Mike Smith Cosmos

There was someone who actually saw God and gave evidence by referral to this contact by accurate description. Is this not evidence enough, to confirm existence of a superior being.

Yes but we have many" hand me down" stories of Shakespear and Einstein etc etc. We believe they existed and spoke wisely. Why not the words heard and written in the Jewish happenings and early Christian happenings ? Not many have seen the Cosmic background radiation, the maths results from the Large Hadron Collider, the H5N1 virus etc , yet we believe it Is it so different to what has been discussed ? Or is it the implications that frightens people? The implication of being observed answerable, accountable ? The implication , that some organised intelligence, a lot brighter than us , may be both observing and thinking about our performance as a world and as individuals. It's a bit more comfortable if you/we think we are on our own. If ( we on the other hand ) we are being observed quite closely like a teacher examines students by examinations and written work . And as the current world/individuals were/are accountable to a reasonably high standard, as a teacher would expect reasonable results. Then, for all of the current happenings, Global warming, starvation, pollution, sharing resources, killings , criminal activity, cruelty, Governments, organisations, companies, Industries History Banks, individuals " How do you think we would fare ? Does that not persuade one to think " There is no such thing ! " " Hog wash " . Things might start feeling a little more uncomfortable. May be ,we have a vested interest in " there is no higher power ! " . .

Nobody seems to have made an answer to my contribution, that there appears plenty of artifacts and supportive evidence over a large part of history , which at the very least gives some kind of evidence in support of some form of higher intelligence. All this at a time when we neither existed at all or were butchering each other is some ghastly uncivilized manner or other. we sometimes forget that our "civilization " [ evidence by nations in front of our very eyes] becoming civil with each other , comes out of Jewish and Christian culture which has its roots in some form of Godlike intervention , that is , unless we care to trash much of the evidence lodged in many a museum worldwide . As well of course the natural world itself. to requote : post #370 Mike Smith Cosmos

What mainly I am interested in , is not so much what model I have inside my tubes, but What the actual Reality is that is out There. Then what possible all pervading Principle could possibly run through the whole of reality from beginning to now. What I have posited in a "A Lingual Theory of Everything " is what possible principle could apply to the whole shebang from beginning to now. That means from the start ' say with a nothing , to a God , to a cosmos , to a universe, to matter, to everything to Today Now ' The only one that i can think of is what i have posited:- Quote 1 * The ' Nothing ' is absolute. namely absolutely nothing 2 * The ' GOD ' could be the only possible ' entity ' that could self originate out of nothing, namely the initiatory ' idea ' which when substantiated # and expanded ,could have come from ' nothing ' and yet stand in its own right. The whole of history, is full of expressions and ideas as to what constitutes this prime mover [ whether it is made up of an extraordinary body of super intelligent life forms or somehow contained in one Super Being ]. Our link across to NOTHING! . { This middle bit is an interesting subject in its own right } The evidence for its existence is the VERY COSMOS/UNIVERSE that we find ourselves in. Namely :- 3 * The ' rest of Everything ' is the cosmos as we are exploring and discovering it. Three Stages from Nothing to Everything 1,2,3 [from top to bottom ] .ps # ( how does an idea substantiate or get to become substantiated , is by the very Lingual theory itself )

Mike Smith Cosmos Protist Senior Members 781 posts 0 warning points RE-OPEN of THREAD MASS TRANSPORT SYSTEM LocationU.K. / ITALY Posted Today, 01:13 PM I have returned from Italy bringing back my University Project on this subject with core RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS, RESULTS,and CONCLUSIONS. Attatched. is a) project description b) title page c) copy of original letter from Prof Laithwaite. :: LARGER FORMAT OF THESE DOCUMENTS BELOW :: . :: LARGER FORMAT OF THESE DOCUMENTS BELOW :: i will make extracts available to support my original thread, for discussion and The Whole Publication Below I show Shots of the apparatus used in the project. ( which I have to hand ) . By way of a re-introduction of the subject "Possibility for Mass Transport System" It has often been a problem to have craft that need to go upward, first have to go down range at great speed , either to acquire lift by a wing cross section say at 100 mph , or by rocket propulsion first raising high then turning down range to acquire approx 17,700 mph to obtain orbit. In an Ideal world it would be nice to go strait up but gently increasing in speed, and to just go strait up with neither the requirement for vast amounts of rocket fuel expelling or by trusting Air. To this end it was investigated to find a way of Direct propulsion, neither by reaction fuel or by Air propulsion.. Such a force was noticed or observed within a rotating circle by a mass. Unfortunately this remains in a closed system in a flywheel , or gyroscope. it was speculated by myself that it would be good to try and obtain a mechanical analogue of a Rectified Alternating Current (Electrical ) wave. It was posited that such an analogue existed in the two ends of a tuning fork ( in principle ) . rather than a complete circle ,which could be resolved as a net Zero Force , rather a single directional force could be made as a resultant force in One direction. ( As AC [alternating current] can be converted to DC [Direct Current ] so it was posited that an alternating force around all directions of a circle COULD POSSIBLY be converted to a UniDirectional {one direction }. That this Uni-directional force could be achieved, was at the core of this project.. If this were possible A) No Air required B) no movement [speed] required to attain lift . All that would be required would be by Counter oscillation of two masses eg like a tuning fork with masses on the ends of the prongs. Thus was the concept born. NOW I am referring back to the two events which started the investigation into the possibility of attaining low earth orbit without Rocket Trajectory or air propulsion.. (1) The idea was first spawned in the approx 1970's. This lead, after experimentation on my part and contact with Prof Laithwaite in Nov 1981 and (2) to a Plymouth University Project 1988 as Final Project of Hons Degree in Satellite Communication. The first few pages of this report are now presented which include : [ Rest Later as required for evidence & verification ] Introductory Pages including An ABSTRACT.and List of Contents. Mike Smith PHOTOs of the Apparatus :- Note this is:- Partial arc measurement of centrifugal force by means of a pendulum style radius and shock sensor.

I have returned from Italy bringing back my University Project on this subject with core RESEARCH EXPERIMENTS, RESULTS,and CONCLUSIONS. It was promised ,that the thread could be re-opened when I met this request. Attatched. is a) project description b) title page c) copy of original letter from Prof Laithwaite. Please could you confirm an Un-Locking Advising me accordingly . Thanks Mike Smith Attached Docs : . i will make extracts available to support my original thread, for discussion and The Whole Publication , when I can get scanning accomplished and lodged in a holding link facility. I would appreciate the re-opening soon , so that I may re- develop the ideas as I take part in the Scanning. Also, I will show Shots of the apparatus used in the project. ( which I have to hand ) .

WHAT IF ? What happens if " gods or GOD " turns out to be some Super composite Civilization of super Scientists, super Engineers, super social Philosophers, who existed billions of years ago. that took part in a major project. A Project of which we are a part. Then, They left us,a while, to get on with it. Do we understand it is a project ? Do we understand what we are supposed to do within the project ? Have we made a good job of it ?

There does appear to be a whole history of evidence of nations of people who have existed and based their lives on a God. * The Jews from Abraham to the modern day have a history of interaction and physical evidence of contact with a GOD. * The early Christians had supernatural, well documented experiential evidence of many such contacts. Since then whole nations have built their existence , constitution and a mode of operation based on the principles coming from those Experiences of contact with the SUPERNATURAL Such Nations As USA, UK EUROPE.etc If ALL these are to be dismissed as NOT SCIENTIFIC enough , surely we are trying to dismiss or discount much of our history as NOT VALID EVIDENCE ( this could be a trgjic mistake ). What if we are wrong ? In the face of so much of our history ? Are we to deny so much of our history, the very history which gave birth to Science itself. That is surely a bit of a dangerous sweeping step. Dangerous to dismiss so much evidence on a very recently proposed THEORY that " There is NO SUPERNATURAL EXISTENCE and contact ". .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Some men of science have embraced the thoughts of Karl Popper that a theory , not only needs to be VERIFIED but also FALSIFIABLE. . If that is the case. Then it is beholden on those who have a modern Theory " There are no gods, There is No GOD " attempt to falsify, in order to make the theory a valid theory.. This would surely only be possible if the Proponents of this theory were to prove they have searched EVERYWHERE , rattled a stick around in EVERY corner and say " There ! " "There is no one there ! I have demonstrated I have been EVERYWHERE , checked for ALL manner of existence. Nothing there." Search has been made for life elsewhere, so far, no signs of life. However the surface of ALL places has barely been touched among normal matter , let alone Super Natural domains . Clearly, we are no where near looking at, detecting, going everywhere everything, every time. So at the moment this Theory that " There are no gods, There is No GOD " is currently not barely touched as being falsifiable . So by Karl Poppers' standards the Theory" There are no gods, There is No GOD " is NOT VALID at this time . On the other hand the two civilizations mentioned earlier have produced some Evidence , by way of Contacts, Words, demonstrations of a whole series of superhuman, supernatural, acts, to the contrary. History is not "empty" of such evidence. The evidence 'though old' stacks up far more on this side of the theories of ", gods or GOD " than the fairly recent counter theory which is pretty well "Empty of falsifiable evidence" on the " No gods, GOD " side, apart from the simple local searching on nearly planets etc . Is this not so ? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ .

I have been reading " the 4 % Universe. On page 123 , while discussing the vague aspects of the cosmic background radiation , Robert Waganer a PHd supervisor at Stanford University was saying to Turner who was involved in the CMB ( Cosmic background Radiation : i would have thought from the religious side there appear to be many Predictions that have been made over the 1000's of years . verified or falsified. surely this is what all the Prophets are about. And similarly from the geology and biology direction there must be ample evidence to verify or falsify .

The arbiter of facts, is neither you nor I , nor anyone else . . The arbiter is surely reality. . I have to disappear for 2 weeks to southern climbs and collect my Hypothesis and Research documentation , [ ref http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/77276-possibility-for-mass-transport-system-could-take-us-up-a-gear/ Then to bring it back and put into the mincer. Be gentle just this once . mike

I have just picked myself up rolling about the floor in laughter ..........At least I can end on a happy note. I have to go out right now . getting ready to go to Italy tomorrow for 2 weeks . out of contact, up in the mountains of Umbria . I will be counting . But its Scoroions I will be on the look out for. Hope to bring back my research Doc on Partial Arc oscillation .. for Mr Swansont to Unlock my Thread on " Mass Transport System " Might have words Tonight , maybe Not . Bye Mike

Are you chaps just trying " To wind me up "

You have got to be kidding me. I take very seriously all ( every contributors ) comments . I think about them . Then make a decision on whether they are acceptable to me. If they are I many times agree. In fact sometimes perhaps unnecessarily so. if I do not agree with a particular line of thought , I do not agree. Surely that is my right . ( even if I am wrong ) ? I don't just say " yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir " Surely NO ?

But that is what I am doing. ! Science With the tools. I am looking around very carefully, eyes Making Observations. Thinking about what I have observed. Brain Seeing if there are any patterns ,in what I am observing. Recording my Observations and thoughts. Note Book Reading about the subject . Books Comparing with what is already known , with any questions that could be asked THINKING { Doing a lot of Thinking } Brain Coming up with a possible hypothesis as to what might explain the Observation. Note Book If possible arranging an EXPERIMENT even if it is a Gedanken Thought experiment. Anything Noting the results. Brain - Note book Looking for patterns Brain Coming to any possible Conclusions. Brain Evaluating the project. Brain Publicizing my findings and Conclusions. Internet (oops No maths ) ( occasionally a little maths ) Then YES I am doing Science Surely That is doing Science...or it used to be .. maybe times have changed ? If you mean , Am I in a Lab, with a computer doing modelling. With all sorts of expensive equipment. Under a professor , monitoring me, Producing arXiv Published Papers . Then NO I am not doing that . . . So if that's the only way to do science I am not doing That Brand of science mike

To some extent , that may be an advantage. To see a pattern in the whole thing. I have equally taken up painting in my retirement , under various casual Art tutors. They have been pestering me over and over " Its all about tone THE DARK and THE LIGHT" "Mike screw up your eyes, squint until it all fades, back up a bit, and you will see JUST the DARK and the LIGHT. Paint that First , it is the essence of your painting. " To some extent , as regards the Cosmos, the Whole shebang, I am attempting particularly from a PHYSICS angle, but including the whole thing, I am trying to FLY ACROSS the whole thing , with my eyes squinted, ( hence not necessarily in complete depth , an advantage , yet understandable in outline ) and see THE DARK and THE LIGHT to make some form of sense of the whole shaboogle. ! . Maybe if I see IT , I will disappear or go up in a puff of smoke ! mike

Well, I am very inclined to agree. The various Engineering/ scientific assignments I have been involved with, throughout my life have always required me going away in a Library for weeks often and getting up to speed with the specific detail or even dare i say it relevant maths..I was thrown in to missile work back in the cold war. Major Computer Networks,in the areas of connectivity. Banking and Magnetics to name a few. Each was totally different in its technical requirement and required its own in depth research. Each its own specific language There was no common Language only ' Engineering speak.' I have given myself an horrific challenge in my retirement. .To read across the whole shebang, to try and make some sense of it all. No way can i learn the specific maths or more to the point the surrounding specialisms to each area. I am sure I would be capable of picking just one specific detailed subject and getting a complete understanding including the maths as thats what I did on the few major projects I got involved with up through my life. Unfortunately I would run out of time to do all that. Anyway thats not what I want to do. I am trying to get an Engineering/scientific OVERVIEW of the whole shaboodle. I am not sure why I am doing this. Maybe I should just sit on a beach. Trouble is ,when I do that I start thinking. I always have a note book with me. I have about 20 notebooks. A few things have come out of this process, That's probably why I am a bit persistent on a few areas, including this thread. mike

Tar I agree with a lot of what you say as an internalising of the World into or onto the curved nature of our Brain. However I am mainly interested in the external universe as a whole [everything]. Again a however, in the end I realise if I am to comprehend fully and meaningfully any " Lingual theory of everything " at least with me personally I have to consider its validity IN SIDE MY BRAIN. Because EVERYTHING is a Big, Big, Big entity, I must persist in testing, probing , as well as exploring the ways and wiles of the universe at large, within the context of this " Lingual Theory of Everything " . Mike

All these comments of yours are NEGATIVE Why are you being so NEGATIVE I have been trying to make a POSITIVE contribution towards a possible POSITIVE direction which science research could take . irrelevant as to how research has been conducted in the past , it would seem to me a POSITIVE contribution to our mutual subject interest SCIENCE. A) Such that ALL scientists in the subject area or out of the subject area may have a language which is acceptable to all scientists Including necessary Maths but not unnecessarily dominated by math. B) Such that the NON science community, who after all are usually the paymasters of scientists as Taxpayers , as well as potential consumers of the science products. That they may not unnecessarily be excluded by overly mathematical language. Now in addition to what I see is a good idea which you are free to dispute ( possibly showing yourself in opposition to constructive suggestions ). I would like to defend my position, as being One [me] , who most often agrees with arguing parties , as indeed I have agreed with many of the points abj has made above. I do however in this case do NOT concede. In that I believe :- OBSERVATION & HYPOTHESIS should lead modern scientific research as opposed to MATHS leading in front. .

Not too sure what you are asking me ? where are you getting this? If you mean , the statements I have been making. , i accept a lot of what you say ajb , as i accept say above " Different branches of science require different levels of mathematical sophistication on the part of the scientists, but mathematics simply is vital in science." I accept . But if I go to the Doctor and he says " you have hypo glycomic, blood synthetic aptitude your systemic and didactic pressure is hypertension ,due to cardio vascular ...." and I say I have not a clue what you are talking about !. Then he says Ok well you Have Blood pressure and you need to eat less and take these pills. He does not say" go away and read up on seven years of human physiology , in fact if you dont you dont know the language. tough ! " So one can accept that all these mathematical terms , formulas, proceedures are the language of maths that mathematicians discovered and have written up over the last 2000-3000 years.But they are the language of Maths NOT the language of science.[ or at least should not be or we are heading for trouble] mathematicians unless asked otherwise should use the language of all scientists namely " you Have Blood pressure and you need to eat less and take these pills. ( your Blood pressure is 140 over 90 , take 1 16mg Candesatan pill daily ) get it from the chemist shop. " Perhaps it is this " Maths is the Language of Science" dont do the Maths NOT a scientist " is the scary bit. surely the maths chaps can do there bit well. Other Disciplines do there bit well. We can all be Scientists as the overarching profession. mike

OK. I accept your points, and reasoning. But stow it all away in a Computer, a Program or two, or 1000 programs. Let maths do its work for us ( in the computer) , out of sight, Let us, with our BRAIN . Our thinking is in Language [Lingual ] , So let the Language and Thinking of US be Lingual not Mathematical . We Also think in Pictures so let the language of science be pictorial as well. True our hands have 10 fingers so I suppose we think a little in number , but for most of us this thinking is fairly limited in scope. No. Stow all your maths into computers, leave us a LANGUAGE we can relate to A - Pictorial - Lingual interface - and Science and Scientists can play to their hearts content coming up with new ideas, simulating them , testing them for Correlation, accuracy, patterns, results, graphs, pictorial expression, reliant on the fact that you guys have done your sums correctly , or at least you have helped the programmers get the program right. Perhaps this is semantics , but keep the language of science in the forum of the common human mind. You guys go off into your surreal language of maths in the depths of the computer. We will love you for all your beautiful pictures and simulations and precision figures. But please dont take over science and lead us in research. Look where you have taken us in string theory, we are in [ guzzillion dimensions and universes which we are not even sure they exist , or even the strings exist , maybe they do, may be they dont,] but people are dying around here.

