Posted: May 03, 2015 3:37 pm
This is what I am talking about above. Clearly not "Rational Skeptics" but just saying "No, Tetryonics isn't correct.." and trying to insult someone. If someone doesn't even want to learn about the theory and just talk garbage, this is ignorant down to the very root of the word. But I am getting chills how noone can do much about proving it wrong. I presently learned about cognitive dissonance and understand though why some would resort to name calling. The part about Tetryonics that gives me the "willies" is that its theory matches observable data unlike current accepted academics which often doesn't and causes the leading theory to be reworked.
Thanks Tetryonics101 for the material. After taking the time to look it over, I find no holes so far. And can also tell that this is not a subset of anything (including electric universe) as it contains the whole itself.
The above Tetryonic pdf material made me realize the following below, after thinking about it (instead of dismissing the info for popular opinion or something I am comfortable with because I already know it)...
Now here comes honestly an explanation of what is really going on with Science Vs Religion. Its a macro version of left handed vs right handed consciousness bias. Observation is key so if you have a polarized observation then your reality will also be skewed. No doubt all of us know a few religions nuts. And also some total science nerds as well as some left and right handed people. But these people just have these viewpoints on how the universe works. One side (left brained/right handed/science thought people) wants to just break stuff down to the smallest bit to analyze it. The other side (religion-only thought people/right brained/left handed people) often think of the whole rather than the parts. So they look at the idea of a great artist picture and the whole makes up the most of the thought bias. Neither side is wrong basically but both are skewed on their viewpoint of NATURE. That is what both sides are trying to describe.
Place your phone in front of you where you can see it. And you can describe your phone flawlessly with drawing it with pencil. Or you can describe it completely in numbers like computer code. Neither is wrong but both are just polarized thoughts. Again, the drawing being the whole thought bias and breaking it down small bits is the breaking down scientific thought bias. What you are really looking at, beyond both skewed viewpoints, is a lattice of atoms. This is a geometrical arrangement of vibrations of various energy levels. These energy levels and shapes interact with each other in a bunch of ways. But sure you can look at this geometry as either math or art. Its still geometry in reality. You can do math via that or draw with geometry. You can look at geometry only via math or art but you will never realize that an atom is a solar system without both in tandem.
“One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”
? Nikola Tesla
<--who btw at one point became ambidextrous and started parting his hair down the middle of is scalp. I feel that is what Mr Tesla was trying to explain in that quote. Thanks again for the materials and also love the poo flinging as it just shows that there no rational skeptics on rationalskeptic.com haha just poo flingers with no ideas of their own (at least so far reading the above posts no person has done anything to disprove it besides talk garbage). I'm now thinking of modern scientists like Neil DeGrass Tyson as sort of a modern day left brained priest who can only look at the small stuff just like the pope looks at big stuff and has no idea about matter charges.