The Book of Revelation Unlocked

No, there are 4 fundamental forces.

Besides that, there is strong speculation that there is a fifth force.

What you are doing is pretty much like classic numerology. You come up with various numbers or ideas and then without even bothering to google you find some sort of vague connection that you promote as being interesting or even fundamental.

And, you get to name things however you want, so you call various things "trinity" even though there aren't even 3 of them and they certainly aren't related in the same way as other trinities you propose. (This is the second time you've made this mistake in this one thread!)

This is the direction of a charlatan and a huckster.

 

1. And??
2. Genesis says nothing about wave functions.
3. And?? What does "stopped" mean? What do you think stopped?

Genesis 1:3-5 talks about day and night, and does so before there is a sky.

You are simply trying to do word or idea matching wherever it happens to please your preconceived notions.

 

I am not sure he's a huckster as much as he is deceived and/or naïve.... or its just about ego.

 

Its not funny.
Jonah was sitting in a place like America, where everyone was being openly promiscuous.
Gays and sexually available girls and women dressed near naked and were sexually active long before marriage.
Divorce was No Fault, and women changed partners as quickly as they do better.

Jonah preached and apparently the people changed to sexual prudence before the immanent destruction took them all way.
I wish America would think about the possibility of salvation now.

- - - Updated - - -

No.
The Weak Force and the Electromagnet Force are now seen as one force.

 

Are they truly "preconceived notions" or are they more suitable to be called "justified true belief"? Can you determine that what you refer to as 'preconceived notions' are not in his mind as 'justified true beliefs'? Both preconceived notions and justified true beliefs are both products of the mind. Justification is also a condition that is resolved by the individual per his/her world view and intuitive thoughts that enter his/her mind.
"
[h=2]I think "justified true belief" is a good definition for knowledge.[/h] "If we can justify that something is true, then we could call it knowledge. Justification would be presenting empirical evidence and/or logical reasoning to state that something in question is true. These are the only ways we can assert that something is true, by being able to replicate and defend our findings." http://www.debate.org/opinions/is-justified-true-belief-a-good-definition-for-knowledge

Empirical evidence which is known in science as 'empirical data', as mentioned above can also be as simple as 'personal experience'.

As I see it, there is little difference between his (what you call) "preconceived notions" than that which the scientific community uses in its preconceived notions regarding 'objective reality'. In that scientific community, objective reality is presumed to exist and all of the proponents of science are obligated to hang on to those preconceived ideas in order to justify the use of the scientific method.

 

Gen 1:3-5 says there was no light during the Big Bang.
That was my point.

It does not tell us why.
But science has discovered why, and scientists can now see that Genesis is actually correct.




Gen. 1:3 And (as the universe goes transparent, Father Nature, Reality), God, said, Let there be light: and there was light (which then decoupled from matter with the formation of atoms).
Gen. 1:4 And (Father Nature, Reality), God, saw the light, that it was good: and (Father Nature, Reality), God, divided the light from the darkness (as the stars formed and the Dark Age of 399.6 million years ended).
Gen. 1:5 And (Father Nature, Reality), God, called the LIGHT day and the darkness he called Night. And the evening (of the Formative Era) and the morning (of the Hadean Era) were the first "day,": [yom, in the Hebrew = duration]

 

But does it matter if we prove something is true or not?
Either something is true, or it is not true.
It is either really there, or it is not.

What is important to us is whether true things are recognized as being true.
When it is true, we have established a fact about Reality.

 

Right.
I am using science facts to compared to the first verse in Genesis.
That because I said I would show what was said in the Bible compares with what science understands.
That is my side.

Your side is trying to say science disagrees with Genesis 1:1. and 1:3-5.

That is our debate here.
Right??

 

And, there are the issues of gravity not accounting for dark matter and the repulsive force detected operating between galaxies.

You're still playing with numerology - and NO more.

 

Hmmm,...
Quantum Physicists have agreed that Wave Functions are effected by an observer, which can turn them into a wave or a particle.
Just looking at the wave function is the magic which accounts for the changes.

This hardly seems to assert that walking on water by Jesus, Elijah, and Moses is absolutely impossible.

 

The problem with your catch phrase there is that there isn't any such justification.

As I pointed out, all that is happening is trying to do wordsmithing and numerology to make modern western translations look like whatever we've discovered in nature.

What is described in Genesis is not the "big bang".

And, no, humans have NEVER had "personal experience" of the beginning of the universe. Human beings arrived only recently.

 

?
I said Gen 1:1, 3, 4, 5 are simple clear statements which do not conflict with science facts.

Dark Matter and other issues are irrelevant, aren't they?

 

?
So "In the beginning" a universe is created, and now you deny that science says the same thing...???

 

Gen 1:2 e explains what slowly took place.
The matter which was created at the moment of the Big Bang gradually came together as a hot ring of molten rocks rotating around the Sun:




Gen. 1:2 And the earth, (whose matter had been created at the Big Bang moment), was without form, (a spinning cloud of rocks, dust and gases) and void (of spherical shape, but an accretion disk), and darkness was upon the face of the deep (disk of rotating rocks).
And (the great Shechinah), the spirit, (the panentheistic or Natural Laws) of God, (i,e,; The First Cause), moved upon the face of the waters, ( i.e.; spinning molten rocks).

