lawsinium

You don't get to choose our questions in this peer review process. Well this is a very harsh dictatorial statement. It implies restrictions on both my actions and thoughts. And because of these boundaries, the possibilities of tilting the balance or leading me to the outcome that you like the outcome to be will always be on you hands. This also shows that professionalism is highly questionable in this "peer review", if you call this as such. "The fact that you might not have valid answers only means that your theory is shaky, not that we are wrong in our questions." IN your own views, obviously my results will always be wrong. You look my evidence as analogies maybe because you do not understand my ideas or I am not presenting my concepts right. And maybe, if I am not presenting it right, you can guide me the right way how I will present my claims in the scientific methodology. However the analogies that I am presenting as my answers to your inquiries are hard evidences of my claims. You just do not want to open your minds on these "analogies". And changing your questions is just one way to lead someone to the right track. Maybe since your approach is "dictatorial":-), you can supply me first all the requirements that you need in a list-format and what methodology do I have to follow. Like in your requirements: maybe you can ask me to define first all the words that you want me to define before I present my theory (e.g. pair, alter pair, non-living things). And for methodology (which might be different from the scientific method I presented earlier in a different thread), they might be a set of questions like “How do you pick a pair". Since this is a peer review, obviously you have some criteria or checklist that can tell you if my theory is feasible or not. This will probably prevent future arguments that are not really connected to the main issue. (like this >> I am sorry to agree with you that gravity does not "use" anything. Gravity only survives because their are at least two masses that exist) And if we can lay down our rules, methodology and requirements maybe your wish to become happier and prouder will come true. And I assure that you will! Because I have the facts, I have the mathematical proof, I have my isodimesional morphical models and I have brilliant peers like you guys who will back up me and my theory to be true. "Harmony, and not peace, is the key element for all countries to unite. In science we can not prove peace, but we can prove what frequency is!"...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

I know that you still do not get how to approach my theory! Why? Because you are still asking the same old question! What is the duality of this or that? The right question should be: What is the family of gravity? What is the family of this duality? If you know the family of a certain specie (living and non-living), then you will find the alter pair of that particular specie. So gravity belongs to what family? Since gravity is a force, I can say that it belongs to the Family of Forces. What are the different forces that are already known to man: magnetic, gravity, nuclear and so forth and so on. These forces are classified as at-a-distance forces. The other forces, which are classified contact force, are friction, pressure to name a few. They belong to the duality of push and pull (literally?) So gravity can interact with any forces. Gravity can use electromagnetism as an alterpair. It can use nuclear forces as an alterpair. Did you get it now? Since you love analogies, I will use the family called human beings as an example. What/Who is the duality or alterpair of Edtharan? So the first thing that you should do is classify edtharan? Is edtharan a virus, a bonobo or a human being? You found out that edtharan is a human being. So edtharan belongs to the family called Homo Sapiens. At the same time Sayonara, Dak, Kyrisch, mooeypoo belong to the same family of human specie. So who is the alterpair of edtran? It could be sayonara, dak or any body else. Did you get the picture now? Again this "analogy" is a factual evidence of duality! I could not blame you that you see it like other ordinary people will do? Because some brains are preconditioned just like that (that is why you simply asked: what is the duality of this and that). Our senses: sight, hearing, touch, smelling, taste and dreaming; are the main culprit of this preconditioning. When these senses detect anything, consciously or subconsciously, they are all stored in the brain. And the principle behind cherry picking comes in! (Hey edthran, I am learning something from you. hehehehe!) Some people can not accept the fact that my theory is a reality so they labeled it as an analogy (a selection process of creation). I can not blame some people about this kind of reaction, since in the first place this is a new concept and the scientific community has not heard my theory yet. (that is why i approached this forum coz maybe someone here is a science editor of a university, a physicists, a teacher who has the power to publicly publish my work) But I am very sorry to disagree; this is not an analogy at all. The on and off duality is a "reality" - a fact and an evidence. And the letters you see on your screen are the by-product of this duality which are being processed by truth table, logic gates, and ansi codes (assembly language evolution). To prove me right otherwise, you may ask experts like both computer engineers and electronic engineers about this, or just google if you have an inquisitive mind. If someone will ask you to open a door, which one will you do? If I want to open the door, I will either push it or pull it. To a kid, he might try his sword, a bomb, a mallet, his magic powers, his laser beams, his telekinesis and probably his invisible friend. To others they will just use a key. So with these three personalities, who among them is the most intelligent? 1. To a regular mind, this question can be answered automatically. (common intelligence) 2. To an active mind, this question can be answered in many ways”. ( inquisitive intelligence) 3. To an intelligent mind, this question becomes a challenge for proof. (the visionary) "The best journeys are not always in a straight lines"....excerpt from the book Creation by Laws.

