Axel Shark's Thread

[Peacekeeper]

Hello, you may have read something in my notion thread already. If not, I have found something big on my research for new energy to solve the energy problem on Earth. I actually made the greatest discovery on Earth. I found the universe formula that explains exactly why and how everything exists, why there's something rather than nothing. The secret was that the nothingness is actually not possible if nothing exists. Because if nothing exists there are no rules to support the meaning of the nothingness either. Therefore if the nothingness is impossible, something must exist inevitably. That answer makes possible to understand the universe even better. For instance, that the universe is in fact limitless. That's a simple riddle because if the nothingness is impossible and something must exist inevitably, there's no beginning or an end possible.

The size of the universe reveals the existence of alien life. It's simple and logical to tell that there are limitless many different species out there if the universe is limitless.

I wrote a scientific book about my discovery where I explain around 40 questions (very related to the topic). The universe formula itself is free to read tough. My book is called "The Great Knowledge about the Everythingness".

Because I was a private researcher/scientist I don't actually have any contact of mainstream science. I've yet to get their attention too. There's no guarantee that anyone of them will even respond. I'm a bit sceptical about our science system anyway.

I'm also on YouTube "Axel Shark's Science". There you will find my first attempts explaining why there's something rather than nothing. But it's not nearly as good as my book. The work effort difference is days to several months in comparison. I also have 2 videos of the last 2 machines I was working on.

I hope I could do you some good with this post. Thx

 

[Peacekeeper]

Did you ever ask yourself what you really know and what you believe?

Knowledge:
*You witnessed the event
*You've successfully recreated a scientific claim

Faith/trust:
*You trust in scientific claims

The true meaning of knowledge has got no exceptions, it doesn't matter how many times a or more science organizations were right. If you haven't witnessed the event or recreated their scientific claim it can't be knowledge to you.

Religion trusts and science tests!

 

[Randall]

Did you ever ask yourself what you really know and what you believe?

Knowledge:
*You witnessed the event
*You've successfully recreated a scientific claim

Faith/trust:
*You trust in scientific claims

The true meaning of knowledge has got no exceptions, it doesn't matter how many times a or more science organizations were right. If you haven't witnessed the event or recreated their scientific claim it can't be knowledge to you.

Religion trusts and science tests!

Good post. I imagine that with such a position you also respect the process of critical thinking, including the use of such strategies as the Socratic method and identifying common logical fallacies. Assuming that is the case, then there are ways to view the issue that reveal more to the picture. It's not simply a black and white case of this or that way of looking at things is true or untrue. Lines tend to be blurry and the truth can be elusive.

Let's start with the initial premise: "Most people believe/trust more than they know!"

How do we quantify this in objective terms? What exactly do we mean by "know"? For that we need to have a closer look at what we mean by "knowledge" and that gets rather involved: See the following link:

Epistemology: Epistemology (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Only once we have a grasp of what we mean by knowledge can we reasonably address the other issues. They include such things as:

• Can the same knowledge be both true and false at the same time depending on who ( or what ) has it?
• What is the relationship between knowledge, belief, trust, faith, and science?
• By what measure do we prove that there is more belief/trust than knowledge?

The closer we look at such issues and questions, the less sure we become about the claim. Goalposts tend to shift, and versions of truth become subjective, and ultimately the value of all positions becomes clearer and independent of preferred paradigms. For example let's consider for a moment the issue of "more" with respect to belief versus fact by looking at a common everyday situation like driving in traffic on the freeway.

In this situation, because we believe we know what will happen as the situation unfolds, thousands of unconscious decisions are made within each number of seconds, without which, the task of driving would be impossible. Yet we do not know what will actually happen. Maybe the next time we step on the brake it won't work, or a tire will blow, or the engine will fail, or the driver ahead will have a stroke and cause a multi-car pile up.

There are so many variables that could happen that we don't know what will or won't happen, yet most of the time, those who have learned how to drive, carry on driving on a daily basis without any problems. Why? Because they believe it is advantageous for them to do so, and according to the statistics, they are usually correct. We rely on similar beliefs for almost everything we do, and it works.

Belief therefore, is valuable in accomplishing tasks that facilitate success in our everyday lives. In this regard, common sense tells us that there must be a lot more we believe to be the case than what we really know, mainly because we cannot know with certainty what the future holds in store. We can only know what has happened in the past.

