My Truden Life

I am only reminding you

Relativity of simultaneity and length contraction debunked

To question the length contraction and the relativity of simultaneity I introduce a third simultaneous event in the ladder paradox problem.

How?  Simply, by attaching a rod to each door, which is welded perpendicularly on the inside of the doors, in a way that the rod tips touch when both the doors are closed. (See the red attached arms on the graphics)
Think of this touching event as verification of the simultaneity – touching verifies simultaneity, no touching – no simultaneity.
Obviously, this event will be absent in the ladder reference frame, since the doors in that frame are not closing simultaneously.
Missing event in one of the reference frames is against the law of physics, which automatically puts Einstein’s Theory of Relativity in the scientific dustbin.

Read more in the original post.

You may consider this article interesting too.

Time, Motion and Mind

Time!
What is Time?

The widely accepted definition of time which we know from school is:
“Non spatial continuum in which the events occur.”
My definition is:

Time is the relation between two or more events

Time is relevant and limited to the events.
In philosophical discussions I always introduce the idea about the hierarchy in the mind concepts.
Every mind concept appears in certain hierarchical order and by changing the hierarchy we end up with fallacy.

In this particular case the time is placed before the events.
The accepted definition of time states that the events appear in Time, but it is actually the other way round – time is created as a concept from the relation between two or more events.

My arguments:
Read more… »

God for scientists

We had an interesting discussion in the already closed Orkut.com and I’d like to put here the spark which put the atheist forum in a fire.
Here it is with small changes and additions:

So let’s see whether there is such a thing as “God for scientists”.

I’ll start with the famous question: “Did a falling tree in the forest made a sound if nobody heard it?”
The answer is NO. The tree didn’t make any sound but did produce vibration with a frequency between 20 and 20000 hertz.
Sound appears to us (and some sentient beings) when we with our ears detect (observe) these vibration frequencies.
The same explanation stands for all observations we do.
We do not observe matter but patterns created by wave interferences.
Those patterns have to be observed in order to “turn in to” the thing, which we named “matter” in all its observable variations. If not observed everything is nothing but waves interfering with each other.
Read more… »

Richard Dawkins DELUSION

After I did my “Dawkins experiment” I decided to go back and have a real conversation with Mr Dawkins admirers (they wouldn’t like the “followers” word).
So I decided to tell them about my God – the One who I know. (you have to be registered for this forum)
I wasn’t impressed by their understanding but any way, it was expected.

Then I decided to show them their belief.
According to Richard Dawkins “there almost certainly is no God”.
I didn’t want to prove that “there almost certainly is God”, because I can imagine how difficult it would be for atheist to change their belief to such a degree.
So, my intent was to proof that the possibility for God’s existence or not existence is 50/50.

Following is my forum posting in Mr. Dawkins forum with small change made to cover my next posting.

[posting START]

The universe is described as matter, space and time.
I support the argument that Consciousness must be included too and I must prove it.
How can it be proved.
If I am right then the consciousness as component of the Universe must affect somehow the matter, the space or the time.
Only then we can agree that the Universe is consists of four (not of three) components.

You will not take any proof from the past because you haven’t seen it, but you will agree if the science has registered consciousness to affect matter.

1) According to the latest study of Dr. Jon-Kar Zubieta, person’s belief can make the brain to produce its own painkillers which is scientific proof that the mind can affect and control the matter.

2) All miracles where person is cured are argued with auto-suggestion (the person cured himself)
Still that is proof that consciousness affects the matter.

3) Although Time is a component of the Universe it is relative only to the consciousness.

4) Although Space is component of the Universe, it is related ONLY to the consciousness.

The last two (3 and 4) do not affect the matter but the way we observe it which makes matter related to the consciousness.

You can argue or accept the first two, but according to the science they are true.
That would make Consciousness the forth component of the Universe.

If you agree on that or can not argue it, I have the “none-preaching” right to place my statement against yours, and it is:

Matter is delusion of the Consciousness.

Now you can argue my statement by proving it wrong.
Let’s assume that I have no interest to prove it right.
The above supporting evidences are enough to reach at least 50/50.
That would make Dawkins very wrong.
I can only comfort him with the fact that my argument is given fore the first time in his web site. 😆
(Hope I don’t sound sarcastic…)

I suppose that there is more to be said on all this, but let’s start from here.

[posting END]

And then the thread became a little boring…
There is not much to be said from atheist side.
Now they have the evidence which they are always asking for using that smile… you know…

And I have time now to have a thought about the self delusion which makes professors to mistake God with Religion.
Just imagine, to waste such a time for writing book like “The God Delusion” in which you prove that God doesn’t exist because the religion is wrong. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to name the book “The Religion Delusion”?
Because what on earth Religion has to do with God’s existence, professor!?

Just because you met few damn stupid pastors doesn’t make God a delusion.
Did you ever consider the possibility, Mr. Dawkins, that believing has nothing to do with the truth.
So if my granny tells you that God is white bearded old man in the heaven that has nothing to do with the truth, and you can not say that God doesn’t exist just because this belief doesn’t fit the science and the logic.

