The big question about life on other planets: 1000000000000000000000 planets in the universe

[RWS]

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary. And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

 

[RWS]

The phycisist Anton Zeilinger made very clear that we have some problems with our view to the physical world. Either the concept of time and space have problems or...

Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.

Take away such absurdity of space-time from science and you will be able to discover -as I did- even what is dark matter and why is hard to detect or isolate.

Trust me with this, relativity stupefies you.

About life in other planets, at this moment yes, there are now great possibilities and or probabilities of life in other planets.

I also don't agree with space-time.

Especially time.

 

[james bond]

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

I've heard it was a hologram or two-dimensional surfaces that show absolutely precise, three-dimensional images of real objects.. The simulation is made by a computer program while the hologram is made by a hologram, light, and your brain. It's mind boggling that something exists only when you observe it in quantum mechanics.



Who are these guys and why are they saying such things?

 

[james bond]

Yup, that idea of "space-time" is as false as a thirteen dollars bill.

You mean a three dollar bill. I think one needs space as any matter no matter how small needs space. We are not as sure about time. I thought matter moves because they have time, but maybe it's the concept of time that moves when matter moves through space. IOW, all of these things are related. It would seem to fit when something moves and you notice it first, then I notice it, and so on.

 

[zaangalewa]

Nearly endless possibilities - for a nearly impossible event. 0*oo is what result? Exactly: Something what we don't know.

Perfect, you are using the typical upside down cone.(The caricature in your video)

The Minkowski-space?

You know, that upside down cone was invented by poor Hawking.

No, I don't know this.

Lets analyze it. (from his comic book "A Brief History of Time")

Comic book? ... "Eine kleine Geschichte der Zeit" (german title) is a very nice non-fiction book.

View attachment 291866
The caricature from above, according to Hawking, is a diagram of space time and light "directions", this is to say, how those will "move".

Move?

According to him, the upside down cone represents the initial point (present) and the "future". Whoa!

Then, he traced lines inside and outside the cone and he claims those are the directions of space, time and light.

Then, from right to left, space goes horizontal, a non allowed direction is the second arrow, the third arrow following the shape of the cone is the allowed "limit" for light, the following arrow is the allowed path for the body, and finally, the vertical line is time going straight up.

The cone in your video is practically the same monkey but with a different banana.

I don't think you understand what you say on your own.

Please, write to the Astronomer Royal or to NASA, and ask them to explain you how Hawking was capable of representing the future as a cone, time going vertical, light and body having a solid parameter, and even the existence of a zone where phenomena of any kind is not allowed.

What for heavens sake do you speak about? It's just simple the Minkowksi-space - this is what we call normally "space-time". The coordinates which physicists are using are in this case (x,y,z,t). What you see is a three dimensional didactic object (showed on a two dimensional piece of paper) - but the coordinates phycisists are using are 4 dimensional. You are not able to imagine 4 dimensions. This here is for example the projection of a 4 dimensional hyper-cube to two dimensions:

-----

Jeder Versuch, einen 4D-Hyperwürfel auf einer 2D-Oberfläche darzustellen, geht grundsätzlich in die Hose. Es sind bestenfalls pseudoartige Projektionen möglich, die einen kleinen Eindruck von seiner Komplexität vermitteln. Die hier gezeigte Darstellung gibt immerhin die Anzahl der Ecken, Kanten und Flächen korrekt wieder.
source: Woraus bestehen 4D-Würfel und andere Hyperwürfel?
-----

The text says that every projection of a 4th dimensional structure onto a 2 dimensional surface is never correct. In this projection here is the number of the corners, edges (cants) and faces correct.

What instrument was used for Hawking to detect those and make such a representation?

Come on, can't you see that the whole fuss about space-time is nothing but lunacies?

I would say to say so more than 100 years after Einstein had made this discoveries sounds much more lunatic.

And look, when I call them lunacies, I am not insulting anyone, because when I insult to someone then I say bad words, and because the deserved respect for the readers, I just describe poor Albert and Hawking as mentally disable persons, and their writings a waste of time if you keep reading them.

You call Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings "mentally disable persons"? They are the exact opposite: Both had an unbelievable strong and sane psychological structure.

You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).

Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows,

1)- Why do they go that way?

2)- How do you know they go in that way.

3)- Why not different?

4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?

The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.

Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.

Try to understand what the Minkowski-space is. More simple example: When someone accelerates a car then we measure this accleration in meters per squaresecond. Did you ever see a squaresecond? Is it "infantile" to believe in squareseconds or not? Are you able to go a second left and two seconds right? Indeed whether a squaresecond exists or not exists is in physics a totally irrelevant question. The important thing is that this calculation delivers the right value for the speed of the car at any position and time.

 

[zaangalewa]

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.

And you believe in atheism.

And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

What a nonsense

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

And why exists "evolution" and "et."?

 

[RWS]

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.

And you believe in atheism.

And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

What a nonsense

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

And why exists "evolution" and "et."?

Because of chaos.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And you believe in atheism.

Are you sure about that? Let's check.

RWS

Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And why exists "evolution"

Why? Or how? The former is a meaningless question, as no guess is better than any other. The second is the only that can be answered.

 

[RWS]

And you believe in atheism.

Are you sure about that? Let's check.

RWS

Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?

Well depends on what you mean about gods. I don't believe there are any supernatural gods.

I do allow the possibility that ET's were regarded as gods in our ancient past and led to present religion..

 

[zaangalewa]

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.

And you believe in atheism.

And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

What a nonsense

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

And why exists "evolution" and "et."?

Because of chaos.

Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.

 

[zaangalewa]

And you believe in atheism.

Are you sure about that? Let's check.

RWS

Do you believe, with absolute certainty, that there are no gods?

Yes. All this what we call normally "gods" are only another kind of human beings within their very limited way to live. On the other side speak people often with or about god without knowing this on their own. In every creative process for example or when someone finds out what's true happens such a communication via spirit and with the spirit of god. ...

 

[RWS]

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Personally, I cannot believe in a supreme being. ...

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.

And you believe in atheism.

And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

What a nonsense

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

And why exists "evolution" and "et."?

Because of chaos.

Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.

You're asking questions after being asked shit.

What I want to know is why you are right, and we are wrong?

 

[RWS]

Just tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[luchitociencia]

I don't think you understand what you say on your own.

On the contrary, I understood Hawking drawings are caricatures and you can tell sure they are.

The text says that every projection of a 4th dimensional structure onto a 2 dimensional surface is never correct. In this projection here is the number of the corners, edges (cants) and faces correct.

Your problem is that you believe in pieces of paper and computer simulations. I'm asking you for the empirical evidence. Prove me correct those caricatures.

You call Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkings "mentally disable persons"? They are the exact opposite: Both had an unbelievable strong and sane psychological structure.

Where is their strength and psychological structure when Einstein described himself declared he was a retarded person?

Can't you see Hawking's mind was deteriorating that bad that in his second book he decorated the pages with lots of color caricatures-literal caricatures-, no more "diagrams" of the universe?

You have the diagram made by Hawking. Same upside cone of your video. (By the way, I didn't watch the video, I don't have to, if I want to watch caricatures I prefer Pinocchio from Disney).

Do a favor to yourself. Explain those arrows,

1)- Why do they go that way?

2)- How do you know they go in that way.

3)- Why not different?

4)- Are those representations of a phenomenon in the universe or just the infantile imagination of Hawking?

The day you have a plausible answer, then you can continue following that theory, otherwise, if no one gives you the accurate answer, then you'll know your legs have been pulled.

Hope you bring here good news and the answer for those arrows. I truly hope so.

Try to understand what the Minkowski-space is. More simple example: When someone accelerates a car then we measure this accleration in meters per squaresecond. Did you ever see a squaresecond? Is it "infantile" to believe in squareseconds or not? Are you able to go a second left and two seconds right? Indeed whether a squaresecond exists or not exists is in physics a totally irrelevant question. The important thing is that this calculation delivers the right value for the speed of the car at any position and time.

Can't you see that your positions is based in fanaticism?

You yourself accept the no possibility of the existence of that "squaresecond" but as the manipulated formulas work, then that is fine with you.Hey, you are inventing things that don't exist.

Science is not about imaginations, science is about facts.

If you lean on writings in pieces of paper, and that with those you can explain the universe, then don't go far away, and describe here with formulas, and solely formulas the following: a group of thieves went and committed a robbery at the jewelry store at 1234 Tyler Ave NW, TB United Provinces. The older thief of 35 years or age and suffering of diabetes took 431 grams in gold collars, gold rings, gold bracelets. The second thief was at the door checking outside in case police is around. The third thief was in charge of controlling the attendant and customers. The first thief was 175lbs, the second 172lbs and the third 154lbs weight, and 5'8", 6'1" and 5'5"height. The attendant is alcoholic and was drunk at the moment of the robbery. The customers were two women, one of them a 25 years old and 7 month.pregnant, and the another her mother 49 years old and good health. Police arrived after a warning from outside witness and the interchange of shots lasted five minutes 45 seconds. Two thieves died and a third one escaped thru the back door. The young woman had a bullet on her chest and the mother one between the eyes. The attendant suffered no injuries but defecated himself and the place was stinking like hell. It was 3:37 pm and the whole incident lasted 52 minutes.

