Jump to content

Einstein's Simplicity


Recommended Posts

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." - Albert Einstein.
Does this contradict the following quote from "Ideas and Opinions" by the same author?
THE WORLD AS I SEE IT
(Originally published in Forum and Century, Vol. 84, pp. 193-194, the thirteenth in the Forum series, "Living Philosophies." Included also in Living Philosophies (Pp. 3-7), New York: Simon and Schuster, 1931.)
 "...I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature."
Being gagged by fear of the label "conspiracy theorist", I may not suggest that the apparent complexity of physics is possibly the work of man, and not of the Universal Mind. Likewise, the labels attached to believers in a Universal Mind could "scare an elephant to death" (quoting another great Master - Alexander Alekhine). But such marginalisation of particular opinions by "authorities" is reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao Tse Tung, while simultaneously ignoring Thomas Jefferson and many other famous humanitarians and their eroding legacy. Einstein is ignored on both scientific and social matters, for instance the impossible escape velocity from the Universal Bang consistent with recession velocities (Science), and socially...this gem, also from "THE WORLD AS I SEE IT".
"This topic brings me to that worst outcrop of herd life, the military system, which I abhor. That a man can take pleasure in marching in fours to the strains of a band is enough to make me despise him. He has only been given his big brain by mistake; unprotected spinal marrow was all he needed. This plague-spot of civilization ought to be abolished with all possible speed. Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism-how passionately I hate them! How vile and despicable seems war to me! I would rather be hacked in pieces than take part in such an abominable business. My opinion of the human race is high enough that I believe this bogey would have disappeared long ago, had the sound sense of the peoples not been systematically corrupted by commercial and political interests acting through the schools and the Press."
THE MEANING OF LIFE
(Mein Weltbild, Amsterdam: Querida Verlag, 1934.) 
"What is the meaning of human life, or, for that matter, of the life of any creature? To know an answer to this question means to be religious. You ask: Does it make any sense, then, to pose this question? I answer: The man who regards his own life and that of his fellow creatures as meaningless is not merely unhappy but hardly fit for life."
To remove the implication of contradiction in the mind of one who, as a champion of consistency, rescued physics from a great conundrum (time and space transformations), an assumption is called for.  "The Reason that manifests itself in nature" that is ever so tiny IS physics, while the meaning of (human and other) life is becoming ever more manifest as our power increases our disregard for the genius that has created finite life and its Universe. "The devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature" is both SCIENCE & RELIGION which Einstein claimed were branches of the same tree. Time and space are a facture of "the Reason that manifests itself in nature." Its power is ENERGY, and as the FIRST CAUSE can only be known by its effects. This is the ancient Egyptian concept of AMEN (E.A. Wallace-Budge "The Gods of the Egyptians").
Without a timeless cause of time itself (an effect), how can we arrive at the present from an infinite beginning? How many dubious hypotheses form a basis for the bewildering labyrinth we now call Physics? Einstein's hypotheses are few and simple, and he didn't produce entities to explain phenomena. He once produced a law which he possibly hoped would be vindicated mathematically, only to denounce his ad hoc Universal Constant as his greatest blunder. 
Concerning LIGHT itself, I'm not sure if he spoke of quanta per se, or only of the quantization of light as an effect of finite time to interact with an electron in its particular inertial frame, in supplying sufficient energy for the electron's "escape velocity". The quantum theory so spawned became, to him, more laughable the further it went. Considering that the "quantum" or "photon" has no actual rest mass = energy, unlike the four material quanta here hypothesised, it seems that the hypothesised "photon"/"antiphoton" pairs actually keep the "accounting books" as electric field disturbances, and allow material to be drawn into being like moneys from banks through pair production into our finite but unbounded Universe (Einstein). Specifically stating a set of hypotheses, we may have, if I may, that:
1. The only quanta in existence are protons, electrons, and their antiparticles. 
2. Relativistic electrons with appropriate wavelength glue protons together in a nucleus
by equalising forces;
3. Nuclear energy is a result of the release of these relativistic electrons;
4. Technetium has no stable isotopes due to a geometrical impossibility for balanced forces;
5. That all decay or collision products are either stable or unstable nuclei including the so-called neutron, with the longest half-life, 10.3 minutes;
6. Electromagnetic radiation is in fact, electro-magnetic-gravitational, and quantisation effects in opposite directions somehow incorporate a "left-hand-rule" so that only matter is affected in one direction, and only antimatter in the other;
7. "Quanta" and "antiquanta" with sufficient energy in any inertial frame can cause pair production with the excess energy responsible for the kinetic energy of cosmic rays so produced;
8.  Matter and quanta are converted to antiquanta in the attracting gravitational singularity or pole and repelled through all galactic material without significant impedence (except for pair production. Messier 82 is an example, where relative antiquanta of high energy (anti-gamma- rays) are focused, gravitationally, normal to the galactic plane and are materialising with incoming quanta);
9. All matter-antimatter and quanta-antiquanta reactions are completely symmetrical and distinguished according to the observer's material;
10. Quanta and antiquanta are produced simultaneously, akin to pair production, both cyclically maintaining absolute Universal conservation;
11. Circular motion (General Relativity considerations of acceleration toward a point) of electrons or antielectrons, shell or nuclear, are responsible for gravitational dipoles as well as the universal inertial forces, in much the same way that magnetic forces are a result of moving charges due to General or Special Relativity considerations respectively.
12. A universal status quo has long been reached since the Universal Mind said "Let there be Light, the light called day and the dark called night." The Universe expands, recycles and regenerated material, and according to Einstein, is unbounded but finite. On a clear day you can see the back of your own head!
This is A Steady State Theory that Einstein could not complete because the anti-proton, and thus anti-hydrogen, &c. were unknown during his effective lifetime.
Next life, I may attempt the mathematics, but the book "Jap Herron" (by Mark Twain,  posthumously) indicates that this planet will not continue, and Edgar Cayce indicates that we will move to Polaris from here, as indicated by the alignment of The Great Pyramid's ascending passage. It represents spiritual decline into the Kali Yuga in one direction, and in the other "the system to which the soul takes flight when it has completed its sojourns in the Earth." 
I wonder how many worlds we ruined before we arrived here. There are so-called "facts" we should be sceptical of, but also some we should not! "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he will believe anything." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton 1874 - 1936
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Olorin said:

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." - Albert Einstein.

Einstein never said this. The quote is from Ernest Rutherford.

5 hours ago, Olorin said:

for instance the impossible escape velocity from the Universal Bang consistent with recession velocities (Science)

I presume you mean “Big Bang”. Where do recession velocities come into this?

5 hours ago, Olorin said:

Considering that the "quantum" or "photon" has no actual rest mass = energy

It has no rest mass, since there isn’t any frame where it could ever be at rest, but is does have energy and momentum.

5 hours ago, Olorin said:

hypothesised "photon"/"antiphoton" pairs

There is no such thing as “anti-photons”; photons are their own antiparticles.

6 hours ago, Olorin said:

1. The only quanta in existence are protons, electrons, and their antiparticles. 

You cannot construct the set of know particles, their interactions and properties from just these. Also, the proton is not a fundamental particle.

6 hours ago, Olorin said:

2. Relativistic electrons with appropriate wavelength glue protons together in a nucleus

No. Atomic nuclei are held together by the residual strong force. If there were any electrons present inside the nucleus, then the shell structures of all the elements would look very different.

Everything else in that post is essentially meaningless technobabble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Olorin said:

"When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he will believe anything." - Gilbert Keith Chesterton 1874 - 1936
 

The rest of your post has been wisely and factually  dealt with as technobabble. The above of course being the ravings of a known writer and supporter of  Christian/Catholic apologetics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Olorin said:

"When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing, he will believe anything."

As an athiest, I have to say I don't believe that.  Ironical, ain't it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

As an athiest, I have to say I don't believe that.  Ironical, ain't it?

As an athiest, the irony is palpable and not from the quote you quoted...

Not that Olorin, has any sort of clue what he/she is talking about.

If we unpack the quote:

 "When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't believe in nothing" that part is patently obvious, however, it doesn't mean the replacement belief is more beneficial?

"he will believe anything."

Here-in lies the problem, of course he won't; he gives up the magic man, only to replace him with a different magic man???

That's one persuasive magic man...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Olorin said:


2. Relativistic electrons with appropriate wavelength glue protons together in a nucleus
by equalising forces;
3. Nuclear energy is a result of the release of these relativistic electrons;

False, and you would need to present evidence and a model if you want to pursue this.

