GENIUS FORUMS

The pretense of having superior knowledge, to say you understand things better than another when you do not, often leads to claims of somehow being greater than another.

Similar to a person saying they are more intelligent as they have a greater understanding of the universe and what it is made up of, their answer being something related to 'matter', but then being unable to elaborate on what 'matter' is aside from pointing at it, proving that their understanding goes as far as the understanding of anyone who can see.

Thinking you know more is like a disease, it creates the idea that one is different or superior in some way, when in reality, if you were to observe such people, you would see they live and act exactly as other beings do, in the average repetitive day to day experience. If one is so much greater and different from the other, then why is it they appear to be going about things the same?

I often hear or see people stating or implying they are smart or wise compared to others, their evidence seeming to be their ability to speculate on topics extensively, or their ability build something, or to write about something. It could even be related to their memory for things read. They also might describe how they don't divulge in idiotic behavior while other people do and hence they are superior.

It is a pipe dream and a lie, like someone in the past of noble birth thinking themselves somehow much greater than a peasant, as if a more comfortable or relaxing life demonstrates superiority, or a name.


The undeniable truth is that having different thoughts, or doing things that one considers more productive or a better use of time, in no way separates that person from another. It does not raise him up, it does not display superiority in any way.


For example if one person did not boast to have great knowledge while another did and hence thought himself superior.

If you were to observe these two people you would find that they both live life, the end.

The point proven that one person is in no way superior to another, despite whatever fantasies they might entertain, they are on completely equal ground. The perspective of one or many having no effect on this fact.

Many would place 'me' above other, if you find that you are doing so, remember that this is an egotistical delusion and a cause for great suffering.

Your post is based on the same idea. You are saying what is right, and what is wrong. You are trying to exhibit superiour knowledge. In fact you are showing inferior knowledge...
... you made claims that you don't understand what matter is...


What about the people who can explain what matter is?

I have already explained what matter is, so you missed it somehow.

Matter is the positive ingredient of a hole. 1 + -1 = 0. So a hole is filled with matter to create nothing. The Universe starts from both combined... nothing.

Electrons = -1
Positrons = +1

Electrons are holes, and positrons are fillers... fillers are matter. Spherical particles sitting in concave holes. Matter is a sphere.

Matter is a spherical filler of spherical holes. The reason for the sphere is that energy moves equally in all directions, and equal movement in all directions is a sphere. Just like ants create circles to move rocks away from their holes. Matter is energy moving away from a hole equally in all directions.

It isn't about being superior. It's about knowing how the Universe works. We can all see the Universe, but most people have been confused by Newton, and Einstein. But the ants give it away, and nobody is thinking about the ants.

What is a hole (other than what you've dug for yourself with your theories)?

Dan Rowden wrote:What is a hole (other than what you've dug for yourself with your theories)?

A hole is an area where there is no filler. The hole and filler create each other. If you dig a hole you have a hill, it is automatic.

How can a hole exist? What cosmology exists to account for such a thing? Sounds as impossible as "empty space" to me.

Dan Rowden wrote:How can a hole exist? What cosmology exists to account for such a thing? Sounds as impossible as "empty space" to me.

A hole exists by being the negative to a filler. How can a hole sound impossible when you can dig one in your garden?

Holes aren't fucking empty, you silly duffer! Seriously Pincho, how much physics do you really know? :)

Dan Rowden wrote:Holes aren't fucking empty, you silly duffer! Seriously Pincho, how much physics do you really know? :)

I never said that they were empty, I said that they were the opposite to the material taken out. I said that both combined create nothing. 1 + -1 = 0. Nothing is a flat line, and a hole filled with dirt is flat land. Flat line you are dead. The Universe flat lines, the Universe is dead.

But in reality they are not the "opposite" of the material taken out, either psychically or mathematically. You need a better analogy. Such holes are just a re-arrangement of matter. Oh, and while we're at it, how does "gravity as a push force" explain mass rather than size as a primary factor in gravity's effect?

Dan Rowden wrote:But in reality they are not the "opposite" of the material taken out, either psychically or mathematically. You need a better analogy. Such holes are just a re-arrangement of matter. Oh, and while we're at it, how does "gravity as a push force" explain mass rather than size as a primary factor in gravity's effect?

I already gave you the analogy.. Convex.. concave.. and flat line.

Gravity uses the Earth as a sponge, so flows into the holes to create a bow shock. The bow shock is the flow direction, and creates the weight. All that weight is then is a flow direction for gravity. If a cannon ball is heavy it contains more concave areas for flow of gravity. So a cannonball contains more gravity sized holes than a football. The hole in the football is full of air which contains less holes for gravity sized particles.