Ball Earth Vs Flat Earth.

[WaveInTheOcean]

15 minutes ago, Aware said:

@abrakamowse Another thing, that video did not see any noticeable movement of earth.

What do you mean? What did you expect to see?

Did you expect to see rotation of the Earth or did you expect to see the Earth move through space?

1. You naturally can't see the rotation of the Earth because the baloon is STILL in the atmosphere (there is still billions of air particles that high up in the atomosphere) -- that is actually the only reason the baloon doesn't fall to the ground -- and the whole atomosphere is attracted by gravitiy to Earth, so the whole atmosphere is moving with the Earth's rotation, so therefore the baloon is ALSO moving with the rotation of the Earth, and precisely therefore the cam from the baloon can't see any rotation because it's part of that rotation.

Aware, you need to learn some fundamental stuff about 'frame of references'.. Please, please see this brillinat video that explains it very nicely:
 

 The point is... things look very much different from different references. Because the cam is part of the Earth's reference frame, it can't see the rotation, because it is rotating itself.

2. Naturally you can't directly see the Earth spinning around the sun either, for exactly the same reasons: the atmosphere/the baloon is part of Earth (due to gravitiy) so it's moving 100% together with the Earth, and therefore it can't see its own movement (the earth's movement).

 

It shines through very clearly that you have never studied physics (or at least not understood any of it) on any higher level than grad school.

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[abrakamowse]

@Aware  Interesting.

Another thing I was reading about some time ago is that they are saying that the tilt shift of the earth that makes seasons, it's not so big.

So they were theorizing that maybe it's not the inclination of the earth which creates the different seasons. I heard about it on a radio show, don't remember well which one.

[WaveInTheOcean]

"Although I fairly belief that NASA did not tell the truth,"

Do you have any arguments to why NASA would be interested to not tell the truth?

If all the 1000s of people who work within NASA very well know that the Earth is flat, how come not a single of these many people at some point wanted to tell the 5 billion people in the world the truth: "Hey guys, all these pictures are CGI, the earth is flat, here is the proof"...?

Have you any idea of how freaking hard it would be to keep such a secret for such long a time hidden from the public?

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

Last post:

Science can actually be pretty fascinating if you begin to understand it.

There are so much intelligence behind how the Universe works... and it's this intelligence that the natural sciences try to unravel.

Science is not the problem. Science is good. Your computer, Aware, only exist due to science. So if you acknowledge science (I guess you do, since you're using a computer) you should also acknowledge:

- all the science that describes why Earth must be spherically shaped

- that you yourself don't know as much about physics as people who have studied it for several years.

Im no expert on physics but I've studied it on highest possible level in high school with A+ grades, so I guess I know more about physics than the average dude on the street.
 

 

[WaveInTheOcean]

 At 58:55 he even zooms in a bit, and as expected we see no more of the bottom of the ship ... why? because it's below the horizon.. .. The earth is indeed curved.

After watching this video, if one still don't think the Earth is curved, then one has to believe that this video has been manipulated with software-editing. ... I mean yes, sure it could have been manipulated, but it's just an average dude who filmed it, why would he manipulate it? And also it looks very legit.

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

I am not against science. Science in itself isn't wrong. 

 

 

However, if there is no curvature, all the things explained about ball earth, is in danger if you ask me. 

 

I am but a simple man though. However, even though it might be flat after all, then many come up with whole models of a flat earth... And that I do not buy either. Its the danger of either this or that package I really am interested in to debunk. Even if it is a ball, and then you get everything of the ball must be believed... Which I find in both cases dangerous.

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

Well, you don't seem to buy Newton's work or Einstein's work... You don't think gravity is a real thing.

So that tells me you are indeed against science.

Either that or you just don't understand it. Either because you haven't studied it enough or because you don't want to understand it.

Or: You are actually agianst science (gravity etc) and believe it's all a hoax.

What I'm trying to say is... that if you believe gravity is a hoax(=not a real thing), then you should also believe the science that makes your computer running is a hoax(=not a real thing)  . Think about that.

If you believe gravity is real, then surely you will also understand that gravity supports the ball-shape and not the plane-shape of Earth.

See this brilliant video:
 

Regarding the video you just linked... Well, I'd say that the lens doesn't provide a wide enough field-of-view to see the Earths curvature... With that lens' low FOV it would need to get much higher up in the air to see the curvature.

