You know, it took me months to break into the JSH community. I thought of it as breaking ground - you know, showing the heterosexual world that homosexuals really only have one difference (basically)lol! Then of course admitting to being an atheist on top of it, was just another bumb in the road.

I see now, it could have been worse, I might have been a science minded, religious protagonist instead of just a Lesbian atheist!

whew! good luck One, just give it a few months, there are a great many interesting (and intelligent) beings in this cyper community. And no lack of 'critical' analysis to be had.

Nice fluidity in style...

I believe that you are looking in the right direction at least... towards the center of yourself...

Welcome to jsh... soft on praise... Tough on 'love'

Redykeulous,

You said:



"Thank you!"

I feel like you must have felt; I thought the members of this forum would love my writing, so I posted it, but to my suprise - 'critical' analysis! And I haven't even posted the other half of my writing yet, so I can understand how anyone can say I am wrong when they haven't even read the "Whole" story.

It kind of like how the world judges us before they have read "our" whole story. We should never, ever judge a book by it's cover untill we have read the last page.

At least I can say we have "One" thing in common Redykeulous; we are both Lesbian's! lol!!! Also most of the women I use to date were bi-sexual! (Big Grins)

Thank you for not being 'critical' to me Redykeulous and for pointing out this fact. Also stay tuned to this forum post because it is about to get "Very" interesting when I release the second half of my writing and personal story. Like I said earlier to everyone in this forum; "you never know who you are talking to on the World Wide Web."

Let's just say that everyone would be "very nice" to me if they knew who I use to work for.

Again, thank you and God bless Redykeulous,

Jared :O)

Hey guy's,

I am going out of town this weekend and I will be back monday, so I will reply to all of your post then.

Happy Holidays Everyone!

Take care,

Jared :O)

To post something on a public forum is an invitation for critique. If you view critique as being negative that’s your choice. But critique isn’t necessarily intended in a negative way.

I thought I was doing you a favor by taking the time to read you post in detail and respond in the same detail, thus showing that I have indeed read it and understood what was being said. My comments concerning the fact that you seem top misunderstanding of the major problems in physics is merely an observation.

For example, you post the idea that maybe Plank’s constant could be taken to zero. But in doing that all you are doing is rejecting the actual properties of the universe in which we live. In other words, if Planck’s constant were zero the universe simply wouldn’t be like it is today. Neither would mathematics be the way it is. In other words, the universe would no longer have a quantitative nature and therefore no mathematical relationship as we observe them would hold.

You’re ‘claiming’ to have the answer to ‘everything’ including life itself. Yet you build up to this is riddled with hypotheses that make no sense. I don’t discount where you might be going with the paper, I too am convinced that everything is one and that the time we actually experience is an illusion of spacetime. So I’m actually in agreement with what your conclusions appear to be.

However, I think it’s fair to say that your ‘logical’ build-up to these conclusions is not convincing and it indeed riddled with flaws. Sometimes a person can arrive at the correct conclusions even though their logical analysis was actually incorrect. So the fact that your ‘logic’ holds no water with respect to the current state of physics doesn’t necessarily mean that your main conclusion is incorrect.

However, it may mean that you haven’t sufficiently proven it to be correct, at least not via your physical analysis.

Anytime a person claims to have an ‘explanation’ for something, it’s perfectly natural for those in the know to question each step of your explanation. Not only to follow your logic, but also to point out to you why it is that they feel your explanation may not hold water. At least you know what my position is, which would could not possibly know had I not given a detailed explanation of why I find your explanation to be invalid.

I’ll try to read more of your paper today. But then again, if you aren’t interested in hearing my feedback should I really even bother to read it? Isn’t communication a two-way street? What do you expect people to do? Just read your paper and then give you a pat on the head and say, “Oh that’s nice” without ever saying sharing their thoughts about what you’ve claimed?

If that’s the case then why bother posting it? Unless your sole purpose is to just receive mollycoddled pats on the head with no feedback regarding your actual work.

After all, you are making an outlandish claim to have the answer to everything including life itself. Unless you recant that at the end of your paper as a joke, which would could be the case because I haven’t read that far yet. But if that is the case then I have seriously wasted my time attempting to give you an honest review.

In fact, it already appears that I’m wasting my time anyway since you seem to be offended by honest reviews. I’ve already read enough of your paper at this point to recognize that your logic is not sound. So perhaps there’s no need to read anymore if you find honest reviews repulsive? Why should I waste my time if the author is unappreciative of honest feedback and is only seeking mollycoddled pats on the head?

omgosh my brain hurts....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIlKiRPSNGA

_One_,

I too, along the lines of 'abra', share a variation on the theme of 'oneness' in all and everything.

In fact there are many of us on this 'forum' community, 'redy' being 'one' of 'us', whom have sensed, and acknowledged (quietly) this kind of 'bond' between each other.

I say quietly, because this 'oneness' phenomenon, is a very fragile 'razor's edge' type of dimension for humans.

It is far more of the intuitive domain, than it is of the 'rational' or 'self-cognitive' (little knowledge, I like to call it) very distinct from 'KNOWLEDGE' from an impersonal and universal basis.

A certain humility in appoaching the subject, is part and parcel of the very 'integrity' (wholeness) of this intuition.

We have spotted each other on this site, mainly because of the degree of 'detachment', or humility, as in 'not personal', or not appropriated from our 'I' perspective.

The 'UNIVERSAL' to which this 'intuited' 'oneness' entirely belongs, will never exist in the 'ego', 'I', and personal domains.

That, IMO, is the only fundamental breach you commit in your journey.

A bit like the infamous pseudo 'koan', "... how many drops of piss does it take to ruin the soup...", your insistence on placing your 'I' at the center of the 'ONENESS' phenomenon, ruins your otherwise untainted integrity and credibility in the most 'attention grabbing annoying' manner.

As 'abra' pointed out, taking time to first read your 'I' infested posts, and second, to reply in a most constructive and intlleigent manner, shouldn't be considered as 'resistance', 'negative criticism', 'personal attack', or anything other 'I' based interpretations that would only serve to keep serving the piss contaminated soup!!!

We share the fundamental premise of 'oneness', and we (including you _One_) have no attachment to 'owership' of 'oneness'!!!
... which would kind of defeat the puporse of the whole, and the universal and impersonal 'one' intuition, won't you agree?!?!?

So, with all due respect to 'us' (which includes the impersonal 'you' totally) change that 'marketing' pseudo of yours, let's all keep exploring this 'oneness' phenomenon TOGETHER!!!

Truly with all due respect to your own 'integrity' and character.

REPOST for music ,…

Greg had some fun with this one so I uploaded his music. It sounds best if you can read the words while you listen to the music. It’s all in fun and games folks! Have a beer (or tea), sit back and enjoy. I think it’s cute. Sounds better and better with each listen through.

Great job again Greg!

Music is here (3MB mp3 file):
http://www.csonline.net/designer/ideas/math.mp3


~ Don’t Blame the Mathematicians! ~
(Words by Abra – Music by YZ_Rabbit)

~~~

When your life’s in fractals
and your soul’s been divided
just blame, - the mathematicians!

It won’t help a thing
but at least it’ll bring
a validation, - to your ambitions

If 1 is the loneliest number
and 2 can procreate 3
be careful how you multiply
lest you beget infinity

When your legs are spread you’re Isosceles

When you stand on your head you’re Inverted

But if you’re humping doggy style
we can only conclude you’re perverted

If P implies Q
and Q implies I
and I am, - a function of U

Then NOT Q implies
the logical prize
that U and I, - are Peeing

Circular logic gives
rise to a point from
which it, - must circle about

Tis the point at its center
a student must enter
to remove, - any shadow of doubt

~~

You can add things together
or subtract them apart
or compute the roots of their squares

But when dating with doubles
you’re bound to have troubles
with multiple frequent affairs

~~~

You can blame your hardships
on mathematical men
or women, - who taught you your Primes

But your evil deductions
won’t hide your seductions
or the sins, - at the root of your crimes

If 1 is the loneliest number
and 2 can procreate 3
be careful how you multiply
lest you beget infinity

When your legs are spread you’re Isosceles

When you stand on your head you’re Inverted

But if you’re humping doggy style
we can only conclude you’re perverted

~~~

If P implies Q
and Q implies I
and I am, - a function of U

I’ve always been, - a function of you

I’ve always been, - a function of you

You’re my, - Baby function

Very cool!

well i enjoyed the poem immensely and will listen,
to the music, in a while...
but i can say this much,
O baby!
this function is called -

<smile>

awesome greg..

ty that was a fun one. Abra's words make it easy

Back on topic,…

Even though you may take my comments in a negative light, I still feel compelled to post them for anyone else who may be interested in reading them.



I actually agree with your conclusions here, but for vastly different reasoning.



This is older Newtonian thinking – not true today



Now this is the modern view of things, yet you make is sound like this is your idea. Perhaps it is and you just aren’t aware that modern science is already at this point.



As mathematical terms these are dependent what it takes to distinctly quantify them uniquely. You seem to be using them in a more intuitive layman sense. Which is ok, but again, not the view of science.



Planck’s constant is hardly speculative theorizing. The universe does indeed have a smallest division. This is what gives rise to the need for Planck’s constant. So, on the contrary, attempting to do away with Planck’s constant is indeed speculative theorizing.



I used to think like this too back when I was still thinking in terms of Newtonian physics. However atoms are nothing like miniature solar systems – not even close. Again, Modern Physics has shown how atoms different form thinks like solar systems or galaxies in profound ways.



Again, you sound like this is your proposal or deduction, but this is indeed were MODERN physics is at. So there’s nothing new here.



Once again this is totally untrue of MODERN physics. When you say things like this you make me believe that you are still thinking of physics in terms of a Newtonian world. Modern physics does not view space as a void. So your claim that Science would have us believe that space if a void is simply not true.




But god does throw dice. This doesn’t equate to pure chance though. I’ve addressed this issue many times in the forums, I’ll briefly state it again here for your sake.

When we toss dice we have no clue what number will come up (that’s random), but it’s not pure chaos. We know what CAN’T come up. We know that only the whole numbers from 2 to 12 can come up. Nothing less than 2 can come up, and nothing more than 12. Nor will we ever see a fractional number come up on the face of the dice.

In this way God plays dice. It’s not totally random. God knows what can and can’t come up, but it’s still ‘random’ based on what CAN come up. Even God doesn’t know what the precise results of the roll will be! God is not all-knowing in this regard. And this is the way that God wants things to be evidently. Just like when we roll dice, we don’t want to know the answer because that would spoil the fun, but at the same time we know what CAN’T come up. So it’s a form of ‘controlled’ randomness.

