Seems to me that what is beneficial toward man (human) is going to be for the glory of God. So be encouraged, Pat, and the best of wishes to you on the project!
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 4:35 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Dec 3, 12:09 am, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: >> Pat, you just filled the void between religion and science!!! >> Congratulations! Amazing! >> > > Well, the whole idea of the book I'm working on is to present a model > of physics in which God falls out of the equations. Originally, I was > looking for a way to solve the EPR effect's inconsistency with the > Standard Model and thought that String Theory might hold the answer. > It was then I discovered that one particular configuration of String > Theory's 'Calabi-Yau' space offered the answer. If only one of those > 6 dimensions is EXACTLY the Planck-length in length, that forces all > the strings of the universe to join at that point, as the Planck- > length is the 'effective' point size in out universe. With only one > point avaliable in that dimension, it offers an anchoring point for > all strings. That configuration implies that the entire universe is > one single object of stringy energy joined at that point, which is, of > course, outside our line of sight. It's always just around a > dimensional corner that we can NEVER see around. But, if the universe > is comprised of a single entity (that is comprised of stringy energy): > 1) that entity is everywhere where energy is, throughout all space- > time, thus omnipresent > 2) as there is only one actor in the system, responsible for > performing every act, that entity is, for all intents and purposes, > omnipotent > 3) irrespective of HOW consciousness works (Although I have more > detail on that, in THIS regard it doesn't really matter), as there is > only one actor in the system, all consciousness is of that entity, > thus the entity is omniscient. > > So, with one single (perfectly allowable!!) geometric tweak, String > Theory offers an argument that the universe could well be God, as it > describes an entity which is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient-- > the classical definition of deity. > > That's the 'essence' of the theory, but, of course, there are many > more details that I haven't even mentioned. At present, I'm working > towards having it published near the end of 2012. Granted, it's part > of a marketing ploy playing on the hopes that the end of the Mayan > Calendar will bring a 'new understanding' of the universe to > mankind...and I want that to be my book. Not, as some might think, > for my glory, but for God's. That is, to help push those who may be > in doubt to have a firmer foundation upon which to rest their > thoughts. > > Cheers, > > Pat > >> >> >> 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 >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text -
