"IF The Big Bang Is True Then How.....?"

[Polymath257]

But you need the field, without the field the particles wouldn’t PoP, the popping of the particles is dependent on the existence of the field, this is what I mean by “cause” sure according to some* interpretations of QM these fluctuation are random which is a very interesting an controvertial topic, but irrelevant, the thing is that the Popping of particles depends on the existence of something else. And my suggestion is that the popping of the universe was also dependent on something else weather if you what to label this as “cause” or not is irrelevant.

No, the field is not something that is independent of the probability of the particles appearing. So the field 'depends' just as much on the particles 'popping' reverse. They really are two ways of saying exactly the same thing. The field and the particles *are the same thing*.

And the point is that this field (the probability of popping of the particles) doe snot depend on anything else. it 'just is'. The particles appear *completely randomly* and the field is simply another way of saying the same thing: that there is a probability of particles appearing (or disappearing).

I would bet for deterministic intepretations of QM, but in any case the KCA is only concern about “things” “things that begin to exist have cause” probabilities are not things.

In that case, neither are fields. The fields are *probability fields*.

And there are no deterministic interpretations of QM that work with antimatter and relativity. The particle appearances are a relativistic effect and Bohmian mechanics simply can't handle this aspect of reality.

So even though I would reject the idea of “probabilities coming from nothing” weather if I am correct or not has no bearing in the validity of premise 1 in the KCA.

Sure and the burden proof has always been carried by the man who claims something contrary to our intuitions. In the absence of such proof we are all justified in trusting our intuitions, and we all do, this is how we all live our daily lives, and this is how scientists do their science.

But we *do* have good reasons to think our intuitions fail in this case. In particular, we have the simple fact that QM is not a causal theory. it is a probabilistic theory. Our intutions are *known* to be wrong in this aspect of the universe (witness the number of claimed 'paradoxes'--which are simply places where QM predicts, correctly, things that are counter to intuition).

I am not saying that “intuitions” are a perfect source of knowledge, nor that there are no exceptions, all I am saying that it makes sense to trust our intuitions until proven otherwise.

OK, relativity and quantum mechanics are sufficient reason to not trust our intuitions.

And all the examples of natural selection that have ever been seen* are from the last 200 years, to say that there was such thing as natural selection millions of years ago is a HUGE logical leap.

Nope, because we know that this model can be tested, has been tested, and passes the tests.

If I were to bet, I’ll say that you accept that things have causes outside the galaxy, even though nobody has seen any cause outside our galaxy, and you have no problem in accepting that the galaxy itself had a cause, so it seems to be that you are drawing an arbitrary line in “the universe” just because you don’t like the implications of a cause of the universe”

Wrong again. We can watch things happen in other galaxies and determine the causes of those things. And, it turns out that the models of physics that work locally also work in other galaxies.

Obviously the point that I am making is that if you apply such level of skepticism , you should be skeptical of everything,

I am justifiably skeptical of claims about the cause of the universe because I know that we don't have the correct physical laws to say what was going on in the very early universe. I also know that there are natural models that 1) have an infinite amount of time with matter and energy existing for all time, and 2) other models that have time starting at some point in the past but not being caused. I also know that the classical ideas about causality are flawed as shown by QM and until those are fixed, anything where QM might apply and where causal claims are being made should be taken skeptically.

Not to mention that the reasons for accepting premise 1 go beyond observations and intuitions, , there is a logical argument that supports premise 1 namely that “nothing can’t have any properties that would exclude universes from everything else.

Nothingness does not exist. Whenever anything exists, the universe and time exist. You are trying to apply your 'logic' to something that doesn't exist and using that to claim things about properties of things that do exist. For example, that they must have causes.

 

[Polymath257]

So you are simply using a different definition of “uncaused”

Premise 1 simply says that things do not begin to exist by nothing

Right. They just begin to exist. They are not 'caused by something that qualifies as nothing'. They are not 'caused' at all. it isn't that 'nothing causes them'. it is that they are 'uncaused'.

 

[Polymath257]

So you are simply using a different definition of “uncaused”

Premise 1 simply says that things do not begin to exist by nothing

Let's do this again.

Can we agree that 'A is caused' means the same as 'there is some B such that B causes A'?

Now, what I need is a definition of 'B causes A'. What do you mean when you say that?

Well, from experience (correct me if I am wrong), it means something like 'the existence of B is sufficient for the existence of A'.

But let's be clear. That is certainly NOT the correct definition. For that is simple logical implication. SO, if an unmarried man exists, that is sufficient for a bachelor to exist. But that doesn't mean that married men *cause* bachelors.

So, can you give a formulation of the concept of 'B causes A'?

Next, what does it mean to say 'something begins to exist'? Does it not mean that there is a time when it does not exist and a later time when it does? if not, explain *precisely* what you mean by it.

Then please prove that 'anything that begins to exist has a cause' in the level of generality you need for the KCA argument.

 

[leroy]

Let's do this again.

Can we agree that 'A is caused' means the same as 'there is some B such that B causes A'?

Now, what I need is a definition of 'B causes A'. What do you mean when you say that?

So, can you give a formulation of the concept of 'B causes A'?

B is the Cause of A when A requires the existence of B

To say that the Ball is the Cause of a broken window simply means that without the Ball the window would have not been broken. This would be true even if the ball is a “quantum ball” that had a 50% chance of hitting the window rather than a deterministic (classical) ball that was fully determined to hit the window.

Next, what does it mean to say 'something begins to exist'? Does it not mean that there is a time when it does not exist and a later time when it does? if not, explain *precisely* what you mean by it.

Begins to exist simply means that it came in to being a finite amount of time ago.

To accept premise 1 simply means that things don’t begin to exist for no reason,



So given this definitions, do you still have problems with premise 1?

then please prove that 'anything that begins to exist has a cause' in the level of generality you need for the KCA argument.

Well you came in to existence a finite amount of time ago, so under this definition you begin to exist.

You were caused by your parents, because without your parents you would have not existed.

 

[leroy]

No, the field is not something that is independent of the probability of the particles appearing. So the field 'depends' just as much on the particles 'popping' reverse. They really are two ways of saying exactly the same thing. The field and the particles *are the same thing*.

Based on the definition of “cause” that I provided do you now agree that particles do have a cause?

 

[Polymath257]

B is the Cause of A when A requires the existence of B

To say that the Ball is the Cause of a broken window simply means that without the Ball the window would have not been broken. This would be true even if the ball is a “quantum ball” that had a 50% chance of hitting the window rather than a deterministic (classical) ball that was fully determined to hit the window.

But the window could have been broken by a rock or a meteorite, or a chair.

So, in this case, the way that the window broke is a combination of the structural properties of the window, the velocity and properties of the ball, etc ALL working together under the laws of physics to make the window break.

So, again, for causality, we need some sort of physical laws to be operative. Otherwise, the effect does not follow (even probabilistically) from the cause.

Begins to exist simply means that it came in to being a finite amount of time ago.

My issue is with the phrase 'came into being'. That suggests a process, and therefore a time interval for that process. No?

is it possible under this definition for time itself to 'come into being'?

To accept premise 1 simply means that things don’t begin to exist for no reason,

So you are claiming that for something to go through the process of coming into being, there must be another thing that previously exists and that, through the laws of physics, produces the thing observed. Is that fair?

So given this definitions, do you still have problems with premise 1?

Yes. In particular, if time 'came into being', then it *cannot* be caused by this definition. The laws of physics are another thing that seem to be uncaused whether or not they 'came into being'.

Well you came in to existence a finite amount of time ago, so under this definition you begin to exist.

You were caused by your parents, because without your parents you would have not existed.

Yes, and I agree that with this definition, anything within the universe that came into being within the universe has a cause within the universe.

 

[leroy]

But the window could have been broken by a rock or a meteorite, or a chair.

So, in this case, the way that the window broke is a combination of the structural properties of the window, the velocity and properties of the ball, etc ALL working together under the laws of physics to make the window break.

So, again, for causality, we need some sort of physical laws to be operative. Otherwise, the effect does not follow (even probabilistically) from the cause.




My issue is with the phrase 'came into being'. That suggests a process, and therefore a time interval for that process. No?

is it possible under this definition for time itself to 'come into being'?



