Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/3/2010 10:44 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:

...
What if faith and belief in "MIND-BLOWING MIRACLES" is simply the
result of ignorance?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Let me look around a bit ... hmm, well, ignorance seems to be bliss, and
in vogue! Public servants have even made it stylish! ROFLOL

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/3/2010 10:44 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:

...
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Seriously, though, the real question is "Where did the ether come from?"
(and, everything else which is composed of it.) You can see how far we
are from even being able to pose that question; We have to "discover
it" first. It is actually a little premature to be having intelligent
conversations, debates, discussions, etc. until there is something to
have them about!

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/3/2010 10:39 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Sep 3, 7:43 am, Michael wrote:
Might as well just say the answer is because God wants it that way.

Please note: As ignorance is slowly alleviated (over the centuries)
that option slowly disappears. Did you see this?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...-god-big-bang/
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Excellent article. States my premise well, especially:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a
challenge to traditional religious beliefs.

I am aware of no such proofs of such a law; And, Hawkings only presents
another religion for us to join-- "The Order of the Law of Spontaneous
Creation."

Don't need more religions, need answers here. Don't need to convert
science to a "football game" where you choose your side and root for it
.... Hawkings proposes I make a leap of faith not even I can stomach ...

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 3, 1:35*pm, John Smith wrote:
On 9/3/2010 10:39 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Sep 3, 7:43 am, Michael *wrote:
Might as well just say the answer is because God wants it that way.

Please note: As ignorance is slowly alleviated (over the centuries)
that option slowly disappears. Did you see this?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ng-picks-physi...
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Excellent article. *States my premise well, especially:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a
challenge to traditional religious beliefs.

I am aware of no such proofs of such a law; *And, Hawkings only presents
another religion for us to join-- "The Order of the Law of Spontaneous
Creation."

Don't need more religions, need answers here. *Don't need to convert
science to a "football game" where you choose your side and root for it
... Hawkings proposes I make a leap of faith not even I can stomach ...

Regards,
JS

John. Some are looking for an explanation for the existance of the
horizontal vector between two mediums. I do not know the originality
of that particular finding. I do know that a horizontal vector exists
in radio ie surface wave. Naturally some scientists would want to know
the other medium that allows this to happen and others have not
provided an explanation, so there is scientific reasoning on both
sides
Now Art came along and expanded Gaussian static law to make it dynamic
and equal to Maxwells equations on radiation. Thus was established the
presence of galactic particles resting on all diamagnetic surfaces on
earth, bearing in mind that diamagnetic material composes 99% as well
as the mantle of Earth of Earth ( Bismuth). Now that I have described
the other "medium" in question I will leave it to scientists to
determine and understand the questions arising from the double slit
experiment
which in these days of denial may take another 100 years. Remember,
the presence of particles is well established outside classical
physics and partical physics and now we can all agree that what can be
accellerated must consist of mass.
This thus dismisses the silliness of radiation being created by a wave
which is only an adjective decribing the movement of same in
abundance.
Like the "o" ring in the space vehicle scientists deride what
engineers accept as normal.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 3, 1:14*pm, John Smith wrote:
Seriously, though, the real question is "Where did the ether come from?"

Apparently, human intelligence and logic has not yet evolved to be
able to handle such questions although Ayn Rand came close decades
ago.

John, since you asked that question about what caused the ether, you
obviously must believe in the principle of "first cause", i.e.
everything has to have a cause. To avoid being a hypocrite, you must
also asked yourself, "What caused God?" - and what caused the cause of
God? - and what caused the cause of the cause of God? ... ad
infinitum.

I suspect Hawking is thinking: If everything has to have a cause, what
caused God? And if God doesn't need to have a cause, then why does the
cause of the Big Bang need to have a cause?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 3, 7:55*pm, Art Unwin wrote:
On Sep 3, 1:35*pm, John Smith wrote:



On 9/3/2010 10:39 AM, Cecil Moore wrote:

On Sep 3, 7:43 am, Michael *wrote:
Might as well just say the answer is because God wants it that way.

Please note: As ignorance is slowly alleviated (over the centuries)
that option slowly disappears. Did you see this?

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...ng-picks-physi....
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Excellent article. *States my premise well, especially:

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing," the professor said in his new book, in a
challenge to traditional religious beliefs.

I am aware of no such proofs of such a law; *And, Hawkings only presents
another religion for us to join-- "The Order of the Law of Spontaneous
Creation."

Don't need more religions, need answers here. *Don't need to convert
science to a "football game" where you choose your side and root for it
... Hawkings proposes I make a leap of faith not even I can stomach ...

