• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Reincarnation as a trivial scientific fact

ctamblyn said:
A couple of questions for wogoga:
  1. What is the mass of a psychon?
  2. Are there such things as antipsychons, or are psychons their own antiparticles (like photons)?
Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

I think that wogoga is thinking of the basic unit of humanity,the person,or the basic unit of mountain climbing,the crampon.If you want to be in a rush,get a moveon.
 
wogoga said:
In the thread Demography of Japan - Evidence of Reincarnation I showed that the demographic evolution of Japan constitutes strong evidence for demographic saturation and therefore also for reincarnation.
Click to expand...

Then you have no idea how to draw conclusions from premises.

All this shows is that A) Humans breed, B) There's a limit to ressources that allow population growth and C) Living standards tend to cull demographics.

None of this is evidence for reincarnation. But if you think it is, why does the population of the Earth keep growing ?
 
I'm still waiting for proof that Kepler was the reincarnation of Copernicus.
 
quarky said:
I'm curious to understand something:
Does the total bio-mass of the planet remain fairly stable? Or is it growing, as it must have from the early days of life on Earth?

Is there an upper-limit on the bio-mass?
Or is the entire planet gradually becoming more organic?
Click to expand...

Animals aren't a significant portion of biomass, but I believe the development of warm bloodedness made the animals smaller and more scarce, for prey, but especially for predators, who need to eat a lot more prey.

IIRC, that's one of the primary arguments dinosaurs are warm blooded -- their predator/prey fossils are (supposedly) found in a warm-blooded ratio rather than in a cold-blooded ratio.

As for plants and bacteria, god only knows. "Clogged" is clogged, the rest is cleverer ways to climb on top of each other for sunlight.
 
wogoga said:
My problem is that I know that reincarnation is a scientific fact, having far-reaching consequences on our life.

*snip

Cheers,
Wolfgang
Click to expand...


OK, for the sake of argument, let's say reincarnation is scientfic fact and everything you say is correct. What would be the far-reaching consequences on our life?
 
Why does this type of ''evidence for god/telepathy/reincarnation/ufos/insert own woo term'' thread never actually present any evidence?
 
So the evidence proving that Kepler was the reincarnation of Copernicus will not be forthcoming,wogoga just ''knows'' this.
 
wogoga said:
Can you give me the corresponding proof that the Earth is a sphere, which would have convinced somebody like you 1000 years ago?
Click to expand...

Jack by the hedge said:
Yes. EratosthenesWP demonstrated Earth's curvature and calculated its circumference 2,200 years ago.
Click to expand...


Eratosthenes started with the premise that the earth is a sphere, and estimated the earth's circumference. He correctly assumed that the difference in the sun's daily maximum position (between locations at different latitudes) is caused by the earth's sphericity.

So Eratosthenes' calculation is definitively not a proof of the earth's sphericity, and it certainly did not convince the skeptics of his or even of much later times.

By the way, I have also made estimations not only for the number of human souls but even for bee souls.

Why do you consider Eratosthenes' calculations which are based on the premise that the earth is a sphere, as proof of the earth's sphericity?
And why don't you consider my calculations of soul numbers, based on the premise that souls exist, as proof of the existence of souls?
By the way, Aristarchus of Samos had already some decades before Eratosthenes made estimations of the sizes of moon and sun, and the proportion of their distances from earth. Already his poor assumption (of 87° instead of 89° 50') for the angle between sun and moon at half moon, led to the logically correct conclusion that the volume of the Sun is around 300 times greater than the earth's volume.

And the better the value assumed for the angle between sun and moon at half moon, the better the result of Aristarchus calculation, and the bigger the difference in size between sun and earth. And isn't it apriori quite implausible that the much greater surrounds the smaller?

But in the same way as Aristarchus' calculation was not considered evidence for heliocentrism for a long time, Eratosthenes' calculation had no impact on those, unable or unwilling to believe in the sphericity of the earth.

Cheers, Wolfgang

To judge from an inferior viewpoint the superior one is impossible
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Eratosthenes started with the premise that the earth is a sphere, and estimated the earth's circumference. He correctly assumed that the difference in the sun's daily maximum position (between locations at different latitudes) is caused by the earth's sphericity.

So Eratosthenes' calculation is definitively not a proof of the earth's sphericity, and it certainly did not convince the skeptics of his or even of much later times.

By the way, I have also made estimations not only for the number of human souls but even for bee souls.

Why do you consider Eratosthenes' calculations which are based on the premise that the earth is a sphere, as proof of the earth's sphericity?
And why don't you consider my calculations of soul numbers, based on the premise that souls exist, as proof of the existence of souls?
By the way, Aristarchus of Samos had already some decades before Eratosthenes made estimations of the sizes of moon and sun, and the proportion of their distances from earth. Already his poor assumption (of 87° instead of 89° 50') for the angle between sun and moon at half moon, led to the logically correct conclusion that the volume of the Sun is around 300 times greater than the earth's volume.

And the better the value assumed for the angle between sun and moon at half moon, the better the result of Aristarchus calculation, and the bigger the difference in size between sun and earth. And isn't it apriori quite implausible that the much greater surrounds the smaller?

But in the same way as Aristarchus' calculation was not considered evidence for heliocentrism for a long time, Eratosthenes' calculation had no impact on those, unable or unwilling to believe in the sphericity of the earth.

Cheers, Wolfgang

To judge from an inferior viewpoint the superior one is impossible
Click to expand...

Thank you for the history lesson,but why do your posts always have nothing to do with proving the existence of reincarnation?What about Kepler and Copernicus?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom