Pat, you just filled the void between religion and science!!! Congratulations! Amazing!
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 5:17 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 2, 2:54 am, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yes, Pat, I have thought along these lines. But not to the extent that >> you have so clearly laid out. Extraordinary, to say the least. And to >> the extent that I have contemplated these ideas, it has been my >> experiences that even in the use of the elements, the signature of God >> is there. Thank you, Pat, for sharing that! >> Edward >> > > No worries!! I just thought it sounded like the kind of thing you > might appreciate. Glad you did!! > > > God's signature...Hmmm. As there's no other Creator, it would have to > be, in some sense (like a copyright), stamped on everything, including > things as small as photons (I can't think of 'observable entities' > that are smaller). And, as we know from studying the shape, the only > thing that gives them shape, per se, is their frequency. The reult, > though, is that every frequency is, by definition, a signature of > God. Every variance in Hertz is a subtle shake of 'The Old Man's > Hand', as it were. As there is only one signatory, all signatures are > His. Even if they look so different as to, in effect, cancel one > another out!! ;-) > > > >> >> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 9:10 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Nov 30, 4:02 am, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> "When people find it more interesting to study prophecy it is much >> >> easier> than studying how to live life on a day to day basis after all it >> >> is easier >> >> > to distort and shape into what you want it to say." >> >> > >> >> > What I find very >> >> > interesting in this regard is the fact that the "coded language" of the >> >> > prophets is so closely related to the language of dreams, it's hard to >> >> > find a line that seperates the two, if there is, indeed, a point of >> >> > seperation between them. One thing that I know as a fact, is that >> >> > during the course of dreams, one may received more than simply >> >> > instructions for living. At that rate, there are directions, standards >> >> > (moral and legal), warnings, and so on for daily living found in the >> >> > prophecies. I also see that the different prophecies say a lot of the >> >> > same things, particuliarly, regarding the destruction and the end, but >> >> > in different ways; much like re- phrasing a sentence. This is where the >> >> > Words of God come alive, and live; they sound the same no matter where >> >> > they are written. As we learn, we learn that the Words of God may not >> >> > even be in words, but in feeling, still sound the same as the WORDS. >> >> > The recognition is always there, as far as I can Tell. >> >> >> Edward >> >> > Edward, have you considered that the elements themselves might be the >> > 'Words of God'? There was a piece I'd written, here, a few months >> > back that outlines a synchronicity between the parts of speech and the >> > periods of the periodic table of elements. I reckon that, when God >> > speaks, things actually happen, that is, elements interact as God's >> > sentences are voiced (for lack of a better term or analogy) and >> > continually create the unfolding world around us. Here's that piece, >> > again, so you can read it. Let me know what you think!! >> >> > This was spawned by a discussion of 'the Pen' and, as I knew how that >> > concept related to the very first revelation of the Qur'an, I started >> > my response by outlining that; but, then, I got into the actual link >> > between the parts of speech and the periodic table. >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > I thought that, since the concept of ‘The Pen’ had been discussed, >> > that I might take this opportunity to mention a couple of things. >> > Firstly, the concept of ‘The Pen’ and how it relates to ‘The Word of >> > God’ might be obvious to some but not others. It was a concept that >> > was revealed in the very first Revelation to the Prophet Mohammed >> > (pbuh). >> > The first 5 lines of Surah 96 (Al Alaq [the Clot]) were the very >> > first lines revealed and here they are: >> >> > 96:1 Read! In the name of your Lord and Cherisher, who created >> > Iqra! Bismi rabbika-lladhi khalaq >> >> > 96:2 Created man from a clot of congealed blood. >> > Khalaq-al-insana min alaq >> >> > 96:3 Read! And your Lord is Most Bountiful >> > Iqra! Wa Rabbuka-al-Akram >> >> > 96:4 He who taught by the Pen >> > Alladhi allama bil-qalam >> >> > 96:5 Taught man that which he knew not. >> > Allam al insana ma lam ya lam. >> >> > If you read the transliterated Arabic above, you can get a feel >> > for the rhythm and the rhyme that simply doesn’t come across in the >> > translation. The entire Qur’an of 6,616 verses is like that. That’s >> > why it was easy to learn for native Arabic speakers, who were used to >> > oral traditions and story-telling. Also, the word Qur’an means >> > ‘recital’, as it was intended to be spoken, as it was, originally, >> > revealed to a man, The Prophet Mohammed (pbuh), who was illiterate. >> > And no one has been able since, to create any poetry like it—not in >> > rhythm, rhyme and depth of meaning. >> > It dawned on me, over the weekend, that there is another analogy >> > between ‘The Pen’, ‘The Word of God’, language and matter itself. It >> > has been a part of Jewish, Christian and Islamic doctrine