Here is an example with a high enough FOV combined with high enough height:
 

One easily sees the curvature.
But of course - this felix baumgartner jump was a hoax as well/CGI  

 

Lastly, this video is brilliant:

 

Aware, you proclaim for open-mindness. If you really do so, please see all the resources/videos I've linked to in this thread, and then hopefully you will start to at least question your own assumptions (that the Earth is a plane).

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

Basically I challenge you to:

buy an expensive pair of REALLY good binoculars

Go to a coast where ships with big masts sail away... The ocean they sail into has to be a big one, so you will expect the ships to at some point disappear in the horizon.

Now lie for a whole day and watch with your binoculars. The weather has to be good with a clear sky.

I postulate that you will find that the last thing you see of the ship will be the mast.

All the flat-earth talk about "vanishing" point and that you just have to "zoom in" to see the whole ship again:
I call absolute bullshit.

Because if the Earth was really flat, then you just needed a strong telescope, and then you would be able to see from one end of the Earth to the other. A ship would NEVER disappear. As long as the telescope is strong enough, there exist no vanishing point. A vanishing point only exist if the eyes/scope is not strong enough to gather light from what's far away.

So yes, sure, if you look at a ship with low-zoom (or just your eyes) and then you suddenly can't see it, then yes, that's just the vanishing point for that type of equipment/low-zoom/eyes, and a switch to better equipment/higher zoom would allow you to see the ship again.

I would like to do this myself at some point in my life.

Because I agree with you: It's healthy to question what appears to be set-in-stone by society/science/religion/culture/everything.

I feel I have done that now to a an "average" extent regarding the flat vs ball-earth. And based on my own limited research on the web combined with my understanding of physics im 99,99% convinced that the Earth is indeed ball-shaped (not necessarily a perfect sphere, but you know: at least curved!). And I see my self as more open-minded than the average dude. I'm also a pretty logical kind-of-guy.

The reason I'm so sure (99,9999%) is that I also factor in that it would be extremely, extremely difficult for 

- gorvenments

- science people

- corps like NASA etc

to keep such a secret (That the earth is flat) hidden from the public for so many years.

I mean to really believe that all the ten thousands of pics/videos on the web of planets, galaxies, stars, Earth are all CGI ... that's just insane man.

I myself have a 10" telescope, and I have directly seen Jupiter and its moons. Sometimes I don't see them all. That's because they rotate around Jupiter. This only makes sense if Jupiter is ball-shaped. And if Jupiter is ball-shaped, just like Saturn (how will one explain the rings??? CGI?? you can see the rings for yourself in a telescope!), Venus, Mars etc are, then surely Earth is too!

The Universe is fascinating. To just debunk it all as CGI is pretty insane.

The fact that science/NASA has told us that Earth is just a little, tiny planet in an almost infinite universe (with billions of stars/planets/galaxies) should tell people that what's going on here on Earth isn't so important in the big picture.
Why would big corps be interested to tell us that?   Big corps want us to believe all is important going on here on Earth... Buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume... get a career, get a big car and a big house. So iiiiimporttaaaaaant.

 

CGI? It's the same I see in my telescope, except it's not as detailed. The moons are just light-dots. But I can still see Jupiters' bands and its colour! It's an amazing experience.

 

 

Brilliant video illustrating how insignificant the Earth is in this (likely) infinite world/universe:

 

Listen to this magnificent piece:

 

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[ULFBERHT]

@WaveInTheOcean Finally, someone with some damn sense.

[WaveInTheOcean]

18 minutes ago, ULFBERHT said:

@WaveInTheOcean Finally, someone with some damn sense.

Haha thanks man:D

I waste too much time on this. But I can't help it for some reason.

I think the "flat-earthers" have a very hard time grasping how fucking massively large the Earth actually is. Because it is so massively big, (40.000 km circumference) , of course it seems very flat when we as a tiny human body are running around on tiny parts of it -- even on "large scales" like big cities and so on.

Also the whole thing about people calling themselves "flat-earthers" (and also "ball-earthers") just show how stuck many people are in these social loops of feeling like they need to belong to something they feel give meaning to their lives.

