Ask yourself these two questions:
It is well known now that the universe is expanding. As the universe changes size, will its expansion cause physical laws to evolve, such that a universe’s physical laws (non-Torah laws) are impermanent and in need continual reevaluation? This may not seem obvious at first, but when asking: Do scientists claim that the laws of our universe existed prior to its creation? It becomes apparent that the physical laws, meaning non-Torah laws, which govern our universe are not absolute and that they had to have evolved as the universe chronologically expands from nothing. This must be the explanation for the mathematical discrepancies between the physics of the large and quantum reality (physics of the small.) IMHO, as we enter the age of Moshiach the physical laws the govern the universe will continue toward perfection and ease of use.
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label physics. Show all posts
Sunday, February 8, 2015
Thursday, February 10, 2011
On The Manifestation of Light and Darkness
y Craig Hamilton on Saturday, November 27, 2010 at 4:56pm
On The Manifestation of Light and Darkness
One problem that has perplexed many physicists is that when you ask light a particle question, it gives a particle answer, and when you give light a wave question, it gives a wave answer.
First, forget anything you might know about physics.
How can light be both a particle and a wave? There is a simple yet profound answer. Light comes or goes from a Source as particles. Light comes or goes from a Source in waves. The same is true of darkness. It comes or goes from a Source in particles. It comes or goes from a Source in waves in the same way a boat might travel through water causing waves, which are made of particles, and additionally there are properties of waves such as canceling and doubling. Both light and darkness may even change direction. Because light and darkness may change direction, it can be observed that black holes emit a bit of light. The source of the light emitted from a black hole is due to a change of a particle emitted from a light source toward a black hole that has redirected out of the black hole’s pull. Darkness comes and goes in waves of particles, which is the same as particles of waves. Light comes and goes of waves of particles, which is the same as particles of waves. So while darkness is the absence of light, light is also the absence of darkness.
Both light and darkness, and their intermediates need a Source. The Source was once variable, having infinite possibilities. Now since the Source of the universe is outside the universe there may not be any possibilities. Possibilities are probably just mixing currents that are patterns so elaborate that they elude our thinking, giving the appearance of randomness. Light leaves its source in waves of particles, which is the same as particles of waves. Darkness leaves its Source in particles of waves, which is the same as waves of particles.
The greatest source of light known is a sun. The greatest source known of darkness is a black hole. Black holes eat light. Suns eat darkness. However, it is the Source that is the light that illumines lights, like the sun, and it is the Source created darkness that causes darkness, like a black hole. As my son said, “It is darking.” Children often say profound things. Black holes are darking. That is while the darking is technically not a word, while the sun is lighting, a black hole is darking.
The Source and its qualities are imagined outside of reality. It becomes and is whatever you create it to be. Contradictions collapse in imagination, resulting in a poorly imagined Source. The Source is both in our bodies and of our bodies, as everything we know is grayness, as neither suns nor black holes are absolute.
Women are not obligated to imagine a Source.
There may be some objection to the idea that the Source is variable. After all, is not God, “Unchangeable (Exodus 3:14 ["the unchanging, eternal, self-existent God," the "I am that I am," {Easton’s Bible Dictionary – see entry Jehovah}]), and Guide for the Perplexed by Moses Maimonides translated by M. FRIEDLANDER, PH.D [“The result of the above argument is consequently this: the sphere cannot move ad infinitum of its own accord; the Prime Motor is not corporeal, nor a force residing within a body; it is One, unchangeable, and in its existence independent of time.”])?
- As support to the idea that God is not corporeal and that conceiving of Jesus being God is sinful for Jews, see Exodus 20:3, 4, and 5, such that there is probably (see Deuteronomy 34:7) constraint on the variability of the Source.December 4, 2010 at 9:50pm ·
- Craig HamiltonIt is also possible that the patriarch Terah is the last so far, patriarch 9 (Genesis 11:24), in a sequence of 10 patriarchs since the flood that generated the Torah (Pentateuch [it is possibly a Hexateuch or more if Joshua or more is includible]), as legend had it that Terah sold idols (see Genesis Rabba 38) and the “e” and “a” of Terah are vowels, just as the “o” and “a” are vowels, as vowels are usually removable in order to determine meaning of a word, giving credence to the idea that Abram or Abraham was not legitimately the tenth generation patriarch since the flood described by Noah, especially since with Abram or Abraham there is no destruction of the world scenario, as would be expected (see Antiquities of the Jews by Flavius Josephus). This possibly calls almost all into question.December 4, 2010 at 9:50pm ·
- Craig HamiltonSomething can be both variable and unchanging at the same time. To create darkness and then light requires some variability on the part of the Source, unchanging in its variability. It took variability for the Source to emanate the ten utterances that created the universe, and then the utterances were as the changing spit of the Almighty that created all. Then again there was unchanging variability for six of the Source’s days, then the Source remains constant on the seventh day still unchanging in variability (Genesis 2:2, 2:3 and Joshua [comment: The seventh day of God is never mentioned to have ended]), as from light and darkness everything else was created and on the seventh day the Source rests.December 4, 2010 at 9:50pm ·
- Craig Hamilton Consequently, every biblical day’s light and darkness and timing need not necessarily be equivalent, such that the Hebrew word, “Yom,” can be rendered with several meanings including “day” and “age.” As proof, it is true that in the Bible the word, “Yom,” is rendered in translation elsewhere, meaning not within the text of Genesis 1, as either “day” or “age” or some derivation of these words loosely consisting of an idea inclusive of time.December 4, 2010 at 9:51pm ·
- Craig HamiltonIt therefore follows that Adam, the first man and “humankind,” was created on day six of the creation week (Genesis 1:26), and that day 7 of the creation week may not have yet ended, think deism, but where God is not dead on the 7th day, bu...See MoreDecember 4, 2010 at 9:51pm ·
- Craig Hamilton For humans there is currently a cycle of 24 hour days, subject to change, such that we should know of the concept of a cycling six 24 hour days of work preceding a 24 hour day of rest (Exodus 16:23).December 4, 2010 at 9:52pm ·
Trashing Quantum Physics (Chabad) AND On the Finite Universe (Fresh Air)
Trashing Quantum Physics (Chabad) AND On the Finite Universe (Fresh Air)
by Craig Hamilton on Saturday, January 22, 2011 at 4:00pm
Trashing Quantum Physics (Chabad) AND On the Finite Universe (Fresh Air)
Some of my collected comments at www.chabad.org
Most popular names in science, philosophy, and what not have some truth. There is a lot of sifting to do, but there is usually something there. For example, I am completely against the popularity of quantum physics. However, that is not to say that there are no uses for the study of quantum physics. The tyranny of the exactness of this foolish mathematical religion is stupid. In that range, it is hard to tell what influences what. With the rout use of the scientific method, this would most likely never have occurred. Eventually, either the math crumbles in exactness or the experimenter realizes the spiritual forces that allow these experiments to occur, with or without the scientific method.
Quantum physics is essentially variable matrix reality, which easily suffices to create science fiction.
2 and 3. One example; there are no straight lines in biology and everything else for that matter. Everything at the minute level becomes subject to trivial electromagnetic mixing currents, which might be called spiritual forces; inclusive of an idea such as whether or not one is blessed. That is, having a GPS is not enough. It also has to work for you. If there is not enough resistance in circuit between you and the GPS, it is likely to collapse and getting you nowhere.
The "straight lines" I mention are literal. The only place a straight line actually exists is in imagination. They can also be calculated with the mathematical formula y = mx + b, but they aren't realistic.
Take for instance a bow and arrow. The string, when pulled tight is a straight line, no? No, it is not a straight line because it is subject to density/buoyancy. That is, because the string is a more dense liquid, then air, also a liquid, the string becomes curved, as part of it sinks more than other parts. That is, I also disagree when science calls air a gas. Air is a liquid. Throw out gravity too. That is what got us in this mess.
The evidence of the electromagnetic mixing currents may be observed by simply pouring water through a funnel. The swirl is an elaborate pattern that is a mixing current. The swirl is an electrical current. It is not quantum indeterminacy that causes the results of your quantum physics experiments, but complex electromagnetic mixing current.
I am not the only one that criticized gravity. Einstein criticized his own theory. He sought to disprove it because thought it was wrong. If you consider him to be just anybody...
The point of the straight line argument was to show you that mathematical representations are not even close to full proof. I shouldn't use math to disprove math, as you wanted me to do. Perhaps, it is because we humans have DNA based on a four letter alphabet that we can understand the concept of a straight line or math in imagination. It takes an alphabet or 2 to understand math. It arises from a discontinuous mind.
And you are wrong about water pouring through a funnel not being an electrical current. Water is a bent molecule where negative charge collects near the oxygen of it, such that it is negative near the center and positive at the ends.. Water is most certainly charged. It's properties, such as the swirl when you pour it through a funnel arise because of charge.
You ask me to give a firm mathematical foundation where the very nature of the foundation of quantum physics, the one you believe (believed?), while rooted in mathematics, is not firm and is doublethink. Reasonably, if the nature of quantum physics is rooted in mathematics, then mathematics is not a firm foundation, especially if you believe in quantum physics.
“One of the few perceptive readers of Planck’s early quantum theory papers was the junior patent examiner in Bern, Albert Einstein. To Einstein, the postulate of the energy elements was vivid and real, if appalling, “as if the ground had been pulled from under one, with no firm foundation seen anywhere upon which one could have built.” As it happened, the search for a “firm foundation” occupied Einstein for the rest of his life.” - William H. Cropper
“Everything in the quantum world occurs at random and there is no direct cause for quantum events.” – Roland Omnes
What does, “God does not play dice,” mean to you?
Search the New York Times database for the word, "Gravity." You will come up with at least four articles that question it. The most recent is a 2010 article.
[The 2010 article says that based upon the calcutions of Stephen Hawking, the idea of gravity is actually thermodynamics.]
- · Fresh Air with Terry Gross
Time to put on your thinking caps folks. On Monday, we're going to dive deeply into the possibility that parallel universes exist. Your homework: study and understand string theory, by Monday morning. Oh, who am I kidding? Physicist Brian Greene is going to walk us through what he studies, what it means, and why it could mean parallel universes exist.
My First Comment:
The universe is finite. Go into a room. Shut off the lights. It is dark. At nighttime we see that it is dark. Given that, what reason do we have to believe that the universe is not contained? Matter darks the universe. Grey matter is the matter that is reflecting light. The lights in the sky are probably links to other universes.
My Second Comment:
More on the same subject. Sometimes we see what is outside our eye, while sometimes we see inwards, thought, our mind's eye. We see both waves of darkness and waves of light and their intermediates. When we see a star what we are seeing ...is a portal to the inside and the outside, in the same way that when we see an eye, what we are seeing is a portal to the inside and outside. Both light and darkness are portals made up of electromagnetic mixing currents, which are ox/redox reactions. Matter emits darkness.Light receives darkness.
last, if you like this check out my note/blog "On The Manifestation of Light and Darkness"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)