I have already answered your questions and other similar arguments in a different thread. But to give you a glimpse of my claims, I am posting here a concrete evidence that might satisfy your curiosity and definition of REALITY. Look at this in a perspective, as if you are living inside the world of computer and as the world you are living now. The computer itself evolved from the Duality of 0 and 1. In the electrical level we call it On and Off. But if you look at the “universe” of your computer desktop or laptop, you do not see this duality or it is so hard to find one just like that. But this electronic virtual world is functioning like our own world, it can even create a hypothetical human-like specie I called homotronics. How did this duality evolve? It started from on and off partnership. A 5-volts of electrical signal is transported to some timers, capacitors, transistors, resistors and integrated circuits. As this duality of signals reach the electronic level, they were encoded and decoded along the way from the duality of 0 and 1 to a complex system of families. They were connected to an 8 led-display so that human beings can read them. These two switches (on & off) were translated into binary numbers, 0 and 1. Zero as a representation of ‘off’ or ‘nothingness’ and one as a representation of “On’ or ‘something’. These binary digits were the particles that created the world of computers and beyond. These two numbers coexist, interact and form new set of numbers. These new sets of numbers combine as groups and transform into new sets of systems of families: base-2 (0 and 1 as a pair); base-3 (0 and 5 as a pair); base-6, (0 and 11 as a pair); base-10 (0 and 9 as a pair); and base-16 (0 and F as a pair) to name a few. Others even branch out to a different path, e.g. the octadecimal system, multiplication tables, html color-codes, ipod, homotronics. Following the basic algorithm of generating counting numbers outlined in my previous threads, all of these systems will multiply endlessly forever in time. However, in their exponential transformation and continuous progression, some families become dormant (e.g. base-3, base-6, base-60) and others become effective and efficient (e.g. base-2, base-10, base-16). These numbers or systems, which are effective and efficient dominate, thrive and survive. These families of numbers that were effective and efficient tend to go to a different direction. They evolved and created the language of the computers: from assembly language, to DOS, basic, cobol, logo, pascal, dbase, C, and to Microsoft suite to name a few. Take note, all these languages are by-products of the duality of zero and one again. (since you are a programmer just like me, then you can not deny this at all - another reality) So it does not matter again, if it is 0 &1 to create a family of numbers. It can be 0 and 5 or 0 and 11 or other hieroglyphics. So it does not matter again, if it A-Z to create a family of languages. It can be 0 & 1, A & Z, assembly language, hexadecimal, Chinese characters or russian morse codes. So it does not matter again, if it is metal or wood to create a family of tools, what matter is that the evolution of creation can be duplicated by using to say the least - the principle behind the family of duality and the seven instinctive laws of creation. So with all things said, do I still need to do cherry picking (look for matches and disregard that contradicts) in this complex world we called WWW? Another reality that this duality of zero and one created is the colors in our monitors and printers. This duality has created millions of colors by using the color combination of red, green and blue in hexadecimal form. The RGB system is a third level color generation using a three-color “triality” system. RGB tricolor is often used in generating complex colors in television sets and computer monitors. The process is called Additive Color Mixing. This method creates new colors by mixing black with various proportions of red, green or blue and ending up with white. The RGB triality is also used as a basis for creating colors on web pages. This computer language scheme, called HTML color codes, is made up of six digits whose values start from 000000 and end in FFFFFF. The color code #000000 represents black and #FFFFFF represents the color white. Using the basic html color format #xxxxxx and plugging any one of these hexa-numbers(originated from the duality of zero and one) in the color format will yield millions of colors. The number of possible true colors that can be produced out of this html color system is sixteen millions and more. The black and white family can generate more systems by duality, tertiality, and hexiality. All these systems procreate by dividing and forming new groups. As they transform to a new life—from color particles to a rainbow, RGB monitors, or html web colors—they begin to expand bringing with them their best features in order to survive and propagate. And for those inactive colors, they just stay within the system waiting to be recognized. (metal & air, metal & water, air and wood which were called natural elements are totally different from the periodic table of today.) BTW, alter pair is different from opposite pair. Opposite connotes an anti pair, a negative-positive relationship. Alter pair means the other pair, the second pair. This pair lives in a symbiotic partnership called family. Going back to the basics is a very important element in life and the quest for life! From basics you will learn how things originated. Since I know that computers are nothing but a basic signals of On and Off, I harnessed, tamed and taught these signals to control my television, my sound systems, my air-conditioning and all other equipment I have in my room. It was fun! When I always repetitively type the DOS commands (assembly language evolution) at the A prompt, it always disturb me inconveniently. So, I designed a program that will make it simple using Dbase as my graphical interface at that time and place all this DOS command in one place. I compiled it into exe file and the result is a look alike of what we have now called Windows. Another happy moment! Learning the basic (duality theory) and some modular algorithm (seven laws of creation) can create a complex world where cherry picking could be fun too! "The universe evolved from nothing and something; and has most of this elemental duality until today."...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