Ego/false identity all the way (sadly).

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Well, you don't seem to buy Newton's work or Einstein's work... You don't think gravity is a real thing.

So that tells me you are indeed against science.

AH! .. Thanks for bringing this up... No, I believe science also is, without the whole explanation they give about gravity for example plasma. Its the explanation and overload upon those explanations I don't buy. For example if you look into the work of Tesla. He didn't believe at all that which Einstein brought up concerning the overload explanations of gravity. 

 

1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

One easily sees the curvature.
But of course - this felix baumgartner jump was a hoax as well/CGI

To break this I must indeed investigate it further myself with a powerful lens indeed. The lens is the thing that can curve it as they wish so. However its not so that the curve should only be seen on that hight. The curvature in its calculation does not change, and I think that the weather balloons demonstrate well enough that on such hight should also be seen a curvature.

 

However, I thank you for bringing all these things up. I find these videos you showed fascinating! Bringing such things together. I am not into buying  into either these or those when it comes to flat or ball, due to the many propaganda's and my own lack in research and experience in those fields. However that I have reason to believe its flat, you also gave me great points to rather believe it is not flat, I am however not blindly believing the mainstream either NASA or Flat earth society. Thats why I am happy you brought these things up so people can make up their own mind with what is presented.

Thanks again!

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

Quote

Come on people LISTEN to that Neil, and his pear shaped earth, my goodness, if not blindly following a religion, one will blindly follow science. I say, its the middle path we should take, think for ourselves, and clearly challenge what we have learned so far and move on.

@Aware

Don't focus too much on that Neil guy and his talk about Earth as a pear.

Don't focus on individuals. On persons. 

Focus on the ideas.

Don't get blindly stuck just because you appear to dislike that Neil dude. I somewhat dislike his attitude too, but doesn't matter much.

“Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people.” 
― Socrates

“Wonder is the beginning of wisdom.” 

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think” 

“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.” 

“The unexamined life is not worth living.” 

- Socrates

Yes, im just c/p'ing here. But Socrates surely was a wise motherf*cker :>

And yeah we should not blindly follow science I agree.
It's all about the middle path, indeed.
We should think for ourselves.
I agree, I agree. cheers.

Edited January 6, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

8 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Don't get blindly stuck just because you appear to dislike that Neil dude. I somewhat dislike his attitude too, but doesn't matter much.

EH? I don't know this guy though and have nothing against him, its the only video I saw ever with him on camera. Its his idea with the pizza that really got me.

 

Thanks for everything though! I appreciate it.

Edited January 7, 2017 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

5 minutes ago, Aware said:

EH? I don't know this guy though and have nothing against him, its the only video I saw ever with him on camera. Its his idea with the pizza that really got me.

 

Thanks for everything though! I appreciate it.

Yeah, and he's just joking around. I know you have nothing against him. What I sort of meant was just ignore what he said. Or dont value it too much in the big picture. I think he was just trying to get along that the Earth is not a perfect sphere but a bit wider at the equator.

[WaveInTheOcean]

Quote

However, I thank you for bringing all these things up. I find these videos you showed fascinating! Bringing such things together. I am not into buying  into either these or those when it comes to flat or ball, due to the many propaganda's and my own lack in research and experience in those fields. However that I have reason to believe its flat, you also gave me great points to rather believe it is not flat, I am however not blindly believing the mainstream either NASA or Flat earth society. Thats why I am happy you brought these things up so people can make up their own mind with what is presented.

Thanks again!

@Aware

Cheers man. You're welcome. I'm glad I've managed to slightly change your perspective on this matter.

I think you also have to wonder why someone whould do the propaganda you're talking about in regards to the shape of the Earth.

I mean, I agree, propaganda exist in todays world in many areas (mass-media/governments/neo-liberalism/capitalism).

But does it really exist in such large degree in science? Why would it? Why would scientists be interested in distorting the truth? A true scientist's greatest value is to find what's true about the nature.

From the Flat-earth-society perspective I see a lot of propaganda. And my intuition tells me that this is the case because the people in this group cling to this worldview like a child - they feel it as part of their identity, so they cannot let go, and thus consciously or unconciously distort the truth (social loops).

-----------------

Quote

However its not so that the curve should only be seen on that hight. The curvature in its calculation does not change, and I think that the weather balloons demonstrate well enough that on such hight should also be seen a curvature.

