Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moon formation

janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 3:53:45 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As far as I've understood, the impact hypothesis has only been presented as a single impact.

Where did you hear the second impact hypothesis from?
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 4:22:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I found the 'double whack' idea mentioned here. I didn't find it anywhere else. David Icke's much more 'interesting' ideas are also mentioned not entirely negatively!

http://artificialbrain.net...

It seems the serious debate is currently only over minor variations of the impact theory. I don't have any strong opinion on the matter, but I have no reason to reject the consensus 'big whack' theory so I'll go with it unless and until something even better comes along, much as I do for any scientific idea.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 7:43:27 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 3:53:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As far as I've understood, the impact hypothesis has only been presented as a single impact.

Where did you hear the second impact hypothesis from?

I read it in a book called "Who built the Moon" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. But if I recall correctly, I've heard it before somewhere, but I don't remember.
keithprosser
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 8:55:32 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I note the website I found also sells 'Who built the moon' and David Icke's books. It would seem followers of the 'double whack' theory are pretty much restricted to the 'who built the moon' authors. If they are being bracketed with the divine David Icke then perhaps their theory is best consdered as 'somewhat speculative', in the sense that the theory that British royal family are reptiles from outer space is 'somewhat speculative', because everyone who watches Doctor Who knows the Queen is actually a werewolf.

In less jest, it seem the best theory is the 'big (single) whack'. The favoured theory has changed in the past, but I think its probably more or settled now.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 3:46:36 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 7:43:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/8/2016 3:53:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As far as I've understood, the impact hypothesis has only been presented as a single impact.

Where did you hear the second impact hypothesis from?

I read it in a book called "Who built the Moon" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. But if I recall correctly, I've heard it before somewhere, but I don't remember.

The giant impact hypothesis is a mainstream, highly regarded, and readily accessible theory about moon formation.

So, I've linked that which should indeed answer your question.

My problem is that you seem to not have looked at any mainstream information, even something as simple as googling "how did the moon form" before asking this question and sounding fairly adamant about what science holds is the primary explanation. That worries me, as it seems your overly reliant on getting your scientific information from a very limited number of incorrect sources.

It's always worthwhile browsing Wikipedia, and viewing multiple sources of information (especially ones that disagree with you) when you're trying to form an opinion.
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 7:18:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 3:53:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As far as I've understood, the impact hypothesis has only been presented as a single impact.

Where did you hear the second impact hypothesis from? :

Don't you just love Sci-Fientology where one can create a Big-bang in a point in space before space and at a moment in time before time? Once a Sci-Fientist (like Marshal Applewhite) believes this could actually happen, heck, the rest of the stories just follow.

All this religious science bs, .. I can't wait for the Lords appearing so I can go with Him and get real scientific, create things no eye has seen or ear heard, or could enter in our religiously indoctrinated little brains.

From your Wiki article - "The colliding body is sometimes called Theia, from the name of the mythical Greek Titan who was the mother of Selene, the goddess of the Moon."
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 1:16:28 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
The current theories about planet and moon formation are full of inconsistencies. For example - It is assumed that a large supernova exploded which created the material which are solar system is made of. Well, if you assume that the Big Bang occurred 13 billion years ago, then there is insufficient time for one system to grow and expire within the Big Bang Theory time frame.

Also, according to rock samples from the moon, the moon is made from Earth rock and not from independent material. But, if this is so, then why do all planets have multiple moons? Surely, all the planets could not have had collisions with large meteorites?

Thus, it is more likely that there was no Big Bang and that the universe has always been here since eternity. In this model, there is now sufficient time for stars to explode and reform.

The universe has only 3 basic states - left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin is black hole/ dimensional shift. Left and right spin (unattached) is free (empty) space. Left and right spin in rotation around a no spin particle is what we call 'matter'.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 3:06:54 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 1:16:28 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The current theories about planet and moon formation are full of inconsistencies. For example - It is assumed that a large supernova exploded which created the material which are solar system is made of. Well, if you assume that the Big Bang occurred 13 billion years ago, then there is insufficient time for one system to grow and expire within the Big Bang Theory time frame.

Also, according to rock samples from the moon, the moon is made from Earth rock and not from independent material. But, if this is so, then why do all planets have multiple moons? Surely, all the planets could not have had collisions with large meteorites?