Have you heard of relativity. A train could be moving at the speed of light and you are sitting inside that train,probably reading my book. Now this concept defends on whose frame of reference are we talking about! I know that momentum was derived from F = M x A, and again Einstein borrowed an existing formula from Sir Newton. And because he knows the tricks of his trade, he has to make sure that they are dimensionally correct. And his derivation is somewhat parallel to my derivation of W = MAD.

Before I will present to you my formula, I just like to make sure that you are really good in science or math. So for LaTex, can you derive a formula for all these problems which actually can be found from any algebra books. 1. There are only 2 species in the universe the first day. 2. After seven days, these species gave birth to 4 species. 3. After 14 days, each specie gave birth to 4 species each. 4. If we follow the same pattern of conception, how many species do we have all in all on the 28th day? Or maybe you can try this which was solved by a 5th grader! There are 7 kids on a bus. Each kid has 7 backpacks In each backpack, there are 7 cats For every cat there are 7 little kittens How many legs are there inside the bus? Or maybe you can analyze this for me! When I was 18 years old I discovered that the famous equation: E = mc² was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I got..... FORMULA >>STATEMENT W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2 W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E) So for you guys and LaTex and thinkers alike: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

My philosophy in life is “Always go back to the basics”. I believe in this statement for a simple reason: if you like to know how things work, you need to learn the basic principle and basic parts of that machine and later learn the more complex parts. (Remember the key in your car!) And I believe this premise is what scientists use to determine the origin of our existence. They try dissecting the smallest detected particle, for they believe that this is the solution in finding the “fingerprints of life”. (aside from looking an alternative source for energy) But they are looking in a different direction or their premise is wrong. Obviously the fingerprints of life, which existed way back the birth of the universe, are all over the place until today, but they think otherwise. And my philosophy is what I used as a basis to prove my theory. I presented to say the LEAST the natural and artificial duality that created by nature and duplicated by man. It does not matter what will be the by-products of a new evolving families after these six basic dualities e.g. what is the alter pair of gravitons (there is but I do not know yet and actually it does not matter at all). What is important here is that if I can prove the six least families of duality is true, everything after these six examples will mean that my theory is applicable to anything found in the universe. My theory of duality is also backed up by a set of rules/requirements (the Seven Laws of Creation), where you already pointed out four of them. But are these six elementary dualities important. It just like you asking me: Is there a difference between living and non living? It does not matter at all, there are no differences, because they evolve to the same ancestors and therefore they will always possess the attributes of their ancestral parent. That is why I called both living and nonliving to have “life”. What I am implying here again is that if this theory and rules work to this set of basic(first,original) families, it will work to all other succeeding families too. So I do not care whether it is Chinese, Japanese, hieroglyphics or some kind of alphanumerical, or other “species”, what is important is that the theory is universal. Actually I do not need to explain to you the six variables that I classified artificial and natural, since it merits little to serve as evidences. It just so happened that the examples I used are common dualities that we observed day to day and I selected them too for the common people to easily understand. However, these family dualities do not really matters since it is only one of the seven instinctive laws that I have analyzed and experimented to prove that my theory is feasible. Analyzing 20/7 lead me to see common patterns to all my variables. I used the big bang theory as the basis of my duality since this is the accepted theory the scientific community is endorsing. If the big bang theory, which provides matter and energy as the end product is correct, then all things in the universe evolved from it. Like my Duality theory, which also provides matter and energy (and “god”) as the end product, then it is also correct that all things in the universe evolved from it. So I do not need to defend all other six variables at all or the “root and branches or What about leaves, flowers, bark, heartwood, sapwood, sap, and everything else that goes into making up a plant? “ But I assure you they have an alter pair, it just that it was not looked and studied deeper yet because I am introducing a new concept of creationism. Also, just like all other else that are subjected to evolution, duality also evolves to a more complex process. It can be a triality, a quadlity and so forth and so on. A good example, which evolved from the duality of black and white, are colors. Some of them evolved to more complex families of RGB. From the triality of this RGB family, which started from the primary colors of a rainbow, to our television sets, to our monitors, they are now evolving in the world of html codes. But is triality does matter? No, because it is not the BASIC(first,original) part of the evolution. So will I concern myself about “there is no evidence of a negative change to gravity, the letters used in the English language are not the only letters in existence, number 0 was not invented for a long time”? My answer is NO!. The fact of the matter is that if the principle(theory) works since the birth of the first duality of family, it will also work today (check again my six variables). The timeline roughly looks like this: It started with the big bang(matter and energy), frequency(long and short) comes next to the picture, living things (egg and sperm) propagate, numbers (0 and 1) were discovered, language( a-z) followed next, and tools (metal and wood) were invented. My duality of family comes before the big bang! You asked: “Can you explain why metal and wood are a duality? I don't understand why you think they are a pair? Why not Metal and Air, or Metal and Water, Or Air and Wood? Even today there are many organisms that reproduce asexually.” There are four natural elements known the first time man evolved: air, fire, water and earth. Earth brought forth metals and woods, for man to discover and to use. Henceforth, the family of tools was created from this duality. Why not the other combinations, they did form a duality but they are not successful or maybe they survive but they did not thrive. (remember your requirements regarding evolution, you have four I have seven and they fall under the laws of creation or I called the Family Life Cycle ). With regards to asexually, if inorganic matters survived and thrived to become living things what more about asexually. I am a proponent too to the dualities of Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and straight. They should not be regarded as different since all of us have the same common origin or ancestors or particles that we inherited since the birth of the universe and we follow the same Grand Instinctive Laws of Evolution. There are standard man-made norms that we follow, but the happiness of anybody should not be taken from them. After all, it is not only sex that makes a partnership survive, companionship and care contribute the most in order for a relationship to last. And because of this theory of duality and its laws you will be surprised that pairing is not only for man and woman in order to grow and multiply (remember the six variables). Everything in this world can spontaneously propagate and exponentially transform by simply following the natural seven laws of family duality. My game here is about finding matches at the least level, and you can help me by finding things that disprove my theory. It is not unintentionally or intentionally that I selected information that will support my ideas by ignoring the information that will contradict my claims. In the first place I have not thought even a single moment about things that will contradict my claims since my main objective is really to prove that creation is governed by instinctive intelligence I called The Laws in Nature, although my theory started by labeling pairs into posicles(positive particles) and negacles(negative particles). “Matter and Waves might be derived products of a single object or behaviour. Much as Temperature and pressure are derived products from the motion of atoms. As current theories (and experiments) are supporting this, using an out of date assumption is not very supportive of your theory.” This is a piece that I need to give more attention. Thank you for giving me a heads up here. However, in the Family Life Cycle, the Law of Transcedent governs. It speaks that species in a family duality, though created equal, submit each self to one another to take control and be controlled. (the material photons become light energy or vice versa depending who is in control, matter can be energy or vice versa) Cherry picking is a nice way to match a cherry with another cherry, but the problem is you can not match all the cherries in a tree all at the same time in a day. What more if these cherries are in a cosmological orchard. "The universe evolved from nothing and something; and has most of this elements until today."...Sir Joey Ledesma Lawsin.

