Question about gravity and light

[kevin]

StevenO,
Perhaps if I try to explain myself better?
The so called laws of physics that are currently accepted are relative to the reasonably constant condition about this planet, they have all been developed here and no where else, anything made here and thrusted out into space is still made of and from whatever is normal to here and will operate to that condition.
Variations in the findings are found within the condition here, and are averaged as you say.
But that means that the so called laws of science are only relative to a normal condition that exists only here or about anything manufactured here, in no way at all have we any idea what the condition is anywhere else outside of here, yet our so called laws of physics are trumpeted as laws of universal principals.
we may not have a clue what is outside of the narrow band of condition relative to this planet.
There may be extreme variations of what is testable here elsewhere, and all that we are aware of is anything that approchs something resembling here.
By adhering to these so called laws, and restricting all to only this narrow speck of which there may be endless variations of, we are basically imprisoned to be restricted to the narrow so called laws of physics.
Kevin

[earls]

We live on Earth, in the Solar system, in the Milky Way galaxy. A handful of humans have been to the moon, but most of us are stuck here on Earth. Due to these constraints, we have a specific toolbox of physics to work with, and within those physics are particular rules. There may be a vast spectrum of possibilities, but for the here and now, that PDF collection of cranks you posted is just that - a collection of cranks. They have either misinterpreted their experimental results and extrapolated the physics incorrectly, or simply don't have an experimental evidence for their claims (John Searl).

Maybe their devices and physics work great on Vulenarias B7, but they're simply not going to fly here. Your argument is more of a philosophical one, not scientific. Again, as I mentioned in the crop circles thread, this is a typical argument of the religious - "You can't prove there's not a god!" In which case, in their mind, there just has to be one despite the ratio of evidence clearly leaning against such.

[kevin]

earls,
What You are saying is that there are a pack of cards called rules of physics that are in place, and if You don't play with that pack, and deal a hand with that pack, then You aren't been scientific?
I say OFF WITH THEIR HEADS.
Collapse the rules, flatten the pack and deal a universal one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWE7i5Uw ... re=related
Kevin

[earls]

I'm saying there's a "scientific method." Adhere to the method or be ignored. Wanton deviation leads to non-sense.

[kevin]

I'm saying there's a "scientific method." Adhere to the method or be ignored. Wanton deviation leads to non-sense.

Is that rule 42?
I couldn't have said that better myself, exactly, and if You do not conform, and obey the laws, You will be ignored, or worse.
But how do You know that the rules relevant to here, are in any way relative to universe?
If you slavishly adhere to such a rule book, then You may be patted on the back for been a good little lamb, but others may be licking their lips thinking of mint sauce.
kevin

[Grey Cloud]

Here we go again.
I didn't read any of the links Kevin provided as I'm not that interested in this side of things but I agree almost entirely with what Kevin wrote in his subsequent post.

Earls, what you have written is more akin to a statement of religious faith. Why do you, and those who think like you, assume that the 'scientific method' is the only or best possible way to gain knowledge? The scientific method, so-called, was developed by Francis Bacon who, apart from being a polymath and one of the most intelligent and subtle individuals of recorded history, was also a Platonist to the very core of his being. And, just for the record, science was always a subset of Philosophy and it still is.

Neither Kevin nor myself subscribe to any religious faith or tradition and only ever mention religion in order to criticise it. Yet you and yor ilk always thro it into a conversation as a weasel word in an attempt to undermine what someone is saying. You made the statement that

"You can't prove there's not a god!" In which case, in their mind, there just has to be one despite the ratio of evidence clearly leaning against such.

Would you care to produce one shred of evidence that there is no god?

I apologise on behalf of Kevin and myself for the voicing of heathen views in the Electric Universe forum. S[eaking for myself, I have not read The Electirc Universe so I have not seen the promised land.

[StevenO]

Here we go again.
I didn't read any of the links Kevin provided as I'm not that interested in this side of things but I agree almost entirely with what Kevin wrote in his subsequent post.

Sure, we could tell the apple the law of gravity is only in his head. But maybe the apple does'nt hear it.