Mercury and Venus don't have moons. Also, Phobos and Deismos (Mar's moons) are captured asteroids.

Thus, it is more likely that there was no Big Bang and that the universe has always been here since eternity. In this model, there is now sufficient time for stars to explode and reform.

The universe has only 3 basic states - left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin is black hole/ dimensional shift. Left and right spin (unattached) is free (empty) space. Left and right spin in rotation around a no spin particle is what we call 'matter'.
Meh!
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 3:59:24 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 7:43:27 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/8/2016 3:53:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org...

As far as I've understood, the impact hypothesis has only been presented as a single impact.

Where did you hear the second impact hypothesis from?

I read it in a book called "Who built the Moon" by Christopher Knight and Alan Butler. But if I recall correctly, I've heard it before somewhere, but I don't remember.

And, here is what those idiots who wrote that book said:

" For example, the Moon revolves at exactly one hundredth of the speed that the Earth turns on its axis; the Moon is exactly 400 times smaller than the Sun and is precisely 400 times closer to the Earth. They also discovered that the Moon possesses little or no heavy metals and has no core, in fact many specialists suspect that the Moon is hollow."

Clearly, these morons have ignored all kinds of facts about the moon in order to create some sensationalized, spurious and dishonest view, most likely to sell books to the gullible.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 9:49:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 1:16:28 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The current theories about planet and moon formation are full of inconsistencies. For example - It is assumed that a large supernova exploded which created the material which are solar system is made of. Well, if you assume that the Big Bang occurred 13 billion years ago, then there is insufficient time for one system to grow and expire within the Big Bang Theory time frame.

Also, according to rock samples from the moon, the moon is made from Earth rock and not from independent material. But, if this is so, then why do all planets have multiple moons? Surely, all the planets could not have had collisions with large meteorites?

Thus, it is more likely that there was no Big Bang and that the universe has always been here since eternity. In this model, there is now sufficient time for stars to explode and reform.

The universe has only 3 basic states - left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin is black hole/ dimensional shift. Left and right spin (unattached) is free (empty) space. Left and right spin in rotation around a no spin particle is what we call 'matter'. :

So how did left-spin, right-spin and no-spin create our sun, earth, and become conscious of itself if it "always existed" ?? Or was our universe always conscious of itself and was able to create things?

If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

And I still don't understand how finite can be Infinite at the same time?
Or time be eternal?

I'm just trying to get a "mental picture" of your universe!?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Looncall
Posts: 463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:42:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 1:16:28 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
The current theories about planet and moon formation are full of inconsistencies. For example - It is assumed that a large supernova exploded which created the material which are solar system is made of. Well, if you assume that the Big Bang occurred 13 billion years ago, then there is insufficient time for one system to grow and expire within the Big Bang Theory time frame.

Also, according to rock samples from the moon, the moon is made from Earth rock and not from independent material. But, if this is so, then why do all planets have multiple moons? Surely, all the planets could not have had collisions with large meteorites?

Thus, it is more likely that there was no Big Bang and that the universe has always been here since eternity. In this model, there is now sufficient time for stars to explode and reform.

The universe has only 3 basic states - left spin, right spin and no spin. No spin is black hole/ dimensional shift. Left and right spin (unattached) is free (empty) space. Left and right spin in rotation around a no spin particle is what we call 'matter'.

I'm coming to think there is a nice PhD thesis lurking among the wonderful collection of crackpots we have on this web site.

Well, it does keep things colourful.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 12:20:47 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 3:06:54 AM, Axonly wrote:

Mercury and Venus don't have moons. Also, Phobos and Deismos (Mar's moons) are captured asteroids.

Mercury and Venus are too close to the sun to have moons. The sun's gravity will be much stronger and will steal them.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 1:30:06 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 9:49:50 PM, Evidence wrote:

So how did left-spin, right-spin and no-spin create our sun, earth, and become conscious of itself if it "always existed" ?? Or was our universe always conscious of itself and was able to create things?

Wrong assumption. The universe is not conscious of itself. We only think we are conscious, its just an illusion. We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions. The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

As stated previously - We only believe we are conscious, its just a very complex illusion.

And I still don't understand how finite can be Infinite at the same time?
Or time be eternal?

I'm just trying to get a "mental picture" of your universe!?