Ooopppsss, I am sorry that I have not explained to you my theory about the Duality System of Everything. I was thinking that we discussed it already on this thread but it looks like our arguments revolve only on pseudoscience and scientific methodology. Since you are an expert on scientific methodology, I will be happy if you can dissect and critique the pros and cons of my observations and interpretations about Duality. Let me introduce you to my theory by following your advice about scientific methodology in simplified format. Problem: Why Things are paired? Hypothesis: At the very least level (only 2 objects), all things are paired to ensure that the evolution of creation(ism) will continue to take place. Experimentation: (I would just provide you the output of my experimental procedures, which obviously will list down the steps on how I arrived with my results. Tell me these steps based on your analysis and I will tell you the process as we go along.) To illustrate this pairing theory which I sometimes called a Family System, I will use the letters of the alphabet as an example. The alphabet pairing is made up of the letter A and its alter pair the letter Z. These letters live in an enclosed system called the Family of Language. These two letters are logistically positioned to coexist as partners. As these letters combine, they group together and transform into words, sentences, paragraphs, books, encyclopedias, libraries. Letters group together and expand to create more different words, words group together and expand to create multiple sentences, sentences create paragraphs, paragraphs create pages, pages create books and books create never ending voluminous information. However, in their exponential transformation and continuous progression, some words become dormant and others become effective and efficient. These letters who are effective and efficient dominate, thrive and survive. Data: ( This is the summary of all the variables used during experimentation. I classified them into natural and artificial) I. Artificial - duality duplicated by humans a) Duality of zero and one (0-1) = created the family of numerals from numbers to html codes. b) Duality of letter A and its alter pair the Letter Z (A-Z) = created the family of language from words to” information highways”. c) Duality of metal and wood (metal-wood) = created the family of tools from a simple lever to the space station. II. Natural - duality created by nature a) Duality of egg and sperm cells = created the family of living things. b) Duality of mass and wave = created the family of non-living things, at the least. c) Duality of long and short waves = created the family of electromagnetic waves where colors is a part. Interpretation: (To organize the data of my first experiment which is the duality of zero and one, I will place them in a matrix table for analysis. We will assume the Big Bang theory to be the duality of matter-energy as the least basis of this interpretation. This matter and energy pairing will be represented by binary digits 0 and 1. BTW, it is not always true that 1+1 =2; in the binary system the answer is different.) It is easier to see patterns when you organize your data in a table format. In the third table, note that the first column and the first row are set up to provide reference only, and these numbers can go beyond 9 by following certain rules. In all the tables below, all numbers that you see are generated in the duality of zero and one (matter and energy), and to make it more readable to humans, I substituted this binary with the standard numerals in table 3. * 0 1 10 Duality of zero and one – the grand family creating a specie called “10”. 00 01 10 11 Duality of the subset family “10” – evolving 4 species; 00, 01, 10, 11. In this family some of them will survive, some will thrive and some will fail. The subfamilies will also evolve like their parental ancestors and their subfamilies and subfamilies and so on will do the same. Note that every species, both parents and products, are simultaneously evolving * 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 6 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 7 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 8 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 9 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 Duality of zero and one evolving ( this is the first table above evolving into a more complex families of dualities) – creating all the species known to man. All subsets, like the duality of family “10”, also evolve and follow the matrix of the grand family of zero and one. Also another way to look at the evolution of matter and energy is to use base-10 instead of base-2. In other words, the process of base 2 can be duplicated exactly using the family of base-10. The logic and the rules are just the same, but the approach is somewhat different. In table 3, if I filled up the second row with all the first basic ten counting numbers (products of evolution), and started placing number 1 (alterpair) in front of each numbers, the group would look like this – 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. So then, after counting from 0 to 9, I have a new set of numbers, following number 9 – 10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19. If I filled up the third row with all the first basic ten counting numbers again, and started placing number 2 in front of each number, the group would look like this – 20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29. Thus, a new set of numbers again has been created. If I follow this set of rules repeatedly, then new sets of numbers will be created forever. This well-organized number system, which is made up of a regiment of numerals, can be a duality of anything that exists in the universe. Conclusion: Confirmation of the hypothesis. Reality: If we look at the world we live in, we always find objects in pair. When something goes up most likely it will go down. A magnet has always north and south poles. Electricity runs, when the positive and negative terminals of a battery are connected. We created the word bits, for binary digits zero and one. White and black, A and Z, roots and branches, crest and through, right and left, body and soul, yin and yang, lighting and thunder, yes and no, here and there, e and pi, matter and energy and many more examples could be given possibly with no end. We do not need to be a scientist to figure out this matching game, these objects can be detected or interpreted by our senses - sight, touch, smell, taste, hearing and dreaming. And as you analyze deeper the evolution of all kinds of pairing, they always follow the seven laws of creation which I sometimes called the Family Life Cycle.

