• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Theory of Everything

gnostic

The Lost One
You´re not spending much time as as daily and nocturnal Sky Watcher, are you? Can you even see any night Sky where you live?

Maybe you´ve lost your own primitivity, hence you state ancient cultures to be primitive?
We don’t know what the prehistoric people think (referring to the people of the Upper Paleolithic and Neolithic periods) because they left no writings that communicate their thoughts, however they sometimes do leave hints in works of arts, eg paint, figurines, but the saying “picture worth a thousand words”, lead to multiple interpretations, we really still don’t know what they think and believe.

And even when writings became available to the ancient people, like Bronze Age Sumerians and Babylonians, and the Egyptians, the stargazers may have the abilities to understand and even calculate periodic astronomical events (eg monthly, seasonal, annual) of the sun, moon and star alignments at specific times, neither the Egyptians, nor the Mesopotamians were ever capable of explaining what any of these objects were, nor how they seemingly move.

And in the 2nd millennium BCE (Middle and Late Bronze Age), both Babylonians and Egyptians thoughts the Earth itself were flat disk with edges, hence the Flat Earth.

They both also thought the Earth was static, fixed and stationary, while the sun, moon and stars moved in their vaulted dome, hence the notion of the geocentric planetary motion. Of course, geocentric model were never fully explained during this period (Bronze Age), not until Claudius Ptolemy wrote his treatise on astronomy.

The ancient Greeks during the classical and Hellenistic periods understood some things better, as they were the first to assume the Earth, sun, moon and planets were spheroid bodies, not like flat disks.

And the Hellenistic Aristarchus of Samos (mid-3rd century BCE) was the first to propose the heliocentric model over the geocentric model. However, the geocentric model would remain popular for another, over 1500 years, until the geocentric model were finally debunked by Galileo.

My points are that both ancient Bronze Age civilizations held views about astronomy that were so popular, and yet their knowledge were also so wrong.

But everything changed, even more so revolutionary than with Galileo and Isaac Newton, when in 1919, Edwin Hubble discovered the Milky Way wasn’t the only galaxy. From the 20th century to the present we continued to learn more, more so than the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Greeks, the Indians (referring to those of India) and the Mayans, and even more than Hubble himself.

I am not denying the ancient people contributions to astronomy, but they didn’t understand what they were really observing at the time. I think you place too much credits to the ancient people, who had no REAL understanding what the planets, stars and Milky Way - of what they really were.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Do you really think that ancient cultures were able to detect light (E&M waves) from across even our galaxy?
I don´t *THINK* - I KNOW from own experiences. And so could you if you re-connects your inner E&M to the cosmic E&M surroundings.
They were limited to what they could see with their eyes with no telescopic enhancement. With only eyes, it is only possible to see a *very* small part of our galaxy. Certainly not the core of it. To do that takes a pretty high quality telescope.
IMO, You´re expressing your own intellectual and intuitive restrictions and nothing else. Because your inner E&M LIGHT cosmic connection is surpressed by math calculaltions and cosmological speculations en masse.

Our Milky Way galaxy isn´t finished whit it´s E&M formative motion, hence the E&M informations STILL are available to all humans by the INTUTIVE way of getting knowledge.

No other *instruments* are needed at all.

This is excactly why our ancestors got knowledge of it all since thousands of years ago. When studying the ancient Stories of Creation, it is obvious that they even got knowledge of a stage BEFORE and HOW the formation of our Milky Way - and subsequently also our Solar System - was created.

Some links to follow up here:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
Creation myth - Wikipedia
List of creation myths

Edit: Even that our ancestors grasped some *eternal principles of creation*, they didn´t speak of a creation of the Universe as in *Big Bang* terms, since they thought everything to be eternal of nature, but also eternally changing between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

They spoke specifically of the creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, the home of humans.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
I am not denying the ancient people contributions to astronomy, but they didn’t understand what they were really observing at the time. I think you place too much credits to the ancient people, who had no REAL understanding what the planets, stars and Milky Way of what they were.
I can give you the very same answer as I posted to Polymath257:
IMO, You´re expressing your own intellectual and intuitive restrictions and nothing else. Because your inner E&M LIGHT cosmic connection is surpressed by math calculaltions and cosmological speculations en masse.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I don´t *THINK* - I KNOW from own experiences. And so could you if you re-connects your inner E&M to the cosmic E&M surroundings.

That makes NO sense at all. You are confusing E&M radiation with the E&M forces and the circuitry in our brains.

IMO, You´re expressing your own intellectual and intuitive restrictions and nothing else. Because your inner E&M LIGHT cosmic connection is surpressed by math calculaltions and cosmological speculations en masse.

There is no 'inner E&M light'. That, again, is just nonsense.

Our Milky Way galaxy isn´t finished whit it´s E&M formative motion, hence the E&M informations STILL are available to all humans by the INTUTIVE way of getting knowledge.

No other *instruments* are needed at all.

Laughable.

This is excactly why our ancestors got knowledge of it all since thousands of years ago. When studying the ancient Stories of Creation, it is obvious that they even got knowledge of a stage BEFORE and HOW the formation of our Milky Way - and subsequently also our Solar System - was created.

Some links to follow up here:
List of creation myths - Wikipedia
Creation myth - Wikipedia
List of creation myths

Actually, it is clear that they had knowledge of only what their eyes could see, which is exactly what our eyes today can see. And that simply isn't close to being enough to say anything at all about the galaxy as a whole.

Even that our ancestors grasped some *eternal principles of creation*, they didn´t speak of a creation of the Universe as in *Big Bang* terms, since they thought everything to be eternal of nature, but also eternally changing between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

They spoke specifically of the creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, the home of humans.

in other words, you have nothing except your own intuition and misinterpretation of experiences that actually say nothing about any of this.

Our ancestors were wrong in too many details to list. And they certainly did NOT have access to the 'E&M fields' you claim.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
I don´t *THINK* - I KNOW from own experiences. And so could you if you re-connects your inner E&M to the cosmic E&M surroundings.
That makes NO sense at all. You are confusing E&M radiation with the E&M forces and the circuitry in our brains.
If speaking of *ircuity* you´re apparently not a specialist. And you cannot even imagine that the E&M forces can have all kinds of frequensies and charges in the entire universe and all it motions and lives.

Your lack of natural philosophical understanding is as empty as your vacuum chamber. Even plants cannot grow whithout a bit of E&M.
ME:
IMO, You´re expressing your own intellectual and intuitive restrictions and nothing else. Because your inner E&M LIGHT cosmic connection is surpressed by math calculaltions and cosmological speculations en masse.
There is no 'inner E&M light'. That, again, is just nonsense.
Oh so you regret what you said above with an E&M circuitry?

I said:
Our Milky Way galaxy isn´t finished whit it´s E&M formative motion, hence the E&M informations STILL are available to all humans by the INTUTIVE way of getting knowledge.
No other *instruments* are needed at all.
Laughable.
It´s only those which inner light is blown out who need artificial instruments.

I sad:
Edit:
Even that our ancestors grasped some *eternal principles of creation*, they didn´t speak of a creation of the Universe as in *Big Bang* terms, since they thought everything to be eternal of nature, but also eternally changing between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

They spoke specifically of the creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, the home of humans.
in other words, you have nothing except your own intuition and misinterpretation of experiences that actually say nothing about any of this.
With your inner light blown out, you´re not even able to judge it.
Our ancestors were wrong in too many details to list. And they certainly did NOT have access to the 'E&M fields' you claim.
I agree that you dont have such an access, ´but other more enlightenend persons certainly have it as our ancestors too. And you even can read in the Old and New testaments of human contact with *god = E&M light. You certianly should be interested in this since you´re here on Religious Forum.

The sarcastic bit:
upload_2021-1-22_5-46-40.jpeg

Well, enjoy your kindergarten singularity games and remember regulary to have some of your dark matter serial, which in your opinion, gives power to build your body and give power to move everything, even your good self and apparently your brain too. Watch up for dark holes and dark energies when you go to school and learn to find your Theory of Everything.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Just think what you like.

Not what I "like". It's a fact. Ancient cultures did not have our level of scientific knowledge about physics, the universe / cosmos.


I´ve no intentions wasting my time *peeing out* anything against cultural ignorants.

I guess you prefer only preaching to the quire, where you aren't asked to actually substantiate your baseless claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Going after the messenger instead of dealing with the messenger´s contexts, are you?

Nope.

Au contraire: asking about the message and why it isn't turning entire scientific fields upside down.

You speak about physicists as if they are blithering idiots for missing the things that apparantly seem so obvious to you. I'ld expect that, if that were true, you (or someone else who subscribes to this same "message") would be able to publish this message and rock the scientific community in the process. It would be front page news on every journal and newspaper around the globe. If true, this is Nobel material after all....

