there is no experiment...

[Timothy Sutter]

there is no experiment that may be carried out

which simulates a lack of space.

'we' can set up a near vacuum and

do experiments in a near vacuum, but,

'we' cannot simulate a lack of space

which is an evasive datum for some proposed

initial conditions of a universal establishment from 'no-thing'.

many statements concerning such an initial condition

have no epxerimental backing and so, suggesting

that objects pop in and out of existence in the absence of space

is metaphysical conjecture.

fine, got no problem with metaphysical conjecture...


and then, 'in the beginning'


looks like we still have a 'beginning' to this stuff,

time space and matter,


but what we don't have is some clear idea

of how objects appear in the -absence- of space...


it must be something else...




this is a serious flaw in the 'god-less mythology'

a phenomenon associated with space is cited as

the phenomenon which would bring space in to existence.

so, it's a hocus pocus hand waving exercise.




in other words, if you have no space

you have no phenomenon which would tend to 'invent' space.

the 'god-less mythology' is not self consistent.


see, it is said that quantum particles fluctuate

in and out of some spongy quality of space


and then it is said that this same fluctuating property

is responible for the invention of the material universe,

from not being, in the absence of the space in which this

fluctuating property is said to operate.





it has been said by proponents of the 'god-less mythology'

that time is stilled at precisely 'the beginning'


fine, i have no problem with that,

time as measured by cesium clocks and the like

cannot be present wihere no cesium clocks can exist.

but, this absence of physicasl time, removes all particle motion


and so, once again, we are in a frozen trap


in the instance where no space no time

and no matter are said to exist,

there are no physical phenomena which could be

cited as a 'trigger' to there happening.


a conscious 'finger' is still best cited as the 'trigger'





i just don't say; "something from =nothing="


i say; "something from something else"


we may very well no have physical time space and matter

at precisely Time t = 0


but we do have "something else"


etc.





an actionable consciousness forms the basis

for a self consistent understanding.


i'll stick with it




trouble is, one really doesn't have such an effect to posit

as i've mentioned before, you -can-

have an ultra-trace paramagnetism

in gold foil



what this means is;

ok, gold, on paper [in theory], is diamagnetic,

meaning it has no unpaired electrons


but, under an extreme vacuum it is noted that gold foil plates

are attracted to each other when a current is applied, and

this is anomalous behavior for gold foil as it is a
behavior associated with unpaired electroms,

i.e. "paramagnetism"


and so, the bright people suggest that empty space
itself is supplying the paramagnetic behavior because,
after all, gold is diamagnetic.

trouble is, there is no such thing as 100% pure gold and
uncertainty suggests that we cannot know precisely where
and when the little electrons are anyway, even in "pure"
gold foil and so, the more mundane explanantion is not
that empty space is behaving paramagnetically, but
that the gold foil is behaving paramagnetically,

and how can we say this?

BECAUSE, the plates are attracted to each other

which is the behavior of parmagnetic unpaired electrons.

in other words, there is no "kashmir effect" in the first place,


much less some behavior that spits out universes from non-space


revise and resubmit...


the 'god-less myrthology' fails...



the 'accidental universe' simply never happens, never becomes,

but, we are here, and so, the =conditions= cited by

proponents of the accidental universe

cannot be the conditions associated with

=reality=


there is no experiment that may be carried out

which simulates a lack of space.

'we' can set up a near vacuum and

do experiments in a near vacuum, but,

'we' cannot simulate a lack of space

which is an evasive datum for some proposed

initial conditions.

many statements concerning such an initial condition

have no epxerimental backing and so, suggesting

that objects pop in and out of existence in the absence of space

is metaphysical conjecture.

fine, got no problem with metaphysical conjecture...


and then, 'in the beginning'


looks like we still have a 'beginning' to this stuff,

time space and matter,


but what we don't have is some clear idea

of how objects appear in the -absence- of space...


it must be something else...







but it is hasty pudding to speak of

'quantum fluctuations' in the -absence- of space.

this you don't got

not even an inkling of a reminder...


and then you're back telling me there

has always been "something"

and that this "something" is -physical-

which is not "something from nothing" and is

inconsistent with previous statements.

revise and resubmit...

[Timothy Sutter]

> trouble is, one really doesn't have such an effect to posit
> as i've mentioned before, you -can-
> have an ultra-trace paramagnetism
> in gold foil

> what this means is;

> ok, gold, on paper [in theory], is diamagnetic,

> meaning it has no unpaired electrons

> but, under an extreme vacuum it is noted that gold foil plates
> are attracted to each other when a current is applied, and
> this is anomalous behavior for gold foil as it is a
> behavior associated with unpaired electroms,

> i.e. "paramagnetism"

=
http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v108/i4/e047201

Measurement of a Pauli and Orbital Paramagnetic
State in Bulk Gold Using X-Ray Magnetic
Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy

We show that bulk gold (Au) exhibits temperature-independent
paramagnetism in an external magnetic field by x-ray magnetic
circular dichroism spectroscopy at the Au L2 and L3 edges.
Using the sum-rule analysis, we obtained a magnetic moment
of 1.3�10-4??�B/atom in an external magnetic field of 10 T
and a paramagnetic susceptibility of 8.9�10-6 for the 5d orbit.
The induced paramagnetism in bulk Au is characterized by a large
(�30%) orbital contribution. This orbital component was retained
even when Au atoms formed nanoparticles, playing an important
role in stabilizing the spontaneous spin polarization
in the Au nanoparticles.
=



see, there's a /detector/ present in the vacuum,
and that /detector/ itself, is accountable for the
trace energies that must be 'tared'

from any subsequent measurement,
and so, the energy of the /detector/
is the "zero" for the evacuated system.

very much as if you went to a little balance
to weigh out a sample of salt, and you brought
a little plastic dish with you and you weighed
the dish all by itself first,

and then weighed out the dish and the salt,
and subtracted the weight of the dish,
or the 'tare' weight.

the weight of the dish all by itself
becomes your "zero" weight.

of course now, there are the little balances
that have a button on it called the "tare" button,

and you place your little plastic dish on the
balance and press "tare" and the reading shows a 'zero'


that's sort of how the /detector/ is behaving

in the evacuated system.

like the dish on the balance...


and so, if you really do wanna measure some aspect
of the energetics os a system in an evacuated environment,

you have to take into account, any energies generated
by the /detector/ itself, and subtract that off,

and that energy, of the /detector/ is your "zero"

it doesn't mean that there is some
mystical energy content to evacuated space...


whether there is or not,
is not substantiated by -that-

but then, "energy" is a nebulous term
in certain respects...

cuz basically, the only big E energy you
know of is married to little m matter,

and so, if there is "something else"
which is not 'matter' then you may not
be able to describe any accompanying
phenomenon as "energy"

and 'it' may be truly "something else"

which is neither matter nor energy but may
be the precursor formulation -for- that
set of phenomenons


and that's where our "conscious initiator" springs to -action-

no accident at all...


so, it's not at all odd that,
in this sort of situation,
the /detector/ detects itself.


but that when you're down there, practically,
"in the noise" of =minute= energy systems
the enrgies you are attempting to study do not
overwhelm the background energies of the /detector/
and so, you have to account for -that- and 'tare' it off,
and that's your zero point.


like, when you're running your great big spectrophotometer
and looking at gross macromolecular samples, the energies
attributable to the detecting system are negligible into
a small decimal place,

but when you're looking at the dynamics of individual atoms,
practically speaking, maybe a system of 10 or twelve atoms,

the energies of the /detector/ are no longer
"in the noise" and must be accounted for properly.


so, we still got a universe with a very definite 'beginning'
and that 'beginning' from no =physical= precursor
and so, no physical 'accident' system can be properly described
and so, the =valid= conclusion of =conscious= initiation still holds.
'we' just don't -live- in a vacuum
'we' can't pull of "true vacuum" simply
because we aren't -in- a "true vacuum"
even if it were to be possible to describe
such a thing -as- a "true vacumm"
inasmuch as quite potentially,
'we' cannot -have- any of this

material junk -without- "space"
or more to the point, cannot -have- "empty space"

that, not only are matter and Energy married,
but matter/energy and -space- are married.

and so, when 'we' speak of any 'pre-genesis formulation'
we'd have to be very careful...

to say the least.

all that some of 'us' would be suggesting to whomsoever,
is that, the very real prospect of "consciousness" being mediated
on and in and around this 'pre-genesis formulation'
is a =valid= conclusion.

and so, you get "consciousness" -without- physical =matter=
and this "conscious initiator" of genesis 'lives' and is 'aware'
and some form of -communication- is potentially
available between that "conscious initiator"
and beings composed -of- this material stuff,
and that is what some of 'us', if not able
to entirely describe in words, -point- at
with any method at 'our' disposal.

communication with the initiator of genesis,

and this 'communication' does, in fact, compose
a =phenomenology= which can be studied and understood.
maybe =not= a 'physical' phenomenology,
but a phenomenology nonetheless...


and so, in a sense
human beings do constitute what amounts to
an elaborate detection device for and of
this conscious initiator of genesis
'who' has or maybe, =had=,
no =physical= properties.

'we' -are- that device...

as it appears that the unification
of that initiator and the material phenomenon
is already underway...

but -that's- another story...

or part of the story,
another -part- of the story...

so, 'we' really -are- sort of 'strange'

because we're not just devices

[Timothy Sutter]

> communication with the initiator of genesis,

> and this 'communication' does, in fact, compose
> a =phenomenology= which can be studied and understood.
> maybe =not= a 'physical' phenomenology,
> but a phenomenology nonetheless...

> and so, in a sense
> human beings do constitute what amounts to
> an elaborate detection device for and of
> this conscious initiator of genesis
> 'who' has or maybe, =had=,
> no =physical= properties.

> 'we' -are- that device...

> as it appears that the unification
> of that initiator and the material phenomenon
> is already underway...

> but -that's- another story...

> or part of the story,
> another -part- of the story...

> so, 'we' really -are- sort of 'strange'
> because we're not just devices

there's more...


and that's where i'd probably start yammering
about contributions of -these- 'detectors' [us]
to overall signal, and noise reduction in
-these- devices because 'we're' sort of
detector and interpreter and being etc.

all in one

if 'our' "zero point" is basically pure noise,
then no real detection is had and it's sort of a dead signal...
but, inasmuch as the "conscious initiator" -is- 'alive'
any communication in and of itself will =enliven=
'our' detection capabilities and other things of that nature...

and the detections themselves 'feed' the new life...

round and round and round we go...
operational amplifiers and feedback
and signal magnifications.

"my soul doth =magnify= YHWH"


so, you want to establish signal,
reduce noise and magnify the expression
of the conscious initiator here and now...


and we point at Jesus Christ -as-
the extreme -focal point- or nexus
of the various planes of existance.

THE Cross

initiating the 'hybridization'
bringing -you- me us in full circle.
to square one


there's more...

commence

et cetera


"zero point energy" is not some source of 'unlimited energy'
which can just be plugged into to make industry operate
basically what "zero point energy" describes
is a -lack- of laboratory 'true' -vacuum- space.

i.e. in any vacuum attempted in some
earthly laboratory, some tiny amount
of energy is still present emanating
from the container and plates/detectors
themselves.

i.e. "zero point energy" is -not- =zero=
it is some number.
it doesn't really say;

"energy is everywhere,
all we have to do is plug into it
and we can run out toaster ovens
on the 'ethereal' miasma"

it says;
"we can't establish a 'true vacuum' in our labs."
where "true vacuum" is empty space.

a 'virtual particle' is a =photon= that
is ejected from the material formulating
the evacuated presence itself

and this =photon= establishes some of
the behavioral qualities of a solid object,
or electron type thing.

i.e. the flip side of the 'wave/particle duality'
it is a photon which is behaving as particle
i.e. 'virtual' particle, not -real- particle.

just like an electron exhibits some
wave type behavior with regards to
its angular momenta etc...

basically

it's sort of like the detector detecting itself.
that's the 'zero point energy'
you have to have some sort of detector
and when you try to pull a vacuum onnit,
it, the detector, still detects
its own energy presence.

'zero point'

it sure doesn't agree with;

E = mc^2

cuz that would be;

E = 0

but you can point at -m- being present
and not missing in an evacuated system in a laboratory.

if you don't have some sort of detector present,
then, you'd never know that you
weren't detecting something.

but, you do have some sort of detector present
and that detector is the plates themselves,
and those plates are -m-
and those plates show a
'background' energy content.

we aren't -in- a vacuum
so, it's not odd to detect energy in a laboratory

etc...


"ooh, plates with electricity running through them
are mildly attracted to each other..."

that ain't a vacuum...

ultra-trace of paramagnetism in the plates

[Timothy Sutter]

""As hydrogen and helium nuclei fuse
some mass is convertend into energy.""


note; "mass is converted in to energy"


this energy is a product -of-


massive interaction.


now, back to the precise conditions at time T = 0


not time T = (0 + x) but, time T = 0


with this in mind, at the very precise 'moment'
that we have any massive object/particle at all,
we are no longer at time T = 0, but,
are now, at time T = (0 + x)


now, let's just say as to how "light"
travelling through a "vacuum"


is not particulary "hot" nor "cold"


that, a "photon", or coalesced blob of photons,
travelling through a "vacuum" need not be said
to be losing any of its energies
to the environment of the "vacuum"


and that what they do carry,
is an oscillating wave pattern


and that this oscillating wave pattern, may be tranfered
to massive objects, which may be present somewhere in the
'non-vacuous' space,


and, that, when and if, some massive object,
interacts with photons, and some oscillating
wave pattern is transferred from the photon
to the material object,


this may be reckoned in such a manner,


which can, now, be decribed as a


"coherent energy transfer"


what does this boil down to?


well, in certain respects, -if- one


contends that, at some time T = 0


there was some immense blob of light,
and -no- massive material objects,


that no 'coherent energy transfer'
would be possible,


and so, "coolness" and "hotness" would be irrelevant terms,


and, as it were, "hot and cold...wear the same suit"


and then...


we still have no trigger,


but we -do- have time T = 0


and so, now, you either have something purposefully
preventing or something purposefully causing
an "anharmonicity"


=within= -this- sort of situation, which sets off


some sort of emanation of a 'stuff' which has properties
such as an interconversion between energy and mass.


where this "anharmonicity" would be, or


could be, reckoned as the appearance of


"constructive and destructive interference patterns"


and that, where there are "constructive patterns"


we experience "solidness" and where there are


"destructive patterns" we experience "empty space."


mind you, the very precise moment that
we have any particulates at all,


we are no longer at time T = 0,


but, at time T = (0 + x)


which is to say this,


-if- one were to contend that at time T = 0


there was some situation that could
be described as "pure light"


first, this "pure light" is -not- what detectors
in the material manifestation are experiencing,
they are experiencing energies generated -by-
massive particle interactions,


and second, this "pure light," has no relevant "anharmonicity",


no "oppositional forcework" is present which can trigger


the emanation of the stuff which interconverts matter/energy,


and so, it is valid to suggest a conscious nudge,


if not more than that.


and so, it is still valid to conclude
some sort of conscious interference,


and this derives a conscious awareness


which "pre-dates" the matter/energy physical manifestation,


which, is not at all such a horrifying notion,


that it must be denounced based on personal bias alone.


it's sort of like PURE LIGHT purposefully brings about


"matter/energy" where "matter/energy" now produces


a sort of Image of PURE LIGHT called


'electromagnetic radiation' where "mass"


is the "filtering prism" or "lens"


"my physical being magnifies YHWH"


feel free to see things differently.


with the PURE LIGHT we have PURE CONCIOUSNESS


actionable awareness


in the =fullness= of PURE LIGHT


there is no empty shadow


some sort of conciousness emulation is present now,


in the physical manifestation, and this consciousness emulation,


-can be- comprehended by the PURE CONSCIOUSNESS


maybe that's a 'revelation' to some


when that PURE CONSCIOUSNESS plants


a finer understanding of Eternity


in to your 'mind'


et cetera...

[Timothy Sutter]

> we still have no trigger,

> but we -do- have time T = 0

> and so, now, you either have something purposefully
> preventing or something purposefully causing
> an "anharmonicity"

> =within= -this- sort of situation, which sets off
> some sort of emanation of a 'stuff' which has properties
> such as an interconversion between energy and mass.
> where this "anharmonicity" would be, or

> could be, reckoned as the appearance of

> "constructive and destructive interference patterns"
> and that, where there are "constructive patterns"
> we experience "solidness" and where there are
> "destructive patterns" we experience "empty space."

if there is nothing and only nothing


someone suggested:
# That is a large assumption to say that nothing existed at one time.
# It's also a contradiction.


precisely, and -i- do not say this, the materialist accidentalists do.

-i- say that if there is nothing and only nothing,
you -stay- at nothing.


the materialist acccidentalists say that

-something- can spawn -from- nothing.

"quickly quickly, =evolve= us a new theory
that accounts for this boobery"


thank you person, you're on the road
to becoming a gentleman and a scholar.
you have stumbled headlong onto a truth.


it -is- contradictory to suggest that
something can spawn from nothing.


just for a second, let me tell you what you -don't- have.


what you don't have is this;

somethning =LIKE=

a pool of supersaturated saline solution
which, you could look at crosseyed,
and the salt falls out of solution.

see, it would be like a a pool of water
that was completely still, and "supersaturated" with salt.

in practice, you'd do something like this;
take a gallon of water and pour in several pounds of salt
and boil the water to dissolve all of the salt in the water
and then, slowly allow the solution to cool.

now, when the solution cools, if you've
done your calculating correctly, you have
-more- salt in solution than is "soluable"

i.e. a "supersaturated" salt solution

and now, you could just lightly tap on the glass,
and the salt will fall out of solution

this is an example of "metastability"

see, but, you -don't- have that, at time T = 0


y'ain't got -none- of that...


"before the beginning, no -atoms- existed"


if you'd read carefully, i say that the "primordial" state
is more 'pristine' and of a single 'substance' that is =non-atomic=
where the qualities of volume mass and heat are -not-, as yet, present,
therefore, gravity and electromagnetism and other assorted opppositional
foreworks are also, not, as yet, present to -accidentally- =trigger=
the emanation -of- themselves as these are intimately associated
-with- the qualities of volume and the -atomic- state.

we do not -have- a "metastability" to cite
which teeters and falls open of its own accord.


you don't get to say;

"well, gravity exists on paper and therefore,
gravity has -always- been present -even- when
there was no mass nor volume"

mass and volume which are -necessary-
for the existence of gravity.



-but- within this primordial 'substance'

we can find =conscious intent=


and -that- is where the 'trigger' =IS=


purposefully directed =interference patterns=


and i've already gone on about how this conscious intender
maintains integrity before during and after any such
developement of the interference patterns which
show themselves as spacial volume and solidness.


and -after- the beginning, we still -have-
the conscious initiator to -do- other things
which -require- purposed manipulations.



et cetera et cetera et cetera...


purpose is valid...


accident is boobery.



hold that thought...

[Timothy Sutter]

one attosecond 1 x 10^-18 seconds

what's of note is that there is no
no physical measurement in the range
smaller 10^-18 seconds,

and so, for all practical purposes,
it is not safe to suggest that any
smaller increment of time even exists.

and so, for anyone to make comments
about what may or mat not be happening
at 10^-25 seconds is unwarranted
and purely speculative.

but everyone already knew that, right?

10^-27 seconds doesn't even exist.

so, you can say, as far as you
can demonstrate with experiment,

that there was T = 0 and then
there was T = 10^-18 seconds,
at best.

so what?

so, making referrence to bits of time
smaller than 10^-15-10^-18 seconds
is purely a metaphysical conjecture
and -not- 'scientific discovery.

[that's 10 to the -minus- 18 seconds]
or;
0.000000000000000001 seconds


think about this for a second;

hold your hands about two feet apart
and try and convince yourself that
the material universe was encapsulated
in that space and just sat there
waiting to burst forth in an
expansionary ignition.

now tell yourself why this two foot
area isn't fully collapsed to a zero volume.

say three solar systems in volume,
same thing, why isn't it completely collapsed?

truth is, even considering the universe as
'occupying' the space of only ten of our
solar systems, all atomic integrity would
be lost and you would not have matter
as 'we' know it.

so, you realize that a pre-ignition
material universe occupies no volume.

no volume
no gravity
no electromagnetism
no atomic forces
no heat.

in essence, if you have a blob of matter,
and that blob of matter absorbs energy
from some outside source, that absorption
of energy is coincident with an increase
in the vibration of the harmonic oscillation
in the atoms of the blob.

just like two tuning forks, where
one vibrating fork induces a tune
or vibration in the second fork,
when held in close proximity.

matter can absorb light energies
in the form of an increased
harmonic vibration.

the light is vibrating, passes thru
the matter and induces a vibration
in the atomic structure of the matter.

well, look, in a collapsed non-atomic state
there is no harmonic oscillation to induce
in anything and no interstitial spaces
to even allow vibrations at all
in any manner.

and so, in a completely collapsed
material universe, no such induction
of vibrations is possible.

and this idea of "collapse" is just a model
looking backwards from an inflated material
universe we live in, and noting these
observationally derived datums;

the material universe is not infinitely old
the material universe has a beginning
the material universe is said to be expanding

unreasonable to assume that the smallest
volume of the universe is finite and non-zero.

zero volume completely removes any
possibility of harmonic oscillation
from matter.

now, show yourself that there
is no tuning fork to -induce-
a vibration in anything
else anywhere.

now, what made the material universe ignite?

no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.
no accidental ignition is possible.

there simply is no trigger.

and there is your absolute necessity
for a Creative Personality.

genesis can -not- be an accident.

and that which you can see now,
was brought into being by this
Creative Personality which
you can not see.

otherwise, the material universe
never ignites, it remains static.