Earls, what you have written is more akin to a statement of religious faith. Why do you, and those who think like you, assume that the 'scientific method' is the only or best possible way to gain knowledge? The scientific method, so-called, was developed by Francis Bacon who, apart from being a polymath and one of the most intelligent and subtle individuals of recorded history, was also a Platonist to the very core of his being. And, just for the record, science was always a subset of Philosophy and it still is.

For me the scientific method is the law of getting measurable and predictable results that can be quantified by math. It is not an assumption, like the existence of gods, but a proven way to get results. I do not hold philosophy at a higher platform than science, even if we write it with a capital.

<snip>
Would you care to produce one shred of evidence that there is no god?

We already know that God exists as an idea in the minds of people, so the better question would be "Is there any evidence that God is physical?" which would lead to the answer that that probability is ignorably low, which would then lead to the question: "But what would be a physical evidence of the existence of a God?"

I apologise on behalf of Kevin and myself for the voicing of heathen views in the Electric Universe forum. S[eaking for myself, I have not read The Electirc Universe so I have not seen the promised land.

and you still dare to be so prominently present on the Thunderbolts forum ?

[kevin]

stevenO,
Has the law of gravity that the apple has to adhere to, ever found what the apple weighs when it is still part of the tree, not what it weighs after it seperates from the tree?
I ask this as I KNOW that a detectable field about the tree when it is in leaf spins in the opposite direction to when the leaves fall off.
I consider that gravity within the tree when this field is spinning in the opposite direction is reversed, thus the water under the tree FALLS to the top most leaves, and apples.
Of course this is merely what myself a human being is reporting, not anything to be taken scientifically seriously?
I make no wonder that in ancient times the trees were worshipped, and such creatures as the scarab beetle, it could be observed rolling a ball of dung along a line, and I consider that line was detectable to those human beings that were able to, and that when the beetle reached a crossing line at ninty degrees to the one it was rolling its ball along, it dug an hole there, laid an egg into the dung ball, covered it over, and out popped a new beetle.
Do You think We will be able to do this when this planet reaches that crossing point, of course to a very much larger scale than where the scarab beetle knew?
Will your science know, or will what You scathingly refer to as pseudoscience, know?
Kevin

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Steven,
We don't have to tell the apple anything, it already knows everything it needs to know. Can Newton's inverse square law thing grow a tree?

For me the scientific method is the law of getting measurable and predictable results that can be quantified by math. It is not an assumption, ...

If that's your gig, then fine. My point against Earls was that it is not the only way, nor IMO the necessarily the best, and also that there is no need to denigrate the views of others just because they lie outside one's own comfort zone. I capitalise Philosophy to diffrentiate between true Philosophy and the modern gibberish. I would like to see science come up with maths which proves that an apple tree is in the pip.

Personally, I don't subscribe to the notion of God (capitalised )but one could perhaps take the existence of an orderly, coherent and comprehensible Universe as physical evidence (and the fact that an apple tree grows from a pip, or a butterfly from a caterpillar, or, or...).

I would dare to put my head in a lion's mouth if I thought that there was knowledge to be gleaned from the lion's tonsils.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Kevin,
There is an interesting take on the scarab beetle here:
http://www.charlessfinch.com/The_Nile_Journal.html
Part three is the one you want.

[kevin]

Hi Kevin,
There is an interesting take on the scarab beetle here:
http://www.charlessfinch.com/The_Nile_Journal.html
Part three is the one you want.

Cheers Grey Cloud,
I read through all parts of that link which you left down in the mad section, where I normally reside.
I like the way he thinks, and I often go to the Egyptian section in the british museum and look at everything in my mad fashion, not how it is all TOLD.
If You look at some of their solar symbols with sort of rays emitting from them, they have tiny hands at the ends of the rays.
the differing ray alignments will be time based relative to the suns position the variations upon specific alignments are detectable in a time frame manner, but You have to look with your hands, not via a machine .
I use L rods, and have a good hand le on all of this.
Kevin

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Kevin,

the mad section

New insights, surely old boy? See you down there.

