Original Text / Japanese
Copy
科学者の失敗
科学者が宇宙の謎を解けない理由を考えてみましょう
それは初歩的なミスです
簡単に言えば…誤った前提で考えているから
その過ちに気付けば宇宙の謎は解く事が出来ます
この世界はとても単純に出来ているのです
我々が見ているこの宇宙は「観測宇宙」です
「可視宇宙」とも言われます
この表現は科学者全員が認めます
科学が観測している宇宙は「観測宇宙」なのです
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 06:56
The Mistakes Scientists Make
Let's think of the reasons why scientists are not able to solve the cosmic mysteries.
It is a simple mistake.
To put it simply, it is because they think based on the wrong assumptions.
If they recognize this mistake, the cosmic mysteries can be solved.
This world is simple as it is.
The universe that we see is "the observable universe".
It is also known as "the visible universe".
This representation is acknowledged by all the scientists.
The universe which science observes is "the observable universe".
Let's think of the reasons why scientists are not able to solve the cosmic mysteries.
It is a simple mistake.
To put it simply, it is because they think based on the wrong assumptions.
If they recognize this mistake, the cosmic mysteries can be solved.
This world is simple as it is.
The universe that we see is "the observable universe".
It is also known as "the visible universe".
This representation is acknowledged by all the scientists.
The universe which science observes is "the observable universe".
![[deleted user]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=42)
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 01:39
Failures of Scientists
Why can't scientists solve the secret of the universe?
They are making a rudimentary mistake.
Simply put, their premise is all wrong.
If they realize their mistake, the secret of the universe is at their fingertip.
The universe is made really simple.
The universe we are observing is the "observable universe."
It is also called "visible universe."
All scientists agree with this expression.
The universe observed by scientists is the "observable universe."
Why can't scientists solve the secret of the universe?
They are making a rudimentary mistake.
Simply put, their premise is all wrong.
If they realize their mistake, the secret of the universe is at their fingertip.
The universe is made really simple.
The universe we are observing is the "observable universe."
It is also called "visible universe."
All scientists agree with this expression.
The universe observed by scientists is the "observable universe."
![[deleted user]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/695023b4efd563721d13716b1457bc73.png?d=identicon&mode=crop&r=PG&s=48)
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 18 Jul 2011 at 23:53
A failure of a scientist.
Lets think on .....
Why can't a scientist solve the mystery of the space?
It is a basic mistake
If we think ....it is simply....the prerequisite error..
If that error is noticed then the mystery of the space can be solved..
This world is created in a very simple way..
The space which we look at is - observation space
It is also called as -visible space
All the scientists use this expression
The space which science observes is - observation space
Lets think on .....
Why can't a scientist solve the mystery of the space?
It is a basic mistake
If we think ....it is simply....the prerequisite error..
If that error is noticed then the mystery of the space can be solved..
This world is created in a very simple way..
The space which we look at is - observation space
It is also called as -visible space
All the scientists use this expression
The space which science observes is - observation space
Rating
50
Translation / English
Failure and responsibility of scientists!
Let's talk about why scientists cannot solve the mystery of the universe.
It is, I think, because of a very simple mistake of the scientists.
In short, they have been and even now are on a wrong basis on their thinking.
If they understand their mistake, the answer would be very simple.
This world is quite simply composed of.
As every space scientist admits now, the cosmos we are seeing is an "observable one", or is called "visible cosmos”.
Today science see only an "observable cosmos”.
- Posted at 18 Jul 2011 at 23:11
Failure and responsibility of scientists!
Let's talk about why scientists cannot solve the mystery of the universe.
It is, I think, because of a very simple mistake of the scientists.
In short, they have been and even now are on a wrong basis on their thinking.
If they understand their mistake, the answer would be very simple.
This world is quite simply composed of.
As every space scientist admits now, the cosmos we are seeing is an "observable one", or is called "visible cosmos”.
Today science see only an "observable cosmos”.
Original Text / Japanese
Copy
宇宙の謎…と言う問いの「宇宙」はどの範囲を表しているのでしょうか？
通常我々は「宇宙＝全宇宙」と置き換えます
つまり全ての範囲を対象にしている表現です
では、ここで一つ問題です
「観測宇宙」＝「全宇宙」である証拠はあるか？
皆さんはどう思いますか？
①「観測宇宙」＝「全宇宙」
②「観測宇宙」＜「全宇宙」
もし、科学者が①を主張するのであればその証拠を出さねばなりません
でもそれは存在しません
世界中全ての科学者が認める事実です
「観測宇宙」＝「全宇宙」である証拠は無い
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 00:12
And what is the range of the universe which we are talking about...
We usually replace as: space = metagalaxy
In other words it is expression indicating all the ranges
Now there is one problem here...
Is there any evidence that, observation space = metagalaxy?
What do you all think?
①Observation space = metagalaxy
②observation space < metagalaxy
If a scientist insists on ①, then they must give the evidence....but there isn't any....
It is the fact that all the scientists accept
There isn't any evidence that, observation space = metagalaxy
We usually replace as: space = metagalaxy
In other words it is expression indicating all the ranges
Now there is one problem here...
Is there any evidence that, observation space = metagalaxy?
What do you all think?
①Observation space = metagalaxy
②observation space < metagalaxy
If a scientist insists on ①, then they must give the evidence....but there isn't any....
It is the fact that all the scientists accept
There isn't any evidence that, observation space = metagalaxy
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 01:52
When talking about the secret of the universe, what is the scope of this "universe"?
We are accustomed to think that "universe" and "the entire universe" are interchangeable.
In other words, the scope is entirety.
Let me pose a question:
What is the evidence to prove "observable universe" = "the entire universe"?
Which of below do you think represent the accurate picture?
(1) "observable universe" = "the entire universe"
(2) "observable universe" < "the entire universe"
If scientists claim (1) is the correct answer, they must produce evidence.
However, there is no evidence to prove this.
Scientists around the world agree on this.
There is no evidence to prove "observable universe" = "the entire universe".
We are accustomed to think that "universe" and "the entire universe" are interchangeable.
In other words, the scope is entirety.
Let me pose a question:
What is the evidence to prove "observable universe" = "the entire universe"?
Which of below do you think represent the accurate picture?
(1) "observable universe" = "the entire universe"
(2) "observable universe" < "the entire universe"
If scientists claim (1) is the correct answer, they must produce evidence.
However, there is no evidence to prove this.
Scientists around the world agree on this.
There is no evidence to prove "observable universe" = "the entire universe".
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 07:07
What is the range of "universe" in the question of "cosmic mysteries"?
We usually replace "the universe" with "the metagalaxy".
In brief, this is a representation which emphasises on the entire range.
Now, let me ask you one question.
Is there any evidence which makes "the observable universe " as "the metagalaxy"?
What do you all think?
(1) "The observable universe" = "The metagalaxy"
(2) "The observable universe" < "The metagalaxy"
If a scientist is to support the theory (1), then the scientist has to give evidence to it.
However, the evidence does not exist.
This is the truth that the scientists in this whole world have admitted.
There is no evidence to the theory, "the observable universe" = "the metagalaxy".
We usually replace "the universe" with "the metagalaxy".
In brief, this is a representation which emphasises on the entire range.
Now, let me ask you one question.
Is there any evidence which makes "the observable universe " as "the metagalaxy"?
What do you all think?
(1) "The observable universe" = "The metagalaxy"
(2) "The observable universe" < "The metagalaxy"
If a scientist is to support the theory (1), then the scientist has to give evidence to it.
However, the evidence does not exist.
This is the truth that the scientists in this whole world have admitted.
There is no evidence to the theory, "the observable universe" = "the metagalaxy".
Original Text / Japanese
Copy
と言う事は②の可能性が科学的に認められる訳です
①である証拠は無い
②を否定する証拠は無い
ならば②である可能性もある
誰でも理解できる理論ですね
あなたはこの簡単な判断を受け入れられますか？
現在の科学は①を前提に宇宙の謎について考えています
そして様々な謎や矛盾が溢れ出ています
科学者は考え、観測し、計算していますが…解決できません
何故かと言うと前提である①が間違っているからなのです
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 00:31
So....that is the reason why possibility of ② is accepted scientifically
(1) There isn't any evidence
(2) The isn't evidence to deny this
So, it may be the 2nd option....
Isn't it an intellent theory that anyone can understand
Do you accept this simple judgement?
Assuming (1) the current science thinks about the mystery of the space
And then various mysteries and contradiction fail to prove so...
Scientist think, observe and make calulations, but they don't get any solution....
And why is it so....because option 1 is a wrong...
(1) There isn't any evidence
(2) The isn't evidence to deny this
So, it may be the 2nd option....
Isn't it an intellent theory that anyone can understand
Do you accept this simple judgement?
Assuming (1) the current science thinks about the mystery of the space
And then various mysteries and contradiction fail to prove so...
Scientist think, observe and make calulations, but they don't get any solution....
And why is it so....because option 1 is a wrong...
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 02:03
Which means a possibility of (2) being the correct answer is scientifically discernible.
There is no evidence which supports (1).
There is no evidence which denies (2).
As a result, there is a possibility that (2) is the correct answer.
Simple enough to follow, isn't it?
Can you accept this simple conclusion?
Current science approaches the secret of the universe with (1) as the premise.
There are millions of riddles and contradictions because of this.
Scientists debate, observe, and calculate...to no avail.
You know why? Because the premise they use; i.e., (1) is wrong.
There is no evidence which supports (1).
There is no evidence which denies (2).
As a result, there is a possibility that (2) is the correct answer.
Simple enough to follow, isn't it?
Can you accept this simple conclusion?
Current science approaches the secret of the universe with (1) as the premise.
There are millions of riddles and contradictions because of this.
Scientists debate, observe, and calculate...to no avail.
You know why? Because the premise they use; i.e., (1) is wrong.
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 07:18
Which makes, the possibility of the theory (2) to be acknowledged scientifically.
There is no evidence to the theory (1).
There is no evidence to deny the theory (2).
If the above is the case, there is a possibility of the theory (2) being positive.
This is a kind of theory that everyone understands.
Can you accept this simple conclusion?
Current science takes cosmic mysteries based on the theory (1).
And there are various mysteries and contradictions around.
Scientists think, observe and measure....... but no solutions have been found.
Why is it? It is because the assumption they make, that is theory (1), is incorrect.
There is no evidence to the theory (1).
There is no evidence to deny the theory (2).
If the above is the case, there is a possibility of the theory (2) being positive.
This is a kind of theory that everyone understands.
Can you accept this simple conclusion?
Current science takes cosmic mysteries based on the theory (1).
And there are various mysteries and contradictions around.
Scientists think, observe and measure....... but no solutions have been found.
Why is it? It is because the assumption they make, that is theory (1), is incorrect.
Original Text / Japanese
Copy
②を前提にすると宇宙の謎はほぼ解決します
観測宇宙誕生の謎も簡単に説明できます
つまりこの宇宙は②である可能性が極めて高いと言えます
①である証拠は無い
②である証拠も無い
①では矛盾が多く発生する
②ではその全てが解決する
①と②、真実の可能性が高いのは…？
あなたならどちらを選びますか？
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 00:42
If thought of option (2), then we can almost get the solution to the mystery of the universe...
And we can also get explaination to the mystery of creation of the observation universe
In other words it may be said that, the possibility of (2) is extremely high
(1) There isn't ant evidence...
(2) No evidence here too
(1)Then, a lot of contradiction occurs
(2)Then, all is solved
And what about the reality of both (1) and (2)...?
Which option would you select...?
And we can also get explaination to the mystery of creation of the observation universe
In other words it may be said that, the possibility of (2) is extremely high
(1) There isn't ant evidence...
(2) No evidence here too
(1)Then, a lot of contradiction occurs
(2)Then, all is solved
And what about the reality of both (1) and (2)...?
Which option would you select...?
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 02:12
If you consider (2) to be your premise, the secret of the universe is largely solved.
The secret of the beginning of the observable universe can be easily explained.
In other words, there is a high probability that the universe is (2).
There is no evidence to support (1).
There is no evidence to support (2).
(1) encourages more contradictions.
(2) solves them all.
Which is closer to the truth, (1) or (2)?
Which will you choose?
The secret of the beginning of the observable universe can be easily explained.
In other words, there is a high probability that the universe is (2).
There is no evidence to support (1).
There is no evidence to support (2).
(1) encourages more contradictions.
(2) solves them all.
Which is closer to the truth, (1) or (2)?
Which will you choose?
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 07:26
The cosmic mysteries are solved for the most part when the theory (2) is taken as an assumption.
The mystery surrounds the birth of the observable universe can be solved easily with this assumption too.
That is, the possibility is extremely high that this universe lies under the theory (2).
There is no evidence to the theory (1).
There is no evidence to deny the theory (2).
There are many contradictions with the theory (1).
All the contradictions can be solved with the theory (2).
Now, of (1) and (2), which has a higher possibility of truth?
(1) or (2), which would you choose?
The mystery surrounds the birth of the observable universe can be solved easily with this assumption too.
That is, the possibility is extremely high that this universe lies under the theory (2).
There is no evidence to the theory (1).
There is no evidence to deny the theory (2).
There are many contradictions with the theory (1).
All the contradictions can be solved with the theory (2).
Now, of (1) and (2), which has a higher possibility of truth?
(1) or (2), which would you choose?
Original Text / Japanese
Copy
科学者が観測している宇宙は全宇宙ではありません
観測宇宙です
なぜならその証拠が無いからです
科学は証拠を基に正しさを判断する学問です
証拠が無い理論は想像に過ぎない
しかも矛盾が多く発生するのであれば非科学的と言わざるを得ない
世界中の科学者の皆さん
反論できますか？
我々が観測している宇宙は観測出来る範囲の宇宙であり
全宇宙の一部に過ぎないのです
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 00:56
The space which a scientist observes isn't a metagalaxy
It is the observation space
Why is it so...because there isn't any evidence.
