|
This site is about Quantum physics proving religious
beliefs about Creation to be right, and about the spirit, the soul, angels,
gods, fallen angels, demons and Aliens.
|
||||
| and yes | ||||
|
This site is about Quantum physics proving religious
beliefs about Creation to be right, and about the spirit, the soul, angels,
gods, fallen angels, demons and Aliens.
|
||||
| and yes | ||||
|
Last update April 1 2012 Deze pagina in het Nederlands |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Universe at 379.000 years of age. The Universe looks like a flattened ball swimming in an ocean of nothingness, and does seem to have something of an egg shape, as in the "Egg of Brahma". Of course you wouldn't be able to look at it from the outside, because its light wouldn't have reached you yet; the picture would be black, but it is an egg shape all the same complete with yoke and shell. Also, space itself wouldn't have reached you yet, is what they say, although according to some theories, entire universe-bubbles may coexist next to ours, which at least suggests the possibility to be on the outside of this universe. The only thing that would keep us from going there is the speed limit. You wouldn't be able to get there, because, they've always taught us that it is impossible to exceed the speed of light. The fact aside that the outer stars are not moving away that fast, it now turns out that it is possible after all. Some scientists were already theorizing about faster than light particles they called Tachyons. Steven Hawking himself says that by the time the Cosmos was ten minutes old, it was already thousands of light years in diameter. And then of course there is the Hyper-inflation theory that claims that the universe itself expanded to the better part of its size in a trillionth of a trillionth of a second, which of course is way, and I mean WAY faster than the speed of light. "Yeah, but that was before time even existed and the laws of physics didn't apply". But that doesn't matter really, does it? One moment the universe doesn't exist and the next moment it's there, albeit it an expanding one.
It is indeed as if some God in His heaven uttered a Word and as He spoke, it became Reality. At least that's how our ancestors would describe it.
Our Universe turns out to be an ideal place for life to evolve. For every constant factor of physics goes that the values may not differ to much (at all) since otherwise stars, planets and life it self would not have been able to evolve. If the Gravity constancy had been just a little lower, planets, stars and clusters would not have been formed because particles wouldn't have had time to cluster and would have faded into space. If the gravity constancy had been just a little higher, stars would have collapsed under their own weight into black holes and in either way, life would have been impossible. We were always taught that in the universe it is gravity, that keeps everything together. It is caused by matter; the planets, the stars and star-cluster and such, but it is known for over 80 years now that there aren't nearly enough stars and planets in this Cosmos to be accountable for this. Fritz Zwicky as far back as the thirties already knew that all the stars and planets put together in the Coma cluster he was studying, could never account for the gravitational pull they were supposed to deliver. And they still don't know what causes it. So either there has to be a lot of undetected matter between the stars, they would call "Dark Matter" or Newton and Einstein go right out the window. Their laws that is. But even if you add this Dark Matter you come up short 70%. Well what then? Dark Energy maybe? They're still in the dark about that. Fact is though that there has to be some other force or power accountable for regulating the expansion of the universe exactly enough for us to exist at all. Organic molecules are our main ingredient. Carbon atoms are formed inside the sun, but only when they have a certain level of energy that would be influential to the output of its fusion reactions (Fred Hoyle). Protons are 1831 times heavier than electrons. Nobody knows why, because there is no law to determine that, but if the mass ratio had been just a little different, no stable atoms would have been formed, or at least not in this diversity. No atoms; no molecules; no life, no nothing. No physical life anyway. So life is only possible in a universe in which the constant factors of physics have particular values. Ours is a very fine tuned universe indeed. Considering the necessity of the constant factors of physics to be exact for life to evolve, there seems only room for one kind of universe. If there are other universes somewhere, they too will have to be just as perfect. Stars are like giant factories. The sun produces the energy we need to live and the very same process that causes the stars to shine also happens to make materials like oxygen, carbon and iron, vital building blocks for life as we know it. This of course has nothing to do with a lack of order; irregularity, imperfection and plain luck as it is often explained, but more with cause and effect. With all due respect, Mr. Hawking, but expressions like "a long and remarkable run of good luck", "chance" and "accidents" as a scientific explanation of our existence in this universe seem a bit thin for a scientist of your repute. Or maybe you too are just fishing in the dark. Without a lantern that is. Just because this universe mathematically seen might have started by accident doesn't mean that it did. "With all these atoms moving around in space, if you give it enough time it could happen just by chance it might". Or so they say. Even in this expanding universe? "If you wait long enough for all the oxygen molecules to be on the far side of the room it might just happen someday". Really? Would snooker billiard balls scattered across the table suddenly go back to the racked formation they had in the beginning after hitting them with the cue ball? Maybe if you shook the table long enough? It would need a pretty big fluctuation in time-space to allow the universe to happen by chance and it has been mathematically proven by Sir Arthur Eddington that the bigger the fluctuation has to be for something to happen by chance, the unlikelier it is that it's going to happen. Just like in the "oxygen" room, there might be a very small spot where there's no oxygen molecules for a brief moment, but the chance that all the oxygen molecules are going to be on the far side of the room just by accident is zero. Chance is not an option here. Although the terms "cause and effect" are typical scientific terms, scientists are reluctant to apply them to the origin of our universe because they point to a law, or (the horror) even a dominant willpower behind it all, which might indicate the existence of a God. So, to avoid God in all of this, the Multiverse, the Multi-universe was invented, in which ALL possibilities were available and ours, obviously, would be the one that won, the one we're in. "See, matter has positive energy and gravity has negative energy, so you can make a universe for nothing. Would cost you nothing. You could even make an infinite number of universes." Well I'd like to see you try. At CERN alone they've already spent over 10 Billion Dollars just to try and produce a single particle. If the universe started out with energies cancelling each other out, ( like two locomotives pushing against each other), it didn't start out with nothing. It started with energies. Who brought in those energies? And let's say you'd be able to make a universe. Wouldn't that mean that it had a creator? "But there was no pre-existing time. God must have existed before the Big Bang, but there was no -Before the Big Bang-." Well, maybe not in this universe, but if you suggest that one universe after another has been "popping into existence, you simply cannot rule out time, can you? Or space for that matter if you want them to "bump in" to each other. It would mean that there is time and space outside and apart from our universe. Even if there's only one universe. And if you would indeed produce a universe, would that mean that there was no time before it? Time outside our universe may be completely different from how we perceive time inside it. At least that's what people say who had Near Death experiences. I don't know if it's clever to keep this kind of information out of your Theory of EVERYTHING, just because it doesn't fit your paradigm, Mr. Hawking. That you don't believe in God doesn't mean he doesn't exist. Time inside our universe started when God inflated this universe we're in, AS IF it were a balloon in his hand. Do not make the mistake of thinking that God is restricted to this universe, because you would be assuming that God came into existence along with our universe. He already existed. God is infinite, our universe is not. Not if it started somewhere and not if it's inflating, it's not. How can a balloon be infinite? Or a rising loaf of raisin bread? It's Unimaginably big. It's vastness is beyond comprehension. That's for sure but everything that has a beginning has an end. It begins in the middle and ends at the edge. Or the other way around, whatever pleases you. Unless of course, it has always been here. But then the whole Big Bang theory goes out the window. There may be other dimensions, about nine, ten or eleven or so, (nine above and fourteen below) but research shows that at the core everything is "one dimension", a (straight) line if not Zero-dimensional, an infinetely small point (as from where our universe is said to have expanded). It is probably the same with universes. An infinite number of universes would mean that somewhere there's a physical universe, with a version of you that would be like superman or superwoman and the rest would be the same. Not just Earth but the whole universe. There even would be a physical universe where a version of you had scrambled eggs for breakfast in stead of cereals and all the rest of that universe would be the same as ours, including our past and future. But what would be the point? Not to mention the unavoidable infinite number of dead universes; failed attempts to produce life. Why this gigantic waste of energy? Nature doesn't waste anything so why would the universe itself be any different?
