Godfree's Law of Galaxy motion

[Arising_uk]

Oh so now we finally come to it. You're so tired of me hitting your nail upon it's head, that you seek my solution. It's enough that I see humanity for what it is, a cancer! It's up to you to find solution.

You're not paying attention: I DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING THE WAY.

A 'cancer'

You think there's some entity out that's being 'infected'?

If it fails, you and I will blame me. Those that are at odds, will blame me. It's 'impossible' for one man to find solution for everyone. A panel of our brightest, needs to concern themselves with it. My job is to point out the problem. I know that most of it has to do with our fear of death, that we are so selfish, but I am no psychologist, biologist, or brain specialist. How am I to possibly find proper solution.

But apparently you think you're bright enough to correctly identify it as a psychological or medical problem?

Marx already pointed-out the problem, scarce and unevenly distributed resources.

It could be that it shall take some time for all to realize the problem for solution to manifest. But we have to become our own worst critic first. Why do you think I can't tolerate you or everyone else labeling me? It's because I know my flaws, only too well and no one can brow beat me more than I, which is why I won't take it from you. You don't deserve to, until such time that you mind your own store, and I know you don't, because of how you label everyone else! You're a "me, me, me, me," person if I've ever read one! From Bill's animal rights thread to this one, and every one in between, it's quite apparent. I've been the one consistently screaming: we, we, we, we and us, us, us, us, not me, me, me, me! You just don't pay attention, and therefore you just don't get it.

Maybe you should think more about it being me, me, me and acting as though you are also the problem and find a solution for yourself, that way we may be able to apply it as well.

Now, am I the coolest head to disburse this truth? Hell no! I can be so crass and tactless it's not funny. I can sound like a big p****, due to my upbringing, that I'm working on. My attitude can really suck when someone push's me on purpose. I don't turn the other cheek, I'm an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of guy. But that does not mean that I don't see a problem, as a matter of fact, it may just be the reason I do![/color]

You do sound like the selfish you describe. So solve this issue for yourself and maybe we can copy what you've done. Until then you are just another in a long-line of Cassandras.

It really started to sink in when I analyzed the saying: 'Money is the root of all evil' (I know that it's not the coined version, it's the popular one of the day, but the original has the same implications). I thought why did man (if memory serves, it may have been Jesus) create a saying that blames an inanimate object for all the evils of his world? Denial! of course! So originally I said. well if money is the root of all evil, then surely selfishness is the seed of all evil, as it sprouts the roots. (to hell with the chicken or egg paradox in this case, we start with the smallest and work toward the largest).

The original does not have the same meaning nor implications, as its "The love of money is .." not money per se.

How do you fix it so no one has a temper tantrum? Good question? It cost Abraham Lincoln his life!

You teach people how they thought and think and give them techniques to do so. As such I recommend that all should be taught New Code NLP to practitioner level at school. That way when they lose their temper at least it will be in a congruent manner and not just emotionally driven.

I thought Lincoln was killed fairly cold-bloodedly for his politics not because of a temper tantrum?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Oh so now we finally come to it. You're so tired of me hitting your nail upon it's head, that you seek my solution. It's enough that I see humanity for what it is, a cancer! It's up to you to find solution.

You're not paying attention: I DO NOT WANT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF LEADING THE WAY.

A 'cancer'

You think there's some entity out that's being 'infected'?

If it fails, you and I will blame me. Those that are at odds, will blame me. It's 'impossible' for one man to find solution for everyone. A panel of our brightest, needs to concern themselves with it. My job is to point out the problem. I know that most of it has to do with our fear of death, that we are so selfish, but I am no psychologist, biologist, or brain specialist. How am I to possibly find proper solution.

But apparently you think you're bright enough to correctly identify it as a psychological or medical problem?

Marx already pointed-out the problem, scarce and unevenly distributed resources.

It could be that it shall take some time for all to realize the problem for solution to manifest. But we have to become our own worst critic first. Why do you think I can't tolerate you or everyone else labeling me? It's because I know my flaws, only too well and no one can brow beat me more than I, which is why I won't take it from you. You don't deserve to, until such time that you mind your own store, and I know you don't, because of how you label everyone else! You're a "me, me, me, me," person if I've ever read one! From Bill's animal rights thread to this one, and every one in between, it's quite apparent. I've been the one consistently screaming: we, we, we, we and us, us, us, us, not me, me, me, me! You just don't pay attention, and therefore you just don't get it.

Maybe you should think more about it being me, me, me and acting as though you are also the problem and find a solution for yourself, that way we may be able to apply it as well.

Now, am I the coolest head to disburse this truth? Hell no! I can be so crass and tactless it's not funny. I can sound like a big p****, due to my upbringing, that I'm working on. My attitude can really suck when someone push's me on purpose. I don't turn the other cheek, I'm an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth kind of guy. But that does not mean that I don't see a problem, as a matter of fact, it may just be the reason I do![/color]

You do sound like the selfish you describe. So solve this issue for yourself and maybe we can copy what you've done. Until then you are just another in a long-line of Cassandras.

It really started to sink in when I analyzed the saying: 'Money is the root of all evil' (I know that it's not the coined version, it's the popular one of the day, but the original has the same implications). I thought why did man (if memory serves, it may have been Jesus) create a saying that blames an inanimate object for all the evils of his world? Denial! of course! So originally I said. well if money is the root of all evil, then surely selfishness is the seed of all evil, as it sprouts the roots. (to hell with the chicken or egg paradox in this case, we start with the smallest and work toward the largest).

The original does not have the same meaning nor implications, as its "The love of money is .." not money per se.

How do you fix it so no one has a temper tantrum? Good question? It cost Abraham Lincoln his life!

You teach people how they thought and think and give them techniques to do so. As such I recommend that all should be taught New Code NLP to practitioner level at school. That way when they lose their temper at least it will be in a congruent manner and not just emotionally driven.

I thought Lincoln was killed fairly cold-bloodedly for his politics not because of a temper tantrum?

I refuse to continue to hijack Godfree's thread like this. I should have never allowed you to move it here in the first place.
I may still carry on in it's original thread, but not here.

Sorry Godfree, you'll hear no more of Arising's and my argument about civilization from me, only that of galaxies in motion, at least here!!

[Arising_uk]

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!!!

Nope, we have a pretty good idea of how 'scientists'(mainly physicists) work. Popper explained it fairly well and all can join in if they wish.

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."

Ah! My mistake, I should have said data so as not to confuse things. I agree there is the hypothetico deductive method and that scientists use it and that the driving force behind science is a metaphysic about the external world and an epistemology about how facts are discovered, plus a desire to explain how things work. Although its not the case that scientists don't also work from the the theory only, i.e. they play with the maths and get results or 'facts' that they find more attractive and then try to see if its possible to experimentally test them. Of course if they can't then they agree that its just theory, e.g. current string-theory in Physics.

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!!!!!!!!!!!

We agree then but its not that they try to prove that, its as Popper said, that they try to produce a falsifiable prediction that will disprove their idea.

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?

Who are you talking about?

As I've been trying to point out to Godfree, 'philosophers' should stay away from metaphysics with respect to Physics as the reason why its called the above is that the 'sciences' are the metaphysicians who left philosophy armed with a clear epistemological method to discover facts. If philosophers wish to challenge their results then they, as you say, need to learn these methods so that they can prove or disprove their ideas. Not just quote authorities from the sciences as some kind of argument, especially since those authorities can't prove or disprove their ideas to their own peers satisfaction. The thing about science is that it pretty much does not accept arguments from authority and by reputation.

[Godfree]

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.

As I nicely pointed out the difference between your posts and mine ,
nobody was interested in your last topic ,
are you too clever for us and we just couldn't understand your wisdom ,?
was it a boring subject and we just couldn't be bothered ,?
it's not a popularity contest , it's a participation contest ,
you didn't titillate us sufficiently enough for us to want to play your game ,
so you come and play my game instead ,
are you bitter that such a uninformed peasant , should enjoy a busy thread ,
whilst your effort sits , silent , the last post , does anyone have a bugle ,?
so Arising , don't be bitter , your welcome to play my game ,
statistically it's much more interesting than your one ,
but I would prefer that those who do , answer some of the questions put to them , rather than just constant denial and deliberate uncooperativeness ,!

[Arising_uk]

As I nicely pointed out the difference between your posts and mine ,
nobody was interested in your last topic ,
are you too clever for us and we just couldn't understand your wisdom ,?
was it a boring subject and we just couldn't be bothered ,?
it's not a popularity contest , it's a participation contest ,
you didn't titillate us sufficiently enough for us to want to play your game ,
so you come and play my game instead ,
are you bitter that such a uninformed peasant , should enjoy a busy thread ,
whilst your effort sits , silent , the last post , does anyone have a bugle ,?
so Arising , don't be bitter , your welcome to play my game ,
statistically it's much more interesting than your one ,
but I would prefer that those who do , answer some of the questions put to them , rather than just constant denial and deliberate uncooperativeness ,!

LMAO twice!! So it is just a popularity game for you. That explains why you ignore the points people put to you, but please save your psychological 'insights' for yourself, as they have about as much value as your 'Law'.

I'm 'bitter' that the policy of this forum allows such as you to write nonsense in the philosophy of science section and that your thread is not moved to the metaphysics section, although its becoming apparent that it may as well be in politics or religion but more aptly the lounge, as its surely not philosophy of science.

That you understand critique as uncooperativeness shows the limitedness of your philosophical experience.

Once again, if you wish to truly solve the issues you raise, become a physicist. As nothing you are doing has any reflection upon the subject you are discussing. Its rank metaphysics of the worst philosophical sort. Do you truly think that the reason why those who study physics ignore what you say due to some conspiracy or cabal? Its not, its because they understand their subject and can see those who don't but just wish to crank out their pet psychological peeve.

[sideshow]

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"

This is not true, but let's go on.

We have examples of the mechanics of the universe

This is OK. It's what physical science usually assumes.

with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,

Yup. Gravity is usually expected to be universal, that is, if it's well over the scale of electromagnatic forces, either on a spatial or time scale. Note the second one.

and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges

Not really. One would expect this, but without the drag of friction slowing things down, things can just go around and around forever.

So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???

Let's assume that you are right, and that the universe is mechanical, without supernatural intervention, as you want it to be.

Then the mechanistic model is purely deterministic, and can be played backwards and forward in time, as often as we wish without altering the results.

Then your model starts with the universe as it is today, all spread out nicely into galaxies, then collapses in a big crunch. This is just another closed big bang model.

The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

Expanding??? You said nothing about that in your argument. Your model is a big crunch whether the universe is expanding or not. And you're still left to explain the red shift differences and *apparent* distance. Then of course, if the big bang is a big myth, which it could be, then what would your replacement be?

[SpheresOfBalance]

As I nicely pointed out the difference between your posts and mine ,
nobody was interested in your last topic ,
are you too clever for us and we just couldn't understand your wisdom ,?
was it a boring subject and we just couldn't be bothered ,?
it's not a popularity contest , it's a participation contest ,
you didn't titillate us sufficiently enough for us to want to play your game ,
so you come and play my game instead ,
are you bitter that such a uninformed peasant , should enjoy a busy thread ,
whilst your effort sits , silent , the last post , does anyone have a bugle ,?
so Arising , don't be bitter , your welcome to play my game ,
statistically it's much more interesting than your one ,
but I would prefer that those who do , answer some of the questions put to them , rather than just constant denial and deliberate uncooperativeness ,!

LMAO twice!! So it is just a popularity game for you. That explains why you ignore the points people put to you, but please save your psychological 'insights' for yourself, as they have about as much value as your 'Law'.

