jump to last post 1-9 of 9 discussions (49 posts)

first principal

  1. wilmiers77 profile image60
    wilmiers77posted 5 years ago

    Our common definitions in science still lack first principal. Matter is so common until we believe that the name is first principal. Instead, matter is a conventional definition of a thing that all observes. But, what is matter? Is it a bundle of energy? Yes, but how was it formed in the first place. Or, did it always exist? Who formatted the arrangement of the bundles of energy for our existence? Is the initial format an act of procreation by our superior beings?

    What came first, bundles of energy or pure energy? By the way, energy is a conventional definition of science initially based on the conventional definition of matter. Everything screams intelligent design by our superior beings to me; or rather, a superior being that we call God.

    Bible says when the complete comes all incompletes are cancelled; so beware of calling a definition as being the complete.

    1. Beelzedad profile image60
      Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's not surprising at all considering what you just said, which would indicate the bible is the only book you've ever read. smile

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Beelzedad, I now know that you are a layman in physicists. I wouldn't expect for you to recognize or understand frontier thinking of physics. Try reaching the outer frontier of a discipline before making such a broad assumption.

        1. Beelzedad profile image60
          Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol I don't expect you to understand the first thing about physics, which you have shown in spades.



          lol Try reading a book. smile

          1. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            beelzedad, please stop showing your ignorant. You are foolish not because you don't have the slightest idea about how to address my questions, but rather because you attached my opening dialogue like a fool.

            1. 0
              DoorMattnomoreposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              yeah beelzedad.... "stop showing your ignorant", everyone knows those are not to be shown after memorial day.  wink

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Sorry, but your questions make no sense at all. They are little more than words strung together in a salad.

              smile

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                well beelzedad, that is on you. Why don't you keep pushing buttons until you find a forum or hub that you can understand. Evidently this one is above your head.

            3. psycheskinner profile image81
              psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              You really are bonkers.

              1. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                with knobs on

                1. getitrite profile image79
                  getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Another angry psychotic for Christ.

    2. getitrite profile image79
      getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      So after proposing this theory, you conclude that the BIBLE is the answer?  Could you explain that?  Thank you.

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        getitrite, what gave you the idea that I have posed a theory? How did you conclude that I think that the bible is the answer. My hell, I opened a forum with questions and statement for theoretical contemplation, and have drawn 5 straight dummies.

        1. getitrite profile image79
          getitriteposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I guess it was this statement in your opening post:

          "Everything screams intelligent design by our superior beings to me; or rather, a superior being that we call God.

          Bible says when the complete comes all incompletes are cancelled; so beware of calling a definition as being the complete
          "



          Silly childish nonsense.  If you want to be taken seriously, please show some maturity.  This looks quite foolish and unstable.

    3. Apostle Jack profile image60
      Apostle Jackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The FIRST principal of life is to put God First.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I already do that. There is far more plausibility, possibilities and probabilities that unicorns, dragons and even leprechauns exist then their is for gods to exist.

        I would say gods are First on that list. smile

        1. Apostle Jack profile image60
          Apostle Jackposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          You are a god,you created your own principal.All you are doing is trying to justify your own way of looking at it.....that's your choice.Some are meant to know MORE than others because of personal experiences.

          Some was PREDESTINE NOT to believe at all.So it is as it should be.Everything is on course........and the dye has been cast.

  2. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The first principle is spelling. The second is to read what has gone before, only then can you begin to imagine you are saying something valid, let alone new or interesting.

    1. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner, I meant a life, not the codification thereof. Like the head. This is my forum buddy!  Ha! Ha! Ha!

      beelzedad at least might know some physics, but I see that you know NONE. Valid!? You wouldn't know what's valid in physics if you saw it walking down the street.  Hilarious!!

      1. Cagsil profile image61
        Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        A better question would be why are you talking about "Physics" in a "religion and philosophy" forum. I guess it goes that you have not a lick of common sense, much be able to determine what someone knows or doesn't know.

        Physics isn't either a religion or a philosophy. Which actually proves my point. Good luck though.

        1. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Cagsil, why in the world are you saying this is religion and philosophy? Man, I say that you know nothing about the forum. Why is not this a science or physics forum? Please do tell me! Read man, Read!

          1. Cagsil profile image61
            Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Wilmers, I was actually trying to be polite about asking you why you were discussing "Physics" in a Religion and Philosophy forum.

                All Forums
                Religion and Philosophy
                FIRST PRINCIPAL

            from the topic Religion and Philosophy

            The above is from the top of the page. Maybe you should learn how to select better categories for your topics.

            And as I said- physics has nothing to do with religion and/or philosophy, because it's neither of them.
            I am smart enough to recognize stupidity when I see it.
            Actually, that is what I have been telling you. Got it?

            1. wilmiers77 profile image60
              wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Cagsil, you are a dummy class A. I choose a topic the closest to my dialogue. Please read content. If you don't understand it just stay out of the forum and not present to me petty technicalities.

              For all that you know, physics absolutely has nothing to do with philosophy. It would take me to much time to explain to a dead head dummy that at some level they are interconnected. Why in hell do you think that there is a philosophy of physics?? Why metaphysic (meta= after)? Optimum metaphysics is THEOLOGY!!!   

              I am going to close my forum because I am getting nothing but dummies!

              1. Paraglider profile image88
                Paragliderposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                Not sure how you intend to do that?

