Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 We name ocean, lake and rivers - water is water. An ocean wouldn't be an ocean without water. A beach wouldn't be a beach without some source of water to signify a beach. You wouldn't have a beach in the middle of a city, if you did, it would just be sand. But I didn't say that you can't have a beach without water. I said "a beach can't exist without a sea". You see Klaplunk, I deliberately used exactly the same metaphor as yourself. I simply swapped out the nouns, and you walked right into it. The lesson here is that word games don't force the world to comply with your map of it. You might also want to consider that there are lakes, seas, and possibly oceans in this solar system that have no water in them. This also means that time is not progressing, as the beginning and end are already here. Time is static, we move through time. This coming from the person who said a few posts ago that you can't have a future without a past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 That's exactly my point - the future and past exist as opposites. We are what's inbetween - time is static, again.. we move through it. A beach can't exist without a sea/ocean. That's being critical/idiotic, that's not smart at all - what does that prove, you can play with words to give yourself a false sense of success? Congrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJBruce Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You plucked quotes from Gene Ray, an 80 year old, obviously not as conditioned as myself or the other young man who created the cubic awareness webstie. It's not easy to understand Gene's words, but if you try hard you can - you treat it as some kind of joke, and that is evil. We have a top, bottom and middle - but the middle is between the two; how can you call yourself a scientist if you ignore basic truths. Does it take education to reach this level of ignorance? We can sit here and play idiocracy as long as you like, but who's truly an idiot, the one applying truth to his claims, or the one(s) ignoring it and babbling nonsense and insults. Regardless of who said those quotes they were found on the site you linked to, and as such reflect upon the sites credibility -or lack there of. I tried, and all I saw was a bunch of gibberish supported by phony science and junk logic. I have never called myself a scientist. What truths am I ignoring? I have seen nothing from you that I can consider a truth, only bald assertions and accusations. I would say the idiot is the one babbling non-sense, but I am not sure if we agree who that might be. That's from your signature - I don't see any resemblence to that in your actions, so far you've shown no guts, and you're not punishing youself, in-fact you're being rather lazy and ignorent. Sorry if you don't like the fact that I won't except your assertions on face value and am asking you to prove your claims. However, I don't see this as being lazy and ignorant. If I was lazy I would not respond to your post, and if I was ignorant I would accept what you say without questioning it. Neither of which I have done. you can play with words to give yourself a false sense of success? Congrats. It seems to me that you have been the one playing word games Klaplunk, not the other member of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 That's exactly my point - the future and past exist as opposites. We are what's inbetween - time is static, again.. we move through it. However you just stated in your last post that time is static and we move through it. What we call the future and the past can therefore only be named relative to our motion. They therefore stop being identified in terms of entropy and become arbitrary descriptors, just like 'left' and 'right'. You are undermining your own assertion. A beach can't exist without a sea/ocean. That's being critical/idiotic, that's not smart at all - what does that prove, you can play with words to give yourself a false sense of success? Congrats. Yes, absolutely. I'm glad that when I take your strategy and reproduce it exactly you are suddenly capable of evaluating it in an objective fashion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 It wouldn't be a beach without water. So Titan, where all the water is frozen hard as granite can have no beaches? You are so human centric and geocentric it's beyond belief, everything you say screams a human centric mind set. Can anyone hear me? Unfortunately yes.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 I don't see your point. I say time is static, between the end and the beginning. I never said that the beginning was in the past, I said that the beginning was the past, and the end is the future. Therefore instead of reaching the future or travelling away from the past we are essentially between both, never able to reach either - Truth. We have a top and bottom - Truth The middle is between them - Truth We have a left and right - Truth The middle is between them - Truth How many more truths do I need to note before you see the 'truth'. You haven't made any counter argument to any of my claims so far, all you've done is 'no u' me, claiming that my aim was anything like the one you're showing. If I say something that is true, and you cannot counter it, you just ignore it and mimic me. That's science - this is not science, this is truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I don't see your point. Well clearly. This is not getting us anywhere. Let's go right back to the start. Klaplunk, at the end of your first post you asked "Questions"? I have reorganised that post into a list of assertions, simply by removing the extraneous material. Here's my question: Can you evidence any of these assertions? Existence is composed of opposites existing between opposites Everything in existence follows these rules A singularity does exist It comes in the form of a black hole This is what makes everything 'tick' The God in the bible is interpreted wrong I'm wise and can see the truth God represents 'time' 'Space' + 'matter' are factors of time The offspring/child that God creates is 'light' Jesus has to be 'light' Light walks on water, and doesn't drown, and it dies/ceases to exist daily, and then re-appears. E=mc^2 is a formula to explain energy That formula is man-made Word/academa is a virus The bible is essentially algebra, at least Genesis1. God is time Space + Matter, and his son (Jesus) is light Therefore God does exist The 'educated God' doesn't exist You're not meant to know this Note that I consider assertions 8 and 17 to be different and unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 Give me an hour and I'll write an explantion and provide evidence/truths as to why each of those assertions were correct. In the mean-time go look in the mirror and try to find the evidence for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 How many more truths do I need to note before you see the 'truth'. You haven't made any counter argument to any of my claims so far, all you've done is 'no u' me, claiming that my aim was anything like the one you're showing. If I say something that is true, and you cannot counter it, you just ignore it and mimic me. That's science - this is not science, this is truth. You haven't given anything worth debate. You have made a list of assertions, which have been objected to based on their own merit or lack thereof. The onus is on you to demonstrate the veracity of your position, not anybody else. Give me an hour and I'll write an explantion and provide evidence/truths as to why each of those assertions were correct. In the mean-time go look in the mirror and try to find the evidence for yourself. Take as long as you need. Forums are an asynchronous form of discussion and the posts will still be here when you return (assuming no horrific server failures), so there is no rush at all. It's better done right than done quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 (edited) 1. Rules of Cubic Opposites We as humans are composed of male and female counterparts; both are required to produce an offspring in the image of either a male or female. That offspring then grows through four stages before dying: baby, child, father/mother, grandfather/grandmother. A. The first stage of growth: Baby Male/Female – Child Male/Female B. The second stage of growth: Father/Mother – Grandfather/Grandmother C. The complete stages of growth: Baby – Child – Parent – Grandparent Stage (.A.) is opposite to stage (.B.) and each is necessary for the other to exist. Without the possibility of a baby or child, there would be no possibility of a parent or grandparent, and vice versa. The parent is the opposite of the baby, and the child is the opposite of the grandparent. The baby grows into a child as the parent grows into a grandparent, in the same process. The baby and child are not able to reproduce – the point of which the child is able to reproduce is the point of which that child becomes a parent. The bilateral symmetry in our bodies also follows these simple rules of cubic opposites. A human has a front and back; the front is where we look forward, where our chest lay and our forward facing features lay. Our back is behind us, where our spine lay. We are composed of two sides, a left side and a right side; both almost identical. Finally we have a top and bottom - our head signifies our top and our body being underneath it would signify the bottom; the head also has a top and bottom within itself, as does the body. Between all of those opposites we have a centre or middle. The middle is created by human application or from a human view point, when really that middle is opposites in harmony – there is no middle, it becomes a singularity because it is surrounded by dualities. Alike humans, the earth is composed of opposite sides, has a top and bottom, and a front and back – this is represented by one ½ being enlightened and the other ½ in the shadows. This is a constant truth; we call this event the Day and Night cycle. The top and bottom are just opposites, above and below each other; this is signified by the North and South Pole. The front and back follow the same routine; however the light side will always be the side of the earth that is facing forward. Finally the opposite sides are the points of which the light and darkness meets but aren’t the top or bottom. Everything else is what’s in-between these opposites. 2. Singularity The rules of opposites would break down if there wasn’t an opposite of the rules. In this case we have a black hole, which is 100% mass, it is nothing but a singularity, surrounded by opposites – and it fits in perfectly. A black hole is required for the opposites to exist, for without it the rules would break down. 1 = Singularity - 0 = Duality 1 cannot exist. No male, no female. No top, no bottom. No heart, no heartbeat. However, 1 can exist between opposites, and is required as it is an opposite of duality. Without 1, 0 wouldn’t exist, and vice versa. Both are required for each other to exist. N) 000 Top 010 Side 000 Bottom N = 0 Without black holes nothing in the universe would tick. It was only recently that science proved that a black hole was existence in the centre of every galaxy, which essentially shows that they govern the way the universe moves, and are probably the reason everything in the universe lives/ticks. If it wasn’t for the rotation of all the planets, nothing would exist. So again, this 1 singularity is essential – but there is only 1 type of singularity, and that is a black hole. 3. God “In the beginning God created the Heaven and Earth” – Bible. God definition: the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions. No-where in Genesis does it claim that God is a supernatural being, and Genesis is the most primitive part of the bible. This also occurs in other religious books, seeing as Christianity is the most widely believed religion, I’ll continue using the bible as an example. The definition of God is man-made and is interpreted wrong: this is true because it doesn’t say ANYWHERE in the bible that God is a supernatural being; it doesn’t say God is a man – in-fact it says he is made of male and female counterparts. “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” – Bible. It doesn’t say human either, it simply says “male and female” – opposites. I’m going to translate the first words in the bible. In the beginning Time created Space and Matter. This is truth to existence; the first things created in the universe were composed of space and matter – it’s impossible for Space to exist without Matter, and vice versa. Time created both Space and Matter, and therefore God is time. The dictionary describes God as a supernatural being, I described God as time. You choose who to believe. God represents ‘Time’, and the real non-word God is time. Light is a combination of Space and Matter. Therefore Space and Matter creates Light, therefore God is 100% Space and Matter, and light is what God created. Light is Gods son ‘Jesus’. Again this is purely how you interpret it, if you’re too idiotic to notice the truth then that’s your problem, not mine. To put it bluntly, the proof is in the pudding. By living you witness all the proof you need; you're too blind to notice. Word/Academa is a virus, it's used to control you. You're not meant to be sat in front of a computer chatting of forums - you're meant to be surviving naturally, proving to nature you're capable and that you should be selected to continue. Excluding twenty-four hour clocks, a twelve-hour clock is wrong and and intended evil to mankind. A clock should have 4, 8, 12, 16 - and GMT would become exempt - GMT is an unessisary ploy to help destroy the human mind, and educate us this dumb-founded oneism. Truly four days occur on earth at once; there's nothing 'matrix-like' about it, it's just truth. If it were 16'oclock where I live, directly the other side of the planet it would be 8'oclock. On top of that we have four seasons. Winter, Summer, Spring, Autumn. Edited July 25, 2010 by Klaplunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 You realise that's just a longer and more colourful list of assertions, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 It doesn't agree with Occums Razor, It falsifies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 It really doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 I don't think it's possible to falsify a Razor... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaplunk Posted July 25, 2010 Author Share Posted July 25, 2010 Lol hooookay then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2010 Share Posted July 25, 2010 Precisely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts