Special Attraction

[eleven]

Source .a

Christianity - "The Bible"

Although the nature of the 'bible' may have been altered over the years, I'm going to attempt, whilst applying wisdom and logical assertions, to decode - and understand the bible, as it was understood during its origin/initial creation. It's rare to hear of somone who attempted to understand word for word what the religion symbolized; a supernatural monotheistic figure seems to be the most popular way to view the text, however it may be the incorrect view-point. Putting 'Occams Razor' to the bible in the present day is almost useless, as the book is highly ridiculed by most scientific figures/media, especially within schools/colleges and education as a whole.

 

The Method is pretty straight-forward - applying a rule of relativity between each of the word-specifics (e.g. heaven, earth, adam, God, etc) in the book - then using factors in life and/or knowledge of space relating this special-relativity to that of the books. I will begin reading [genesis.1] and continue through genesis after I have reached a stand-still on the relativity in question, and require more knowledge to produce an accurate answer, even if that knowledge is found deep within [genesis].

 

GENESIS.1

 

1. "In the beginning, God, created the heaven and earth"

 

Immediately my wisdom acknowledges 'attraction/bonding'. I sense an immediate relation to the heaven and earth - reliant or simply binded to each other; on the other hand they could be simply opposite ends of attraction - even hot and cold ~ heat (entropy). If I were to write this in a mathmatical form I would in this manner: G=HE. Since this is the very beginning, these factors must be vital to the rest of creation according to the bible. Science is aware that anti-matter/dark-matter exists - using basic knowledge of these elements, I came to the conclusion that anti-matter repluses/repents all other matter, including dark-matter. Therefore using that basis and the primitive nature of both substances: H = Anti-matter and E = Dark-matter.

 

So far the current explanation for [genesis.1 .1] is: "In the beginning, God, created the anti-matter and dark-matter". In the algebraic form of - G=Am,Dm.

 

2. "The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was moving across the face of the waters"

 

Using knowledge gained in [1.]. The 'dark-matter' is without form and void'. Considering 'Am and Dm' and their current relativity, and the knowledge of dark-matter itself, I understand why it would be without form and void. As we're talking about the first steps in time, this 'darkmatter' must be of gigantic, or microscopic proportions. Example; super-massive black and white(antimatter) holes. Moving on, the intial attraction caused by both the substances would create a 'life-force' or energy. Seeing as the rule I am following is relativity, I am assuming 'God' as attraction/special-relativity that brings these two elements together, then continues throughout them, shaping and morphing them into their correct/good states. I understand that the deep and water faces hold some relativity to each other. Firstly they're both faces. Secondly they're both forms of h2o - Using wisdom I will assume the deep stands for deep-water, and water stands for surface-water(not-deep water).

 

As one of the substances is dark-matter, we're already given a good reason as to why the deep was dark, although not such a good reason as to why the surface wasn't and/or is any different. Assuming the substances darkmatter/antimatter created a 'life-force' attraction between each other, creating a 'deep' and 'shallow' entropy - it may have be trying to describe hot/cold water or essentially heat entropy.

 

The explanation for [genesis.1 .2] is: "The dark-matter was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep(hot), and the spirit of Relativity/Attraction was moving across the face of the shallow(cold)."

Diagram X

 

 

To be continued...

Apoligizing in advance for using some of the ideas posted on this board in my explanation

Edited August 3, 2010 by eleven

[ajb]

It looks like you are "matrixing", that is taking what you "see" in the Bible and then interpreting it as scientific statements. It is analogous to your eyes tricking you into seeing ghosts if you already believe in ghosts. Hence I use the same term.

 

I have spoken to people from other religions about this. To some extent, all those I have spoken to believe that their book contains details of cosmology also. They do a similar trick, "mapping" statements in the book to scientific discoveries. They see what they want to see in the books.

 

One problem with that is that the physical ideas and terms we use today (which are all man-made) were not in usage in biblical times. Energy for example in its modern usage comes was developed in the 19th century. Entropy is also from this period as is most of the ideas in thermodynamics. So I state that there can be no talk of thermodynamics in the Bible. (Mod time travel and removal of causality!)

 

Same goes for special relativity. This was developed in the 20th century, though the idea of relativity goes back to 1632 and Galileo Galilei. All well after Biblical times.

 

Anti-matter was predicted by Dirac in 1928. Dark matter was sugegsted by Fritz Zwicky in 1934. All well after Biblical times.

 

The people who wrote the Bible and other books had no knowledge of modern science.

[eleven]

I agree - I think I'm going crazy. It's stuck in my brain, I can't interpret the book in any other way but scientific. I'm about to move on doing the rest of genesis in this crazy manner and maybe I'll get to a point where it's impossible to carry on.

 

 

On and that note, this visage is over.

[ydoaPs]

Source .a

Christianity - "The Bible"

Although the nature of the 'bible' may have been altered over the years, I'm going to attempt, whilst applying wisdom and logical assertions, to decode - and understand the bible, as it was understood during its origin/initial creation.

Look into Historical-Criticism.

[eleven]

That wouldn't be using wisdom then would it sir? It would be using academa - the interpretation I'm meant to follow... The one I disagree with. I stopped that anyway, it's all in my mind now; I'm moving on to proving other things like art and creation.

[mississippichem]

This is a science forum. We are followers of the philosophy of empiricism (Look that up). Empiricism is basically the philosophy of only accepting concepts with quantifiable or logically provable foundations. Academia is how we pass our empiricism from one generation to another. Yes, much of the information that ends up in textbooks comes from academia. Those who work in academia, for the most part, have proven themselves to be honest keepers of knowledge and empericism. They have proven this through years of dedicated study and research. Many are under-paid and work in academia because it is their "labour of love". All this to say: don't state that you are against the opinion of academia; when "academia" represents a variety of opinions that all fall under the banner of mainsream, empirical, quantifiable, testable, and observable scientific reasoning.

 

That wouldn't be using wisdom then would it sir? It would be using academia...

Science doesn't use wisdom, we use deductive reasoning, logic, and mathematics.

 

I stopped that anyway, it's all in my mind now; I'm moving on to proving other things like art and creation.

These things are not provable or testable, thats why they are not considered to be in the realm of science. Not because we don't want them to be, because by definition things like art are the result of human emotion and feelings. They are subjective by nature.

 

Don't think I'm trying to be belligerent. I'm just trying to give a concise anecdote on why these things are not scientific. I apologize in advance if I come across as harsh.