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
Lower And Upper Bounds Of Lower And Upper? (bounds?)

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alan on January 7, 2005 14:33:55 UTC

Carefuluniverse asked what "worship" means?

I also wondered what exactly this involved.

Seems to involve "paying ones' respects"; "honouring", "remembering"?

If you worship someone you "make a home for them".

To worship God is to make peace with Him, be one with Him, make a home for Him, welcome Him, to accept the gift of Himself to you.

To worship God is to delight in existence, to love existence, to be honest and truthful.

To be compassionate, respectful of existence, conscious of existence, not squashing what is but living in harmony.

Quote: "So in physics what is Everything? Mass and Energy. The universe is 2/3rds energy and 1/3rd mass."

Consider the following:

physics = patterns of logic.

mass = patterns of uncertainty

energy = alternatives

"The universe" is "come together, stay together".

To define "universe" involves bringing many things togther and holding them together.

To define "number" and "base" involves categorising things (count oranges by use category "orange" or base "orange") and not categorising things (the oranges you count are treated as interchangeable within the category "orange")

The categorising aspect is "mass" (uncertainty) when viewed by an alternative category (apples) (like: "what's up doc? says the apple to the orange)(To get "orange chemistry" that is "accomodations" among the oranges requires an imaginary external force (such as apples); this "Pauli exclusion principle" is imagined to be necessary for chemistry so as the oranges can INCLUDE each other.

A minimum framework for this chemistry is two oranges that have room for each other; this gives four orange-worlds or quantum numbers.

To "colour in" the chemistry (give it substance) requires "a loose orange" floating among the minimum four (so a fifth element).

To track this 'colouring in" (called quantum chromo dynamics) involves an alternative colouring-in space (a sixth element) so that x marks the spot (the cross-over between the fifth and sixth gives a "d-brane" or imaginary number-base: a category inside the category "orange".

To track the six elements requires stretching the x, this gives "string theory" as an imaginary number-line (or counting oranges in the category inside the category).

To cook things up in chemistry requires room to track or not track; room for scale variability in chemistry, to define on/off switches in chemistry. This requires seven periods (stops) distributed over two ways the original four quantum numbers can happen.

To make a recipe book in chemistry requires "radioactivity"; or imaginary chemistry (physics); so two ways two ways can happen (known as a "back hole" or collapsed star i.e. collapsed chemical facility?). This allows the chemicals to re-group, get four quantum numbers times two becomes eight groups.

To have a transitional period for re-grouping requires seven times eight = fifty six transition elements.

To re-group any which way requires two times two stopping zones so 2 x (2 x7) to give active/passive elements.

To differentiate actinide (active) from lathanide (lackadasical) elements requires strength and malleability (metals and non-metals). To tell these apart requires strong strength (brittle elements) and maleable maleable (ductile elements).

To tell them apart requires re-inventing metals as ductile and maleable, and non-metals as soft and brittle.

To make sense of it all (be noble about it) requires stop re-grouping things and take a rest (six noble gases)

To retain wild card to turn up the heat again when you need to requires a floating element (hydrogen).

To throw in the towel (try to jam everything into a fixed framework) requires synthetic elements. This imaginary chemistry (radio-activity) clashes with the real radioactivity so you get elements with half-lives.

The non-categorising aspect (swappability of individual oranges within the category oranges) is "alternative ways orange can happen" when viewed by "mass" (by the uncertainty principle that says that "there's something about these oranges as there are many of them so by definition of "many" each is different in at least one way from the other.

If "universe" is "come together, stay together"; and "mass" is "uncertainty", and "energy" is "alternatives":

"Mass" in "universe" will be "uncertainty in come togther, stay together".

To get swappability between "come togther" and "stay togther" gives pre-set space in each other so can come togther while staying together .

This "having rooms already made-up for each other" is echoed in "2/3" as "2 out of 3" gives (1+1) + 1 that is a room made up for the other (they get to place the brackets) so giving the other two choices in your world so giving them room to move in your world so giving them freedom; being able to be flexible in accomodating them so already making room for them.

So to say "mass is 2/3 of universe" is to say "mass is mass minimum definition in universe" so to say mass and universe are free in each other?

Energy in universe:

Alternatives in "coming togther, staying togther" :

Coming together or waiting (staying togther in the waiting room); staying together or drifting apart (coming togther in the waiting room?);
coming togther, staying togther differently (having an alternative room for waiting for each other)

"1/3rd" is 1 out of 3;
so since have three ways of defining the waiting room get "alternative space" defined as any one of three ways to have a waiting room so 1 in 3.

So "energy as 1/3 of universe" is saying "energy as energy minimum definition in universe" so freedom of energy and universe in each other?

Is their a flaw in my reasoning? the chemistry stuff was a bit wild ?

One last curiosity:

I seem to recall some say "earth is 4 billion years old" and some say "earth is 6000 years old".

Loooking at the logical consequences of the construction of numbers in base 10:

10 is 10.

10 times10 makes definition of 10 blurry?

10 times 10 times 10 makes definition of 10 re-defineable but topsy turvy (topological).

6 quarks for Mr. Mark: "6" involves defining a mark or location (can demonstrate)

6000 gives a location that is topsy turvy (could be anywhere)

So "age of earth = 6000 years" COULD mean "age of earth is not necessarily rigidly defined yet"?

A thousand million is three blocks of 1000; if each block is "topsy turvy" then have imaginary topsy turviness from three blocks. That means one settlement SOMEWHERE.

"4" defines "somewhere" has settled.

"4 000 000 000" gives two possible somewhere's settled so "any port in a storm" or an agreement on a definite place = "a definite answer of some sort".

But to say "earth is 4 000 000 000 years old' is to say "the definite answer is the minimum definition of "definite answer" so what does that tell you?

OBJECTIONS: the above reasooning seems shocking as it suggests we are running around in circles thinking we know things but is there a limit?

Answer: admit what exists: if I feel a gut feeling that earth must have a definite history then that feeling is a real act so I admit to having that feeling.

But maybe we don't yet understand what is going on?

If people are afraid at the prospect of the apparent "collapse" of number; note that I do not excluse the possibility of Earth having a history of 4 000 000 000 trips around the sun but just wonder at the possible flatness of our definitions.

What is eternal life?

By the way:

Yanniru said "1/3 mass" and "2/3 energy"; I showed a curious pattern if "2/3 mass" and "1/3 energy".

What does this mean?

(suggests to me that the universe may be more down to earth and not so airy-fairy after all? Or rather: the past is well defined but the future is free: past-tense converts alternatives into uncertainty and uncertainty into alternatives; by removing number and using extreme simplification I froze everything so is that why it appears frozen (so now what?))


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 1994-2018 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