The Creator Made the material universe happen.

it's that simple.


now look at these definitions;

----
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mass
Mass
Abbr. m Physics. A property of matter equal
to the measure of an object's resistance
to changes in either the speed or direction
of its motion. The mass of an object is
not dependent on gravity and therefore is
different from but proportional to its weight.
Mass is the quantity of matter in a body;

Matter
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=matter
Something that occupies space and can be perceived
by one or more senses; a physical body, a physical
substance, or the universe as a whole. Physics.
Something that has mass and exists as a
solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.
----

so, "in the beginning"

the material universe had no existance at all.

can be no mass with no possible speed
nor possible direction of motion.

can be no material without
space in which to reside.

id est, matter occupies space.

all mass and matter is a void of some
non-definable 'stuff' that is -not-
detectable by any physical method.

and this 'stuff' has no triggering
mechanism by which to suddenly burst
forth in some sort of explosive violence.


now, you may find that some suggest
a definition for 'heat' which is based
on the generic -motion- of particles,

but, the "singularity" has no properties
and is not 'waiting to burst forth'.

likewise, if we extrapolate an expansive
universe which has a beginning back
to the beginning,

there can be no citation of any motion
and therefore, no heat content is
possible in any manner.

whether from the springlike qualities of atomic
structure or some generic motion of particles
contended to have been spewed out of
a motionless singularity.

no matter how you dice it up,

no particles no motion,

no motion no heat

-not- 'infinite heat waiting to burst forth'

you can't cite a springloaded, metastable 'singularity'

'motion' of particles that don't
exist cannot be generating heat.

that would be paradoxical.

you can't say that the motion of particles
provided the heat that resulted in their
own existance.

without citing the motion of particles,
you have no heat content to cite.

it's still the same problem.

at Time T = 0

no motion can be cited.

no heat content.

not to mention that citing the motion of
particles is really just citing a kinetic
-potential- energy as they would not generate
a heat until they hit a wall of some sort.

that would be the statistical
mechanical framework.

a moving partical has kinetic energy.

heat would be generated in collisions.

you can't really say that a solitary
particle that is in motion, is 'hot'

basically, motion, in and of itself is
not 'heat' there has to be some sort
of dynamic interaction.

so, you invent this phantom 'quantum gravity'

that would cause 'objects simultaneously all
moving away from each other to start banging
into each other with no apparent anti-impetus.

anyway, it's all moot,

-no- accidental triggering mechanism.

citation of Creator God is necessary.

a Creator God with concious intent
must be cited as source for
the material universe.












here's a bit on the atomic clock ca. 1993

some of the links may be outdated.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/mercury_atomic_clock.htm#background

---
http://whyfiles.org/078time/3.html
1993 NIST-7 -- the latest atomic clock --
comes on line, with an accuracy of
five parts in 10^15.
---
===
http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/5/8
Optical clocks, however, could meet our needs
for better timekeeping. With frequencies
approaching 10^15 Hz - some 100,000 times higher
than the 9.2 GHz microwave frequency of the
fountain - optical clocks should be stable
to almost one part in 10^15 simply by averaging
over just a few seconds, rather than a day.
With longer averaging times, stabilities
of one part in 10^17 or better should be possible.
===

http://physics.nist.gov/TechAct.2000/Div847/div847h.html


and here's a bit about looking
at a small bit of time pulsed.

--
Clock Measures Attosecond Pulses
http://www.photonics.com/spectra/research/XQ/ASP/preaid.28/QX/read.htm

http://www.photonics.com/content/spectra/2002/September/research/77347.aspx
--

[Timothy Sutter]

but, here's a parlor trick you may see;

the contention would be that at Time T = 0

total universal energy was encapsulated
within an infinitesimal 'space'

and then, in the span of less than 10^(-43) seconds

thats;

{0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001} s


a small amount of so-called 'matter//anti-matter'
had -formed- with a momentum and therefore a
'kinetic energy' which may be described
as a 'heat potential'

you may hear it stated like this somewhere;
--
"and matter and antimatter existed in almost
equal amounts, but they were both dominated
by the background energy of the universe."
--

and now;

-all- of the universal energy can
be described as 'heat energy'

that is, now they may speak of
"infinitely large heat content"

-this- is a parlor trick.

if you do claim that some infinitesimal
amount of matter anti-matter has always existed,

then this would also have an infinitesimal
heat content associated with the momenta
of both types of 'particles' and not some
infinite heat content.

and so, it's a parlor trick to convince
yourself that 'universal energy' may be
reckoned as an 'infinite heat energy'

given the use of the defining attribution
that would ascribe 'heat energy' to the
momentum of particles.

and that, at best, only an infinitesimal amount
of this so-called 'matter//anti-matter' -may-
have existed which would deliver any momentum
which may be described as a heat potential.

albeit, this so-called "matter//anti-matter"
is not quarks and electrons but some sort
of precursor formulation that for all practical
purposes, has an infinitesimal mass and therefore,
no real momentum, or infinitesimal momentum,
and we're back to infinitesimal heat potential
and not 'infinite heat energy'.


basically, if you don't cite a time at which
no matter//anti-matter existed, you lose
some reckoning of the process having
a 'beginning' you have to cite some
phantom repressor technology that
holds back the switchover until
ca. 14 billion years ago.

even if one cites a span from

10^(-150) to 10^(-100) seconds as an actual
interval of time, seeing as how we get to
speak of infinitessimals here,

during this 'period' no matter nor anti-matter
may be said to exist and therefore, we have
no 'heat potential' at all.

and this would collapse to some sort
of reckoning of the state at Time T = 0

even if you will like to claim that
total universal energy is a citable
phenomenon, encapsulated within this
infinitesimal void, there is no reason
to suggest that it is 'infinite heat energy'

and there's just no inanimate,
metastable trigger to initiate genesis

[Timothy Sutter]

> here's your parlor trick;

> the contention would be that at Time T = 0
> total universal energy was encapsulated

> -within- an infinitesimal 'space'

mind you, in entertaining this
notion of universal energy;

this sort of spacial void for universal energy
is not really relevant, because there's no real
geographic location to point at and say, "it's all there"

but, you can point at some small blob of
so-called matter//anti-matter and say,
"there it is"

and, as such, assign it its -infinitesimal- heat content.

so, as opposed to some immense heat blob cooling,
you have some situation where some seed of
matter//anti-matter accepts a transfer of
energy in some form which is converted -to-
heat in the form of an increased momentum.

but there's really no impetus for
something like this to ever happen.

that is, it's very highly implausible that a
blob of matter//anti-matter was laying dormant
in a sea of universal energy and -not- absorbing
energies and being delivered a momentum.

so, you still get stuck speculating on some
state where no matter in any form exists at all.

or citing some sort of repressor technology.

like God's hand holding it back.






the very fact that there is
all this stuff is remarkable.


why is it very 'cold' in the
space between the sun and
the earth?

there has to be some thing to
'absorb' energy from the light.

and the light passes off and induces
higher frequency harmonic oscillations
to the stuff, and this phenomenon is
'felt' as warmth or heat.

but if there is no thing there to absorb
the energy from the light the light just
passes on thru space and keeps -it's-
oscillating frequency basically as constant.

if the light itself behaved at all as a
heated object behaves then light would
shove off 'heat' to empty space and 'heat'
would simply dissipate from light as it
travels thru space and interstellar
space would be 'warm'

but this doesn't happen.

you can't speak of light
as having a 'heat' content.

the way light can transfer energy
is by inducing oscillating frequencies
in some 'object' that has an oscillating
potential energy state that is the
same as that of the light.

when sunlight makes you feel warm
a particular frequency of light is
being absorbed by material in your
body that has energy levels that
are of the same frequency so as
experience some induced oscillation.

long story short

to speak of infinite heat content in a situation
where you cannot point at any object that would
present itself to any sort of induced oscillation
is unwarranted.

that is, light itself can be said
to be self contained and 'cold'

there's no tendency for light
to dissipate 'heat' into a vacuum.

like there is a tendency for a heated object
to dissipate heat into a surrounding vacuum.

so, for all practical purposes, in citing
this matter//anti-matter blob that increases
in momentum, you have to be going from a rather
cold situation to a much warmer situation as
the blob absorbs energies from the
surrounding universal energy.

like the conduit thru which universal energy
could be transformed to universal matter.

but it has to have a beginning of some sort,

meaning some time when there was no such
matter//anti-matter blob in existance,

or when such a blob had no momentum and yet,
was not being impelled by the surrounding
universal energy,

and still, you are stuck citing a
Creator Being to make that happen.

[Timothy Sutter]

so, you have your little atom,
and you see it like a spring.

just like a little slinky.

the slinky is wah-wah-ing back and forth.

the wah-wah-ing is what's
giving you time space
and temperature.

that is, the vibrational qualities
of the spring carry the attributes
of time space and temperature.

now, you claim you'd like to visit
a 'place' where the spring is compressed
into a void of zero space.

fine, you crush the atomic spring
into an entirely different substance.

well, now that "stuff" has no spring qualities.

you can no longer cite springlike qualities
in regards to this -other- stuff with
any degree of certainty whatsever.

so, you can't speak of concepts like
"infinite heat content" and "infinite density"
with any reasonable understanding.

no, you have vanished those 'springlike'
qualities in favor of some -other-
set of qualities.

qualities that you can never fully realize
from within the constraints of
your "physical" reality.

that is, you have, first, provided the ultimate
necessity for a "substance" that has no 'physical'
reality and now you must divorce yourself from
making a 'physical' attribution upon this "stuff"
that has no springlike qualities.

you -can- convince yourself, quite readily,
that this "stuff" has no "beginning" but you
can not make this broad leap that the qualities
understood in the atomic reality apply, in any
fashion, to this "stuff" that has
no springlike qualities.

you can't even go so far as to suggest that
this "stuff" is "consumed" into becoming
the atomic material.

but you remain stuck citing
a "stuff" that isn't 'real'.

failing to do so it tantamount to lieing.

in crushing the spring out of the atom,

you have an entirely different
'pseudo-substance' to classify.

what you can not broadly assume is that
this 'pseudo-substance' has the springlike
attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.

you are not considering a loaded spring.

you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.


the heat content of the atomic stuff
is a function of vibrational factors
in the stuff. that is, vibrations induced
between the nucleus and the volume
of electronic density.

for all prtactical purposes,
the "heat" -is- the vibration.

and what you see is a vibration transfer
which is -called- a heat transfer because
the thing called "heat" is the observable
phenomenon and the inducing of vibrations
are not visible with the [CENSORED] eye.

sort of like, if you heat a bowling ball
beyond its capacity to accept heat, it will explode.

in metals, the electronic density is more
fluid and this provides a cooling effect
and metals can accept more "heat" before
changing state and/or decomposing.

wood and other carbon materials have a
more fixed electronic structure and they
tend to burn or decompose at a much
lower content of heat.


now, this other stuff, that we would be
considering as non-atomic, due to the
collapse or, simply, non-existance of
the harmonic oscillations associated
with the nuclear/electronic volume vibrations,

cannot be said to have a capacity
to hold or maintain any "heat" at all.

that is, the whole concept of heat content
and temperature is entirely inapplicable to
this collapsed non-atomic "material" for the
simple fact that there is no oscillation
possible in which to generate
a capacity for heat.

so, it probably isn't correct to suggest
that this non-atomic stuff has a heat content
at all which it could pass on to the atomic
stuff upon the atomic stuff's first arrival.

that is, you can't say, the non-atomic stuff
held 10 trillion joules of heat which it
passed off to the atomic stuff which then
preceded to cool due to spacial dispersion.

it's as if the heat appeared in a simultaneous
manner as the atomic stuff seemed to appear,
in an instance, from nowhere.

