Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
To Michael Levine

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on July 25, 2003 04:19:08 UTC

I understand your point but I mean no insult to those with heating bills.

My understanding is that Jesus Christ taught us that "If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, nothing will be impossible to you. You could say "move" to this mountain, and it would move. "

I have uncovered, it appears, a demonstration that the so-called laws of physics are optional.
That appears to mean that it is ......say possible to levitate; walk through walls; etc. etc.

Dr. Richard Stafford has blazed a trail in this direction; finding that physics laws appear to be "true by definition" and not restricting the future. But he is bogged down with a mathematical-beam in his eye?

I have gone where he has not; and I have mapped a stunning amount of physics to back my claims. I have not published the initial draft yet.

I have another source of revelation. In addition to the revelation I have been taught from the Gospels in my being raised a Catholic; I many years ago became aware of certain experiences from when I was a newborn baby. The discoveries I have made re: physics and mathematics are consistent with insights I have obtained from a personal investigation of consciousness; and with what I knew and recall experiencing as a newborn baby; and with my understanding of the teaching of Christ.

To understand my physics discoveries (I'm utterly amazed Dr. Dick doesn't seem to get it yet; if he reads my stuff.... ) :

what I have discovered is plain and simple and from what I've seen I'm hopeful you will ask me to clarify anything you don't get.

An expert mathematician who looked at Dr. Dick's paper and felt it was "much ado about nothing" has already told me he agrees with my translating-Dr.-Dick's paper's concepts into non-mathematical form involving defining things by intersecting categories.

When you try to track a constant (a holding together of two categories as "one" (so holding the intersection as a "group" or "function"; against a background of other category intersections and other tracking of intersections (or of "pattern matches") you get a lot of physics.

Of course Dr. Dick's "Dirac delta function" and "contact interactions" were evident in this. But by understanding the nature of "number" I colapsed his "communicable concepts must obey physics laws" into "counted concepts must obey physics laws" but since "counting" is optional....

You can count things any way you want so the structure of physics can vary in form.


Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins