Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science. Show all posts
Monday, May 30, 2016
Jesus, Paul Bunyan, and Santa - Similar Legends
2. Santa Claus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. Paul Bunyan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. Easter Bunny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. Ra - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
6. Tooth fairy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
7. Rosie the Riveter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thursday, February 27, 2014
I believe in the Exodus while science currently does not.
What if something came to light that said that in fact that the Exodus is true? Wouldn’t you feel terrible for having missed out on the Hashem’s truth? Perhaps, science is making a mistake with the dating methods, as we know them. Reason mandates that we can’t really know from dating things for a few years, that things have held stable over millions of years. Sure that is what scientists think now, but the final chapter in science is yet to be written. We have only been using carbon dating for about 60 years! To base our entire cosmogony of millions and billions of years of formation on 60yrs worth of data, as many scientists tell us to do is too audacious. Who knows? maybe given another hundred years of carbon dating on earth, we may have to come up with some sort of correctional constant, and what is to say that 200yrs from now we won’t come up with yet another correction, and so on. Perhaps, we should give this radioactive dating thing a million years or more of testing before we bet that the Torah is a lie.
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Science, Medicine and Religion: A Theory as To Why So Many Scientists Are Atheists
Let’s get one things straight, this is not at all to say
that scientists are dumb. In fact, in
academia I believe that despite the high amount of atheists that these scientists
and other folk with Ph. D’s. Science is
probably the discipline where among its practitioners one will find the
greatest percentage of atheists.
However, stop right there because I don’t believe being a parrot of
those cloaked in lab coats will result in gaining intelligence.
So, where is it that science has gone wrong if there is in
fact a Gd that cares about us, and a Gd that wants to see us repent? The first error I believe folks make in
disregarding the Bible is that they automatically assume that it doesn’t
describe the way creation actually is.
Not until a scientist is willing to take the Torah seriously as a
document that describes both the honky dory aspects of life as well as the
extremely negative aspects of life, such as parents eating babies will a
scientist or a doctor have their heart prepared to receive the Torah as a
primary source for knowledge about creation.
By the way I don’t believe that Gd created creation in six 24 hour days,
in fact that much seems impossible because the sun wasn’t created until the 4th
day, such that previous to that it would appear that dates and times become
uncertain.
The crux of science and medicine including religion is that
it is done without the doctor knowing about it.
The Talmud, which is Torah, tells us that if we are a healer, we
should act as if Gd does not exist when healing!!! Thus, in a way atheists are kind of doing it
right when practicing their jobs. They
do not sit on their hands and wait for Gd to heal the person, and they are foolish
for not having explored religion further by assuming this is what religionists
would think is reasonable behavior for a doctor.
IMHO that right there is the most unknown aspect about
religion that has led to academia being virtually furious toward religionists. When it comes to religionists, it can often
be said, “Don’t ask a fool his or her opinion for he or she will almost
certainly disappoint you,” and I do understand that there are far more fools
that are religionists, than there is that are doctors, but for scientists in
academia, the one’s with 150 IQs etc, there is really no excuse for lack of
knowledge. It is crucial that this
information be spread about how that when one is to operate, whether it is
surgery or a science experiment, he or she is to act as if Gd does not exist,
but also to be prepared for Gd to act upon the doctor such that the healing may
be done.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
Day – Age Creation: Five apparent problems with the 1917 JPS translation resolved.
Day – Age Creation: Five apparent problems with the 1917 JPS translation resolved.
by Craig Hamilton on Sunday, December 12, 2010 at 7:17pm
Day – Age Creation: Five apparent problems with the 1917 JPS translation resolved.
Introduction
I first wrote on this subject in an essay at my Gordon College, a Christian college. As a part of the ecology and evolution class, students were expected to pick one of the four standard theories of creation and write an essay about it. Before attending the class, I already believed in the Day – Age theory, so I chose to write on it. My Professor asked me for the references for what I wrote of in my essay, stating that they, the references, in fact already do exist, but I could not find them. I still have not found them. As far as I can tell, the only reference I need to give is the Bible, basic biology textbooks, and the fossil record.
Problem and resolution 1 – Is It Days or Ages?
In Genesis chapter 1, there are 6 ages where G-d creates the earth. There are other passages in the Bible and ancient writing that support that the word “Yom” is sometimes rendered as the word “age,” exclusive of the concept of the 24 hour day of which the translators of the 1917 JPS translation used. Day occurs in this translation in verses 5, 8 13, 14, 16, 18, 19, 23, 31. The verse numbering system for Christian Bibles is sometimes different from that of Jewish Bibles. For this essay I used a Jewish translation though I am unaware of any complete modern translation Jewish or Christian that renders the Hebrew word, “Yom,” as age in the creation story. Sometimes it must be rendered day and sometimes it must be rendered age. I will prove that much. I believe that each “day” of creation lasted millions or billions of years in duration, such that the word for “day” in this translation of Genesis is improperly rendered, and should be rendered as “age,” such that there are 6 ages of creation in Genesis chapter 1.
Problem and Resolution 2 – If Day Is Translated as Age, then Wouldn’t The Plants Have Died?
From Genesis chapter 1:
(11) And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. (12) And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (13) And there was evening and there was morning, a third day.
From Genesis chapter 1:
(17) And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, (18) and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. (19) And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
Plants came about during the 3rd age, while the sun came about on the 4th age: How can this be so? That is, plants require the sun in order to live because they undergo photosynthesis. That is, if the plants had no sunlight, then it seems likely that they would all die over the course of millions of years. However, And, no I am not suggesting something silly such as all the plants died for lack of sunlight. I suggest that this translation given by JPS lacks the elegance that it needs in order to have proper meaning. Thus, it is such that I believe in modern science’s given date for the age of planet earth, which to theologians is called, “Old earth.” There is ample evidence to support the claim that earth is old, and I need not reference it here.
Given the Day-Age theory of creation, where the Hebrew word “Yom” is translated as “Age” instead of a 24 hour day, if plants and light were separated by an age, then it follows that the Bible apparently does not make sense, such that only a single 24 hour day could have passed between the creation of plants and the creation of the sun, but not an age. There is a solution for this. It is not a problem to Day-Age Theorists. The solution to the first problem is as follows: that the plants that were created during the 3rd age where actually the ancestors of modern plants, cyanobacteria (blue–green algae), such that the ability to use light for metabolism evolved before the sun was available to create light for the cyanobacteria to use. Thus, it is such that I believe in evolution, especially in this instance where it is essential that a form of bacteria evolved over millions of years until it became more complex, such as the form of a tree. The fossil record supports that much as history.
Researchers believe that the early earth’s atmosphere was much different than the current one, making the idea of an earth unknown to the sun possible. It is true that cyanobacteria do not necessarily require light. However, they are able to use it for energy. The end meaning of the quoted passages from Genesis above therefore must mean that first the ancestors of trees where created with the ability to use energy from the sun, then millions of years later the sun appeared and that then the cyanobacteria were able to take advantage of the sunlight and in later ages continued in their evolution to what we call trees, etc,.
This is not a problem for someone who observes that Adam was the first men, while some people are black and some people are white. That is mutations caused some humans evolve to have white skin that enable humans discovering Northern Europe to be better able to survive due to the climate.
The 3rd age ended complete with the bacteria having evolved to the point where the possibilities of creating the more complex and recent photosynthesizing species could evolve. Thus, the creation that occurred during the 3rd age was sufficient to give rise to what is known in the present. G-d needed no additional creation day for trees when cyanobacteria had already been created.
In fact, most scientists will list cyanobacteria among the top 5 most important species on the planet even if it means excluding humans from the top 5. They, cyanobacteria, might be small, but they are very important indeed.
Problem and Resolution 3 – But there were no microscopes back when Genesis was first penned, how could the author have possibly known of cyanobacteria?
An anticipated objection might be that bacteria where not discovered since the invention of the microscope, such that the author of Genesis would not have had knowledge of their existence. But, that is not true. In fact, the possibility of creating a microscope and then having the knowledge of how to create it getting lost is possible. Discovery of a 70,000 year old microscope seems unlikely given the transience of modern microscope; they don’t last forever. Thus, there may have been knowledge of cyanobacteria prior to our knowledge of the creation of the modern microscope. Thus, it is such that the Torah may have had an author, such that it was not dictated by G-d. The argument of divine inspiration of the Torah is thus null and void in that it is unnecessary. However, the fact is that there is a text which carries relevant meaning, and is worthy of inspection. However, nonetheless, the Torah may have been divinely inspired by G-d such the meanings of its words would unfold to mankind. Thus, the currently known date for the creation of the microscope that could discover cyanobacteria may have been the correct one, such that the Torah is truly an inspired text that is very mystical indeed.
Problem and resolution 4 – Don’t Insects Predate Fowl in the Fossil Record?
(20) And God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' (21) And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (22) And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' (23) And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
From Genesis chapter 1:
(24) And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. (25) And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. (26) And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' (27) And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. (28) And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' (29) And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed -- to you it shall be for food; (30) and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, I have given every green herb for food.' And it was so. (31) And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.
Another apparent problem arises with the two most recent passages posted above. Something that creeps might be thought of as an insect created on the 6th age, while fowl were supposedly created on the 5th age. The fossil record however is clear that insects predate birds, an apparent problem. However, the Hebrew word translated here as “Fowl,” should be translated as “Flying insects” in verses 20 and 21. The Hebrew word in question may be transliterated as “Owph,” and elsewhere it loosely means “Flying things.” Thus, it is such that owph in the sentences above must be rendered as flying insects, where flying insects predate fowl. Additionally, the things created that “creepeth” in the 5th age are non-flying insects.
Problem 5 – The 1917 JPS Translation Is From the Department of Redundancy Department.
The fossil record shows that the descendents of insects are not fowl. Fowl descend from reptiles according to the fossil record. It thus follows that the things that “creepeth” on the 6th age are reptiles (verse 34) and actual fowl are not mentioned in the creation story. Consequently, for the traditional literalist there is a major problem when it is considered that G-d created things that creepeth twice – verses 21 and 24 – when everything else that God creates is so vastly different. That is there is no need to create things or more things that creepeth on the 6th age (verse 24) for they were already created on the 5th age (verse 21) unless it is that the things created that creepeth on the 5th and 6th ages are vastly different, and it is true that both reptiles that creepeth, such as amphibians and turtles, are vastly different from insects. So it must be concluded that the Bible, if it is true tells that insects were created during the 5th age that the things created in the 6th age were in fact reptiles.
Conclusion
The creation story in both cases fits the fossil record. Thus, it is such that the Day – Age theory is in fact the correct literal translation of Genesis chapter 1. Thus, it is such that the 24 hour day theory, which has been determined by many theologians to mean literal is in fact not correct. The current, “Literal” translation of Genesis is thus a misnomer. It is not the Literal Theory of Creation, but the errant translation of the Genesis chapter 1. Thus, it is such that the creation of the universe is not only reasonable – harmonious with the history known to scientists - but is also poetical; first there was something that was created, but it was incomplete, such that another parallel age became necessary to fill the need.
Genesis 1:1-2:3 commentaries JPS 2004 – The Jewish Study Bible (JPS) (Tanakh)
Genesis 1:1-2:3 commentaries JPS 2004 – The Jewish Study Bible (JPS) (Tanakh)
by Craig Hamilton on Sunday, January 2, 2011 at 3:42pm
Genesis 1:1-2:3 commentaries JPS 2004 – The Jewish Study Bible (JPS) (Tanakh)
Pre:
“The correlations between things created on the various days exhibit a high degree of symmetry” …
“First three” … “generalities or domains” …
“Next three” … “specifics”
“FISH/BIRDS (DAY 5)” “SKY (DAY 2)” – Conclusively, fish swim in the sky.
“Seven signifies completeness” – menorah has 7 candles, week has 7 days etc.,
“Was good or very good occurs seven times, but not on every day of the primordial week. Missing on the second and the seventh it appears twice on the third and sixth days” – Stealing has a ratio of 2:1 or 1:2. Not everything is good.
“God does function here in ways reminiscent of a Kohen” – Science is a discipline for priests.
1:1 the first word of the translation is, “when.”
1:1 the second word of the translation is, “God.”
This suggests that time and creation existed before G-d created them.
1:2 “Darkness” – A 24 hour day begins with darkness. The primordial darkness is a black hole.
“In the midrash, Bar Kappara upholds the troubling notion that God created the world out of preexistent material.”
Compare with Gen. Rab. 1:5
“In the ancient Near East, however, to say that a deity had subdued chaos is the highest praise.”
1:3 “The Big Bang” (Zohar shows medieval Cabbalists had already conceived of this idea out of their interpretation of Genesis 1.)
3-5: “Since the sun is not created until the fourth day (1:14-1:19), the light of the first three days is of a different order from what we know”
1:4 we begin to see a pattern in that G-d is powerful: that from His utterances, we are the residue of His spit.
1:5 “Day” “Night” “evening” “morning” – These were all a part of the first age (Yom). Evening and morning are a part of each age.
1:6 “Separate water” – There are layers of atmosphere, as well as layers of the ocean.
1:7 by the authority of G-d there is density, and buoyancy.
1:8 “Sky” – Liquid (water, oil, or air)
1:9 “Land” – Solids
1:10 “Earth” – Pangaea, the land is completely connected.
1:10 “Seas” but “the” – Indicates that all the Seas were connected.
1:11 “Vegetation” – This is cyanobacteria that could live without the sun. Or the ancestors of chloroplasts, an organelle within a eukaryote plant that was once a separate bacterial cell.
1:12 “Two great lights” – The sun and the moon “Stars” – Ours is not the first sun.
1:20 First there were fish. Then, there were insects, including those that are winged. These insects are, “Owph,” meaning flying things, not inclusive of birds.
1:21 “creep,” amphibians
1:24 “cattle,” mammals, then “creep” dinosaurs [Probably not “cattle,” but mammals (hairy creatures not “cattle”), such as the first monotremes (egg laying mammals, such as platypuses)] [Mammals existed in the fossil record at the same time dinosaurs supposedly walked the earth.]
26-28: “Some have seen in that commission a license for ecological irresponsibility. The fact is, however, that the Tanakh presents humanity as not the owner of nature but as its steward,”
“Be fertile and increase. In Jewish law, this is a positive commandment, although it is obligatory only on Jewish men, not women (b. Yebam. 65b)” The Lubavitcher Rebbe disagrees, and professed belief that Jews are to encourage gentile men to procreate. There is no context suggesting that this only implies Jewish males, and not all males of humankind.
1:26 “Us” – G-d is a collective singular. This possibly explains how G-d may appear both merciful and punitive. “Man” – Meaning humankind. The first creation story of Genesis 1 is exactly according to the fossil record. “Image” – That of creation in that creation is visible.
1:28 the first command of the Torah. It is for men only, and it does not imply make a baby every chance that you get. This command has been accomplished (Bill McKibben). The world population has an estimated 6 billion humans. We now need for our charity to extend to animals, such that human’s don’t crowd out the beautiful biodiversity of our planet. That is that we need to be careful not to make earth the above mentioned vast waste dump upon which G-d sits as king.
2:2 “Rested” – This is Shabbat or in other pronunciations “Shabbos.” The 7th day is never mentioned as having ended even up to the time of King David (Psalm 95:11.) The next part of the text of Genesis is another creation story with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. It is my opinion, that mankind originated in the Garden of Eden on the 6th day before G-d entered His rest. There are laws of Shabbat that require transgressing Shabbat, such as saving a life, such that it is correct to use medicine to save a life on Shabbat. Thus, it is such that if we are still in a period of the 7th age, then there is a certain degree of deism relative to G-d’s interactions with the world. Additionally, it is such that G-d might take a break to rest even if the Lord’s Sabbath has ended, which also suggests a certain degree of deism. But, deism when taken as a maxim fails to explain the world, as it is, for example, impossible to derive this creation week simply from observe of what was known about the world at the time it was first written.
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)