Philosophy Discussion Forums

I would suggest that natures science bears no relationship whatsoever to secular science.Natures science utilises full logic and known forces as the basis for its workings which are common to both the workings of the cosmos and the physical psychological workings.Natures science and philosophy doesn’t utilise a mythical force (gravity) which was developed from flowery maths by secular scientists to try and reinforce their belief systems.

I have already mentioned that if secular sciences half logic were correct then the 4 off magnetic force interactions of NN,NS,SN,SS would provide the same result i.e. 4 off attractions or 4 off repulsions.They don’t which definitively confirms that natures science doesn’t agree with secular science.

For some inexplicable reason secular science claims that these 4 off interactions are the same when observations confirm otherwise.

As I have said, because secular science believes that these interactions are the same and thus everything has cancelled out to nothingness or meaningless or Nihilism,call it what you wish then it has felt the need to invent a new mythical force to try and explain things.

You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Secular science has been peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance is the truth of the matter, what with its mythical force gravity and its failed theories like the single Big Bang which relies on this mythical force totally.

The truth of the matter is that natures science does not agree with good is bad and bad is good (0=1 and 1=0) logic.

Natures magnetic forces don’t work on such logic which is proved by the magnetic force interactions of NN,SN,NS,SS

As I keep maintaining, if secular science logic was correct then all these force interactions should give exactly the same result of 4 off repulsions or 4 off attractions.

We all know they don’t.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

I've stopped engaging with him. I thought he might attempt to engage but he's not interested, only repeating the same incoherent rants about "secular science". His posts can safely be treated like ads for a product that no one will ever buy.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 2:20 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Secular science has been peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance is the truth of the matter, what with its mythical force gravity and its failed theories like the single Big Bang which relies on this mythical force totally.

The seance is dishonest as a trade and unprofitable as a recreational activity.
The impartial deductive- inductive method of scientists is not like the often deliberate and always partial deceptions of those who hold seances.

Secular science has a huge problem trying to defend its gravity theory if we are talking multiple big bangs and big crunches rather than a single BB and BC.It will have to start accepting that the electromagnetic fields that saturate the cosmos at the macro and micro levels were around at the same time as these multiple BB and BC’s as I have been suggesting for a while now.

Secular science is totally confused as I say and just makes things up as it goes along.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 8:43 pm

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

I've stopped engaging with him. I thought he might attempt to engage but he's not interested, only repeating the same incoherent rants about "secular science". His posts can safely be treated like ads for a product that no one will ever buy.

That’s not fair Sy Borg.Nobody is buying the single Big Bang theory anymore.Why aren’t those foolish secular scientist all over the media saying sorry because they got it wrong?

I have been engaging with you and suggesting science that makes sense and works and utilises known forces rather than that mythical force gravity created from flowery secular maths.

I have been explaining NATURES science!!

Nobody knows what gravity is remember and secular science has been using it as the basis for it grand theories which are also proving to be utter nonsense.

I go off the facts unlike secularism which just goes of made up assumptions to suit its incorrect Philosophical logic.

All sciences are interconnected remember.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 2:20 pm Secular science has been peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance is the truth of the matter, what with its mythical force gravity and its failed theories like the single Big Bang which relies on this mythical force totally.

If gravity is "mythical", what is it that holds you down to the floor?

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 2:25 pm The truth of the matter is that natures science does not agree with good is bad and bad is good (0=1 and 1=0) logic.

The truth of the matter is that "secular" science does not and cannot pronounce on what is "good" or "bad". These terms have no use in a wholly scientific context. Nor does "secular" science ever accept the 'logic' that A = NOT(A), in any form. To say so is to deny and reject logic itself.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Sy Borg wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 8:43 pm I've stopped engaging with him. I thought he might attempt to engage but he's not interested, only repeating the same incoherent rants about "secular science".

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 8:11 am That’s not fair Sy Borg. Nobody is buying the single Big Bang theory anymore.

I beg to differ.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 8:26 am

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 7:14 am You still seem to be peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance. It's difficult to see how a constructive response might be made.

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 2:20 pm Secular science has been peddling the same incomprehensible cross between science and seance is the truth of the matter, what with its mythical force gravity and its failed theories like the single Big Bang which relies on this mythical force totally.

If gravity is "mythical", what is it that holds you down to the floor?

I have suggested that magnetic forces hold matter together i.e. earth and our physical bodies due to vibrating/toggling +/- charges.

I would similarly suggest that magnetic forces hold me down to the floor which is dependent upon spin of the planet which is an electromagnetic.

Certainly,not that mythical force gravity,that’s for sure.

Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑September 29th, 2022, 8:29 am

Joshua10 wrote: ↑September 28th, 2022, 2:25 pm The truth of the matter is that natures science does not agree with good is bad and bad is good (0=1 and 1=0) logic.

The truth of the matter is that "secular" science does not and cannot pronounce on what is "good" or "bad". These terms have no use in a wholly scientific context. Nor does "secular" science ever accept the 'logic' that A = NOT(A), in any form. To say so is to deny and reject logic itself.

Where do you think secular science gets it +=- and -=+ philosophical logic from other than it’s secular belief system? Come on! are you kidding?

toggling of + to a - and a - to a + = toggling of + to a - and a - to a + is the correct formula.

A + and a - have been divided and are separate from each other.