before the beginning,
no vibrations, no heat
and no atomic matter.

after the beginning,
vibrations heat and space.

the beginning being the beginning of
the time associated with the mechanical
vibrations of the atomic stuff.

one could even suggest that events occurred
before the beginning, only there was no mechanical
vibrations associated with these events,
and so, no time ticked off any clock.

and one other thing;

essentially, there's only a single
variety of this non-atomic stuff.

there aren't 98 distinct elements
with nuclear isotopes and all that,

there's just a non-atomic element,
that has no nucleus and no volumes
of electronic probability

can't even rightly point at that
'stuff' and say, "there it is"

you could call it the substance that is Faith.

and God uses this same substance
to fashion human beings in God's image.

and a whole lot of other stuff as well.

by Faith, God sees you as holy and
without blame before God in love,

Jesus' Life can help you agree with this assessment.

same sort of concept applies in the nuclear blob.

vibrations are vibrations.

just that this other "stuff," which
is non-atomic, has no mechanical vibrations.

no heat
no time


but see look,

you could convince yourself that superconductors
of electricity surround the nuclei with some
sort of buffer zone whereby the proton/electron
oscillation is muffled to such an extent that
no heat exchange is experienced and the
electrons wander about as if the nuclei
isn't even there.

that is, the electronic configuration
passes and loses no "heat" to the nuclei.

where the nuclei's capacity to absorb
heat is a function of its own little
vibrational world.

and it still seems that all of this
vibrational oscillating would be null
within the collapsed 'pseudo substance'

and therefore, no heat capacity.

so, you still can't cite a 'metastability'
that 'caused' a tear in the fabric and
_accidentally_ 'triggered' the initiating
event of the so-called "big bang"

we still have an absolute need to cite
a finger pressing the button of initiation.

you can't remove the firing pin, lay the gun
down on the table and then suggest that it
has a capacity to fire itself.

and the concept that matter emanated
from a collapsed non-atomic state of
'quantum singularity' removes the firing pin.

accidental firing is beyond remote possibility
and invokes a something from nothing type of magic again.

a solution which must be disregarded.

thank God the next time you kiss your sister.

sudden death for materialism.

bye bye now.


see, and the wierd thing is, that,
basically, for all practical purposes,
light, electromagnetic radiation [EMR]
has no temperature.

like, [EMR] doesn't occupy a space all its own.

there is a continuous spectrum
of possible energy states for [EMR],

whereas, the atomic material
'resides' in dicreet energy levels.

there's no spacial exclusion principle for [EMR].

so, apparent vibrational attributes of [EMR]
hasn't the associated friction-like qualities
that show as heat capacity in the atomic materials.

what [EMR] possesses is wave form vibration
which it can pass off to the atomic materials.

so, the [EMR] induces a vibration in the stuff, and
that vibration increases the heat content of the stuff.

the [EMR] drops to a lower energy state
and you may see some funny color change.


like, 'white' light may pass thru a glass of lemonade,
and the lemonade absorbs some vibrational energy from
that light in a specific range of energy that coincides
with the electronic configuration of a component of
the lemonade, and the 'rest' of the light passes
thru and you see what appears to be a
yellowish colored liquid.


so, like, when you stick a jar of water
in the sunlight, and it warms up, you can't
exactly say that the light was warm.

what you can say is that the water absorbed
some vibrational energy from the [EMR] and
the increased vibrations in the water
showed itself to you as warmth.

and, the [EMR] dropped to a lower
energy state and the stick looks
bent in the water.

needless to say, the interstitial space between galaxies
and other star systems is -not- a vacuum and is, in fact,
filled with materials that may absorb enegy from
passing [EMR] and bend the stick.

more on this as it develops.

but here's another wierd thing;

the stuff one claims to see from further
and further away is also being seen
from longer and longer ago.

everyone seems to be able to appreciate that.

but what seems odd, is that everyone seems to think
that the universe was spacially smaller nearer
to the beginning, that is, that space is expanding.

but, the intuitive suggestion that your mind
receives is that the universe "14 billion" years ago
is much larger than the universe is "4 billion" years ago.

because it seems as if you look deeper and deeper
out in to space the further back in time that you go.

so, what seems odd is that you are apparently
looking -into- a vaster expanse that
is smaller in size.

like if the universe were running
away -in to- itself and not
away from itself.

so, when you look at light from
[apparently] "14 billion" light years away


you can't rightly say that you are
seeing a 14 billion light year expanse.

cuz that stuff way way "out there" is
actually closer to the "central"
region of space of time T = 0

and you, the observer here on earth,
would be farther from "the center"

it's all backwards.

and red light green light is a game
children play when they don't know
if they're coming or going.

and red shift blue shift is a backwards mirror game.

damn thing's all backwards.

and YHWH pops up and says;

"where *were* you when i stretched
out the plumb line on the universe?"

like nature shows you stuff and then
taps you on the shoulder later and says;

"what do you really know about anything?"

"-huh- smart guy?"


i know, it's very strange, as if we, the observer
here on earth, is looking in towards the center
as we are being propelled outwards from that.

we are experiencing being jettisonned away.

we ain't solidly in place in
the middle of things looking out.

we're way way out looking in.

but it still seems like alpha centauri is "way out there"

it's a set of optical illusions.

which makes you wonder, cuz you can't smell, hear,
taste or touch alpha centauri, but you believe
it's really there based on only
a single sense perception.

and then a claim of knowledge seems unwarranted.


you wanna convince yourself that "14 billion" years ago
or "20 billion" years ago, the material universe was
the size of a pea, but then you forget to remember
that you're in that pea somewhere, and you get
burned in the oldest shell game in existance.

the illusions are elusive.

God is a Rock

metaphorically speaking, of course.

but you can't just dismiss the fact
that the night sky is dark.

and then you say, "time is finite" "time began"

anyway, if the sea of glass is your
"pseudo-substance" you can be in it
and around it and never even
realize it's there.

until God slaps you upside the head.

yuh know, it's one of the dangers
of being the walking stomach,

like those Muses didn't like so much,

though man's machine apparati has approached Babel

his interpretive insights are not
much better now than they
were 6000 years ago.

don't worry, other people have said that.

well, not in those exact words.


most of that relativity stuff has
no application outside of a
freshman physics lecture.

but nobody runs around calling
anyone a "Debroglie" suggesting
that they are smart.

just remember, when you look out into space,
you're looking back into a pea, not forward
into an infinity.

and light speed may very well be diminishing with age.

and that's what you're seeing.

fast light way back in time
and slower light just
around the corner.

which doesn't mean the universe
is running away from itself.

the pea is under the mattress not on top of it.

get it?

pee on the mattress?

ha ha ha hahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAH

uh oh uh, not that funny.

in closing; [remember, "science" was a term
coined in the 1800s for "Natural Philosophy"]


"There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"


but look, you have a source, and light
emits from this source in a continuous
spectrum, and on a strand of beads, as it were.

no, you can't show me one single photon
in seclusion, but you can show me a
pulse of light here on earth.

so, you can comvince yourself that
light string wave partical duality
is relevant.

because you can claim to show me a strand of light.

pulsed on and off, and the source
detects this through a vacuum.

because source sends out a continuous
strand of "photons" until it reaches
a detector, then you shut the emitter
off and the detection ceases.

ok, so, why is the light nearer to the
detector, earth, in the present, apparently
slower and therefore older than light
nearer to time T = 0, as evidenced
by red shift data?

that is, why has light on a continuous strand
from time t = 45 seconds somehow slowed in
reaching us at time t = 4 trillion seconds?

has the emitter died long ago?

that is, has the emitter been shut off,
only we don't yet see that because all
of the emitted photons have not reached
us along the strand, and therefore,
we don't, as yet, see a blank spot?

that might be one explanation.

maybe i'll offer up another.

of course, when you can be sure that the
emitter still exists, you need a more
comprehensive explanation than "it died"

but, when it only takes say 4 to 5
light years to get here from there,

you can convince yourself that a localized "c"
and 'maybe' a gentle spacial fluctuation or
orbitting effect is responsible for the shit.

mind you, in some spiral galaxies,
a blue shift is noted in arms that
are "approaching" the detector, earth.

and you may be able to convince yourself
that entire galaxies are in orbit about
some central locus.

with periods in the ...eons.

so, then you can consider a "shaped" universe.

some say potato chip like
a saddle shap some say
torus like a donut

and then there's the cork screw rotini shape

and you could find that you're
in a gigantic harmonic oscillator universe.

where you find, theoretically,

that the universe is wobbling back
and forth in a gentle osciallation.

and -not- a universal expansion/contraction.

and inside the twists it all looks
like a tunnel to you, the observer.

but you still get stuck with a distance
and a time period associated with light
speed, whether constant or slowly slowing
down at a constant rate.

and you, the observer, may only be
seeing enough of the universe to
one bend in the cork screw.

which may be numerous.

and this could be either a left handed
universe or a right handed universe.

like, it twists in the
direction of your right hand.

one great big helix.

and then you still have this apparent
"null region" "outside" the material universe.

so, some of it -appears- cylindrical because
the null region plays like it ain't even there.

but you can still convince yourself
that nothing is running away from itself.

and that it has a definite beginning.

and Daphne gets all tired and turns in to a tree.

or a seven eleven for some coffee, i forget.

there was another punchy line, but i forgot it too.

if i remember it, i'll put it up here.

and then you can come back in
twenty years and pretend like
i never heard it before.

and maybe i'll have forgotten that i ever said it.

but i doubt it.

more strange tales
with some reckoning
of the torus shape

the central pea in the beginning

"outward" "expansion" in to
the void of nothingness

all the stuff in the central
pea moves, apparently, outward

and the central pea shape is
refilled with the void of nothingness.

an apparent hole in the
middle of the universe.

only the hole is filled with nothing,
with the space removed as well, and the
pea has only apparently moved outward.

and the components that make you up
and the earth up and an unknown portion
of your nearest neighbors adheres to the edge.

those components were in the pea in the beginning.

the light from the early pea is travelling
still and what we see is a phantom that
no longer has any reality.

but that stuff that originally emitted
that light, is now the stuff that you
and the earth and neighbors are made of.

you see the phantom of an earlier existance.

and if you listen softly, you can
hear the echoes of your distant past.

there may, indeed, be a hole in this theory,

but for your life, you may never find it.

i guess you don't want to invoke the "rest mass" of a photon.
don't worry, not many wish to consider a mass of a photon.
you can calculate stuff like momenta and such,
but as far as dropping light on a balance
and weighing it, no good.
but some people still wanna believe
that light has a pseudo-mass that
is affected by gravity.

but, when people suggest that light gets
trapped inside of a "black hole" they try
and convince themselves that space curves
around it when it would be just as easy to
ascribe some sort of accelleration to the
light and intense gravitational fields
show a negative accelleration slowing
light down and pulling it back in.

so, if you can convince yourself that light
can be slowed down by intense gravity, you
open the door for light having accelleration phenomena.
that'd be like integrating the velocity vector i suppose.

and so, you get things like a slingshot effect
accellerating light around stars and actually
bending the light path as opposed to bending the space.

and you convince yourself that light is actually
slowing down because more and more matter is
condensing out of the fog increasing the
gravity of the universe.

assuming, of course, that the rest mass of
an electron or proton et al is larger
than the rest mass of a photon.

like F = ma

and you have a crossover energy
where matter and light interchange.

not just converting matter into
energy but tuther way around as well.

cuz light is subject to an accelleration phenomena.

cuz it's quantized and has a pseudo particle nature.

cuz matter and light are somewhat interchangeable.

most of these things are observed,
just interpretted in a different way.

based on the assumption that light has
no mass and therefore experiences
no accelleration.

based on the assumption that light only
experiences the scalar function of speed
and that speed is constant.

but you convince yourself that some
thing called a "black hole" exists.

that traps light due to intense gravity.

and just toss aside all that bit about
space bending and ascribe an accelleration
phenomena to light.

simple as that.

of the two,

space bending seems more contrived than light accellerating.

that'd make light accellerating a much simpler explanation.


or maybe it's just a cooling effect brought
on by increased spacial separation that puts
the brakes on light and it falls out
of solution as matter.


like F = ma

and you have a crossover energy
where matter and light interchange.
not just converting matter into
energy but tuther way around as well.


of course it's not all light.

but that "plasma" junk is
sort of like [energy-matter].

and once matter falls out at all,
you've got the drag in place,
and light starts slowing down.

and another wierd thing,

the clock doesn't fall out of
solution at midnight or 00:00:00

but it sort of falls out
of solution at 19:35:56

and you think you're tracing back
to 00:00:00 but there never
was a 00:00:00

zero hour for you is 19:35:56

theoretically speaking, of course.

point being, you haven't the ability
to set a time T = 0 based on your
present observational capabilities.

or ever for that matter.

because there never was a time T = 1

but an "instantaneous" time T = [?]

stuff just appeared.

it's really rather elegant.

[Timothy Sutter]

alright anyway, big deal, what you need
someone do is describe the state of the
"universe" at time T = 0.

all the first second bit and physical science
in general cannot rightly make a clear definition
of the situation at time T = 0 so, you have two
choices in your speculative conjecture.

either you cite the existance of some substance
that has no known physical qualities, meaning no
physical qualities that may be measured and
therefore does not exist in the normal fashion,

or, you must cite a beginning from
absolute nothing, and this second
choice amounts to a magic.

a "something from nothing,"

that is the definition of a "magic".

but, if you make any referrence to this
"substance" that has no real physically
knowable qualities, you cite a "thing"
that you can have no physical reckoning of.

for all practical purposes, "science" must
discount the "something from nothing"
possibility as a "magic"

and therefore is confined to the emanation of
physical substances _from_ a "substance" that
has no knowable physical properties of its own.

and so, in referrence to absolute origins,
"science" is "stuck" citing a "thing"
that it can never recognize as "real"

but see, i got something even funnier,

you can't even demonstrate that the universe
by necessity came about in the manner described
in the "first second" manner.

this also amounts to pure conjecture.

so, what you cannot rightly disprove is
the proposition that all things simply
popped out of some such "quantum singularity"
fully in tact. that is, that planets and
suns just blurted out of this thing
already in tact.

which leaves you with another stange thing
and that is, that at time T = 0 there was
no physical reality, and at time T = 1 there
was a star that was "apparently"
6 billion years old.

that is, something like this,

that a "black hole" or "quantum sigularity"
just sort of sneezed and blew apart into
constituent fragmentary, atomic nature,
pieces that were already completely formed.

of course, we don't cite an
uncontrolled accident as our origin.

we cite a specifically ordained
manifestation of mechanical effluence.

specifically directed intelligence made it happen.

as metastability cannot be cited
where no mechanistic forces,
as yet, exist.

that is, we cannot suggest that the
flower pot was teetering imperceptibly
on the shelf, and then fell.

as, in the unity of the All, no potential
differences can be credibly cited.

no oppositional forcework.

only Love

whatever that is.



all you can do is say, "we've never
seen anything like that happen before"

but then, you've never studies a true
quantum singularity in any lab of yours
either, and in fact, you cannot.

so, basically, given that the state of
affairs at Time T = 0 favor uncertainty
and not a certainty of nothing at all,

the idea of an eternal God hanging out in
the "midst" of all that unknowable and not
ever knowable "stuff" loses me no sleep at all.

unknowable to experimental material
physics observation knowable to -that-
"stuff" whatever it may be.

what's funny about "life" -inside- of this
nowhere land is the apparent "sequence of events"
that may take place where no seconds tick
off of any clock.

that always struck me as entirely odd.

and the whole 'place' could be tinier than
the head of a pin or larger than the andromeda
galaxy or both simultaneously and neither
because there's no spacial measurement
possible either.

id est, there's no space, no physical
measuring device can comprehend it.

but yet, something "lives" 'there'.

wherever "there" 'is'

but what it -ain't- is
"something from nothing"

something from something
i can come to grips with.

but, nothing is nothing
and what can come of nothing?

so then, there is 'substance'
to that which can never be 'touched'

now nothing can confound you, any more.

or can't, as the case may be.

anyway, materialism falls under this.

simply because there's a "substance"
that has no knowable physical attributes.

and therefore, is not "material" in any way
that you could can describe based on physical
experimentation and observation.

therefore does not "exist" to physical discovery,

but yet, must exist.

and -only- a being with
conscious intent can
'make a tree'

[Timothy Sutter]

and speaking of genesis from singularity
and lack of any triggering mechanisms;

you have to provide as clear a description
for the state of affairs -at- Time T = 0

it's only much after that that you
can begin to speak of any sort of
atomic material, and any properties
which accompany that stuff.

properties which include heat content,
electromagnetic forces, gravitational
forces, and atomic forces, work and energy,
cannot be credibly cited as 'locked'
inside of any 'singularity' waiting
to burst forth.

no, these properties are
the -consequence- of
atomic material.

and so, in considering a genesis from
a singularity state, no triggering
mechanism can be positted and therefore,
a very absolute requirement for some
sort of concious being to speak things
into existance from nothing
at all is the consequence
with which you are stuck.


so, backtracking from the atomic world..;

you have an entirely different 'substance'
which is alien to the physical material
composition to classify.

what you can not broadly assume is that

this 'immaterial-substance' has the springlike

attributes of time space and temperature
locked in a void "waiting" to burst forth.

you are not considering a loaded spring.

you are ceding 'substance' to the immaterial.

energy is not present in a non-atomic state.
no mass, no energy in the material sense.
no volume no gravity, no mass.
whatever is the composition of 'it'

gravitational potential energy is lost without mass.
electromagnetic energy is lost without atomic structure.
heat energy is lost without heat content.
atomic energy is lost without atomic structure.


and you have no trigger to push over
any metastable teetering. what you have
is a definition of energy as an ability
to do work and generate heat,

outside of volume, no work
can be accomplished, and without
atomic vibrations, no heat
can be generated.

so, you cannot suggest that heat and work
were trapped, springloaded, in a singularity.
as heat and work -are- virtues of the material.

no trigger.

you can't just say;

"all energy was in the form
of heat and waiting to be
converted to work"

aside from matter you have no heat.

you need matter to generate heat.

without matter and without volume,
you have no heat or work potential.

those things come in to existance simultaneously.

i said;

"infinite heat capacity and
infinite density are unreal
concepts"

inasmuch as 'infinity'
is -not- a 'real' number.

infinity fails as a 'real' number
by additive identities,

1 plus infinity = infinity

infinity plus infinity = infinity


any real number, when you add another
nmumber to it takes to the next successor
and does not return itself.

no real number, when added
to itself, returns itself.

infinity is a "non-real" 'mathematical' concept.

therefore, 'infinite heat capacity'
and 'infinite density' are
meaningless statements.

what you have is some non-material
with no forcework acting upon it
triggered by some intelligent Hand.

physically 'at rest' with
no forcework to jostle
anything material at all.

which is why i liken it
to a matter/energy 'generator'

you can't speak of 'it' being
'consumed' to produce the material.

and you can't demonstrate that 'it'
is not still just as available
'now' as it was 'then'

this immaterial 'device'
is employed by God and
Jesus made use of 'it'

[Timothy Sutter]

chasing the fish

this little fish story is an intuitive device
which may actually require some imagination
to visualize.

we're following a little fish as is swims
thru the water, at first, and then begins
to pick up speed on us and we try to follow
its moves and we do so for a while, and then...

and then we see the fish begin
to shed its material frame

it has left the water and is now 'swimming'
thru the air, but we can still follow, for a while,

faster and faster, darting back and forth

now it has left the atmosphere
and appears ever smaller

its speed picks up so that it
begins to outrun all constraint,

it outpaces gravity and electrostatics

time slows to a snails pace, but still
we cannot keep up and we are seeing a
streaky blur appear before our eyes.

and then it appears to disappear

and we have no ability
to predict its whereabouts

and then it whispers in our ears;

"i'm right behind you"

[Timothy Sutter]

a fundamental particle is accompanied by and
encased in an -intrinsic- spacial void which
buffers it's intrusion by any other partical
which prevents such a particle
from being further reduced,

a fundamental irreducible partical

so, two dots screaming towards each other

can -not- crash because of these -intrinsic-
spacial voids which tends to push each other
'out of the way,' as it were,but, there are
levels of spacial energetics much like the
energy levels of the 'hydrogenlike'
electron energy states.

and when and if these spacial void levels
are energetically favorable, you get
mixing of spacial regions which allow
a 'coagulation' of sorts and the
formation of the larger, so called 'atoms'

but these were already set at time of manufacturing.

there's a bunch of other stuff

like the concious awareness of
the supra-universal intender

-who- is able to -direct- the
apparent motivity of such

seemingly massless particals -by- a -real-
form of psychokinetic interactivities.

and that's what the governors protect
until such time as we can be fully trusted
to move mountains by force of will.

only the human being is already blessed with trust.

but our eyesight can still get in the way

and block us from our useful comprehensibility.


these little fish sleep in a pool until
they are interactivated by conscious awareness
which acts upon them and brings them into being
inasmuch as they were unrecognizable as
being until they were motivated to swim.


which is the other wierd thing;

ask, "who knew 'they' were "there""

who could possibly know things that
have no being as they sleep were anywhere
when no spacial orientation had yet
been given real formulation?

the One who -can- see things that
"be not as though they be"

and no thing else.

no other being could have known.

'they' weren't even there until acted
upon by the Knowing Being of all Creativity.

very strange,

when asleep,

they do not exist in a real sense,

but when activated by conscious intent,

they appear.

and the Rest is future history

too many strange things...

God knows what Rest is

what would you call a massless object

that is not in motion?

'nothing' ??

right, -you- would call that 'nothing'

but it really may be some thing,

only most any observer would have

no means to detect it

it has no mass

it has no motion

it may as well not be there at all

and yet, it is

it gains these things;

mass and motion

when the time is right

well, that was not entirely correct

inasmuch as we have no time to speak of

as long as 'it' has no mass and no motion.

"what do yo mean massless?"

exactly that,

it matters little if 'it' has any substance

what matters is that 'mass' is a comparitive attribute.

and as long as 'it' is =completely= 'at rest'

there is no possible comparison.

and so, the curtain is down.

but when the still small voices whisper in Unison;


"Be Light"
"Be Light"


then,

there IS Light

of course, IT always was

only only THEY could know IT


that's where the 'divine power' resides.

way more than simply watts.

politics has no place by comparison.

