Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Godfree]

I submit, that to view humanity as a cancer shows an aspect of the viewer, not so much the viewed.

Clearly, your submission is based upon ignorance and thus denial!

Spheres wouldn't be the first to see humanity as a cancer on the earth ,
look at the mess we have made ,
the whirlpool of plastic in the pacific is killing the ocean ,
we are stripping bare the land and killing the high country,
as the trees have all been removed and erosion is taking over,
the pollution , not just in the air but the sewers pumping raw sewage ,
into the ocean in many countries still ,
we live in a toxic world of our own creation ,

[SpheresOfBalance]

The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

What 'articles'? Do youmean posts?

Sorry Lance, maybe I'm getting old, but I couldn't find the words 'articles' or 'posts' in either one of our quotes. To whom are you talking?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I submit, that to view humanity as a cancer shows an aspect of the viewer, not so much the viewed.

Clearly, your submission is based upon ignorance and thus denial!

Spheres wouldn't be the first to see humanity as a cancer on the earth ,
look at the mess we have made ,
the whirlpool of plastic in the pacific is killing the ocean ,
we are stripping bare the land and killing the high country,
as the trees have all been removed and erosion is taking over,
the pollution , not just in the air but the sewers pumping raw sewage ,
into the ocean in many countries still ,
we live in a toxic world of our own creation ,

Thank you Godfree!
Keep in mind that I'm a human too. I mean, I wish I were an alien, because then I could skip this disaster and watch it implode from afar. I just can't believe that some seem to be incapable of looking at themselves critically; honestly. Have I, in the past, been an unwitting contributor? Of course,
'When I was a child, I thought as a child, I spoke as a child, I didn't know better... betteeerr...
But now I'm a man, I look like a man, I'm old as a man, and I should know better... betteeerr...' --Todd Rundgren-- --Real Man--
Am I doing everything in my power to change that? As much as being forced to live in this bullshit construct affords, without slitting my wrists. The difference between me and those that oppose is that they're too chicken 'shirt' to honestly look into the mirror! God forbid, they actually look at themselves in disgust, Oh no, can't do that; my self image, NO, not my self image, me, me, me, me, me!

Well it's 'we' that are going down folks!

[Godfree]

Spheres ,
honesty requires courage , to face reality you have to be prepared to,
admit being wrong , see your own short comings , inadequacies ,
I wrote a song once with the line ,
"Rather than face your own weaknesses why ,
fight the strengths that we posses"
it is easier to poke fun at others attempts , than it is to come up with a better one ,
I kept asking Chaz which were his threads ,
I don't believe he starts any , but he's got plenty of stick for those who do tho,
So Arising , rather than criticize my attempts ,
how about you starting a groovy thread with an interesting title to ,
titillate us we and we can come and rubbish your efforts,
which was your last one I can't remember ,???

[Godfree]

The Never Ending Story,
If the universe is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end ,
then we will need a repeating cycle ,
not a once , bang and never return , expand forever ,
that doesn't fit , so we need a different model , one that repeats forever ,
we can see black holes , not the thing it's self but the effect it has on the surrounding galaxy , and there are billions of galaxies ,
so you would think we are fairly comfortable with the idea that ,
black holes exist ,
on the other hand we have no actual evidence of the "singularity"
no proof of the expansion or singularity , all just theory ,
we can see stars , and planets and moons , and we accept black holes ,
we don't need any more , we don't need a singularity or an expansion ,
we can explain the universe with just what we can prove , and see ,
why do we need to invent things to explain something we can explain without this invention , surely if it aint broke why fix it ,
we can explain the universe without any bang theory ,
seems that makes the bbt a bit redundant,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

...
So Arising , rather than criticize my attempts ,
how about you starting a groovy thread with an interesting title to ,
titillate us we and we can come and rubbish your efforts,
which was your last one I can't remember ,???

You are in a philosophy forum! Expect critique.

Feel free. Notice that I put it in the section where it belongs.
http://philosophynow.org/forum/viewtopi ... cd0ecb63b3

[Arising_uk]

The Never Ending Story,
If the universe is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end ,
then we will need a repeating cycle ,
not a once , bang and never return , expand forever ,
that doesn't fit , so we need a different model , one that repeats forever ,
we can see black holes , not the thing it's self but the effect it has on the surrounding galaxy , and there are billions of galaxies ,
so you would think we are fairly comfortable with the idea that ,
black holes exist ,
on the other hand we have no actual evidence of the "singularity"
no proof of the expansion or singularity , all just theory ,
we can see stars , and planets and moons , and we accept black holes ,
we don't need any more , we don't need a singularity or an expansion ,
we can explain the universe with just what we can prove , and see ,
why do we need to invent things to explain something we can explain without this invention , surely if it aint broke why fix it ,
we can explain the universe without any bang theory ,
seems that makes the bbt a bit redundant,,!!!

