God?

[RainmanTime]

Re: Somthing in the mixture

Hey Creedo,

Look at Rainmantimes says in response that we should go back into space?

First he says something about fiscal responsibility when I even opened up a possibility for him to do something, all he could say was that the Air Force had wanted him, for an option on controls.

He doesn't really want progress, we are like so many hamsters to the powers that be.

It seems you think you know more about my motivations and interests than you really do.

Quite honestly, I am strongly committed to the President's Space Exploration Vision. I agree with you that it is our destiny. Yet I am also a person who believes in balance and democracy. And given we live in a democracy (well, technically it is a republic), I think you would find that if you polled all the American people, that somewhat less than 50% would agree that space exploration would be priority #1. Because this is so, it means we need to balance our space exploration goals against the US government's budget capacity to support these projects along with all the other things our government is responsible for funding. Getting to Mars will take one helluva lot of money, and we need to approach it methodically so we do not waste the taxpayer's money. And I think you will agree that our history shows that Americans can be very successful when we are methodical, patient, and balanced.

On my reassignment: While I enjoy working space projects, my primary experience and forte is terrestrial vehicles. When the Air Force (and the FAA) request my services to develop operational standards for unmanned (and sometimes autonomous) air vehicles to operate in civilian airspace, I am going to apply myself where I can have the greatest benefit for my country. Besides, I am not sure NASA has learned their lesson that space operations have to evolve to become more "regular", like terrestrial aircraft operations. This is one of many changes that are required in order to make space more affordable. Did I not tell you to keep an eye on Burt Rutan? He is an airplane guy, and he is helping to "teach" NASA how to "do space" in a regular, methodical, and economic manner. If Scaled Composites (Rutan's company) were public, I would buy stock in it! But he is too smart and too independent to succumb to the "greed factor".

I DO want progress, Creedo. But I am only one person, and I have more influence with the FAA and the DoD than I do with NASA. Awhile back I pointed you to the NASA web page where you could prepare proposals for space exploration and submit them for consideration. Have you done that? If you want progress, this is an area where you could contribute! /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

RMT

 

[creedo299]

Re: Somthing in the mixture

Rutan noted, but not in the capacity desired.

Youre at your limit, so thank you.

 

[nicknack]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

As OvrdLrdLegion is explaining in his recent posts, the Tree Of Life is not inextricably linked to Judeo Christianity.

Yes. I agree it seems to get its main source from Hebrew letters. But may I ask, why is only the Bible interpreted by the Hebrew version? What does it say about the KJV and NIV of the Bible? Does this mean it is not reliable? Since the Tree of Life is like a guide and for you to colour in, where does the spritual aspect come in? What are you expected to believe in? Doesn't this make God, the Creator seemingly impersonal?

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

It is rather contradicting in that sense that, if there wasn't light how could there be earth itself? Therefore, I agree that 'earth' was entire physical universe without light perhaps? God planned and created the universe before the Big Bang happened. In any other way, how could something come out of nothing? In that sense, somebody must have created it, and thereafter followed by light. The period of 7 days, as you already know, point out to the several billions of years before the universe came to be. But as for God, there wasn't time/dimension/space, so could he have created these at the same time. From a poin of view, his existence doesn't not really matter because the difference of his existance and non-existance is not important. Existence in that sense, is not even real or a reality. There is no existence to form. There is no Creation or End. I don't really know. But that is what I think.

It is rather strange to have light. We can see light, we know there is light. But what is light made of? It's really puzzling. Could light be what is most 'purest' of all creation? A sort of 'enlightenment'?

Just as we have discovered that F=ma and V=IR are similar relation

What relation does this two formulae have? Science may not be all correct, as we have learnt that there are corrected theories in which what people thought to be correct.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Yes. I agree it seems to get its main source from Hebrew letters. But may I ask, why is only the Bible interpreted by the Hebrew version?

Which one? There are several versions that are written in other languages. The Vulgate is a word for word translation into latin from greek If my memory serves me correctly. As far as using hebrew for many postulates regarding the question of God, the texts written can be followed back many centuries. It is considered better to try and get as close to the originals as possible. This way we try to avoid any mis-translations or ulterior motives within later translations. I hope this answered your question. If not, please rephrase it to be more accurate as to exactly what you seek.

What does it say about the KJV and NIV of the Bible? Does this mean it is not reliable?

I read both versions, and these were also reasons as to why I felt the need to look eleswhere. Both versions, in my opinion, are infused with political motives. I.e., The texts or manuscripts they are based upon does not divide men and women into different levels. In the originals, men are NOT superior to women, but equal. When you look at the time frame when these translations were done, the idea of a woman being a mans equal was abhored. All mention of this equality was removed from the translations, as in the oldest manuscripts the Holy Spirit is feminine. Don't see too many churches saying that now do you?

As another example, The Gospel of Thomas removes the need for an organized, political church system. Whoops, wonder how come that got left out? Gee whiz, wouldn't you know it didnt meet the criteria for the organized religions. Go figure.

Does this mean it is not reliable

That depends on how you read them, or any version for that matter. If you took everything they said literally it would drive you crazy. I always stump bible thumpers when I bring up the part about God having evil thoughts, and God actually repenting to a human( Moses ), if you were to make the contention that everything in the KJV is absolute truth as tranlated. As I read the bible(s), I usually find those segments that I feel fit into my path of ascension and dis-regard the rest. This isnt to say they are not valid for someone else, but not for me, and not at this time.

Since the Tree of Life is like a guide and for you to colour in, where does the spritual aspect come in? What are you expected to believe in? Doesn't this make God, the Creator seemingly impersonal?

That depends on you. It is a step by step process. To begin, you start by learning about the level called Malkuth. The answers you seek will be found as you apply what you understand the relationship between yourself and this level to be.

It took you a lifetime to arrive at where you are today, and it may take the rest of your lifetime to understand who you are and what your place is within creation. Thus it is nice to have a roadmap to provide aid in where you are and which way to go in your journey.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Okay, my first qualifier here - I'm in the middle of a 4 day intensive period of celebration/commiseration. It's Friday afternoon and there have been/will be 2 funerals/deaths and 3 birthdays to cover since Wednesday until early Sunday morning and you can add the most stressful work-related situation I've had in the last 5 years. As such, do not expect this to be my most coherent, sensitive or thorough post yet. I have only skimmed through the 23 posts that have been made since my last look at this thread, and I'm not going to go into the detail that some of them deserve. Count this post as a semi-drunken and very tired placeholder until probably Sunday evening, maybe even Monday eve.

So, that said, here goes....

I imagine that you may well "run away" as you did the last time I felt it was important to point out your debating tactics.

Considering the circumstances I find myself in, and exactly how angry I find myself at the moment, I'm actually going to let your childish polemic go and I'm not going to stick by my promise. For this post, and this post only, I will respond to your accusations, including your co-opting of my accusations of "running away". But this is the only time. If you feel like scoring a cheap point in future, simply refer to my tactics and I will not reply to that post. As of now, my usually placid self has just enough ire to let his buttons be pushed.

Well done.

You see, I planted that mistake purposefully, at the behest of a friend who has been reading some of your posts over beers.

Really? So your posts are now collaborative efforts? And this is the cleverest "trap" you could come up with? For the record, regardless of whether you were my mother and I agreed with you fully, or if you were my lifelong bitterest enemy whose views were diametrically opposed to mine in every regard, I would have pointed that out. It has nothing to do with trying to "prove you worng". In fact, much as your ego (yes, I did use that word about you) might like to think otherwise, it had nothing to do with you at all. As you may have heard before, I come from an environment where reasoned and factual debate is considered a valuable asset. As such, the factual nature of what you say is considered important, regardless of the pettyness of the inconsistancy (and, just so as you know, my dad who has the PhD and more than 30 years of experience in physics research got the same thing wrong and was corrected by me in a far ruder and far more sarcastic and disparaging way. He seemed to manage to not take it as an insult to his ego).

To quote a friend from the snopes board, having been corrected by someone with a diametrically opposed viewpoint to him: "Yes, I know that, and yes, that's what I meant. (But good call; accuracy is imporant here, and I did say "country.")"

I'm sorry, but you will never sway me from the viewpoint that facts and details are important. And you will certainly never, ever convince me of the viewpoint that you seem to hold that correcting someone else's factual inaccuracies is somehow an attack on them. That's schoolyard thinking.

But, yeah, you and a friend, working together, managed to show that I would correct (without any hint of repremand or derision, I might add) a blatant factual innacuracy when presented with it. I hope you're very proud. You can't see me, but I'm standing up as I applaud.

Even though I used the wrong number, it had absolutely no affect on the point that the "details" of F=ma are wrong when considering relatavistic effects.

Would it be churlish of me to point out that you've used the worng word in this sentence? I think you mean "effect", not "affect"? Surely it would, but I'm in that kind of mood.

Therefore, if your original question seems "perfectly simple" to you, I trust you can reword it so I can understand it. Otherwise, if you cannot express yourself more clearly, then there is little point in me trying to answer a question that only YOU understand.

I already had. The thing you quoted and questioned was already the second incarnation of the thied thing. But, I'll happily say it again. Not at this precise second, because it seems like a pointlessly tedious task, and I've had enough of those over the last week, but I'll come back to it. suffice to say for the moment that I think you need to revise your opinion of me. You seem to think that I'm so clear and precise with my words that any time I don't make myself crystal then I'm doing it on purpose. I'd suggest that maybe I'm not quite as good at this communicating business as you think I am.

As I've said before, it's kind of flattering that you seem to think that I cannot possibly misspeak or misunderstand anything, but it's simply not true.

Rather, it is a theory, and what's more it is only based on your opinion that the "GI" part is true.

"GIGOL" is not a theory. Check the dictoinary for a definition of that word.

For those not familiar with Occam's Razor, it is a premise that states "the simplest explanation is most often the real explanation".

Again, this is why details and facts are important. Occam's Razor is actually "All things being equal, the simplest explaination tends to be the correct one". Slight, but highly significant details omitted, there.

You were stating quite strongly that the interpretation I favor in Sepher Yetzirah is "wrong".

You have yet to quantify that version. I have provided factual basises for the versions I have cited, includding collaborative evidence from 2 different religions in 2 different languages, with chapter and verse scrupulously cited by me, word for word (both in english and the Hebrew). If you want, I can easily provide the legitimete alternative translations of the Hebrew words (i.e. "raah" et al). Do not think that this conversation, or the meagre sources I've cited represent even half of my research into the subject. Want me to cite the entire text of Genesis 1 in Hebrew? I can.

You've provided one library reference for a book that is highly disputed academically. The entire sum of corroborative evidence you've provided for your POV has been 9 words, one acronym and 10 figures, none of which are directly concerned with your claims in any way, shape or form.

Do not try to pretend that I've provided less backup for my viewpoint on this matter than you have.

I would say that the significance depends upon whether that person's work helped advance humanity. Clearly, any person who is a criminal, murderer, or cultist programmer has very low significance with regard to any beliefs they held.

Oh, right! If a person can be judged to be "good" and they believed in the Kabbalah, then their belif in such was highly significant. But, if a person could be judged to be "bad" and they believed in the Kabbalah, then their opinion is totally irrelevant, even if they were the head of the largest religion concerning the subject?

Or, could it be, as I said initially, that a lot of people believe a lot of things, and that this has little relevence to the veracity of the thing? If it's relevent that Socrates believed in the Kabbalah (and, just for your information, Socrates also believed in having sex with young boys), then why is it not relevant that Shearing did? Or, if it's relevent that Socrates believed this because he "helped advance humanity", then should be hold stock in his belief that the source of human thought was the heart, and that the brain was a device for cooling the blood? No? Why not? Is it because its the actual evidence that's of import and not who believes it? Could that be phrased as "a lot of people believe a lot of things", maybe?

I would say you'd have a hard time providing evidence that rotation does not have large effects on cosmology

Good Lord! Would I? Wow, thanks for the tip! I'll try not to make that assertaion, then!

And so this is how you avoid providing evidence?

No. But it is how I can avoid your accusations of me saying that my opinion was the "ONLY 'right' view". That was your claim. Now it is up to you to back it up.

I can easily prove that you have claimed your opinion to be the "ONLY 'right' view". You are projecting this from yourself onto me. Same as with other things. But carry on, if you wish. I'm sure you'll have the uber-articulate and thought-provoking CAT as your cheerleader still.

Do I need to quote your own words to help remind you of what you said?

"So, in fact, you do not claim that any control systems engineer would agree with your evidence, you claim that all control systems engineers believe in God?"

Ha! Thank you for genuinely making me laugh today. I really did need that. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Question_mark

Learn some basic primary-school punctuation before trying to be clever.

I think it is quite clear[...]

Oh but Ray, I was calling you on how you obfuscate questions with poor language. For someone who normally writes with a high degree of clarity, it becomes all the more apparant when you purposefully try to make a question extremely vague and non-specific.

Yet even the ones who did not still marveled at the tightness of tolerances for our universe to be stable, and were not willing to admit it was an "accident".

I'm not sure what you mean by "willing to admit", bur I certainly marvel at the universe. But, as I said to OvrLrd, that does not make me think it was divinely created.

Believing and faith is a major part of life, just as is its polar opposite of requiring proof. But if you polarize yourself on one side or the other, you are missing "half" the point of life.

It is interesting to contrast this with your earlier erronious claims about my supposed "reverencve" for science. Do you now accpet that I do not have "faith" in science in the way that you mean, and can you explain, if you believe as you've said here, why such faith would be a bad thing?

OvrLrd said:

Since the Tree of Life is "colored" in by yourself, it takes on whatever aspect you make it to be.
True and untrue has no bearing on the Tree of "your" Life. The Tree really isnt a theory, but an application.

Any application is as good ( or bad) as you make it.

That, right there, pretty sums up my feelings on any and all religious/spiritual beliefs, from the Tree Of Life to Christianity, and everything else besides.

If you noticed the divine eminations as listed, if these are applied with balance, extremism and fundamentalism would not exist.

It's in defining the balance that the difficulty comes, though. Torquemada believed he was saving heretic's souls from hell by torturing tham and buring them to death. For him the physical pain of this life was balanced by the spiritual relief of spending an eternity in Heaven instead of Hell.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor, and all that. If someone genuinely believes that the only merciful course of action is to torture someone to death over the course of several days, then where does that leave the concept of Strength without Mercy? Who defines "Mercy"?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that the main motivating reason why Torquemada did what he did was because he was a nasty peice of work who got pleasure from the suffering of others. But I also believe that he really and truely believed that he was doing God's essential work and I'm sure he believed that he was a compassionate and merciful man, being "cruel to be kind". I'm sure you'd agree with me that he was wrong on this count, but whose definition of "mercy" are you using, and why are you sure it's right?

Each week I pick a color and go for a 30 minute walk. I then look for that particular color. Red, for an example. I look to find it in as many places as possible. The following week, I will pick another color and do the same.

You know, I go for a long walk most days. This seems like an absolutely wicked idea. I'm going to adopt this practice, as it seems like one of the best ideas I've heard in years.

Not every day, as I will still need days to just contemplate the sky, but I really like this idea.

Ray again:
It does not control me, nor my actions.

And I'm such a slave to mine! Help me be more like you, please, Ray!

I think it is quite obvious that trollface comes here to "debunk", and I have seen little, if any, contributions or encouragement from him to advance knowledge or theories.

Every time the "accusation" that I'm a "debunker" has been leveled at me, I've offered this challenge - but it's never been answered. Perhaps you have the balls this time, Ray? The challenge is this - tell me what's supposedly so bad about being a "debunker". How is sperating what is true from what is nonsense a hinderance to the advancement of knowledge? Surely being able to disprove something is as valuable to the determination of the truth as being able to prove something is?

Where would modern science be if Einstein (to cite your seeming favourite) had not debunked the theory that an atom was indivisible?

Secondly, maybe I've not encouraged your theories because I don't believe they have much merit, and I believe in encouraging the exploration of the truth? I dn't want to name names because this is our argument and getting other people involved is not fair at all, but I have encouraged others when (and I stress this) their ideas have merit to me.