 

14 hours ago, Olorin said:


4. Technetium has no stable isotopes due to a geometrical impossibility for balanced forces;

Nope.

 

14 hours ago, Olorin said:


5. That all decay or collision products are either stable or unstable nuclei including the so-called neutron, with the longest half-life, 10.3 minutes;

That’s a tautology. Either a particle is stable or it’s not. No insight into physics here.

14 hours ago, Olorin said:


6. Electromagnetic radiation is in fact, electro-magnetic-gravitational, and quantisation effects in opposite directions somehow incorporate a "left-hand-rule" so that only matter is affected in one direction, and only antimatter in the other;

Nope.

 

!

Moderator Note

I’m not going to continue; there’s no rigor here. Provide it as required by the rules.

Probably best to trim the list of claims to simplify the discussion. Perhaps the bit about nuclei being bound owing to relativistic electrons in them.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, swansont said:

False, and you would need to present evidence and a model if you want to pursue this.

 

Nope.

 

That’s a tautology. Either a particle is stable or it’s not. No insight into physics here.

Nope.

 

!

Moderator Note

I’m not going to continue; there’s no rigor here. Provide it as required by the rules.

Probably best to trim the list of claims to simplify the discussion. Perhaps the bit about nuclei being bound owing to relativistic electrons in them.

 

 

Your sugestion is a good beginning toward eventual expansion toward a Steady State Theory. This is ancient wisdom expressed in the Hermetic text "The Divine Pymander of Hermes", which would today be discounted much as Plato's "Timaeus and Criteas" history of Atlantis by Aristotle the Imperialist and mentor of Alexander called Great Brigand.

The Divine Pymander of Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus
The Second Book
called "Poemander"

15. But the Workman, Mind, together with the Word, containing the Circles and Whirling them about,
turned round as a Wheel his own Workmanship, and suffered them to be turned from an indefinite
Beginning to an undeterminable End; for they always begin where they end.

While the matter of nuclear residents seems obscured by "Quantum Mechanics", I own a book called "General Physics" printed in 1963. The critical page is attached, and delineates as stable the same non-zero rest mass particles as above (please excuse the misleading grammar).  The photon is "its own antiparticle" (sus) and the neutrino coexists with a distinct antiparticle and 1/2 spin. Determining this had to be clairvoyant or ad hoc for a particle that can reach the Sun through solid lead. Note also that, without another player, pair production cannot happen. I suspect that the neutrino is an antiphoton, each a particle functionally in a frame of reference determining its mass equivalent energy, but ultimately forming a bidirectional disturbance of the Force. All other particles break down like Uranium to lead 206 to four stable particles and energy.

How and why has this information been converted to the new technicolor quantum mechanical palette? It made perfect sense and was simpler before neutrons replaced relativistic electrons in the nucleus. I think the script writers of "Big Bang Theory" has much the same opinion. What objection does physics have against relativistic nuclear electrons, may I ask?

Subatomic Physics.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Olorin said:

I suspect that the neutrino is an antiphoton,

Your suspicion is wrong.

45 minutes ago, Olorin said:

each a particle functionally in a frame of reference determining its mass equivalent energy, but ultimately forming a bidirectional disturbance of the Force

A Star Wars reference?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Olorin said:

The critical page is attached

Only the first five particles in that table are actually elementary - the entire rest of the list are composite particles. There are also very many particles missing.
Why do you go back to a book that is nearly 60 years old, and thus outdated? Why not refer to a more modern publication that reflects our current level of knowledge on this subject?

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

I suspect that the neutrino is an antiphoton

It isn’t. Neutrinos (of which there exist more than one kind) are fermions, and they have a small rest mass; photons are bosons, and massless. They are completely different.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

How and why has this information been converted to the new technicolor quantum mechanical palette?

Because this old information turned out to be both incomplete, and wrong in places. We know a lot more about particle physics now (from experiments and observation) than we did in the 1960s.

4 hours ago, Olorin said:

What objection does physics have against relativistic nuclear electrons, may I ask?

The main objection would be that they are simply not there. With modern particle accelerators, we can probe not only the nucleus as a whole, but also the internal structure of the proton and neutron, so we already know that there are no relativistic electrons to be found there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olorin said:

The photon is "its own antiparticle" (sus) and the neutrino coexists with a distinct antiparticle and 1/2 spin. Determining this had to be clairvoyant or ad hoc for a particle that can reach the Sun through solid lead.

No, not clairvoyant or ad hoc. You could investigate it, but it would require learning some physics.

Neutrinos rarely interact but the do interact, and from the reactions you can deduce their properties.

 

9 hours ago, Olorin said:

 

How and why has this information been converted to the new technicolor quantum mechanical palette? It made perfect sense and was simpler before neutrons replaced relativistic electrons in the nucleus. I think the script writers of "Big Bang Theory" has much the same opinion. What objection does physics have against relativistic nuclear electrons, may I ask?

They never "replaced" them, and what physics has against them is that the model doesn't work. The model, I note, that you have not produced or discussed in any detail. No model of how an interaction between a proton and an electron could confine an electron to the nucleus, or how an electron in general could be confined to such a small region, and have this remain consistent with the physics that we know. And if it isn't, then you need new physics, which you haven't given us.

Presenting the neutrino as an antiphoton doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the physics discussion you need to be prepared to have. You've written one sentence of the abstract. Where's the physics?

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/14/2021 at 3:19 AM, Olorin said:

"It should be possible to explain the laws of physics to a barmaid." - Albert Einstein.

This is the more trustworthy version, I think:

Quote

“You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother.”

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/271951-you-do-not-really-understand-something-unless-you-can-explain

My grandma --my father's mum-- always beat me at chess --before I learnt some strategy with my brother, but by then she'd already passed away--, so I guess I'm not fully qualified to qualify anything here.

If that's what Einstein really said, and he was right, maybe it just means we cannot ultimately understand anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad you are all having a party with this. So certain you are! They were certain in '61 when this table was compiled too. Can we really discern two kinds of nucleons in the nucleus (protons and neutrons) and not just one, protons covered in electron glue? Can we be certain that events caused by neutrino's are not from another source? That they have a rest mass at all, and that the postulated and convenient three species for our quantum model are not our best guess when, in fact, they have an entire spectrum of mass equivalent energies? The scattering patterns of protons are without doubt proof of the new crew of fundamental particles? And some randomness statistically discerned is absolute proof that matter-antimatter reactions are asymmetrical? I may have faith in things I've studied and you have patently not, but I find little to convince me that the proposed basis for a steady state theory is contradicted with the certainty you entertain, at least partially. Is any of the wondrous subatomic physics actually applied by the military-industrial complex beyond convincing us everyone that everything is particles made up of particles with more to come, and not a fracture of The Force (laugh it up fuzzball!).

Neutrons last 10.3 minutes outside of a stable nucleus. Light produces two kinds of particle pairs that are stable outside a stable nucleus with perfect conservation. Everything recycles until we get to here, and with countless proposals for facts have not explained why pair production happens and why protons are 1830 or so more massive than electrons, and don't look like you will soon. Meanwhile the Universe is ACCELERATING in its expansion and you haven't invented a new dark something to cover that one? Good luck with the show. I was right yesterday (1961). You are right today. Someone else tomorrow. Everything explained. No contradictions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olorin said:

They were certain in '61 when this table was compiled too

Yes, and we moved forward from there. We know a lot more now than we used to, so we won’t be going back to 1963.

2 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Can we really discern two kinds of nucleons in the nucleus (protons and neutrons) and not just one, protons covered in electron glue?

Yes. And we can do much more than that - we can even probe the internal structure of the protons and neutrons themselves, and thus directly test the quark model.

3 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Can we be certain that events caused by neutrino's are not from another source? That they have a rest mass at all, and that the postulated and convenient three species for our quantum model are not our best guess when, in fact, they have an entire spectrum of mass equivalent energies?

In particle physics we do not speak of “certainties”, but instead deal with a quantity called statistical significance. This essentially tells us the degree by which, given a sufficiently large statistical data set, an event is likely to be “real” (as opposed to being a statistical fluke of some kind).
As for neutrinos, yes, we know these things with a very high degree of statistical confidence, way beyond the required threshold value. Note that the three neutrino flavours and their oscillations have little to do with mass, other than the fact that they need to have a non-vanishing rest mass in order to oscillate at all.

10 minutes ago, Olorin said:

The scattering patterns of protons are without doubt proof of the new crew of fundamental particles?

The various known fundamental particles have been found - and continue to be probed - with a large variety of different methods. I’m not sure what this has to do with protons, specifically.

12 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Is any of the wondrous subatomic physics actually applied by the military-industrial complex

Sure. Some examples that immediately spring to mind would be nuclear reactors, diagnostic equipment such as PET and MRI, quantum computers, and many more. Even your smartphone is likely to contain components that directly rely on some aspect of particle physics in order to function correctly.
Also, the chemical properties of all the various elements are a direct result of particle physics and its laws. 

16 minutes ago, Olorin said:

have not explained why pair production happens

Pair production is a simple consequence of quantum field theory, along with the usual conservation laws. There is little mystery here - you can even deduce some of the basic kinematics at play using semi-classical methods.

17 minutes ago, Olorin said:

why protons are 1830 or so more massive than electrons

That’s because, energy levels being equal, what we call a proton is a composite quark-gluon system, whereas an electron is an elementary particle. You can read up about quantum chromodynamics, if you want to know more details.

19 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Meanwhile the Universe is ACCELERATING in its expansion

Yes, which is precisely what General Relativity tells us will happen once certain conditions are present.

23 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Everything explained. No contradictions.

Not so! There is a lot we don’t know yet, and yes, there are some obvious shortfalls and problems in some of our models. Physics would be a very boring discipline if that were not so - these issues are what provide the impetus to do further research, and continuously develop new models, so this is a very positive thing.
At the same time though, there is an awful lot we already know at confidence levels that are so high that for all intents and purposes they can be considered near-certainties. We have much more powerful and sensitive instruments at our disposal compared to 1963, so we are able to probe far deeper into the structures of reality. The quark model wasn’t fully developed and experimentally tested until the 1970s, so your textbook is missing a huge piece of the puzzle.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olorin said:

They were certain in '61 when this table was compiled too.

No, that doesn't sound like scientists. What we know is always with the caveat that things could change with new information. But you proceed with the best information that you have. As Markus said, you move forward. If they were certain that the list was complete, nobody would have continued looking with higher and higher energy particle accelerators. 

3 hours ago, Olorin said:

Can we really discern two kinds of nucleons in the nucleus (protons and neutrons) and not just one, protons covered in electron glue?

Yes.

3 hours ago, Olorin said:

Can we be certain that events caused by neutrino's are not from another source?

Some other sources (e,.g. photons) can be excluded quite easily.

 

3 hours ago, Olorin said:

That they have a rest mass at all, and that the postulated and convenient three species for our quantum model are not our best guess when, in fact, they have an entire spectrum of mass equivalent energies? The scattering patterns of protons are without doubt proof of the new crew of fundamental particles? And some randomness statistically discerned is absolute proof that matter-antimatter reactions are asymmetrical? I may have faith in things I've studied and you have patently not, but I find little to convince me that the proposed basis for a steady state theory is contradicted with the certainty you entertain, at least partially. Is any of the wondrous subatomic physics actually applied by the military-industrial complex beyond convincing us everyone that everything is particles made up of particles with more to come, and not a fracture of The Force (laugh it up fuzzball!).

This sounds a whole lot like argument from personal incredulity.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You are probably right, and I must thank you all for your patience. I guess I'm lucky to have lived in this time and take in what I could. I hope I'm not wrong about reincarnation and we all get to see how these things advance in the years to come. Personal incredulity? Who knows? What is consciousness? Spirit? Timeless? The grail?

Edited by Olorin
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Olorin said:

I hope I'm not wrong about reincarnation and we all get to see how these things advance in the years to come.

If reincarnation is real, then it is obvious that we have no memory of our previous life.  Therefore 'we' wouldn't get to see how things turn out, the reincarnated person would see it and not us, since they would be no memory of their pre-reincarnated life.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/18/2021 at 9:50 PM, Bufofrog said:

If reincarnation is real, then it is obvious that we have no memory of our previous life.  Therefore 'we' wouldn't get to see how things turn out, the reincarnated person would see it and not us, since they would be no memory of their pre-reincarnated life.

