The Creator is, there is no God

 

For more details see http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=105#p111

Looking for a sponsor or publisher for publishing a New concept of the universe.

narpred@mail.ru

 

According to archaeological data the Earth has existed for billions of years, and the man and all life on Earth, there are tens of thousands, and according to some estimates millions of years. And as soon as there have been humans thinking people naturally looked for the answer to the question: where did man, nature, the Earth, i.e. who or what is the Creator of everything on Earth and the Earth itself? In the result long before the appearance of religions in the teachings of Ancient China, Babylon, Ancient Egypt, in the Vedas it is said about energy as "the Creator." So Aristotle believed that under suitable conditions the active principle in the origin of life is present in sunlight. But with the spread of Christianity, the theory of spontaneous generation of life was not honored, but this idea continued to exist somewhere in the background for many centuries[citation 1361 the day], because it was pressed down by the concept of God the Creator.

Since there is a dispute between the priests and atheists: "There is a God or not." That is the very question – "Where did everything come from?", and "Who or what is the Creator of the material world?" has replaced the question "is There a God or not?" But since all the Earth, and nature, and man is, - and therefore the Creator of the material world is. Therefore, it is necessary to replace the question "is There a God or not?" to the question: "What or who is the Creator of the material world." That is the task of science should not be to deny or accept the existence of a religious God, and in the formation of the new – the opposite of religious, unnatural worldview and concepts of the universe, answering the questions: "what is primary and What is the Creator of the material world, the source of movement and life?". It is necessary to return to the ancient knowledge, according to which it is sunlight, which is a EMV is the Creator of life, and on the basis of the current knowledge about the nature of electromagnetic waves as carrier of energy and information: "the only Creator of matter, source of energy, movement and life are electromagnetic waves, which are ubiquitous, as befits a Creator, because their permeated every micron of space, is each atom, each cell. Then there is a "Creator" who created everything there is - they are EMV Space, which together are the bearers of infinite energy and information constitute the energy system of the Cosmos or the Cosmic mind.

However, this finding is perceived in bayonets of the current scientific community for the simple reason that the allegedly this concept is not confirmed by the publications. And given that the proposed concept refutes many theories of modern quantum physics, revealing the many mysteries of the physics of the atom, the disclosure of which cannot be obtained by the current mathematical apparatus on which is built the theory of quantum physics, it becomes clear preconceived negative attitude to the concept of worldview and the universe.

 The discovery of Copernicus in his time, too, had no official recognition since before Copernicus thought that the Sun revolves around the Earth because it seemed obvious. Same problem today between matter and electromagnetic waves (EMV) – "what comes first?", which is similar to the age-old dispute about the "primacy of matter or consciousness." But the impossibility of addressing this issue lies in the fact that there is no clear definition of "What is matter" and "What is consciousness?", thus by EMV are not given due place in the existing theories. And "matter is what has mass and gravity (gravity)", while "consciousness is the movement of information." After all, when we think in our brains there is a movement of information, which, as we know from physics, is only possible with the help of EMV, which are the only carriers and sources of energy and information. Therefore, the question itself "on the primacy of matter or consciousness" is also not correct, as the question of the existence of God, because consciousness is a product of EMV, that is, consciousness is secondary in relation to EMV. Consequently, the question should be formulated "What is primary – matter or EMW".

"So the cascade of the latest scientific discoveries of Nobel laureates Paul Davies, David Bohm and Ilya Prigogine showed that, delving into the matter, face the facts its complete disappearance". "Swiss scientists from the European center for nuclear research (CERN) went even further: they managed to simulate the "moment of creation" of matter from the immaterial world. Experts have proved experimentally that a portion (quantum) virtual waves under certain conditions it forms certain particles, while the other interactions of the same waves and particles completely disappear."

So the analogy with the discovery of Copernicus is that every material object radiates electromagnetic waves. It would seem natural to conclude – source EMV is the matter. But matter filled tiny part of outer space, and EMV are everywhere, in every millimeter of space from interstellar to every atom and cell. While EMV coming from the stars continue their movement regardless of whether this star is today, or it has disappeared as a result of cosmic processes. For example, from a collision of two stars, which leads to its explosion and disintegration into separate material objects with allocation of huge amounts of energy, which is distributed in the form of EMV, then self-moving as a result of interaction of electrical and magnetic impulses that make up all of ehmv. And since, by definition, the EMV are the bearers of electric and magnetic energies, that according to the law of the conservation of energy, it does not arise from anything and does not disappear, but moves to another state – from free-flying EMV in EMV persisted in atoms and cells. That is, the rotation energy of ehmv each atom is a torus (or a solenoid) a magnetic shell is created by EMV at the ends which creates a potential difference and the magnetic poles. That is, the atoms and cells as the primary material objects are the sources of gravitation and electricity. No charges in the form of a proton, neutron or electron or boson atoms no. So all the colliders and synchrotron designed to search for "God particles" called "boson", of which allegedly consist of atoms – nonsense scientific imagination: So the more powerful the flow of energy in the Collider, which allegedly formed the bosons, the more powerful they will be manifested, but which does not exist in nature, but only in the mathematical exercise the type of Einstein's equations with the curvature of unlimited space.

