I challenge the world , bring it on!

[Milton Platt]

A science section is my home turf, objectively I am a genius.

Most of the world is under cognitive control when it comes to science and the subjective education they are forced to accept or fail.

In saying that , I will set a series of challenges in this thread to main stream science by use of my cognitive freedom.

Challenge 1

A point has 0 dimensions , specifically no dimension of time. Einstein and science claims in such, there is a space-time.

Given the dimensions of XYZ = 1 cm ³ a spacial volume of geometrical points that is without any substance, i.e empty space

On examination of each individual point of the volume, the volume is without time.

My first challenge is for you/science to provide evidence that space-time exists in the given volume of space?

Quite obviously and axiom , space does not age and time is not relative to space. You are making it up Mr science, space-time is imaginary.

Not even a belief, an outright lie.

You need to be posing these sorts of questions to physicists and cosmologists, not to lay persons. But personally, I hope you do just that and post their replies here.

 

[james blunt]

Let me ask you something about your idea of absolute-space time. Imagine starting from Earth, pick any direction, and travel a trillion light years away. At some point after 14 billion light years you will enter "empty" space in your imagination. At a trillion light years away there is no mass and no energy present. As far as we know it is empty space. In the space of nothingness, how do you know time exists?

Because I could look back and see that time exists. We can assume that after our space is more space, whether or not time exists is another matter , but in an infinite space, we can assume there is more universes, because 1 universe in an infinite space seems so unlikely.

I would argue without the presence of mass and energy time does not exist. I would even go further in terms of subjective philosophy and argue unless you have a self-aware conscious observer identifying when time begins and end then time does not exist. What is your evidence absolute-space time exists? What is time?

Time is substance, the underlying space is evidence of absolute space-time .

 

[james blunt]

You need to be posing these sorts of questions to physicists and cosmologists, not to lay persons. But personally, I hope you do just that and post their replies here.

I have tried posting on science forums, they mainly ban you if you try to oppose any information. A religious forum with a science section is neutral ground.

 

[Milton Platt]

I have tried posting on science forums, they mainly ban you if you try to oppose any information. A religious forum with a science section is neutral ground.

I don't know how "neutral" this forum is LOL. But that aside, If you have posed your question to professional scientists in this field, what answers did you get? I have no background in such things and therefore do not wish to engage in discussions of this sort, but would be interested in what professionals have to say about your position. What physicists and cosmologists have you discussed this with?
Please post their replies, rather that characterizing or paraphrasing them.

 

[james blunt]

I don't know how "neutral" this forum is LOL. But that aside, If you have posed your question to professional scientists in this field, what answers did you get? I have no background in such things and therefore do not wish to engage in discussions of this sort, but would be interested in what professionals have to say about your position. What physicists and cosmologists have you discussed this with?
Please post their replies, rather that characterizing or paraphrasing them.

Well it is quite surprising the answers are repeats , it goes a bit like this,

''hello scientists , I am learning science and I have read ''this'' and ''this'' cannot be correct because of ''this'', what do you think ?

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir , I am telling you it is incorrect because of ''this''

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir I can read it says that but I am pointing out it is wrong because of ''this''.

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir''

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this'' and we will ban you now ''


That is how it goes mainly.

 

[Milton Platt]

Well it is quite surprising the answers are repeats , it goes a bit like this,

''hello scientists , I am learning science and I have read ''this'' and ''this'' cannot be correct because of ''this'', what do you think ?

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir , I am telling you it is incorrect because of ''this''

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir I can read it says that but I am pointing out it is wrong because of ''this''.

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this''

''but sir''

Scientist - ''you are wrong because it says ''this'' and we will ban you now ''


That is how it goes mainly.

What is "this" and "this"???????

 

[james blunt]

What is "this" and "this"???????

Whatever subject I am discussing , a science article or wiki information and the information I give to show why it is incorrect.

Like space-time, xyzt , that would not be true because space is absolute-space time and n-dimensional , xyzt being substance dimensions in an n-dimensional space. But for the purpose of not destroying relativistic space-time, that is re-defined as the overlay of absolute space-time. This would be the correct way to view the Universe and the science involved.
So I advance it rather than removing it.

 

[Milton Platt]

Whatever subject I am discussing , a science article or wiki information and the information I give to show why it is incorrect.

Like space-time, xyzt , that would not be true because space is absolute-space time and n-dimensional , xyzt being substance dimensions in an n-dimensional space. But for the purpose of not destroying relativistic space-time, that is re-defined as the overlay of absolute space-time. This would be the correct way to view the Universe and the science involved.
So I advance it rather than removing it.

So have you done research in these fields? More importantly, are you published? Just asking, because, as I say, I am not in any way qualified to delve deeply into such things (wish I was). I find it hard to accept that if you can give sound arguments based upon valid research for your position, that others would not be willing to engage you.