You seem to take it a step further and require that true knowledge come from personal experience. This claim carries with it what is called the No True Scottsman fallacy: No true Scotsman - Wikipedia

In this case:

• Claim: No true knowledge is acquired without personal experience
• Counterclaim: I have gained true knowledge by the sharing knowledge gained by others
• Denial: That is not true knowledge

Let's suppose in the above example, that the initial knowledge was gained by personal experience and is therefore true according to the premise, which is that no true knowledge is acquired without personal experience. In the counterclaim, when that knowledge is passed to a student, does it then suddenly become false? See the problem?

 

[Peacekeeper]

@USI Calgary It is true that science is only as good as the people allow it. Knowledge can only be as true/right as the people allow it. That was my point, it is better if everyone is able to test the same thing.

I see mostly people who do quote without questioning it.

I could list a few good examples what defines bad science. But that aren't easy topics.

People must be more sceptical/critical about science articles. They're (mainstream) not always right and specific/straight explained.

 

[Peacekeeper]

As a scientist I must say it's useless and a waste of time talking about your paranormal experiences.
What's the point of it? If I can't prove my own experience to you, what good is it to you? Are you gonna believe it‽

 

[Gene Steinberg]

You're being a little too negative. Sometimes sharing an experience is useful for one's well being. It's also true that your family and friends are very apt to believe what's happened to you.

Also, the information you provide can be used to compare with other experiences in trying to nail down what's going on.

There are also legitimate reasons not to speak of it, of course, but this is not a question for which there's only one answer.

 

[Peacekeeper]

You're being a little too negative. Sometimes sharing an experience is useful for one's well being. It's also true that your family and friends are very apt to believe what's happened to you.

Also, the information you provide can be used to compare with other experiences in trying to nail down what's going on.

There are also legitimate reasons not to speak of it, of course, but this is not a question for which there's only one answer.

I remember reading in a forum that somebody sneaked into Area 51 and tried to grind off a piece with an angle grinder of the spaceship he found there.

It's probably a joke right‽

 

[Randall]

@USI Calgary It is true that science is only as good as the people allow it. Knowledge can only be as true/right as the people allow it. That was my point, it is better if everyone is able to test the same thing.

I see mostly people who do quote without questioning it.

I could list a few good examples what defines bad science. But that aren't easy topics.

People must be more sceptical/critical about science articles. They're (mainstream) not always right and specific/straight explained.

Quite agreed. BTW. Welcome to the forum ☀ !

 

[Randall]

As a scientist I must say it's useless and a waste of time talking about your paranormal experiences.
What's the point of it? If I can't prove my own experience to you, what good is it to you? Are you gonna believe it‽

Is it a waste of time for scientists to be inspired to find answers for the unexplained? Where would we be now if that had always been the case? Things once deemed strange or simply unexplained have since been proven by science to be real precisely because scientists were driven to find out the truth about them. When did science become about exploring only what we already know or is bureaucratically safe?

On the question of belief, you do however make a very good point. It is also one of the most frustrating aspects of studying the paranormal. The best answer I can give is that while we rarely have verification of other people's paranormal experiences, the sheer number of experiences reported make it unreasonable to believe everyone with a story is either a liar or so incompetent they can't tell the difference between something mundane and something extraordinary or out of this world.

 

[Peacekeeper]

Is it a waste of time for scientists to be inspired to find answers for the unexplained? Where would we be now if that had always been the case? Things once deemed strange or simply unexplained have since been proven by science to be real precisely because scientists were driven to find out the truth about them. When did science become about exploring only what we already know or is bureaucratically safe?

On the question of belief, you do however make a very good point. It is also one of the most frustrating aspects of studying the paranormal. The best answer I can give is that while we rarely have verification of other people's paranormal experiences, the sheer number of experiences reported make it unreasonable to believe everyone with a story is either a liar or so incompetent they can't tell the difference between something mundane and something extraordinary or out of this world.

I actually discovered the paranormal world too. I can generally prove that there's much more around us than we can see with our own eyes or detect with technology.

It's not easy to win trust to make the people take a look at my work. Most people expect that the answer will come from big science organizations. It's already there.

My discovery can make paranormal stories look plausible. Unfortunately not all of them are true anyway because of lies and misunderstanding like you said.

My best experience was meeting around 30 real fairies. I can't prove it to you unless they come here and approve my message. Unfortunately that won't happen because they're like the Nox of Stargate SG1.

 

[Randall]

I remember reading in a forum that somebody sneaked into Area 51 and tried to grind off a piece with an angle grinder of the spaceship he found there. It's probably a joke right‽

I have no idea whether the story above is a joke, but I do think stories are fascinating from a cultural perspective.