I'm 'bitter' that the policy of this forum allows such as you to write nonsense in the philosophy of science section and that your thread is not moved to the metaphysics section, although its becoming apparent that it may as well be in politics or religion but more aptly the lounge, as its surely not philosophy of science.

That you understand critique as uncooperativeness shows the limitedness of your philosophical experience.

Once again, if you wish to truly solve the issues you raise, become a physicist. As nothing you are doing has any reflection upon the subject you are discussing. Its rank metaphysics of the worst philosophical sort. Do you truly think that the reason why those who study physics ignore what you say due to some conspiracy or cabal? Its not, its because they understand their subject and can see those who don't but just wish to crank out their pet psychological peeve.

Philosophy according to some people is a dying study, and as the father of all sciences, I can understand how some may think this. I'm sure that many scientists may even go so far as to see it as antiquated.

I think this is probably the reason Rick, the sites owner, allows anybody and everything except death threats to flourish. I believe that he, at least, has the wisdom that there is not necessarily an accounting for knowledge, as Epistemology suggests, and coupled with the fact that the sciences concerned with the human brain are still baffled as to mind and consciousness, it's easy to see that the current level at which any particular individual stands could be seen as purely subjective.

In addition if in fact one sees that the popularity of Philosophy is waning and additionally believes that it's important, they may see that it's foolhardy to establish a stance of intolerance towards someone interested in this course of study, that at least a few of us here, actually love, respect, and look to, for inspiration and guidance.

I know that with the differing perspectives that are integral to philosophy, it's easy to allow their argument to turn into a personal competition of egos, but this should be avoided at all costs. I submit that anyone that truly understands the nature of philosophy and understands why it's originators practiced pederasty, coupled with what I've mentioned above, should see that nurture is the only true way to interact with those individuals that are interested in exploring this wonderful world.

So does anyone want to come over and intimately love me into knowledge and understanding?

[Godfree]

"All Galaxies are moving towards their nearest or most powerful Galaxy"

This is not true, but let's go on.

We have examples of the mechanics of the universe

This is OK. It's what physical science usually assumes.

with our solar system , the biggest object drawing all other objects towards it,
we can then see the same process on a galactic scale ,
a black hole at the center drawing in the stars and planets ,

Yup. Gravity is usually expected to be universal, that is, if it's well over the scale of electromagnatic forces, either on a spatial or time scale. Note the second one.

and as you would expect in such a model ,
more dense towards the middle , and sparce at the outer edges

Not really. One would expect this, but without the drag of friction slowing things down, things can just go around and around forever.

So why wouldn't the universe look like this ,??
dense in the middle and less dense at the outer edge,
why wouldn't the same process exist doing the same thing just on a universal scale ,,???

Let's assume that you are right, and that the universe is mechanical, without supernatural intervention, as you want it to be.

Then the mechanistic model is purely deterministic, and can be played backwards and forward in time, as often as we wish without altering the results.

Then your model starts with the universe as it is today, all spread out nicely into galaxies, then collapses in a big crunch. This is just another closed big bang model.

The answer appears to be , because the universe is not expanding ,,!!!
there was no big bang , and the rate of expansion is even more of a joke,
the only evidence I can find for the expansion theory,
is Hubbles tired old Red shift
which is no proof at all ,
so if you know of any other proof , bring it on ,,,???

Expanding??? You said nothing about that in your argument. Your model is a big crunch whether the universe is expanding or not. And you're still left to explain the red shift differences and *apparent* distance. Then of course, if the big bang is a big myth, which it could be, then what would your replacement be?

