On outer space, if something is thrown, then the object will travel a straight path. Please try to use your feeling (your sense of self-evidence), whether the object will turn from its original direction (if there is no obstacle)? Of course not. If the object is in conflict or are attracted by gravity from another object, maybe it’ll shift. And if the attractiveness of the object is stopped, then this object will be shifted from its original direction but not in a circle.
It’s been known since the day of Galileo that an object can attain a circular trajectory by traveling at an appropriate speed perpendicular to gravity. It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.
In relativistic physics, celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space.
You’re invoking complex explanations to account for simple phenomena.
As you said: ” It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.”
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
As you said: “celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space”
It’s not a problem. The possibility that a planet circulating around the sun because of being pulled (classical theory) or it happened because they were held by a curved space, it still shows a force or property that has a characteristic capable delivering simulation near parabolic or circular motion.
One more thing, I’m also not simplify anything, but I just try to see things from another perspective and see what’s there. On further application should stick to relevancy. When talking about nature and how to interact, then we can not let go of physical explanation, but at least when we talk about an awareness that higher than our own, then physics has room for it.
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I’m having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it’s basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.
I don’t think there’s much point in my continuing this. If you can read and demonstrate that you understand all the sequences, then we might be able to get somewhere, but at this point, you’re making some very basic and fundamental errors; and they are errors, not simply disagreement, and I don’t think we’re communicating effectively enough to dispel them.
As you said: “Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I’m having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it’s basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.”
I am not saying something irrelevant, It’s not like that. What I mean:
When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows that we are facing a lot of evidence of intelligence related to what we’re dealing with.
I confirm that all that we face (if not for all) have a lot of crossing patterns and return to its original position, the circle, and this is enough for us to show the existence of intelligence behind it all.
Tracking something in relation to this case which involves a parabolic pattern and circle, or in other words think of something, make an argument involving parabolic and circular pattern, it also indicates the existence of intelligence.
Protecting—self defense in such way that leave a trail near parabolic or circular pattern, it indicates there is something intelligent involved.
Circles are not evidence of intelligence. Take an object moving in a straight line and apply centripetal acceleration to it, and you have circular motion. It’s one of the easiest things in the universe to do.
Unless you go out of your way to demonstrate that you’ve read the rest of the sequences and understood them, this is the last I am going to respond.
It’s been known since the day of Galileo that an object can attain a circular trajectory by traveling at an appropriate speed perpendicular to gravity. It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.
In relativistic physics, celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space.
You’re invoking complex explanations to account for simple phenomena.
As you said: ” It does not take intelligence to make objects travel in circles, just an extremely simple set of rules.”
But when people find the set of rules, it shows the human intelligence and also show that such a rule was made by something intelligent. This is the same as someone who breaks a secret code in written form, and after can be known and shown to have conformity with reality, then this indicates that the secret code created by humans or beings with intelligence similar to or more than human.
As you said: “celestial bodies are in fact traveling in the straightest possible trajectories through curved space”
It’s not a problem. The possibility that a planet circulating around the sun because of being pulled (classical theory) or it happened because they were held by a curved space, it still shows a force or property that has a characteristic capable delivering simulation near parabolic or circular motion.
One more thing, I’m also not simplify anything, but I just try to see things from another perspective and see what’s there. On further application should stick to relevancy. When talking about nature and how to interact, then we can not let go of physical explanation, but at least when we talk about an awareness that higher than our own, then physics has room for it.
Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I’m having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it’s basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.
I don’t think there’s much point in my continuing this. If you can read and demonstrate that you understand all the sequences, then we might be able to get somewhere, but at this point, you’re making some very basic and fundamental errors; and they are errors, not simply disagreement, and I don’t think we’re communicating effectively enough to dispel them.
As you said: “Using intelligence to discover something does not mean that the thing that was discovered was done with intelligence. I’m having a hard time forming a coherent argument against it, because it’s basically a non sequitur, like 1+1=2, therefore I am the discoverer of America.”
I am not saying something irrelevant, It’s not like that. What I mean:
When doing activities that involve patterns of circles, thinking in a circular patterns, researching things, and there are many circular patterns involved and occur repeatedly. This shows that we are facing a lot of evidence of intelligence related to what we’re dealing with.
I confirm that all that we face (if not for all) have a lot of crossing patterns and return to its original position, the circle, and this is enough for us to show the existence of intelligence behind it all.
Tracking something in relation to this case which involves a parabolic pattern and circle, or in other words think of something, make an argument involving parabolic and circular pattern, it also indicates the existence of intelligence.
Protecting—self defense in such way that leave a trail near parabolic or circular pattern, it indicates there is something intelligent involved.
Circles are not evidence of intelligence. Take an object moving in a straight line and apply centripetal acceleration to it, and you have circular motion. It’s one of the easiest things in the universe to do.
Unless you go out of your way to demonstrate that you’ve read the rest of the sequences and understood them, this is the last I am going to respond.