You keep thinking that Physics thinks up the idea first and then fits the facts to them, its the other way around, 'need' is not what drives them. If it was then string-theory would be the accepted model in QM.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The Never Ending Story,
If the universe is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end ,
then we will need a repeating cycle ,
not a once , bang and never return , expand forever ,
that doesn't fit , so we need a different model , one that repeats forever ,
we can see black holes , not the thing it's self but the effect it has on the surrounding galaxy , and there are billions of galaxies ,
so you would think we are fairly comfortable with the idea that ,
black holes exist ,
on the other hand we have no actual evidence of the "singularity"
no proof of the expansion or singularity , all just theory ,
we can see stars , and planets and moons , and we accept black holes ,
we don't need any more , we don't need a singularity or an expansion ,
we can explain the universe with just what we can prove , and see ,
why do we need to invent things to explain something we can explain without this invention , surely if it aint broke why fix it ,
we can explain the universe without any bang theory ,
seems that makes the bbt a bit redundant,,!!!

You keep thinking that Physics thinks up the idea first and then fits the facts to them, its the other way around, 'need' is not what drives them. If it was then string-theory would be the accepted model in QM.

I submit that 'One' cannot necessarily 'know' how 'scientists' work.
If they have a 'close' relationship with 'one' then they 'could' 'know' how 'that one' worked. That's it!!!

To say that the facts come first is probably almost always false. That would be like saying that they're doing math on the board with no variables defined, their colleague walks in and says, "what are you working on?" "I don't know," the scientist replies, "I'm just trying to come up with the facts first." "So you have no ideas that you're trying to prove," his colleague replies. "No way," the scientist says, "Someone on a Philosophy Forum said that it's always the facts first, not the ideas. I'll get the idea that's purely 'conjecture' once I've figured out the facts via the proofs."

Actually it's easy to see, even for the simplest, of simpletons, that it usually can only be the other way around. I'm not saying that one can't 'bump' into one thing while working on another, but that is the exception, not the rule. A scientist has ideas that are purely conjecture/speculation and then 'models' the math to 'fit' his supposition. I'm not saying that his 'supposition' isn't collegiately informed, 'as much' as it 'can' be. It's still just 'speculation' that he 'tries' to 'fit' that math 'model' to. Then when he fails, he comes up with another idea and then tries to prove that. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the English and History majors should stay away from a Philosophy forum, and leave it to the Science majors, after all Philosophy is the father of all SCIENCES, not English or History, right Godfree?

[Godfree]

The Never Ending Story,
If the universe is infinite and had no beginning and will have no end ,
then we will need a repeating cycle ,
not a once , bang and never return , expand forever ,
that doesn't fit , so we need a different model , one that repeats forever ,
we can see black holes , not the thing it's self but the effect it has on the surrounding galaxy , and there are billions of galaxies ,
so you would think we are fairly comfortable with the idea that ,
black holes exist ,
on the other hand we have no actual evidence of the "singularity"
no proof of the expansion or singularity , all just theory ,
we can see stars , and planets and moons , and we accept black holes ,
we don't need any more , we don't need a singularity or an expansion ,
we can explain the universe with just what we can prove , and see ,
why do we need to invent things to explain something we can explain without this invention , surely if it aint broke why fix it ,
we can explain the universe without any bang theory ,
seems that makes the bbt a bit redundant,,!!!

You keep thinking that Physics thinks up the idea first and then fits the facts to them, its the other way around, 'need' is not what drives them. If it was then string-theory would be the accepted model in QM.

I submit that 'One' cannot necessarily 'know' how 'scientists' work.
If they have a 'close' relationship with 'one' then they 'could' 'know' how 'that one' worked. That's it!!!

To say that the facts come first is probably almost always false. That would be like saying that they're doing math on the board with no variables defined, their colleague walks in and says, "what are you working on?" "I don't know," the scientist replies, "I'm just trying to come up with the facts first." "So you have no ideas that you're trying to prove," his colleague replies. "No way," the scientist says, "Someone on a Philosophy Forum said that it's always the facts first, not the ideas. I'll get the idea that's purely 'conjecture' once I've figured out the facts via the proofs."

Actually it's easy to see, even for the simplest, of simpletons, that it usually can only be the other way around. I'm not saying that one can't 'bump' into one thing while working on another, but that is the exception, not the rule. A scientist has ideas that are purely conjecture/speculation and then 'models' the math to 'fit' his supposition. I'm not saying that his 'supposition' isn't collegiately informed, 'as much' as it 'can' be. It's still just 'speculation' that he 'tries' to 'fit' that math 'model' to. Then when he fails, he comes up with another idea and then tries to prove that. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

I think the English and History majors should stay away from a Philosophy forum, and leave it to the Science majors, after all Philosophy is the father of all SCIENCES, not English or History, right Godfree?

Well put Spheres , there have been many blind alleys in science ,
I believe it was Kepler who tried to make the maths fit some,
weird theory , theory of shapes within shapes , can't recall exactly ,
but he failed , spent most of his life on the theory only to have to abandon it,
and he was wrong , he wasted his time , the theory didn't apply at all,
it was fantasy or delusion on his part , but he believed .
we have this bbt , according to "one qualified expert" ,
there have been none of the theories for the bb proved to date ,
so it's still"possible' for the theory to be wrong ,,!!!
they have already done a Kepler , more than one working life time trying to prove the theory , and to date have failed , there is no proof ,
Hubble was looking at our galaxy when he came up with this theory ,
in the twenties they didn't have the images we have today ,
the little bang theory may be correct , galaxies go bang ,
I think it's more probable than "Stephen Hawkings they evaporate"
somethings got to happen to them/black holes ,
otherwise in a non expanding model we would eventually have just one big black hole , if it doesn't go bang or "evaporate" then how does it ,
get re-cycled , remembering that we are forging a non expanding model,
I posted way back in these forums , that everybody has an agenda,
and to save a shit load of time , if people are honest and admit their agenda,
then we know where they are coming from ,
and don't have to play this game of hide and seek ,
I think I have articulated my ambitions and agenda here very clearly ,
I don't think there would be any who don't see what I'm trying to prove ,
Speres is another I see as open and honest with no hidden agenda ,
but the likes of Chaz , I asked repeatedly for his opinion on things ,
and I always got the feeling he was not being completely honest ,
like it was a game , and he was just winding me up for his entertainment ,
I'm not here to play games , the evolution of my model of the universe ,
is real and when I go to sites in the future I will be promoting ,
the model as I have expressed it here , little bang theory ,
as I have done on another science forum where my user name is littlebang,

[Godfree]

...
So Arising , rather than criticize my attempts ,
how about you starting a groovy thread with an interesting title to ,
titillate us we and we can come and rubbish your efforts,
which was your last one I can't remember ,???

You are in a philosophy forum! Expect critique.

Feel free. Notice that I put it in the section where it belongs.
http://philosophynow.org/forum/viewtopi ... cd0ecb63b3

Now I'm going to put this as nice as I possibly can ,
I checked out your thread , your three posts and one from Chaz ,
and that appears to be it , jan 25th the last post,,:>"!?
so if you would like some advice from someone who has had several very successful threads here in PhilosophyNow ,
to me you seemed to be hinting at the idea that you are a bit religious,
that you would like to prove the maths that a soul exists ,
and that is how you should have started that thread ,
I didn't read it and I'm just going on Chazs comments ,
that there was something about proving a soul ,
so is that something you would like to do , believe is reality ,
I also noticed on your first post , two references to web sites ,
like you were trying to avoid saying this is what you feel or believe ,
but you still want to have the debate ,
I'm more interested in your thoughts than being referred to websites ,
I posted once on a dating site"Cut the crap , show us your stats"
Now I would like you to explain to me in your words as to why,
when asked for a thread of your starting , your three posts and one from Chaz,
Atheists vrs Skeptics had about 25% of readers , posted ,
I havn't checked out this one yet , but it's also ripping along,
I think the stats speak volumes , love me or hate , I'm actually ,
quite good at this,,!!!!!

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance"The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

What 'articles'? Do youmean posts?[/quote]
Sorry Lance, maybe I'm getting old, but I couldn't find the words 'articles' or 'posts' in either one of our quotes. To whom are you talking?[/quote]

"you exude this in every ARTICLE I've read of yours" (above)

[lancek4]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance"The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

What 'articles'? Do youmean posts?[/quote]
Sorry Lance, maybe I'm getting old, but I couldn't find the words 'articles' or 'posts' in either one of our quotes. To whom are you talking?[/quote]

"you exude this in every ARTICLE I've read of yours" (above)

[chaz wyman]

Why can't you explain your "Law of Galaxy motion", without dropping my name?
I haven't been following this thread for ages so I find it odd that you are still at it.