Regards,
JS

John. Some are looking for an explanation for the existance of the
horizontal vector between two mediums. I do not know the originality
of that particular finding. I do know that a horizontal vector exists
in radio ie surface wave. Naturally some scientists would want to know
the other medium that allows this to happen and others have not
provided an explanation, so there is scientific reasoning on both
sides
Now Art came along and expanded Gaussian static law to make it dynamic
and equal to Maxwells equations on radiation. Thus was established the

writing in the 3rd person now art? you are the only one who didn't
understand that gauss's law was dynamic to start with. and has always
been a part of maxwell's equations.


presence of galactic particles resting on all diamagnetic surfaces on
earth, bearing in mind that diamagnetic material composes 99% as well

ah yes, the magical mystery levitating neutrinos that we are all
swimming in now.

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/3/2010 2:02 PM, Cecil Moore wrote:

...
John, since you asked that question about what caused the ether, you
obviously must believe in the principle of "first cause", i.e.
everything has to have a cause. To avoid being a hypocrite, you must
also asked yourself, "What caused God?" - and what caused the cause of
God? - and what caused the cause of the cause of God? ... ad
infinitum.

I suspect Hawking is thinking: If everything has to have a cause, what
caused God? And if God doesn't need to have a cause, then why does the
cause of the Big Bang need to have a cause?
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Yes, yes I do see cause and effect--in everything which is real ...
indeed, if someone comes up with an amazing story which leaves one out,
cause or effect, I am highly suspicious. And, which I am of God, which,
obviously, must exist!

As I have stated, I see nothing ordered, which is highly complex, unless
a thinking mind has created it. When someone says, "Well, here, here is
that "something" which breaks all the rules and it "just happened by
accident" or it "just is, has been and always will be", I think,
"They/he/she has to be kidding", even if Hawkings advances it. And,
yes, logic dictates there must be one thing which did get "the ball
rolling." That is God, whatever God is? If you want to make the ether
God, well, great, let's explore that possibility. However, all anyone
does is pose the "circular logic" which brings yours/mine/everyones mind
back to the beginning and you must ask, "What is the God." Or, "What is
the God event", etc.

It is un-win-able ... I suspect, better minds than Hawkings has pondered
it down though the millennias.

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 3, 5:31*pm, John Smith wrote:
Yes, yes I do see cause and effect--in everything which is real ...

But do you appreciate the first cause contradiction? What caused the
first cause? e.g., what caused God?

I had an epiphany today. I realized why God is missing in action so
much of the time. The Bible says that 1000 years in the life of God is
like a day in the life of man. Man sleeps 1/3 of ever day. So God must
sleep for 333 years out of every 1000 years. Bad things happen during
the 333 years that God is asleep. Witness the present.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On 9/3/2010 5:38 PM, Cecil Moore wrote:
On Sep 3, 5:31 pm, John wrote:
Yes, yes I do see cause and effect--in everything which is real ...

But do you appreciate the first cause contradiction? What caused the
first cause? e.g., what caused God?

I had an epiphany today. I realized why God is missing in action so
much of the time. The Bible says that 1000 years in the life of God is
like a day in the life of man. Man sleeps 1/3 of ever day. So God must
sleep for 333 years out of every 1000 years. Bad things happen during
the 333 years that God is asleep. Witness the present.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

Well, first of all, I don't insist the bible be taken literally ... I do
accept, that parts, i.e., Genesis for example, which happened before man
could create written records. These stories had to be passed father to
son, mother to daughter, etc. until mans ability to record these stories
on non-verbal media came into existence. And, God sleeping? Naaa ...

Your first point points out why Hawkings seems to be "losing it," to me.
He thinks everything began with the big bang ... the beginning was
before then, it was when the ether came into existence, immediately
raising the question, "Who/what created the ether?" And, perhaps the
creator of the ether has a creator ... so, this is why I think we need
to know more about the ether ... like I suggested, why even begin
"making guesses" until you have enough data to make them intelligently?
And, I over-emphasize that, of course, we may guess, but we need to
remain honest and admit they are only ballpark guess on only the limited
knowledge we now possess. Unfortunately, as you see, a guess can
quickly become a religious order ...

So, to summarize, Hawkings is two steps ahead of creation (and God)
already, he ignores, "Who created the ether?" and "Who created the
ethers' creator?"

Regards,
JS

Recognition of the Aether presence or not
 

On Sep 3, 7:52*pm, John Smith wrote:
Your first point points out why Hawkings seems to be "losing it," to me.
* He thinks everything began with the big bang ... the beginning was
before then, it was when the ether came into existence, immediately
raising the question, "Who/what created the ether?"

"Before the Big Bang" is an oxymoron. Our present big bang originated
from a mass/energy plasma singularity. There was no ether in our
universe before the big bang. There was no space in our universe
before the big bang. There was no time in our universe before the big
bang. There were no particles or EM waves in our universe before the
big bang. Our present universe did not exist before the big bang.
Consider that our universe may have originated from a black hole that
exploded as it reached some critical mass/energy threshold and
detached itself from a parallel parent universe as it winked out of
existence in the parent universe. I use the geometric term,
"parallel", rather loosely simply to indicate that the multiple
universes never touch after the separation.
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com