darksing wrote on Thu, 29 July 2010 10:56

Would have to write many pages but try to shorten it.
a) Sepecial Relativity Theory
You shoot a bullet in a train that is driving 100 mph. Shoot it in driving direction. You measure the speed of the bullet inside the train and the bullet is 1000 mph fast. You measure the bullet from outside the train then the bullet is 1100 mph fast.
You swith on a flashlight inside the train then you measure the speed of light (train has no air) C. You measure the light speed from outside the train then you do not measure C + 100 mph but still the speed of light. Cause the speed of light is the max speed in this universe and thus cannot be C + 100 mph. That was the dilemma those physicians had to solve. The intelligent Einstein found the solution with his new Special Relativity Theory. In essence he prooved that Time is not Time and Space can be bent. Thus the resulting theories about time running diffferent while approaching speed of light.
All boiles down to the dogma that speed of light is max speed in this universe. As far as I know in physics this law had been prooven wrong. (but not public announced yet) and thus the Relativity Theory is also wrong.

Please provide evidence for this.

Quote:

b) E = M C sqare
This formula indicates that left side on the equation equals right side from the equation. Thus Energy can be Converted to Matter and Matter can be converted to Energy.
Evidence should be the mass defect in atomic explosions. When you explode an atomic bomb or use this in a reactor then after that incident that total mass of the material is less than before as mass had been "blown" into energy.
That is wrong.

Please provide evidence for this.

Quote:

Matter never will convert to energy and energy cannot "condense" into Matter. Matter and Energy are two seperate things in MEST.

Why?

Quote:

By the way, if you consider energy as Intention is far better then to say Energy is a wave or a particle stream. A particle stream (even light) is particles plus energy.

Then what is your explanation for Quantum Mechanics dualty as seen in the Double-Split Experiment?

Quote:

If you have any recall of your past education (EP of Method 1 Wordclearing) you should try to fish for non planet earth education. Then figure out what they could do with MEST and then you should also see, that with physics and mathematics could be something wrong on planet earth.

Again, evidence would be helpful.

Evidence I do not have.

Point a: Train Sample. The train smaple is from Einstein himself. The rest that speed of light is not max speed in this universe I simply say so. You may find other sources that state the same.

You have to see a Space Ship from outer space yourself. Then you have evidence. I cannot provide one.

Emc square:
Cannot provide evidence. Ask the ones that operate those cyclotrones. That smash atoms and smaller partices if they still insist on EMCsquare or not.

Matter Energy:
Identification = Matter = Energy.
Differenciation = Matter does not equal Energy.
The point is not to state the Truth of Truth but to have a better model or way to think about this.
What I state here is not the ultimate truth but a different way to think about matter and energy.
If you do not like that, think the way you want or the way you have been told to think about it.

M1 Wordclearing:
If you have no personal experience (as PC or as Auditor) then it is not possible to give you that experience by any words I could write here.

Maybe my think about it is totally wrong and Einstein is totally right. It is up to you what you consider right or wrong.

Hi. New to this... someone named Jenny suggested I stop by.
Not sure which one of you is Geir but Jenny sent me your Doubt formula. Very well written. Thank you.
Anyway, I liked this "greatness" theme and wanted to comment.
The originator of the question accepted the asignment of "greatness" to those he/she mentioned in the fist post on this thread. Accepted it but it was others who created that asignment. That "Group" others are those who have had the wherewithall to publisize their point of view and "enforce" it as with Enstinie in a neuclear way.
Actually, greatness might have been asigned to the originator's mother or father by the originator but because "group" others didn't duplicate his opinion he stopped asigning that degree of greatness to them.
This is an evaluation I will take the risk of making:
The originator has had (might be cronic) lack of havingness and postulates he could have if "greatness" is asigned. In moments of winning, no one in that moment of winning cares who's great.
There have been some AWESOME people who are robbed of the asignment of "greatness" because the work they were doing was generating a new world at a time when "the powers-that-be" had other plans.
Finally, LRH was/is a Scientologist and is asigned "greatness" more and more as history unfolds. Maybe the originator of this thread/discussion will be asigned "greatness" too.
Chris

A person's work or idea is only amazing, if it is so strong that it could made a largely recognized positive contribution to the world.
All the people that Isene mentions in his first post have had ideas or have done things, which had a huge positive impact on the world for which they are still being recognized as amazing to this day.

Hitler made a very NEGATIVE impact on society. He is only recognized as a negative person. That's not amazing.

So it is a bad excuse to say that Scientology has produced amazing people, but there is just no one who recognized their greatness, because the society or the "powers-to-be" somehow didn't recognize their greatness.
If they were truly amazing, then the majority would have recognized their greatness, because it is part of being amazing to make a recognizable impact on the world itself and not just in your own mind.

I would think that any amazingness would be pre-present. The theory of auditing, at least for the auditing that is available is that it is negative gain, meaning as-ising or "removing" barriers the individual has accumulated.

Once all this is gone, you have the core individual. Like peeling an onion. Once you peel the onion, you have the core that was already there.

