Zephir Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 By my opinion the Universe is chaotic system, but because even the chaos has its rules, every particle, which will violate such rules (for example the statistic rule of normal distribution) must return to the "normal state" of chaos less or more lately. Therefore every violation of chaos is elastic, so it can behave like wave. Of course, the common chaos isn't very chaotic, the significants fluctuations from normal chaotic state are rather rare. But only these fluctuations are visible for us by the same way, like what we can see inside of condensing vapor are just the irregularities (the rest of fluid appears transparent), i.e. it's just a elastic chaos violation, what remains are visible for us. It's because we are formed by these gradients too, so we can interact with them. From this the anthropocentric illusion follows, the observable reality is composed of undulating waves ("strings") and it's driven by predictable laws nearly completely. If the chaos wouldn't contain irregularities, we couldn't interact with it at all. Therefore even the number distribution in random math series is supposedly the result of biased anthropocentric view of reality. Can we propose the completely random numeric sequence at all? What we know, every sequence of natural numbers is full of mutual dependencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 From this the anthropocentric illusion follows, the observable reality is composed of undulating waves No it doesn't. You where asked to do something in the aforementioned closed thread before continuing with this stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 No it doesn't. Why not? The density fluctuations of gas are undulating, i.e. they're behaving like waves. It's easy to simulate by using of computer. ..you were asked to do something... What I'm supposed to do? You have a simulation, animation and a real system video as an illustration of this concept. Maybe a TV show with Britney Spears? Is the above explanation less relevant to reality, then the thread about Bibble Code, for example? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 The burden of proof is on you not us and you have presented none. A simulation of an arbitrary thing is not proof. I'm not interested in the bibble code thread, not even looked at it. This is also not the place to discus this, you where asked to do something if you've not would you mind not trying to hijack other threads with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 ...the burden of proof is on you not us and you have presented none.... Why not? Why the animation or video of chaotic system with undulations isn't the proof of concept, how the waves appears in chaos? ...a simulation of an arbitrary thing is not proof..... Why not? This is how the theories are currently proven - by simulations of arbitrary things. ...this is also not the place to discus this..... Why not? Do you have a better explanation, why the Universe is composed of wave(s)? ...you where asked to do something in the aforementioned closed thread ..... Why my thread was closed and the others not? Have the authors of Bibble Code done the same things? Characteristics of Pathological skepticism: 1. The tendency to deny, rather than doubt, 2. Double standards in the application of criticism 3. The making of judgements without full inquiry 4. Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate 5. Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks 6. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof 7. Pejorative labelling of proponents as "promoters", "pseudoscientists" or practitioners of "pathological science." 8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof 9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims 10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence 11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it 12. Tendency to dismiss all evidence 13. Organized skepticism tends to be automatically pathological Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 This is not the place to discus this and go over AGAIN just what modern science is. So I'm not taking part any further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephir Posted March 28, 2008 Author Share Posted March 28, 2008 ...this is not the place to discus this... OK, I've no problem with this - but WHY? Because of God or something? We're in the Pseudoscience topic about wave nature of Universe and I'm just proposing the explanation, based on real system, why the Universe appears composed of waves. Where such explanation should be presented, if not here? After all, what did you expected from such topic? Did you expect, somebody will start to explain it from oficial science point of view? Maybe some scientific theory of Universe waves exist, which we don't know at all? Or did you expect, the people will start to talk off-topic here, to avoid the answer of that question? Sorry for these questions - I'm just trying to understand the way of your thinking, which I've found quite interesting. Why nagging doesn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted March 28, 2008 Share Posted March 28, 2008 These posts have been moved because they were off-topic for the "one wave" thread. This is now closed, because Zephir has not met the burden of posting this material from the previously closed thread on Aether Wave Theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts