Mr.trooper

THANKS TIMETRAVELER. That website was interesting and helpfull.

Does anyone here have any thoughts on string theory? The way I have understood it, Mitchiel Kacoo(sp?) says that the particles that make up atomic particles, quarks and such, vibrate (using whatever energy) at a certain frequency? What more, is that it states that these "particles" are not actualy praticles, but are actualy wiggling strings", and that the number/type/frequency of vibration determine the Sub-atomic particle created (Neutron, Proton, Electron, ect.) so in a manner of speaking, if one could control the vibrations of these sub-sub-atomic particles, you could in theory change ANY form of mater into anything else with the same mass; Sort of the "Molecular re-arrangement" principal of science fiction. The theory also goes into resonations through 10 dimensional hyper-space, which I am slightly confused about, as I do not fully understand what hyper-space is supposed to be, except that which is outside of the physical universe? If anyone has some observations, or could at least shed some light on this theory for me i would be most appreciative.(1 hour long program on tech T.V. is not nearly enough for a fool like me to comprehend such an abstract proposition )

Yes, matter is aproximately the same. the created mater would have been spread out so as to even out the difference in the speed of time , continuing to spread as it is even today. I probably shold have spent more time making this area clear. That assumption was based on the possibility of concentrated matter being used as a tool to either speed up time on the fringes of the universe, or slow it down in the middle depending on how you look at it. Good comments guys! anyone else have thoughts on the issue?

I read an interesting article about a month ago, and it made me think. Thus I will post the general outline of this idea for your reading pleasure. I am by no means an expert in this area, nor do I claim to be particularly knowledgeable. However I DO think that I have a adequate grasp of the basic principles. This topic has to do with the origins of the universe, from both a Big Bang and an Intelligent Design perspective. This is not intended to be a debate for or against EITHER side, so PLEASE do make it into one. I simply intend to post a working theoretical creation model that does a good job of accounting for some past discrepancies. I freely admit that all views on this subject are speculative, and require a certain amount of “faith” to believe either ay on this subject. With that said, I will present this newer theoretical model: For the sake of argument, assume that the universe is spherical. Now, the sphere may be getting bigger, smaller, or staying the same size. THAT is not critical to the issue. Now if the big bang took place, then all matter created by that event would start in one place on the “globe” of the universe, and spread outward from the epicenter of the blast, gradually slowing down as it progressed. Matter would be found all over the universal”globe” as it spread in random directions. That model accounts for the expansion of the universe, the slowing of said expansion and the movement thereof. I am SURE this model, or one very similar to it, is familiar to all of you. No, if I may, I would like to present the second model. Previously it has been stated that the distance of some stars which are millions and, in some cases, billions of light years away was a hole in the creation model. However, relativity can provide a satisfactory explanation as to how a 12-15,000 year world could see light from stars so far away if they were created at the same time. If indeed the universe was created by an intelligent designer, then it would only be natural that said being would create the majority of mater on one side of the “globe” and have it spread out from there. If you could scoop up most of the universes matter, and dropped it all onto one spot on this “globe” the combined gravity of said matter would "Weigh down” space creating a sort of dimple on that spot, making it resemble an “apple” with its indented top. WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? Because the earth, somewhere inside this dimple, would experience a drastic slowing of time relative to the farthest planets and stars (millions or billions of light years away) who are on the edge of this depression in space. For an observer on one of those stars time would fly past at an astonishing rate relative to an observer on Earth, or another planet inside this “dimple”. This kind of an effect could allow the light from even the most distant of stars to reach an observer on earth in just a few earth days. The natural and necessary expansion of the universe would gradually push more and more matter out of the “dimple”, making it more shallow until space returned to its natural spherical shape. This model adequately accounts for several holes in older creation models, and is based on generally accepted principals of modern physics. While this particular model doesn’t have me completely convinced, it did provide some food for thought, and challenged me to think a little more deeply. Does anyone else have comments? I found it quite interesting, as did some of my friends. Any coments will be appreciated! Thanks.

DEFINATELY not the way to go about this Jason. Dont know what your trying to do by posting this article, but your just making Proponents of Intelligent Design look stupid. i would sugest you go and actualy READ a book on Appologetics. You need to brush up. If you will remember, the best way to persuade or defend is NOT to club people over the head. That just doesnt work Think about your approach a little more the next time you post on this subject, and try not to cause any unintentional dammage.

"Now I was wondering, if our brains or minds have so much potential then why aren't our bodies evolved enough to be able to not deteriorate so fast so as to let us reach our full potential mentally" --Perhaps the problem is not one of phisical "evolution"?