Maybe the fact that you have not seen much of this behaviour from me is down to something I've addressed many times to deafaning silence - confirmation bias. Maybe if you actually looked into it you'd have a bit more appreciation.

If you look back in the archives, prior to trollface's arrival, you will see that I did not allow my ego to show at any level even close to what I have allowed in my "debate" with trollface.

Well, if ever you were going to stroke my ego, it'd be that that did it. Either you never had a competent enough opponent before, or have never had as much doubt in your own beliefs before, and I've changed that. Suffice to say, as I've said before, the kind of sloppy thinking/debating that you exhibit which annoys me when it is evident in otherwise seemingly intelligent people such as yourself is something that I have encountered many, many times before. Sorry to say, but your kind is two a penny, even if your particular viewpoints are somewhat unique.

Anyway, that's it for me for now. I've got to go off out again for the next couple of days. I'll address stuff I've missed when I'm back.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: some Things to think about...

Very well put. IMO, this is what distinguishes the US approach from that of terrorists, or terrorist-like regiemes. It would be extremely easy for the US to simply drop nuclear bombs wherever terrorists operate. But such an action would be devoid of Mercy for the innocents amongst whom the terrorists hide.

The definition of whom are the terrorists is from where you are standing. If my daughter was blown up by a missle attack, I would consider the U.S. to be terrorists. Technically, the motives are the same on both sides with regards to those in command.

There is an article in a military magazine that was written by a sniper. He was at the Kuwaiti Airport during the first episode for surveillance purposes. He actually had Saddam Hussein in his gun sights and could have killed him easily. If the U.S. wanted Saddam so bad , why didnt they give the sniper permission to zap the man?

I do think that those who are kidnapping people are stupid. Why would you behead a guy that is an engineer that was trying to fix a mechanical device so the people of Iraq would have some basic necessities of life?

Also , if they wanted the U.S. out of Iraq so badly, I think that if it was peaceful we would be gone already. By using violence, we stay that much longer, and drop that many more bombs.

 

[KerrTexas]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I'm in the middle of a 4 day intensive period of celebration/commiseration. It's Friday afternoon and there have been/will be 2 funerals/deaths and 3 birthdays to cover since Wednesday until early Sunday morning and you can add the most stressful work-related situation I've had in the last 5 years.

My condolances to you and the families that have been seperated from loves ones. And congratulations to those advancing in their lives. Quite a trick there changing hats as it were. I used to work at a cemetary and know it is difficult to keep switching emotional masks when none of them reflect what I am really feeling.

That, right there, pretty sums up my feelings on any and all religious/spiritual beliefs, from the Tree Of Life to Christianity, and everything else besides.

Do you have the same feelings regarding a road map? I myself use a roadmap to help guide me from one point to another without attaching alot of sentiments to the map in itself. However, the map is quite valuable regardless of my beliefs. As a side note, I was in a Christian Beliefs chat romm last night. I thought it was ironic on how those schooled in the Bible treated others who were not.

Sort of along the lines of...." You are a stupid moron and dont know anything about what God was trying to have you understand. Did you ever finish second grade, you childish goof, who is probably as ugly as your grandmother!"

And I wondered why others would possibly question the Christian belief system? In the witch related chat rooms , they seemed to be more reasonable to differing ideals. It is also ironic that those who were persecuted for being involved with "evil" actually were less of a threat than those impossing the "light" of right.

You know, I go for a long walk most days. This seems like an absolutely wicked idea. I'm going to adopt this practice, as it seems like one of the best ideas I've heard in years.

It is quite fun. I also enjoy following one instrument through a musical piece. Adds another dimension to the work.

 

[CAT]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I'm sure you'll have the uber-articulate and thought-provoking CAT as your cheerleader still.

Oh Trollie your one of those uber-fags!

No sir ree, your not drunk with a hangover, you're busy rubbing some Ben Gay on your swollen lactating manboobs after you've finished your daily colonic!

Really, Numbnoggin, you're as uber-tragic as a naked Thalidomide victim... But given the urgency of the matter and my kindly disposition, I may be able to assist you with the de-flowering process...

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Again, very briefly.

My condolances to you and the families that have been seperated from loves ones. And congratulations to those advancing in their lives.

Thank you. It's been a bit of an odd time for everyone I know recently but we all get through it by being there for each other.

Do you have the same feelings regarding a road map?

I don't see it as the same thing. A road map represents what is actually there, a religion might, but it's more likely that it does not (no matter the religion you pick, there are more people who don't believe it to be true that who do).

I simply can't believe in something that I do not believe to be true.

I also enjoy following one instrument through a musical piece. Adds another dimension to the work.

Well this I do as a mater of course. I have albums that I've owned for more than 20 years, and I still couldn't tell you what any of the lyrics are, because I simply don't listen to the vocals.

 

[trollface]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Oh Trollie your one of those uber-fags!

Wow, homophobia! Am I supposed to be insulted?

Really, Numbnoggin, you're as uber-tragic as a naked Thalidomide victim...

And prejudice against the disabled, too! I bet people are really chuffed when you join a conversation on their side. I'm sure you're considered a real asset to the team.

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

I am also sorry to hear some of your acquaintances have passed on. My condolences to you and others affected. Always harder for those of us left behind than those who have passed.

Considering the circumstances I find myself in, and exactly how angry I find myself at the moment

Oh yes. I know exactly what anger feels like, and where it comes from. Our egos. Considering that I have completely made my point to you, I won't be needing my ego for awhile...so I think I will turn it off. Would you like to do the same?

But I do find contradictions interesting to point out:

I dn't want to name names because this is our argument and getting other people involved is not fair at all

I'm sure you'll have the uber-articulate and thought-provoking CAT as your cheerleader still.

Why bring her into this? You could have just continued to ignore her, and keep your focus on me and my ego?

Ignoring your own childish polemics, as I know they emanate from your ego, I think I am getting to the point of being willing to discuss some of the things you have said I have "ignored". Maybe you might be willing to discuss some of the things I have accused you of ignoring? And if you keep a keen eye out, you might see me admitting to some other "mistakes" I may have made. Do you believe it is possible for me to be "right" and "wrong" in the same explanation? Watch... you'll see how these are not absolutes, nor mutually exclusives.

Now before I address my first "ignored topic" of interest, let me finally reveal most of my distinct reasons for "ignoring". You probably already know some of them, but others you may have not considered:

1) Your own childish polemics and attempts to stir my ego's anger.
2) Your tactics to divert a discussion away from the point I am trying to make, and towards a point that you would like to "debunk", rather than staying on my point.
3) Things that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. (Sometimes I did engage you on these, but for different reasons, some of which you have now seen)
4) Protecting company proprietary information - As I have mentioned, some of the areas you think you are debunking as "wrong" I have actually put into practice. I would really love to show you some very detailed information & applications related to integrated Operational-Functional-Physical information architectures...but that would be giving away company data, which I cannot do.
5) Government security clearance - Similar to, but much more serious than, item 4. Some things I cannot discuss or even acknowledge for this reason.

Now if your ego is still turned on, you might take some pot shots and claim that some of these are "convenient excuses". Yet, since you are unaware of the truth of what I do behind the security "barrier" of my company & government, such statements would be things you could not prove. So you may not wish to bother.

So now in my next post, maybe it is time for me to "un-ignore" some of your points about the "unfolding of energy" triangles that I posted awhile back.

Oh yes, one more thing:

Every time the "accusation" that I'm a "debunker" has been leveled at me, I've offered this challenge - but it's never been answered. Perhaps you have the balls this time, Ray? The challenge is this - tell me what's supposedly so bad about being a "debunker".

1) Because when this is all one does, or when this is one's primary mode of operation, this indicates a severe level of imbalance. (Usually stoked by ego that is fed by "showing how people are wrong.")
2) Because one may often feel as if they are providing a service to mankind by "debunking" something they think is "wrong", and yet they may not have near enough information on the topic they think they are "debunking". If there are things that you are not aware of, it is quite possible that your "debunking" is wrong, in and of itself. In this case, you are not only NOT doing a service to mankind, you are doing a disservice by trying to convince other people that something with value has no value. Think of the people who tried to "debunk" Copernicus. They did not understand all of the information he had. Thus, such debunkers were not doing a service to others who might think Copernicus had it right.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

Because I am aware of it, I can easily suppress it at will.

But you deliberately choose not to?

I am more interested in sharing knowledge and insights with folks on this board to reach higher levels of understanding, and to advance theories that may help us lead to advances such as time travel.

I'm just as interested in sharing knowledge as you are and I enjoy reading your posts, since they often contain useful information. However, sharing knowledge and declaring things as the truth are two different things. You may experience it as a higher level of understanding, but to me it's just as real as aliens making cropcircles with a high energy beam coming from their spaceship /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

So when you claim something to be true, you can expect that people who think otherwise will try to prove you wrong. It's in the way you present it. You dismiss every argument that does not comply to your believes, by saying we haven't reached that level of understanding yet. From my point of view I think that the level of understanding is high enough, but the presented evidence is insufficient.

I would like to move on in this discussion as well, but I think that's only possible if we ignore the issue of god and focus on the more scientific aspects of timetravel.

I have only seen the debunking. I tend to believe that this is so because this is how he "borrows energy" from people. (Read Celestine Prophecy)

I think trollface helps create a balance. I admit that it's not convenient to have trollface around when you try to force a theory upon people, but he does add a sense of realism to the discussion.

I also do not feel that Creedo exudes the kind of negativity that I see from trollface.

I don't think trollface exudes any kind of negativity. But that's because I share his views. Only difference between trollface and me is that I'm interested in some of your theories.


Roel

 

[RainmanTime]

Energy & The Tetrahedron

Let's try this one on for size...

ENERGY (This is the integrated 0)
/ \
MATTER--MOTION (This is the dualistic 0<->1)
/ \
MASS--TIME---SPACE (This is the tripartate -1<->0<->+1)

Okay, can you explain why energy is equivalent to 0? And why matter is equivalent to 0? And motion to 1? Ditto for mass and -1, time and 0 and space and 1?

Oh my....well, perhaps I was "wrong" about a detail here. Maybe even "wrong" about more than one detail here. But at the same time, I might very well be "right". Yes, I can address the numbers and how I used them. But as you know, numbers are symbolic. I would think that you would be more interested in talking about the words and concepts that actually comprise the energy triangle...because there is MUCH more "fertile ground" here for you to debunk, is there not? I mean, what is the fun in debunking plain old numbers when you can tell me I am "wrong" about how these 6 concepts interrelate and integrate?