~~~

NOTE: Up to this point I’ve simply been pointing out where you are wrong about science. You have not stated anything that is ‘incorrect’ other than to claim that science claims otherwise. You obliviously have a long way to go in science yet as you seem to still be thinking that science is Newtonian Physics with some added stuff. That’s not the case at all.

You’re actually doing pretty good to recognize what science has indeed already discovered. However, this is what most Eastern philosophers have also said. When they learned of the things that MODERN physics is saying they just smiled quietly and said, “We told you so”.




And here you blow the whole thing up in your own face. You drop the ball and spit on your own conjectures.

You just got done writing a 10-page thesis on why everything is ONE, and then you end it speaking of the Creator as though it is SEPARATE! It’s like you missed the point of your very own thesis!

Try this food for thought,…

Maybe the creator of the universe is the universe itself and we are it. And the purpose of life is to experience it for our creator (which is the universe itself). No need to “show” us something. After all, that would imply that we are something “other” than the creator and that we are separate, but then where would that leave your ‘oneness’ theory?

It’s like you worked your way up a large mountain of philosophy and came to the cliff and looked down but then were afraid to take the leap into the abyss. So in your final statement of food for thought you backed away from the edge of the cliff and recanted everything that you had suggested by stating that our Creator is trying to show us something.

What our Creator has shown us is that we are it.

All is ONE.

Just my thoughts for whatever they’re worth.

Just taking a break and thought I'd look in.
Mnhiker - the u-tube cracked me up. It wouldn't normally have struck me in that way, but considering some of the philisophical posts we've been up to - it seemed 'appropriately' funny.

rabbit1 & Abra - what a tag team you two are: words and music, Bravo to you both.

Voil, great post - you have such 'the right touch' in these matters.

Abra - kudo's to you for making amends to your first post, by making relavent, case specific, comments. Much friendlier & helps along those of us who can use a little more education as well.

I, however, saw something much differnt in the essay of One. I will refrain from expounding on my views, until I have seen the second post. It just goes along with my 'ethics' that everyone has a story (or three, or so), and sometimes we need to hear them out, to get to the center of the person. So I will wait.

I'm checkin' in on you guys from time to time and, shortly, I will have more time to post. Take care all, I'll BE BACK!!

I'm sure you did.

I nit-pick at the science. That's my "job".

As you know I actually hold many of the same conclusions as _One_ but for different reasons.

If a person is going to use physics to support a philosophy the least they can do is get the physics right.

I look forward to seeing your response to _One's_ essay as this will allow me to see it through your eyes.

Like I say, I'm in total agreement with much of what he says. I'm just in total disagreement with his physical arguments to support his claims.

There are physical arguments that will support many of these claims. It's just that the arguments he gave didn't hold water, and in many cases were simply incorrect with respect to what modern physics actually has to say.

Picking those kinds of things out is a pet peeve of mine so people will just have to learn to deal.

So, to _One_, I hope you understand that my review was unbiased and certainly not intended as a 'personal attack' on your ideas in general.

Abra,

I am currently out of town, but I am reviewing this forum through my cell phone, so I will reply in more details when I return.

I am "Very" sorry if I offended you Abra, but like all of you I still battle with the "self" (feelings getting hurt), but the "I" within me is extremely excited to meet all of you, expecially you Abra. As most of us know; it is the ones that butt heads in disagreement that usually become very good friends, so please continue to review my writings Abra. :O)

I think the main reason you are finding flaws in my physics is mainly because I "View" it from an Chemist perspective and not from the traditional physics view. I am sure our two separate views will come together in the end, and this is what I am extremely excited about! Could be fate, could be chance, but whatever it is... It is Good!

"It is so hard to write on these small phones!"

Take care everyone, expecially you Abra,

Your Friend,

Jared. ;O)