You have been making lots of motions, but there is precious little law here. But there are plenty of motions. In fact the motions are piling up, into a large heap. So keep going through the motions. But it might take a while to get it all out of you because you are so full of it.

[SpheresOfBalance]

[quote="SpheresOfBalance"The highlight above is exactly what I'm talking about. You say that, when I've done nothing but relate my actual thoughts, WTF else would I possibly do here in a textual based forum? Talk about reading minds, I take it you expect me to read yours, and then impart what it is, you want to hear. This is exactly what I mean when I say that you fill up my content with your presumption. It would seem you're incapable of reading and withdrawing anything from it. except the projections of your own mind's eye. I think that in a live setting you're one of those that talk too much and never listen, such that your voice is the only thing that reverberates within your cranium.

But you keep repeating the same thought, i.e. the problem is we're all selfish. So when I ask you to expand upon this idea and what you are doing to change yourself, given you wish others to change, and what solutions you can offer to this problem you perceive, you go into a hissy fit?

You've called me all kinds of things based upon you misconceptions, and never once asked before doing so. Like I've said you can't label anyone with certainty based upon a few words here or there. You have a very bad habit of labeling people based upon your presumption of meaning without giving them the benifit of doubt and asking first, or alluding to the "POSSIBILITY" that they "MAY" or that it would "SEEM" that they "COULD" be seen as such. You get the reaction from me that you do because you are fucking RUDE in LABELING people and placing them neatly in your imaginary box of subordinates! You exude this within every article I've read of yours, OK, maybe a slight exaggeration.

Oh! I'm sorry, is diddums feelings hurt? You are in a philosophy forum, now whilst you may think you are a one-off original, much of how you come across and what you say has been discussed and labelled in philosophy, that you get all hurt by this shows how little philosophy you've done.

Things are not Black and White sweetheart, they're Trillions of shades of gray!

Deep! But again LMAO at the man who says he doesn't use others words.

What 'articles'? Do youmean posts?

Sorry Lance, maybe I'm getting old, but I couldn't find the words 'articles' or 'posts' in either one of our quotes. To whom are you talking?[/quote]

"you exude this in every ARTICLE I've read of yours" (above)[/quote]
You've said it twice and I still don't know specifically what "this" is, and there is a lot "above." Could I impose upon you to specify, please! Thank You!

I always check the servers to ensure there are no double posts, and if so delete one to save space and negate confusion.

[Arising_uk]

Now I'm going to put this as nice as I possibly can ,
I checked out your thread , your three posts and one from Chaz ,
and that appears to be it , jan 25th the last post,,:>"!?
so if you would like some advice from someone who has had several very successful threads here in PhilosophyNow ,
to me you seemed to be hinting at the idea that you are a bit religious,
that you would like to prove the maths that a soul exists ,
and that is how you should have started that thread ,
I didn't read it and I'm just going on Chazs comments ,
that there was something about proving a soul ,
so is that something you would like to do , believe is reality ,
I also noticed on your first post , two references to web sites ,
like you were trying to avoid saying this is what you feel or believe ,
but you still want to have the debate ,
I'm more interested in your thoughts than being referred to websites ,
I posted once on a dating site"Cut the crap , show us your stats"
Now I would like you to explain to me in your words as to why,
when asked for a thread of your starting , your three posts and one from Chaz,
Atheists vrs Skeptics had about 25% of readers , posted ,
I havn't checked out this one yet , but it's also ripping along,
I think the stats speak volumes , love me or hate , I'm actually ,
quite good at this,,!!!!!

LMAO! Philosophy as a popularity contest!

The difference between my posts and yours are that mine are either a question I need resolved or are intended to be informative. If the former I've tended to find that someone here will give me a good enough answer to think about so the post is resolved, if the latter then I just leave it to time to see if anyone finds them interesting enough to raise any questions they find from the information. If not then at least I've put-up what I find of interest and maybe someone might find it of use. Your posts on the other hand are you promoting your pet hobby-horses and consist of you repeating the same thing over and over again in response to others points. What you're not quite good at is learning and amending your thoughts and beliefs from a philosophical point of view. You lack the ability to take on board critique.