Archive for Earth Sciences Forum This site is dedicated to the Earth Sciences. We are here for you to discuss issues regarding any aspect of the Earth sciences, at all levels of knowledge. Questions are welcomed, as are open scientific debates. Enjoy!!!
|
Qwiftly
|
Ultimate proof of eternal gain.1.Everything that exists is objects
2.*Every objects time increase
3.Time is objects*
4.Increase is gain
5.All will gain all and become one
|
Andre
|
Could you be a bit more specific?
|
Qwiftly
|
| Andre wrote: | | Could you be a bit more specific? |
1. All existing is '+' objects
2.*All objects time increase
3.Time is objects*
4.Increase is gain
So all unify & gain all
6.A neuron exp no others change 7.The mind & universe are pictures
Pain and despare, determination, happiness, sickness and dexterity.
all is joy.
|
Qwiftly
|
| Andre wrote: | | Could you be a bit more specific? |
Why is this this topic moved into the tar pit, it is a proof, you cannot refute it, without pointing out the flaw.
|
Mk
|
| Qwiftly wrote: | | Why is this this topic moved into the tar pit, it is a proof, |
Probably because it's too New Age and unscientific thrown into a pool of scientists.
| Quote: | | you cannot refute it, without pointing out the flaw. |
| Quote: | | Quote: | 2.*Every objects time increase
3.Time is objects*
4.Increase is gain |
|
Here you're saying that age is equal to increasing or gaining in a closed system. I tend to interpret this as increasing in mass or energy, which is opposite the commonly referred to First Law of Thermodynamics. Objects or ideas with a spiritual nature and the similar are unrecognized scientifically.
|
billiards
|
| Qwiftly wrote: | | Andre wrote: | | Could you be a bit more specific? |
Why is this this topic moved into the tar pit, it is a proof, you cannot refute it, without pointing out the flaw. |
I moved it, sorry should have said something. It's not really the kind of thing this site is here for, even in discussion, but I will tolerate it here in the Tar Pit.
What is it a proof of?
|
Qwiftly
|
| billiards wrote: | | Qwiftly wrote: | | Andre wrote: | | Could you be a bit more specific? |
Why is this this topic moved into the tar pit, it is a proof, you cannot refute it, without pointing out the flaw. |
I moved it, sorry should have said something. It's not really the kind of thing this site is here for, even in discussion, but I will tolerate it here in the Tar Pit.
What is it a proof of? |
Thank you for your reply!
Did-n't know that general discussion was only science and serials at that period of time.
To answer your question, for timeflow to be, a +object (you can't have -1 apples in your hand) must be added to the +object with the timeflow in question
It can all be explained with this loop:
1.All +objects experience summate, experience is +objects(1.)
If that loop is an explanation, what is your counter argument? For instance can you change the bold + into -
|
Mk
|
I'm not understanding any of this.
|
Qwiftly
|
| Mk wrote: | | I'm not understanding any of this. |
All +objects experience summate, experience is +objects. All +objects experience summate, experience is +objects. All +objects experience summate, experience is +objects...
Let's try replacing summate with diverge.
All +objects experience diverge, experience is +objects. All +objects experience diverge, experience is +objects. All +objects experience diverge, experience is +objects.
At first that would also look perfectly logical, but if experience diverge, then you are not experiencing.
For further information, see my signature.
|
Pythagorean
|
GraBeTH THy BaTTleGeaR, I SmeLL TroLL SHiTE
|
scpg02
|
Oooo first body in the tar pit.
|
Qwiftly
|
| Mk wrote: | | First Law of Thermodynamics. |
Who said that it needs to be broken? experiencing is to melt together, is gaining. There's no breaking rules here, the particles just melt together into higherdimensional particles. That is experience. Don't forget the higgsbosons.
|
sunsettommy
|
| Qwiftly wrote: | | Andre wrote: | | Could you be a bit more specific? |
Why is this this topic moved into the tar pit, it is a proof, you cannot refute it, without pointing out the flaw. |
It is hard to try refuting statements that are not understood at all.
The flaw may be in the lack of details in your postings.
What are you trying to postulate?
|
|
|
|