[Timothy Sutter]

material universe possibilities
given constant material composition;


non-expansive infinitely old burnout

non-expansive young beginning

expansive infinitely old burnout

expansive young beginning


even granting the shadowy 'infinite time'
an inclusion in reality, either we have
a burned out material universe or a
material universe with a beginning.

[note, infinity plus one equals infinity
therefore 'infinity' is not a 'real' number
by some property of additive succession]

we are here to see that
the material universe is
not burned out, therefore
the material universe
has a beginning.


just take this example,

let's say 32 trillion trillion trillion years ago,
the material universe was of similar composition
as it is 'today'

well, given that,
all of its fuel should already be spent,
and we shouldn't be here to ponder its
present state of affairs.

need more time?

45 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion
quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion years;

it should be spent.

and that ain't even in the
neighborhood of 'infinitely old'


under the presently understood circumstances
for an 'infinitely old' universe to not already
be a burned out cinder 'new matter' must be
emanating from some 'unknwown' -source-.

similar problem as previously stated,

'new' matter requires some impetus
for appearing from no-thing.

to suggest that existing gravitational effects
be responsible for extracting new matter from
no apparent source will require that empty space
be composed of a material substance.

contradiction

therefore, -if- any 'new matter' were
being continuously introduced into the system,
its source can not be it's -own- eternal existance.

'new matter' requires a source, which is
-not- itself, with some -intent- to bring
new matter in to being.


if we are to grant a minimal consideration
to some prospect of an imploding universe,

upon implosion, all atomic material integrity
is lost and we are stuck with the problem
of 're'-genesis from singularity in which case,
all triggering mechanisms are lost and
no self contained impetus for
genesis is available.

not to mention the problems of dissipative
heat loss which may never again accomplish
useful work and so, ...burned out cinder.

to insinuate infinite 'new beginnings'
itself implies 'beginnings' and beginnings
from 'no-thing' inasmuch as an imploded
material universe is no longer composed
of phyical material.

no razor can cut God,
the substance of things not seen,
out of the picture.



regarding such speculations of an
infinite eternal material universe;

[infite mass / infinite volume]

vector analysis forces a -static- universe.

in all directions any object would experience
an 'infinite gravitational force' locking
it in a fixed position for all eternity.

an 'infinite' mesh of evenly dispersed,
very small 'objects', with evenly
dispersed heat content.

this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here at all.

therefore, this situation must be
discarded as self evident falsehood.

universal mass must be finite.

incidental;
all forms of energy, of which human beings
are aware, are generated -from- mass.

at best, human beings have succeeded
in generating energy -from- mass, and
transforming that _mass-born energy_
in to mass. [questionable results,
some call it a 'transporter']

aside from this, human beings have never
experienced a generating of mass -from- energy.

mass ---> energy
mass ---> [work and heat]
no mass ---> no [work and heat]
no mass ---> no energy

finite universal mass dictates
universal burnout given infinite time.
[previous conclusion]

this situation can not be made
to agree with our being here.

infinitely aged, 'eternal', material universe
must be discarded as self evident falsehood.

therefore, this material universe
is finite and must have beginning.


Creation from scratch stands uncontestable.
[previous conclusion]


long story very short;

we are here ---> God

it's really that simple.

no God ---> no us

Us ---> God








here's another problem, the simple fact
that a lab has smashed an atom into smaller
constituents is -not- an indication that these
smaller constituents were ever precursor
structures to the atomic elements themselves.

no lab has ever taken 'quarks'
and -produced- a single atom.

and, we can cite mass spectrometry as a support
for the notion that break down products are not
always to be considered as precursors for
the larger structure.

in mass spectrometry, a molecule is
-esssentially- 'smashed' with a bombardment
of electrons, and fragmentary pieces are
detected by the apparatus.

point being, the fragmentary elements
of the mass spectrometric process are
-not- precursor elements in the
synthesis of the larger molecule.

i can easily support this with details.


so, there's no reason to support
the metaphysical speculation that
heat energy became quarks became atoms.

whole structures may have
appeared in tact from the onset
with some intrinsic fracturing
to allow for wiggle room.

and as such,

any eternal 'substance' that may be said
to exist can only be converted into spacial
atomic material by conscious initiation as
no metastable triggering mechanism exists
which will set off any accidental ignition.

one cannot even go so far as to suggest that
any such "ssubstance" is "consumed" into becoming
atomic material because you lose all ability
to ascribe dimensionality to 'it'.

as far as anyone with a measuring wand in their
hand and a thermometer and whatever other devices
you may employ to analyze the physical atomic
nature is concerned, such devices will not be
relevant to any such non-atomic 'substance'

the atomic materials are a subcategory
of any such 'substance' which can only
be manipulated by the conscious
intent of God.

any such 'substance' is not the sum
total of God's conscious Being.

God maintains God's integrity as conscious Being
before during and after the initiation of genesis
of atomic material from any such 'substance'
to which one cannot ascribe physical
properties associated with atomic materials.

only God, our conscious Being initiator
can deliver the impetus required to convert
this 'substance' into the atomic materials.

and yet, the conscious Being of God is not
altered in any manner and maintains God's
full integrity.

the dimensional nature simply exists as an
idea in the mind of Christ before the onset.

God's full conscious integrity exists today
as it did yesterday and before the onset
of the physical material universe.

God as eternal conscious Being exists
and atomic materials with dimensionality
have a very definite beeginning of time.

God as eternal conscious Being
can be communicated with now.

until one has such communion,
one may simply say that they have
never had such communion with God.




aside from that, i'll go on about my ways,

as none of this continued discussion
about God being has any real meaningful
relevant purpose.

[Timothy Sutter]

====
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=adiabatic
adiabatic.

adj.
Of, relating to, or being a reversible
thermodynamic process that occurs without
gain or loss of heat and without
a change in entropy.
====

see, unless one can posit that the expansion
of the universe was something of this sort,
one doesn't get a reversible process,

and positting something of this sort will
likewise fail because it will not allow
for the formation of distinguishable
particulate objects.

meaning, if one were to suggest,
that some 'other unknowable universe'

was simply holding a gaseous deposit in 'it'
until such time as 'it' spewed 'its' contents
into what we would call 'our' spacial domain,

the only way such a process could be reversible
would be one in which no materials were ever
formed and simply a 'plasmic' 'heat exchange'
between dual spacial domains.

very slow inflation from one
spacial domain to the 'other' domain.

the fact that we see integrated particulate matter
tells us that we do not have a reversble adiabatic
process between dual spacial domains and therefore
are not looking at such a reversible process and
therefore, our 'beginning' remains as the first
and only knowable beginning.

in other words, this relegates the
'cosmic flatulence' to an
invalid sentiment.

meaning, if we don't have a reversible
adiabatic process, we dissipate all our
heat and run out of fuels before the
surface of endless time is even
scratched and we should not be here
to ponder the question,

and if we do have a reversible
adiabatic process, we don't
get any particles.

therefore, a primary singular one time
initiation of the entire process by
conscious intent remains as the only
valid mechanism.

the prospect of collapsing this universe
into a zero order nothingness also remains
as a possibility given conscious control
of the system.

the logistics of which only need take into
account the possibility of some lynch pin
collapse mechanism placed in our domain
by the Creator.

a minor alteration in any of
the six numbers and the entire
thing collapses into a
zero order nothingness.

likewise,
ordering the six numbers
initiates genesis.

the magnificent concentration of design will.

be it so

[Timothy Sutter]

if there is nothing and only nothing

the only possible replica of nothing is nothing,

and, nothing can do nothing and only nothing is.

in order for something to be,

something always is.


what is

the original something

the original indivisible entirety

that which is




activity potential

something can happen

something does something

something happens



if nothing is nothing is done



something that is is something that does


is does



something does something to something



nothing else is

that can do something

to something



is does



is acts on is

is is not acted upon

because nothing else is



how is does is known to is


this is who is is

the one who knows

is is is



something that is is something
that can be doing something


something that is is something that
can be making something happen.


and there is the origin

the beginning

and the end of all regression


The Origin


Is Is


The Primary Source

Is aware

[Timothy Sutter]

given the nature of this universe,

postulating God is perfectly reasonable.

the material universe is not infinitely old

the material universe has a beginning

this is -reasonable-

and that's all that matters.

it is -reasonable-

[Timothy Sutter]

i did mention the "semi-permeable membrane" bit before...


> Timothy Sutter wrote:

> > so, either you say that all people have the Holy Spirit
> > abiding from flesh birth and no matter what they do or think,
> > it is the Holy Spirit who does and thinks....<...>

someone said:

> Is God spirit?


more to the point, is hydrogen gas, "spirit"?

is gold and platinum, "spirit"?

someone said:

> Is God infinite?


hydrogen gas, gold and platinum do not seem to be "infinite"

based on keen observations, these -things- are "finite"

someone said:

> If God is INFINITE SPIRIT (holy Spirit)
> then there is NOWHERE where God is not.


if you draw a distinction between matter and "spirit"

then, it may be somewhat like a "semi-permeable membrane"


because we may be able to suggest that "God's Spirit"

has no such "exclusion principle" as does matter


and therefore, can be present 'where' matter is present,

without -being- itself, made of matter, while
we cannot say the same thing about matter

in that matter is finite and not present

where there is no matter present.


and now there's the prospect of -interaction-


and, 'finite' matter may not be able to
-comprehend- "Spirit" unless that Spirit
make itself known.


man seems to be in possession of a "consciousness emulator"


while God is "Pure Consciousness"


and then there is "communication"

or the prospect thereof of such a communcation
between said "consciousness emulators"
and God's own Pure Consciousness


and this is the distinction we point out.


that of communicative interaction betwen God and man


and not just assuming that being in a universe where God IS


demands such communication without direction.







> the semi-permeable membrane

if, you skip over the "procedure and methodology" section,

you will never be able to compare a result

with the "results" section,

and it would never be my compelling element
to -plead- with -anyone- who will -not- follow
the "procedures and methodologies" section
and simply says;

"i don't get your results and therefore,
your results are invalid"






in other words,

i don't have to plead with anyone or any group

to follow the "procedures and methodologies" section,

but who, simply -insist- that their ignorance and

lack of knowledge is the -only- _possible_ result.



all the while, 'they' or whomsoever is/are all to willing
to take dish fed results sections about phenomena that
-they- have never experienced personally for granted
and -without- "personal experience" as "evidence"



so, they 'believe' one thing that they have never
=personally= experienced because they want to be
part of that group who follows such and such an ideology,

but make demands of another group for -evidence- that
-they- are simply unwilling to gather up -by- following
the proper and correct "procedures and methodologies"

and so, by personal preference
and personal preference alone,

they accept one ideological framework as correct
-without- personal experience -as- 'evidence'

and reject another ideological framework
simply because they won't -look- -for-
the evidences themselves, and rush precipitously
to the conclusion that there is no evidence to be seen,

based on group favorability and group favorability alone.


anyway, a semi-permeable membrane, in the natural,
is like a grating that allows some things to pass through
and yet, prevents other things from passing through,
like maybe sodium ions which are small can pass through
and potassium ions which are larger cannot,
so, an electircal gradient it set up and this
helps to regulate heart contrctions etc.

so, in likeness,

this is a gradient which certain phenomena

can pass ---> in a one way fashion

you may not be able to just waltz over through
the semi-permeable membrane and "see" God almighty,

but God almighty, not only can, but -must- come
'through the veil' to you.


and 'communion' is possible but then we have

to, also, deal with the 'signal to noise' problems...