 

[james blunt]

So have you done research in these fields? More importantly, are you published? Just asking, because, as I say, I am not in any way qualified to delve deeply into such things (wish I was). I find it hard to accept that if you can give sound arguments based upon valid research for your position, that others would not be willing to engage you.

The research I have done is ten years or so on science forums and google. I have not published because I feel it will be blocked anyway by ''them'' , additionally I was considering just writing a book all about it and explaining things to the correct semantics. By this way I may be able to obtain an advance by a publisher that gives me peace of mind to write proper.

I have give science an argument that they already knew the mechanism of gravity, I even pointed it out and wrote a part paper. But apparently I was talking total nonsense according to them although it is their own ''stuff'' I used.

They are rather strange , like some weird cult that dare not disobey their programming.

 

[Milton Platt]

The research I have done is ten years or so on science forums and google. I have not published because I feel it will be blocked anyway by ''them'' , additionally I was considering just writing a book all about it and explaining things to the correct semantics. By this way I may be able to obtain an advance by a publisher that gives me peace of mind to write proper.

I have give science an argument that they already knew the mechanism of gravity, I even pointed it out and wrote a part paper. But apparently I was talking total nonsense according to them although it is their own ''stuff'' I used.

They are rather strange , like some weird cult that dare not disobey their programming.

okay, we're done. I asked you for relevant research in the field and you give me "I googled and read forums".

 

[james blunt]

okay, we're done. I asked you for relevant research in the field and you give me "I googled and read forums".

Which is the Data base of the world accessible to all. Information at the speed of light , what more is there ?

 

[FearGod]

Which is the Data base of the world accessible to all. Information at the speed of light , what more is there ?

The puzzle is how God(nothingness) created matter and life?

 

[james blunt]

The puzzle is how God(nothingness) created matter and life?

Yes, which is God's miracle, ZpP (zero point pressure). I have back tracked science to the beginning of time and the answer is ZpP which is a miracle of quantum mechanics which should not work, but God got it to work .

 

[FearGod]

Yes, which is God's miracle, ZpP (zero point pressure). I have back tracked science to the beginning of time and the answer is ZpP which is a miracle of quantum mechanics which should not work, but God got it to work .

If God was the space which is nothingness, do you believe that God is still the space
even though that God is able to create matter and life?

 

[james blunt]

If God was the space which is nothingness, do you believe that God is still the space
even though that God is able to create matter and life?

yes

 

[FearGod]

yes

Why we can't observe God creating thing from nothing around us?
you believe that God is everywhere(the space), then why not seeing God at work?

 

[james blunt]

Why we can't observe God creating thing from nothing around us?
you believe that God is everywhere(the space), then why not seeing God at work?

I would not be to sure that we do not observe it, CMBR is a detection, the CMBR could well be somethings from nothing being created then dispersed to be detected. Don't let the visualisation of the CMBR fool you, that is not a real visual observation, it is an ''artist'' impression.

I consider though in an infinite self, God is busy making universes elsewhere .

Of course if there was really a dome above our heads, my notion would change dramatically. But god would still be god and the ''keepers'' God also.

 

[Subduction Zone]

okay, we're done. I asked you for relevant research in the field and you give me "I googled and read forums".

I found the source of all of his knowledge. Since it is a secret site I used short/url to protect the innocent. Since I would be banned here if there was anything bad in my link to can click on it without fear of porn, viruses, or malware:

shorturl.at/nqLU6

 

[james blunt]

I found the source of all of his knowledge. Since it is a secret site I used short/url to protect the innocent. Since I would be banned here if there was anything bad in my link to can click on it without fear of porn, viruses, or malware:

shorturl.at/nqLU6

Interesting , I am more of a you tube man myself, but I also like to read papers such as Maxwell's equations, The theory of relativity, The electrodynamics of moving bodies.


Hello, I am a father of two, I have spent years learning from scientists off science forums. I have heard many many different opinions and explanations of subjects. My many teachers are the world, I listened to what they said. They taught me how to think about things, an ability I am good at. In learning, I gained the ability to teach and explain the subjects I learnt. My theories developing to have a more solid foundation. I now feel it is the time to set the science records straight, especially in the areas of semantics and understanding of ''their'' own science .
Relative correctness being important.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Interesting , I am more of a you tube man myself, but I also like to read papers such as Maxwell's equations, The theory of relativity, The electrodynamics of moving bodies.


Hello, I am a father of two, I have spent years learning from scientists off science forums. I have heard many many different opinions and explanations of subjects. My many teachers are the world, I listened to what they said. They taught me how to think about things, an ability I am good at. In learning, I gained the ability to teach and explain the subjects I learnt. My theories developing to have a more solid foundation. I now feel it is the time to set the science records straight, especially in the areas of semantics and understanding of ''their'' own science .
Relative correctness being important.

Good luck. Tell me, how much math did these people tell you? Can you even explain something as simple as a tangent or a secant?