Regarding "Laboratory" - what if I tell you that I was the one who discovered Pi (3.1415+) and that I used a piece of paper as a place where I conducted my scientific investigations, will it matter? Regarding "Six" - like Pi which is a constant, six always comes out as end result using my isodimensional morphical figures. It always carry a sinusoidial frequency in an inverse helixal configuration.

That is the problem with you guys who always claim that you really know science very well, but your slip is showing. OMG. "your theory is wrong because you: 1) Do not show that there are observations (evidence) that contradicts currently accepted theories. 2) Use logical fallacies to support your position. 3) Make mistakes in the basic mathematics used in the presentation of your theory. 4) Have demonstrated an ignorance about what the scientific method actually entails (and yet claim that you are doing science)." How can you claim that my theory is wrong since in the first place you have not read my theory yet. (remember scientific methodology : you need to state the problem, gather your data before making conclusions - I learned this concept when i was a first grader). Currently the big bang theory, which is now use as the basis in the scientific community (the other cult) as the answer to evolution of the universe, is being refuted by NASA itself. So do I still use this as a basis? If I based my theory with an erronoeous theory, does it fall under logical fallacy? You do not need any evidence to prove that my theory is right at all since you see them and experience them in your day to day living. It is constant, like Pi! It will always be the same until the end of time - the theory of everything. NOT like scientific theories that always change overtime. You just do not notice them because you just evaluate things in a few seconds or maybe in a few minutes, try doing them 20/7 and sleep 4 hrs. It is like the air that you breathe or the pencil speeding up in your table or the burning books in your shelves. If you do not get these, try my advice below - afterall you do not need methodology to prove them. Another problem with you guys is that you always use the tricks of your trade. You try to change the nature of your mathematical approach just to make sure that your theory will FIT TRUE (remember Einstein great blunder about cosmological constant). You have just done this in my derivation! It is like religion, they suppress the real chapters of their book that contradicts their ideology. You are like the charlatant of the medieval today or like quack magicians that use redirection methodology to make everyone believe that they have discovered a great scientific breakthrough. You look to be true but I am sorry dude, but you are not. You might be doing your homework, but you need to balance your thoughts and just do not take one side of the spectrum. You might hate religion because you believe in science. You might hate science because you believe in religion. But what if both of their teachings or ideologies are wrong and you are already indoctrinated? Where do you go next? Or can you accept other ideas - new concepts that are extraordinary like my declaration that god is just a part of the evolution of creation? And i think you can not still get it about scientific methodology dont you. You do not always need this tool in order to prove something is right or wrong. This is just one of the tools scientists use when they approach certain scientific challenges. How will you set up a methodology if you want to prove Pi? Which circle is the controlled and which one is the experimental? Can I not make my control as experimental and experimental my control? I think I can and can not, because the result will always be 3.1416+. That is why I do not believe in the methodology of science and its ideology. It does not give a result that is always CONSTANT. (experimental results are only good in a certain environment like earth, but Pi will always be true even you take it out to space and beyond) BTW, what is your stand about god. Do you believe in god and why. what is your stand about souls. do you believe in spirit and why If you do, then you do not need to explain your position. It just tells me you have been indoctrinated and most probably you do not have any ideas how our brain and body sensors work! Maybe you can start studying what happens when you first insert your car key and start it! Which component starts first, which one follows next and so on and so forth. What happen to the other system? And make sure you follow your scientific methodology. Just teasing you! Honestly, you are really good in arguments, I like the way we exercise our minds, and maybe next time use them to refute my theory about Creation by laws rather to those things that I already know.

Analogies do not fall AT ALL under science. They can provide some parallelism or overstatement but it does not mean that it is true and is scientifically accepted (Remember Mr. Strawman!). In my case, I totally do not accept them. BTW, maybe we are confused also by how formulas or equations evolved that we forget that the unit of measurement is a TOOL that will exactly prove that an equation is correct. I would suggest that please do your homework first and find out what was the first, second and third formula that was created by man. Try to analyze them and you will find out that they are the basis of all the formulas that we have today - from electrical, electronics, mechanics, relativity, frequency, optics to name a few. And try to go deeper how calculus was created, you might be surprised that it is the same common dog with just a different collar. In science, it can not exist without mathematics. But in mathematics, we do not need science in order to exist. All concepts about creationism have been either based on religious beliefs or scientific ideologies. My theory is based on isodimensional morphical figures that always provide the same results – a mathematical factuality. It is like dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, the end result is always a pi. Pi which is equal to 3.1415+ is always constant and is the basic fact of life for all circles. In a different light, if you post any related critics or opinions, please do not tell me to read the book of a certain author, or go to the website to just prove your claims. Please explain them thoroughly why do you think that my theory is wrong and what evidence do you have to back up your claims or my claims. Thank you!

I am sorry guys, but I will not response into any remarks or opinions in this thread, which is not related, into my theory on duality and instinctive intelligence per se. And if you post any related critics or opinions, please do not tell me to read the book of this person, or go to a website to just prove your claims. Please explain them thoroughly why do you think that my theory is wrong and what evidence do you have to back up your claims or my claims. However, to other readers, you can throw all questions in a different thread entitled - Exploring the origin of life and consciousness. In addition, for those who already have posted some questions, can you please take them out of here so that this thread will concentrate only about my article regarding evolution of creations. Thank you. I would be very glad if you point out any defects or inconsistency whatsoever you might find in my article. Don’t be intimidated or constrained by what you will throw to me. I need your disapproval or condemnation as a measure to enhance the qualitative and quantitative of my assertions. Please, spare your praises since what I need now is your honest opinion - the harsher the better.

When we were young, we love to play with bubbles. We get a one foot long solid wire and started bending a loop at the end of the wire. We deep it in a mixture of soap and water, bring it up into the air, and just like a magic wand we can create wonderful colorful bubbles. With this simple experience, scientists started to figure out how this phenomena works. They religiously followed the scientific methodology which was indoctrinated to them by the literature of science and because human beings are gullible (this is the second instinctive attributes of all life form’s genetic code next to copying or aping), they simply use their exclusive scientific digests or papers (a cult doctrines like the bible?) as their references. In their highly elaborated laboratory, scientists started the trial and error method. They tried their experiment, made a very attractive conclusion and formulated their findings. However, behind the scene, they do what I call "The tricks of their trade". After years of this painstaking laboratory work with peer discussion and debate, they figured out a solid theory, which was accepted, reproduced, and retested by the scientific community. The theory states that "We can not place a thin film of water clinging inside the wire loop without using soap or other detergents to hold the film". Everybody shouted "Eureka", clapped their hands and felt like they were new breed of geniuses! After so many years of public acceptance, this concept will just be disproved by a new theory - like all other old scientific theories. And the circle of scientific methodology begins all over again. In science, when a new theory does not conform with scientific doctrines, it is automatically labeled as pseudoscience and not science at all. Zipher in psychology they call it Labeling. Did they forget what is the general meaning of the word science? Does society has the right to LABEL what is what and who is so? When a patent clerk declares a new theory, everyone will be thinking he is mad, but when a scientist declares a new concept , everyone praise him. Who we are to judge the human intelligence of others? Because society sets up certain standard norms and rules that individual must follow, do we need to adhere to these standards and be "punished" by seclusion if we think otherwise or super extraordinary? Is that fair? Maybe what these self-proclaimed genuises can do is try to test first this pseudoscience theory using their own scientific methodology and pass judgment afterwards when a concrete conclusive results are provided. I think this human behavior will be fair enough! One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience. Fascinating! So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years. Red shift will just be natural when things evolve. No two things can occupy the same space at the same time and therefore will take more area or simlpy expand. Remember? Well talking about Einstein, the patent clerk who was labeled by some as a genius, was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc². And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too - like those people who are proclaiming that they really understand quantum mechanics. Others believe, including me, that he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was just intellectually smart and that he knows the tricks of his trade. And simply because he spent a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7, most probably he did not need to follow the rigors of the scientific methodology. I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence especially for those who are quacking loudly who based their arguments from only shear reading scientific journals. Hmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula. I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought a certain PhD has figured it out. And for those readers, who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong. Don't refer me to any books how it was derived, show the derivation here on this thread, so I will know if you really understand the formulation! In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, I have. FORMULA >>STATEMENT W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2 W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E) So for the thinkers: Is it correct if I say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right?

How this article will differ from previous related topics on creation: The article about Creation by Laws is absolutely unique since the principles behind this theory especially the particle duality and spontaneous infinity can appropriately be used as a concrete basis to explain all other existing theories about creation. Also, all concepts about creationism have been either based on religious beliefs or scientific ideologies. My theory is based on mathematical facts. It is like dividing the circumference of a circle by its diameter, the end result is always a pi. Pi which is equal to 3.1416 is always constant and is the basic fact of life for all circles Any major benefits that the theory will contribute to the world: All of the theories in my book Creation by Laws were based from the isomorphical figures that I have experimented in my “laboratory”. The number six is so dominant that I considered it as a perfect number and thus must be given special attention. Its structure can be used in buildings for stability purposes during times of earthquake. It can also be used in designing new aircraft that might break time travel. And like carbon which can be formed with a host of other compounds, it can be used in skin grafting, material hardening and other form of structural strenghtening (e.g. space elevator connecting earth and the international space station).

"My idea is, the origin of life is just a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter. they exhibit a quite conscious behavior, despite of their simplicity. decision requires to have certain intelligence. We can say, the elementary particles aren't so stupid, as they appear at the first sight, they're just perfectly adopted to live in their environment. By my understanding the elementary particles are like small living creatures, exhibiting a sexual dimorphism: the bosons are males, whereas the fermions are females. They've a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure inside body like other living organisms. Instead of this the bosons are a movable, just a bit slippery and volatile particles, they're don't like sitting' at place, moving instead like a regular lady killers from one she-fermion to another. Whenever the boson have a sufficient energy, it succeeded with female meeting and is allowed to transfer its energy and exchange the information with her. During such collision a new small particles can be born, often having the structure and property signatures of both the parents." Zephir, I just like to point out that your idea matches my theories about the evolution of creation. The paragraph above caught my attention, specifically with the following words or statements which I will put into questions so that you can provide me and your readers some concrete logical connections or answers, whether it is coming from your thought experiments or hard scientific ideologies. 1. Why do you say that life is a continuation of complexity evolution of inorganic matter? If this is so, then your theory will support my definition of life which is not only for living things but for non-living things too. 2. Why do you say that inorganic matter has behavior and intelligence ? Can you elaborate this more clearly by either analogies or experiences.? 3. How did you come up with this statement “a genetic information encoded at the spiral structure”, specifically the word spiral ? Do you have proof or models that will support your claims? 4. How is the transfer of energy and exchange of information takes place? Can you provide me a blow by blow scenario how this happen? Is this concept like how egg and sperm cells evolve? BTW, during evolution everything tries to separate and reorganize again. As they organize, at a certain point in time, they make rules that are only good for their own group in order to survive. You and I were probably indoctrinated by our teachers and with all the books we read. Religious people were probably indoctrinated by the teaching of their church and their bible. And some people even grow long beard to imitate god. Or was it Abraham or Moses? (the first group of devotees or cult?) The scientific community could probably indoctrinated by their scientific methodology and their scientific evidence. Trial and error is one of their methodologies. Will you buy a medicine that is a product of trial and error? They have accepted the big bang theory, but do they have supporting evidence that was gathered 13 billion years ago? And some people even grow gray hair to imitate Einstein. (the other group of devotees or cult?) In science, a theory can not be accepted unless there is mathematical proof - a formula or an equation. So science is useless without mathematics. That is why proponents of this concept have the hand to classify if our work is a pseudoscience or speculation. In religion, they do not care about this nonsense, they just believe in their Faith (well for me at least faith is better, because science destroys the world and the evolution of mankind, while religion simply destroys the evolution of "mind-kind", brainwashing?) Maybe you might be interested on my thread about why things are paired. Think about it very deeply without just reading every words but what is behind each lines, like the way you will analyze my statement that” everything we see are all already of the past. “The best journeys are not always in a straight lines.” Excerpt from the book Creation by Laws.