First, let me apologize that I cannot provide better, updated graphics for this discussion. Since my computer hack/crash event I have not had access to post new graphics to my website that I can share here. So I am left to having to simply re-share older graphics that are close to the above structure, but not exactly what I would like to share. In the graphic that follows, please replace "I" with the word "Energy", and this will work for this discussion:

Oh my! Look! There are even DIFFERENT numbers on this graphic than what I posted above for the "unfolding" of 0! Is it possible that more than one allocation of numbers could be "right" in describing this geometrical relationship diagram? Yes, indeed. But let me continue to address the (-1, 0, +1) motif that I posted earlier....but this time let me make one "correction" where I may have been "wrong". See if you can find it and understand its significance:

ENERGY (This is the integrated 0)
/ \
MATTER--MOTION (This is the dualistic 1<->0)
/ \
MASS--TIME---SPACE (This is the tripartate -1<->0<->+1)

Did you catch it? I'll get to it in a bit, but let me go top-down here and address some of your issues:

Okay, can you explain why energy is equivalent to 0?

Because Conservation of Energy states that there is always a ZERO net change in energy for any physical processes considered. To put it in "shorthand", we write our energy equations in such a way as to say "the change in potential energy, plus the change in kinetic energy, plus the change in internal energy will always sum to ZERO." It is a fact of our universe as we know it. Do you wish to debunk this?

And why matter is equivalent to 0? And motion to 1?

Was I "wrong" to make this assignment? I did swap them (the change I made)...so maybe this is a bit more "right"? I think it is. Reason being that, from the human perspective you cannot "see" motion without matter. Matter is the "extant thing", and so it probably deserves the branding of "1"...any object of matter is the "one thing" you can directly perceive. You can only perceive motion indirectly through the direct perception of matter, that is IN MOTION. Therefore, I think it is "more right" to assign "0" to motion, since it cannot be directly perceived. Motion is the hidden variable until matter (1) comes on the scene.

Now, one could easily make a judgment that either way I assign 0/1 to these concepts is "wrong", but I think you can also see there are certain elements of "right" in it as well. However, some might think it is "more right" to leave "0" assigned to Energy at the top, and then assign "+1" to Matter and "-1" to Motion in the middle. This could also align with the concept that Matter is the extant "thing" (+1) and motion is the "hidden" or indirect "thing" (-1). This version would also appear to be more "right" in that the combination of Matter and Motion annihilate each other and form/define what constitutes Energy. Mathematically, this would be even more "right" because one could say:

Energy = Matter + Motion
0 = (+1) + (-1)

As we can see, "right" and "wrong" are relative here. It depends on your perspective and how you wish to think about these important concepts. One might be "more right" than another, but I do not think any of them are "totally wrong".

Ditto for mass and -1, time and 0 and space and 1?

Do you think this assignment of the symbols to the concepts is "wrong"? Perhaps you would like to swap the assignments for mass and space, as this might feel more "right" to you? Go right ahead! (I told you I was punnier than you). Yet I think I can make a convincing argument for why the assignment I have made is "right", and one could make an equally convincing argument as to why flipping the mass and space assignments would also be "right". Here is my story:

Mass is obviously more condensed than space, since it appears as "globs" within the vastness of space. Therefore, since mass is subordinate to space, we can assign mass as -1 and space as +1. Time is nothing more than the neutralizing "balance point" between mass and space. And if we look above to Matter and Motion, we also can see that Time is actually defined by the interaction of Matter in Motion. If we use the (+1/-1) allocation of Matter and Motion, we can see that Time will also fall out of an equation similar to the one for energy:

Time = Matter + Motion
0 = (+1) + (-1)

We are approaching an understanding of Time and Energy that is not only pertinent to this very thread, but could also be quite pertinent to the theme of this entire forum. In our human domain of limited perception of discrete events in the form of Matter-in-Motion, we are only capable of directly perceiving Matter-in-Motion as Time. In fact, this is precisely how mankind measures time...as matter in motion (see my Science web page on 2). Yet we also see from another equation above that Matter + Motion yields the description of Energy. Yet can you, as a human bound to your limited senses, perceive Energy DIRECTLY? The answer is no. We cannot perceive Energy directly with our senses. We only perceive its effects in terms of the relative motion of a body (kinetic), the relative positions of two bodies (potential), and the relative internal energy of a body (temperature).

This is why I say: God is Energy (technically, the integration of all Matter and all Motion), and we cannot perceive Him directly. The only way we humans can perceive energy, as Matter in Motion, is through our perception of limited frames of Time. This is also why we always say that God exists "outside of Time". Only physical beings live within the bounds of Time.

So...I hope I have addressed some of your issues and questions related to the numerical symbology I used in my previous posts. But as you can see, I am more interested in discussing the scientific concepts of Energy, Matter, Motion, Mass, Space, and.....TIME! If you would like to discuss these topics, and how they RELATE, then we might also wish to try to revisit one of the areas of discussion that I have put forth and you have continually ignored: Energy, entropy, information, and the wonder of closed-loop systems. But suffice it to say that I will continue to ignore any of your posts that attempt to lead away from the larger issues, and instead argue reductionist "details" just because you feel you can more easily debunk my larger theories by doing so. I will ignore such attempts, and you can berate me and make me "wrong" all you want. The only thing you will get out of it is a momentary "ego high". I assure you such tactics will not "make me wrong" in the message I am delivering.

Oh....one more thing to point out before I go. There is much discussion of the tetrahedon in the domain of Sacred Geometry. Stan Tenen understands the tetrahedron platonic solid as the form of the "meeting tent" within which the Light of God eternally burns. And incidentally, the tetrahedon has FOUR faces and SIX edges. These geometric elements of the tetrahedon can be aligned with the Tree Of Life in several different ways. I leave that as an exercise of discovery to the reader... it may help in your own research and discovery into the Tree Of Life.