Well, mate... the height of the observation-point naturally influences if one can see the curvature (or just shape) or not. The closer one is to the Earth, the harder it is to see the curvature... it appears flat, because the Earth is so big! The farther we get away from the Earth (= more height) the smaller the Earth appears to us. And the smaller it appears to us, the easier it is to see the shape of it!. If you have a big football right up in your face (just before your eyes) you can't see the shape of the ball. As it gets a bit away from your eyes, suddenly you can see its shape!

This makes perfect sense.

And also it makes sense that if the field-of-view of a cam at decent height is low, then because the field-of-view is low, you can only see part of the Earth's shape and not as much as if you had a big field of view (like natural human eyes have, or you can at least turn your head around and look).

And part of the Earth's shape = can easily be seen as straight , while the full picture of the shape = can now be seen as curved.. 

So yes, both height and field of view (of the lens) matter! A lot!

It has nothing to do with calculations, really, it has just something to do with common sense! Think about it please. Make some visualisations in your mind of what I just said, and you'll see.

------------------------------

Now to the video you linked about plasma etc.
First of all the video is called "Gravity Not Included - A Flat Earth Short" ... This already tells me that the video is only made to support the "Earth is flat"-view... In other ways, it's clearly not an objective video but a very subjective, biased one..

The music is also so dramatic.. You can hear it means a lot to the guy who has made the video... He's attached, right? I hope we can agree on that.

 

Anyway.  The video states: "What they've been calling gravity is really electromagnetism through plasma"... and then also talks about how Alfven won a Nobel Prize in physics (about plasma) -- which is right -- and the video sort of tries to create the picture that Alfven himself didn't believe in gravity.

This is NOT the case. Alfven just believed that plasma plays an important role -- but together with gravitiy -- in the formation of "stuff" in the universe.

Hannes Alfvén from the 1960s to 1980s argued that plasma played an important if not dominant role in the universe because electromagnetic forces are far more important than gravity when acting on interplanetary and interstellar charged particles. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cosmology

----------------------------------------

Now the thing is... Tesla made his own theories about gravitiy and so on... and he didn't believe in Einstein's relativity.. True... but the thing is, Tesla's theories could be tested... And no obervations or experiments supported his theories on this matter.. Instead Einstein's theories have been proven many, many times through observations and experiments (I won't even begin here, go research for yourself if you really want to know) and this is why Einstein's general relativity today is accepted by basically ALL natural scientists around the globe.

So if all professors in physics around the globe support gravity & Einstein's theories, and you don't, that tells me then that you indeed are against science as it is today.

I mean, would you rather trust ONE dead man (Tesla)'s view or 1000's professors in physics' view?

Einstein had a brilliant mind. So did Tesla. They did contributions to science in different fields though.

I hope you can begin to see that science (especially physics) is a field where every theory a scientist make is very quickly tested by experiments/observations. If the experiments/observations support the theory, then even MORE experiments are made in order to be ABSOLUTELY sure, if such a theory is valid in any sense. That's how science works ... 

I want to assure you, that gravity as a force (because of the curvature of spacetime due to mass) is a very, very REAL thing in the sense that it is the reason that you fall back to the ground after you make a jump  

So let me repeat: If you don't believe gravity is a real thing, then naturally you also don't buy natural science as a whole... I mean, ALL natural scientists believe gravity is a real thing. And it's not arbitrary. They do it because there have been made 1000s of experiments since Newton that support the claims that gravity is real. Gravity explains so many things we see very, very, very well. 

If you throw away gravity and buy the "earth is flat"-idea, trust me, we'll have MANY problems about what see in nature that we suddenly can't explain.

To end this post, let me quote myself:
 

Quote

 

Science can actually be pretty fascinating if you begin to understand it.

There are so much intelligence behind how the Universe works... and it's this intelligence that the natural sciences try to unravel.

Science is not the problem. Science is good. Your computer, Aware, only exist due to science. So if you acknowledge science (I guess you do, since you're using a computer) you should also acknowledge:

- all the science that describes why Earth must be spherically shaped

- that you yourself don't know as much about physics as people who have studied it for several years.

Im no expert on physics but I've studied it on highest possible level in high school with A+ grades, so I guess I know more about physics than the average dude on the street.

 

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

 

[Aware]

1 hour ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

So if all professors in physics around the globe support gravity & Einstein's theories, and you don't, that tells me then that you indeed are against science as it is today.

I think you might misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough. With what I mean with not supporting. Its the explanations they use further beside gravity as actual phenomena. Which makes a lot of things self-evident all of the sudden, that I do not support. Which would also mean, that the gravity as how it is explained, can be explained differently, due to the fact that all things are temporary in nature. The law of velocity and static electricity, electro magnetism can come into place. This does not mean I am against science.

A lot of scientists are into evolution theory and big bang etc, and make this self-evident due to gravity etc. Its the explanations, the debunking of Essence. Awareness is not its governor belief, its all a big accident. And using just one explanation of a sort of gravity force to rectify it. This I don not support.

I would rather say: If you are against the fact that Essence is the governor, therefor stating: The law of actions leading to its according results is nonsense, gravity replaces it, its all an accident, there is no Essence, were completely separated from each other due to it. Out of material comes the subtle, and not the other way around, there is no governor and gravity explains this.

Then I say, you are against science for a fact. Because gravity does not replace anything. Its therefor a case of ignorance.

If I dislike computers, it doesn't mean I am against science. However if I am debunking the law of actions leading to its results, then I am against science. Because then I fail to understand that things have causes, that this situation will lead to the next, and previous situations has led to this situation. I see science, as LAW.

I see a real scientist, as an investigator of phenomenon of any kind of field, studying the phenomena in relationship with such laws.

However, if someone has finished university, and is called a scientist, and says: Gravity replaces Essence, were all an accident. That has nothing to do with science. But is a case of ignorance. And this, I do not support.

 

Edited January 7, 2017 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

43 minutes ago, Aware said:

I think you might misunderstood me, I wasn't clear enough. With what I mean with not supporting. Its the explanations they use further beside gravity as actual phenomena. Which makes a lot of things self-evident all of the sudden, that I do not support.

A lot of scientists are into evolution theory and big bang etc, and make this self-evident due to gravity etc. Its the explanations, the debunking of Essence. Awareness is not its governor belief, its all a big accident. 

I would rather say: If you are against the fact that Essence is the governor, therefor stating: The law of actions leading to its according results is nonsense, gravity replaces it, its all an accident, there is no Essence, were completely separated from each other due to it. Out of material comes the subtle, and not the other way around, there is no governor and gravity explains this.

Then I say, you are against science for a fact. Because gravity does not replace anything. Its therefor a case of ignorance.

If I dislike computers, it doesn't mean I am against science. However if I am debunking the law of actions leading to its results, then I am against science. Because then I fail to understand that things have causes, that this situation will lead to the next, and previous situations has led to this situation. I see science, as LAW.

I see a real scientist, as an investigator of phenomenon of any kind of field, studying the phenomena in relationship with such laws.

However, if someone has finished university, and is called a scientist, and says: Gravity replaces Essence, were all an accident. That has nothing to do with science. But is a case of ignorance. And this, I do not support.

 

 

Actually, Einstein would be a real scientist according to you then. Read about him and what his views were in regards to science vs religion.

And I agree with you in the sense that yes, even General Relativity; it's just a model OF reality. It tells something ABOUT how reality works.. but no model/theory can describe reality fully.. I agree,

Essence/Consciousness/Awareness is prior to the physical world. Indeed.

So it's not like we go from physics -> consciousness. It's the other way around, very obviously. And here science is lacking behind, but I think we'll see changes on this regard too soon.

So yes, obviously science can never explain reality. It can only make models about it that we can use to sort of understand it and manipulate it. But yes, it's all governed by God/Essence/The Absolute/The Universe itself/Consciousness w/e u wanna call it.

And yes here the law of actions leading to its according results is accurate.

So basically my point is ... the middle path... Science is good for trying to understand the world we live in. But to really understand your trueself.. the very NATURE of reality/yourself then science is of no use, but here one must study the mind of him or herself ("spirituality").

So I guess we agree.