Include the whole numerical information and diseases in your formulas. Lets see how your mathematical "language" works. You are free to use any speed of the motion of each individual, the angle of the shoots, the number of police officers, the size of the store, the available space for the movement of the characters, and other additional at your own criteria.Point is for you to explain the event with numbers, solely numbers, formulas and equations.

Still, you must answer as well the explanation of the caricature made by Hawking

Definitively your explanation of it will be your test of fire. The questions were made in my former post.

If no one can answer it, then for sure that diagram of Hawking is nothing but infantile imagination.

This forum is about science, right? And you say you understand Einstein and Hawking and for this reason you are defending them.

Then, you understand that diagram. Please explain with details an solid empirical background why the direction of space is horizontal why time is vertical? why light and objects have such limited directions? What is that zone where neither space, light and the others can't use such direction? What that zone means in physical reality? Where such a zone has been detected? Why a cone figure in the first place? Why not just a line of another "expansion" like starting point and everything going out like an explosion?

Where Hawking obtained such a "model"?

Come on, you still are adding more fantasy with videos and more imaginary models of the universe and are evading answering the questions.

You really don't know physics, don't you?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I don't believe there are ....

But, do you believe, with certainty, that there are none?

 

[zaangalewa]

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

Do you have any explanation why something exists at all? It would be much more easy and had much more logic, if nothing would exist, isn't it?

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

But I don't believe that.

Thre possibilities and you chose "the world, in which we live, is real". The world is not nothing - and it is not a simulation.

We're part of chaos and evolution. God is not necessary.

And you believe in atheism.

And God's role in our religioun, has been destructive and sadistic shit.

What a nonsense

We're here because of evolution. And maybe some help from et.

And why exists "evolution" and "et."?

Because of chaos.

Why exists chaos? Or better: Why exists existance? That's what I asked you and what you try to thin.

You're asking questions after being asked shit.

Sigh. Why has no one manners any longer?

What I want to know is why you are right, and we are wrong?

Why I am wrong and your we is right? Hmm ... what could be a reason for? What did you say why existence exists?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What did you say why existance exists?

Dear charlatan:

Your parlor tricks are older than dirt. Let me make a suggestion:

Answer your own questions. You keep asking esoteric, philosophical questions and demanding answers from people who have already told you that they don't know the answers, or that the answers can't be known.

So, instead of boring the whole world to death with your cheap, tired parlor tricks, don't post another one of these garbage questions and then demand a response without first fully answering it yourself.

Then, we can scrutinize YOUR position on the ideas YOU are introducing. Got it?

 

[zaangalewa]

It exists. But maybe it doesn't and we're a simulation.

I've heard it was a hologram or two-dimensional surfaces that show absolutely precise, three-dimensional images of real objects.. The simulation is made by a computer program while the hologram is made by a hologram, light, and your brain. It's mind boggling that something exists only when you observe it in quantum mechanics.



Who are these guys and why are they saying such things?

The guys are called theoretical physicists and they "say" such things (= they make such detailed mathematical fictions about a hologram-world) for example - if I remember well - on the reason entropy has a two-dimensional parameter of growth in the three-dimensional world. Another reason is that such a theory eliminates one (or all) contradictions between the theories about relativity and quantum mechanics. In case of such a theory exists a plan of the universe around the universe in a distance, where we are not able to see this plan - but it could be the event horizon of a black hole contains informations about, which we are perhaps able to read ... or not.

 

[zaangalewa]

What did you say why existance exists?

Dear charlatan:

Your parlor tricks are older than dirt. Let me make a suggestion:

Answer your own questions. You keep asking esoteric, philosophical questions and demanding answers from people who have already told you that they don't know the answers, or that the answers can't be known.

So, instead of boring the whole world to death with your cheap, tired parlor tricks, don't post another one of these garbage questions and then demand a response without first fully answering it yourself.

Then, we can scrutinize YOUR position on the ideas YOU are introducing. Got it?

"Nothing." The answer you gave is "nothing".