An atom has the same amount of space within as is without. Thus, space is infinite in both directions. It is only the human brain which is geared to the finite state that the difficulty of comprehension of infinity occurs.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org...
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 1:34:44 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
To understand the universe. Think Photoshop Layers. Left spin is one layer, right spin is another layer and no spin is the connector/black hole. (merge layers) - result - matter.
Joey888
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 3:26:19 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Compared to Earth, the moon is quite small. My idea is that an asteroid, which is now the Moon did a flew by Earth, and by chance, was caught by the gravity of planet Earth. Just an idea that came to mind right now.
Joseph
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 4:00:13 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 3:26:19 AM, Joey888 wrote:
Compared to Earth, the moon is quite small. My idea is that an asteroid, which is now the Moon did a flew by Earth, and by chance, was caught by the gravity of planet Earth. Just an idea that came to mind right now.

Did the Earth use a use a -- (a) butterfly net?
(b) Fish net?
(c) baseball glove to catch the moon?

lol!
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 12:08:19 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 1:30:06 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/10/2016 9:49:50 PM, Evidence wrote:

So how did left-spin, right-spin and no-spin create our sun, earth, and become conscious of itself if it "always existed" ?? Or was our universe always conscious of itself and was able to create things?

Wrong assumption. The universe is not conscious of itself. We only think we are conscious, its just an illusion. We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions. :

Hmm, .. "obey the laws", .. the laws of what, an illusion?
When we debate and disagree, are you saying I am not really disagreeing with you, that I am only deluded in thinking that your stand on a topic didn't agree with mine?? That our debate here is just a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions?

Like if I say 3+3=5
You respond, no, 3+3=6

So I really didn't say 5, I just think I said 5, an illusion. Which means I really didn't hear you say "no, it's 6", nor did you really disagree with me, it is all an illusion since we cannot change, nor alter colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!?

The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


So how are you sure it's 4% true vacuum? Remember you are not really conscious to make such assertions. Nor do I have the ability to either agree or disagree with your statement. Remember we are two delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!

If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

As stated previously - We only believe we are conscious, its just a very complex illusion.


Explain "illusion"? Which one is real, is it the collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions, or the illusion in your mind that "We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions"?

How do you know what is real (like the mathematical laws) .. and what is NOT real, .. which is the delusion of some mathematical laws or whatever your mind is experiencing?

And I still don't understand how finite can be Infinite at the same time?
Or time be eternal?

I'm just trying to get a "mental picture" of your universe!?

An atom has the same amount of space within as is without. Thus, space is infinite in both directions. It is only the human brain which is geared to the finite state that the difficulty of comprehension of infinity occurs.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org... :

I know my brain is finite because I can feel, touch measure and even weigh it. And from all the scientific experiments on the brain, it cannot dream or think or create, just as a computer without a programmer can't.

And I also know my "mind" is Infinite and eternal, I can imagine all the universes as complex as I want it to be IN my mind, and I still have Infinite room, unbound by time.

The atom cannot have "Infinite space" in or outside of it, only Infinite has that property because it IS, there is NO outside, it is boundless, HE is Infinite, a conscious Mind.

Infinite is "I Am" this sums up Infinite perfectly.

Hey Akhenaten, was it you who told me that the light in my "mirror in a mirror into infinity" experiment would not reach infinite because the photons or whatever would run out, .. or something like that!?

Can you tell me that again please?

Because "if" light travels, it should continue to light up those next frames at 186,282 m/p/s, no?

Thanks.
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2016 1:27:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 12:08:19 AM, Evidence wrote:

Hmm, .. "obey the laws", .. the laws of what, an illusion?
When we debate and disagree, are you saying I am not really disagreeing with you, that I am only deluded in thinking that your stand on a topic didn't agree with mine?? That our debate here is just a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions?

Its called Chaos Theory, in case you didn't know.




The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


So how are you sure it's 4% true vacuum? Remember you are not really conscious to make such assertions. Nor do I have the ability to either agree or disagree with your statement. Remember we are two delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!

Well, my delusion is less of a delusion then is your delusion, lets put it that way. I can only report what I see and hear. Thus, up to this point, this is my current illusion/delusion. If you can improve on or refute my delusion/illusion and prove that your illusion/delusion is better than mine, then good, go ahead!

If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

If you ask a rock that question, you will get your answer! lol Its a matter of common sense, which you obviously don't possess.