 

For some individuals capable of deep trance states (labelled “autos” by the Great Hypnotist Franquin, Francis Patrick Joseph Quinn 1914 -2010), hypnotic regression can be used to recall past life experience. Remarkable information has been revealed, investigated, and verified without any explanation deriving from the subject’s current life experiences. Psychology sidesteps with “We don’t know how the information is supplied but refuse to accept past life experiences.” The body-mind must be suspended in that state as the recollections would derange an ordinary individual. Edgar Cayce could achieve this state and was allowed access to the akashic records of souls seeking information of a helpful kind.  He had to read his own output AFTER each reading. "There is a River" is a biography of Edgar Cayce 1877 - 1945, the book name coming from Psalm 46 KJV, a reference to the akashic records. Being a Baptist from a tobacco farm in Alabama, Cayce was shocked and horrified to discover, from his trance readings, that reincarnation, the chakras and astrology were a fact. The reading turned out to be for the once Hector of Troy. Heckling from the peanut gallery was quelled after Troy was rediscovered.

Cayce re-read the Bible KJV again, and decided these assertions could be read in or out according the readers predilections (or personal incredulity) = free will. Flipping open his KJV as an oracle, Cayce’s finger landed on Psalm 46, "There is a river...". Another very mystic Psalm quoted by Jesus with similar overtones, is Psalm 82. Written by Asaph who, according to the readings, was an incarnation of the Christ. Yeshua ben Yoseph was his real name. Isha, author of the Upanishad by this name, was very likely a corruption of Yeshua (also variously rendered as Jeshua & Joshua). This Upanishad is virtually transliterated from the original Sanskrit by Sri Aurobindo. Notably, J. Robert Oppenheimer, with assured credence, studied Sanskrit to access information about the use of atomic weapons by the ‘denied’ past prediluvian civilisation. Robert & Albert were both obviously unconstrained by their social environment, and at variance with fanatical atheism, gone full swing in 1900 to rapidly precipitate WWI. Likewise was Woodrow unheeded on a recurrence within a generation).

https://www.google.com/search?q=isha+upanishads+sri+aurobindo&oq=&aqs=chrome.0.69i59i450l8.6280313j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Of the author Isha it is was found written about 0 CE India “The Great Isha has been murdered in Jerusalem.” Jesus the Christ, to Occidental peoples, quizzed the Pharisees about Psalm 110 (the Matthew 22 debates) who, in their “not knowing the scriptures nor the power of God” were unable to answer “Asaph” and “were put to silence and durst ask no further questions”. John 3 echoes Job 1 KJV taken literally concerning reincarnation as:

“Then Job arose, and rent his mantle, and shaved his head, and fell down upon the ground, and worshipped,

And said, Naked came I out of my mother's womb, and naked shall I return thither: the LORD gave, and the LORD hath taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

This conviction, I think, IS the Grail, metaphorically represented in the movie “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)”. Without the ability to distinguish the literal from metaphor, Religion(s) and Science(s) are at variance across the board(s). A “prophet” like Edgar Cayce or a solid uncompromised tradition (like the Masons or The Jews [“Ideas and Opinions”] maybe) is possibly the only way to resolve the distinctions and reveal the mysteries.

The 1900’s also saw fulfilment of the prophecies in Daniel, an incarnation of Jacob and also the author of Revelation according to Cayce. The book of Malachi prophecies the return of Elijah (NT Elias) identified by Jesus as John the Baptist Matthew 11:13-14. Metaphorically discernible in Daniel are The Internet, the Atomic Bomb and assurances for those “with ears to hear” from Michael the Archangel and Lord of the Way “standing up for His people”. The OUIJA Board output of the discarnate Mark Twain (“Jap Herron”, precipitating crucifixion by several vested interests, a media circus and lawyers in less time than it took to compile over 2 years), Patience Worth (“A Sorry Tale” &c. Missouri Historical Society 10 Volumes over 25 years) and the healings by Grigory Rasputin (daughter’s biography, Pan books) are the most notable “EVIDENCE” (degree of correlation of extensive information vastly rivalling Scientific standards if arbitrary exclusions are disallowed). In God we trust? Zephaniah 3 KJV. It isn’t missile science…I think it will be…an asteroid belt between Venus and Mars if James Maxlow is correct. The other asteroid belt seems to have formed during the Ordovician,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordovician_meteor_event

when 100 x the current meteor strikes, and second largest mass extinction left a record, also from astronomical causes. At the end of the Preface to the novel “Jap Herron” detailing its dictation from the “other side” and called “The Coming of Jap Herron”, Mark Twain makes a consistent prophecy. Interestingly, Mark was an atheist in life, and providing for his daughters by creating the legal conditions of Copyright 50 years posthumously that destroyed his work as a literal Ghost-Writer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Zephaniah 3 KJV. It isn’t missile science…I think it will be…an asteroid belt between Venus and Mars if James Maxlow is correct.

