Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Joshua10]

Ther is no such thing as a black hole and let me explain why.

The electromagnetic forces between 2 spinning electromagnets in nature do not cancel.Everything in nature is made up of spinning electromagnets at both the macro and micro levels.

Newton 3rd law is to do with action and reaction forces and states that these 2 equal but opposite forces of nature don’t cancel. So why is science claiming that the electromagnetic fields which produce these forces cancel? If you can’t cancel these two equal but opposite forces in nature then clearly you can’t cancel the electromagnetic fields that are producing them.

The only reason science felt the need to mathematically invent a new force was because they mistakenly thought that these two equal but opposite forces of nature cancelled.

So in nature, science’s philosophical starting formulas +=- and -=+ are incorrect.

In order to balance these two equal but opposite forces of nature you require a new UNITED philosophical starting formula which is +/-=+/- because as the equal but opposite forces of nature don’t cancel the 2 divided formulas +=- and -=+ don’t balance.

This new philosophical formula doesn’t describe a hole as black. It describes the hole as “glassy”

[Joshua10]

The 2 equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature don’t cancel out and the cosmos is made up of spinning electromagnets at both the macro and micro levels.You cannot cancel out these forces between 2 spinning electromagnets according to newtons 3rd law.

As you cannot cancel these action and reaction forces then the electromagnetic fields which produce them are not cancelled either.

The divided philosophical formulas +=- and -=+ are therefore incorrect because as these 2 formulas do not cancel out they do not balance.

The correct formula to adopt in order to vibratory balance the two forces of nature (because you can’t cancel them out according to newtons 3rd law) is +/-=+/-

This is the correct philosophical formula for nature therefore and not +=- and -=+

[Dea Ann Bridegroom]

+/- cancel because it is then neutral. I do not think you have a grasp of Newtons' Law.

[Joshua10]

+/- cancel because it is then neutral. I do not think you have a grasp of Newtons' Law.

+ and - forces do not cancel in nature between two separate spinning electromagnets.

Everything spins at the macro and micro micro levels.I have total grasp of real symmetrical science.The only way to balance the 4 off possible interactions -/-……-/+…..+/-…..+/+ in nature between 2 separate spinning electromagnets is by the formula
+/-=+/-

Scientists thought the same as you, incorrectly, which is why they then felt the need to invent the mathematical force gravity which has now resulted in an unsymmetrical science which is not being backed up by observation.

[Joshua10]

Scientist have ignored Newtons 3rd law.

It is impossible to cancel the + and - forces in nature.All you can do is pair them up and vibratory balance them by the symmetrical formula +/-=+/-

[Joshua10]

+=- and -=+ is not the foundational philosophy for science …………..+/-=+/- is the foundational philosophy.

Modern day unsymmetrical science is wasting its time.

[Joshua10]

There is a hole at the center of our galaxy, just as there is a hole at the center of all the countless galaxies within the cosmos.

Matter exits and enters these multiple holes, specific to each galaxy, at varying timescales.

As this is what is actually happening in the cosmos then what is all this utter confused nonsense that all matter has entered the cosmos from a single hole and will exit into a single hole?

This ridiculous claim originates from modern day sciences foundational philosophical GUESS that +=- and -=+ and yet they can't even explain how + and - electromagnetic forces cancel out in the cosmos which IS the foundational claim for their utterly ridiculous single big bang and big crunch theories.

Its absolutely astounding that scientists are so totally UNAWARE.

[Joshua10]

The reality is that we presently we have BLIND individual's making foundational guesses and then making up science based upon those guesses.

How much more ridiculous does it get than that?

[Joshua10]

The reality is ALL matter is entering and exiting the cosmos at multiple points at varying timescales right now.This is what is OBSERVED. It’s only a fool that would claim otherwise.

It’s a complete and utter myth that matter entered the cosmos and will exit the cosmos from a single point which hasn’t been OBSERVED.This stupid notion was dreamt up by scientist who GUESSED that the two equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature cancel out and yet cannot explain why such a stupid GUESS was made.

The fact is that scientists HAVE made a stupid GUESS and have since been mathematically inventing new UNKNOWN forces and tweaking the maths associated with these mythical forces when results don’t match up with their expectations,

Anyone can cook the books.That ain’t science.

Modern day science is a complete joke dreamt up from a foundation philosophical GUESS.

[Joshua10]

It’s simple maths.

If you cannot explain how the two equal but opposite electromagnetic forces in nature cancel out then you can only GUESS that they do.

That is what modern day science has done.

GUESS.

[Joshua10]

The holes in the cosmos should be described as “glassy”.

[Sy Borg]

Joshua, you are speaking nonsense. Please stop making absurd claims on this thread.

Two black holes have been imaged, including Saggitarius A* at the centre of our galaxy. There is no debate about the existence of black holes. The question was settled long ago, anyway. The nature of there centres - their theoretical singularities - are open to question, but not the existence of objects so dense that they fold space around them at superluminal speeds.

This question may be relevant to be discussion about the nature of the theoretical singularity at the beginning of the universe.

[Lagayascienza]

Joshua. If you want to argue for god(s), it is a defensible philosophical position. But you offer no evidence, no reasoned arguments for your bizarre +/_ nonsense which you post ad nauseum. It's like you think that if you shout something often enough, no matter how silly, someone will listen. But you would have to shout something worth listening to provoke any serious interest. Otherwise, you're just a nuisance. You just stifle discussion in the threads where you post your nonsense. And there are far too many of those.

But then, I probably shouldn't have responded to your latest splat because it will likely just feed the beast. From here on in you're on ignore unless you can come up with some reasoned argument, hopefully supported by evidence.

[Dr Jonathan Osterman PhD]

Joshua, if you want to argue for god(s), it is a defensible philosophical position. But you offer no evidence, no reasoned arguments for your bizarre nonsense which you post ad nauseum. It's like you think that if you shout something often enough, no matter how silly, someone will listen. But you would have to shout something worth listening to provoke any serious interest. Otherwise, you're just a nuisance. You just stifle discussion in the threads where you post your nonsense.

Gay Scientist, you have hurt Joshua's feelings !!!

You calling Joshua's posts "bizarre nonsense" does not make it so.

And do you realize why ?

Because you calling Joshua's posts nonsense is merely
your subjective mental valuation of it, pal.

For me, your worthless mythology of random and blind Darwinian Evolution
is a bizarre nonsense, because Darwinian EVOLUTION was experimentally FALSIFIED:

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=19198

[Lagayascienza]

You are right. I apologise for my unkind words to Joshua 10. If I could delete the post I would.

Joshua 10. If you want to argue for theism, it is a defensible philosophical position. So why not argue for it? I would be interested to read such an argument.