So that makes perfect sense.

The real question then would be: why don't people who have had auditing and peeled the onion go on to create vast and amazing works?

It might be just as simple as there is only so much time in a day and if they are focused on spending that time doing Scientology activities they will not focus on much else for they are lacking time to do so.

Each of the amazing people mentioned did devote their lives to the activities they are amazing in. Tremendous devotion and single-minded working to achieve those amazing results.

I think the Church DISCOURAGES doing that. Many staff assert that you should devote your life to all things Scientology.

The people that you have listed did not spend all of their time going to Church. Even Hubbard did not. They did spend countless hours working on their various projects, reading various subjects, working through concepts, perfecting skills and so on. They acted as pioneers in many different areas, areas that were not already the subject of college degrees (which is a similar idea to studying in the Church continually) and writing thesises subject to the approval of various august communities.

These days its hard to even find "amazing" people in the Scientific community so I am not so sure that this is anything more than a natural consequence of the state of our society. Can you think of any amazing Scientists since the 1950's? I can't think of a single one except perhaps Hubbard and he isn't even strictly a scientist.

Let's take the entire computer technology development area as an example. Some truly amazing work has been done in this area and it was a free for all in experimentation. There was a time when it was not a degreed area requiring college classes. Not any more. I know this to be true for I came up through the developmental line on this, no degree, just hands on like everyone else. Along the way it became a subject of degrees and diplomas became a requirement to have any credibility. Let's take Gates for example, he is of the generation of pioneer and he had the great fortune of being at the right time and place and making the right decision about the future of personal computers at a time when they were thought to be a waste of time. He gambled on this, he won.

Do we ever hear about the guys who actually developed the core concepts of the Internet? They were AMAZING. Do you know their names? Does anyone? How about the person who invented the microchip? Cell phone technologies? All amazing. Every bit as amazing as any one of the people you list. No one knows their names.

How about the person who invented fuel injection engines? Fluorescent lights? Who were they? Why don't we honor and remember them?

I think it may be that there are more brilliant and amazing people in the world now than there ever were. We get amazing and brilliant new devices in an avalanche these days and we don't even really think much about it, it happens so often.

I don't think it is a matter of proving you wrong. The only "amazing" people, which I would define as "being recognized for achievement in notable fields," that I am aware of are artists and a few athletes.

As to why:

- A lack of interest on the part of the participants.
- Discouragement of participation in other fields by the Church
- No method of tracking individuals who once participated in Scientology, got whatever they wanted out of it and went on, and do not claim to be Scientologists.
- A dislike of being held up by the Church as an "example" of what Scientology can do for someone.
- In the early days at least, Scientology attracted people who were interested in things spiritual or metaphysical, rather than "notable fields."
- In later days, the beginning courses were all geared to practical living skills that appealed to "general public" i.e. those who would not normally work in "notable" fields.
- Scientology materials that contained statements and opinions offensive to college and higher instititutions of learning.
- A prevailing point of view that this "earthly game" has been played over and over and further participation only contributes to making it continue. i.e. dwindling spiral of the spiritual being even though there continue to be achievements in physical fields.
- Scientologists that I know become very insular, seldom interacting with people outside of the Church in any meaningful way.
- Educational materials that work very well for training auditors but lack the inspiration and leadership that excellent teachers can and do provide in other fields.

That's just a few things I have noticed, there are probably more. But I think that it could be a common denominator of lack of focus, interest or acknowledgment on/of areas outside of Scientology.

Hi. I've been awqay a while. Very busy lately. Might be away again for a while.
Anyway, good continuing debate. I stand corrected on the view if "amazing" being a qualifies thing from the viewer. The desired evidence indeed was from the multiple or agrigate points of view of the present population.
So okay. Yes, the expectation of Scientology applied would be that amazing persons should have resulted. Technically, we would need to do a statistical analysis on the probabilities. So what are the probabilities of anyone in any segment of history turning out to be amazing? I am guessing, yes, but I think it is something like 1 in 250,000,000 in any one segment of history. Take that and ask, "Were they considered amazing in their own lifetimes?" Then the ratio becomes (Again I guess) something like 1 in 1,000,000,000. With numbers like that, if you then qualify the segment to "when Scientologists existed" we find the quantity of Scientologist to the rest of the populace is very tiny. So we are to the crux of the questioner's queery. "If Scientology is so 'great', where are the amazing people?"
Basically, the statistical probability for "anyone" to be amazing has to be "beat" by Scientology. "Scientologists" would have to show up as a qualifier or statement on an overwhelming number in the result. Right now, I think there are not enough Scientologists to general public to validate that Scientology failed... especially if you factor in the "powers-that-be" are in opposition to Scientology winning.
All that said, I want to state that the powers-that-be are generating energy- a lot of it -into what will finally result into Scientology "exploding" onto the sceene. Then the number of "Scientologists" to "general public" will be overwhelming. This opinion is based on the maxum "That which you put energy into is what you will become".
Chris from Detroit