Did you ever asked yourself how a belief appears?
Some thousands years ago a tribe (in Europe let say) decided to belief in God.
Could happen.
They decided that God is spirit and only good people will go to Him.
They could belief that only the one who kills most enemies will go to God and that would serve their surviving best, but they choose the stupid belief to be good.
Then another tribe on the other side of the earth (Australia) decided to belief in the same God for the same reason.
Could happen. Science can prove it.
But then on the other side of the earth (Asia) another tribe started to belief in the same God for the same reason.
And then another tribe in Siberia did the same.
And then another tribe, somewhere else…
Hm… What science say about this?

If two (or even more) civilizations without any connections created the belief that this world is a dream, would that be a signal to look not only in the white bearded old man as a God?
Or you chose to oppose the most easiest God who can be rejected with your intellectual capabilities.

Come one dear professors, try to think like carpenters.
It might help more than your title degrees.

The Dawkins experiment

Yesterday (28.12.2007) I decided to do The Dawkins experiment
You might not see it as an experiment, but I call it like that, because if you set plan for research and study on a subject you are actually experimenting.
Do and observe.

So, what was the experiment?
I simply opened a topic in Richard Dawkins website forum
My intent was to examen the thinking and logical capability of the atheists.
I wanted to see if there is any difference between religious and atheist behavior in a discussion.
It is interesting to see how the EGO reacts when is flatter or insulted.
When EGO feels flattered and when insulted?
And again – what is the difference between religious believer and atheist believer.
Yes they both are believers and we know it very well.

A week ago I had a conversation on “Freedom” with Freemasons on Facebook.
You won’t believe it but after I offered my understanding that Freedom is lack of desire they just deleted the topic.
There was no offense or bad language from my side.
It was the way I brought them to the idea and made it irrefutable.
Their EGO broke.

The same happened with Dawkins friends.
Well the topic is not deleted.
It reached 273 answers in two days.
Most of them of course troll sounding, but some of them with serious attempts to defend the atheist belief.

A very interesting result from the experiment is that although atheists claim that religions are creating disrespect between people, based on religious belief, they are more aggressive and disrespectable than any religious opponents.
They fail to prove that atheist are better communicators and community partners.

I hoped that atheists, putting their belief on science will show higher intellectual level and logical capabilities.
Not at all.
Most of them are religiously defending their belief with the primitive request “Prove it”.
If you give them prove they dismiss it not with arguments but with accusations.

[Example]

Humans moral values are first recorded as enforced by God rules in the scriptures talking about God.
Humans accepted the rules but did not accept God who gave the rules.
The world is living under the moral values of God without recognizing (accepting) God.

This is “argued” with the accusation that the one who wrote the rules did lie that they come from God.

Any way, you can read the discussion for yourself.

I have to admit that I used “dirty” ego techniques.
They worked like they do with 99% of the people regardless their belief.
When you address them with “my friend” they take it as a patronizing.
If you argue their statement and make it indefensible with the first strike, they lose their ability to move on to another field of the discussion. The EGO wants victory before moving forward. EGO can not move on other rails but on its own.
They use sarcasm but when you use it on them they warn you with ban.

Twisting meanings is the best defence of the weak person.
Atheists use it all the time.

I gave three simple points as base for God’s existence.

1) Humans moral values are given (first records) in scriptures stating “God exist”. They were given to the humans as enforced law from God. It is not serious to argue it with “they did lie about God, to make humans obey the law”. Your arguments can not be based on assumptions.

2) The scientific impotence to prove present moment makes any material based request irrelevant in connection with God existence. It unfolds endless field for discussing the material observation as a conscious delusion.

3) It is against the Logic to hold the statement “God does not exist”. Such statement has no logical end, while “God exist” eventually (theoretically) goes to an end. In other words, existence can be proved by observation, while none existence can not be proved – there is always possibility for existence.

Three points, based on historical facts, science and logic.
None of them was refuted. Instead they defined them as “preaching”.

In the Psychology text book can be found the explanation that humans tend to like other humans by intellectuality along with all the other signs.
But(!) humans don’t like people that are far more intelligent or perfect.
They feel uncomfortable in the presence of such people.

I found out that they not only feel uncomfortable, but become highly aggressive, mentally unstable and openly manifesting their dislike.
That fully applies to Freemasons and atheists.

Unexpectedly for some of you, religious people are dealing away better with their EGO when meeting person with higher intellectual level.
Their belief in God gives them a moral value which covers the intellectual gap and comforts the EGO.

I observed many interesting psychological and intellectual issues in my experiment, but the most surprising for me was the intellectual impotence of the atheists to differentiate between belief and knowledge

Atheists like most religious people don’t really understand the idea of God.
Religious people are imagining God in as many ways as atheists use to reject Him.
Presenting new explanation about God meets the same nonacceptance in both groups.