                When matter is seen as process rather than as substance, the matter/energy distinction resolves to a continuum.

                1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                  wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  Finally, one good thought that applies to this forum. Take Paraglider's comment as a starter. Use this paradyne.

              2. recommend1 profile image71
                recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                I don't think a raving looney or a dummy can close a forum thread. 

                Meta means 'more than' in the manner of super, it does not mean 'after', that is 'post' but to get to post you have to have had a 'pre' or a 'fore' and that pre-supposes an origin and you have no original thought so you are a 're' as in re-gurgitating stuff that you have been told by another 're' as in redundant.

                1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                  wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  recommend1, meta also means after in this case even by your comments. Pre and fore implies an after. Re also implies that there is an  after. "I" close out.
                  It takes a stone fool to call something that is over their head as being nonsensical. Open up and think, you might discover original thoughts.

      2. psycheskinner profile image81
        psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I bet I know more about physics than you know about grammar.  Your post is essentially nonsensical. I don't know any working scientist who would write something like that and expect to be taken seriously in any forum.  (And we tend to have our cutting edge discussions with our specialist peers.)

        1. wilmiers77 profile image60
          wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          psycheskinner, tell it to a tree or some small animal...Please, you don't  have the slight hint about what I stated. It's beyond you. You need to go and have your specialist peers teach you more about physics.
          Beware what you bet; you could be in for a big surprise.
          Your are the same dummy as Cagsil.

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I see you are still posting rambling nonsense and then berating people for pointing it out to you.  I would recommend you to a good education where most kids learn something useful instead of getting indoctrinated with twaddle.  You should 'rail against the dying of the light' and get an alternative education before it is too late.

            1. wilmiers77 profile image60
              wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              recommend1, this is a forum to discuss legitimate concepts. If you do not have the capacity to understand please stop looking like a fool to me and others that understand what I have stated. Either educate yourself to the questions or stay out of the forum. You don't qualify.
              The purpose of this forum is to open minds, not encourage formal, previous channels of educations.  I am trying with a mohoganny log to bust the mode of dummies thinking and challenge them into the theoretical world where new ideas and concepts with time can be brought into the present to expand our minds. It's called PROGRESS.
              I started this hub for the purpose of theoretical comtemplation, but have drawn 4 straight dummies. What does it take? A nuclear blast?

              Once again, the purpose of my forum is not to teach kids something useful. Since you have the calling, go for it!  This forum is not for kids!

          2. wilmiers77 profile image60
            wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Second thought, all of you dummies, Cagsil, psycheskinner, and beelzedad, go and study the ontology of matter and random variables theory.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              When all about seem to be mad you should consider that it is time for you to visit the shrink.

              1. wilmiers77 profile image60
                wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                recommend1, I see no one mad in this forum, only dead heads. I see dummies and I think that you are number 5?. I am simply trying to get thoughts in a forum that requires theoretical contemplation. Would you believe that this is "HOW WE PROGESS" because what is theoretical today can be reality tomorrow. Please give me a brake from dummies.

            2. Beelzedad profile image60
              Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Interesting, we point out your flaws and you insult us personally.

    2. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      What flaws have you pointed out that applies to my forum. I have only heard petty technicalities, and  YA'LL screwing around or should I say "F-ing around". How in the world can you point out flaws while you don't understand anything that I am saying? Keep pushing buttons. Good bye.

  3. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 5 years ago

    Yes who - what - why - welcome to the club.

  4. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    It is well past that time, and I suspect both ontology and phylogeny have played their part. If our friend had the education he accused us of lacking he would have mastered a rebuttal technique more advanced than the ad hominem ad naseum.

    1. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner, you are still stuck in the modes of thinking that you were taught. I have realized that you think that what you have learned are absolutes, and unquestionable. You haven't made one comment that apllied to my forum. You are a million miles away. Please, withdraw from the forum, you have nothing to contribute. Honey, you belong in another forum, not this one. One that you can play socialistic snake women.

  5. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Bonkers, and nasty.

    1. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      psycheskinner, you are a new dummy to me. What ig-mo garganzer produced you?

  6. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    Poor fella, can't get a 'brake' from our 'ignorant'.  Stop 'attaching' him!

    1. wilmiers77 profile image60
      wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Having fun venting on some dead heads!

      1. wilmiers77 profile image60
        wilmiers77posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Call me Mr. Bad Teacher. Ain't dat righ? Did I communicate some extras?

  7. getitrite profile image79
    getitriteposted 5 years ago

    wilmiers77

    May I ask you a serious question?

    Are you OK?

    You seem to be an...an unusually manic state.

    Are you reaching out for help? 

    If you need help, please seek it.

    1. Druid Dude profile image60
      Druid Dudeposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Religion may be a good excuse for war, but it took a scientist to enable us to kill as many people as possible.

      1. Beelzedad profile image60
        Beelzedadposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        In other words, no matter how much religionists start and wage wars on one another for their gods and their beliefs, they are always forced to turn to science in order to attain whatever they need to get the job done.

        This not only is relevant for wars, but relevant for everything.

        Then, when the dead lay strewn on the battlefield, they shift the blame to science.

        Beautiful. smile

  8. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    OP is not the only one acting a little erratic.  What has war got to do with this thread?

  9. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 5 years ago

    The first principle of life is to live.  And even that is optional.

    But that wasn't what we were talking about either, that was the first principle of SCIENCE.

 
working