miracle in the qur'an in the water design

[freeandfun1]

1st i won't answer your insulting to me cuz allah forbid that in our religion

and all what i meant freeandfun1
that any one can fabricate any tape he want, if you know little about s/w you will know its so easy to do so

second i said that if one of your brother is bad that doesnt mean that you are bad too

and i wont be angry if one of your words is true
but unfortunaly you dont have any idea of you are talking about

you won't answer the question cuz you don't want to inciminate yourself.

I really don't care if you answer me or not. You and your ilk are sick FUCKS and I really don't care to have a relationship - friendly or otherwise - with you.

I don't think you are in denial. You are just following your "religion".

Again, you are one sick puppy and now I am done with this brief exchange. I will leave the "debating" between you and AJ. You are

 

[ajwps]

dear ajwp
you always make me laugh

you again playing the puzzel game
word buzzel
you play with word
i meant that any one else could fabricate this tabe and its not hard for america to do any thing to justify her attacking to any country she want

its a game my dear and all what u say in this message i answered you before so dont repeate your words

Arabian please do not call me 'my dear.' I am not British nor do I wish to be your dear.

You say your extensive computer background can allow you to fabricate a video tape like the one in which the world received a copy from an Islamic source.

This particular tape on which Ossama Bin Laden admits his crimes has been studied by almost every intelligence service in the world including many Muslim sound and film composite film experts. Absolutely no one except the Arab terrorist fundamentalist consider this tape to be a fraud.

The people who knew Ossama well verified that this was Bin Laden and his voice, his accent and word use.

You would like Ossama's tape to be a fraud because it speaks volumns about Islam and the desire to murder innocent unbelievers in the name of Allah.

You need not reply to me for you have no proof other than your word as a Muslim which refutes Ossama's tape.

 

[Arabian]

Arabian please do not call me 'my dear.' I am not British nor do I wish to be your dear.

You say your extensive computer background can allow you to fabricate a video tape like the one in which the world received a copy from an Islamic source.

This particular tape on which Ossama Bin Laden admits his crimes has been studied by almost every intelligence service in the world including many Muslim sound and film composite film experts. Absolutely no one except the Arab terrorist fundamentalist consider this tape to be a fraud.

The people who knew Ossama well verified that this was Bin Laden and his voice, his accent and word use.

You would like Ossama's tape to be a fraud because it speaks volumns about Islam and the desire to murder innocent unbelievers in the name of Allah.

You need not reply to me for you have no proof other than your word as a Muslim which refutes Ossama's tape.

listen ajwp
i've never meet osama bin laden
and actully i've never heared about him except after 11/9

but okay let us work with your idea
IF osama did that
is that mean that all arabs bad

so those soldieres who humilated the presoner in iraq were american they were bad
is that mean that all american bad
those things don't depend on nationality or kind
it depend on your thought what you believe persisley on your hearts whether it fulled with hate or love

 

[ajwps]

listen ajwp
i've never meet osama bin laden
and actully i've never heared about him except after 11/9

but okay let us work with your idea
IF osama did that
is that mean that all arabs bad

so those soldieres who humilated the presoner in iraq were american they were bad is that mean that all american bad those things don't depend on nationality or kind it depend on your thought what you believe persisley on your hearts whether it fulled with hate or love

Of course not.... Not all Arabs or Muslims are neither bad nor evil.

There are Muslims who actually do not wish to wage Jihad war against the world of unbelievers (infidels) but desire to live in peace with the rest of mankind. They desire to pray to Allah and allow other human beings to pray to their gods in peace.

Ossama has become the leader of the terrorist branches of Islam as he has accomplished a VICTORY for Islam and Allah when he demonstrated his successful attack against the powerful unbelievers. This bearded multi-millionaire is the symbol of everything bad in the world of ISLAM and beloved by millions upon millions of Muslims because he has the only successful blow against those feared the most by Islam, the western leader of mankind's freedom and justice which is the opposite those things taught to so many Muslims around the world in many countries.

There is no one Christian or American, except for George Bush, that has become the symbol of hate and derision because of returning the fight to those who attacked the western world countries.

Because of Ossama Bin Laden and his organization of Islamic terrorists, all Muslims are put in the same context of potential murderers of civilization. This Muslim Bin Laden has done more to create hatred for Islam than all the lesser terrorists have done since the time of Pbuh Muhammad himself.

Ossama Bin Ladin, a Saudi born national has decided to become the main symbol for those Muslims who have decided that existence of unbelievers in the world is contrary to their interpretation of Qur'an.

 

[dilloduck]

Of course not....

Not all Arabs or Muslims are neither bad nor evil.

There are Muslims who actually do not wish to wage Jihad war against the world of unbelievers (infidels) but desire to live in peace with the rest of mankind. They desire to pray to Allah and allow other human beings to pray to their gods in peace.

Ossama has become the leader of the terrorist branches of Islam as he has accomplished a VICTORY for Islam and Allah when he demonstrated his successful attack against the powerful unbelievers. This bearded multi-millionaire is the symbol of everything bad in the world of ISLAM and beloved by millions upon millions of Muslims because he has the only successful blow against those feared the most by Islam, the western leader of mankind's freedom and justice which is the opposite those things taught to so many Muslims around the world in many countries.

There is no one Christian or American, except for George Bush, that has become the symbol of hate and derision because of returning the fight to those who attacked the western world countries.

Because of Ossama Bin Laden and his organization of Islamic terrorists, all Muslims are put in the same context of potential murderers of civilization. This Muslim Bin Laden has done more to create hatred for Islam than all the lesser terrorists have done since the time of Pbuh Muhammad himself.

Ossama Bin Ladin, a Saudi born national has decided to become the main symbol for those Muslims who have decided that existence of unbelievers in the world is contrary to their interpretation of Qur'an.

AJ WHO HIJACKED YOUR COMPUTER?

Not all Arabs or Muslims are neither bad nor evil.

 

[ajwps]

AJ WHO HIJACKED YOUR COMPUTER?

Not all Arabs or Muslims are neither bad nor evil.

Dilloduck in life there is no absolute words such as ALL, EVERY, FOREVER, or NEVER.

There actually are Muslims who do want to live in peace but they are in the same mortal peril as any unbeliever.

 

[Arabian]

There actually are Muslims who do want to live in peace but they are in the same mortal peril as any unbeliever

Ohh ajwp
who told you so
again
YOU DONT LIVE IN MUSLIMS COUNTRY OR EVEN KNOW HOW DO THEY LIVE OR WHAT IS THEIR TRADITION

 

[ajwps]

Ohh ajwp who told you so

Qur'an told me so. See below

again YOU DONT LIVE IN MUSLIMS COUNTRY OR EVEN KNOW HOW DO THEY LIVE OR WHAT IS THEIR TRADITION

Okay Arabian I used your Qur'an site to give you an answer as to why Muslims who want to live in peace with mankind are marked by Allah in Pbuh Muhammad's Qur'an and will be replaced by real Mujahadeen.

Qur'an and the believers who want to make peace with mankind

http://web.fares.net/w/.ee7ed80

9:38. O you who believe! What is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allâh (i.e. Jihâd) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared with the Hereafter.[]

9:39. If you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people, and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allâh is Able to do all things.

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ

 

[Arabian]

Qur'an told me so. See below



Okay Arabian I used your Qur'an site to give you an answer as to why Muslims who want to live in peace with mankind are marked by Allah in Pbuh Muhammad's Qur'an and will be replaced by real Mujahadeen.

Qur'an and the believers who want to make peace with mankind

http://web.fares.net/w/.ee7ed80



يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ مَا لَكُمْ إِذَا قِيلَ لَكُمُ انفِرُواْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ اثَّاقَلْتُمْ إِلَى الأَرْضِ أَرَضِيتُم بِالْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا مِنَ الآخِرَةِ فَمَا مَتَاعُ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فِي الآخِرَةِ إِلاَّ قَلِيلٌ

yes thes verse is right but from the verse it appears that its only when there is a jihad for allah and people degraded from this jihad and stayed at home (they must defend there land home and people) like when the president visit his army to encourage his soldier to get the win for allah, its the same
here allah courage his creature to fight for him and he will reward them by winning the paradise in the other life
allah encourage his creature to the jihad "fight for allah"

and allah says also
68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allâh, nor kill such life as Allâh has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishme

025. Al-Furqân verse 68
allah promise for his punish for people who kill such life as Allâh has forbidden without reason

 

[wade]

Exactly correct. What existed a trillionith of a second before the Big Bang, the unvierse, time, mass or space? Have any ideas?

Yes.. a single particle that is what we might call God, and the nothing.

Time had no meaning before the "big bang". The big bang also created the oscillation of the particle and defined time. Without the oscillation, there is no time-space continum and thus no "time".

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

yes thes verse is right but from the verse it appears that its only when there is a jihad for allah and people degraded from this jihad and stayed at home (they must defend there land home and people) like when the president visit his army to encourage his soldier to get the win for allah, its the same here allah courage his creature to fight for him and he will reward them by winning the paradise in the other life allah encourage his creature to the jihad "fight for allah"

So are you saying that to 'fight for Allah' or Jihad is not an always CONSTANT struggle for Islam to convert those unbelievers?

If there are some Muslims who do not want to fight a Jihad for Allah but desire to live with other of Allah's human creations in peace then Allah will punish these Islamic believers and keep them from paradise with Muhammad? VERY NICE......

What if the unbelievers were orderd by their bible that it was good for mankind to have the duty for a Jihad against Islam and the believers of Allah? What if mankind thought it was a nice thing to do for unbeliving infidels to hide in ambush and kill each and every Muslim they find or simply convert all Al-Islam to Christianity? WOULD THAT BE NICE TOO??????

and allah says also 68. And those who invoke not any other ilâh (god) along with Allâh, nor kill such life as Allâh has forbidden, except for just cause, nor commit illegal sexual intercourse and whoever does this shall receive the punishment

025. Al-Furqân verse 68
allah promise for his punish for people who kill such life as Allâh has forbidden without reason

25:69. The torment will be doubled to him on the Day of Resurrection, and he will abide therein in disgrace;

What reason does Islam have for killing little children, men and women in the Russian school or on 09/11? Does Allah orders his believers to murder innocent babies in a Jihad because they don't believe in Muhammad's Qur'an?

So you say now that Allah forbids his Muslims from killing unbelieving infidel humans without REASON or GOOD CAUSE? Or does this Qur'an verse 68-69 give evidence that if an unbeliever does not choose to believe in Allah but instead believe in G-d, then they are to be murdered from ambush and that their torment will be doubled on the day of ressurrection?

It appears that you better not make a Muslim mad or he will find a GOOD REASON to murder you in the name of Allah.

 

[ajwps]

Yes.. a single particle that is what we might call God, and the nothing.

You make me laugh... You call the single primary universal particle a god or the nothing(?) Where did you come up with that tale?

Time had no meaning before the "big bang". The big bang also created the oscillation of the particle and defined time. Without the oscillation, there is no time-space continum and thus no "time".Wade.

So time had no meaning before the Big Bang? What about G-d's time-lessness before the Big Bang? Do you mean earth Mountain Standard Time before the Big Bang?

So the Big Bang created an oscillation without which there was no time-space continum?

Did you hear this information in your head? What are you talking about????

 

[wade]

Ajwps,

It seems intuitively obvious to me.

Time only has meaning if there is something changing/moving at one point relative to another in a single direction of flow. Before there was anything to move, there could be no time.

At least my theory explains exactly why the universe is as it is. It attributes as little as possible to any motiviations which we cannot percieve.

Wade.

 

[ajwps]

Ajwps,

It seems intuitively obvious to me.
Time only has meaning if there is something changing/moving at one point relative to another in a single direction of flow. Before there was anything to move, there could be no time.
At least my theory explains exactly why the universe is as it is. It attributes as little as possible to any motiviations which we cannot percieve.
Wade.

"Everything" cannot be intuitive. The human mind can in no way contemplate or visualize things not even imagined or cognate all things by our finite mental capabilities that one may attribute to only what we can perceive.

What if I told you that many scientists now believe that 'time' is as real as particle mass, energy, gravity, photons or anything else you can see or feel?

That 'time' is not the absence of movement or a direction but a real entity that can curve, stretch or even be manipulated. Then before the Big Bang, there was a form of time but not the sort we humans experience.

You have a theory of the universe but so have thinkers, theologians and scientists from the beginning of recorded history. But as more is learned, the less of reality is understood.

What do you think the borders of this universe look like and what is on the other side of our universe? Do you know anything about the theory of quantum mechanics or the fact that particles communicate with one another no matter how close or far away they are. They could be across the universe and instantly effect one another.

These are things that have been shown to exist but cannot be explained.

There is so much more than any of us can imagine and yet can only be understood by a Creator who has made all things but did not give man the ability to have the vaguest idea of what it is or what it means.

 

[wade]

"Everything" cannot be intuitive. The human mind can in no way contemplate or visualize things not even imagined or cognate all things by our finite mental capabilities that one may attribute to only what we can perceive.

It is intuitive because the pattern of the universe intelligence is imprinted, though imperfectly, upon our minds at a very basic level. You are right we cannot fully comtemplate or visiualize or imagine or cognate everything, but we can "feel" the pattern - that is intuition.

What if I told you that many scientists now believe that 'time' is as real as particle mass, energy, gravity, photons or anything else you can see or feel?

Under my theory this is totally the case. Time is just the nexus of the forward and backward oscilations of the particle(keeping it simple, there are after all more than 4 dimentions involved). Only where these meet does (our) reality exist, and this "slice" has a progression "forward" through time.

That 'time' is not the absence of movement or a direction but a real entity that can curve, stretch or even be manipulated. Then before the Big Bang, there was a form of time but not the sort we humans experience.

Well, I disagree. If time is as I have stated, then it is defined by the oscillation of the single particle (the God particle for want of a better term), and before that oscilation there was no "time". It is just not meaningful to have time with no events. That the nexus of the oscilation can be curved, streteched, and manipulated all fits quite nicely into my theory - in fact it is fundimental to it. But this all happens within the framework of the fundimental oscilation of the particle that forms the universe.

You have a theory of the universe but so have thinkers, theologians and scientists from the beginning of recorded history. But as more is learned, the less of reality is understood.

Well, my theory dates back to my college days, and deep debates with several physics grad students and professors. It is an extensive theory and I've only touched on the "theological" nature of it, leaving the boring science part of it out.

What do you think the borders of this universe look like and what is on the other side of our universe? Do you know anything about the theory of quantum mechanics or the fact that particles communicate with one another no matter how close or far away they are. They could be across the universe and instantly effect one another.

These are things that have been shown to exist but cannot be explained.

Hmmm the boarders of the universe... I have no idea, I'm not even sure such a concept is meaningful. Within my theory, the limits of the oscilation define the limits of reality, beyond it there is nothing at all but, you could never go there so does it exist?

My theory is now over 20 years old and I've argued it with many physicists and (and some top EE's) from several major universties and labs (UCLA, UCSD, Berkley, Duke, U.O.@Cinn, Lamar, MIT). I'd pretty much forgoten about since my time at Duke, but the recent discoveries have made me once again think it might actually be true. My theory expects the following:

1) all light and all electrons are tightly bound (since they are in fact the same "particle"). Changing the spin on one will change the spin on all. Electrons (or their sub-components) are actually a manifestation of particles flowing backwards in time (actually seperate instances of the same particle on the backwards part of the oscillation). Light (or its sub-components) is a particle manifestation that is effectively stationary with respect to some of the demensions of the time/space continuem.

The spin part of this appears to be true, as you have alluded to. One of the reasons I tend to think my theory might be true.

2) The universe is expanding at an ever increaseing rate, and will never collapse back into a single point mass as postulated in the big-bang theory.
Gravity consists of only one force (not two as per traditional gravity theory), and that force is negative (all mass pushes other mass away from it). When mass is propelled by the force of gravity it blocks that gravity from continuing past it to effect additional particles.

Recently, it has been shown the Universe is in fact still "expanding" at an accelerating rate. This again makes me believe my theory may be correct. To prove it all I need is a disk made of increadibly dense material (neutronium would be nice) and a pendulum, or a lab in deep space and a very large thick plate of high density rock or steel.

3) Stars made purely out of gasses will never ignite, no matter how massive. The pressure of the universe is insufficient to generate fusion. If it was sufficient, all such gasses (hydrogen) would fuse instantly upon contact. Thus there is no "dark matter" to balance the astrophysists equations, it is actually just large gas giants that lack enough heavy metals (ie: uranium) to ignite them and kick off the fusion reaction. We cannot see them because without sufficient energy eminations from those areas, they are invisible to us. This can probably be somewhat verified by checking to see whether in fact the areas where "dark matter" is predicted to be don't also turn out to be areas low in heavy metals.

So 1 and 2 have, over the last 2 decades, turned out to be true (at least it appears so). It may well be that 3 is also provable as true, I've not researched what is going on in the world of astrophysics recently to see if they have completed any kind of heavy metals survey of deep space where the "dark matter" is supposed to be.

There is so much more than any of us can imagine and yet can only be understood by a Creator who has made all things but did not give man the ability to have the vaguest idea of what it is or what it means.

Now why would "he" do that? What would be the point? That is just silly. The only rational reason God would create a universe that I can come up with would be the simple fact that it was board and lonely. The whole purpose is that, in the end, God will have managed to somehow create a companion.

We are not anywhere close to there yet, but I am sure this is the end purpose. The idea that God would create meaningless "pets" and put them through all the torment that life has endured simply so that they might praise or worship him is moronic. It's like suggesting a scientist might create a form of bacteria in a dish that praises and worships him - what's the point in that? There is none. It'd be like playing checkers against yourself for eternity. There has to be more to God's design than that!

I think, in the end we, or our successors, or life somewhere else in the universe, is expected to become the intelectual equal of God, and even God does not know how to make this happen, so he is trying to create the circumstances where it might happen and giving it a chance to happen. That has to be his purpose. The only other imaginable alternative is that there is no God and this is all just the result of random chance - and that is contrary, at least to my, intuition.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Wade, Lay off the acid, bro!

 

[ajwps]

It is intuitive because the pattern of the universe intelligence is imprinted, though imperfectly, upon our minds at a very basic level. You are right we cannot fully comtemplate or visiualize or imagine or cognate everything, but we can "feel" the pattern - that is intuition.

Intuitive you say? Do you know how many people 'feel' a universal intelligence? That basic level in one's mind is only an illusion as everything you see, feel, touch and smell is in reality only an illusion.

Under my theory this is totally the case. Time is just the nexus of the forward and backward oscilations of the particle(keeping it simple, there are after all more than 4 dimentions involved). Only where these meet does (our) reality exist, and this "slice" has a progression "forward" through time.

What if I told you that there is only ONE dimension in a timelessness? There is no time and nothing is oscillating and there is no reality that any of us can really imagine. Science is only beginning to understand the evidence. If you close your eyes, everything around you, in reality, disappears. Science knows that our universe is 99.99999999999999% space and the remainder a small particle that is sometimes matter and sometimes reverts to energy and vice versa. So the chair you are sitting in and the desk in front of you and your own body is only an illusion. Something like a giant hologram.

Well, I disagree. If time is as I have stated, then it is defined by the oscillation of the single particle (the God particle for want of a better term), and before that oscilation there was no "time". It is just not meaningful to have time with no events. That the nexus of the oscilation can be curved, streteched, and manipulated all fits quite nicely into my theory - in fact it is fundimental to it. But this all happens within the framework of the fundimental oscilation of the particle that forms the universe.

There was no original particle and there was no Big Bang and there is nothing solid in our ONE dimension. Only that can be seen in our cognitive minds-eye. There are only several real things but none are in our ability to see or feel or understand fully.

Well, my theory dates back to my college days, and deep debates with several physics grad students and professors. It is an extensive theory and I've only touched on the "theological" nature of it, leaving the boring science part of it out.

Actually theology and science are more intermingled than any of us can imagine. The one thing that is WE can be described in two words. "FREE WILL"
There is free will in a infinite dimension of timelessness and with a Creator of all things. That's it.

Hmmm the boarders of the universe... I have no idea, I'm not even sure such a concept is meaningful. Within my theory, the limits of the oscilation define the limits of reality, beyond it there is nothing at all but, you could never go there so does it exist?

Oh but you are already there. You just don't know it. The following article, if you are interested, gives only a small keyhole view into our reality.

http://www.crystalinks.com/holographic.html

My theory is now over 20 years old and I've argued it with many physicists and (and some top EE's) from several major universties and labs (UCLA, UCSD, Berkley, Duke, U.O.@Cinn, Lamar, MIT). I'd pretty much forgoten about since my time at Duke, but the recent discoveries have made me once again think it might actually be true. My theory expects the following:

1) all light and all electrons are tightly bound (since they are in fact the same "particle"). Changing the spin on one will change the spin on all. Electrons (or their sub-components) are actually a manifestation of particles flowing backwards in time (actually seperate instances of the same particle on the backwards part of the oscillation). Light (or its sub-components) is a particle manifestation that is effectively stationary with respect to some of the demensions of the time/space continuem.

Nice theory..... But all are just theories.

The spin part of this appears to be true, as you have alluded to. One of the reasons I tend to think my theory might be true.

2) The universe is expanding at an ever increaseing rate, and will never collapse back into a single point mass as postulated in the big-bang theory.
Gravity consists of only one force (not two as per traditional gravity theory), and that force is negative (all mass pushes other mass away from it). When mass is propelled by the force of gravity it blocks that gravity from continuing past it to effect additional particles.

That's nice. But nothing can be proven in any of these theories as Wisdom that created everything only gives hints at what IS....

Recently, it has been shown the Universe is in fact still "expanding" at an accelerating rate. This again makes me believe my theory may be correct. To prove it all I need is a disk made of increadibly dense material (neutronium would be nice) and a pendulum, or a lab in deep space and a very large thick plate of high density rock or steel.

3) Stars made purely out of gasses will never ignite, no matter how massive. The pressure of the universe is insufficient to generate fusion. If it was sufficient, all such gasses (hydrogen) would fuse instantly upon contact. Thus there is no "dark matter" to balance the astrophysists equations, it is actually just large gas giants that lack enough heavy metals (ie: uranium) to ignite them and kick off the fusion reaction. We cannot see them because without sufficient energy eminations from those areas, they are invisible to us. This can probably be somewhat verified by checking to see whether in fact the areas where "dark matter" is predicted to be don't also turn out to be areas low in heavy metals.

So 1 and 2 have, over the last 2 decades, turned out to be true (at least it appears so). It may well be that 3 is also provable as true, I've not researched what is going on in the world of astrophysics recently to see if they have completed any kind of heavy metals survey of deep space where the "dark matter" is supposed to be.[/quote]

Sorry but I do not believe in our universe for it to be expanding or contracting or standing still would require a border and something on the other side. Did you know that if you took a simple atom of hydrogen, something that cannot be seen by any current method, has one nuclueus and one electron rotating in orbit around this hydrogen atom.

If you could increase the nucleus of that atom to say 4" in diameter, do you know the distance from that 4" nucleus the electron would be from it? It would be 8 miles away from that 4" nucleus. Ergo this 'universe' is like I said before 99.99999999% space and the rest some form of matter particles which sometimes become energy and sometimes back to matter.

So if one were to presume that we actually exist in a universe, nothing is more than space held together by the strong and weak forces theorized by scientists. But I do not believe that even that much exists.

Now why would "he" do that? What would be the point? That is just silly. The only rational reason God would create a universe that I can come up with would be the simple fact that it was board and lonely. The whole purpose is that, in the end, God will have managed to somehow create a companion.

Why you ask? That reason you think to be in your grasp is really not, but is in His own Wisdom. We do not think like Him and He certainly doesn't think like us.

There is no rational reason for us to come up with, for He is definitely not a human that can become bored or lonely. He cannot be described or given any attributes of which we humans can conceive of such a Being.

We are not anywhere close to there yet, but I am sure this is the end purpose. The idea that God would create meaningless "pets" and put them through all the torment that life has endured simply so that they might praise or worship him is moronic. It's like suggesting a scientist might create a form of bacteria in a dish that praises and worships him - what's the point in that? There is none. It'd be like playing checkers against yourself for eternity. There has to be more to God's design than that!

How about creating our consciousness for the sole purpose of 'free will' and creation through our actions during this short life we experience.

Where were you before you were born? Where will you (consciousness) be after you perish?

I believe everything remains in this ONE timeless dimension in which all Free Will continues through an eternity of forever.

I think, in the end we, or our successors, or life somewhere else in the universe, is expected to become the intelectual equal of God, and even God does not know how to make this happen, so he is trying to create the circumstances where it might happen and giving it a chance to happen. That has to be his purpose. The only other imaginable alternative is that there is no God and this is all just the result of random chance - and that is contrary, at least to my, intuition.Wade.

That statement is ridiculous on its face. Who are we, the consciousness of each, able to comprehend the unknowable. You can rationalize everything to your hearts delight but the fact remains, we don't know.....

 

[wade]

ajwps,

I agree we don't "know". That is the point to "theories". And I agree the theology part of what I'm saying is a bit of a reach - the point is that the answer to "does God exist" depends a lot on your definition of God. I just like to think that there is an intelligent God and have fit that into the theory, though it is by no means essential - it just satisfies the intuative feeling that their must be such a power.

====

As for all of your dissagreements, well, a lot of them really do agree with my theory if you think about it.

You say the universe is 1 dimentional. I say that it is 1 dimentional plus an oscilation across many dimentions. That oscilation and those dimentions are, in a way, illusionary.

You say there are no boundaries to the universe - well that's what I said but you didn't understand.

There was no original particle and there was no Big Bang and there is nothing solid in our ONE dimension. Only that can be seen in our cognitive minds-eye. There are only several real things but none are in our ability to see or feel or understand fully.

You say there are "several real things but none are in our ability to see or feel or understand fully". I say there is only 1 real thing, the "God particle", and explain why this explains the universe we do percieve (which is not to say there is not also a lot we don't percieve). The fact that one after another as science's perceptions improve the observations being made fit with what is predicted by my theory gives some credance to the theory - you have not made such a link between your postulation and anything observed. You have to say "here is my theory, and if it is true we would expect thus and such to be the case" and then see whether or not it is the case. If it is, then that supports the theory, if it isn't, time for a new theory!

Sorry but I do not believe in our universe for it to be expanding or contracting or standing still would require a border and something on the other side.

Why? If you can never go there and it cannot ever be percieved (even by "God") does it exist? I say no. You are thinking in linear terms, and one thing is clear, the universe is not a linear system. I'm saying within my theory, nothing outside the bounds (if you can really call them that as they have no real limis) of the oscillation of the single particle has any meaning because it can never be percieved in any way and by definition it is impossible to "go there" because to do so requires the oscillation to go there, and thus it would now be part of the universe.

Did you know that if you took a simple atom of hydrogen, something that cannot be seen by any current method, has one nuclueus and one electron rotating in orbit around this hydrogen atom.

If you could increase the nucleus of that atom to say 4" in diameter, do you know the distance from that 4" nucleus the electron would be from it? It would be 8 miles away from that 4" nucleus. Ergo this 'universe' is like I said before 99.99999999% space and the rest some form of matter particles which sometimes become energy and sometimes back to matter.

Again, a very Euclidion view of the universe. How does this explain the true observations of the electron "orbiting" the proton of the hydrogen atom? The position of that electron can be statistically predicted with 100% accuracy - it will spend exactly the amount of time expected in each statistical zone, no matter how fine the scale of measurement. Yet no matter how accurately we can statistically predict its position, we can never pin down and predict where it actually will be at any given instance. Why? How are you explaining this? How do you explain where the energy for running that atom of hydrogen is comming from?

My theory explains these things. (first, let me say I'm using the proton and electron as my example items, but in fact the core particle is probably smaller than either of these and it takes many mainfestations to create these items - but for discussion it's easier to use these simpler terms).

The electron is in fact going backwards in time, while the proton is going forward. The nature of the nexus (what we call "now") of forward and backward moving particles in the complex multi-dimentional universe is such that the path of least resistance (lowest energy requirement) for the proton is through an electron going the other direction (and visa-versa), and this is the binding force that holds atoms together. But because time-space is a complex curve, the electron and proton do not usually actually meet, they miss by a small amount, which is influenced by the heat energy present at that junction in the nexus.

Visualizing this (an abstration and simplification of course), the electron looks like a long string of wire comming out of the future, and the proton is like a marble trying to ride along that wire, but because the universe is complex, the wire is not strait and the various forces on the marble (which define the curved nature of the universe) make it so that as the marble is shifting to contact the wire, the wire is moving out of its way.​

Thus the exact position of the electron can never be predicted, because cause and effect are backwards for this manifestation of the particle. Because the influences on the particle before (in the future) are unknown, its actual position can never be predicted, only observed. The energy to run the system (in this example a hydrogen atom) comes from the "big bang", which under my theory is defined as the initiation of the oscillation (assuming that it was not always oscillating - another topic).

So if one were to presume that we actually exist in a universe, nothing is more than space held together by the strong and weak forces theorized by scientists. But I do not believe that even that much exists.

I agree. Those theories are unnecessarily complex. My theory is very simple by comparison, and explains the same phenomna.

Finally, what useful comes out of your propositions, assuming they are true?

If my theory is correct, it implies (amoung other things) that gravity has only the one negative force, that this force is uneffected by distance, and that it will "push" on every other particle manifestation in the universe except those blocked by an intervening particle. If this is so, that force can be tapped to provide energy for our use. All it requires is a super dense material (either ordinary or supported by an energy field). This energy would be totally clean, and without meaningful limit. To find out all we need is a small plate made out of neutronium (or some other super dense material or fabricated super dense structure), or a deep space lab with a large plate made out of iron. Spin that plate and, if my theory of the universe is true, an object will be attracted to the plate when the plate is perpendicular to the object, and will not be attracted when it is lined up in the same plane. And no, it's not "perpetual motion", somewhere a particle manifestation will be reacting to the plate for every unit of energy produced, balancing the equation. If this is in fact true, space craft could also be constructed to use this energy to "fall" in the desired direction, allowing tremendous acceleration, and the occupants of the ship would not feel the acceleration at all (though they would feel the energy used to reposition the plate when aligned in the same plane as the ship).

Finally, my theory makes predictions about future scientific observations. As I've said, it predicts that it will be found that "dark matter" is no different than normal matter, it is simply in a region of space which does not have sufficient heavy metals to kick of solar fusion in the hydrogen giants, and this can be somewhat verfied by looking at the regions and seeing if there is evidence they are indeed heavy-metal poor.

It also predicts that it will be found that a free (or realtively free) nuetron will decay into a proton and an electron (or partial electron) over time, because the neutron is in fact just an instance where the electron (moving backwards through time) and the proton (moving forwards in time) have actually intersected along the nexus ("now") for some distance of the space-time curvature. This is caused when energy is applied causing the proton path to deviate into the electron path against the curvature of space-time, but that energy is normally limited and such a union must decay (an exception might be a nuetron star, where gravitational pressure would hold the neutrons together).

Wade.

 

[wade]

Wade, Lay off the acid, bro!

You think that anyone who theorizes about such things must be on drugs?

Not really surprised, it's typical of your neoconservative mindset.

:nine:

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You think that anyone who theorizes about such things must be on drugs?

Not really surprised, it's typical of your neoconservative mindset.

:nine:

You're totally irrational. You use feelings and intuition with science. You're not deep. I mess you up when it comes to real debate and real logic.