However, with respect to the graphic of the sierpinksi triangle that we have been discussing (again, replacing "I" in the graphic above with "Energy"): You can "fold-up" this flat sierpinski triangle and form a tetrahedron. If you select the outer points labeled "Energy, Mass, and Space" and fold them upwards you will form a tetrahedon. The base of this tetrahedron is "Matter-Motion-Time", which describes the limited plane of existence we live in, where we perceive these 3 things as separate and distinct. At the apex of the tetrahedron, we have the realm of God...indeed, we see "three Gods in One" as Energy, Mass, and Space are all at the same vertex point. Where God is there is no Time. Interesting also would be to compare this tetrahedron to the pyramid with the "all seeing eye" on top of it that is not only a symbol of Freemasons, but also emblazoned on the back of every US One dollar bill.

Perhaps there is knowledge out there that others know, and have known, but have been tight-lipped about? Hmmmmm.....interesting correlations... but I guess some would say they are all just coincidences and "accidents".

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

I do not think you can honestly deny, given the facts of universal tolerances, that is it "totally improbable" that "someone" created the universe, as opposed to its appearance "by accident".

I experience the existence of god as illogical and improbable. I must admit that it's partly due to the traditional image of god created by the worlds many religions, but I personally can't think of any logical explanation why it would take a god to create the universe. After all, how would you explain god's "appearance by accident". Furthermore, a lot of things in nature "appear by accident", so why not the entire universe?

That may be your opinion, but I think you would have a hard time providing evidence. Indeed, this is precisely why physicists are in such a "quandary" due to the impact that quantum theory has had on science! At the quantum level, there are NO absolutes.

So the only absolute would be that there are no absolutes? That's a bit of a contra dictio in terminus don't you think? Like we've discussed and agreed to before: it's in the way we perceive things. I won't deny that at the quantum level there are no absolutes. I think you're "over-applying" existing scientific theories and principles (quantum mechanics, relativity) to justify your own theories.

If I am not mistaken, I believe even you have admitted (more or less) that "energy is all there is".

Yes, I'm only having trouble with you attributing this principle to god. For you that's apparently the only logical conclusion, while I don't see any logical connection whatsoever.

Roel, is it such a terrible thing that I "treat you like a patient"? I am sorry if it offends you, but I am simply stating my opinion and it is in no way meant to harm or insult you.

No, I don't feel insulted. I hardly ever feel insulted or harmed by words. I'm glad that you finally agree that it's your opinion and not THE truth /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif As long as you treat god as a theory rather than a scientific fact, we'll be able to take this discussion to the next level.

No one can ever insult you again in your life if you simply make up your mind to never again feel insulted.

Again, I don't feel insulted in any way. I'm merely expressing my dissapointment that you have accepted gods existence as the truth, rather than approach it in a more scientific way. You have some great ideas, but in my eyes they would be even greater if you took god out of the equation. But again, that's my opinion.

Oh well. Do you want me to respond the same way that you have, and feel insulted, or call you arrogant? If so, I think you have failed in this respect. You are fully free to feel this way, and think there is no proof. But in my version of the universe, I have come to know differently.

No, I don't want you to feel insulted or call me arrogant. I'm sure that if I'd really behave like that, you'd be dissapointed in me. And of course you are fully free to think there is proof, but in my version of the universe, I think you are wrong.


Luctor et emergo.

Cheers,

Roel

 

[CAT]

Sorry Roel, My intelligence will never admit that Gd doesn't exist! My first clue of existing proof was privileged to me many years ago...though I can not expect you to relate... I had a phenomenon...

A friend and I were in an apartment complex courtyard (13yrs old at the time?). We were bug collecting (as silly as it sounds). I had this clear glass candy jar that I placed on the cement sidewalk in which I took off the lid and placed it to the right of the jar. I noticed this white Butterfly...I caught it in a net and placed it in the jar...when I went to cap it with the lid, I noticed it was missing! My friend was on the other side of the courtyard and no other visible person was around to have taken it or walked by to kick it. So I called my friend over to help me look for it... At this point I had to let the Butterfly go! Meanwhile we both got down on our hands and knees and searched the sidewalk and grass for the clear glass lid thinking the sun was playing tricks on our eyes and some how it could have been camouflaged?

We gave up the puzzling search...Moments later we're walking down the sidewalk through the courtyard, and to our amazement we "both" saw this Ghost! It floated infront of us, than ran across the courtyard and jumped through a glass patio door of a vacant apartment! it was "strikingly beautiful!" It appeared to be a female with long hair and powdery white sparkling neon blue swirls inside it, like universes...

There was no doubt in both "our" minds that what we saw was "THERE" and "REAL!" We both felt that it had meaningful intent for taking the glass lid to the jar in attempts to free the butterfly.

It was something strange out of the ordinary to see! The glass lid was never recovered... To me this was beginning proof of the ether realm ...But even much more...it possessed the power to have physical contact with influence over space and time...For me this was certainly proof beyond measurable doubt that if such magnificent entities exist in that state and form, than so must Gd...

 

[RainmanTime]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

But you deliberately choose not to?

Indeed. And can you now see why I chose not to? Sometimes ego comes in handy. It is a tool of the subconscious. However, unless someone has learned to "close the loop" on their subconscious (a recurring theme), then that tool can become something that controls you.