 

Not when you start making claims about our understanding of forces and your numerological statements about "trinity".

And, I don't even slightly consider your interpretation of Genesis as being anything more than a desperate attempt at reverse engineering, complete with supplying your own definitions for the words of modern translations. The waters, the sky, the light from dark being separated - your interpretations of this were created for the specific purpose of trying to make them sound like they match science. But, the separation of waters, the "firmament", the creation of dry land - all these descriptions require you to come up with different definitions as you go. Plus, there is still the so-called second creation story.

 

And I have repeatedly shown that definitively speaking, a "fact = something believed to be true or real." Belief and Truth are not necessarily co-equals. If one expresses a 'belief' and you insist that the 'belief' is false or in error, then it would be up to you to show that person why his/her belief is either false or in error. That is where your evidence and or argument must be compelling to the person that is receiving it... compelling to the point that the receiving person will accept your assertion(s) as true. So, if your statement highlighted in red letter is True, then you need to seriously work on your presentation.

 

I'll give you the "in the beginning" part.

From there on out, you are reverse engineering a script written in a dead language (ancient Hebrew) and translated numerous times since.

I have some respect for what this ancient author wrote, but considering that it was a rendition of physics is just not even slightly believable. First of all, I don't see the point in that, as for 2500 years it would mean nothing.

 

And speaking of what humans have never done or experienced, there is also the problem of replication. So the scientists are making claims that cannot be proven regarding the 'big bang'.... they have never been able to replicate such a condition.... replication is a part of the scientific method procedures.

- - - Updated - - -

At verse two, nothing had taken place yet, because God had not commanded anything to happen. Try again.

 

You have to remember Dave that Observation is not necessary for the EXISTENCE OF QUANTA.

Observation...and the Observer can be anything from a Human to a House Fly....simply collapses Wave Function thus locking in Function and Value to our Universal Reality.

Prior to Observation and Observation does not have to even happen....EVER....Prior to Observation...Quanta exists in a state of SUPERPOSITION thus Value and Function have not been locked into one specific Universal Reality as prior to observation in a state of superposition QUANTA EXISTS IN ALL POSSIBLE INFINITE IN NUMBER ALTERNATE DIVERGENT UNIVERSAL STATES OF REALITY.

Once Quanta is Observed the Wave Functon collapses and thus it can no longer exist in a state of Superposition.

The BEST way to prove this is to use the example of how a QUANTUM PROCESSOR WORKS.

A Quantum Processor as used as a Quantum Computer uses QUIBITS instead of BITS and unlike a standard Computer where a BIT has a VALUE assigned to it as either ZERO OR ONE....in a Quantum Computer uses QUIBITS where a Quibit is BOTH A ZERO AND A ONE at the same time.

This is known as QUANTUM SUPERPOSITION.

The Quantum Computer cannot be constructed as far as it's internal parts by a person as it must be done ROBOTICALLY as any Observation of the Quantum Computers internal workings will render such a system worthless and unable to calculate.

They have tested this and they took a Digital Video of several Rudimentary Quantum Computers that were being constructed for reasearch only as they are VERY EXPENSIVE....and after several years when they no longer were working with these early low in Quibit Number Quantum Computers they took out the video tape that had never been watched over several years and they watched it....at that EXACT MOMENT....the 4 Quantum Computers that were being Digitally Video Taped years ago STOPPED WORKING!!!

That was a video of 4 of 10 Low Quibit Quantum Computers that was watched and they had another Video of 4 more 100 Quibit Quantum Computers being assembled robotically and they put a FLY inside a glass and attached the glass to the TV screen so the fly could not get away....then turned on the Video remotely of the other 4 Quantum Computers being assembled and IMMEDIATELY.....all of these other 4 Quantum Computers STOPPED WORKING!!

Thus even the observations of a FLY will collapse Wave Function.

AboveAlpha

 

Your attaching meaning to words such as "Grace" which do not make sense.

Your concept of God is like that of Gaia. This is certainly one concept of God but it has nothing to do with the Bible.

 

You do not know that Aliens are not part of "our" reality as we have yet to explore the entire universe.

Your assertion that you somehow know for sure the entire contents of the universe is what is absurd.

Your second assertion that entities in the universe, aliens or otherwise, are somehow saved by Truth is a completely made up idea which may or may not have no relation to what is True.

 

All the definitions used come from the Hebrew Bible, though.
The KJ Version interpreters decided to use the words you read.
But their choices were skewed by their own opinons about what the Bible was saying.

Take their interpretation of the first six "days."
They used the meaning of "yowm" in the Hebrew to represent a 24 hour solar day.
But the text itself says the Solar Clock was not even created until "day" four, itself!

The word "yowm" can also mean an Age.
And that makes a better and correct interpretation for what the Bible was saying:

 

Aliens could exist.
But right now they do not.
But they would just be part of Reality if they did exist.

We would know the truth if we discovered them, and Truth would tell us aliens are also a Reality.

Nevertheless, if aliens exist,

 

Gaia means that the hole Earth is one living thing itself.
Reality does affect Gaia.
In fact, we are a part of the whole concept of Gaia, and as Reality literally changes the Earth, we must be prepared to adapt too.

 

You can not prove "Aliens do not exist". Quit pretending otherwise