The
very fact that we are here proves that there could have been no
other outcome. The values set to be exact, sooner point to a
design plan set in
motion by a Creator;
set in motion by God. According to the theory of the
Anthropic Principle
, the very fact that we are here, implies that
it was meant to be so.
Chaos;
etymology; "gaping void," from L.
chaos, from Gk.
khaos
"abyss, that which gapes wide open, is vast and empty,"
from
khnuos, from PIE base
*gheu-, *gh(e)i- "to gape" (cf. Gk
khaino "I yawn,") O.E.
ginian, O.N.
ginnunga-gap. Meaning "utter confusion" is extended from
theological use of chaos for
"the void at the beginning of creation" in Vulgate version of Genesis. The Gk.
for "disorder" was
tarakhe, however the use of
chaos here was rooted in Hesiod
("Theogony"), who
describes khaos as the primeval
emptiness of the Universe, begetter of Erebus ("Darkness") and Nyx ("Night"),
and in Ovid ("Metamorphoses"),
who opposes
Khaos to Kosmos;
"the ordered Universe."
www.etymonline.com/
Chaos isn't what we think it is!
The word Chaos carries in it;
-vast open
emptiness- as well as -disorder-
(the Soup of Particles of the Big Bang Theory) which seems like a contradiction
in terms. The reason for this may be that the word was confused with the Hebrew
word "Kaos", which means "angry", in combination with the Biblical "Tohu
and Bohu"; formless and
empty, the state that the primordial world was in.
And the world
(eretz = earth, ground and world)
was
formless and empty; and
darkness was upon the face of the deep. Ge.1:2
In mathematics, chaos theory describes the behavior of certain
dynamical systems – that is, systems whose states evolve with time –
that may exhibit dynamics that are highly sensitive to initial
conditions (popularly referred to as the
butterfly effect).
As a result of this sensitivity, which manifests itself as an
exponential growth of perturbations in the initial conditions, the
behavior of chaotic systems appears to be random.
This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that
their future dynamics are fully defined by their initial conditions,
with no random elements involved. This behavior is known as
deterministic chaos, or simply chaos. ...Systems
that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly
in some sense;
this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common
parlance, which suggests complete disorder. (Wikipedia)
What it actually says here is that
every effect has its cause and every effect works itself out in an orderly
fashion that only
seems
to be chaotic in the eyes of the beholder, but has a clearly defined structure.
Back in the sixties Edward
Lorenz already knew that though the initial state of events may seem unrelated
and random, eventually a pattern emerges and in the end all the peaces fit
together. Some phenomena only appear random but have in fact an element of
regularity that can be described mathematically.
Even in what we call Chaos; the
primordial world, the present world already was detectable for whoever would
have had an eye for it. There was no disorder. The world
just hadn't manifested itself yet.
All manifestations come out of
the unmanifest state of Prakriti at the arrival of Brahma's day,
and they again merge into the same
(unmanifest)
Prakriti at the coming of Brahma's night.
Bhagavad-Gita 8.18
Some try to apply the
second law of thermodynamics
on the universe; entropy
(disorder) tends to increase (or stays the same) in a closed
system. You go from low entropy to high entropy; our universe is either supposed
to stay in the same orderly state or get more and more disordered.
Sean Carroll, theoretical
physicist on
www.ted.com argues that
things naturally become messier. You go from orderly, low entropy to disorderly,
high entropy, the other one never happens. So there wasn't chaos at all in the
beginning. Right in the beginning there was a lot of stuff concentrated in a
very delicate arrangement in a very low entropy. Right now he says there is a
high entropy and he does this while moons evolve around planets evolving around
suns evolving around central cores of the galaxies evolving around the central
"sun" of the universe, all pointing at a very low entropy indeed. Not to mention
the self containing system of life that evolved here on Earth. Even if there's
order (humans aside) here on earth, he says, in the big picture it's
all chaos and it's all going back to the low entropy that there was in the
beginning; when our universe falls apart in a very smooth flare of atoms (a
heat death). So first there was order, then there is the chaos we're in
and after this everything will be order again. Man if that's not turning things
upside down, I don't know what is. It completely disagrees with the second law
of thermodynamics which states that things will get messier over time. The
second law of thermodynamics could only apply to the universe if during and
after the Big Bang it was in a state of highest order that is gradually
dissolving into a somewhat lesser order and eventually falls apart in complete
disorder. That would make sense. The chaos would be the
rubble that remains in the end.
Scientists often wonder;
Why did the universe have such a
low entropy when it started?
Such high order. Why indeed.
What do you think.
Every effect
has its cause; the "flapping wings of a
butterfly
in Brazil may eventually cause a tornado in Texas", goes the theory. A small
change in the initial condition of the system may cause a chain of events
leading to large-scale phenomena. Had the butterfly not flapped its wings, the
trajectory of the system might have been vastly different.
OK !?!
Soup of Particles?
Imagine the effect of a Big Bang,
in which, according to these theories, the entire universe was already
predetermined, ...
us included, and
Tell me again you don't believe in God.
* ..