That is why the destruction of a material object, that is, when the nuclear decay of atoms and cells, there is a huge amount of ehmv, which continue their movement in a straight line until a direct hit to a tangible object when in a particular place will be created necessary and sufficient conditions for the formation of a new EMV of atoms or cells, that is, ehmv are the building blocks for the formation of atoms and cells. While EMV in contrast to material objects not subject to gravity, so flying in a straight line until collision with material objects.

Moreover. "Many prominent scientists, including V. I. Vernadsky, N. In. Timofeev-resovskii, admits the existence of the Cosmic mind as a kind of energy-field – the "Noosphere" associated with intelligent life on Earth. All science has been a constant realization that events do not occur arbitrarily, but reflects a certain hidden order..." Now scientific progress has reached such a level that machines, computers, robots, whole lines and shops working in specific technologies, programs, producing hundreds of thousands of identical products. And any deviation from the technological process leads to marriage. And if you take the billions of people who have the same organs and body structure, but different shapes and sizes, unwittingly comes the idea that we are all conceived and grow in a definite root program, but each with individual variations. But as we know from physics programs, programs, all information distributed through computers, which permeated the entire infinite space. And if we humans, as a creation of the cosmos, is capable to write computer programs, how do we take this information, or perhaps dreams? And we take them out of the Space through its convolutions of the brain, which, like the convolutions on the fingers of every individual so everyone has their own range of DNA corresponding to the configuration of the convolutions of the brain.

Therefore, in the vastness of space on countless EMV, there are programs of formation of atoms, cells, plant growth and living organisms, various scenes from the life, that is, any information. Thus, cosmos, universe represent the energy system or the cosmic mind. But the cosmic mind we replaced the religious "God", what in the world are religious wars for millennia, pitting Nations according to the colonial policy of "Divide and conquer". As a result, now due to religious hatred raging in the middle East, Europe is opposed to Catholicism and Orthodoxy, and the "soldiers of Allah" seized land "servants of God" in Europe.

The absurdity of gravitational waves http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=77

The analogy with Copernicus http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=103#p109

The origin of life http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=78#p80

Dualism ECH http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=26#p28

The request for the Nobel prize http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=14#p16

Climate change http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=22#p24

How is DNA http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=89#p95

The Earth's climate http://light-team.ru/forum/8-1350-1

On the basis of what we grow http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=16#p18

Key terms and definitions http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=105#p111

The processes in the universe http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=10#p11

The solution of fundamental problems http://nookosmizm.bbmy.ru/viewtopic.php?id=17#p19

Views: 186

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I agree with 'Origin' over 'God' over 'Creator' over 'Jesus'...

Of course, we always have the problem of a simple definition. I have never heard of definition of God with which I could agree until I read Taoist and Buddhist literature. Both describe Nature and talk about it as if it is a 'God', without ever mentioning the term.

God is Always Expanding.

Everything in Existence must Contract and Expand to continue, to survive another second. The reason people respect 'God' is the Expansionist nature. There is no obstacle that can stop 'God'.

I gave up on trying to understand 'God' through Christianity as it is so confused by the Jewish idea that Christians didn't realize they worship a False Idol. IMO, Jesus' message is 'Peace', Just like so many other great spiritual leaders, because it the natural path, it is the obvious path which we should all follow, but fail to follow on a near constant basis, thus we 'Sin'.

Sorry, I am ranting.

Reg, I agree!

Halfway through, have to make a quick comment.

The ancients solved the logic puzzle of what comes before us; the Sun. What does the Sun produce? Energy, of course. What is the Sun made of? Material/Atoms. What is matter/atoms made of? Condensed energy.

E=mc^2 is genius because it proves so much about our Universe.

Matter is Energy in a highly compressed form.

Here is a quick proof: What is fire? My answer; Energy. When matter returns to energy, it burns.