[Timothy Sutter]

---
Revelation 4:5-6
And from the throne proceeded lightnings,
thunderings, and voices. Seven lamps of fire
were burning before the throne, which are
the seven Spirits of God. Before the throne
there was a sea of glass, like crystal. And
in the midst of the throne, and around the
throne, were four living creatures full of
eyes in front and in back.
---

visualize three sets of
three dimensional spaces


big three D [B3D] <--- stars

little three D [L3D] <--- < = quanta?

tiny tiny three D [TT3D] <--- God


what's funny, is that it is as if,
a dimensionless 'space' exists.

that is, as if, you were in
a non-dimensional construction
and that 'place' had what appears
to be depth and bredth and height

God is not composed of matter
tiny tiny three D is way to small
to accomodate any thing that could
even remotely be described
as matter.

which makes tiny tiny three D
'non-dimensional' as far as
matter/energy is concerned

so, really, for all practical purposes,
tiny tiny three D isn't 'there' for you
to grasp with big three D apparati

but it exists, and God 'thinks'

and 'thought' seems to imply
some sort of discontinuity
of structures.

to tiny tiny three D
the head of a tungsten
tipped needle seems like
an vast universe

but the odd thing is, the vast
material universe seems like the
head of a tungsten tipped needle
to tiny tiny three D

all the little angels -can-
dance on the head of a pin.

and the material universe is
just a glint in the 'eyes' of God.

so, in that moment that God -speaks-

the =vibratory= mechanism -triggers-

and -things- begin to 'appear'

see, and that's where
more funny things develop


in hebrew, God doesn't say;

"let there be light"

in hebrew, God uses the same
word as the flame from the
bush speaks to Moses,

God says;

"Hayah"

which is that tenseless verb of Being.

the word that is often translated as "I am"

so basically, you have -The- "Hayah"
there in the beginning -speaking-
'Light' in to existance.

and -The- "Hayah" is... YHWH

where "Light" need not be considered as
single wavelengths but a merged pattern
which is subsequently -split- out in to
the "darkness" of space and the "light"
of matter/energy,

where "space" is little
three D and big three D.

what is also interesting is that

tiny tiny three D can be
said to possess -structure-

structure that is ....stable

one implication being that big three D
-cannot- exist aside from little
three D and tiny tiny three D

but tiny tiny three D can exist
aside from and without either
big three D and little three D

it's in the very nature of it that
the initiation of the 'higher' structures
requires conscious decision making.

the decision to 'speak'

where 'higher' is ill defined because
the apparent non-dimensionality of
tiny tiny three D makes comparisons
with big three D a blur with respect
to which is 'bigger'

why?

it's not that you can't associate a -number-
with tiny tiny three D that is on a scale
100s or 1000s of orders of magnitude 'smaller'
than big and little three D, it's that because
no material object is relevant to such a
dimensional plane, that for all practical
purposes, it has no 'real' measure.

and therefore big three D and little three D
can be said to be contained -in- tiny tiny three D.

of course, this does suggest that
the 'vibrational' qualities of YHWH's
spoken annunciations from the structured
environment of tiny tiny three D serves
as a -template- for big three D and
little three D and therefore, it can
be said that matter/energy is not so
much a product of 'design' as -an-
image of The Creator

and then this imaging becomes more and
more focused, to the point where formal
manipulation of matter/energy are required
to educe the perfected Image from the medium.

and that Image carries the
exacting signature of God.


# visualize three sets of
# three dimensional spaces

you can make generalized
statements about the
time function;



# big three D [B3D] <--- stars

time regular and continuous

# little three D [L3D] <--- < = quanta?

time irregular and discontinuous

# tiny tiny three D [TT3D] <--- God

time-less event sequences



what's funny is that 'electrons' are 'travelling'
very fast, at an 'asymptotic' approach to the
speed of light, and therefore time, in describing
their 'motion,' is very nearly at a standstill to
'them' and discontinuous to any 'observer'

it's this great speed that -quantizes-
their energy statistics, that is, because
time for these particles -approaches-
relative zero, smooth trajectories of
flight cannot be calculated.

you can't speak of a moment by moment
description of an electron's flight,
because, for the electron, the interaction
with macroscopic phenomena has no
'one to one' correspondence.

the paradox twins timeframe's have
some 'one to one' correspondence, because
one of the twins approaches the speed of
light in a uniform trajectory from the
perspective of the other twin and then
slows back down in the same smooth and
continuous trajectory pattern.

that is, close to the speed of light, but
not too close one may suggest things like,
"for every second that clicks from the
traveller's watch, 100x seconds click
from the non-travellers watch."

that is a 'one to one' correspondence.

what one -could- pop up and suggest
is that -if- the travelling twin actually
approached very nearly the speed of light
that his trajectory pattern would cease
to be uniform and the 'one to one'
correspondence would be lost.

if the traveller approaches
too near the speed of light,
very nearly c, practically c,
basically c itself,

the 'one to one' correspondence is lost,
and the traveller would enter in to a world
of uncertain physical trajectory.

'now' you can no longer take a picture of
the traveller because the speed of light
and the speed of the traveller are in
competition, and, at best, you get some
visualization -like- the sonic boom.

no matter how 'fast' the film, as the photon
travels back to the lens, the traveller is
moving in a competitive manner and you
get multiple images.

not even a blur, but no real image at all.

this is why you in [B3D] can -never-
appreciate the meandering world of [L3D]

you've got a particle in a box that
is moving too fast to have any direct
correspondence to your spacial
time orientation.

the absence of any material event
sequence in [TT3D] removes the
phenomonology of time entirely.

and now you're in a world with -no-
trajectory patterns at all and images
simply appear disappear and reappear
with no interstitial 'motions'

you don't climb a flight of stairs,

you are downstairs, you disappear,
and then you reappear upstairs

with no interdimensional time sequence.

i like it, it's funny.


just remember, there's no 'evil' in the stuff,
'evil' is a product of the mind of the liar.

i've mentioned that before, that
stuff is still pretty much the same.

YHWH God is Good and Only Good

The Image of YHWH God is Good.

'look' for it, find it, keep it forever.


# and then this imaging becomes more and
# more focused, to the point where formal
# manipulation of matter/energy are required
# to educe the perfected Image from the medium.

# and that Image carries the
# exacting signature of God.


and, of course, it can said that
God is upstairs and downstairs
and 'everywhere' simultaneously.

"God is present"

but so quiet, that the gurgling
in your stomach tends to drown out
your ability to experience this.

but God can -amplify- the signal.

sort of an 'operational amplifier' in
-you- that provides a feedback signal.

all part of the "TSR A to D converter"

it's curiouser and curiouser

time for tea

[Timothy Sutter]

the conclusion that concious interference patterns excited
the material universe to appear from not being there is valid
inasmuch as no accidental triggering mechanism may be cited
and therefore purposeful action is required.

the exact nature of any pre-onset formulation

is unknown to physical determination,

but, we have no way of placing any
physical metastability into that formulation
so as to make allowances for any accidental
triggering and therefore, purposeful action
is a valid conclusion and purposeful action
implies conscious awareness and conscious
awareness implies Being.

and so, while human invented physical measuring devices
and humanly devised physical interferomters

may not be detecting this conscious Being

we have reason to suggest that the human consciousness
or "consciousness emulator" as i tend to suggest -is-

the interferometer that may have direct communication
with this Being who exists from before the developement
of time space and matter or, the physical manifestation.

and then it only remains for =you= or any other

inquisitive personality to establish communications
with this Being, if at all possible but, we christians
maintain that such a communicative effort is available
but that it must -come-, primarily, from the
'other side' as it were.

meaning, pure human deduction, while able
to draw the valid conclusion that such Being IS,

it, pure human deduction, is not a direct communication
in itself, and we would suggest that this Being -can-
maintain an aloofness to the 'human' beings which
possess the consciousness emulation but which
may not be 'turned on' or 'tuned in' as it were.

if you have no such direct experience
you can say what you like, but any
statements of a purely negative variety
stem from preconceived notion and have
no valid potential for verification.

in other words, we say that you -can-
come to know and be known by "God" but,
if you maintain a negative stance

you have no real way of verifying such a stance.


keep investigating


we have our standards...

[Timothy Sutter]

one last little bit...

describe a physical phenomenon

that initiates =volume=


[zero volume] --pp--> [volume]


the physical phenomena we can point at


are attributes -of- volume
no volume... no physical phenomena...
"whence comest thou?"


True Light --->[stuff]--> electromagnetic radiation


we need [something] to initiate interference patterns in the True Light
from which the [stuff] emerges which -emits- electromagnetic radiation
and this [something] bears conscious awareness...


this awareness -chooses- to act at a very specific instance


the beginning


not the beginning of True Light and of conscious awareness
but the beginning of the emergence of the [stuff]
which then emits electromagnetic radiation


the beginning of a specific set of interference patterns


the beginning of the dream


-but- this conscious awareness is Ever Awake


there's filtered emulation


and there's the Gift
of direct signal reception


the reemergence of the Ever Awake Conciousness


through direct transmissions of True Light


quantized Being

[Timothy Sutter]

===
purpose or accident?

that's the question.
"evolution" as a term does not address this question.
"evolution" becomes a sleight of hand terminology
like "hocus pocus"

-proving- "accident" by reproducible experimental means
is futile...
"gradual change" is not the issue...

the crux of the matter is "purpose" or "accident"
and from the onset, "accident" seems ruled out
and "purpose" seems evident.
"purpose" defines conscious intent...
and conscious intent says "maker"

ideologically;

"accident" breeds -superstition-
superstition breeds -fear-
"accident" is the blind leading the blind in to a ditch

"purpose" breeds =industriousness=
industriousness breeds confident assurance
"purpose" is YHWH leading you to a free space.


given purpose, can true randomness exist?

yes


and that's part of the beauty of it

where 'true' randomness is not simply
an otherwise predictable outcome which
came unexpectedly, [to an observer]

but, actually -demonstrates- the 'moment' of "decision"


'true' randomness would not be in the actual tumbling of the dice

but, the decision as to when to toss them in the first place.

once the dice are tossed, certain aspects are purely mechanical

and could be predictable



before the dice are tossed,


the conscious decision making process

remains non-mechanical.



of course, as time progresses, there will

be certain 'decisions', also,

which seem "forced" and not 'truly' random...



and some purely mechanical occurrences,

which give the -appearance- of randomness.



the universe only seems strange

because we don't always have a way

of sorting this all out.



purposeful, concious intent, randomly timed...

and

purely mechanical actions which only seem
random to the 'peephole' observer.


but, obviously, from square one

we, as yet, have no mechanism,

so, we are left with purposeful,

concious intent, randomly timed...


and at each next corner, -where-

no mechanism, as yet, exists, we see

purposeful, concious intent, randomly timed...


