You can chat here with anybody about anything.
The most exciting questions
THE ORIGIN OF WORLD
THE ORIGIN OF LIFE
Is Einstein's theory unquestionable?
All of you have right to express your own opinion.
Origin of world
This website aims to encourage free thought and break down the barriers that stand in its way. All of you have right to express your own opinion.
Like the other members of last four-five generation I also was taught that:
a) science give all answers and solutions for your questions, follower of science rational persons,
b) religions are obsolite theories, and useless in the modern societies, and "belivers" are strictly insisted on their old books.
Like many others I also accepted without any further investigation. Quite later on I had to realize that the real situation is not jus like this.
In this portal I do not want to convince anybody to follow my direction. My offer is only if you are looking for your own direction you will find some matter that help you to find whar makes you satisfied.
If you liked these ideas you can send away:
The Most Exciting Questions
THE LAWS OF UNIVERSE
Humans don't have to create the laws of nature - they are already done and are in effect. We just have to FIND that created by someone else or by something else have already created and ordered it into operation. Or just simply exist by own nature.
Our Philosophy
The nothing cannot become something,
and something cannot become nothing.
Matter and energy are not interchangeable.
Neither one is created from the other -
nor the other from the first one.
Energy is released or absorbed when matter
changes state. There is no matter-energy
conversion in nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs.
The origin of the world can be approached primarily
from the philosophical's perspective,
But these statements and conclusions make me doubtful about scientific news ...
1. What is in the empty space?
You may believed that "empty" is called empty because there is nothing. By official science: There is once upon a time there was “ether”, then we realized that there was no ether yet. Let's have zero-point energy, and vacuum energy. These also have five or six years left to die, and then scientist will find something new out.
2. Date of Big-Bang
I remember that 30 years ago the first official date for the Big Bang was 1.8 billion years. Scientists took that very seriously, it was no right to doubt it. This number has now increased in about five steps to 18.5 billion years - as usual, there is no room for doubt now.
3. How it happened?
1. Version. Before the Big Bang, there was nothing, so a perfectly stable, perfectly static state had to exist and remain unchanged until the end of time. After all, we are in the motionless - energy and matter-free world, which is the most stable state imaginable.
But why did it tip over?
2. Version. Before the Big Bang, there was almost nothing, so a perfectly stable, zero-point energy that was the source of matter. Without matter, energy cannot exist.
But if theme was no matter, how can then energy just float around somewhere?
3. Version. There was no BigBang
Dark matter and dark energy are particularly polite partners, there is always just enough in space to make our equations work.
4. The size of universe before BigBang
"before the BigBang all existing material was pressed into a very small place like pinhead."
What does justify this estimation? Why not 1 cubic meter, or 1 cubic kilometer, or tenth part of a pinhead?
But anyway, we are exist here so somehow this world must came to the reality. For this there are three options:
a) since every moment has a preceding moment; the is borderless in back direction and matters just simply there are. How many years old is the World? Nobody do not knows, nobody can not calculate it. Nobody cannot imagine and nobody cannot understand what does it mean: "the word is borderless in back direction".
b) we can provide a Superior Planner and Creator who is responsible for the whole World. If our choice is this, we have to acknowledge his Absolute Abilities, however if we provide partial abilities, the remaining happenings still wait for explanation.
The collective memory of mankide contains certain elements that may understood then direct connection with the Suprior Planner and Creator.
c) third option is somekind of singularity that means that matter came to reality just his own way from the "Empty Space" or from some energy. This could be excluded at first.
Among the scientific declarations you can find very often similar explanation like this:
"We don't know what dark energy is, but we need to assume it exists in order to explain the Universe's expansion."
/ Hm .. looking this justification, what do you think?
If we wish to describe the behaviour of institutional science, beside the many highly acknowledged of great act we may realize: it send very quickly changing declarations but it always must be accepted without any contrastatement or questionmark.
Very hard to understand "the World is borderless in back direction". Our brain historically trained that everything has "BEGINNING TIME. We knows how many years we do our occupation, when was born our child, when opened the neighboring bakery. But we are unable to comprehend that something has no Beginning.
If you liked you can send away:
Origin of World
Is Einstein's theory unquestionable?
This website aims to encourage free thought and break down the barriers that stand in its way. All of you have right to express your own opinion.
Dear visitor, if you liked what you find here, please copy this blue text, insert it to you
e-mail or chat program and sendit to your friends.
IS EINSTEIN'S THEORY UNQUESTIONABLE?
The Power of being highly recognised Expert
Recognizing the expert is a positive force in community life - if it is based on previous good performance. However, in case of excessive appretition negative effects, among others, it curbs freedom of thought and debate. In extreme cases, it also eliminates or reduces the difference between science and religion.
In modern physics, two prominent figures have had the greatest impact on the public: Albert Einstein and Steven Hawking. The secret of their success: they tell the general public a very unusual, exciting and easy-to-understand theory, and put behind it a very complex, difficult-to-understand justification. In this way, many will remember and admire it, but very few will argue with it.
Our Philosophy
Space-time-matter are separated, independent entities with entirelly different nature. It's common for all three to be needed simultaneously to describe something, but even in this case they don't interact with each other.
"Space" is just a reference system invented by humans to be able to refer to the relative position or movement of things. That's why it can't even curve.
"Time" is just a reference system invented by humans to be able to refer to the relative time or movement of things. That's why it can't even slow down or speed up.
Matter and energy are not interchangeable. Neither one is created from the other nor the other from the first one. Energy is released or absorbed when matter changes state. There is no matter-energy conversion even in nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs.
Challenging statements to discuss
1. Light defines a straight line
an exciting idea, but it has little to do with reality. Light travels in a straight line as long as it is allowed to. If it is forced to do else way, it will not. And it does not indicate the straight direction any longer. I can describe the direction of light in geometric terms, but the movement of light does not define geometric terms.
We have reversed cause and effect. Nonsense conclusions are built on this false statement.
It is as if I were to say: the length of the meter stick I have determines the length of 1 meter. The next day someone accidentally drops the stick, and it breaks. Sorry, the agreement was that the stick I have is the standard. So from now on, 1 meter is equal to 62.5 centimeters.
2. Light converted to matter
There are many reports that researchers successfully have attempted to achieve this goal by colliding particles, and they claim they have. They calculated the mass of the colliding particles and what was created after the collision. They found that there was more material left after the collision, so it must have been material created from light energy. Let's see what actually happened: due to technical limitations, the researchers performed a completely different experiment than they had planned, but there is no need to worry yet. In this case, they accelerated an atom from which the electrons were removed, leaving a positively charged nucleus, or a positive ion with all the electrons still attached. According to them, ions were charged particles moving at speeds very close to the speed of light, carrying an electromagnetic field with them, inside which were found a number of not entirely real, so-called "virtual photons, which traveled as a cloud around the ions" -Virtual particles are those particles that jump "in and out" of existence in the fields between real particles, for very short periods of time. In the experiment, the virtual photon cloud of ions passed by each other so fast that their behavior was the same as that of real photons.Some questions
1. charged particles moving at speeds very close to the speed of light. According to Einstein and his followers, based on their formulas, near the speed of light, the mass of the body approaches infinity. Yet, did they manage to acceleration so long time?
2. “a number of not entirely real, so-called “virtual photons” were found, which traveled as clouds around the ions” – “virtual photons” this wording alone makes the stunt unreliable”
3. “that their behavior was the same as that of real photons.” At this point it seems that anything goes, there are no rules.In theses trials researcher use indirect measurement. That means we measure the effects of the factor under examination, and from this we calculate back to the value of factor under examination. This provides wider place for "corrections" (manipulations). Such are the studies in particle accelerators and in space. Here, there is room for world-shaking discoveries.Energy to matter conversion cannot be proven. Although chemical formulas most probably correct, but we do not know very well the atomic structure as well as structure of moleculas.
