Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Is God associated to time?

  1. #1 Is God associated to time? 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Now, let's not jump into assuming what I mean, OK.

    This "religion" section here could also, as all Moderators know, be a religious "flame" section, where ignorant scientific minds lash out at those who have a faith, because they don't (have faith)......that this religion section is actually an atheist dart-board.

    Let's try to get through that voodoo though, and find a bridge between religion and science.

    My first point is one we are all aware of, namely that Islam is More strongly associated to science that Christianity, that a monotheistic faith is more linked to one-dimensional time as opposed to two. Islam is that Monotheistic faith.

    Those who know anything about Christianity would realise that God is a duality, a father AND a son. Those who know even MORE about christianity would understand that God is a trinity, a Father, Son, AND Holy spirit. Islam would seem to state it is the Holy Spirit faith, and it would seem that science via the islam-inspired Rennaisance has heralded that singular "God" mentality with singular time. But what of dual time? What of addressing, as this arguments now appears to present itself, a duality of time, a theory proposing a duaity of time? Could it be more "relevant" to a christain people than the current version of science?

    There is nothing "wrong" with the current "one-time", "one-God", version of time, as all my good friends in the UK would attest to, given the majority of responses I have received in defiance of "two-times" space. But, what if we gave it a go, the "two-time" approach? It could be the Holy Grail of science. That's a Christian term, isn't it, "Holy Grail"? (maybe if all the previous is not understood, could someone confirm with me where the idea of the Holy Grail came from.......the "faith", which one).


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Don't rush this one.

    It may have merit.

    The story of the Grail is an interesting one. Basically, three KNIGHTS were commissioned to remain focussed on the concept, in protection of it. The opposite of that concept is the three wise monkeys in the inner circle of hell, hear no evil / see no evil / speak no evil, surrounding the devil. As the logic goes, the three "non-monkeys" are the inner sanctum of the "grail". The grail is the chalice that contains that trinity.

    The mystery of the grail though is "why did it disappear".

    As it did not fall into the "speak nothing, hear nothing, see nothing" category, the only answer is that it time-travelled, into the future. It didn't time travel into the past, because it was "saught" in the past, it was not "known", so to speak. So, it was relayed into a future time, somehow.

    This chalice that holds, as the story goes, this trinity, all of which that has in appearance been silent over the centuries, is set to arrive in this time, in our time, I feel. It may even be here, in our world today.

    It surprises me no one has mentioned this to you with your claim to be in possession of a theory of two-times. I do remember though you saying there was an overall "flow" of time in one direction, that time travel into the past is not possible, only the future.

    If you have evidence of that in your theory, it is unfortunate for others they have not recognised this, because it seems misfortune should not dog a theory such as the one you claim to have.

    I understand it is not appropriate for me to ask you the usual personal questions those of the order usually ask those undertaking strict initiation, but it would be good if you could "prove" some type connection with the "grail". I feel stupid in saying that, because really you shouldn't have to.

    One must ask the question what the grail's arrival into our time, hopefully, spells: what "magic", as people of today, would perceive it, would it "spell". What's the "message", basically.

    If I were to base my assessment on your theory-presentation alone, I would jump with some confidence to the conclusion that a "theory of all things" allows humankind the type of luxury of power only prophets feared, and the Kings of old dreamt of.

    It is surprising though it feels like a thorn, to those in the scientific community, in their side, in observation of their reaction to your presentation of this "possibility". Maybe you need to accept there is strength in being despised? Maybe you should accept that type of role?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    I believe that steven hawkings at one time did believe in an altenate universe theory, but has since changed his mind.

    Yes you would have found the "holy grail of science". You probably would win the nobel prize as well if you could prove such a thing exists. But the best known physic theorists have since abandoned the theory and so it is most likely just like the actual holy grail nothing more but a good story.

    Of course you would have a location in mind for this alternative space/time?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    No, it's the same spae-time.

    The change is in the theory, the employment of an extra axis of time, for mathematical purposes, time before and time after.

    See last weeks fron cover of New Scientist magazine. It's not the theory, but it's not a bad attempt.

    The place though in reality I have in mind for the development of this science and associated technology?

    I am forging that opinion, have been, over the past few months with the help of the forum members......the next-generation diplomats of our future.

    The past has held scientists as lab-confined out-of-touch-with-society nerds.

    The future, if our future with this ecosystem demans, holds that scientists have a "lot of explaining to do".

    Believe me, encouraging sensible debate is not easy. These guys want to come out swinging in a way they never were allowed to in real life. I am not the one playing fantasy physics, they are, with their antics.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    I'm not sure who the "they's" are that are swinging... How would you graph 2 time plots? with the same axis? X place Y time Z time? It doesn't make sense because both Y and Z represent the same time line at different reference points so they must continously cross. They cannot diverge because Y now, and Z 10 min from now...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    44
    To clarify: Y now z 10 min ago
    If y = z +10
    or
    z = y - 10

    you get a plot that must remain lateral to the other. At any given time y is 10 min further than z

    And sice X is a constant that means at each point of X both z and y need to cross and that cannot happen because there is no divergence or convergence so the place X cannot be the same on this lateral graph so you now have 2 places (ie alt space time).

    If I am missing something please share.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    You want to graph two times?

    Take 3-dimesnional space as a SPHERE.

    Now.............now listen VERY carefully............now, NOW, take two spheres, one representing time BEFORE, the other representing time AFTER..............THINK ABOUT THAT, if you have those "balls".

    Why would the 3D graph of time before be different to the 3D graph of time AFTER?

    Which testicle is bigger?

    Which one is lower?

    What do you want to blurt out?

    Should you have to?

    What is beiNg presented is a graph calculus of TWO SHPERES, as SD1-sd1 / SD2-sd2. (see WWW download below).

    THE WAY THOSE SPHERES, those BALLS, interact, defies BELIEF, so much so it beckons TRUTH TELLING.

    I don't want you to graph yuor ability more than anyone else wants to.

    You should already know what's at stake.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by scotty
    I'm not sure who the "they's" are that are swinging....
    I believe the 'they's' are myself and other like minded individuals who have critiqued StreamSystems speculations for their lack of content, lack of logic, absence of recognisable equations, inappropriate use of analogy, and a host of lesser 'crimes'. Not surprisingly SS defends herself, not by offering meaningful clarification, but by attacking the mindsets and paradigms of her critics. All in all an unedifying mess. It takes two to tango, and in this instance the two required components are 1) a delusional, egocentric personality 2) others who can't pass an instance of stupidity without comment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    902
    Sorry ffor not replying sooner, but "they (who) come out swining" was a term to describe the built up angst festering in a science establishment that is going nowhere without the employment of a second dimension of time.

    As for my "two balls" theory, well, I was appealing the the male ego, and that a new science for time, two times, could actually be a more healthy option for our instincts: that way we won't have pent up aggression, if I am right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •