Semjase

Denying a creator indicates that everything happens naturally and lifeforms evolved naturally in the universe and are highest intelligence in this reality and there is no other intelligence behind it, it sounds dumb, something looks good is good something looks bad is bad, intuition evolutionary? lets look at the universe made from charged particles which can only be derived from pair creation unless you know of another way. The antiprotons and positrons are missing in this universe which is an unnatural situation, where are they, Alien contacties have been told that universes are created in pairs, matter and antimatter pairs by creational forces which gives creedance to Aliens and creational forces since the antimatter has to be somewhere. Then there's the Goldilock factor extremely slight changes in constants and life would not be possible, which indicates the whole system was designed for life.

Lets say that that the universe was found to be full of life forms and most of evolved independantly from each other yet the all have one thing in common DNA, the odds of this happenning dissapear to about zero would you still cling to these odds or would you accept that there is a creational force behind life.

How true but this is impossible, chemistry is chemistry nothing more it does not give the experience of real that we percieve in our reality at some point in evolution life forms experience real, the technolgy of real that must have a scientific explanation it just didn't evolve uniquely and independently for each life form there has to be an overlaying high technology behind our experience of real whether you like it or not, which proves that a higher intelligence is behind this reality.

According to the evolutionary principle cells had to evolve from basic building blocks, lets go back to the first precell with no DNA at the last step of the cell's evolution before DNA, you have a structure that is non replicating maybe growing and breaking into smaller parts, how could this cell then evolve and DNA replicating system necessary for cell division specifically targeted for DNA that is yet to exist.Maybe if cell biologist looked a little closer at this evolutionary step they would see the impossiblity of this occurring.

Here's the shape of a virus, this device could not have evolved into being it's sharp geometric shape show all the hallmarks of a designer. To prove that viruses evolved into being from from a celled organism may not be possible. I'll take another example form Dawkins book The Blind Watchmaker where he mentioned that a primitive amoeba was found to have more DNA than a human being he never explained how that was possible would you like to try?

Everything wil eventually have a scientific explanation including the prime creator. The point I'm making is that if a structure is proven that it could not have evolved naturally from it's environment considering you knew all the properties of reality then you would have to look elsewhere for an independent intelligence with knowledge and understanding of reality that put it here, just as functioning structures left by man discovered by something else would have to draw the same conclusion.

This constitutes proof that their is a prime creator, proven concepts are the key to existence. It is proven that you can have something or nothing, if there's always been structure here then existence becomes an unsolvable riddle with no solution, if you believe in science then there has to be a scientific solution to existence. Since nothing is theoretically possible and therefore is something and has properties makes this reality possible. Essentially everthing in this reality has evolved out of the properties of nothing including a prime creator who evolved first and proof of the prime creator is any structure in this reality that could not evolve through natural scientific means including life itself,means there has to be an overseeing intelligence responsible for scientifically unexplainable complex structures in our reality.

I recommend the Talmud of Jmmanuel it's historical significance if accurate makes it the most important document ever discovered. This document depicts the life of Jmmanuel who was known as Jesus in great detail. The question is where did this document come from, is it a forgery by whom for what purpose and why? It has historical significance and can be viewed at http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/talmud/talmud.pdf

The creation stands above God is responsible for creating universes in matter and antimatter pairs and Jmmanuel who was actually was Jesus talked about the creation, his real life was recorded in great detail 2000 years and the scrolls were translated into English and can be viewed at. http://www.fourwinds10.net/journals/talmud/talmud.pdf

I think it would be very important to conduct an experiment to find out. Here I would like to add some other peoples ideas on the subject http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=44254.0

Universities are generally right according to one magnetic fields have mass, check below http://van.physics.illinois.edu/qa/listing.php?id=19856 I think we have an important discovery

I thought light was identical to radio waves except at a different frequency, radio waves produce voltage in a conductor by magnetic fields crossing the antenna in the same way as a flux from a magnet at low speeds crosses a wire, what is sacred about light.

How can you deny this 1. light is electromagnetic radiation 2. If magnetic fields have rest mass then light would have to have mass. This experiment would confirm or deny it. Using a super conducting air core toroid, measuring its mass before a high current is established in it, then establish a high current with it's resultant magnetic field in the toroid them measure the energy input then remeasure the mass of the toroid to determine if it has gained mass, if it has gained mass then the magnetic field must have mass, and with no mass gained then a magnetic field must be massless. This test will settle the question once for all for good.