So, all matter has its origin in what we call the Big Bang. Matter, or; 'Earth, dust and flesh", to use some Biblical terms for it, is an arrangement of molecules. Molecules are made up of atoms that "look a bit like" miniature solar systems. A while back the common persuasion among scientists was that at least the core was solid matter; because there had to be matter to make up this material world. But it turns out they were wrong. That idea had to be adjusted repeatedly over the years and right now the current dogma is that at least 99.99999% of the atom is nothing; empty space, leaving only 0,00001% solid matter. If you compressed all the matter of the Earth together it would leave an incredibly heavy solid peace of matter the size of a rice grain they say. But it's not even that much. Atoms consist of a core, a nucleus of Protons and Neutrons that's wrapped in electrons with a space between them comparable to the distance between the sun and the earth, all in proportion of course and all the components keep "popping in and out of existence". Neutrons and Protons (called Nucleons) form the core, the Nucleus of the Atom, and supposedly consist of "red" "green" and "blue", “up” and “down” Quarks that have no size at all. So the atom which (persisting in the dogma that there has to be solid matter somewhere in it) is said to contain 99.99999% empty space and 0.00001% solid matter, but consists of particles made of Zero-dimensional quarks that don't have any size at all. After doing the math on that myself, I think it's safe to say that an atom is a full 100% empty space with a whole lot of energy in it, a whole lot of activity, but not a grain of solid matter in the entire world. Molecules, atoms, Nuclei, Particles, stabile or not aren't little balls of matter but are made of nothing but energy. I tell you; THERE EXISTS NO MATTER IN ITSELF. All Matter originates and exists only because of a force, that induces atom-particles to vibrate, and holds them together in the most tiny solar system of the Atom. Max Planck Electrons belong to the lepton class particles that include the electron, muon, tau and their antiparticles, and the neutrino and antineutrino associated with each of these particles. These “particles” actually are (behave like) waves or fields of energy; these wavelike properties of electrons are utilized in the electron microscope and other devices. Neutrons will last about seventeen minutes in free state before they fade out, Protons will last a lot longer, about a thousand years they say, (though no one has ever timed it), but they still consist of the same Quarks that are (behave like) fields or waves of energy. (Wave/Particle Duality) Sometimes they seem to have a mind of their own. Sometimes particles appear and disappear at will. Sometimes they exist at two places at the same time (Superposition). Is it any wonder that they come up with names like “up”, “down”, “truth”, “beauty”, “charm” and “strange” for these Quarks, that appear to be the very fabric of dreams and thoughts. Fredrikson and Jändel of the Royal Technological Institute in Stockholm in 1982 published an article about the deuteron having a devilish brother called the Demon-nuclei, consisting of three di-quarks, resulting in an exotic new form of matter where there in no distinction to be made between protons and neutrons. Not to mention the famous God particle they are looking for at the moment. Many more “particles” were named, and more and more were invented, such as the "Virtual Particles" that are used to explain static force fields, such as a simple electric or magnetic fields. The electromagnetic force, for instance, is mediated by the photon, the basic quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The strong force is mediated by the gluon, the weak force by the W and Z particles, and gravity is thought to be mediated by the graviton, which is a completely hypothetical particle all together. As if this weren't enough, it is thought that all particles, Photons, Electrons and Gravitons have counterparts named Sparticles (super symmetric particles). Because they desperately hold on to a Newtonian idea that the world is a material place, they keep on thinking in particles, describing to them properties like Superposition, Wave/Particle Duality twin particles, Entanglement, (when one particle reacts on what's happening with its counterpart no matter the distance, which was called "spukhafte Fernwirkung" by Einstein; spooky remote effect) and Bose-Einstein Condensates (when different particles seem to be unified into one state, governed by one wave function), and probability waves. And while trying to squeeze all this into the frame of a material universe, they keep inventing more and more particles and then some. A particle for each different property they run into.
Still, in the end, it all comes down to this; There are no material particles. It is all Energy; it is all "Light"; it is all Spirit.
There is progress though because the latest thing is that there are no particles anymore but little rays or one-dimensional snares of energy "D-branes" and magical "M branes" that form those particles. According to string theory, absolutely everything in the universe—all of the particles that make up matter and forces—is comprised of tiny vibrating fundamental strings. Moreover, every one of these strings is identical. The only difference between one string and another, whether it's a heavy particle that is part of an atom or a massless particle that carries light, is its resonant pattern, or how it vibrates. All objects, not just fundamental strings, have resonant patterns associated with them. Pluck the string of a violin and you hear mainly one tone. This is the string's fundamental resonant pattern, or frequency. And the instrument's resonance doesn't stop there. The body of the violin has resonant frequencies, which work to amplify the sound created by the vibrating string. There's resonance in everything. Your desk has resonant frequencies, and so does a flagpole, and so does the Earth. (ref) It appears as if everything we know, including ourselves, consists of vibrations, frequencies and harmonic resonances as in music and "chantings"... or the Spirit of God vibrating over the deep. * Someone once compared matter with a library. The library contains books on shelves, the books contain chapters and paragraphs that are made up out of sentences that are made up out of words and the words are made up out of letters. So, he said, the letters form the words and the words form the sentences and the sentences form the paragraphs and chapters and they all form the books of the library. As if it all started with letters. He forgot to ask WHY. Why are there words in a book? Certainly not because the letters formed words by chance, accidents or a long and remarkable run of good luck. My guess would be that someone wanted to realize an idea. First he formed an idea in his mind or a story, then he put it in words and the idea crystallized in a book in the library.
Einstein, crystallized his thoughts in the Theory of Relativity, that matter and energy are equivalents, in his famous formula; E=mc2 ..
. which says that to calculate the energy, you multiply the mass by the square of the speed of light. Which is a lot!!! Matter turns out to be the very energy that was released with the Big Bang.
"Ah, we already know this for almost a hundred years now!" -Yes and you still don't see the consequences, do you?-
*
It is like the Buddha said; Everything is Maya. Everything is illusion.
I insist upon the view that 'all is waves'. Erwin Schrödinger, quantum mechanics,1933 Nobel Prize for Physics.
The all including theory of physics behind it all, explaining the values of the constants of physics, the electromagnetic force, the weak force, the strong force and the gravitational force would be the yet to produce "THEORY OF EVERYTHING". It has every appearance of it that this theory of everything is going to point at God as creator of the universe. Be it reluctantly and only if they're honest about it. Max Planck understood it right away. Considering that there is no intelligent force nor an eternal force in the entire universe, we have to assume a conscious and intelligent spirit behind this force. Since spirit as such cannot exist, we have to compellingly assume the existence of spiritual beings. Max Planck (discoverer of quantum physics)
Literal text in German;
Als Physiker, der
sein ganzes Leben der nüchternen Wissenschaft, der Erforschung der Materie
widmete, bin ich sicher von dem Verdacht frei, für einen Schwarmgeist gehalten
zu werden. Und so sage ich nach meinen Erforschungen des Atoms dieses:
Es gibt keine Materie
an sich. Alle Materie entsteht und
besteht
nur durch eine
Kraft, welche die Atomteilchen in
Schwingung bringt und sie zum winzigsten Sonnensystem des Alls zusammenhält. Da
es im ganzen Weltall aber weder eine intelligente Kraft noch eine ewige Kraft
gibt - es ist der Menschheit nicht gelungen, das heißersehnte Perpetuum mobile
zu erfinden - so
müssen wir hinter dieser Kraft einen
bewußten
intelligenten
Geist
annehmen. Dieser
Geist
ist der Urgrund aller Materie. Nicht die
sichtbare aber vergängliche Materie ist das Reale, Wahre, Wirkliche - denn die
Materie bestünde ohne den Geist überhaupt nicht - , sondern der
unsichtbare,
unsterbliche Geist
ist das Wahre! Da es aber Geist an sich
ebenfalls nicht geben kann, sondern jeder Geist einem Wesen zugehört,
müssen wir
zwingend Geistwesen annehmen.
Da aber auch Geistwesen nicht aus sich selber sein können, sondern geschaffen
werden müssen, so scheue ich mich nicht, diesen geheimnisvollen Schöpfer ebenso
zu benennen, wie ihn alle Kulturvölker der Erde früherer Jahrtausende genannt
haben:
Gott!
Damit kommt der Physiker, der sich mit der Materie zu befassen hat, vom Reiche
des Stoffes in das
Reich des Geistes. Und damit ist unsere Aufgabe zu
Ende, und wir müssen unser Forschen weitergeben in die Hände der Philosophie."
Ref."
Max Planck Just to be clear; God is a Spirit (a spiritual Being) and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth (reality). (John 4:24 AMP) or in German; Gott ist Geist, und die ihn anbeten, müssen ihn im Geist und in der Wahrheit anbeten. (Joh 4;24 Sch2000) For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. (1Cor 14;14 NIV) or in German; Denn wenn ich in einer Sprache bete, so betet zwar mein Geist, aber mein Verstand ist ohne Frucht. (1 Korinther 14;14 Sch2000)
* The moment you get into quantum physics you'll find that almost everybody has his own theory about it, and that most of it, I'm sorry to say, is mathematical babble about particles being in two places at the same time, "IN THEORY", and measurement problems concerning statistical waves of possibilities collapsing into verifiable outcomes on the computer-screen. What they are actually saying is; We don't really know what's going on until we see it on a screen but we can't be sure since we meddled with it. It gets a lot more interesting when quantum physicists are saying that consciousness plays a big part in quantum physics. Most physicists, especially the atheist section, tend to be pretty presumptuous about it discarding the idea as not assayable and introducing unnecessary things in physics. Things like consciousness and God. But even if it's only a minority of quantum physicists that supports these ideas, they are certainly not the least ones among them. Dr Niels Bohr (1885-1962), winner of the 1922 Nobel Prize for physics, developed the so-called complementarily principle explaining the wave particle duality of light. Here the researchers consciousness enters physics as contributory factor. In the so-called Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics Bohr stated that the observer of quantum physics doesn't experiences external reality, but an interaction between that reality and the sum of all experiences in his "I" consciousness. He is forming a single system with this experiment. The researchers choice of experiment is determinative for which of the aspects of the same phenomenon (reciprocally cancelling out each other) will manifest itself. The observer non-locally influences the quantum world, which would be completely absurd according to the conceptions of that time. Subatomic particles display unpredictable behavior; depending on the observations of the human researcher they can be in different places at the same time, appear and disappear spontaneously and faster than the speed of light and they exchange information. Some particles appear imaginary (without any dimension) but nevertheless seem to have a certain function within the atomic structure. Albert Einstein had serious objections against this dreamy theory and he conducted heated debates with Bohr concerning this question for the rest of its life. (In a letter to Max Born, the father of Niels Born he wrote: Der Alte würfelt nicht!", the old man (God) does not throw dice.") Nowadays however the Copenhagen interpretation is considered proven; according to the most physicists Bohr has the right on his side. The complementarily principle of Bohr and with it the interaction model of conscience and matter has important consequences, even outside the field of physics. The founder of modern computer science John van Neumann (1903-1957) indicated that we are projecting deceitful restrictions in our thinking processes onto our world. Our mind, according to him, accommodates hidden and unsuspected powers, that create reality. It is a misunderstanding to believe that in reversal our mind is formed by that reality. Von Neumann views the world as a product of the mind and not the other way around; the mind as a product of matter. The theorem of John Bell also deviates from standard conceptions. It learns that subatomic particles are non-locally linked with each other and that they react immediately to each other irrespective of mutual distances. According to Bells theorem there are no separate objects in the universe but all parts are closely interwoven. If the theorem of Bell is combined with the Copenhagen interpretation of Bohr, one reaches the remarkable conclusion that there can be only one observer in the universe. (Frans Erwich, Beyond Paradigm, p.42) If matter is an illusion then maybe distance too is an illusion so particles don't have to move faster than light and all particles are in the same place at the same time. The nonrelativistic Schrödinger equation is a type of partial differential equation called a wave equation. Therefore particles can exhibit behavior usually attributed to waves. Two-slit diffraction is a famous example of the strange behaviors that waves regularly display, that are not intuitively associated with particles. In his treatise The Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, John von Neumann deeply analyzed the so-called measurement problem. He concluded that the entire physical universe could be made subject to the Schrödinger equation (the universal wave function). Since something "outside the calculation" was needed to collapse the wave function, von Neumann concluded that the collapse was caused by the consciousness of the experimenter. This point of view was later more prominently expanded on by Eugene Wigner, but remains a view held by very few physicists. Near the end of his life, Wigner's thoughts turned more philosophical. In his memoirs, Wigner said: "The full meaning of life, the collective meaning of all human desires, is fundamentally a mystery beyond our grasp. As a young man, I chafed at this state of affairs. But by now I have made peace with it. I even feel a certain honor to be associated with such a mystery." He became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism, particularly its ideas of the universe as an all pervading consciousness. In his collection of essays Symmetries and Reflections – Scientific Essays, he commented "It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness." Wigner also conceived the Wigner's friend thought experiment in physics, which is an extension of the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment. The Wigner's friend experiment asks the question: "At what stage does a 'measurement' take place?" Wigner designed the experiment to highlight how he believed that consciousness is necessary to the quantum-mechanical measurement processes. Wheeler (Wolf Prize in 1997) has speculated that reality is created by observers in the universe. "How does something arise from nothing?", he asks about the existence of space and time (Princeton Physics News, 2006). He also coined the term "Participatory Anthropic Principle" (PAP), a version of a Strong Anthropic Principle. From a transcript of a radio interview on "The anthropic universe": Wheeler: We are participators in bringing into being not only the near and here but the far away and long ago. We are in this sense, participators in bringing about something of the universe in the distant past and if we have one explanation for what's happening in the distant past why should we need more? Stapp favors the idea that quantum waves collapse only when they interact with consciousness. (Wikipedia.) One thing is sure however, more and more of the quantum physicists are starting to realize that consciousness plays an important role in the natural world "collapsing" from quantum states. (Is it any wonder that some quantum physicists as a result have turned to religion or eastern philosophies.) "Science" of course is aware of this, but can and will not accept this as long as it hasn't been unambiguously proven under repeatable laboratory circumstances. Which is hard to do if two different observers are influencing particles in two different ways. It is well known that the properties of the Neutrino and the recently discovered subatomic particle called anomalon vary from laboratory to laboratory. So it does appear that our consciousness is indeed influencing our reality. Which of course is nothing new, because in real life we do it all the time. It does make you wonder though what exactly is going on when you drive a nail into a peace of wood with a hammer, realizing that it's all energy, waves and frequencies you're looking at. *
CONSCIOUSNESS CAUSES REALITY.
So whose consciousness is responsible for creating the Earth before we even existed, the far away galaxies, black holes, nebulas and other wonders in deep space that we are still trying to figure out?
Is it ours?
But then, whose consciousness is it that created the universe before anybody was born in it?
Imagine a consciousness strong enough to create and maintain the entire universe and
Tell me again you don't believe in God
*
Sometimes a comparison is made between -vapor, water, ice- and -God, Holy Spirit and Son- , which is in fact a very good analogy, for it is God's infinite Spirit, His Creational energy, released at the Big Bang in our finite universe, that gradually dewed and froze into the material world that we live in and can be observed through telescopes. This Universe is His Creation; The creational Light inside it is His Son, and at the same time it is His own Spirit. It's like a hand arranging things in an aquarium; the fish can only see the hand but do not know who is attached to it. It is as if He is His own Son in His own Creation; in this womb we call Universe. The amount of Spirit released in our universe would in ancient times be called a god or an angel; an Archangel in charge of this Creation.
The Sumerians had an uppergod named Anu, or An. An, or Anu literally means Spirit; He was even called Holy An; Holy Spirit, the Spirit, the Willpower, the energy that was released at the Big Bang. Abraham was born in Sumer. "An" (on) still is the Hebrew word for "power". It might be interesting to know that it also means "Son". And that 's why it is said that; all those who are guided by the Spirit of God are sons of God. Ro 8:14 "An" doesn't signify mind or consciousness, it is a power; it is an energy. It is the same with the Hindu word Atman, spirit or human soul which also signifies son. *
The oldest Sumerian creational myths state that Spirit and Matter; the gods An and Ki, were born as the unity Ki-An at the beginning of time in the primal waters of our dimension they called Nammu. She was the mother. The children were twins; they were alike, they were one and the same. The original Hermaphrodite. The Jewish Adam (Kadmon) and Eve. Nammu is the goddess of the Primal Waters, or, the Ocean of Potentiality, or "Abstract Potential Existence, Unified Field or Superstring Field" as modern scientists would say. Our dimension.
Matter and Spirit are the same; Matter is only a manifestation of energy; Everything you see is a manifestation of this Spirit.
MATTER-OF-SPIRIT.
The stuff dreams are made of; the stuff we are made of.
Spirit is another word for energy or power. Everything that is, exists because of this Spirit. This material world however is an illusion, but it is obvious, that we exist.
I think and therefore I exist. Descartes.
*
So what are we talking about then; spirit as energy, or consciousness? It is both; There's no difference. God is All All is energy, All is Love, All is consciousness, because All is God
*
It is Love that allows us a free will a sense of Self and feel as if we are separated from the whole to be souls enjoying this material world. in all possible ways even if it often brings pain and sorrow.
But if the material world is the illusion, it follows that the spiritual world must be the real world. Shouldn't we focus our attention then to this spiritual world? Shouldn't we focus our attention to our spiritual bodies? Shouldn't we focus our attention to our Soul, our spiritual body on who we really are? **
* Maybe it's all just happening in our minds... or in the mind of God. *
 Count the black Wavicles
* THE TRUTH OF THE WEEK
There is a theory that is trying to explain
questions like; How come the universe has a limited size but no edge?
How come
*
About "ABOVE" and "BELOW"; On Earth, the Sky is above and the earth is below. As soon as you are in Space however, this concept falls away. So what is above and below in outer Space? The Creational Light source; God on his throne is always positioned above everything else, God is above and we are below. So the Light always comes from above. This Light is in the center of the schematic "Sphere", which means that the center of this Sphere is the Above and everything else is below it. "There is nothing higher than the light except nothing itself." 2Enoch25;5. Even according to the "Expanding Universe Theory", the Universe started out as an infinitely small point, (the undividable Atomos, Atom, Atum, Atma, Anu-Atma, or Ayna, or Ayin, the Well; the Source; God.). and expanded from there. So it has a center where it all started; the Heaven of heavens. If you put the earth somewhere in the middle of the pyramid on the left, the Light is above it and the basis is below it.
*
The akashic records are described as containing all knowledge of human experience and the history of the cosmos. They are metaphorically described as a library; other analogies commonly found in discourse on the subject include a "universal supercomputer" and the "Mind of God". People who describe the records assert that they are constantly updated automatically and that they can be accessed through astral projection or when someone is placed under deep hypnosis. Other names for it are; Universal ether (Blavatsky), the astral light, sideric light (Paracelsus), world soul or anima mundi (Plato), collective unconsciousness (C.G. Jung), alkahest or the universal dissolvent (alchemy), 'Great Memory' of 'Racial Memory (W.B. Yeats), 'Reflecting Ether' (Eliphas Levi), 'Æther of the Wise' or 'Yesod' (Dion Fortune). (return)
* On www.ted.com Drew Berry is showing some truly amazing computer “Animations of unseeable biology” of the manufacturing of DNA micro tubules inside each single living cell of our body, completely freaking out hardcore atheist scientists. On molecular scale a DNA replication machine is making an exact copy of a DNA string while it has to reproduce one of the strands backwards by cutting it up repeatedly into little loops, turning these around and gluing them back together again. All inside a cell. Incredible! As the result of computer calculations you can see these insect-like molecular creatures in what can only be described as an assembly line of the tiniest molecular machines, literally walking one foot before the other and putting stuff in place with tiny little arms while weaving together micro tubules that are growing out of a chromosome inside a cell. Nano-technicians eat your heart out! As soon as their job is done they all at once move away to the next job or to the Bar or wherever they go. Berry insists that it is an accurate representation of what is going on in our bodies. If this isn't some kind of April's fools joke which it doesn't appear to be, then God must have a great sense of humor creating something like this; "That'll freak'm out for sure!" Must see!
Click on pictures.
Judging by some comments however, it's all lies because there are no watermolecules blocking the view and color was added to highlight some kinesins plus it's all about temperatures and electromagnetic forces and vibrating "self arranging molecules" that are like magnets arranging themselves into long strings if you'd shook them about long enough in a box, providing us with a “very strong illusion of design”. Well I have some magnets in a box at home and they did cluster together once I shook them, but I am still waiting for them to crawl around in it and reproduce anything at all. And I have to tell you, I don't see that happening any time soon. Not even if you shook them for a Billion years. One more intelligent comment went; "Just how complex does a system have to be to qualify for 'Designed' status? The complexity of the process that is revealed by this animation suggests to me a high intelligence. I don't necessarily attribute that intelligence to the molecules themselves, and it seems to me more likely that they share a super-consciousness. I wonder if an animated representation of what's happening at the sub-atomic scale would suggest greater intelligence still." I'd have to agree with Meryl Steinberg who commented; “I enjoyed the slides and watched in awe of what I see as more evidence of an amazing intelligence that is constantly creating. Which, by the way I find totally compatible with the theories of evolution. Baffled why people argue about it. Both are true. The more science explores the more the mystery of an infinite unknowable consciousness becomes apparent. Have fun figuring it out." For more of those animations go to; http://www.molecularmovies.com/showcase/
.
|
Paradise in the center of creation
The
comfortably solid "Newtonian" world view of the materialists has been entirely
undermined by the new physics of the twentieth century, and in particular
through Quantum Theory. Physicists investigating the properties of sub-atomic
matter, found that
the deterministic Newtonian
absolutism broke down at the foundation level of matter.
An element of probability had to be introduced into the physicists'
calculations, and each sub-atomic event was in itself inherently unpredictable -
one could only ascribe a probability to the outcome. The simple billiard ball
model collapsed at the sub-atomic level. For if the billiard table was intended
as a picture of a small region of space on the atomic scale and each ball was to
be a particle (an electron, proton, or neutron, etc.), then physicists came to
realize that this model could not represent reality on that level. For in
Quantum theory one could not define the position and momentum of a particle both
at the same moment. As soon as we establish the parameters of motion of a body
its position is uncertain and can only be described mathematically as a
wave of probability.
Our billiard table dissolved into a fluid ever-moving undulating surface, with
each ball at one moment focused to a point then at another dissolving and
spreading itself out over an area of the space of the table. Trying to play
billiards at this sub-atomic level was rather difficult. In the Quantum picture
of the world, each individual event cannot be determined exactly, but has to be
described by a wave of probability. There is a kind of polarity between the
position and energy of any particle in which they cannot be simultaneously
determined. This was not a failing of experimental method but a property of the
kinds of mathematical structures that physicists have to use to describe this
realm of the world. The famous equation of Quantum theory embodying Heisenberg's
Uncertainty
Principle is: Planck's constant = (uncertainty
in energy) x (uncertainty
in position) + It all sounds very uncertain if you ask me, as if you built a house on mud. It's the very foundation of Creation we're talking about here. The certainty of our world is presented as proof for a theory of uncertainties. Assuming that "quantum indeterminacies effectively cancel each other out" sounds a bit like assuming that marbles in a jar will stay in place even after breaking the jar with a hammer. The fact that particles do stay in place sooner proves that there is something else keeping them there, something very certain, and holding in mind that particles behave according to the expectations of the observer,(see below) this something unavoidably has to do with consciousness or willpower. But who could be "willing" to keep some distant galaxy together? * The universe is not separate from the cosmic sea of energy, it is a ripple on its surface, a comparatively small "pattern of excitation" in the midst of an unimaginably vast ocean. David Bohm * Orphism was inspired on the Orpheus myth and discarded the pantheistic convincings of the Greek of that period. It was taught by the priest Onomacritus, whose followers were vegetarians and ascetics. This teaching saw Chaos (the Abyss) the infinite, as the first principle, from where Ether (the waters) arose. Chaos was covered in Night (darkness) and it was within this environment that Ether brought forth all cosmic material. The whole became like an Egg floating in the surrounding Night. (In other philosophies sometimes pictured as a giant turtle swimming in the ocean.) Within this Egg, "above" and "below" were represented by Heaven and Earth. Both were created by Phanes (Light), or Eros (Love) who was situated within the Egg.
* The idea of another reality where everyone exists in a different scenario acting out alternative decisions is addressed in yet another many worlds interpretation of quantum physics. The interpretation is predicated upon one of the following principles being true; 1; Our very consciousness actually effects the behavior of subatomic particles. (See below) 2; Particles both move backwards and forwards in time and also appear in all possible places at the same instant. 3; In every single instant of the tiniest portion of a second the entire universe is splitting into billions of parallel universes.(?) 4; The universe is connected with almost instantaneous transferring of information. Capitalizing on one of these statements the many worlds interpretation conveys the idea of de-coherence where our world branches off at every different decision creating an infinite number of parallel worlds in which every possibility exists. So, in many worlds you could indeed be hundreds of years old, never even born, or the discoverer of quantum physics itself. + But that would mean that each consciousness is creating its own (physical) universe; that you could in fact be the god of your own universe. Yet we're all connected are we? If we are, wouldn't it be a simpler thought that we are all living the same dream? That we are all part of a central super-consciousness that is creating this universe as we speak? That our souls are indeed sparks or better yet rays of spirit emanating from God; billions of autonomous fragments equipped with consciousness and a free will, intentionally meant to experience and enjoy this world in all its aspects. That this world could indeed be Paradise if we would only unite and put our minds to it. In all the Vedas it is said that the individual souls are like sparks (or rays) emanating from the blazing fire of God. This entire universe is pervaded by Me, the unmanifest Brahman. All beings depend on Me . I do not depend on them. Bhagavad-Gita 9.04 They who know that a Day of Brahma end after a thousand yugas, and that a Night of Brahma end after a thousand yugas know Day and Night. All manifestations come out of the unmanifest state or Prakriti at the arrival of Brahma's day, and they again merge into the same Prakriti at the coming of Brahma's night. Bhagavad-Gita 8.18 The ego, intellect, mind, ether, fire, air, water, and earth are the eightfold transformation of My Prakriti. Bhagavad-Gita 7.04 This Prakriti is My lower energy. My other higher energy is the Purusha by which this entire universe is sustained, O Arjuna. (7.05) (Bhagavad-Gita 11; 15; Lord Brahman seated on the lotus. “Aum mani padme aum” means; aum, Jewel in the lotus, aum. The word "Om" represents the vibrating energy of the Spirit of God. Its letters stand for; A-Agni; fire, U-Waruna; water, and M-Maruts; air (ether). Now, the earth (world) was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered (or; vibrated, merachefet also means “to vibrate”) over the face of the waters. Gen 1;2 JPS (back) "I think I would say that the universe has a purpose, it's not somehow just there by chance ... some people, I think, take the view that the universe is just there and it runs along–it's a bit like it just sort of computes, and we happen somehow by accident to find ourselves in this thing. But I don't think that's a very fruitful or helpful way of looking at the universe, I think that there is something much deeper about it." Roger Penrose, mathematical physicist * Akasha (or Akash, Aakaashá, Ākāśa, आकाश) is the Sanskrit word meaning "aether" in both its elemental and metaphysical senses. In Hinduism Akasha means the basis and essence of all things in the material world. Theosophy has popularized the word Akasha as an adjective, through the use of the term "Akashic records" or "Akashic library", referring to an ethereal compendium of all knowledge and history. * Copenhagen interpretation; During observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely. * Quantum entanglement occurs when particles such as photons, electrons, molecules as large as "buckyballs", and even small diamonds interact physically and then become separated; the type of interaction is such that each resulting member of a pair is properly described by the same quantum mechanical description (state), which is indefinite in terms of important factors such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. According to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, their shared state is indefinite until measured. Quantum entanglement is a form of quantum superposition. When a measurement is made and it causes one member of such a pair to take on a definite value (e.g., clockwise spin), the other member of this entangled pair will at any subsequent time be found to have taken the appropriately correlated value (e.g., counterclockwise spin). Thus, there is a correlation between the results of measurements performed on entangled pairs, and this correlation is observed even though the entangled pair may have been separated by arbitrarily large distances. This behavior is theoretically coherent and has been demonstrated experimentally, and it is accepted by the physics community. However there is some debate about a possible underlying mechanism that enables this correlation to occur even when the separation distance is large. + Is there a faster than light pilot wave or guiding wave at work here, a hidden variable we don't yet know about? Or is this whole world with us included in fact quantum entangled with God? *
Two-slit
diffraction.
When matter is projected through two parallel slits, two bands of
matter are collected on the other side. Waves projected through those
slits produces interference causing multiple bands. However, when
quantum "matter" such as tiny electrons are projected through the slits,
in stead of two bands there is interference, thus many bands.
Could the electrons be
interfering with each other? It turns out when single electrons are
fired one at a time there is still interference. But how? Mathematically
a single electron breaks apart to go through both slits and rejoins on
the other side. However when a measuring device (observer) is used to
observe the electron the behavior resorts back to the collection of the
two bands. A valid explanation might be that each electron is in fact, not as much a particle but a wave front, a little burst of energy that while passing through both slits interferes with itself. (even smaller particles?) If a detector (observer) is placed at one of the slits it might cause a delay there, thus preventing interference from occurring, resulting in two bands, providing an illusion we're dealing with particles while in fact it is all energy. But then electrons aren't particles and have never been particles but it's all waves and so are all other particles. That would throw the quantum theory that atoms are made up of particles ( that also behave like waves.) According to current models, electrons, neutrinos and quarks are still called elementary particles that cannot be split up into other particles. Yet such an electron clearly is able to split itself up and travel through two splits at the same time like a burst of energy would. They are able to shape shift into other kind of "particles" and all these particles form atoms that under the electron microscope have a distinct shape.
So, they are clouds of energy that together take on the shape of atoms, a bit like miniscule ball lightning racked up in formation. But how do they do that? What mysterious force is making them stick together and take on a shape like that? What determines that these elementary particles, these shapeshifters that form atoms, in one occasion form a gold atom and in another they form an oxygen atom. What is that? Some researchers came to realize that it has to do with consciousness. With the observer focusing his attention to them. But how do the electrons know they are being observed? Is the observer sending out rays from his eyes that are influencing the electrons? Do the electrons have a consciousness of their own or are they as well as the observer (and everything and everyone else for that matter) part of an all including super-consciousness that is creating this world according to the expectations of the ones in it? If so, we must all be one with this super-consciousness. Or at least we should be. Could this super-consciousness be the supreme Spirit the Bhagavad Gita is talking about, or the unmanifest Brahman? (see above) Could it be God? * Bohm and Inter-connectedness. An aspect of quantum reality that Bohm found especially interesting was the strange state of interconnectedness that seemed to exist between apparently unrelated subatomic events. What was equally perplexing was that most physicists tended to attach little importance to the phenomenon. In fact, so little was made of it that one of the most famous examples of interconnectedness lay hidden in one of quantum physics's basic assumptions for a number of years before anyone noticed it was there. That assumption was made by one of the founding fathers of quantum physics, the Danish physicist Niels Bohr. Bohr pointed out that if subatomic particles only come into existence in the presence of an observer, then it is also meaningless to speak of a particle's properties and characteristics as existing before they are observed. This was disturbing to many physicists, for much of science was based on discovering the properties of phenomena. But if the act of observation actually helped create such properties, what did that imply about the future of science? One physicist who was troubled by Bohr's assertions was Einstein. Despite the role Einstein had played in the founding of quantum theory, he was not at all happy with the course the fledgling science had taken. He found Bohr's conclusion that a particle's properties don't exist until they are observed particularly objectionable because, when combined with another of quantum physics's findings, it implied that subatomic particles were interconnected in a way Einstein simply didn't believe was possible. That finding was the discovery that some subatomic processes result in the creation of a pair of particles with identical or closely related properties. Consider an extremely unstable atom physicists call positronium. The positronium atom is composed of an electron and a positron (a positron is an electron with a positive charge). Because a positron is the electron's antiparticle opposite, the two eventually annihilate each other and decay into two quanta of light or "photons" traveling in opposite directions (the capacity to shapeshift from one kind of particle to another is just another of a quantum's abilities). According to quantum physics no matter how far apart the photons travel, when they are measured they will always be found to have identical angles of polarization. (Polarization is the spatial orientation of the photon's wavelike aspect as it travels away from its point of origin. ) In 1935 Einstein and his colleagues Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen published a now famous paper entitled "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" In it they explained why the existence of such twin particles proved that Bohr could not possibly be correct. As they pointed out, two such particles, say, the photons emitted when positronium decays, could be produced and allowed to travel a significant distance apart. (Positronium decay is not the subatomic process Einstein and his colleagues employed in their thought experiment, but it is used here because it is easy to visualize.) Then they could be intercepted and their angles of polarization measured. If the polarizations are measured at precisely the same moment and are found to be identical, as quantum physics predicts, and if Bohr was correct and properties such as polarization do not coalesce into existence until they are observed or measured, this suggests that somehow the two photons must be instantaneously communicating with each other so they know which angle of polarization to agree upon. The problem is that according to Einstein's special theory of relativity, nothing can travel faster than the speed of light, let alone travel instantaneously, for that would be tantamount to breaking the time barrier and would open the door on all kinds of unacceptable paradoxes. ('Positronium decay is not the subatomic process Einstein and his colleagues employed in their thought experiment, but is used here because it is easy to visualize.) Einstein and his colleagues were convinced that no "reasonable definition" of reality would permit such faster-than-light interconnections to exist, and therefore Bohr had to be wrong. Their argument is now known as the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, or EPR paradox for short. Bohr remained unperturbed by Einstein's argument. Rather than believing that some kind of faster-than-light communication was taking place, he offered another explanation. If subatomic particles do not exist until they are observed, then one could no longer think of them as independent "things. " Thus Einstein was basing his argument on an error when he viewed twin particles as separate. They were part of an indivisible system, and it was meaningless to think of them otherwise. In time most physicists sided with Bohr and became content that his interpretation was correct. One factor that contributed to Bohr's triumph was that quantum physics had proved so spectacularly successful in predicting phenomena, few physicists were willing even to consider the possibility that it might be faulty in some way. In addition, when Einstein and his colleagues first made their proposal about twin particles, technical and other reasons prevented such an experiment from actually being performed. This made it even easier to put out of mind. This was curious, for although Bohr had designed his argument to counter Einstein's attack on quantum theory, ... Bohr's view that subatomic systems are indivisible has equally profound implications for the nature of reality. Ironically, these implications were also ignored, and once again the potential importance of interconnectedness was swept under the carpet. ... Unlike Bohm, Jahn and Dunne believe subatomic particles do not possess a distinct reality until consciousness enters the picture." I think we have long since passed the place in high energy physics where we're examining the structure of a passive universe, " Jahn states. "I think we're into the domain where the interplay of consciousness in the environment is taking place on such a primary scale that we are indeed creating reality by any reasonable definition of the term." As has been mentioned, this is the view held by most physicists. However, Jahn and Dunne's position differs from the mainstream in an important way. Most physicists would reject the idea that the interplay between consciousness and the subatomic world could in any way be used to explain PK (psychokenesis), let alone miracles. In fact, the majority of physicists not only ignore any implications this interplay might have but actually behave as if it doesn't exist. "Most physicists develop a somewhat schizophrenic view, " says quantum theorist Fritz Rohrlich of Syracuse University. "On the one hand they accept the standard interpretation of quantum theory. On the other they insist on the reality of quantum systems even when these are not observed." This bizarre I'm-not-going-to-think-about-it-even-when-I-know-it's true attitude keeps many physicists from considering even the philosophical implications of quantum physics' most incredible findings. As N. David Mermin, a physicist at Cornell University, points out, physicists fall into three categories: a small minority is troubled by the philosophical implications; a second group has elaborate reasons why they are not troubled, but their explanations tend "to miss the point entirely"; and a third group has no elaborate explanations but also refuses to say why they aren't troubled. "Their position is unassailable (not able to be challenged)," says Mermin. Jahn and Dunne are not so timid. They believe that instead of discovering particles, physicists may actually be creating them. As evidence, they cite a recently discovered subatomic particle called an anomalon, whose properties vary from laboratory to laboratory. Imagine owning a car that had a different color and different features depending on who drove it! This is very curious and seems to suggest that an anomalon's reality depends on who finds/creates it. Similar evidence may also be found in another subatomic particle. In the 1930s Pauli proposed the existence of a massless particle called a neutrino to solve an outstanding problem concerning radioactivity. For years the neutrino was only an idea, but then in 1957 physicists discovered evidence of its existence. In more recent years, however, physicists have realized that if the neutrino possessed some mass, it would solve several even thornier problems than the one facing Pauli, and lo and behold in 1980 evidence started to come in that the neutrino had a small but measurable mass! This is not all. As it turned out, only laboratories in the Soviet Union discovered neutrinos with mass. Laboratories in the United States did not. This remained true for the better part of the 1980s, and although other laboratories have now duplicated the Soviet findings, the situation is still unresolved. Is it possible that the different properties displayed by neutrinos are due at least in part to the changing expectations and different cultural biases of the physicists who searched for them? Michael Talbot, the holographic universe. * Craig Hogan, a physicist at Fermilab Centre for Particle Astrophysics in Illinois is convinced that he has found proof in the data of the gravitational wave detector GEO600 of a holographic Universe – and that his ideas could explain mysterious noise in the detector data that has not been explained so far. Ref * The quantum theory has shown that, on a subatomic level, matter does not exist with any certainty but merely has a tendency to exist. Events are not linked to a certain time and place but merely show a tendency to happen. The quantum theory made clear why subatomic particles can also be waves. Real waves of energy as well as waves of probability. (see above) The quantum theory touches the fundamental unity of the universe and shows that we cannot divide the world into tiny independent units. Ravelling out matter we’ll find that nature is not a conglomerate of fundamental building blocks but an extremely complex web of relations between the different parts of the whole in which the observer plays a substantial role. On a subatomic level all processes and properties of a subject can only be understood in terms of interaction with the observer. *