There are many bottom lines we could insist on ,
my model would have to be an infinite one , a repeating cycle ,
The Hindu religion believes ,"birth and re-birth of the universe"
I say birth and re-birth of the galaxies , if the universe is infinite ,
then nothing happens on a universal scale , it's just too big ,
and would take forever for any event that involves infinity ,
So black holes go bang , if we are to have a repeating cycle , they must ,
unless you prefer Hawkings ,"they evaporate"
so my big crunch if you like would be just a corner of the universe ,
our wee corner , I have posed the question before ,
"how many black holes does it take to make a bang" ,???
it may vary greatly depending on the size of black hole that collides ,
and the angle of impact , you would think at a certain size ,
they would just go bang anyway from the pressure ,
but I think black holes would be a logical way to create a lot of hydrogen ,
since they crush the atom down to it's nuclei , then thats what could be ,
blown out when they blow , single nuclei , a hydrogen atom,
I think there are many variations on the steady state theme ,
so I think , "non expanding " is the more specific model ,,!

[Godfree]

sideshow ,,to clear a few things up ,
galaxies are clumping together , I know we have always been told , expanding,
but the images we are seeing today reveal a network of galaxies clumping together forming clusters and chains that make up the pattern ,
we see today , there are big voids in between the lines and chains of galaxies,
the gravity has over time ,pulled everything out to the clusters ,
think about it like the row of smiley yellow faces on the left of the posting box ,
the faces are the voids and the gaps in between is where the galaxies are
there is no proof of an expansion , just Hubbles red shift ,
and we can explain that with photon decay ,
if you want the web sites that claim all of this , just google ,
"galaxies older than the bang" and that brings up several of the good sites on the universe , one is called ,Massive ancient galaxy stirs mystery ,
and that site is one of the best , I tried to load a direct link ,
url is too long and it didn't work,
Now , point 2 ,"no friction out there things can go forever"
that was in response to why wouldn't the universe be tight in the middle ,
and sparce in the outer edges ,
think about it like water coming out of a fire hose ,
it sprays out wide and eventually individual drops appear ,
but near the center/nosil ,it's one mass of water ,
so if the universe is expanding from this"singularity"
the matter to expand out into the outer galaxies , trillions ,
would have been a bit squashed coming out of the "singularity"
and we can see fully formed galaxies nearly all the way to the "singularity"
13 billion years ago galaxies still near the "singularity"
should have been , young blue galaxies , and very tightly packed ,
just have a wee look around at the sites Iv mentioned and a few more,
it pays to google lots of different themes ,
galaxies older than the bang,
the biggest black hole ,
the largest galaxy,
the cycle of galaxies ,,,our sun is supposed to be a second or third ,
generation star , the matter being used has been there done that before ,
the pattern of galaxies ,,,reveals a lot in the right scale ,, very large

[Godfree]

Godfree ,,
is putting his account on hold and will be offline for a few months or more ,
I have given you all the info you need to see the the bb is busted ,
if you want to see it ,for those who don't , they will always see ,
confusion and think it doesn't ad up , but it's the bang that doesn't ad up ,
and when you can't let go of the idea it gets in the way of seeing reality ,
Non expanding , infinite ,universe ,,!!!

[Arising_uk]

Godfree ,,
is putting his account on hold and will be offline for a few months or more ,
I have given you all the info you need to see the the bb is busted ,
if you want to see it ,for those who don't , they will always see ,
confusion and think it doesn't ad up , but it's the bang that doesn't ad up ,
and when you can't let go of the idea it gets in the way of seeing reality ,
Non expanding , infinite ,universe ,,!!!

So what!!??

[Godfree]

Godfree ,,
is putting his account on hold and will be offline for a few months or more ,
I have given you all the info you need to see the the bb is busted ,
if you want to see it ,for those who don't , they will always see ,
confusion and think it doesn't ad up , but it's the bang that doesn't ad up ,
and when you can't let go of the idea it gets in the way of seeing reality ,
Non expanding , infinite ,universe ,,!!!

So what!!??