Science is a study to judge correctness based on evidence
And we can't imagine any theory without evidence
And if a lot of contradiction occurs, then we have to say it as non-scientific
So, Scientists allover the world, can you argue on this?
The space which we observe is the range upto which we can observe
It is only a part of the metagalaxy
It is the observation space
Why is it so...because there isn't any evidence.
Science is a study to judge correctness based on evidence
And we can't imagine any theory without evidence
And if a lot of contradiction occurs, then we have to say it as non-scientific
So, Scientists allover the world, can you argue on this?
The space which we observe is the range upto which we can observe
It is only a part of the metagalaxy
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 07:37
The universe which scientists observe is not the metagalaxy.
It is the observable universe.
This is because there is no evidence to it.
Science is an academia that recognizes the truth based on evidence.
Theories without solid evidence are nothing but imagination.
Adding to that, it has to be called unscientific if they generate many contradictions.
To all the scientists in the world.
Can you challenge my claims?
The universe we observe is just in an observable range, and it is no more than a part of the entire universe.
It is the observable universe.
This is because there is no evidence to it.
Science is an academia that recognizes the truth based on evidence.
Theories without solid evidence are nothing but imagination.
Adding to that, it has to be called unscientific if they generate many contradictions.
To all the scientists in the world.
Can you challenge my claims?
The universe we observe is just in an observable range, and it is no more than a part of the entire universe.
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 18 Jul 2011 at 23:39
The universe that scientists are observing is not the entire universe.
It is merely an observable universe.
The lack of evidence is the proof of what I just said.
Science requires evidence to prove a theory.
A theory without evidence is merely a figment of imagination.
In addition, the more contradictions are found, the less scientific a theory is.
I question scientists around the world,
Can you rebuttal?
The universe we're observing is merely an observable universe.
It is only a part of the whole universe.
It is merely an observable universe.
The lack of evidence is the proof of what I just said.
Science requires evidence to prove a theory.
A theory without evidence is merely a figment of imagination.
In addition, the more contradictions are found, the less scientific a theory is.
I question scientists around the world,
Can you rebuttal?
The universe we're observing is merely an observable universe.
It is only a part of the whole universe.
Original Text / Japanese
Copy
宇宙には始まりがあるなどと言う妄想はいい加減卒業しましょう
天動説を信じた人々は「昔の人」と言われています
科学者の皆さん、科学的に物事を考えて下さい
でないとあなたは「未来人」になれませんよ
宇宙の始まり
特異点
ブラックホール
相対性理論
量子力学
シュレーディンガーの猫
ビッグバン
Rating
44
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 06:02
Let's get through the pros and cons of thinking of the delusion that there is a start point for the universe
The people who believe the Ptolemaic theory are said to be old people
So scientists please think scientifically about things, otherwise you will not become a future person
Start of the universe
Unique point
Black hole
The Theory of Relativity
Quantum mechanics
Cat of Schrodinger
Big bang
The people who believe the Ptolemaic theory are said to be old people
So scientists please think scientifically about things, otherwise you will not become a future person
Start of the universe
Unique point
Black hole
The Theory of Relativity
Quantum mechanics
Cat of Schrodinger
Big bang
Rating
60
Translation / English
- Posted at 19 Jul 2011 at 07:46
Let's outgrow the delusional belief that there is the beginning of the universe.
Those who believed the Ptolemaic theory are labelled as "people from the past".
To all the scientists, please think scientifically.
If not, you will never be men of the future.
The Beginning of the Universe
Significant Point
Black Hole
Theory of Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Schrodinger's Cat
Big Bang
Those who believed the Ptolemaic theory are labelled as "people from the past".
To all the scientists, please think scientifically.
If not, you will never be men of the future.
The Beginning of the Universe
Significant Point
Black Hole
Theory of Relativity
Quantum Mechanics
Schrodinger's Cat
Big Bang
Rating
62
Translation / English
- Posted at 18 Jul 2011 at 23:20
It's about time that you give up your delusion of beginning of the universe.
People who believed in the Ptolemaic theory were "people in the past."
Scientists need to exercise scientific ways of thinking.
Otherwise, you will never be able to become "people in the future."
Beginning of the universe
Singular point
Black hole
The theory of relativity
Quantum mechanics
Schrodinger's cat
Big bang theory
People who believed in the Ptolemaic theory were "people in the past."
Scientists need to exercise scientific ways of thinking.
Otherwise, you will never be able to become "people in the future."
Beginning of the universe
Singular point
Black hole
The theory of relativity
Quantum mechanics
Schrodinger's cat
Big bang theory
Thakyou very much
@ichinari こちらこそありがとうございました。また機会などありましたらよろくお願いします。