Fair comment . Its more the size of the tool. So not Maths the size of JCB digger and all the rest like thinking ,being hand tools. rather ALL being hand tools of different sorts , Maths being one, Thinking another etc etc.OR pull in the occasional digger ( like in Time Team Archeology to rip off the surface turf , then hand dig with a trowels of various sorts ). The start up Digger could be from whatever discipline is relevant. Could be a Big Conceptual C change idea, Could be a Major new Mathematical Tool like Calculus . Or a major observation like The Moon is the exact same size as the Sun in the Sky. Or a major speculative thought like..... uhm .......I wonder if the universe is like edom cheese with holes in as well as solid cheese. that is why the universe is then go from there, now the earth has been scrapped off. Back to the hand tools BUT MATHS must surely NOT BECOME the language of science , or else ONLY MATHEMATICIANS will understand the language. and only mathematicians will be able to think new scientific thoughts and concepts and develop science into the future. That is the very essence of my original Question. You Mathematians with your mathematical brains think in a very Particular way MATHEMATICALLY . You will limit the future growth of Science to a specialised Maths-Science not to a Universal -Science . I am not meaning you personally AJB as I know you like the applied maths end of the spectrum. But, even you , I have tried to read some of your Published Papers and the lay person could not get beyond the title of most of them. No you ( Maths) must not be allowed to LEAD in FRONT , you could lead us into a swamp before the ordinary Population realized it. It could even be argued that Science has already lead industry and the modern industrial world into the swamp and only now possibly too late , are the human population waking up to the swamp like condition they are finding the world in. I fear for my daughters what world are we scientists ( including myself , having been a part of 20th century industry ) leaving them to grow up in. NO, the language of science needs to be a language we ALL can understand. Be some of the precision gears, the technical background boys, by all means. Calculate, Fix, Predict, explain as you are able. But please do not become our Mind,our Language, our conceptual Thinking capability, our Leaders. The ground under your feet is able to be crossed with your mathematical feet. But with our feet we sink into the swamp! I accidentally upset Swansont previously but that was not my intent. But the danger is allowing you mathematicians to become the Priests of Science , speaking only in Latin , which the lay person could not understand. I take my hat off to these popular science writers ,[some very qualified scientists many, who translate into ordinary language so that the ordinary person can understand, to some extent.[As you previously commented] But if you as mathematicians are allowed to take over... well ... it will be a sad day . MATHTOCRACY NO ! Mike [MKS]

Gone would be the Thinkers like Rodans thinker, Gone would be the Philosophers like Aristotle, Plato , Socretese and all that followed...... We would be left with ............................................. Please no ..........Do not take over everything ......... Sad will be the day you do Nobody will understand you apart from other mathematicians it will be like H.G. WELLS the time machine with the Meek and the Warlocks .........Aghhh ! mike

Are you saying that Probability or statistics is a "conjecture" that maths wishes to adopt into its family. What slightly un-nerves me is that mathematics as a discipline is attempting to "Take Over " Physics as a discipline in its own right " and even Take over "Science " , by saying Mathematics can explain everything. Much as I respect you as a Mathematician, I think it would be a sad day if 'Mathematics Alone' became the 21st century version of Physics and Science of Yesteryear. Gone would be the Thinkers like Rodans thinker, Gone would be the Philosophers like Aristotle, Plato , Socretese and all that followed...... We would be left with ............................................. Please no ..........Do not take over everything ......... Sad will be the day you do Nobody will understand you apart from other mathematicians it will be like H.G. WELLS the time machine with the Meek and the Warlocks .........Aghhh !

You guys are going to be as famous as Einstein was with the Mercury anomaly . good Luck . Can I come on board , I must have said something sensible somewhere, ! Mike

Maths really needs to back off a little on occasions . If as has been described 'Science makes predictions', science needs maths to make predictions, 'No predictions , no science'. 'science is maths ' This is a serious mistake I believe ! Probability in maths is poor-ish at making predictions, by dint of the very nature of things in nature that rely on things that are more statistical and probability based. Physics, the nature of the world is part statistical, part probability based, part predictable, fundamentally reliable precise able to be formalised into a mathematical formula Maths is poor at making predictions used in the probability type of environment. Why can it not be happy staying over in its corner , doing its calculating, playing with its formulas making beautiful, accurate predictions on things that can be accurately predicted , and stop giving people a hard time when they are trying to explore the frontiers of science with observation and hypothesis ? mike