I've looked at that equation before but I totally forgot about it. There's one problem with that equation assuming no rest mass and E=pc to have E you must have mass to to make E possible. p has to be equal to (relativistic mass)* velocity*c. If photons have any energy they must have relativistic mass when velocity =c, so therefore photons must have mass. Small mistake E has to be equal (relativistic mass)*velocity*c

I didn't know that momentum had another equation than mass*velocity no mass no momentum. The entire theory of relativity and E=m*c^2 is built on that equation.

I think that Boyd Bushmans experiment should be repeated under controlled conditions then we may have a conclusive result that defies known physics.

Photons have mass and I'll prove it. We can agree that light is electromagnetic radiation therefore photon are packets of electromagnetic radiation it really is no different than a radio wave. both travel at the speed of light both are composed of the same thing electromagnetic waves the only difference is that light is packets of radiation and the case of a radio wave propagated from a standard antenna is a continuous circular magnetic wave with it's electrical component. Explain this to me if a photon has no mass then a magnetic field would have no mass which would mean it would have no inertia to keep it from slowing down from the force it has, as when it is collapsing in an inductor, in the case of an radio wave. To prove that it does have mass if you took a superconducting toroid and energized it with a magnetic field energy would have to go into the magnetic field that has mass energy equivalency, therefore photons have mass.

Relativity was incorrect explain this. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/03/060325232140.htm I'd like to further add this.

Magnetic fields are responsible for gravity contrary to Einstein. All charged particles with spin have a magnetic field around them. If you analyze two magnetic fields closely at the same distance apart at all possible orientations to each other you will find a net attraction between the two, this is what is responsible for gravity not mass bending of space. An experiment to confirm this you take a horizontal beam of electrons and accelerate it to relativistic velocities in a straight line and when it leaves the accelerator you measure its deflection angle due to gravity. Since the spin magnetic field around the accelerated electron does not increase, the gravitational attraction due to magnetic field does not increase. With the increased mass of the accelerated electron the downward accelerating speed of the electron due gravity will be proportionally decreased. Under Einsteins relativity the increased mass would produce increased gravitational attraction and therefore there would be greater downward acceleration from gravity than from the magnetic field theory. Further supporting evidence can be found below http://www.enterprisemission.com/antigrav.html

Let me look at the problem this way lets say that science way in the future has finally found the fundamental building block of nature this building block has finally proven to be indivisible, you now have a digital system. If the system is truly analog you would be able divide amounts into smaller and smaller quantities eventually I think that this will be proven not to be the case.

Orbitals are represented a certain amount of possible ones not an infinitely amount of possible ones which in it's self indicates digital structure of reality. e and pi cannot be represented by exact amounts they can only be represented by increasing degrees of precision. I'd like to add this that e and pi are a theoretical concept from analog mathematics that actually cannot be represented by a certain amount in reality.

Reality is digital, on the the large scale it appears analog, but on the atomic scale it loses it's resolution and becomes digital. This supported on the atomic scale by the fact that only certain orbital sizes are allowed for an electron around a nucleus. Velocity, space, time,distance and mass are all digital, this is backed by the fact that all these have to be measured in certain amounts and represented by a number. But certain amounts represented by numbers also have amounts between these certain amounts which are represented by irrational numbers. Irrational numbers are undefined and therefore these irrational amounts cannot exist which leads to a digital reality.

An electric field is something but not actually real, what is it?

Their seems to be two possible arguments for potential energy mass equivalency. 1. An electric field has no mass and therefore has no mass energy equivalency, but when the potential field does work it creates new mass. 2. An electric field has mass, and therefore it transfers it's it's mass to the particle it's doing work to. A way to test for this would be to take an electron positron pair and separate them by a distance in an electrically neutral environment and let them accelerate towards each other and testing for a mass change with a magnetic field. This brings up a further question, would a change in electric field strength without the magnetic component would be felt instantaneously regardless of distance? In the case of the electron positron pair test if number 2 was the case, their mass would have to remain constant because the field mass and the electron mass make up the entire mass of the electron. Can we reach a consensus on this?

When you've spend as much time investigating the Alien story as I have you finally get to the bottom of it. There are good aliens and bad ones and the last thing you want to do is get friendly with the bad ones the problem is over the years some governments couldn't tell the difference between the two.The good ones are an asset to this civilization the bad ones will lead to a disaster.