Why hasn't this occurred?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The mathematical possibilities are potentially infinite,

What "possibilities" are you talking about?

and only a small percentage of combinations would be “elegant”

If you say so. "elegant" seems to me to be quite subjective.
Personally for example, I think quantum physics is far from "elegant". It's rather spooky and weird.


…….. why would nature care about creating a universe that can be explained with “elegant equations”?

Why would a god?
And it's not clear to me at all that the universe is explainable with "elegant equations". The universe, in fact, isn't "explained" at all - so how could you possibly know it is "elegant".

Classical physics is quite elegant perhaps, sure. E = mc² for example. A very simple equation that explains quite a lot. Same with relativity. But it doesn't play nice with quantum physics. Attempts at marrying the two are also far from elegant. String theory anyone? And quantum physics itself is the very opposite of "elegant" imo.

But nevermind if it is "elegant" or not. It doesn't actually matter to me, nore is it the point I was actually replying to. What I was replying, was your bare claim that a "god created universe" - hypothesis includes a prediction that it must be elegant, while a "natural universe" - hypothesis supposedly includes the opposite prediction.

Please demonstrate this. Please explain this. So far, it seems to be just something you claim for no particular reason. The only motivation I can see at this point, is just you trying to paint the bullseye around the arrow again...

But in any case, this is a good time to make predictions since we don’t have theory of everything yet

And you claimed some predictions. I'm asking you to explain how you arrived at them.

What about a "natural universe" rules out a universe that is fundamentally simple or can be fundamentally described in an "elegant" math equation?

And what about a "god universe" suggests the opposite.

You haven't explained this at all. You just claimed it.

…….. So under your view what kind of result would count as evidence for naturalism and what kind of result would count as evidence against?

I don't know. "naturalism" is not a hypothesis that makes such predictions.
You would require an actual origins hypothesis to see what kind of universe would result from such a specific mechanism.

I don't know what kind of possible universes a natural process could result in and I know even less what kind of possible universes your deity of choice would or could create.

Unlike you, I see no need to stacking the deck like that.

Or is it another example of “it doesn’t matter what we find, it will always count as evidence for naturalism and I will still be a naturalist no matter what “

No, it is a matter of not making baseless claims.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Only *gravitational thinkers* can miss the obvious and logical connection as they don´t imply intuitive skills.

Here you go again.... with accusing the entire scientific community of missing "the obvious".

If it is that obvious, how come nobody on your side of the fence has brought this to their attention to the point of it turning entire fields upside down and getting a Nobel for it in the process?


This is a serious question.
I would appreciate a serious answer.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Native said:
I don´t *THINK* - I KNOW from own experiences. And so could you if you re-connects your inner E&M to the cosmic E&M surroundings.

If speaking of *ircuity* you´re apparently not a specialist. And you cannot even imagine that the E&M forces can have all kinds of frequensies and charges in the entire universe and all it motions and lives.

Sure I can. For example, light has a different frequency than radio, which has a different frequency than ultraviolet, which has a different frequency than microwaves.

Your lack of natural philosophical understanding is as empty as your vacuum chamber. Even plants cannot grow whithout a bit of E&M.
ME:
IMO, You´re expressing your own intellectual and intuitive restrictions and nothing else. Because your inner E&M LIGHT cosmic connection is surpressed by math calculaltions and cosmological speculations en masse.

Oh so you regret what you said above with an E&M circuitry?

Nope. Humans cannot detect radio waves, for example. We cannot detect ultraviolet. We cannot detect infrared. Circuitry is not the same as E&M waves.

I said:
Our Milky Way galaxy isn´t finished whit it´s E&M formative motion, hence the E&M informations STILL are available to all humans by the INTUTIVE way of getting knowledge.
No other *instruments* are needed at all.

It´s only those which inner light is blown out who need artificial instruments.

I sad:
Edit:
Even that our ancestors grasped some *eternal principles of creation*, they didn´t speak of a creation of the Universe as in *Big Bang* terms, since they thought everything to be eternal of nature, but also eternally changing between formation, dissolution and re-formation.

They spoke specifically of the creation of the Milky Way and the Solar System, the home of humans.

And they were wrong about their conclusions.

With your inner light blown out, you´re not even able to judge it.

I agree that you dont have such an access, ´but other more enlightenend persons certainly have it as our ancestors too. And you even can read in the Old and New testaments of human contact with *god = E&M light. You certianly should be interested in this since you´re here on Religious Forum.