So when you claim something to be true, you can expect that people who think otherwise will try to prove you wrong.

Certainly. And I emphasize the words "try to prove" me wrong. I can be just as demanding for evidence that I am wrong as you can be that I am right, correct? In fact, it is interesting how both you and trollface will not respond to my own calls for evidence. This was a point that I believe I have made with trollface, and I needed my ego to do it.

by saying we haven't reached that level of understanding yet. From my point of view I think that the level of understanding is high enough, but the presented evidence is insufficient.

You may think your level of understanding is higher, but if I am aware of something (specifically, about Qabalah and Tree Of Life) that you are not aware of, then I would say your level of understanding is lower. Again, you are in control of whether you feel insulted. If I can plainly see that you and trollface have not studied Qabalah as deeply as I have, and that I understand some things that you do not, I am simply telling the truth from my POV. If you feel insulted by this, there is little I can do about it. In fact, you seemed of the opinion that Qabalah was "just another religion". Through my studies and research I know it is something more... it is a compendium of knowledge that describes the structure, order, and interactions of the universe.

I think trollface helps create a balance. I admit that it's not convenient to have trollface around when you try to force a theory upon people, but he does add a sense of realism to the discussion.

Certainly, balance is a good thing. In fact, if you recall the dicussion of our souls in the Triplcate thread, I believe I did confirm that there IS a purpose for trollface being here that is specific to myself. He is an extant reflection of my soul. One reason he is here is for me to address things in myself. However, I have not seen that he believes the reverse is true. It is my opinion that his ego is holding him back from a message that I have for him. From his words and tactics, it is obvious he thinks there is nothing he can learn from me. When you think there is nothing you can learn from another person, your ego is driving the bus.

Now,as for "realism"...it is relative to what one knows to be "true". As I have said tirelessly, there is much to know beyond your senses, Roel. You are in a state where you want me to consider the belief that what I have perceived beyond my physical senses is NOT true or NOT real. And I have given you my reasons why it does not make sense for me to accept your proposal. Instead of trying to get me to think this way (based on no knowledge of your own for what I have perceived beyond my senses), perhaps it might be more useful for you to explore beyond your senses yourself. Unless you are afraid of finding confirmational knowledge that aligns with what I am talking about....???

Only difference between trollface and me is that I'm interested in some of your theories.

Well thanks, I appreciate that. And I have always appreciated our back-and-forth, as I have found many of your points constructive. Recall back to my initial post on Massive SpaceTime, and how you contributed graphics to the thread to help us all understand. This is valuable. Yet I have not seen this level of "positive contribution" from trollface. I only see him picking and choosing his issues in a need to "tear down" and make people wrong. Say what you want, and interpret this as you wish, but I have come to learn that such behavior is unbalanced and dangerous to one's attempt to "close the loop" on their soul.

RMT

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

For someone who normally writes with a high degree of clarity, it becomes all the more apparant when you purposefully try to make a question extremely vague and non-specific.

Although I agree with you completely, I can't let you of the hook. English is not my native tongue, so please be merciful, but I think you meant "apparent" /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Roel

 

[CAT]

However, with respect to the graphic of the sierpinksi triangle that we have been discussing (again, replacing "I" in the graphic above with "Energy"): You can "fold-up" this flat sierpinski triangle and form a tetrahedron. If you select the outer points labeled "Energy, Mass, and Space" and fold them upwards you will form a tetrahedon. The base of this tetrahedron is "Matter-Motion-Time", which describes the limited plane of existence we live in, where we perceive these 3 things as separate and distinct. At the apex of the tetrahedron, we have the realm of God...indeed, we see "three Gods in One" as Energy, Mass, and Space are all at the same vertex point. Where God is there is no Time. Interesting also would be to compare this tetrahedron to the pyramid with the "all seeing eye" on top of it that is not only a symbol of Freemasons, but also emblazoned on the back of every US One dollar bill. Perhaps there is knowledge out there that others know, and have known, but have been tight-lipped about?

Again, I agree with Ray here with Sierpinksi geometrics and the tetrahedron in relations to the Great Pyramid as the all seeing eye... This again contains the magic number of Phi, and is also in relation to the Hebrew letters... The Great Pyramid contains within its constructed structure Phi as well as the Hebrew letter Aiyen, which means EYE... This very structure was used at one time to govern the same forces of Gd and nature... Its too complicated to start explaining, especially to such undeserving people that lurk here on the forum... If anyone would like to know or discuss this, I have a personal inbox... We have been sheltered from the past knowledge of a post civilization...

As for you Trollie, if you're looking for "sympathy", you can find it in the Dictionary between
sh!t and syphilis...

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Cookbook for Creation

And I wondered why others would possibly question the Christian belief system? In the witch related chat rooms , they seemed to be more reasonable to differing ideals. It is also ironic that those who were persecuted for being involved with "evil" actually were less of a threat than those impossing the "light" of right.

Being an outsider, I think Wicca is the most interesting religion. The mysticism is almost unrivaled. PLUS they have some of the best promoters in the industry: Alyssa Milano, Rose McGowan and Holly Marie Combs /ttiforum/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But seriously, I think this shows that religion can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the way you interpret it.

Roel

 

[Roel van Houten]

Re: Energy & The Tetrahedron

because there is MUCH more "fertile ground" here for you to debunk, is there not?

Fertile Ground... they make great music and I guess it's even more enjoyable when you're of the spiritual kind.