Quote:
Originally Posted by outlaw sammy
Chill Out Jack - chemists and physicists have always disagreed since the advents of these two different sciences. Chemists deal with empirical evidence, critical exploration, and deductive reasoning. THESE ARE TANGIBLE REALITIES! Not some paranormal visualization of theoretical mathematics.
SO THE WORLD IS REALLY FLAT from my perspective. All my senses tell me it's flat and everywhere I go the world appears to be flat. All my friends say it's flat (community consensus) and if it were truly round then every time I drop a baseball in the same spot, it should roll away in the same direction - but it just sits still where it falls on my lawn.
The point is this - truth may or may not apply to the perception of one's own personal reality. Only the observer's perception of reality is the correct definition for that individual's reality. This is my absolute rule. If I'm manic and I believe that I can paint impressionist abstracts as well as Claude Monet, then that is my reality - plain and simple.
Also, take a look at last Month's issue of Scientific American for the article that announces that the proton is not at all what has been believed up until now. It's not matter and it's not energy - it's a hybred like the electron. And that my dear Jack is reality.
|
I know very well what chemist do and the separation between theory and, frankly condemnationable practices, that my reality holds because of them. Believe me if I thought for one second that by not acknowledging the corrupt way in which pharmaceutical companies behave and the complicit nature of the chemist, my and billions of people on this planets reality would be a lot happier.
The world is flat - If you had read what I said about the world being a programme you would understand that is not possible due to the programme. In a computer game you cannot do what you want but that doesn't mean that the syms house really exists. I am not saying that we can simply change things by perceiving it that way, though I do think in a simplistic, romantic sense that I believe this to some degree. But if we conceptually invented the game, I guess we still have to actively play it.
' if it were truly round then every time I drop a baseball in the same spot, it should roll away in the same direction - but it just sits still where it falls on my lawn.'
I am guessing that this is meant to sound as stupid as it sounds.
I also mentioned in my previous post, the discovery of the higgs bosom (in 2012) as a cause of a physical reality and I am guessing the new discovery of you talk of correlates to this in some way? I do find any new discoveries interesting.
I am no scientist and this was a philosophical discussion at best. I can't claim to know more than any scientific discoveries and as we both know there's been a long running debate between physicist that argue for a physical reality and those who argue against that. I can't and don't discount any of it, as my understandings come from (as newton said) 'standing on the shoulders of giants' in the same way both your theory and your university programming to know what you know very much does too.
It is nice to debate it though and be given links to articles and you tube videos as (like the electron) I do not have a fixed pattern I follow and love to hear other's thoughts. I object to the slam dunking way in which you communicate and the fact that you feel that your pieces of paper from a small university (like something out of the wizard of OZ) gives you the right to talk to me like that - JACK! I don't remember referring to you as chemtrails! But I know very well that you will have a far deeper knowledge of the sciences and would be an interesting person to talk to otherwise.
I really don't want to turn this into a slanging match and I do respect your knowledge and opinions
Peace xxxxx