that God >> > created the universe via His ‘Word’. But what, exactly, IS His Word? >> > Let’s look at language and see how it relates to matter. I think >> > sentences act like molecules. Each one has a particular purpose, >> > structure and quality. Yet they are made of words. That makes words >> > akin to atoms. But atoms are further divided into the sub-atomic >> > particles of hadrons and leptons like words are comprised of letters >> > which are either consonants or vowels. Yet even letters can be viewed >> > as being made of lines, either straight or curved. Here is an >> > allusion to String Theory and the concept of closed and open strings. >> > Also, atoms (words) fall into 8 periods in the Periodic Table of >> > Elements. These are, in a way, akin to the 8 parts of speech: nouns, >> > verbs, pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, conjunctions, prepositions and >> > interjections. Yet some elements fall into transitional groups. >> > Theses would be akin to the concepts of participles and gerunds. A >> > participle is a verb-like word that acts like an adjective, e.g., the >> > word ‘sinking’ in the sentence: “Every time I see the film ‘Titanic’, >> > I get a certain sinking feeling. The word ‘sinking’, although it is a >> > verb, acts as an adjective to describe the word ‘feeling’ and is, >> > technically, a participle. The word ‘feeling’ in that sentence, >> > although it is a verb, acts like a noun and is, technically, a >> > gerund. These are transitional parts of speech where one type of word >> > acts as a different part of speech than it may appear. >> > So, let’s map out the parts of speech to the Periodic Table based >> > on Semitic language. Firstly, it’s easy to see that interjections >> > stand alone and do not combine with other parts of speech; therefore, >> > the interjection is Period 8 (The Inert or Noble gases). All Semitic >> > languages have their root words as verbs. Verbs are conjugated, have >> > tenses, number and person. They are the most configurable and seem >> > the most likely to sit at Period 1, as the Period 1 atoms combine with >> > other atoms the most. Period 2, then, would seem to be nouns. In >> > Semitic languages, nouns are formed from their root verb stems because >> > every action implies an actor. Also, after Period 2 are the >> > Transitional Elements. These are the verb forms that act as either >> > nouns (gerunds) or adjectives (participles). Following that logic, at >> > the other end of the Transitional Elements is Period 3, which must be >> > the adjectives. Now, we have to go back to the other end of the >> > table. Pronouns stand for specific nouns, that is, they each have a >> > single antecedent, a noun upon which they depend. This seems akin to >> > the Period 7 Halogen group as they can only combine with one other >> > atom. Period 6 has two open places for connection with ‘others’ and >> > so seems to fit in well with the concept of a conjunction, which links >> > two ‘other’ things together. The Period 5 group has three open places >> > for connection and seems a best fit for the concept of the preposition >> > which can relate one object to another either directly or indirectly >> > or both. That leaves Period 4 as the adverbs. And each period is >> > covered and directly corresponds to a part of speech. If you think >> > I’ve left out the ‘article’, then think again. The Lanthanide group >> > is most akin to the ‘definite article’, as they are all (well, with >> > the single exception of Promethium) non-radioactive and are stable >> > elements. This leaves the Actinide group to be representative of the >> > ‘indefinite article’ as they are all radio-active and unstable and, in >> > that respect, indefinite, because they are unstable. And now, all >> > parts of speech are covered by their corresponding aspect of the >> > Periodic Table of Elements. >> > It is my hypothesis that God creates through these words or >> > elements and it is on that basis that the concept of ‘The Pen’ relates >> > to how God creates. This completes the examples of how God’s creative >> > Word can be analogous to fermions, that is, the hadrons and leptons >> > that comprise atoms/elements. >> > Yet there are subtle inferences that are implied. For example, >> > the pen and the voice are the forces behind written and spoken >> > language. And, of course, in each case, there must be an author and a >> > speaker. These are other forces that act behind the pen and the >> > voice. So, there are four forces behind this creative ability that >> > are analogous to the four bosonic forces of electro-magnetism, >> > gravity, and the weak and strong atomic forces. Of all of these, the >> > analogy of ‘The Pen’ to the electro-magnetic force is the most obvious >> > because a pen is useless without ink. So, as the ink goes with the >> > pen, the electric and magnetic forces are always found together. The >> > voice, then, must be most analogous to gravity, as it is unseen but >> > moves us in ways unimaginable. This leaves the weak and strong forces >> > being analogous to the author (weak) and the speaker (strong). I >> > believe that the spoken word is more powerful than the written word >> > simply because one must learn to read in order for the written word to >> > be understood, whereas hearing is all that is required for the spoken >> > word to be comprehended. Put another way, an illiterate individual >> > can be moved by the spoken word but not by the >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