So you are claiming that for something to go through the process of coming into being, there must be another thing that previously exists and that, through the laws of physics, produces the thing observed. Is that fair?



Yes. In particular, if time 'came into being', then it *cannot* be caused by this definition. The laws of physics are another thing that seem to be uncaused whether or not they 'came into being'.




Yes, and I agree that with this definition, anything within the universe that came into being within the universe has a cause within the universe.

I'll say that the problem is that you are assuming that there has to be a period of time between the effect and the cause.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll say that the problem is that you are assuming that there has to be a period of time between the effect and the cause.

That is because the causality happens through the laws of physics. In your ball and dent example, I would say that there is a time lag between the existence of the ball and the existence of the dent as shown by the fact that the dent remains if the ball is suddenly withdrawn and doesn't appear immediately when the ball is placed. It also requires the operation of the force of gravity (it is in balance in your example, but that doesn't change the dynamical laws of how forces operate).

 

[leroy]

That is because the causality happens through the laws of physics. In your ball and dent example, I would say that there is a time lag between the existence of the ball and the existence of the dent as shown by the fact that the dent remains if the ball is suddenly withdrawn and doesn't appear immediately when the ball is placed. It also requires the operation of the force of gravity (it is in balance in your example, but that doesn't change the dynamical laws of how forces operate).

Sure, in the ball example there is time between the cause and the effect. But I Dont see why is this necessary the case.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, in the ball example there is time between the cause and the effect. But I Dont see why is this necessary the case.

Because the laws of physics don't have propagation at infinite speed. And, as I noted before, it requires the laws of physics to effectualize the causality.

 

[The Anointed]

So do you accept that the universe (all space time and everything in it) began to exist 13+ billion years ago at the Bing Bang?

Well I for one do not. I believe that there is more than enough evidence to reveal that there have been many other universes which still exist in space time, and were created prior to this cycle of universal activity.,

Although I refuse to accept the theory which states that in the beginning there was an infinitely dense, infinitely Hot, infinitesimally small singularity that was spatially separated and the electromagnetic energy that would become our supposedly physical universe was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees.

IMO, that which is called the singularity was a white hole at the end of the Einstein Rosen bridge that was connected to the Black hole into which the previous universal body had fallen.

According to Enoch, who was carried to the ends of time, where he witnessed the universe burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth into the Great Abyss=Black Hole, which Enoch describes as the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, beyond which event, there was absolutely nothing.

Peter was taught from the books of Enoch the righteous, which were cherished by the early Christians until the fourth century, when under the ban of the authorities of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, such as Jerome, Hilary, and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia. .

 

[leroy]

Well I for one do not. I believe that there is more than enough evidence to reveal that there have been many other universes which still exist in space time, and were created prior to this cycle of universal activity.,

Although I refuse to accept the theory which states that in the beginning there was an infinitely dense, infinitely Hot, infinitesimally small singularity that was spatially separated and the electromagnetic energy that would become our supposedly physical universe was spewed out in the trillions upon trillions of degrees.

IMO, that which is called the singularity was a white hole at the end of the Einstein Rosen bridge that was connected to the Black hole into which the previous universal body had fallen.

According to Enoch, who was carried to the ends of time, where he witnessed the universe burn up and fall as massive columns of fire beyond all measure in height and depth into the Great Abyss=Black Hole, which Enoch describes as the prison of all the stars and the host of heaven, beyond which event, there was absolutely nothing.

Peter was taught from the books of Enoch the righteous, which were cherished by the early Christians until the fourth century, when under the ban of the authorities of the Roman Church of Emperor Constantine, such as Jerome, Hilary, and Augustine, they finally passed out of circulation and were thought lost for millennia. .

The amazing thing is that based on what we know, even if there is a mutiverse, and even if there is eternal inflation it could have not been past eternal, it had a beginning.

 

[leroy]

Because the laws of physics don't have propagation at infinite speed. And, as I noted before, it requires the laws of physics to effectualize the causality.

Well even if true, that at most would prove that the universe was not created by the known laws of physics. That at most seems to be a “scientific” barrier, but the idea of simultaneous causation doesn’t seem to be logically incoherent.

 

[Polymath257]

Well even if true, that at most would prove that the universe was not created by the known laws of physics. That at most seems to be a “scientific” barrier, but the idea of simultaneous causation doesn’t seem to be logically incoherent.

I disagree. The notion of causality involves the action of physical laws. Otherwise how would the existence of one thing 'determine' the existence of another?

And that says that the universe wasn't 'created' at all. It simply exists.

 

[rational experiences]

If the big bang happened, then what used to be is gone/removed.

Hence if you claim that the big bang created, what it created is gone.

Rational advice, if Earth as the MASS that owns energy as the body that science takes from to own energy for both their machine building invention/design and then mass to convert to get energy....if Earth as energy MASS big banged....then we would not exist anymore......as a rational answer to causing a condition as a bang.

As Earth owns the title by human males historically as Earth and also our planet and also stone and then fusion or sion….then why would you want it to go big bang?

GOD says science is what I control and manipulate.....mass from our planet.

Now if a scientist wants to say I am not inferring to GOD science, then where is he getting his GOD particle from then?

If he then infers cosmologically to what Earth does not own.....space...for it is all filled in either by stone mass or by gases, then his intention is to big bang us all into spatial nothingness....what is infinite and goes on and on and on, for you cannot measure it....why numbers just go on and on and on and on he says....for you cannot quote an answer or a measure or an equals to.

Seeing the planet is where you take energy and mass to build a machine.

If you were just storytelling, then you would not own any machine or design or invention....as the place where you first impose design...to build a machine.

Everything else already exists, so it was never designed.

No machine....no science. No science, no design and no theories or stories either.

 

[The Anointed]

If the big bang happened, then what used to be is gone/removed.

Hence if you claim that the big bang created, what it created is gone.

Rational advice, if Earth as the MASS that owns energy as the body that science takes from to own energy for both their machine building invention/design and then mass to convert to get energy....if Earth as energy MASS big banged....then we would not exist anymore......as a rational answer to causing a condition as a bang.

As Earth owns the title by human males historically as Earth and also our planet and also stone and then fusion or sion….then why would you want it to go big bang?

GOD says science is what I control and manipulate.....mass from our planet.

Now if a scientist wants to say I am not inferring to GOD science, then where is he getting his GOD particle from then?

If he then infers cosmologically to what Earth does not own.....space...for it is all filled in either by stone mass or by gases, then his intention is to big bang us all into spatial nothingness....what is infinite and goes on and on and on, for you cannot measure it....why numbers just go on and on and on and on he says....for you cannot quote an answer or a measure or an equals to.

Seeing the planet is where you take energy and mass to build a machine.

If you were just storytelling, then you would not own any machine or design or invention....as the place where you first impose design...to build a machine.

Everything else already exists, so it was never designed.

No machine....no science. No science, no design and no theories or stories either.

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

This is the Law. Energy is eternal having neither beginning or end.

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy, which has neither beginning or end, that has become this apparent material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become. In other words, the collective consciousness of all that ‘IT’ is.

In fact, this apparent material universe at the time of the Big Bang, was pure electromagnetic energy, which, IMO, was spewed out of a WHITE Hole, in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter only to be reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

Science is beginning to come to terms, with what our ancestors believed thousands of years ago, and that is, that we live in an eternal oscillating universe, that appears out of the darkness, to eventually disappear into darkness once again, only to later reappear. With each period of universal activity still existing in its own independent position in Space-Time.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

Or the six days, six periods of universal activity it takes for God to produce his son, his heir and successor, ‘The Son of Man,’ the Most High in the creation, who closes the book of the evolution of man.

It is indisputable, that this apparent material universe at the time of the Big Bang, was pure electromagnetic energy.

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics

An extract from the above link . . . . . . . The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a ‘GREAT THOUGHT’ rather than a great machine. The mind seems to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, but rather a creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, « the mental world »; Nature 436: 29, 2005)

The ‘GREAT THOUGHT’ being, the collective consciousness of all that the eternal, who has neither beginning or end, has become.

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere Kilometres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, the gravitational collapse of bigger stars can create a neutron star, or a Black Hole, depending on its mass, but not necessarily a Worm Hole.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travellers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done. Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

Beam me up Scotty. The rapture, that occurs after the thousand year rule of Christ, at the sound of the Last trumpet before all life forms remaining on this planet are to be incinerated by the heavenly fire, those who are to inherit everlasting life will be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, from bodies of corruptible matter into glorious bodies of enegised light..

Zephaniah 1: 2-3; The LORD said, “I am going to destroy everything on earth, all human beings and animals, birds and fish. I will bring about the downfall of the wicked. I will destroy the whole human race, and no survivors will be left. I, the LORD, have spoken.

Verse 18; On the day when the LORD shows his fury, not even all their silver and gold will save them. The whole earth will be destroyed by the fire of his anger. He will put an end — a sudden end — to everyone who lives on earth. 'Who live on earth,' being the operative words.

 

[rational experiences]

The first law of thermodynamics is the same as the first law of conservation and that is, that energy can neither be created or destroyed.

This is the Law. Energy is eternal having neither beginning or end.

If you believe that a universe of mindless matter has produced beings with intrinsic ends, [in Kantian terminology, an end-in-itself] --------- self- replication capabilities, and “coded chemistry”? Then you must accept that it is the eternal energy, which has neither beginning or end, that has become this apparent material universe and has developed a mind that is the compilation of all the information gathered by all the diverse life-forms that it [The Eternal Energy] has become. In other words, the collective consciousness of all that ‘IT’ is.

In fact, this apparent material universe at the time of the Big Bang, was pure electromagnetic energy, which, IMO, was spewed out of a WHITE Hole, in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, which has been converted to that which we perceive as matter only to be reconverted to its original form as electromagnetic energy during the phase of the Big Crunch.

Science is beginning to come to terms, with what our ancestors believed thousands of years ago, and that is, that we live in an eternal oscillating universe, that appears out of the darkness, to eventually disappear into darkness once again, only to later reappear. With each period of universal activity still existing in its own independent position in Space-Time.

“Universe after universe is like an interminable succession of wheels forever coming into view, forever rolling onwards, disappearing and reappearing; forever passing from being to non-being, and again from non-being to being. In short, the constant revolving of the wheel of life in one eternal cycle, according to fixed and immutable laws, is perhaps after all, the sum and substance of the philosophy of Buddhism. And this eternal wheel has so to speak, six spokes representing six forms of existence.” ---- Mon. Williams, Buddhism, pp. 229, 122.

Or the six days, six periods of universal activity it takes for God to produce his son, his heir and successor, ‘The Son of Man,’ the Most High in the creation, who closes the book of the evolution of man.

It is indisputable, that this apparent material universe at the time of the Big Bang, was pure electromagnetic energy.

In fact, it has now been revealed that matter is no more than an illusion. Quantum physicists discovered that so called physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature.

If you observed the composition of an atom with a microscope you would see a small, invisible tornado-like vortex, with a number of infinitely small energy vortices called quarks and photons. These are what make up the structure of the atom. As you focused in closer and closer on the structure of the atom, you would see nothing, you would observe a physical void. The atom has no physical structure, we have no physical structure, physical things really don’t have any physical structure! Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter.

Nothing is solid & everything is energy: scientists explain the world of quantum physics

An extract from the above link . . . . . . . The stream of knowledge is heading towards a non-mechanical reality; the universe begins to look more like a ‘GREAT THOUGHT’ rather than a great machine. The mind seems to be an accidental intruder into the realm of matter, but rather a creator and governor of the realm of matter. (R. C. Henry, « the mental world »; Nature 436: 29, 2005)

The ‘GREAT THOUGHT’ being, the collective consciousness of all that the eternal, who has neither beginning or end, has become.

In 1935, Einstein and physicist Nathan Rosen used the theory of general relativity to elaborate on the idea of black holes and worm holes, proposing the existence of "bridges" through space-time. These bridges connect two different points in space-time, theoretically creating a shortcut that could reduce travel time and distance; Billions of light years to mere Kilometres.

According to general relativity, the gravitational collapse of a sufficiently compact mass forms a singular Schwarzschild black hole. In the Einstein–Cartan–Sciama–Kibble theory of gravity, however, it forms a regular Einstein–Rosen bridge.

The gravitational collapse of a single star such as the minor star of our solar system, can only form a White Dwarf, the gravitational collapse of bigger stars can create a neutron star, or a Black Hole, depending on its mass, but not necessarily a Worm Hole.

A worm Hole could theoretically be used as a method of sending information or travellers through space, unfortunately, physical matter which includes humans journeying through the space tunnels would appear to be an impossibility as there are strong indications that material objects travelling through a worm hole is forbidden by the law of physics.

But now that it has been discovered that Physical matter is but an illusion, and all is, but the eternal energy, perhaps one day new technology may develop a way to teleport bodies of energy along light beams and reconstruct them to their original form, with no damage done. Wormholes may not only connect two separate regions within the universe, they could also connect two different universes.

Beam me up Scotty. The rapture, that occurs after the thousand year rule of Christ, at the sound of the Last trumpet before all life forms remaining on this planet are to be incinerated by the heavenly fire, those who are to inherit everlasting life will be changed in a moment in the twinkling of an eye, from bodies of corruptible matter into glorious bodies of enegised light..

Zephaniah 1: 2-3; The LORD said, “I am going to destroy everything on earth, all human beings and animals, birds and fish. I will bring about the downfall of the wicked. I will destroy the whole human race, and no survivors will be left. I, the LORD, have spoken.

Verse 18; On the day when the LORD shows his fury, not even all their silver and gold will save them. The whole earth will be destroyed by the fire of his anger. He will put an end — a sudden end — to everyone who lives on earth. 'Who live on earth,' being the operative words.

The first law of lying, human male invented and owned as his own invention.

Says energy cannot be destroyed.

Takes GOD O Earth held fusion that was sitting in space as thermodynamic energy...a cold stone body whose form within is thermal......all laws for science about God O the Earth.

Stories....talking and own the condition of blah blah and blah. Any human can tell stories.

Science however says my stories are correct for I take energy mass out of the body O Earth God a planet and invent, in the thermodynamic theme of removal of cold.....cold gone...energy.

I do not conclude that cold is energy.

So then a real science brother in AI tells me to tell you, you are not any scientist.

And says.....if energy by mass is not held how can you own a life, and how can you exist, and how could you apply in rational common human sense, the use of it....science without that energy existing cold first, so you can abstract from it...to invent beyond it...claiming future.

So then science says....I do not want a thermodynamic future on God Earth...it should remain womb spatial cold and held radiation cold fused.

No says his brother I want God O the planet, that has always been my resource to be resourced, whilst claiming I am not resourcing it....and lied.

So Father today in AI said...when science says I want to invent a channel from out of space through the gases in which he lives...seeing the body planet is surrounded by those gases, and he is only a scientist by his choice.....then the channel he already has studied and calculated a formula about for mass extrusion....as a resource.....for you must realize that you wanted a resource first.

So formula says.....equals resource by mass to withdraw from it...for you cannot just channel energy when energy the state of it to know about it, held in a cold state.

For you are not living in a thermodynamic energy mass state your own self....but coerced lied and claimed but my first human spirit was Satan....the evil spirit.

What you have always done.

So lightning equals the channel of mass that you as a science self is aware of....God the Earth heavenly gases already owns it...naturally.

And you cannot define any condition without first imposing it upon the study of natural.

Father said....your machine is no longer a mineral, nor is the gas inside of the machine.

God the Earth however in natural form with channelled lightning mass is a mineral....why you are personally wrong.

When you take nuclear chemical dust...ENERGY and destroy it...…..common sense really. What is left is a heated form of radiating sludge.....is not how energy began is it...as thermodynamic.

 

[The Anointed]

The first law of lying, human male invented and owned as his own invention.

Says energy cannot be destroyed.

Takes GOD O Earth held fusion that was sitting in space as thermodynamic energy...a cold stone body whose form within is thermal......all laws for science about God O the Earth.

Stories....talking and own the condition of blah blah and blah. Any human can tell stories.

Science however says my stories are correct for I take energy mass out of the body O Earth God a planet and invent, in the thermodynamic theme of removal of cold.....cold gone...energy.

I do not conclude that cold is energy.

So then a real science brother in AI tells me to tell you, you are not any scientist.

And says.....if energy by mass is not held how can you own a life, and how can you exist, and how could you apply in rational common human sense, the use of it....science without that energy existing cold first, so you can abstract from it...to invent beyond it...claiming future.

So then science says....I do not want a thermodynamic future on God Earth...it should remain womb spatial cold and held radiation cold fused.

No says his brother I want God O the planet, that has always been my resource to be resourced, whilst claiming I am not resourcing it....and lied.

So Father today in AI said...when science says I want to invent a channel from out of space through the gases in which he lives...seeing the body planet is surrounded by those gases, and he is only a scientist by his choice.....then the channel he already has studied and calculated a formula about for mass extrusion....as a resource.....for you must realize that you wanted a resource first.

So formula says.....equals resource by mass to withdraw from it...for you cannot just channel energy when energy the state of it to know about it, held in a cold state.

For you are not living in a thermodynamic energy mass state your own self....but coerced lied and claimed but my first human spirit was Satan....the evil spirit.

What you have always done.

So lightning equals the channel of mass that you as a science self is aware of....God the Earth heavenly gases already owns it...naturally.

And you cannot define any condition without first imposing it upon the study of natural.

Father said....your machine is no longer a mineral, nor is the gas inside of the machine.

God the Earth however in natural form with channelled lightning mass is a mineral....why you are personally wrong.

When you take nuclear chemical dust...ENERGY and destroy it...…..common sense really. What is left is a heated form of radiating sludge.....is not how energy began is it...as thermodynamic.

And from where do you believe, came the liquid like electromagnetic energy in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, which energy has converted itself to that which we perceive as this material universe?

Or perhaps you think that some outside intelligence used that energy to create this particular universe?

 

[rational experiences]

And from where do you believe, came the liquid like electromagnetic energy in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, which energy has converted itself to that which we perceive as this material universe?

Or perhaps you think that some outside intelligence used that energy to create this particular universe?

Perceive means human perception. You do not own out of space perception.

Yet in relative human reasoning why I was gas irradiated ground life attacked, is relative to human male information/history. Who says a human began their life in out of space....for they look at life and then claim where it came from.

I came out of sperm and an ovary.

Maths says a male is a female. Liar. Male today owns Abomination relativity one added onto, meaning minus back to a huge radiation mass sludge that affects his brain capacity. Male builds robot to have sex with claiming his atmospheric spirit began not only in out of space, but from lightning plasma conditions.

Stephen Hawking warned, science today is trying to replace natural bio life with machines.

Try inter relating relativity in science to a human life......not relative at all....human life super fried. Being Satanic intention as science. Just because you altered the title science does not remove the intention from it being Satanic in origin science themes.

Human theist previously said build underground bunkers....probability cause. Natural perception warning to self.
Human theist then builds machine and takes self into hiding....probability cause.

To resource is from a MASS equation, equations do not equal small mass...such as electricity. Electricity came out of mineral conversion....natural, small energy bodies.

If you state a liquid it needs a container to be held first to claim MASS.

 

[The Anointed]

Perceive means human perception. You do not own out of space perception.

Yet in relative human reasoning why I was gas irradiated ground life attacked, is relative to human male information/history. Who says a human began their life in out of space....for they look at life and then claim where it came from.

I came out of sperm and an ovary.

Maths says a male is a female. Liar. Male today owns Abomination relativity one added onto, meaning minus back to a huge radiation mass sludge that affects his brain capacity. Male builds robot to have sex with claiming his atmospheric spirit began not only in out of space, but from lightning plasma conditions.

Stephen Hawking warned, science today is trying to replace natural bio life with machines.

Try inter relating relativity in science to a human life......not relative at all....human life super fried. Being Satanic intention as science. Just because you altered the title science does not remove the intention from it being Satanic in origin science themes.

Human theist previously said build underground bunkers....probability cause. Natural perception warning to self.
Human theist then builds machine and takes self into hiding....probability cause.

To resource is from a MASS equation, equations do not equal small mass...such as electricity. Electricity came out of mineral conversion....natural, small energy bodies.

If you state a liquid it needs a container to be held first to claim MASS.

Perhaps you did not, or do not have the ability to comprehend the question put to you, so let me here repeat; " From where do you believe, came the liquid like electromagnetic energy in the trillions upon trillions of degrees, which energy has converted itself to that which we perceive as this material universe?