As stated previously - We only believe we are conscious, its just a very complex illusion.


Explain "illusion"? Which one is real, is it the collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions, or the illusion in your mind that "We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions"?

How do you know what is real (like the mathematical laws) .. and what is NOT real, .. which is the delusion of some mathematical laws or whatever your mind is experiencing?

That which is logical is real and that which is illogical is unreal. Religion is illogical, thus it is unreal. Nature is logical, whereas mankind is irrational and ego driven. Thus, many of the laws that have been written are illogical because observation and nature don't agree with them.




An atom has the same amount of space within as is without. Thus, space is infinite in both directions. It is only the human brain which is geared to the finite state that the difficulty of comprehension of infinity occurs.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org... :

I know my brain is finite because I can feel, touch measure and even weigh it. And from all the scientific experiments on the brain, it cannot dream or think or create, just as a computer without a programmer can't.

The brain contains infinite fractal universes and spaces that you are not aware of.
Axonly
Posts: 1,802
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 10:12:01 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/11/2016 12:20:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:06:54 AM, Axonly wrote:

Mercury and Venus don't have moons. Also, Phobos and Deismos (Mar's moons) are captured asteroids.

Mercury and Venus are too close to the sun to have moons. The sun's gravity will be much stronger and will steal them.

That is pretty much correct. I'm so proud of you <3
Meh!
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:22:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 10:12:01 PM, Axonly wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:20:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/10/2016 3:06:54 AM, Axonly wrote:

Mercury and Venus don't have moons. Also, Phobos and Deismos (Mar's moons) are captured asteroids.

Mercury and Venus are too close to the sun to have moons. The sun's gravity will be much stronger and will steal them.

That is pretty much correct. I'm so proud of you <3

Thanks little boy! You may even grow up one day too! lol
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:32:00 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 1:27:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/14/2016 12:08:19 AM, Evidence wrote:

Hmm, .. "obey the laws", .. the laws of what, an illusion?
When we debate and disagree, are you saying I am not really disagreeing with you, that I am only deluded in thinking that your stand on a topic didn't agree with mine?? That our debate here is just a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions?

Its called Chaos Theory, in case you didn't know.








The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


So how are you sure it's 4% true vacuum? Remember you are not really conscious to make such assertions. Nor do I have the ability to either agree or disagree with your statement. Remember we are two delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!

Well, my delusion is less of a delusion then is your delusion, lets put it that way. I can only report what I see and hear. Thus, up to this point, this is my current illusion/delusion. If you can improve on or refute my delusion/illusion and prove that your illusion/delusion is better than mine, then good, go ahead!

If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

If you ask a rock that question, you will get your answer! lol Its a matter of common sense, which you obviously don't possess.

As stated previously - We only believe we are conscious, its just a very complex illusion.


Explain "illusion"? Which one is real, is it the collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions, or the illusion in your mind that "We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions"?

How do you know what is real (like the mathematical laws) .. and what is NOT real, .. which is the delusion of some mathematical laws or whatever your mind is experiencing?

That which is logical is real and that which is illogical is unreal. Religion is illogical, thus it is unreal. Nature is logical, whereas mankind is irrational and ego driven. Thus, many of the laws that have been written are illogical because observation and nature don't agree with them.
Then quantum mechanics is t real? It is not logical.




An atom has the same amount of space within as is without. Thus, space is infinite in both directions. It is only the human brain which is geared to the finite state that the difficulty of comprehension of infinity occurs.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org... :

I know my brain is finite because I can feel, touch measure and even weigh it. And from all the scientific experiments on the brain, it cannot dream or think or create, just as a computer without a programmer can't.

The brain contains infinite fractal universes and spaces that you are not aware of.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 12:59:54 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 12:32:00 AM, janesix wrote:

Then quantum mechanics is t real? It is not logical.

Brain dead?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2016 8:29:20 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 12:59:54 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/16/2016 12:32:00 AM, janesix wrote:

Then quantum mechanics is t real? It is not logical.

Brain dead?
Explain logically how a particle can also be a wave. Explain how a particle can become entangled with another, and what that means.
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 1:16:49 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/17/2016 8:29:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/17/2016 12:59:54 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/16/2016 12:32:00 AM, janesix wrote:

Then quantum mechanics is t real? It is not logical.

Brain dead?
Explain logically how a particle can also be a wave. Explain how a particle can become entangled with another, and what that means.

1. A particle can't also be a wave. A particle can generate a wave.

2. There is no such thing as entanglement. There is only left spin,right spin and no spin. Entanglement is a concept which views a universe without aether. The aether connects all particles through spin energy. Left spin become right spin when viewed from a different opposite direction. Thus, this is the basic confusion of entanglement. Its called the 'corkscrew effect'.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 3:46:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 1:16:49 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/17/2016 8:29:20 PM, janesix wrote:
At 7/17/2016 12:59:54 PM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/16/2016 12:32:00 AM, janesix wrote:

Then quantum mechanics is t real? It is not logical.

Brain dead?
Explain logically how a particle can also be a wave. Explain how a particle can become entangled with another, and what that means.

1. A particle can't also be a wave. A particle can generate a wave.

2. There is no such thing as entanglement. There is only left spin,right spin and no spin. Entanglement is a concept which views a universe without aether. The aether connects all particles through spin energy. Left spin become right spin when viewed from a different opposite direction. Thus, this is the basic confusion of entanglement. Its called the 'corkscrew effect'.

Have you performed repeatable scientific experiments to prove your theories?

Why has the aether never been found?
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 5:10:11 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 3:46:28 AM, janesix wrote:


Have you performed repeatable scientific experiments to prove your theories?

Why has the aether never been found?

It has been found, but it was buried.

http://www.cellularuniverse.org...
Evidence
Posts: 853
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/18/2016 11:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/14/2016 1:27:47 AM, Akhenaten wrote:
At 7/14/2016 12:08:19 AM, Evidence wrote:

Hmm, .. "obey the laws", .. the laws of what, an illusion?
When we debate and disagree, are you saying I am not really disagreeing with you, that I am only deluded in thinking that your stand on a topic didn't agree with mine?? That our debate here is just a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions?

Its called Chaos Theory, in case you didn't know.




Oh you mean like Honda's ASIMO robot, one little change could alter the entire function of the robot. This could come from an earthquake shaking a bottle full of Hydrochloric acid that falls on ASIMO, and causes a huge change, I agree. But is this change like your Fractal illustration? Will this incident follow the pattern before it and still result in a working ASIMO? Or will it change into a Honda Civic?

The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


So how are you sure it's 4% true vacuum? Remember you are not really conscious to make such assertions. Nor do I have the ability to either agree or disagree with your statement. Remember we are two delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!

Well, my delusion is less of a delusion then is your delusion, lets put it that way. I can only report what I see and hear. Thus, up to this point, this is my current illusion/delusion. If you can improve on or refute my delusion/illusion and prove that your illusion/delusion is better than mine, then good, go ahead!


I don't mind different views, but when people show they don't believe in what they try to convince others by, and still keeping preaching it, it upsets me. How may I ask could I "improve" on this Fractal delusion, since I am a delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!?

This is what I am asking you, how is it that we can agree or disagree on something?
Was the Chaos-Universe carefully and intelligently created, or it is what it is, following a predetermined mathematical pattern!? Big difference.
Snow flakes will not turn into dog-vomit, but follow a pattern, even though each is different. Same with leaves on a tree

If the chemicals around our brain can influence the brain to reason, ask questions and create, why couldn't the entire universe be a conscious mind? You know, .. your Aether being the same as the chemicals reacting on the brain, and Matter being the brain itself?

If you ask a rock that question, you will get your answer! lol Its a matter of common sense, which you obviously don't possess. :

I happen to come from a long-line of sweating rocks, and 4.2 billion years later I the rock can reason (so I am told), where do you get YOUR common sense, .. from fractals fractaling?

As stated previously - We only believe we are conscious, its just a very complex illusion.

Explain "illusion"? Which one is real, is it the collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions, or the illusion in your mind that "We are just collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions"?

How do you know what is real (like the mathematical laws) .. and what is NOT real, .. which is the delusion of some mathematical laws or whatever your mind is experiencing?

That which is logical is real and that which is illogical is unreal. Religion is illogical, thus it is unreal. Nature is logical, whereas mankind is irrational and ego driven. Thus, many of the laws that have been written are illogical because observation and nature don't agree with them.