It is funny that we were both placed here in this section, which for me is just fine, rather being banned just like what happened to me next door. And I love the way you articulately presented your concept. If I could only be a man of words most probably I could present my thoughts with flowery words just like you. But I am not, since most of my life I am surrounded with numbers. Anyways, you said that Einstein was a genius and was widely believed that he used superior intellect and complex mathematical reasoning to finally arrive at E = mc². And even today, some scientists are so amazed by this formula E = mc², that they praised it like a holy grail. And because they have proven that the formula is right, some of them have even that grand illusion that they also belong to a breed of geniuses too. But you are right; he didn't arrive at his famous equation by complex scientific reasoning. He was intellectually smart just like us; he knows the tricks of the trade. And simply because he spend a lot of time thinking, weighing, analyzing and rethinking 20/7 he does not need to rigorously do all the scientific methodology. (I am not against methodology since people evolved with different levels of intelligence). He has all the facts that are just simply right in front of him that can be perceived by his senses. So why bother to test it. Just like our own theories which are being classified as pseudoscience, does society has the right to do so? Who we are to judge the intelligence of others? Because society sets up certain scientific norms and rules that individual must follow, we need to adhere to these standards and if not we are "punished" by seclusion. Is that fair? Maybe what we need to do is try to test these pseudoscience theories in your own scientific methodology first, since some are used to this drill, and pass your judgment afterwards when you come up with concrete conclusive results. I think this human behavior will be fair enough! One professor distinguishes science from pseudoscience on the basis of the final product, the laws and theories. He said that if the results (1) cannot be tested in any way, (2) have been tested and always failed the test, or (3) predict results that are contradictory to well established and well tested science, then that is pseudoscience. Fascinating! So my new theory about the creation of the universe will still be labeled a pseudoscience for the fact that in order for me to test and have the end results of my theory, I have to wait for another 12 to 14 billion years. Just teasing, lolz! Hmmmm, well let us go back to Einstein E = mc². I do not know if scientists have figured out how Einstein arrived at this famous formula. I have read a lot of physics books since I started to learn how to count, but never in my entire life did I encounter a book that will describe how Einstein formulated his formula. And I thought Dr Chandrakanth has figured it out. You got me there, Sir. Hahaha.And for those readers who have encountered how the formula was derived, please correct my claims if I am wrong. In my book, Creation by Laws, I presented the famous equation: E = mc², which I believe was probably derived from Isaac Newton F= m x a and Giovanni Coriolis’ W = F x d, and analyzing both scientists’ equations by dimension and units of measurements, we have. FORMULA >>STATEMENT W = F x D >>Eq1 – Coriolis equation F = (M x A) >>Eq2 – Newton’s equation W = (M x A) x D >>replace F from eq1 with eq2 W = (kg x m/s²) x m >>substitute dimensions w/units W = (kg x m x m) / s² >>apply laws of exponents W = ( kg x m² ) / s² >>( X)^A x (X)^B = (X)^A+B W = kg x (m²/s²) >>combining W = kg x (m/s)² >>simplifying W = M x V². >>subsitute Kg for M, m/s for V W = m x c². >>c = velocity of light, m=mass E = m x c² >>since Work(W) = Energy(E) So for the thinkers: Is it correct if i say that work = mass times acceleration times distance (W=MAD)? Do you think I have to follow the scientific methodology to prove that this formula is right? Creation by Laws: A Journal of a Creative Mind; (ISBN: 978-1-60047-217-6).