the great OCEAN CONVEYOR RIDGE.
by Henryk Szubinski
The same positions of the GREAT OCEAN CONVEYOR BELT as the BACKGROUND on the ocean surface as the CONTINENTAL SHELVES where the Earth's continents are PUSHED TOWARDS EACH OTHER.
Centered detail and the radius vectors that spread outwards from it as the way that the ocean currents verge into one point and then displace outwards. Other possibilities that this acts as the type of radius RIDGES that when rotated will push and pull water into circular currents as the source of the current energy.
The other side of the planet lacks any RIDGES that are as PROMINENT as the motion of it from the previous images. The cause of this could be the fact that half of the worlds oceans were displaced by half of the other side due to some event that depressed the water and started the flow. Or as the model of the larger continent having no ridges because it was the first real OCEAN from which all other oceans originated.
See the rectangle to the left.The only way this could have been made would be by water currents on either length as the outer bounds of some flow and then the flow over it by the limits of the width of the rectangle so that they cancel each other out and the rectangle remains.
See the rectangle to the left.The only way this could have been made would be by water currents on either length as the outer bounds of some flow and then the flow over it by the limits of the width of the rectangle so that they cancel each other out and the rectangle remains.
At some point in planetary evolution the very strong currents of gigantic rivers flow so strongly with such high velocity that they change the rotation of Earth into newer angles of rotation. Each such event will create the new GIANT RIVERS to displace over their previous vectors so as to INDICATE by RIVER EROSION , the rectangles or SQUARES that may be as many as any example of Earth's surface sectioning.
Another way to see it as: The continents would drift in the various direction by the pulling force of inertia of the GIGANTIC RIVERS and their pull on the Earths crust so that they would pull along the continents with their directions of flow.
Another way to see it as: The continents would drift in the various direction by the pulling force of inertia of the GIGANTIC RIVERS and their pull on the Earths crust so that they would pull along the continents with their directions of flow.
Mars shows the same signs of GIANT RIVERS HAVING TOUCHED IT'S SURFACE as they displaced through the Mars surface at the Mariner Valley and then moved on to the Earth ,where the GIANT RIVER probably pulled our planet into the Galaxy core to our current position where it either continues to move by the Inertia of these events or that the GIANT RIVERS slow down by curvature back on it's vector and making the SQUARES or RECTANGLES (as seen above).
The fact that we originate in some physical model of conception ,would assume that the larger reality is such a model of conception as we are able to describe.
So then, this description must mean that at some point we must return to the source after the functions of our existance are conceptualized.
from Wikipedia
date 2018
April 1
time, 19:04
Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is the natural or worldly agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect),[citation needed]where the first is partly responsible for the second, and the second is partly dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes,[2] which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of, or causal factor for, many other effects, which all lie in its future. Causality is metaphysically prior to notions of time and space.[3][4]
Causality is an abstraction that indicates how the world progresses, so basic a concept that it is more apt as an explanation of other concepts of progression than as something to be explained by others more basic. The concept is like those of agency and efficacy. For this reason, a leap of intuition may be needed to grasp it.[5] Accordingly, causality is implicit in the logic and structure of ordinary language.[6]
Aristotelian philosophy uses the word "cause" to mean "explanation" or "answer to a why question", including Aristotle's material, formal, efficient, and final "causes"; then the "cause" is the explanans for the explanandum. In this case, failure to recognize that different kinds of "cause" are being considered can lead to futile debate. Of Aristotle's four explanatory modes, the one nearest to the concerns of the present article is the "efficient" one.
The topic of causality remains a staple in contemporary philosophy.
other arguments include:
from Wikipedia
date 2018
April 1
time,19:13
Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed. Analogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings attempt to understand the world and make decisions.[1] When a person has a bad experience with a product and decides not to buy anything further from the producer, this is often a case of analogical reasoning. It is also implicit in much of science; for instance, experiments on laboratory rats typically proceed on the basis that some physiological similarities between rats and humans entails some further similarity (e.g. possible reactions to a drug).[2]
That we as humans have always related to the ORIGIN of our EXISTENCE by way of myths about our creation ,as they develop more clearly into theory of our origins among the many variables of human and or , alien ,peaceful contact , that we would develop into the SPECIES with the BEST theory that defines the return to other places in the galaxy and ultimately back to our common SOURCE as the galaxy center.
from Wikipedia
date 2018
April 1
time, 19:13
Comparativists versus particularists[edit]The anthropologist C. Scott Littleton defined comparative mythology as "the systematic comparison of myths and mythic themes drawn from a wide variety of cultures".[1] By comparing different cultures' mythologies, scholars try to identify underlying similarities and/or to reconstruct a "protomythology" from which those mythologies developed.[1] To an extent, all theories about mythology follow a comparative approach: as the scholar of religion Robert Segal notes, "by definition, all theorists [of myth] seek similarities among myths".[2] However, scholars of mythology can be roughly divided into particularists, who emphasize the differences between myths, and comparativists, who emphasize the similarities. Particularists tend to "maintain that the similarities deciphered by comparativists are vague and superficial", while comparativists tend to "contend that the differences etched by particularists are trivial and incidental".[3]
Comparative approaches to mythology held great popularity among eighteenth- and nineteenth-century scholars. Many of these scholars believed that all myths showed signs of having evolved from a single myth or mythical theme.[4] For example, the nineteenth-century philologist Friedrich Max Müller led a school of thought which interpreted nearly all myths as poetic descriptions of the sun's behavior. According to this theory, these poetic descriptions had become distorted over time into seemingly diverse stories about gods and heroes.[4] However, modern-day scholars lean more toward particularism, feeling suspicious of broad statements about myths.[5] A recent exception is the historical approach followed in E.J. Michael Witzel's reconstruction of many subsequent layers of older mythologies [6]