Then you are unqualified to either use the word at all, or to have any opinion.
This is gibberish. When a light is turned on, the light is at the light source. It then travels (at the speed of light) to the other things in the room, including any eyes that may be present. Some of it will travel to those eyes via bouncing off other objects. That makes it possible to see those objects (and the light source itself).
No, it's still a theory. But it's become accepted, because it is literally the only theory we have that has not been proven to be false by observation.
I’m sure a lot of work has been done into proving other hypotheses to be false, but I have no idea what hypotheses you’re talking about that are related to this claim. They’re not all the same.
That you have no idea what hypotheses you are promoting, or indeed that you have no idea what you are talking about, comes as less of a surprise to me than you seem to imagine it should.
Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
I’m promoting the claim that man has four senses and a pair of eyes. Why are you telling me I have no idea what I am promoting? I have not changed my position and I actually have not kept anyone in suspense. I actually gave part of the chapter that explained it very succinctly. Did you read it?
This is coming from someone who believes that books have no value. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If that is true, then you can easily explain his explanation and throw it out. Go for it bilby!
Call it whatever you want. He didn't hypothesize, okay? He observed. If you can negate his observations, then science would have gotten it right. I don't believe these "facts" are actually facts. Lessans believed his observations proved them wrong. If he was wrong, then it will only add further proof that science got it right, but you have done nothing to disprove his claim. In fact, you don't even know what compelled him to make this claim because you don't believe in books.
Then I can't have a conversation with you. You don't believe in books. You don't even understand his explanation, so how can you dispute it? Oh well.
It's not that simple to test because we live in a free will environment. It could be tested by creating a society on a smaller scale using the principles. People are jumping the gun and concluding that this kind of world is impossible because the past shows us that there has never been permanent peace. But just because the past has been filled with war and murder does not mean it has to continue in the same way. Here are the first three chapters that I gave early in this thread. If you're interested in reading more, I'll gift the book to you, but you need the kindle app. There is no way to understand how this new world can come about without understanding the full blueprint where all the pieces are tied together.Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
It can be tested. Laser beams reflected from instruments left on the moon giving exact measurements of the speed of light and the distance to the moon, etc.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the premise of the book is right, how would this relate to determinism, transforming human behaviour and changing the world for the better?
This is nuts Pood and you know it. How can this be compared to a cult when all authority and control is being removed. No person is looked up to like some kind of god who demands obedience, and no one is being brainwashed. You don't know what you're talking about AGAIN!
That's not what he said. He said if you don't agree with the principles, then there's something you don't understand because it contains within itself proof of its veracity. By the same token, if you don't understand that one plus one is two, not eleven, then there's something you don't understand because it contains within itself proof of its veracity.
What's sad here is that if these discoveries were proven true (in our lifetime), and we were now entering a new world of no war, hatred, crime, rape, or any exploitation of one person to another, you would still say:
It's not that simple to test because we live in a free will environment. It could be tested by creating a society on a smaller scale using the principles.Yep, that’s the theory that has graduated into fact.
It can be tested. Laser beams reflected from instruments left on the moon giving exact measurements of the speed of light and the distance to the moon, etc.
But for the sake of argument, let's say the premise of the book is right, how would this relate to determinism, transforming human behaviour and changing the world for the better?