Let's see what actually happened:
Due to technical limitations, the researchers performed a completely different experiment than they had planned, but there is no need to worry yet. In this case, they accelerated an atom from which the electrons were removed, leaving a positively charged nucleus, or a positive ion with all the electrons still attached. According to them, ions were charged particles moving at speeds very close to the speed of light, carrying an electromagnetic field with them, inside which were found a number of not entirely real, so-called "virtual photons, which traveled as a cloud around the ions" -
Virtual particles are those particles that jump "in and out" of existence in the fields between real particles, for very short periods of time. In the experiment, the virtual photon cloud of ions passed by each other so fast that their behavior was the same as that of real photons.
A few questions
1. charged particles moving at speeds very close to the speed of light
According to Einstein and his followers, based on their formulas, near the speed of light, the mass of the body approaches infinity. Yet, did they manage to acceleration so long time?
2. “a number of not entirely real, so-called “virtual photons” were found, which traveled as clouds around the ions” – “virtual photons” this wording alone makes the stunt unreliable”
3. “that their behavior was the same as that of real photons.” At this point it seems that anything goes, there are no rules.
In theses trials researcher use indirect measurement. That means we measure the effects of the factor under examination, and from this we calculate back to the value of factor under examination. This provides wider place for "corrections" (manipulations). Such are the studies in particle accelerators and in space. Here, there is room for world-shaking discoveries.
Energy to matter conversion cannot be proven. Although chemical formulas most probably correct, but we do not know very well the atomic structure as well as structure of moleculas.
3. Gravitational lens
a star (light source) passes behind a massive dark body. It remains hidden by the dark body for a certain period of time. From the virtual motion of the light, it can be concluded that the light was bent near the massive body because spacetime was curved. They were announced with great joy as a shining proof of the theory of relativity. The great gravity also affected the photons and bent them. There is no need for spacetime curvature. Everything are explained in logical basis.
4. Relativity of mass
The relativity of mass means that the mass of physical bodies are constant only under our usual conditions. At high speeds, the mass increase, the higher speed the more mass. Since the speed itself is also relative, if change to an other inercia system, that also will effect the mass.
That statements constrain us to take the folowing questions:
1. If the above cited rules are valid, is that means that mass of a certain definite place is undefinite? It depends on the rate of our speed?
2. Is that means that mass of universe is not definite?
Mass increase could come to the reality in folowing ways:
1. the moleculas generate some extra mass with NEW moleculas
2. the moleculas increase their own mass individually.
1. excluded
2. excluded
3. What else???
5. The most famous and most highestly estimated statement of Einstein's Theory system:
This absolutly exciting, fantasy challenging fomula included a strong message! Everyone must heard about it!But, let me tell that there are a few dark shadow on it:
There has never been a transformation between matter and energy.
The related mathematical deduction is not proof.
The nature of matter and energy is completely different.
Conclusion:
This formula and the related theories are just FICTION!
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ENERGY AND MATTER ARE DIFFERENT APPEARANCES OF THE SAME THING.
IT IS NOT TRUE THAT ENERGY AND MATTER CAN BE CONVERTED INTO EACH OTHER.
6. SpaceTime
The unity of these two ansolutly different thing has no real physical content. Both of them simply relation system in human thinking. They are a tool to simplify references and take statements.
Rewieing the mathemathical functions and equtations I can say that this projection do not give us any new knowledge or new information: all operation, calculation, deduction can be completed without that as with that.
Spacetime curvature just like Space curvature are meaningless, nonexistent phenomenon.
If you agree or disagre it's all the same for me.
If you loved this slide please,send it away. Just simply control C and
TheMostExcitingQuestions
...
ORIGIN OF LIFE
This website aims to encourage free thought and break down the barriers that stand in its way. All of you have right to express your own opinion.
Let's imagine the moment when LIFE appears! Obviously, this is a film frame of a process, but inevitably there had to be a scene when a group, or a group of molecules, changed from inanimate to living!
Several problems, questions, and doubts arise:
1. Why would inanimate matter have changed to a living state?
In its previous unconscious state, it does not have
• sensory organs,
• locomotor organs,
• instincts,
• learned knowledge,
• experiences,
• feeling of pain,
• intentions
o- to survive
o- to reproduce
o- to cooperate,
o- to inherit.
2. What makes inanimate matter alive?
- If I assemble an exact molecular copy of a living cell, whatever it may be, will I get living matter?
- If, according to scientists, the transformation of inanimate matter into living matter is a law and has happened many times in many places on Earth, then why do laboratory attempts to create living matter collapse with a loud crash, even before the starting line?
- It is very likely that no living world would have survived from a single living cell. If the origin of life occurred in many places and at different times, then how can it seem that all living things today have a single common ancestor?
3. The most primitive representative of living cells is also a very seriously structured organism. Before the moment when the first living cell appeared, this complex structure must have been available. Is this possible? Could inanimate matter have been able to create it repeatedly, several times in a relatively short time?
4. Its reproduction occurred by cell division. Could the primitive organization have been able to perform the following tasks?
- Survive
- Nutrition
5. The complexity of the most primitive living beings, the most primitive cells. As you can see it consisted up14 to 20 separated functions!
This structure could not have formed by itself, by a series of coincidences, evidence (Impossible-1).But it is not enough, this impossible event must occur many times (even more then a fewhundred-thousands times) (Impossible-2).
From a chemical point of view, this would consist of quite a few consecutive or parallel steps. We can still see and know the first two or three steps of this series of steps, but we have no idea how the rest of them could have happened. (Impossible-3)
Let's assume that the molecules that are destined to live successfully carry out the series of impossible events and come to life as expected. They have plenty of problems.
First of all, I don't think they have strong hands and feet. This confronts them with the task of finding a place where the water of the primeval ocean can constantly bring them new food, which they can physically come into contact with. (Impossible-4)
At the same time, the end products of their metabolism must also be forwarded by these kind currents, preventing the accumulation of harmful substances. This is another impossible task. To make it more difficult, these would have to be maintain required ed continuously and in a coordinated manner. (Impossible-5)
I. FROM PRIMITIVE FORMS OF LIFE TO REASONABLE BEHAVIOUR
I must admitt that this steps almost such impossible as the previous step was. We have to provide that first individuals were able
- to sense physical and chemical parameters of environment,
- recognise the direction of changes,
- be aware of proper answer or find out it
- to give the proper answer.
After these living cretures must be able to inherit the learned informations.
In a later phase appeared the central nervous system, and the brain. Happennigs indicated by us in a short sentence for example "the nerve line apeared between two elements of system" or "cells started to recognise the light" practicly means strictly coordinating novements of huge number of types of molecules; strict coordination regarding time, kind of molecules and even some more parameters. It seems to be impossible complete this just simply selfcoordination mainly becaus those cells has no information about the targeted status.
Chemical materials do not have intention
Progression of microbiology
Since the year of Miller-Urey experiment (that is1952) there were huge development in a lot of related segment like gentechnology. So the environment is very facilitative for research of origin of life. This is really caunt in the age of disciplinarity. Inspite of these since Miller and Ulrey created amino acids molecules using hydrogen atmosphere andelectrical discharge - there was no step ahead, even promising small laboratory trial. Just new theories, wihout real evidence.
What can be conduct by logical flow and are in harmony with our experiences:
- there is a wide niche between inanimate molecular structutres and living cells,
- all refferences and statements that try suggest that inanimate materials started self-organizing, strive to develop or show any intention - are false without any further debates.
THE TRUTH
This website aims to encourage free thought and break down the barriers that stand in its way. All of you have right to express your own opinion.
After getting feed up with misleading press-information and with bombastic success reports of media our small team worked out the evaluation-system of grade of truth of scientific statements and of factual evaluation mode.
Our Philosofy
A statement or conclusion can be considered as TRUTH if conditions are listed bellow are satisfied - all of them, applying in reasonable extent:
To be described in perfect mathematical model is not a provement.
This kind of classification is important because news can be absolutely misleading very often.
"The science" is under permanent pressure from battle for money, from personal vanity, from personal financial interest and from holders of political power or finance power. Additionally, the media has their special interest that often press a debatable announcement even worse. If we should apply these criteria that caused bombastic success-report in media fall to a fragment.
