Posts from Forum

If a concept exists, then there must also be an object that this concept describes. If God did not exist, then the concept of God would not exist either.
There are laws of nature, and all of them are described in sacred texts long before physics and other sciences began to study them. This raises the question of who created these laws, who is this Lawgiver?
Who then created this universe, this sun, this earth, these complex laws that even the most perfect physics cannot fully understand to this day?
It is impossible to invent anything that does not exist in the universe, in the cosmos, in other dimensions, in God.
Try now to come up with something that doesn't exist, and even based on something that doesn't exist!
Let's try to come up with something, at least one example.

Inventing is, unfortunately, your forte, so I won't compete, but the idea about the concept and the object is interesting. Try to develop your own thought: there is a concept of God, and according to your logic, there is also an object. This object can at least be touched, seen, or heard without special devices, or with them. What does God look like? Where can one get an idea of this object?

Aripoutre for a warm-up:
“The problem of the millennium,” solved by a Russian mathematical genius, is related to the origin of the Universe.
THE GAME OF THE MIND
Not so long ago, mathematics did not promise either fame or fortune to its “priests.” They weren't even given the Nobel Prize. There isn't such a nomination. Because, according to a very popular legend, Nobel's wife once cheated on him with a mathematician. And in revenge, the rich man deprived the entire brotherhood of their respect and prize money.
The situation changed in 2000. The Clay Mathematics Institute, a private mathematical institute, selected seven of the most difficult problems. And promised to pay one million dollars for solving each. Mathematicians were looked at with respect. In 2001, the film “A Beautiful Mind,” starring a mathematician, was even released.
Today, only those far removed from civilization are unaware that one of the promised millions – the very first – has already been awarded. The prize was awarded to a Russian citizen, a resident of St. Petersburg, Grigory Perelman, for solving the Poincaré conjecture, which, thanks to his efforts, became a theorem. Our dear 44-year-old bearded man has outdone the whole world. And now he continues to keep it – the world – in suspense. Because it is unknown whether the mathematician will honestly accept the well-deserved million dollars or refuse. Progressive society in many countries is naturally worried. At least, newspapers on all continents are chronicling the financial and mathematical intrigue.
And against the backdrop of these fascinating activities – guessing and dividing other people's money – the meaning of Perelman's achievement was somehow lost. Jim Carlson, President of the Clay Institute, of course, stated at one time that the purpose of the prize fund was not so much to find answers as to try to raise the prestige of mathematical science and interest young people in it. But what is the essence?
THE POINCARÉ CONJECTURE – WHAT IS IT?
The riddle solved by the Russian genius touches on the foundations of a branch of mathematics called topology. It – topology – is often called “geometry on a rubber sheet.” It deals with the properties of geometric shapes that are preserved if the shape is stretched, twisted, or bent. In other words, deformed without breaks, cuts, or gluing.
Topology is important for mathematical physics because it allows us to understand the properties of space. Or to assess it without being able to look at the shape of this space from the outside. For example, our Universe.
Explaining the Poincaré conjecture, they start like this: imagine a two-dimensional sphere – take a rubber disk and stretch it onto a ball. So that the circumference of the disk is gathered in one point. In the same way, for example, you can pull a sports backpack with a cord. As a result, you get a sphere: for us – three-dimensional, but from the point of view of mathematics – only two-dimensional.
Then they suggest stretching the same disk onto a donut. It seems to work. But the edges of the disk will converge into a circle, which can no longer be pulled into a point – it will cut the donut.
Then comes something inaccessible to the imagination of an ordinary person. Because you need to imagine a three-dimensional sphere – and namely, a ball stretched onto something that goes into another dimension.
As another Russian mathematician, Vladimir Uspensky, wrote in his popular book, “unlike two-dimensional spheres, three-dimensional spheres are inaccessible to our direct observation, and it is as difficult for us to imagine them as it was for Vasily Ivanovich from the famous anecdote to imagine a square trinomial.”
So, according to the Poincaré conjecture, a three-dimensional sphere is the only three-dimensional thing whose surface can be pulled into one point by some hypothetical “hyperscord.”
Jules Henri Poincaré suggested this in 1904. Now Perelman has convinced everyone who understands that the French topologist was right. And turned his hypothesis into a theorem.
The proof helps to understand what shape our Universe has. And allows us to reasonably assume that it is that very three-dimensional sphere. But if the Universe is the only “figure” that can be pulled into a point, then, perhaps, it can also be stretched out of a point. This serves as indirect confirmation of the Big Bang theory, which states that the Universe originated from a point.
It turns out that Perelman, together with Poincaré, upset the so-called creationists – supporters of the divine origin of the universe. And they poured water on the mill of physicists-materialists. So, all the evidence is yet to come, man is the main god, he at least tries to understand, solve, prove, create, destroy, give life, take life. Although the theory of the divine origin of the universe is very convenient, it does not need to be proven, you just need to insist on it, because how he created it, man cannot understand:)

It turns out that Perelman, along with Poincaré, upset the so-called creationists – proponents of the divine origin of the universe.

I'm not upset; the guys did a great job. Actually, even one priest told me about the point, in addition to other sources.

Vaccines are completely safe.

The federal government's Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was established by Congress under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. This system receives approximately 11,000 reports annually of serious adverse events following vaccination, including between one hundred and two hundred deaths, and several times more cases of lifelong disability [1]. VAERS officials report that 15% of adverse event cases are "serious" (requiring emergency medical care, hospitalization, life-threatening cases, lifelong disability, death). An independent analysis of VAERS reports showed that up to 50% of reported adverse events from the hepatitis B vaccine are "serious" [2]. Although this figure is alarming in itself, it is only "the tip of the iceberg." The FDA estimates that reports are received for only 1% of serious adverse events following vaccination [3] [4], and the CDC acknowledges that only about 10% of such cases are reported [5]. In fact, Congress heard testimony that medical students are advised not to report suspected adverse event cases [6].

Another fake copy-paste from Aripoutria – he just "forgot" to mention that this text was written by a THIRD-YEAR student from the law faculty, who later became an Anabaptist preacher, meaning that the author is nobody in the world of IMMUNOLOGY. Why can't Aripoutria provide the opinion of REAL doctors? Probably because they have different data.

P.S. ARIPOUTRIA, Happy Holidays! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15scPFf7A0o

Okay, this is turning into an argument for the sake of arguing, and I won't argue anymore.

If someone disagrees with something, thinks differently, by all means, please, I don't mind.

_______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________

Vaccinations are the main reason for the low incidence of disease in the United States today...

According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased by 90% between 1850 and 1940, corresponding to improved sanitation and hygiene, long before mandatory vaccination programs. According to a recent report in "Medical Sentinel," "from 1911 to 1935, the main causes of death from infectious diseases in children in the United States were diphtheria, whooping cough, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945, the overall mortality rate from these diseases had decreased by 95% before the introduction of mass immunization programs" [35].

Thus, at best, one can only study the presence of a link between vaccinations and the remaining small part of the decline in morbidity that occurred after their introduction. And even this small part is doubtful, since the rate of decline remained almost the same after the start of vaccination. Moreover, European countries that abandoned immunization against smallpox and polio saw epidemics cease at the same time as they ended in countries that were carrying out immunization; it is clear that vaccines were not the main determining factor here. In fact, significant increases in morbidity followed both the smallpox and polio immunization campaigns. After the introduction of the smallpox vaccine, this disease remained prevalent and had several significant outbreaks, while other infectious diseases continued to decline at the same time in the absence of vaccinations. In England and Wales, levels of morbidity and vaccination gradually decreased simultaneously over several decades between the 1870s and the beginning of World War II [36]. Thus, it is impossible to say whether vaccination contributes to the continued decline in mortality from diseases, or whether the decline has continued steadily due to the same factors that most likely caused the initial decline - these are improvements in sanitation, hygiene, housing, transportation, technology, and food storage, and natural cycles of diseases. This conclusion is emphasized in a recent report by the World Health Organization, which states that levels of morbidity and mortality in developing countries are not directly correlated with immunization or medical care processes, but are closely related to hygiene and nutrition standards [37]. The merit of vaccination in the fact that the current level of morbidity is low is greatly exaggerated, if it exists at all.

Proponents of vaccinations prefer to use morbidity statistics rather than mortality statistics as evidence of the effectiveness of vaccines. However, statisticians argue that mortality statistics are a better measure of disease than morbidity figures, for the simple reason that the quality of reporting and documentation of mortality is much higher [38]. For example, a recent survey in New York City found that only 3.3% of pediatricians actually reported cases of measles to the Department of Health. In 1974, the CDC found that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the Georgia state surveillance system reported 660 cases [39].

In 1982, in the state of Maryland, health officials blamed the television program "DPT - Vaccine Roulette," which warned of the dangers of DPT, for an outbreak of whooping cough; however, when former chief virologist of the Division of Biological Standards of the United States, Dr. J. Anthony Morris, analyzed 41 cases, only 5 were confirmed, and all those who fell ill had been vaccinated [40]. Cases like this demonstrate the fallibility of morbidity figures, although proponents of vaccinations tend to rely on them indiscriminately.

Another fake copy-paste from Ariputra – he just "forgot" to mention that this text was written by a third-year student from the law faculty, who later became an Anabaptist preacher, meaning that the author is a nobody in the world of IMMUNOLOGY.

If you track Ariputra's pearls of wisdom, you'll see that he almost always refers to his authorities, who are all sectarians with their own specific understanding of the universe and existence. Richard Thompson, for example, was a Krishnaite through and through.

Well, he's a follower of Krishna. What's next? Or should all authoritative and not-so-authoritative scholars (and non-scholars) profess atheism?

Well, he's a follower of Krishna. What's next? Or should all authoritative and not-so-authoritative scholars (and non-scholars) profess atheism?

Nothing more.

Moreover, European countries that abandoned immunization against smallpox and polio observed that epidemics ceased at the same time as they ended in those countries that carried out immunization; it is clear that vaccines were not the main determining factor here.

No, it is not obvious. Furthermore, vaccines have NEVER been safe. A reasonable position of an opponent of vaccinations could consist of impartially listing all possible risks and, conversely, benefits of vaccination and the absence thereof. But when you read that the number of fatal cases of, for example, scarlet fever decreased 100 times DESPITE vaccinations, it only makes you want to call the psychiatric hospital to the address of the blogger.

Added 2 minutes later

Well, if you trace the pearls of wisdom of Ariputra, you will see that almost everywhere he refers to his authorities, who are all sectarians with their specific understanding of the universe and existence. Richard Thompson was a Krishnaite to the core.

Let them be animists. Just let them understand the topic they are writing about.

Quote: Message from ariputra
Today, "Physics" cannot explain very simple phenomena that we observe every day:
Doctors of Science in the field of physics themselves admit that there are many inconsistencies and discrepancies with practice in modern theories of physics.
But when they are asked why nothing changes, they answer directly: If we acknowledge this, then we will have to rewrite school and university textbooks, can you imagine what that would be like? Doctoral and professorship degrees and positions would be at stake.
1) Boiling water – according to the current theory of physics, a bubble cannot arise because the surface tension of the bubble is more than 1000 atmospheres, and the amount of energy needed to convert water into steam (a water molecule into a vapor phase) is 13 times greater than the average kinetic energy of the liquid molecules. That is, modern physics theory contradicts phenomena that we can all observe.
2) Physics cannot explain why an airplane flies – the lift of today's aircraft is 10 times greater than the lift theoretically possible (according to the current theory of physics).
3) Hydroponics – today, physics cannot explain why, in hydroponics, products (nuclei, elements) appear in the soil that were not in the original substances in the fertilizers, in the air, or in the soil.
4) Mollusks – today, physics cannot explain why some mollusks have a chitinous shell in conditions where there is no calcium, when chitin contains calcium.
5) Lightning – modern physics theory cannot explain it.

Today it cannot, tomorrow it will explain, and much of what it explains today seemed beyond comprehension yesterday. Scientific thought does not stand still; everything has its time, although people like you have long found explanations for everything: "Everything is in God's hands."Why write such statements, giving solid ground under your feet?
The person has read something somewhere again, based on their "limited" knowledge, and presented it as the truth once more. And, of course, all of this is explained by physics; it is not clear why mollusks are involved, and why physics is involved, although even that is explained.

Why write such sentences, providing a solid foundation?

I meant not the listed points that physics supposedly cannot explain. But in general, that science and human thought are the driving force of progress, and if there are any things that are not explained or not sufficiently explained today, then tomorrow people will find and give answers. The meaning of Ariputra's sayings lies not in the fact that physics is not able to give an answer, but in the fact that a person is simply not given to understand God's creations. Well, let's just say I sincerely feel sorry for him, although I am sure that he does not feed on the Holy Spirit, but lives and enjoys using all the earthly benefits created by people.

Leolopus, some people need things explained to them, otherwise they still won't understand why bubbles appear in boiling water.

Gentlemen, what do you think of this composition?

Leolopus, some people need things explained to them, otherwise they still won't understand why bubbles appear in boiling water.

Why? It's obvious even to a hedgehog – these are kind spirits... pardon... farting. And you're talking about physics...

Happy New Year, dear "Heroes" fans: boys and girls, men and women! :) I wish you victories in your work and in battles! May you only fight on the fields of virtual battles and only pop champagne corks! And despite everything that separates us, I would like us to raise a toast to what we have in common: our love for this wonderful game! I would also like to separately congratulate the administration and moderators of HeroesWorld - one of the best sites dedicated to "Heroes"! I wish you success in all your endeavors! May new and old players, and just good, interesting people, continue to meet and connect here!