I was just being polite , my fans would want to know,,!!!
if they think it's just you here , they will probably stay away ,
which is probably why the thread hasn't done much since my last post ,
I was having trouble with my internet provider ,
they dis-connected me and fined me $45 for re-connection , + $90 early termination fee , and they bill was only $135 , the penalties = more ,
than the bill was to start with , so I told them I wasn't happy and to ,
terminate my account , they removed both penalties , so I decided to stay ,
So Arising , why not show a little honesty ,
the only reason you are here , is because your thread is dead ,
you don't seem to want to acknowledge forums are for ,
participation , engaging people , having a debate ,
your thread failed to achieve that , you have yet to explain why ,
I'm sure it's our fault , and we just can't see your genius ,!!!!

[Arising_uk]

I was just being polite , my fans would want to know,,!!!
if they think it's just you here , they will probably stay away ,
which is probably why the thread hasn't done much since my last post ,
I was having trouble with my internet provider ,
they dis-connected me and fined me $45 for re-connection , + $90 early termination fee , and they bill was only $135 , the penalties = more ,
than the bill was to start with , so I told them I wasn't happy and to ,
terminate my account , they removed both penalties , so I decided to stay ,...

And the trivia of your life is of interest how?

So Arising , why not show a little honesty ,
the only reason you are here , is because your thread is dead ,
you don't seem to want to acknowledge forums are for ,
participation , engaging people , having a debate ,
your thread failed to achieve that , you have yet to explain why ,
I'm sure it's our fault , and we just can't see your genius ,!!!!

Please stop imputing your purile motivations to me. Its immmaterial to me if my threads are popular or not.

Forums are for participation and philosophy forums in particular are for seeking critque of ones ideas, something you singulary fail to take on-board. As such I have engagd upon your thread in an attempt to discern your motivation for doing something that is neither science nor philosophy now. I have attempted to point out and debate with you that your thoughts that you are doing philosophy are in error and how, if you truly wish to assist in the progress of knowledge in astro-physics, you can solve the issues you think you are addressing. That you ignore any critque and continue with your crusade points to you being unable to think philosophically about your thoughts.

The best I can understand is that you think there is some cultural issue about the BBT in the wider world. Fear not, there isn't. Most care little about such things. What is an issue is how the 'public' still accepts authority as a reason for belief and a lamentable understanding of how science works. Something you display in spades.

[Godfree]

Forums are for participation and philosophy forums in particular are for seeking critque of ones ideas, something you singulary fail to take on-board. As such I have engagd upon your thread in an attempt to discern your motivation for doing something that is neither science nor philosophy now. I have attempted to point out and debate with you that your thoughts that you are doing philosophy are in error and how, if you truly wish to assist in the progress of knowledge in astro-physics, you can solve the issues you think you are addressing. That you ignore any critque and continue with your crusade points to you being unable to think philosophically about your thoughts.

Yes I thought so , you are on my thread to try and discourage me ,
to suggest that it's not scientific or proper philosophy that I present ,
like your the authority here , and an expert on these subjects ,
is your name AMod ,??? or where do you get the idea that your the judge ,,??
So Arising , are you agnostic , or religious , and could this be why ,
you just attempt to undermine everything I post , cos I'm god free ,
your thread , Do you believe that we have a soul , as in spirit , ghost ,
or since the thread failed to generate any interest,
tell me here , are you a christian , seeking the "proof" the maths ,??
your using science to try and prove religion,,???
and you think I'm confused ,,???

[Arising_uk]

Yes I thought so , you are on my thread to try and discourage me ,
to suggest that it's not scientific or proper philosophy that I present ,
like your the authority here , and an expert on these subjects ,
is your name AMod ,??? or where do you get the idea that your the judge ,, ...

A fucking BA(Hons) Degree in Philosophy and a MSc degree in AI is where I get my arrogance to judge you dipshit! Where do you get yours?

So Arising , are you agnostic , or religious , and could this be why ,
you just attempt to undermine everything I post , cos I'm god free ,
your thread , Do you believe that we have a soul , as in spirit , ghost ,
or since the thread failed to generate any interest,
tell me here , are you a christian , seeking the "proof" the maths ,??
your using science to try and prove religion,,???
and you think I'm confused ,,???

I think you the most confused dipshit I've chatted to on this forum for a long time. And that is saying something.