behind. This doesn't provide anything to the debate, and the arrogant conduct of Pro must be taken into account.



"most of those who found success in support of thinking in words were unintelligent"

How he knows this? Does he knows the works of those linguistic philosophers? Pro show a lack of knowledge of the history of science and philosophy and a lack of respect towards anything that may boycott his "theory".



"Yes it does, it shows that things can be proven through wise sense (talking about his example on the previous round)"

No, it doesn't. It shows you can prove things empirically. Wise sense was not proved, but as you described it's just knowing without any process in the middle. However Touching a wall and seeing a door is not wise sense, but touch and sight.



"I'm sure I'm of a higher intelligence"

That's what I call ending a preaching. A total demonstration of arrogance, selfishness and narcissism. If you can't prove what you say, and you can't accept your errors, don't participate in a debate.


Pro used an even smaller font, making it unreadable. This must be taken into account for conduct.









Debate Round No. 3
QuadHelix

Pro


Con has failed to counter my argument reasonably, and instead has resorted to childish withdrawal tactics.


I've not asked him to agree with me, I've asked him to listen to my argument so that he can formulate a rational counter argument. He claims that I've asked for mutual agreement, then goes on to misinterpret what I explained was a “wise sense”, childishly, by joking to the academic akin- it's a joke they share, but I don't find it funny and nor would a neutral party.


By his logic, wisdom is useless. Knowledge, experience and good judgement mean nothing to him where science is concerned- because if teachers tell him different, like a tame animal, he will heel, or even bark, at their command.


Judges, I made a few mistakes in my round three argument: saying that the Sun is the centre of the galaxy when I meant solar system, a mistake I evaded in my round one argument; and saying Sun instead of Sol. Rather kindly, Con, did not pounce on these mistakes, which earns him respect. Yes, had Sol power not been there, the Earth's mass wouldn't hold. Con's counter for the argument that the Sun causes the 'day-effect rotation' of Earth, was insufficient, and my argument against the current day stands.


When Con suggests that formulation of a spiral is not a power of four, he forgets the formulator, and instead focuses on the utility. He dismissed the fact that we can understand spirals through quadrant or quarter division, and focused on formulation. A spiral can be formed by a child who draws on paper, it can be formed by a computer, the golden ratio isn't key to it's formulation, it's the utility.


Abstractions are resolved through temperament by Quad Helix theory. I imagine, although I have not checked, that the Golden Ratio is a power and fraction of four, as well as Pi.


Apparently, Con, all the academic long-transcript of knowledge boycotts Quad Helix theory. That's because it's all Quad Helix-less, and therefore is wrong by reasonable, rational and sensible Quad Helix logic. If you look closely, Con, you'll notice the similarities between academia and Quad Helix theory.


Con, try to not act childishly next round. It's three quarters your ego and a quarter discussing the day; you have no right to call me egotistical, just because yours has academic-support doesn't justify your New Atheist-esque prose.






condeelmaster

Con

"Con has failed to counter my argument reasonably, and instead has resorted to childish withdrawal tactics."

So the one who uses logic and credible sources is childish, and the one who invents something out of thin air without any argument and is a wise man. I think it may be the opposite.......



" Knowledge, experience and good judgement mean nothing to him where science is concerned"

Science is basically described with those words. Science seeks for knowledge, using experience and good judgement. However, what Pro is doing is preaching about his "theory" without any actual evidence more than his "wiseness".



"Yes, had Sol power not been there, the Earth's mass wouldn't hold. Con's counter for the argument that the Sun causes the 'day-effect rotation' of Earth, was insufficient, and my argument against the current day stands."

That's not true. The mass of the earth holds itself by gravity. That's how planets form, little rocks get together by gravitational attraction, nothing to do with the sun. And again, is the earth's rotation what causes days and nights, not the other way. If the earth stand still, there wouldn't be days and nights.



"When Con suggests that formulation of a spiral is not a power of four, he forgets the formulator, and instead focuses on the utility. He dismissed the fact that we can understand spirals through quadrant or quarter division, and focused on formulation."

That's nonsense. I could use the same argument to support triple helix theory or dual helix theory or infinite helix theory. I can divide a spiral in three parts, in two parts, in infinite parts, but that doesn't prove anything.



" I imagine, although I have not checked, that the Golden Ratio is a power and fraction of four, as well as Pi."

This demonstrates the lack of research and analysis of Pro. Pi and Phi and Tau and the square root of two and so on, all of those are irrational numbers, so they cannot be a fraction or power of four.



"Apparently, Con, all the academic long-transcript of knowledge boycotts Quad Helix theory. That's because it's all Quad Helix-less, and therefore is wrong by reasonable, rational and sensible Quad Helix logic. "

Here Pro is basically saying science can't disprove his theory, because they disprove his theory. This is circular thinking again.



"Con, try to not act childishly next round. It's three quarters your ego and a quarter discussing the day; you have no right to call me egotistical, just because yours has academic-support doesn't justify your New Atheist-esque prose."

Firstly, recurring to ad hominem is another way Pro defeats himself. Secondly, I have the right to say whatever I want because we live in a free world where freedom of speech exists. Lastly, you were being egoist. I mean, no humble person says something like "I'm sure I'm of a higher intelligence".


To conclude, Pro didn't gave any argument to defend his resolution so far. I encourage him to do so, at least in the last round.
Debate Round No. 4
QuadHelix

Pro

Con's argument against the Sun stabilising the rotation of Earth, and positively causing the "day effect"-rotation, was insufficient.
condeelmaster

Con

To end this debate I have to remember the judges Pro didn't gave any evidence to support his resolution nor his theory. Instead, He preached about a "theory" full of mistakes pointed out throughout the debate. Vote Con!
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by fire_wings 1 year ago
fire_wings
I can't see...
Posted by QuadHelix 1 year ago
QuadHelix
Thanks for the help from earlier!
Posted by difference 1 year ago
difference
Well this is the best I've understood your theory so far
Posted by Edlvsjd 1 year ago
Edlvsjd
You're both wrong the earth's flat bishes
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Why the small text?
Is this about the barrycenter of the solar system?
No votes have been placed for this debate.