I propose that Creational geometry is the missing link which will unite religion with science. The visualisation of how structure formed before the big bang would be truly mesmerising and would be just a glimpse of the workings of the Almighty.
How about the fractal nature of Creational geometry?
- Thread starter common_sense_seeker
- Start date
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Daydreams.
Sorry for the delay in answering btw. It does indeed refer to a building of structure before the big bang. My vision is very simple; it was conceived by thinking of an alternative route of investigation just after Newton's declaration of his gravity law i.e. I'm disregarding Einstein's picture of space-time and the rubber sheet analogy to explain the force of gravitation. The simplest way is to imagine a volume of Euclidean (i.e. normal) 3D space with x, y and z axes. (I'm assuming that this space appeared just before the creation of structure). Just considering one axis for now, the x axis say, spinning energy could suddenly materialise and burst forth in one direction and in the opposite direction. This way momentum is conserved. As the length of the spinning structure increases so the time taken for the rotation force to reach the free end of the 'thread' increases. This will begin to induce the formation of a helix in the continuously growing thread. This helix structure will then begin to act like the initial straight thread itself, and begin to form a 'helix of a helix' in a fractal-like manner. Because a spinning helix can also act as a force of attraction or repulsion, analogous to a wood screw for example, radiation from this high-energy spinning thread structure could produce a force of attraction i.e an explanation for gravity. If this radiation travels around a 'wraparound universe' then it will reappear (perhaps 6 billion years later) as a cosmic force of repulsion. It takes time to appreciate, but seems to fit all the required criteria in a very simple and elegant way. An analogy I used during this thinking was holding a piece of cotton thread between my fingers and letting it hang down. Rolling the straight thread between my fingers would make the cotton begin to form a helix-like structure. Try it.
Many thanks for this link Swarm, it's just what I'm talking about. I'll even email the guy as soon as I have time.
could be
just explain that words are the creations of mankind (like fractals within existence)
such that they did not exist within nature (see airplanes) and mankind created them (all words)
they transcend time; the meanings can be learned and ideas experienced well after the writting (like this post or even books)
if the fractal is within existence, are you suggesting there is an almighty 'else-where' or not in/of existence (where's that?)
remember knowledge evolves, words are mankinds creations and one day the absolute of truth will be understood by the gifts and choices of men/women; just like all knowledge any can experience from all over the earth, it came from the contributers within existence (god) by mankind
nothing magical/miraculous about it
My vision is a 'wraparound' universe where if you throw a rock out into space from a spaceship, it will eventually circle the universe to hit you in the back of the head! It's a trick that cosmologists use to make the universe finite without any boundaries i.e. you won't hit a wall or an edge if your spaceship travels into outerspace. The space outside this 'hypersphere' is the higher dimension. I believe this is filled with energy and that some penetrated the initial 3D void of the universe to build-up and then crash into one another to create the big bang. It needs to be represented on a computer to make understanding easier. I hope that this will be achieved in the not-too-distant future.
Thanks for your support. See above for my answer to your questions.
There's another on-going thread on the subject: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95031. It has a nice picture of my proposal for a gravity particle (a spinning helix). It's a lot simpler than it all sounds, honest. Also a fractal is a self-replicating pattern found in nature. An iconic example is that of the fern.
that wrap-around is the fourth (time)
each slice in time are them 'utter' places
but for the general rule; please we have enough 'beliefs' in the religious section and the scientific gang are getting to be just as bad with beliefs (dark matter/energy, black holes, utter dimensions or even funny places where gods pull 'strings')
If you want an example just look up a time (fourth) modeling; i bet it was what you are trying to describe.
follow this simulation and find basically what you shared is within.
http://dwf.blogs.com/beyond_the_paper/2009/05/what-is-4d.html
that fourth is 'time' and each slice in time affects all others.
I don't see how religion and science need "unifying."
Generally the NOMA theory seems to hold them both together.
Personally, I don't believe the NOMA theory because of the big 2 (creation of the universe and abiogenesis) clearly require some overlap, but even so, I don't think science and God should have any quarrel.
Hell, God isn't falsifiable, so science will never prove him nonexistent, and if God exists, he created science, so that's not a contradiction either.
Generally the NOMA theory seems to hold them both together.
Personally, I don't believe the NOMA theory because of the big 2 (creation of the universe and abiogenesis) clearly require some overlap, but even so, I don't think science and God should have any quarrel.
Hell, God isn't falsifiable, so science will never prove him nonexistent, and if God exists, he created science, so that's not a contradiction either.
science defines reality; religion doesn't
theories are like religions; created by man to define what is believed.
existence/the garden/god; don't fib, mankind does
your creator, your first/last, your everything; is not found in a book
look around; existence itself is HE
every step you take is in him
why do you think every breath, should be appreciated?
speak softly, walk gently and by all means, no false witness; don't you take for the self, causing a loss to the common, just because you can as nothing will undo a negative that you impose to existence (the boss himself)
when you remove yourself from the garden, then you away from reality
the sciences and the words from the four corners of the globe do and will combine.
sure a few will be flabbergasted but that is the old school still selling the idea that god is some dude on a thrown (like zeus)
No. Science reports about reality.
then what is dark matter/enery...black holes, higgs boson?
them all creations of science; and that is the report!
darwin was a fine example of 'reporting' or as i call it, describing what he experienced.
but most of physics is not based on that, it is based on trying to use math to predict and when observational evidence (like from hubble) does not match what was mathematically predicted, then new shit is created (see the junk above 'all created' crap)
we all know and can experience life
but can the sciences describe how life works at the molecular scale? NO!
can they even define a metabolic process correctly? NO!
to this day, the "soup of life" is still considered a 'random assembly' of mass and they cannot even define the phospholipid bilayers and how they assemble.
my point is; the math is wrong and has been for a long long time
energy is not described correctly and it is from 'walking the planck' that has the industry of science 'lost in space'
sure we have TV's because the electronc folk know to see the wavelength as the specimen but not in biology; they work as if you put the shit together, the 'spark of life' will just magically begin the process (as chemical REDUCTIONS)
(eg......... the exchange of energy between mass of living structures is not electrical/electricity/a potential difference) (proof: a magnet would interrupt the processes if that was true; a life in an MRI would be deadly if what the 'community' said about how life works was true)
No. Science reports about reality.
"Creations" once they are known to not report about reality are dicarded as false assumptions