People understand this dogma perfectly well, no reasoning or critical thinking required. Literal, to be under the standing of another mind.
No logical basis exists for black holes, they are a rationalization for the faulty foundation upon which they lie, a fantasy to explain condescending pseudotheory.
The defect is defending a false doctrine, accepting as truth a scientifically evident hoax.
If you want the answer for yourself, you need to demystify "terrorism", since that is the headline narrative from day one and to this day. When you grok what terrorism really is, the logical conclusion to who did the deed is to answer the question of who benefited, what motives, and look for evidence.
Terrorism is a method of rulership over publics, not a tactic of war. Unless you consider the rule of terrorist ideology to be one of "at war with those under rule", but that is different model of thinking. Either way, terrorism comes down to low grade rule by mean and vicious people, the kind you would hope never to elect. Indeed, one might conclude as I have that terrorism is rule by the unelect.
Terrorism is not a tactic of warfare, it is violent coercion. Even that much is obvious, for it coerces people to become defensive, scared, etc. Civilians are not the target of military for war. Never have been. Only pawns can be used to enact terrorism, for no individual has anything to gain by the act.
No military strategy has ever used nor teaches terrorist methodologies. The response by the USA shows precisely why it is foolish, for it gains nothing to the attacker: no territory gained, only an enemy provoked.
The accused actors had nothing to gain unless they were pawns for reward, but then that would mean they did not plan it, nor conceive of it from the base notion of coercion toward a benefit. Nor did the accused actors have a motive. The narrative already becomes convoluted beyond this point, so I pull out my Swiss Occum Razor and shave it back. That is when I realize how deep the ideological methodology of terror-ism must be.
Terrorism is not the act of rogues and individuals, but this is what you are wanted to believe. Terrorism is the plan and rule of those found at the conclusion of logical procedure. Who benefited, what motives, following clues...
You are sticking to rationalization, so I must argue that.
Rationality is the mirror of mystification. With rationalism you can endlessly circle the argument in defense of thy mystical beliefs.
Your mystified understanding of terrorism is that psychological profiles are sufficient. This subverts due process.
Nothing about rationality guarantees a positive outcome, and is typically a trick that leads to no conclusion. That is the very opposite intent of logical conclusion by way of reasoning.
Irrationality is simply circling the other direction, actually nothing and no different, but the word is used to create a false dichotomy so you can call somebody crazy by another name, and keep the argument and process couched in mystification.
It is literally in the name: the ratio is tangential to the circle.
For the philosophers, this is why the pushers of rationalism thrust Kant to the fore, he wrote that reason is insufficient. That may be true for some types of inward thinking like creativity and invention. The truth can never be invented though ergo reasoning is perfectly fine for the due process of uncovering the truth.
Kant's philosophy is used to justify judicial review, where you are guilty until proven innocent, which is precisely why we are forced to recite the complete opposite. If "innocent until proven guilty" was true and in force, it would be apparent, and what is known need not be repeated interminably.
This is the lie at the root of jurisprudence, and is the conclusion of actually bad reasoning, and is forced via unjustified action we call Justice. Justice must be justified because punishments are crimes in any other context.
As a result, we cannot act with justification based on reason, but must follow strictures, aka laws. For instance, you maybe cannot defend yourself against a lunatic because it can be rationalized a million ways that self defense was not justified due to circumstances, literally circular positioning, rationalization.
Government is religion based on rational mysticism. It has nothing to do with the power of democracy, freedom, doing what is right, and self determination. It is moderation by another name, and from on high by elitists who control judiciaries.
Rule by ideology leads to every kind of terrorism, but it doesn't make the trigger man special, only a pawn. It is important to know ideology is not about ideas but deos, the "God Complex". The terrorist actor is always a zealot.
The ideologue behind the plot, the agent or collective agency, they influence the actor via their God Complex which lacks the foundational principles. That is why ideologically driven people are fractious, without a functional spirituality that connects them and maintain virtues such as "do not kill people for no reason" or "unelected action undermines the legitimacy of our very own elected representation!"
Global warming is the ideology of ecoterrorism, but we don't see multitudes in arms, and we don't see their representatives and generals, we only see the limited agents, a parade of the unelect.
We don't see continuous campaigns, we see odd events. We see publicity, never discretion. Violent or not, it is always a performance. And rather than serving their side, terrorist are usually pawns of their own enemy. That is the true art of terrorism.
If the ideologue had real power, a military and industry and political strength, they have no reason to influence and orchestrate acts by zealotry. Power works with diplomacy, and bad diplomats are fast replaced with better ones. War is the ultimate in diplomacy.