I know many people *claim* such insights. But when they are tested, they prove to be nonsense.
The sarcastic bit:
View attachment 47096
Well, enjoy your kindergarten singularity games and remember regulary to have some of your dark matter serial, which in your opinion, gives power to build your body and give power to move everything, even your good self and apparently your brain too. Watch up for dark holes and dark energies when you go to school and learn to find your Theory of Everything.

Yawn. When you learn what it means to do science, you might finally have something worthwhile to say about cosmology.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
You speak about physicists as if they are blithering idiots for missing the things that apparantly seem so obvious to you. I'ld expect that, if that were true, you (or someone else who subscribes to this same "message") would be able to publish this message and rock the scientific community in the process. It would be front page news on every journal and newspaper around the globe. If true, this is Nobel material after all....

Why hasn't this occurred?
Have you ever yourself tried to come pass a consensus peer review with an *upside down inside out* alternate prospection on standing consensus orthodoxy?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Have you ever yourself tried to come pass a consensus peer review with an *upside down inside out* alternate prospection on standing consensus orthodoxy?

Sure. I do that over whisky with friends. It is amusing and worth precisely nothing except for entertainment value.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Here you go again.... with accusing the entire scientific community of missing "the obvious".
Not at all. I´m just pointing out - as even Einstein himself - that a genuine intuition should come before assumptions and calculations, thus getting the overall scientific connections as wide as possible.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Nope. Humans cannot detect radio waves, for example. We cannot detect ultraviolet. We cannot detect infrared. Circuitry is not the same as E&M waves.
You´ve no ideas as you only uses your physical senses. And this answer also goes for the rest of your reply.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Not at all. I´m just pointing out - as even Einstein himself - that a genuine intuition should come before assumptions and calculations, thus getting the overall scientific connections as wide as possible.

Intuition is a wonderful thing. It's where we get all new hypotheses. it guides which assumptions we make and what calculations we do. It is invaluable in the sciences.

But it needs to be tested: it is *usually* wrong. Those few times when it is *right* are incredible. But it is like throwing out 100 ideas and hoping 1 actually works.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
You´ve no ideas as you only uses your physical senses. And this answer also goes for the rest of your reply.

I can spin hypotheses all day. But they need to be tested to be validated.

ALL *anyone* has are the 'physical senses'. Some people believe they have more, but from what I can see, they are deluded by their own experiences. Skepticism is the key: it is easier to fool yourself than it is to fool others.
 

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
Native said:
Have you ever yourself tried to come pass a consensus peer review with an *upside down inside out* alternate prospection on standing consensus orthodoxy?
Sure. I do that over whisky with friends. It is amusing and worth precisely nothing except for entertainment value.
Well, it´s probably the right place too for you too. I´f it´s taking place in a pub, you can follow the Einsteinian suggestion:

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid"
Albert Einstein

My guess would be that she´ll immediately shut the bar to prevent more rambllng nonsense from outer space.
 
Last edited:

Native

Free Natural Philosopher & Comparative Mythologist
But it needs to be tested: it is *usually* wrong. Those few times when it is *right* are incredible. But it is like throwing out 100 ideas and hoping 1 actually works.
I know. It succeeded for Newton to get it wrong first time when he forgot to use his intuition to connect other natural circumstances but apples.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Have you ever yourself tried to come pass a consensus peer review with an *upside down inside out* alternate prospection on standing consensus orthodoxy?

I'm not a scientist.

But if that is your way of asking if there are precedents of people succesfully challenging the status quo or scientific consensus of the time, plenty of people have in the past though. And their names resonate through the ages as a direct result.

Galileo, Newton, Farraday, Einstein, Hubble, LeMaitre, Darwin,...

What's your point in asking that question?
Can you please just answer my question instead.

I feel some kind of conspiracy-ish accusation is coming up next. Am I right?
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Not at all.

Obviously, yes. You said it quite literally. We all know who you mean with "gravitational thinkers". Just about every working physicist.

I´m just pointing out - as even Einstein himself - that a genuine intuition should come before assumptions and calculations, thus getting the overall scientific connections as wide as possible.

Which is worthless if afterwards you don't have the required evidence to validate your idea - no matter how you came up with it.

Einstein, off course, is one of those "gravitational thinkers". Perhaps even one of the founders, lol.
So not sure why you think invoking him, will do your case any good.
 
Top