[StevenO]

stevenO,
Has the law of gravity that the apple has to adhere to, ever found what the apple weighs when it is still part of the tree, not what it weighs after it seperates from the tree?
I ask this as I KNOW that a detectable field about the tree when it is in leaf spins in the opposite direction to when the leaves fall off.
I consider that gravity within the tree when this field is spinning in the opposite direction is reversed, thus the water under the tree FALLS to the top most leaves, and apples.
Of course this is merely what myself a human being is reporting, not anything to be taken scientifically seriously?

I think most scientists will not call it anti-gravity, but a living tree. If you can show how to detect that field in a quantifiable manner, I'm sure it will find its way into science.

I make no wonder that in ancient times the trees were worshipped, and such creatures as the scarab beetle, it could be observed rolling a ball of dung along a line, and I consider that line was detectable to those human beings that were able to, and that when the beetle reached a crossing line at ninty degrees to the one it was rolling its ball along, it dug an hole there, laid an egg into the dung ball, covered it over, and out popped a new beetle.
Do You think We will be able to do this when this planet reaches that crossing point, of course to a very much larger scale than where the scarab beetle knew?
Will your science know, or will what You scathingly refer to as pseudoscience, know?
Kevin

I'm kind'a confused here what 'crossing point' you imply here...I was not claiming that science knows everything, far from it, just that the laws of physics that were called into question have been repeatedly proven.

[earls]

There are numerous methods to expanding one's personal knowledge - this is not the issue. It's about being taken seriously.

When your evidence is subjective "feelings" - I feel there's something spooky near crops circles... I feel there's a force fields emanating from the earth... I see auras surrounding trees... Who's going to take you seriously? Only other cooks who "feel" the same way.

The scientific method is an established, international standard of investigation. An accountable, dependable baseline that the majority uses for scientific advancement. If you wish to gain support for your mysticism agenda among the majority, then you will communicate with their language. It's not IMPOSSIBLE explain the unknown with the Grey Cloud Method, but it's certainly improbable that you'll convince the majority you know what you're talking about when you can't adhere to a few simple rules of gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence. In the case of gaining support and acceptable for your ideas, IT IS the best way.

But whatever, this is absolutely futile. Being held accountable for your claims is just "out of your comfort zone."

[kevin]

`I am not doubting your sciences at all, but I am doubting their width.
They are entrapped in the narrow band that is merely relative to the surface of this planet.
If You read the link that grey cloud provided, you will find it goes on to talk about the serpents, and I am certain you will agree how they are globally represented, and ever so in egypt?
You then have the twin spiral serpents entwined around the tree, the medical profession utilise this as their emblem.
Only the likes of myself will see the relevance, especially with trees in mind that so brilliantly utilise this to their advantage.
they have been here far longer than ourselves remember.
All living entities display a dual whorl often called ANU.
The trees been as large as they are display this clearest, and they change the spiral direction around to match the change of time.
That TIME is the real change of time, not the imposed tick tock that your science so slavishly uses.
This thread is about light and gravity, and both of those phenonoma are a consequence of the serpents just on a much larger scale than is so well demonstrated by the tree.
We have a huge such double whorl.
The trees grasp the earth with their roots( think Tesla) they fan out their antennae underground, they fan out their antennae above ground.
Aprox 30 inchs above surface level a barrier exists between opposites, they show as opposite flow directions and create opposite spiral features.
The trees change spin directions above and below ground, they make use of the natural opposite resonant phenonoma available, they do not defeat gravity, as it doesn't exist except as a consequence of the attraction of one opposite to the other, they turn around locally to them this phenonoma, many can sense this hence those that hug trees, but I consider it is mainly internal that this is most prevelent.

I am only able to reveal as I find, I am a dowser as good as there is, and as such readily recognise globally all that such as myself have left as clues to what they detected.
You have every right to doubt what I say, hopefully you have the true scientist within you that has the brains to recognise that we humans far exceed any machine or devices yet manufactured, and that we have latent abilities that have gone dormant for whatever reson/s.
I have no reason to lie, do not be disrespectfull towards a human being that is merely reporting in the only way available and in the best way that he is capable of doing so.
Your sincerely,
kevin