Terrorism is always convoluted schemes that do not achieve real ends such as changing policy or destroying the enemy. That is because the motive is ulterior to the action, and not powerful enough to do great damage; the reaction has to be the source of damage. The zealot has no idea about the real motive; they have only good intentions toward the deos.
If the actor discovered the motive was not truly their own cause, that wouldn't serve. If they do not, the reward is rarely enough to perform false work, and they do not preserver long. Such is the case with mass protesting, which is low grade terrorism, intellectually violent if not physically. If the protest was true in force, they would just sweep away the antagonist.
This is ILLITERATE narrative. This is weak science and trash journalism. Painters of the time were literal, which make this hit piece an illiterate writing of history. This is news from the academic synod, and not without purpose to deceive.
What evidence do we have that Bruegel was not painting reality as seen? Based on what report and observation does this journalist assume the details they give to you? Soon they will tell you the white whale from Moby Dick was not real, but a phantasy, no such creatures ever existed. This essay is deliberately avoiding Breugel's religious works and feeding you pasteurized scholastic to flavor his psychological profile for you to phancy. Yet they will tell you his actual pastorals "are a study of man in nature", in other words real historical document.
They are telling you fairy tales while you look at real pictures, and then present to you, as phact, a CGI of Earth in space and CGI of a hairy ball of fire and CGI of a planet with rings around it. Bruegel's paintings are more real than quantum physical representations, but you believe time travel and aliens are more real than history as displayed in psychical images.
This tactic is modern and used religiously, it is no different than character deformation. If you care more about the man than the work, you can write off the result any which way. Now you are set loose to believe a person would only say or do as such because they are "crazy" or have a phony syndrome; in reality they give you the syndrome.
The proof of this is simple. If you see beauty, nobody can tell that what you feel is actually the very image and form of the opposite. The thing itself resonates with you, and thus the beauty must be in you also, as if you are the very instrument which measures beauty. If I tell you the character of the person, I am attempting to resonate those personal traits inside yourself, and thus if I say the character was psycho, and achieve that trait in you, your perception of the genuine article becomes psychotic, and you no evidence the person in question was any which way.
Beauty does not allow for that, for nobody can tell you otherwise. Not all things are beautiful, but that does not make them unreal. Your sense of beauty is the barometer of sanity, but importantly it is the basis of true relational science, for beauty tells us that we should not be deceived by unreal observations which can only be given to us; your observation is the only real one you can trust.
Now, you might ask "But then should we not question the observations of Bruegel?" Yes, that is precisely it, base your judgement on original observations and correlate those with as many findings as you can, rather than lazily accepting reformed observations by psychotic hackwits attempting to dictate what is real and not.
What "you consider good" can be bad, especially if you are going by conscience and your source is faulty. Otherwise we would never learn from our mistakes or feel sorry for wrongdoings. A faulty conscience leads one to feel good for their wrongdoings, and to live by their mistakes.
If you do not go by conscience, but use your own observation and feeling, you must will thyself not to fall for the wrong moral nor to value the wrong ethic. One learns and grows more without conscience.
Conscience depends on the source of which you trust and believe. If you are the source, that is not conscience but regular sciens, also called sentience. If your sentience is true to nature you have no need of conscience, also called sapiens.
Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real. Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space.
As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe. It is only useful for taking measurements within that model, everything else is worshiping light, the speed of.
> Time is not real, it is a measurement. Space is real.
In what particular way is space real that time is not?
> Einstein's times is a quantum model of change over space, but really only proves that where you stand is relative to where I stand, and our relativity changes if we move through space.
I think you might have misinterpreted the vocabulary: in the "principle of relativity", the word "relativity" refers to the relation between two coordinate systems, not the relation between two points in space.
> As I have just proven, Einstein's relativity is really a confabulation of what is obvious, resulting in people getting lost in that model universe.
All you have done is made assertions, without evidence or reasoning. You can certainly do that, but how is it supposed to prove anything? What is the argument?
1: The clock is real, the minute is abstract. The real and abstract are the essence of mathematical relativity, which is how we derive "irrational constants" like the relative measurement of one thing (radius) to another (circumference) making a ratio (PI). PI can never truly be defined, because it's not real: it can only be measured more or less accurately. If time and the clock were both same with regard to being real, there would be nothing to measure, or no reason to measure: time would be the clock. But we know a clock tells time, which is a measurement: days into hours into minutes into seconds. If a day is time, and so is an hour, time is no more real than PI, which describes all radii to arbitrary precision. Time describes change of space over arbitrary intervals, it's a derivative. The lightyear is a further derivative of speed over time, which wouldnt make sense if time wasn't describing a distance of space, which is what a lightyear is.
2: More than one point in space makes a coordinate system, and more than one point is a prerequisite of relativity. (Source?) Plus, within the questionable physics models which allow for singularities, the notional difference between a coordinate system and a point is conspicuously broken in order to explain other things. But that's how we get vague terms like spacetime, descriptions for weird parts of the model.
3: I did prove it, and you can reproduce it yourself by going to the nearest mountain range and yodel. In other words, I don't need math proofs from within abstruse models to prove my point, so my argument is more sound scientifically. I proved "relativity" is nothing more than understanding the difference in change over space, which is a very obvious/observable thing, perhaps the most basic of all material existence, comporting to the idea that no two things can be one, or "occupy the same space".
Time measures change over space, a thing you witness firsthand when your yodel returns in echo from the mountain. If space did not change from point A to point B, there would be no distance, no coordinate system, and our yodel would not echo from anywhere. Without change over space there is no time, so that tells you which one is primary. The measurement of the echo, taken in time units, aka intervals, gives useful information. It does not however indicate anything of some model's out-of-bounds parameters, like what if the mountain had infinite gravity?
The measure of an echo could not prove a black hole, even by the very definition of a black hole, for an echo would not return (infinite inches of time til return). Ergo no measurement can prove a black hole. Only a model taken to mathematical infinity "proves" a black hole, and that is not real science, it's just math. Math proofs and scientific falsity are not the same side of a single coin. The observation yields math, not the other way around, or else I could say look here in my notebook, it's a real black hole!
> Time measures change over space, a thing you witness firsthand when your yodel returns in echo from the mountain. If space did not change from point A to point B, there would be no distance, no coordinate system, and our yodel would not echo from anywhere.
I'm still not following what you mean. What is "space"? You claim it is real, in the same sense that a physical clock is real. Is it some kind of physical thing in the world? Is it the general idea that two objects can occupy different positions?
What does it even mean for "space" to "change"? Does it refer to the existence of different positions? Does it refer to the idea that a physical object can change which position it occupies? Why does the concept of distance depend on the existence of "change over space"? We can make the obvious observation of transmitting a sound to a distant object and receiving an echo back. But I don't see how to derive your concept of "change over space" from such an observation.
Further, why is "change over space" in particular the quantity that "time" measures? Normally, I'd think that "time" refers only to the intrinsic relationship between different events that allows us to place them in an ordered sequence. What does this necessarily have to do with "change over space"?
I don't mind; I'm mainly curious as to whether their ideas are self-consistent, more than anything else. Any coherent system of beliefs has to be either aligned with experimental evidence (perhaps with unconventional terminology), independent of experimental evidence (i.e., unfalsifiable), contrary to experimental evidence, or self-contradictory. It's an interesting exercise to tease out which one it is, yet often unsuccessful, if the other person gets tired of your incessant questions. (In the worst case, they simply refuse to let their beliefs cohere at all, falling back to unexplainable mysteries that it's your fault for not already understanding.)
Well, I'm afraid you beg the charity of your readers' minds when you post ideas contrary to popular belief on a public forum. If begging others' charity is something to be avoided, then the alternative is to keep your ideas to yourself.
"Rational discourse" is the demand of people who cannot grok and need it explained within their epistemology. It is pointless, for they bring no conviction but disbelief and biases; and it is endless because it gives them not food for thought but "rations for argument", which is all their lazy intellect desires.
Spacetime is a colloquial term for a derivative calculation or projection which only applies within the model. It has also not proven very germane as a unit, or it would be used more like a unit, rather than as description of a picture. The term seems to relate to the rendering of space in the model via geometry, where the model is based on singularities, which are the antithesis of space, and so is the model. We experience space, but we only find singularities from within a model.
That we pretend the relative speed of light is constant, and this proves black holes and big bangs, that is pseudo science taking a model beyond it's working boundaries, where it's calculation have no meaning; to wit, this is a physical analogue in optical aberration, where the rim of the lens is asymptotic refraction to the point of unreliable measurement (not a singularity, unless of course you model it as such, in the abstract).
The real question is why so much energy is used staring at model aberration. The "Uncertainty paradox" has everyone believe the model is real, and even ask the question "at what point does the model become real". The model is never real, and never becomes real, it stays a model forever. Whether the cat is dead or not is simply a measurement where, if you mistake the paradox for theory, you don't realize the probability of dead or alive given decay is nothing more than a measurement taken ex post facto, and not proof that the real world accord to the model.
No logical basis exists for black holes, they are a rationalization for the faulty foundation upon which they lie, a fantasy to explain condescending pseudotheory.
The defect is defending a false doctrine, accepting as truth a scientifically evident hoax.