by SeaGypsy » Mon 28 Sep 2009, 13:03:47
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Carlhole', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SeaGypsy', 'N')ot sure if this is too cosmic?
I believe that the antimaterial is the causal sphere. If you can grasp that (?)
My first beliefs-guiding tenet is:
There is no good reason to believe anything at all without adequate evidence.Energy, Matter, Space and Time - These are the universe's physical dimensions within which all human thought and activities takes place. They are the boundaries of all human experience and knowledge. They comprise humanity's knowable realm.
Religions, whether they be mainstream Christianity or Satanism or Occultism or Scientology or any other belief system, posit that there exists a non-physical reality independent of Energy, Matter, Space and Time.
What's more, they posit that this non-physical reality is responsible for the creation of the Universe's fundamental attributes and that this non-physical reality is SUPREMELY MORE IMPORTANT than the reality that humans routinely experience. They assert that is the REAL reality and that the universe's physical dimensions as well as humanity's experience are mere shadows of this genuine reality - to which, presumably, we will return when we die. They assert that this posited, unproven, unknowable realm affects our lives in the present.
And they assert this without any proof whatsoever! If religions or practitioners of the occult could actually demonstrate the truth via a Scientific Method, reproducible by anyone, they would have done so long, long ago. But it always reduces to a matter of faith and personal belief - the science be damned.
This is why religions are so different from one another. They have no basis in reality actually - if they did, they would appear more similar. They are all simply human constructs; invented mythologies whose origins lie in tribal psychology and politics.
OK point taken; the propensity of humans to swallow hogwash is only paralelled by ....hogs.
Yet back to the science...
Anyone with a basic science education knows basic atomic theory.
All modern chemistry is based on this theory; it is widely taken as fact.
"At the core of each atom is a neutron proton cluster with a corresponing value to the atomic count and number of electrons bound in the atom."
Only when one looks deeper into it does one discover that this essential scientific dogma falls over if the nuetron "of a corresponding negative mass" has anything 'material' about it. They are nuetrons; they nutralise the mass of protons, allowing the encapture of electrons in a balanced sphere. If nuetrons have any "mass" they are not nuetrons in the pure sense of the word. Hence the vast amounts of work and capital invested in the science of "Nuetronic Mass". I believe it has recently been proven that nuetrons can be 'caught' (seen bouncing around) in a cup of platinum in a deep cave in France. So in fact it appears that the essential element does have a "material" core; operating at some extreme vibrational level.
The science of nuetrons is where the really quantum leaps will come from; if ever. "Nuetrons attract protons and electrons." Does this not qualify as causal? I'm not buying into anyones dogma.