Between Venus and Mars?? Earth. 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, beecee said:

Between Venus and Mars?? Earth. 😉

ZEP 3:1 Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!
ZEP 3:2 She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God.
ZEP 3:3 Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.
ZEP 3:4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.
ZEP 3:5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.
ZEP 3:6 I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
ZEP 3:7 I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings.
ZEP 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
ZEP 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

See Jap Herron by Mark Twain page 41.
 

Jap Heron by Mark Twain.pdf Jap Herron's Media Reception.pdf

Edited by Olorin
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Olorin said:

ZEP 3:1 Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!
ZEP 3:2 She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God.
ZEP 3:3 Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.
ZEP 3:4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.
ZEP 3:5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.
ZEP 3:6 I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
ZEP 3:7 I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings.
ZEP 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
ZEP 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
 

Jap Heron by Mark Twain.pdf 647.82 kB · 2 downloads Jap Herron's Media Reception.pdf 189.46 kB · 2 downloads

Yeah right! 🤣😆

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, beecee said:

Yeah right! 🤣😆

Perhaps you and many others might read the Scriptures before they have strong opinions one way or another. The Negative Confession from the "Book of the Dead" is straight forward enough. The Bhagavad Gita, The Bible or whatever. They say the same thing. Truth, justice and freedom come in sequence or the opposites. Religion is the cause of civilisation, "The Turning Away" (Pink Floyd, great tune) its undoing and ultimately war, and with increasing technology, ultimately annihilation by our own hand = fate decreed by higher laws or perhaps as a mercy "as lightning shines from the east to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." J.C.

How is this evil to say yet pure logic? Willing ignorance maybe? Okay. From very young I have been horrified by scenes of the American Civil War. "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" is both the microcosmic and the macrocosmic result of injustice visited upon the sons ... between the three and upon the nation ... the most evil destroyed, the salvageable taught their lessons, the best available left to rule. Thus we learn, and evolve spiritually by gaining nous. Today the Jews rule those ruled by money = power and their history and lessons are recorded. You know where. How can I take ridicule seriously from patently uninformed opinion? I will believe that we are just animals when a monkey makes a stone axe. The axe was the hieroglyphic determinant signifying a god. "Ye are gods!" (Psalm 82 KJV, quoted by J.C.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Olorin said:

Perhaps you and many others might read the Scriptures before they have strong opinions one way or another.

My favourite book as a kid was Goldilocks and the three bears.

 

7 minutes ago, Olorin said:

I will believe that we are just animals when a monkey makes a stone axe. 

Apes may imitate but they struggle to innovate | New ScientistBBC - Earth - Chimpanzees and monkeys have entered the Stone Age

Sorry, not a monkey but an ape...will that do? I really believe you should broaden your knowledge re science, because its obvious, 'thou know not what thou do or say" Father forgive him! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olorin said:

ZEP 3:1 Woe to her that is filthy and polluted, to the oppressing city!
ZEP 3:2 She obeyed not the voice; she received not correction; she trusted not in the LORD; she drew not near to her God.
ZEP 3:3 Her princes within her are roaring lions; her judges are evening wolves; they gnaw not the bones till the morrow.
ZEP 3:4 Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law.
ZEP 3:5 The just LORD is in the midst thereof; he will not do iniquity: every morning doth he bring his judgment to light, he faileth not; but the unjust knoweth no shame.
ZEP 3:6 I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
ZEP 3:7 I said, Surely thou wilt fear me, thou wilt receive instruction; so their dwelling should not be cut off, howsoever I punished them: but they rose early, and corrupted all their doings.
ZEP 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
ZEP 3:9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

See Jap Herron by Mark Twain page 41.
 

Jap Heron by Mark Twain.pdf 647.82 kB · 2 downloads Jap Herron's Media Reception.pdf 189.46 kB · 2 downloads

This is the speculations section of a science forum, this is not bible school.  Please discuss science in your replys.  Cayce is not science either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
!

Moderator Note

This is far from acceptable for this section, and the entire site. Don't EVER try to post things like this here again. This is a science discussion forum.

 
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.