Re: Jmpet\'s intro to Rainman\'s Massive Spacetime
A couple of items for today:
Truths are indivisible. If I took the Qu'ran apart and randomly reassembled it, I wouldn't have a "Devil's Bible": a book of truths is true no matter how you look at it.
This statement is easily falsifiable with a book that is more accepted in its truths: A standard physics textbook. Taking it apart and "randomly" reassembling it could (depending on how "random" the process was) result in gibberish and nonsense.
Beyond this, you seem to like the Qu'ran. I agree there are many truths in that book. However, have you ever looked into the truths inherent to the Qabalistic Tree Of Life? (Or do you dismiss this because this is knowledge that came to us via Hebrew traditions?) The fact that the human body (and likely the mind) are structured in accordance with this network diagram is certainly an important truth.
If you say something today, it should also be true tomorrow.
That is not how science works. What we know as "truths" today were certainly not the truths of the dark ages. And for all we know, the things we know of as "truths" today can (and likely will) be usurped once we reach higher levels of understanding.
This is not science, I can explain E=MC2 to a six year old, Rainman cannot explain Massive Spacetime to a 35 year old, something ain't right here.
I find this example interesting, for what you have not yet figured out is that E=MC^2 is one of the ultimate statements that described the fabric of Massive SpaceTime...namely, Energy. If you understand how Energy is a metric that is conserved, whereas Mass, Space, and Time are not conserved, then you not only understand E=MC^2, but you also have a good foundation for understanding how Massive SpaceTime extends this important, simplified formula.
My question would be: Can jmpet explain the more detailed (mathematical) formulations of Einstein's GTR that lead to the simplified equation? As a popular saying goes: "The devil is in the details."
So with all of that said, here is the other half to RainmanTime's theory of Massive Spacetime, the other half he doesn't talk about anymore. I leave it to you all to decide if you want this scientist telling you your theory is valid or not.
I am willing to talk about any of it, and will gladly denote where I am discussing spiritual concepts (which generally defy "proof" or falsification via our accepted scientific means) and where I am discussing concepts which are more aligned with scientific (verifiable) facts. You do realize, I hope, that a person is not always relegated to discuss "only science" or "only spirituality"? The fact that I discuss both does not mean I am saying conflicting things. Although one could certainly make it look this way with "creative editing intended to flow like a coherent thought."
As you are selective in what you have "edited together" in your other thread, some might be more interested in the things you left OUT of your edited version of my words. For example, I notice you have not jumped into the "Information Subsumes Physical Energy" thread. That is also another mathematical element of my theory. Why do you not use some of that material? Perhaps because you don't have the foundation in math to attack this part of my theory?
RMT