The heat you feel in your body is your cells burning atoms to continue their own life cycle which supports your life cycle. It is beautiful and amazing and deep and true. I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but the universe comes from the simplest thing possible.

Voyager has left the Solar System which is bounded by the energy from the Sun. The Sun dominates our Solar System with raw energy. Outside of our Solar System, there is tons of heat which is energy.

How does energy change to matter? There is a mechanism we have not yet discovered, but can logically infer. Energy MUST become Matter at some point with whatever conditions were required. It had to happen as it is possible, thus probable, thus it MUST Happen.

Love the world. #SpiralTheory

Matter and energy are the same thing. In space energy transforms into matter and just as instantaneously reverts back to energy. So matter morphs into energy then winks out again. It turns out to be the same thing just different manifestations quantum physics.

I know I'm right but not sure of my the ability to express myself

All matter is condensed energy. The same reason electronics work the same as plumbing is the same reason the law of attraction is considered the first force. To have a system, positive and negative must exist.

You could call quantum soup 'matter', but it is not stable long enough to become tangible. The matter becomes stable by finding a steady state, usually with like kinds :) Hydrogen enjoys the company of Hydrogen; H2. As more complex matter exists, more stability comes.

Ok. All done.

First: Please have someone else proof read before you post. There are some serious grammar mistakes which make the sentences difficult to understand.

Second: What does every single thing within existence share?

It is One. It is Spiraling/Spinning. It is Energy.

The moment of creation is the point at which energy manifests which can be analogized by Life.

Every corner and crack on Earth has energy, matter and nearly every nook has some form of Life.

As Nature feels out available space, as does Energy, as does Life.

Your story is interesting and I see where you are stuck. The Electro Magnetic Wave comes with Existence. We have observed many of the natural laws which allow the universe to balance itself enough to form everything you experience. I am confident the sub-atomic particles will offer more insight into the mechanisms, but the debate regarding, "God is required for Existence" is completely bunk.

Humans may never discover the exact mechanisms which form the universe, but the logic puzzle was solved 1000's of years ago by people with far fewer facts than we.

The faster you are travelling, the more mass you gain, and the more energy is required to accelerate you.

The point at which the mass you gain overwhelms the energy required to accelerate it further..is at lightspeed.

The faster you travel, the slower time passes to you.

If you were a photon, travelling at the speed of light, you would not see motion, and, everything in your frame of reference would be static/motionless....as, in that frame of reference, time has stopped.

A quantum vacuum is unstable, and, generates photons, electrons and positrons.

This requires no "spinning".

:D

So, we know space has to exist, as, even if there were "nothing", that's what we'd have...and it has to be infinite, as there can be nothing outside of it.

We also know that time has to exist, and, also has to be infinite, as, no matter when you refer to, there would always be just before, and, just after it.

We also know spacetime is a separate entity, a real thing that can expand, and can be warped by mass and acceleration.

We know OUR known universe is expanding into this infinite space, at an accelerating rate, and that it started to expand ~ 14 billion years ago.

And

We know that if your message is "Peace", you have the visionary genius of a Miss America contestant.

:D

Sorry, TJ. I have to disagree with your assertion of "no spinning".

Please read up on Quanta. All of them have a Spin. Because they must spin just like the Earth and the Sun rotate on their axis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_%28physics%29

Space exists and is then filled by the same nothingness which Krauss speaks on. I am not a physicist and do not wish to argue over details of complex theory.

LOL, Miss America. Nice dig.

Of course, Peace is a simple message, but it is the message propagated by nearly all spiritual leaders. I would argue any leader who advocates initiating violence is someone to shun.

Andrew, "spin" means different things depending on the context (and we can forget about political spin). As far as spin in elementary particles go, at least amongst a sizeable set of theorists at the moment...spin does not equal rotation (like the Earth rotating). If the particles actually rotated...they would be rotating faster than the speed of light (to account of the magnetic fields that emerge) ... which in theory is not possible. Spin, in this case, is a label for a quality of the particle, not necessarily rotation.

Correct, spin doesn't mean rotational spin any more than flavor means how it tastes or color means how it appears to absorb or reflect different wavelengths, etc.

Charm may not mean it's ability to sweep a girl off her feet, and so forth.

When you are unaware of the science involved, often due to lay articles that DO try to simplify things...it can lead to these misunderstandings.

And, peace is not a thing...its an absence of war.  If you mean inner peace, etc, as an expression, then it is an absence of internal stress/strife.

You cannot successfully wage peace, at least historically.  You need to instead wage campaigns against the factors that lead to war/fighting.