Additionally, there are the authority-effect and be-member-of-mass feeling: not regarding what is the real opinion he will follow the "number one expert" or follow " the "highest influence power" person or group. This behavior is very typical just kill the strongest propulsion of science.
Our Philosofy
A statement or conclusion can be considered as TRUTH if conditions are listed bellow are satisfied - all of them, applying in reasonable extent:
- justified in laboratory
- observed in real situation
- logically deducted and free from contradiction
- there is no acceptable other statement with different resolution.
To be described in perfect mathematical model is not a provement.
This kind of classification is important because news can be absolutely misleading very often.
"The science" is under permanent pressure from battle for money, from personal vanity, from personal financial interest and from holders of political power or finance power. Additionally, the media has their special interest that often press a debatable announcement even worse. If we should apply these criteria that caused bombastic success-report in media fall to a fragment.
Additionally, there are the authority-effect and be-member-of-mass feeling: not regarding what is the real opinion he will follow the "number one expert" or follow " the "highest influence power" person or group. This behavior is very typical just kill the strongest propulsion of science.
Rules of discussion and commenting
THE FIRST AND ONLY RULE:
DO NOT HURT ANY OF OTHERONES
Advices and sugestion:
1. Never tell declarations about abilities and personality of your commenting fellows. Instead of that try to understand him/here. After that take the focus the content of conversation.
2. If you have to admit that your partner has right and has stronger arguments; BE HAPPY AND STAISFIED!(Namely, in this case you are who learned something new.)
-This site never give away and never commerciaise mail addresses or any personal data.
discussion
Just refresh yourself with easy and light talking, even making friendship.
1 min read
3 Comments
Discussion about how was the start of life. What does it exactly mean that something is alive? Welcome to Exciting Mysteries! Our platform uncovers the mysteries of the most intense debates surrounding life's most compelling mysteries, creating a space for curious minds to explore, learn, and participate. Join us on a journey of discovery and expand your knowledge of the world's fascinating secrets.
Yo website.
gg.
1 min read
0 Comments
In this Forum you can talk about how was born this material World where are living nowdays. Just listen: somebodies tell you the absolute truth not concerning about this happaned billion years ago ....
Th....
Yt
1 min read
0 Comments
This article examines the theory of relativity, a cornerstone of modern physics introduced by Albert Einstein. It highlights a topic from both the special and general theories of relativity in a way that is understandable to everyone, including the mass-velocity relationship and the curvature of space-time. The article raises the question marks. This comprehensive guide is essential for anyone interested in how solid this theory is.
1 min read
0 Comments
DONATE US -
YOUR HELP IS IMPORTANT
YOUR HELP IS IMPORTANT
We need your help for:
1. New content development.
2. Improve graphics appearance layout.
3. Buying expertise and knowledge.
K&H Bank OKHBHUHB
012008 01868466 00100006
1. New content development.
2. Improve graphics appearance layout.
3. Buying expertise and knowledge.
K&H Bank OKHBHUHB
012008 01868466 00100006
ARTICLES
2 min read
0 Comments
Even the most primitive representative of living cells is a very seriously structured organism. At the moment when the first living cell appeared, this complex structure must have been available. Is this possible? Could inanimate matter have been able to repeatedly create what it most likely CANNOT create ONCE, let alone SEVERAL TIMES?
Read More
1 min read
2 Comments
Plant who is thinking, makes decision and acts at once, I have saw myself a very exciting phenomenon. There were two different type of clinging plants in my room. The distance among them was roughly two meters. A day I was very surprise realizing a strange and (maybe) inexplicable happening. The two plant indisputably mutually establish connection to each other.
Read More
1 min read
0 Comments
I remember that the first date of the Big Bang was 1.8 billion years ago. Scientists took this very seriously, it was not right to doubt it. This number has now increased in about five steps to 18.5 billion years - there is no room for doubt now.
Read More
1 min read
0 Comments
The question is justified: if outlined the steps and the road of getting alive cells can we insert probabilities to each step? The answer is YES, excepted only one.
Read More