 

[Randall]

I actually discovered the paranormal world too. I can generally prove that there's much more around us than we can see with our own eyes or detect with technology.

Can you elaborate?

It's not easy to win trust to make the people take a look at my work. Most people expect that the answer will come from big science organizations. It's already there.

When an individual case lacks sufficient evidence to either convince or debunk, it's reasonable to reserve judgement.

My discovery can make paranormal stories look plausible. Unfortunately not all of them are true anyway because of lies and misunderstanding like you said.

We only have to accept that some reports are true to accept that the phenomena is genuine. However that acceptance doesn't necessarily mean that the interpretation of any particular report corresponds with objective reality.

My best experience was meeting around 30 real fairies. I can't prove it to you unless they come here and approve my message. Unfortunately that won't happen because they're like the Nox of Stargate SG1.

Assuming you're relaying what you believe to be a genuine experience, claiming "real fairies" requires that we first define what "real" and "fairies" are in the context of your experience. Few would take at face value the claim that anyone has met an objectively real creature out of one of J. M. Barrie's novels, or Stargate SG1, or any other fiction, folklore, or mythology. First impressions are likely to favor fabrication or altered consciousness.

However, it is also conceivable that a technologically advanced race could make such creatures appear to be real to us, perhaps for the purpose of studying our behavior. The same theory can be applied to angels, demons, apparitions, cryptids, and UFOs. Therefore while such experiences may be subjectively real, and have an objectively real cause, their true composition and nature may be something other.

 

[Peacekeeper]

Can you elaborate?

When an individual case lacks sufficient evidence to either convince or debunk, it's reasonable to reserve judgement.

We only have to accept that some reports are true to accept that the phenomena is genuine. However that acceptance doesn't necessarily mean that the interpretation of any particular report corresponds with objective reality.

Assuming you're relaying what you believe to be a genuine experience, claiming "real fairies" requires that we first define what "real" and "fairies" are in the context of your experience. Few would take at face value the claim that anyone has met an objectively real creature out of one of J. M. Barrie's novels, or Stargate SG1, or any other fiction, folklore, or mythology. First impressions are likely to favor fabrication or altered consciousness.

However, it is also conceivable that a technologically advanced race could make such creatures appear to be real to us, perhaps for the purpose of studying our behavior. The same theory can be applied to angels, demons, apparitions, cryptids, and UFOs. Therefore while such experiences may be subjectively real, and have an objectively real cause, their true composition and nature may be something other.

The post that I made in UFO section about the general proof for alien life is there included as well. About 40 questions I can explain by logic.

I have tried to get the attention of a few big science organizations before that seek the same thing. No response. They're either hard to reach due too much requests or they have no interest to support outsiders. I won't mention the names of the science organizations I tried to talk to. But I probably would make them lose their jobs just by supporting me. I did kinda expect that nothing will happen talking to them, but I tried anyway. So I took matters into my own hands and just made my own scientific book. Fortunatelly my book does not violate with the already existing true meanings of the words themselves. I only follow the logic. It's like a math formula with words. I don't really need them anymore. It's done. I thought that I could do it better with them, later however I notized that it would actually not be a good idea working with them on this.

What I discovered from my theoretical discovery is that the universe is limitless without an existing end, bigger than infinite. Due to that it is logical that there are also limitless many different species out there too.

The fairies were real, they lifted me up and they had fairy wings, not angel wings! They're aliens too. What is not originated from this planet is automatically an alien. But that is my personal experience I cannot prove to you. I can generally prove that there are limitless many different species out there, but that's it.

 

[Randall]

The post that I made in UFO section about the general proof for alien life is there included as well. About 40 questions I can explain by logic ...

I'm not so sure whether the word "proof" is appropriate or that the logical explanations have a direct correlation with objective reality, but at least it shows you're thinking. Unless we're talking about a mathematical or conceptual proof, proof is subjective. Therefore there is no logical proof for the existence of anything objective, including aliens. However one can extrapolate reasonable probabilities depending on the variables.

 

[Peacekeeper]

I'm not so sure whether the word "proof" is appropriate or that the logical explanations have a direct correlation with objective reality, but at least it shows you're thinking. Unless we're talking about a mathematical or conceptual proof, proof is subjective. Therefore there is no logical proof for the existence of anything objective, including aliens. However one can extrapolate reasonable probabilities depending on the variables.