What do you mean by religion? The one thing I am religious about is to tell the world that none of the god/gods in religion is our Infinite Creator. That "you will never find our God in religion." Science proves God, and how God created the universe, and it is all logical.
Let me ask you, is a Satanists monthly (or however often they do it) human sacrifices and the drinking of these terrified/murdered children's blood logical or not?
Now please explain if not, .. why not?
If yes, why yes? What I want to know is where do you get that I could have a different logic than yours, even though I keep showing you that you have a misconception of my logic. You keep associating my logic with religion, and this as I explained is because you mistake "Infinite" with religion.

Either the universe is Fractals, all follow a pattern, or not? Which is it? How do I not fit in with this pattern that everything follows, including my brain-fluid mind!?

An atom has the same amount of space within as is without. Thus, space is infinite in both directions. It is only the human brain which is geared to the finite state that the difficulty of comprehension of infinity occurs.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org... :

I know my brain is finite because I can feel, touch measure and even weigh it. And from all the scientific experiments on the brain, it cannot dream or think or create, just as a computer without a programmer can't.

The brain contains infinite fractal universes and spaces that you are not aware of. :

So how do you know this? Are you aware of these infinite fractal universes? If so, why am I not "fractalled" into this also, or everybody else? Can one brain go with natural fractaling and another refuse? How in this fractal universe can we have different and even conflicting fractal/pattern-delusions?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Akhenaten
Posts: 854
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/19/2016 1:22:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/18/2016 11:48:39 PM, Evidence wrote:


The sun and matter are created because the universe is not quite full and has a 4 % true vacuum which the left and right spin universes are trying to fill.


So how are you sure it's 4% true vacuum? Remember you are not really conscious to make such assertions. Nor do I have the ability to either agree or disagree with your statement. Remember we are two delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!

It is a scientific fact that the universe contains 4 % matter and 96 % space. I didn't just make it up. Matter is just an aether vacuum in rotation. The aether is trying to fill the vacuum. That's called gravity. The aether is pushing you together. Without aether pressure you would explode or evaporate into nothingness.


I don't mind different views, but when people show they don't believe in what they try to convince others by, and still keeping preaching it, it upsets me. How may I ask could I "improve" on this Fractal delusion, since I am a delusional results from a collection of mathematical inevitability and colliding particles which obey the laws of spin energy and 3 dimensional reactions!?

Its not that i don't believe in what I am saying. I am just following the Socratic Method of assumed ignorance. (Only a fool thinks that he knows everything.)


What do you mean by religion? The one thing I am religious about is to tell the world that none of the god/gods in religion is our Infinite Creator. That "you will never find our God in religion." Science proves God, and how God created the universe, and it is all logical.

Science disproves god.

Let me ask you, is a Satanists monthly (or however often they do it) human sacrifices and the drinking of these terrified/murdered children's blood logical or not?
Now please explain if not, .. why not?
If yes, why yes? What I want to know is where do you get that I could have a different logic than yours, even though I keep showing you that you have a misconception of my logic. You keep associating my logic with religion, and this as I explained is because you mistake "Infinite" with religion.

All religions have weird ceremonies and practices. Religious logic is a brain malfunction (calcification) causing a lack of oxygen to the basal ganglia. (Avoid eating and drinking dairy products to prevent calcification of body parts.)


So how do you know this? Are you aware of these infinite fractal universes? If so, why am I not "fractalled" into this also, or everybody else? Can one brain go with natural fractaling and another refuse? How in this fractal universe can we have different and even conflicting fractal/pattern-delusions?

You need to read the fractal universe website to understand how fractals operate.

http://www.fractaluniverse.org...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/20/2016 11:25:34 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/7/2016 9:49:29 PM, janesix wrote:
I am looking for other possible theories of moon formation.

The most current one i know of is the double wack theory, where a mars sized planet slammed into the earth, ejecting 70 percent of tge earths crust, forming the moon, and then another( or the same maybe) planet smacked into the earth from the opposite side not long after, stablizing the earths spin and slowing it down.

This is obviously a very unlikely scenario, so i want to be up to date on any newer, more realistic theories.

I am still interested on why you posted here, intimating that the most current theory of moon formation is from a book you read, but aren't sure; and is really whacky without first googling "How did the moon form?"

Googling, and performing separate searches on topics to make sure what you're saying is actually accurate is pretty important.

"Check yo self before you wreck yo self"
- Ice Cube.