War doesn't break out for no reason...there are always reasons.  Mostly, so some rich people can get richer, but, whatever the specifics of it...there are factors that cause it.

You can't just tell people to not fight, they are fighting because something motivated them to fight.

The soldiers are not the one's with the original motivation...few would choose to die so their country can have a port that doesn't freeze every winter.

That's where religion and nationalism come into play, so they can be motivated TO die so that their country gains a winter port....by telling them they are dying for something that sounds noble.

To campaign for peace, you are essentially telling those with vested interests to abandon their vested interests where those interests involve gaining via force.

To campaign against war, historically, you need to, instead, to be successful, campaign against the objectives and manipulations of the parties who benefit from war.

If poverty or tyranny drives a rebellion...is peace really better?

Would it not be best if there were not poverty or tyranny?

Overthrowing a tyrant may require war if there is no politically practical solution.

Solving poverty may require gaining water access to allow agriculture or industry.

And so forth....hence peace not being the "answer" in all cases.

What's more important is the "question"...in that there are factors that lead to poverty, inequality, tyranny, and, yes, wars......and, we need to understand what those factors are, and, address those factors.

If there are no wrongs to redress, no factors that require a fight to settle...peace is the result.

:D

"Peace is not a thing." What the fuck?

I am peaceful. You are most likely peaceful.

Do you resolve conflict through more war?

I am so confused by that statement, but I see what you are trying to say with the subsequent statements.

Let me try to summarize.

Peace is the goal. War is just another form of conflict that all life must solve.

Imagine, if everyone pure follows Jesus' message of peace, love your neighbor as yourself (I KNOW HE SAID HE BRINGS A SWORD...), would we have war?

I advocate peace as the ideal because it is the ideal. No one wants war, right? The people want peace so we can live without the threat of death.

How could humanity achieve peace?

Take a look at your local market. There are exceptions, but for the most part, everyone is peaceful. When we agree to the rules, we can live peacefully.

Yes, there are motivations in which humans use the tool of violence to force others to provide the resources/energy they need to survive. I hate that fact about humanity, but it is something we had to inherit from our ancestors as they had a much tougher struggle than we. One day, I hope against hope, we will grow out of it.

Be peaceful, my friend.

TJ gave a rather sophisticated analysis of what peace is. He was totally correct with his definition. Peace is a lack of conflict. If there was no conflict then peace would be an irrelevant term. People talk about lasting peace as though it is an actual thing...but it's not a thing. It's a period of time where there is a low level of conflict, especially conflict that is obvious and visible. There is always some kind of conflict happening even if it is moderate compared to other environments and there is always hidden or silent conflict that people are shielded from, unaware of or willfully ignorant of.

One of his strongest arguments is that focusing on ending the most evident and visible conflicts is not necessarily the best move in all cases. Instead, focusing on the the problems from which conflict can emerge can in some cases be a better response as it may cut down on conflict in the future as well as cut down on other destructive symptoms generated by the the problem (poverty, inequality, discrimination, oppression, lunatic president, lack of respect for minorities, toxic political climate, nationalism, crime, chronic ethnic tension, substance abuse, etc). In other words, telling the Christians and Muslims of Lebanon to stop warring with one another and trying to get the various radical leaders of each faction to sit down with each other and work out a peace agreement may be unconstructive (it may even make hostilities worse). Instead focusing on a solution to the repatriation of Palestinian refugees (a generator of larger conflict), fair power-sharing in government, lowering the level of poverty amongst Muslim communities (also a massive problem that generates bitterness) and toning down the rhetoric (the demonisation of every other faction) may ultimately lead to a lessening of the conflict...in addition to hopefully lowering the level of poverty, solving the chronic suffering of Palestinian refugees and toning down toxic narratives. Two birds with one stone. Perhaps.

Maybe I am speaking to an ideal where you are speaking to the reality. I thought I had explained my understanding of war by admitting it is a part of human nature.

Conflicts will always exist while there is a resource shortage.

Universal trade is the surest method to end resource shortage on a global scale. After ending hunger, dehydration, and maybe malaria, we could really work hard towards the real end goal.

There are many thousands of policy proposals which solve details of the whole problem, and never forget that those do help and do reduce suffering, but never quite end up amounting to a 100% solution. War will wage in another area totally predictable by resource availability and economics. Syria was sparked by drought. Understanding the real, fundamental problems in the society leads to a better understanding of the average philosophical outlooks which lead to choices which have implications many years later.

Education and resource availability will help much more than it hurts.

RSS

© 2017   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service