 

Some quotes from Albert Einstein:

Quote

 

Einstein expressed his skepticism regarding an anthropomorphic deity, often describing it as "naïve" and "childlike". He stated, "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems

Scientific research can reduce superstition by encouraging people to think and view things in terms of cause and effect. Certain it is that a conviction, akin to religious feeling, of the rationality and intelligibility of the world lies behind all scientific work of a higher order... This firm belief, a belief bound up with a deep feeling, in a superior mind that reveals itself in the world of experience, represents my conception of God. In common parlance this may be described as "pantheistic" (Spinoza).

"The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical. It is the power of all true art and science.
He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead.
To know that what is inpenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and
the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—
this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness.
In this sense, and in this sense only, I belong to the rank of devoutly religious men"

Einstein had previously explored the belief that humans could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book Glimpses of the Great, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:

"Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations."

"Like Spinoza, Einstein was a strict determinist who believed that human behavior was completely determined by causal laws"

"I do not believe in free will. Schopenhauer's words: 'Man can do what he wants, but he cannot will what he wills,' accompany me in all situations throughout my life and reconcile me with the actions of others, even if they are rather painful to me. This awareness of the lack of free will keeps me from taking myself and my fellow men too seriously as acting and deciding individuals, and from losing my temper"

An understanding of causality was fundamental to Einstein's ethical beliefs. In Einstein's view, "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science," for religion can always take refuge in areas that science can not yet explain. It was Einstein's belief that in the "struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope" and cultivate the "Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself.

In a 1930 New York Times article, Einstein distinguished three human impulses which develop religious belief: fear, social morality, and a cosmic religious feeling. A primitive understanding of causality causes fear, and the fearful invent supernatural beings analogous to themselves. The desire for love and support create a social and moral need for a supreme being; both these styles have an anthropomorphic concept of God. The third style, which Einstein deemed most mature, originates in a deep sense of awe and mystery. He said, the individual feels "the sublimity and marvelous order which reveal themselves in nature ... and he wants to experience the universe as a single significant whole." Einstein saw science as an antagonist of the first two styles of religious belief, but as a partner in the third.[30] He maintained, "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies" as aspirations for truth derive from the religious sphere. For Einstein, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."[30] He continued:

a person who is religiously enlightened appears to me to be one who has, to the best of his ability, liberated himself from the fetters of his selfish desires and is preoccupied with thoughts, feelings and aspirations to which he clings because of their super-personal value. It seems to me that what is important is the force of this superpersonal content ... regardless of whether any attempt is made to unite this content with a Divine Being, for otherwise it would not be possible to count Buddha and Spinoza as religious personalities. Accordingly a religious person is devout in the sense that he has no doubt of the significance of those super-personal objects and goals which neither require nor are capable of rational foundation ... In this sense religion is the age-old endeavor of mankind to become clearly and completely conscious of these values and goals and constantly to strengthen and extend their effect. If one conceives of religion and science according to these definitions then a conflict between them appears impossible. For science can only ascertain what is, but not what should be...

 

Alright Im just c/ping from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_and_philosophical_views_of_Albert_Einstein

 

anyway, as you can see, Einstein was a wise dude.

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

" Its the explanations, the debunking of Essence."

Here you are wrong. This is YOUR interpretation of the explanations. There is no debunking of essenece.

Either it is your interpretation, or your lack of ability to unite the scientific explanations WITH Essence, or thirdly it could be that you've heard the explanations from some scientific dudes who you clearly see are not spiritual at all.

Because yes, many scientific-minded people believe that science is the answer to all. And yes they are wrong here. 

As Einstein says one has to combine science with "religion", or here I'd replace "religion" with basically self-realization, as you teach exactly.

And you can combine them easily. I mean, Big Bang-theory, evolution, gravity, relativity, quantum mechanics ... all these theries alone don't debunk anything. Even evolution, you see, could it be that evolution was just Essence's way of "doing things" so to speak? It sure seems like it.

Same goes with big bang, gravitiy, quantum mechanichs... these things are proven theories, in that they desribe and explain many phenomena very, very well.

So gravitiy for example.. yes it's a phenomena. But we can explain this phenomena using science... make calculations from it to understand reality.. basically to get a glimpse of how casuality (actions leading to according results) is working. Remember I say GLIMPSE.. of course we can never get the full pictore... only approximate it.

Please read what I quoted of Albert Einstein in my last comment.