The big question today is; WHAT DETERMINES MASS? What is Mass, because they used to think that matter was made up out of little parts of solid matter , called molecules. Later they found out that molecules consisted of even tinier bits they called atoms, after the Greek word "atomos" which means undividable. Today we know that the atom is not as undividable as they used to think. The Atom-bomb is based on atoms splitting up into particles releasing an enormous amount of energy. One of the greater scientific achievements of man. (or so they say)
It turned out that every single particle they found or invented didn't exist of matter at all but energy. So the universe wasn't as material as they used to think. But what then is mass? Mass is defined by the quantity of matter in something. A potato may weigh something on earth because it's made of matter but in outer space it doesn't weigh anything but it still is made of matter, it still has mass. If someone throws that potato at your head even in outer space and you don't duck you will feel the impact. But if all matter including this potato is only consisting of energy how comes it has any weight at all? All interactions/forces in nature (electromagnetism, weak, strong forces and gravity) are transmitted by particles called gauge bosons. For example electromagnetism is 'carried' by photons. This idea was carried on to explain mass. In 1966 Peter Higgs (University of Edinburgh) proposed that the universe was full of a field called a HIGGS FIELD. Disturbances in this field as particles move through it cause objects to have mass. From a quantum point of view, we can only stir up the field in discrete units. The smallest possible disturbance, consequently is due to a HIGGS PARTICLE, or more precisely, a Higgs Boson. The field consists of countless Higgs Bosons that act like a kind of cosmic molasses that fills all of space. As objects move through space they have to 'wade' through these Higgs particles that 'cling' to them, causing a drag that shows up as mass. The Higgs boson is often referred to as "the God particle" by the media, after the title of Leon Lederman's book, The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question? Lederman said he gave it the nickname "The God Particle" because the particle is "so central to the state of physics today, so crucial to our understanding of the structure of matter, yet so elusive," but jokingly added that a second reason was because "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing." *
-Speed-of-light
experiments give
baffling
result at Cern.
- This isn’t an isolated anomaly, but has been going on for years. The team has now measured some 15,000 batches of neutrinos coming across that distance, and they say they’ve reached a point where the statistical significance is such that, were they trying to prove anything else, it would count as formal scientific discovery. But try as they might, they can’t explain what’s happening. popsci.com 09/22/2011
Now they say it was a loose cable in the GPS system or something. Ah, that's what it was... *
The heat death of the universe is a suggested ultimate fate of the universe, in which the universe has diminished to a state of no thermodynamic free energy and therefore can no longer sustain motion or life. Heat death does not imply any particular absolute temperature; it only requires that temperature differences or other process may no longer be exploited to perform work. In the language of physics, this is when the universe reaches the maximum entropy. Wikipedia (back) *
It is a mistake to think that people in old days thought that the earth was a flat square on which the heaven rested on four pillars and it is a mistake to think that this is what the Bible is teaching. It is he who is seated over the arch of the earth. Isa 40:22 BBE
hanging the earth upon nothing. Job 26; 7 YLT People in those days practised science, and knew a lot more than they are given credit for. *
From himself (atmanah) he also drew forth the mind, which is both real and unreal. Likewise from the mind; the lordly ego, which possesses the function of self-knowledge. Moreover, the great one; the soul, affected by the three qualities, (gunas) and, in their order, the five senses that perceive the objects of sensation. Joining minute particles even of those six, which contain measureless power, with particles of himself, he created all beings. Laws of Manu. 1;14. There is another eternal unmanifest state higher than Prakriti that does not perish when all beings perish. This unmanifest state is called the imperishable or Brahman. This is said to be the ultimate goal. Those who reach My ultimate abode do not return (or take rebirth, or reincarnation). This Supreme abode, is attainable by unswerving devotion to Me within which all beings exist, and by which all this universe is pervaded. Bhagavad-Gita 8.20 The Lord abides in the heart of all beings, causing all beings to act by His power of Maya (Illusion) as if they are mounted on a machine. Bhagavad-Gita 18.61 The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Parama-atma. (Holy Spirit) Bhagavad-Gita 13.22
*
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some scientists - not the truly great ones - like to smirk at these "dumb religious nutcases" who are having a hard time fitting science into their religion, but they forget that it is the scientists who, throughout history, kept on changing their paradigms and latest theories over and over again, sometimes even forging complete hoaxes and each time selling it as the truth, while at the same time reluctantly having to admit that there are more things in heaven and earth, then are dreamt of in their philosophies. - Some might oppose, that, to somehow hold science at fault for not finding the meaning of life over a much shorter period of time than religion has been at it, is a little bit unfair and if you just say; "God did it ", you stop the lines of inquiry in the natural world.- But that would hardly be the case, since from the beginning it has been the church that supported science; It was Georges LeMaître, a Jesuit priest, no less, who was the first to calculate that there must have been something like a Big Bang at the start of it all. The medieval scientist Roger Bacon an English philosopher and Franciscan friar who placed considerable emphasis on empirical methods, was the first to use lenses to correct vision. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death. Nicolaus Copernicus, the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology which displaced the Earth from the center of the universe was a prebendary of the Cathedral of Frauenburg. Clerics never taught that the Earth was flat. Others, not long ago, just thought they did or invented this nonsense. The myth that the Church opposed Columbus when he said that the Earth was round was a fantasy invented by the 19th century novelist Washington Irving (Rip Van Winkle). The same kind of nonsense is told about Galileo Galilei, who actually was ineffectively dragged before the inquisition by his own colleagues. Scientists have given us things like running water, electricity, cell phones, computers, the internet, popcorn poppers and stuff, so I guess they're not all bad. Just a bit arrogant, some of them. Scientists can not be blamed for not having found the answer yet, but for their arrogance in presenting it as if they did. It is good to have an analytical mind, but it shouldn't restrain one from trying different approaches. The truth happens to be that, supported by their own findings, this world is starting to look less and less material and more and more ethereal, and that is what the evidence is pointing at. Welcome to the Holographic Magical Mystery Tour. On your left hand the magical, mystery "M-branes" and please notice the "truth" behind the "strange" but "beautiful" "Charm-Quarks" on your right hand. See them spin "up" and "down" from top to bottom; the very building blocks of our Universe, popping in and out of existence. What more proof do you want. |
.
What is the deal with the Firstborn
Is the Big Bang theory controversial with creational myths
What is the relation between Atum, Atom, de Atma and Adam
Enjoy
*
For contact, comment or constructive criticism, please click above.
The content of this site is research and a work in progress and is not to be regarded as absolute truths.
With regards, Joost. Smits
Netherlands
www.bugman123.com how to make fractals
http://www.lava360.com/inspiration/amazing-pieces-of-fractal-art-for-your-inspiration
Calgary Weddings Earthquake Kits
.
Earth Jesus Christ is Lord. Heaven
(in Chinese.)
formed galaxies in the
center of it. The universe has a shape and is expanding around an
time has a beginning but no Before? What surrounded our universe when it
began to expand? Why doesn't the universe have a center? Where in space
did the Big Bang take place? It is trying to answer these questions by
projecting them in a two dimensional space. 