Yes proof because it's based of mathematical logic. It's a formula with words. Evidence in the other hand can be replaced with another evidence, if you find one that is against the first one. Proof cannot be replaced, 1+1=2.

 

[Peacekeeper]

This might be hard to accept to some people what I'm about to say. I also needed some time to digest it. Dreams which we experience when we sleep are equal as real as this place which you call the real life. And we do dream because our body violates with the fact of eternity. Because the universe does in fact exist without a beginning. And without the beginning there cannot be the end. You experience dreams because you have no choice but to be else where if you cannot be here.

To solve death and the afterlife you only have to take the example of why we dream. You can't die, only change. If you care about the proof you find it in my other post in the UFO section (proof for the alien life).

 

[Peacekeeper]

I invite you to read this: Philosophy, Science, and The Unexplained

Well, I only follow the facts like in my book (visible to anyone preview content), the universe formula. You must be able to prove your claims. Like due to or according to what etc.

 

[CryptoGuru]

I have myself spend a lot of time on the topic of Nothingness and Somethingness and also experimented on this aspect.

Yes, words are meaningless and theories and beliefs are just that. Anyone can have a favorite theory on what the Universe is and what life and death is.

However, to prove something 100% in this subject is almost next to impossible. So even trying to prove it is sometimes a waste of time.

However, if one has a theory it would be good if one can put it to test. And this is what I did with the ideas I have on nothingness and somethingness and written a book if someone wants to read and understand.

Amazon.com: Neu Spiritual Science: Understanding the nature of the soul through the prism of science (9781707757664): Shenoy, Mr Gurudatt: Books

 

[Randall]

I have myself spend a lot of time on the topic of Nothingness and Somethingness and also experimented on this aspect.

Yes, words are meaningless and theories and beliefs are just that. Anyone can have a favorite theory on what the Universe is and what life and death is.

However, to prove something 100% in this subject is almost next to impossible. So even trying to prove it is sometimes a waste of time.

However, if one has a theory it would be good if one can put it to test. And this is what I did with the ideas I have on nothingness and somethingness and written a book if someone wants to read and understand.

Amazon.com: Neu Spiritual Science: Understanding the nature of the soul through the prism of science (9781707757664): Shenoy, Mr Gurudatt: Books

I had a look at what content could be seen in the preview and it looks like there's some conflicting concepts, weak premises, and what skeptics would call "quantum woo". Apart from that, I'm sure it would give people something to think about. If you want to discuss your ideas in more detail, I suggest that you start a dedicated thread for yourself. That way we won't be hijacking Axel's thread.

 

[Peacekeeper]

There was a little boy who was around 3-4 years young. This night he went to visit one of his family members with his parents. Boy decided to stay over night. But his parents went home. Unfortunately that family member got drunk and tried to kill the boy. The boy gets away with several scratches and a wound. For some reason the parents decided to come back due to "a bad feeling". The parents looked shocked and went home with their boy. But no! That night wasn't over yet! His mother tells his father infront of the boy "maybe we should give him away" in fear he might be too much of a trouble after what happened to him. His father follows his mother's idea, they went to a strange building. Boy pretends like it was nothing what happened to him a few hours ago, in hope that they would change their mind. And they did, a moment later they went home for real this time. The boy did not quite understand what exactly it meant what they've done/said (parents) but he felt alone at that point.
All his life he tried to fight everything, his fury and anger increased with each following year. He never let out his pain on anybody though, but he has smashed a lot of things. For some reason he forgets what the parents have said that night. But deep down he can't feel ever enough because he knows he's got nothing/no one.
Some years later, his father betrays him, leaves him on the street and tells some strangers "you can have him". Nothing happened though, the boy goes home too a moment later. His mother tells him some of the time that he's a monster because of his weird behaviour.

Well, the boy finally grows up and remembered that night again. He finally understood why so much went wrong in his life. The day before he finally disowned his mother, was the day he wanted to show her his new idea he came up with. She rejected it though. Her religion/own beliefs were more important to her than his son.

The boy also has learned to suppress the need to cry when he feels the pain, to not to look weak he says. He hasn't cried for years. He even wanted to kill himself in style with his own hand made Tanto, but choose otherwise.

I know that story a bit better than I can ever write about it. And it is a bit worse, I left quite a few details out.

His problem is he says that he feels kinda bad for disowning his mother because she did in fact work for its family, where in other hand his father has drank himself to death.

How would you react? Would you give her another chance? Would you accept them again?