You will see that he was a true scientist.

Remember, the word 'casuality' is basically equal to 'actions leading to its according results'.

So yes, aware, I'm all with you for the 'middle path'... you just seem to have some problmes with integrating actual modern science (which there in itself is nothing wrong with!) with Essence. Work on that by trying to understand how science works, and on what science can tell you about the universe, and I'm sure you will thank me later.

Because.. Science as in pure, pure science is basically of the same essence of your teachings... it follows the law of casuality .. that actions lead to their according results ... Or that any observed 'effect/action' naturally has a 'chain of causes'... basically the same thing.

 

So to sum it up.. I'd say we have two kinds of science:

Internal science (true spirituality, self-realization-proces, seeing how casuality plays out in regards to our inner workings)

External science (seeing how casuality plays out in regards to the physical/external world/nature .. basically how it plays out in the world we see ourselves in).

And these two kinds of science are basically "one", so to speak... They are based on the same principle of casuality (actions leading to its according result)..

I guess only difference is that internal science is pretty much a subjective task (everyone are alone here in this field).. while external science is an objective tasks that requires many "selfs" to be done properly.

Of course I'd say that the internal science is the most important one.

Edited January 7, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

"However if I am debunking the law of actions leading to its results, then I am against science."

 

"A lot of scientists are into evolution theory and big bang etc, and make this self-evident due to gravity etc. Its the explanations, the debunking of Essence."

 

Please come with some good arguments/explanations as to why evolution and/or big bang-theories are debunking essence/the law of actions leading to its results. I'm excited to hear your view on why that is so. My intuition tells me that it is just because you haven't studied science/evolution/big bang enough, or don't understand it. In fact the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang are real theories/models because they reflect that law of actions leading to its result... They are in accordance with the law.. If you feel they aren't, it's because you're not understanding them really (this is my view at least).

Of course the evolution-theory is not COMPLETE. It doesn't explain EVERYTHING. Neither does BIG BANG theory. But they dont try to either! Sure some scientists might falsely believe that such theroies can do that... and you seem to believe that the theroies in themselves try to do that.. NONONO! It's your view of them that appears to be so - falsely. Evolution just explains very, very nicely how organisms has evolved over time. No other model/theory explains it as nicely as evolution does. Same goes with big bang, just in regards to the evolution of space.

Evolution doesn't explain, and doesn't try to explain why it even is so. It doesn't try to explain why there even is life in the first place. It doesn't try to explain why humans exist. It just _describes_  how the organisms evolved over time - THAT'S ALL it does!

Same goes with big bang theory... it doesn't try to explain WHY there was a big bang... Why there is anything..... And it doesn't explain why we exist here right now.. But it explains how the universe evolved over time! And the explanation it comes up with fits very, very nicely with observations of the space. Same goes for evolution, just in regards to the observations we make of fossils, mutations, DNA, replication, divserity and much more.

So what I'm trying to get along... Both big bang and evolution are just MODELS... But they are effective models that describe certain things very nicely, precisely in according with casuality. SO they are useful models to understand some parts of nature.. and a deeper understanding of nature is always fascinating to achieve, at least for me... and this applies both to understanding myself better (who am I) but also to understand how does the universe function ? 

 

Because after all, both things are of the same... I am result of the Universe , and the Universe is a result of me. So surely the mysteries are linked. 
And yes there are problems with how science is viewed! On both end of the spectrums.. THe middle path is the one to go for, with many seem to are not doing..

Many scientists are on the one end of the spectrum of claiming science to be the knowledge to everyyyyyything. They never look in-wards to find their TrueSelf, and realize that Essence/consciousness is prior to the physical world (hopefully we will see changes here soon).

But you are just on the other end of the spectrum. You claim that the models science comes up with (evolution, big bang, relativity, quantum mechanics) have no value in terms of knowledge of parts of reality (=the physical world.) That they are not in accordance with the fundamental laws (action->result)... That they debunk Essence... When in fact they ARE in themselves in accordance with the fundamental laws (action->result) and they don't debunk anything in themselves! Just look at them properly.. (the middle path).

It's the middle path.. the middle of spectrum. Where Einstein were. And where I am as well. Aware, you should go there too.

Goodnight.

Edited January 7, 2017 by WaveInTheOcean