YHWH




and that's funny where some of these characters
try and tell you that the Rest is an Identifier
of the Creator, cuz, after all, YHWH does not -get-
tired or weary, but simply -chooses- when to 'begin'
and when to -mark- an initial completion of events.


of course, there's more to come...

could even catch you off your guard...

[Timothy Sutter]

what you may want to ask anyone
who says that 'virgin birth'
is a 'miracle' is;

are you insisting that
'miracles' do -not- happen?

and then consider material life itself;

there is insufficient physical data to support
the notion that any living tissue will rise from
the earthly surroundings by random collisions of
'non-living' molecules or that -algorithms- will
simply write themselves into existence from the
earthly surroundings under their own volition.

On the contrary a wealth of observation supports
the very opposite notion that Life begats Life
and that DNA is the template for its own replication.

that is, 'we' observe that Life springs
from that which is already alive, number one.

and, that -algorithms- never write
themselves in to existence, number two.

-algorithms- arise from the purposeful
assembly of instruction sets
by an outside agency.

the central dogma of molecular biology would state;

DNA --> RNA --> Protein

and never;

RNA --> Protein --> DNA

nor

Protein --> RNA --> DNA

and the central dogma of genetics would say;

"DNA is the template for its own replication"

DNA, here, is our -algorithm- and we observe,
essentially, that DNA is a primary necessity
for the production of DNA and this has never
been observed to be violated in any manner.

and so, proposing the idea that living tissue
manufactured itself from inert chemical materials
leaves us with a quandary that a purposed phenomenon
like an algorithm, wrote itself into existance
in a set of freakish accidents.

this is contrary to all observation and must,
therefore, be discarded as a self evident falsehood.

now, you -should- begin to see *exactly* why any
proposed theories of 'abiogenesis' are based
on self evident falsehood.

it steamrolls overtop of physical observation and
overwrites it with some simplistic metaphysical lie
gleaned from the entrails of an owl.

as far as physical observation is concerned,
a purposeful Creative Event is exactly necessary.

and this is no accident.

can be classified as "miraculous" even.

certainly, there's more to
a living creature that just DNA.

but, as far as proteins which are -not- alive
following some non-demonstrable mechanism
that fits together a self duplicating and
living organism and then shuts off and
is never seen again, there is not any sort
of viable explanation for such an
impracticable possibility.

the trouble with this sort of consideration
is that it suggests that natural forces
provide the onus for a living cell to
deliver its own functionality before
-it- is there to provide the onus for itself.

that is to say;

natural forces -cause- the components of a
living cell, gathered up from whatever source,
to behave as if they were part of a working
device -before- that device is working

and this phantom mechanistic device carries
out the purpose of bringing the actual device
into being.

it basically cedes a living
-purpose- to an inanimate nature.

it is as if the living cell were
operating without being a living
cell -to produce- a living cell

whereupon, this mechanism
disappears into oblivion,

and the living cell procedes to
continue producing living cells.

that is, the living cell uses proteins
and the like to reproduce DNA et al

but in this very special case,

natural forces did the work of the mechanism
-without- any sort of encoded instructions.

instructions the cell now receives
from the living cell mechanism.

this demands that -no- mechanism has brought
a self promulgating mechanism, in to existance,

where the functions of a cell are carried out
by no cell -until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.

it requires belief -against- factual
reality to support such a hokum.

see what i mean?

you have -no- mechanism bringing
a self perpetuating mechanism
in to existance.

and that should be much more puzzling
than any chicken/egg difficulties.

you have the functions of a
cell being carried out by no cell,
-until- the actual cell is
there to carry it out.

nothing like this is observed.


we just say something like;

"the power of will in words is alive"

the design personality of the Creator
turned ideas into reality by a Power
contained in the Creator's declarations.

and materials aligned themselves around
and about those 'powerful' declarations.

and we -have- observed
things -exactly- like this.

now, if we claimed that God was entirely
beyond our understanding, and "unknowable"
-then- we should speak no further,

however, we do not speak of a "God" who is
beyond all understanding and unknowable
but of a Creator who -does- present
God for inspection.

a God we -can- come to know and understand.

we simply maintain that much personal
understanding of the Creator must
be presented -by- that same Creator.

we don't abstract God -from- natural reality

we learn of God from God in much the
same way as we learn of each other
from each other and learn of stones
and flowers from stones and flowers.

the design personality of the Creator
caused materials to align themselves
around a template of conscious purpose,
by a Power contained in the Creator's
own demonstrative declarations.

the Creator molded space in to
a template and the materials aligned
themselves about this template.

theories of 'abiogenesis' would demand
a similar unseen template structure to
exist and operate and would be forced
to cede a conscious -purpose- to an
inanimate nature.

we know the consciously purposeful designer.

this is no mystery to us

and yet, it will forever remain a mystery
to anyone who would make attempts at ceding
conscious purpose to inanimate materials.


no statements in favor of such an outlandish
proposal as inert chemical materials initiating their
own advance towards structures that actually support
living processes because there is no statement that
will possibly stand in support of a conscious purpose
existing in an inanimate material nature.

"conscious purpose"

this is the fundamental idea that
you will never be able to reconcile
with your god-less mythology.

"conscious purpose" is required to initiate genesis

"conscious purpose" is not an attribute
of inanimate material and natural forcework.

"conscious purpose" is an attribute
of Personality and Living Being.

these are not two equally viable prospects.

conscious purpose -is- a Living Personal Being.

we know God.

and life itself is miraculous, not because
we do -not- understand it, but because
we -do- understand it.





assume A

A implies B

B proves A


now, it's 'ok' to assume an 'A'

and to suggest that an "A" implies a "B"

but, when one uses "B" to
then say that "A" is 'true'

one falls headlong into
an invalid reality.


if you assume that there is no directing
influence which is not composed of the
98 elements, gravity and electromagnetism,

you may imply that life arose on
earth with zero directing influence.

what you should not be found doing is;

-then- suggesting that life did, in fact,
arise without an outside directing influence
and therefore that there -is- no outside
directing influence.


someone somewhere would call this;

"assuming the conclusion"

[Timothy Sutter]

so, what you'd like to say is
that this 'thing/organism'

eats respires and replicates and moves

and proceed to chop it down to the smallest
'thing/organism' that eats respires replicates
and moves

and find out what 'bit' of 'it'

if removed, will prevent this 'thing/organism'
from continuing to eat respire replicate an move.


but, you may also find that there are more than
one 'site' which, if removed, will 'kill' the 'organism'


so, that's the backward regression,


and now, you'd like to say;


"this is the very smallest 'organism'

that can eat respire replicate, and move


and then, find a way of having components of -it-

self assemble in aqueaous solution.


and now your back to the "phantom mechanism" again


as, without doubt, if the components do -not-


eat respire and replicate and move


the chances of these components

self assembling as -in-

the process of replication

is nil.


if you chop away the component that

facillitates assembly of replicants


then it ain't gunna self assemble from scratch...


end game...


y'ain't got 'it'



if you'd like, you can truncate 'eats and respires'

in to a single phenomenon

eats and replicates

"this thing eats and replicates"

"these are the components of this
'thing' that eats and replicates"

"now, we dump these components into aqueous solution,
and, they sit there and stare at us, and no
respiring/replicating organism emerges"

"days later, still nothing"

"months later, still nothing"

"years la....ah skip it"


"how -did- you 'do' it?"

"cuz -this, just ain't workin"



=because= this would have to be some thing

that -could- "self assemble" in a matter of days/weeks

from these 'unmotivated' constituent parts.


skip right to the point where this self assembly -could- happen


not asking -how- all of these constituents

take shape over the eons, so-called,


"-these- components, self assemble
-into- an organism that -replicates-"


it's a paradox


'it' needs 'itself' to assemble 'itself'


the "phantom mechanism"


"the shadow knows"


or, alternatively;


"who knows?"

"the shadow do"


more fine tuning...


i'm starting to see the relatedness between

"fine tuning" and "fine tuning"


it's always strange how these things fit together...


it's not "whimsy"



"the shadow built the man"


or, i suppose it's more like;


"the shadow -cast- the man"




this isn't happening;

""take one strand of RNA and toss it into
a container of warm water/nutrient bath

and days later, you find multiple copies of
the original RNA strand and a somewhat
depleted nutrient supply.""

so, that'd be a dead end...





in other words,

i'm -giving- you the "non-living" -components-

now, let's watch the "non-living" -components-

self assemble in aqueous solution, whereupon

a "living" assembly is now present

in aqueous solution.


there is no resort to an;

"it takes a million years" argument


these non-living -components- should self assemble

to form a living organism in a matter of -days-

-if- they can self assemble -at all-





one thing for sure, considering the speculation
of a primal cell type that is a precursor for all
subsequent living organisms including all bacteria

there is no =specimen= of any such primal living organism.

no trace at all.

it must be one of those "invisible pink unicorns"





but, -positting- a primal precursor 'organism'

is a tacit admission that simple bacteria did not

spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.

that means, speculating on
the necessary existence of
some primal precursor,

is an unspoken admission that simple bacteria

did not spring to life from numerous collisions

of non-living components.





so, what there is =evidence= for

is an organism that has no precursor

which did not arise from the random collisions

of non-living components.

[Timothy Sutter]

> and now you're in a world with -no-
> trajectory patterns at all and images
> simply appear disappear and reappear
> with no interstitial 'motions'

> you don't climb a flight of stairs,
> you are downstairs, you disappear,
> and then you reappear upstairs
> with no interdimensional time sequence.
> i like it, it's funny.

> just remember, there's no 'evil' in the stuff,
> 'evil' is a product of the mind of the liar.
> i've mentioned that before, that
> stuff is still pretty much the same.

> YHWH God is Good and Only Good
> The Image of YHWH God is Good.

> 'look' for it, find it, keep it forever.

here's a more interesting question;

why could not God have created a material
universe that was not subject gravity
and entropy?

or, is there but one type
of matter that -can- exist?

making a long story short, as far as
-you- or anyone else can tell, this
material universe is comprised of
the only possible dynamic
interplay of forces.

and so, in speaking of Creation,
in this regard, the emanation of
the material universe from nothing,
by necessity, being a conscious effort,

remains best described as a "bringing forth"

which is why we only hear something like;

"let there -be light-"

and not;

"let me design a specific type of light
that is but one of an infinite variety
of types of electromagnetic radiations"

and still, such light is "good"
and can simply be called "good"
with no resort to 'evil' light.

that is, a "good" thing is described by the
namer of objects but an "evil" thing must
take in to account the conscious nature
of the thing itself aside from
any objective namer.

that is, light can be called "good" by the namer,
by virtue of it's inherent constituent qualities
to the namer, in this case, the Creator,

whereas to call light "evil" would suggest
that light itself has a consciousness and
a will to interact with the assigner,
in this case The Creator,
in a negative manner.

and so, now, we ask;

can gravity and entropy be considered "evil"?

considering that "evil" is -only- a form
of conscious knowledge then to assign gravity
and entropy as "evil" would be assigning a
consciousness to forces of the material
nature, and still, we would be -forced-
to demand that such forces -can- have
-no- choice in their general dynamic nature.

that is, "gravity" cannot -choose-
to behave in any other way that it
behaves as a fact of its nature.

and therefore, lacking a will of its own
and therefore -not- "evil" in and of
the thing in itself.

but to call gravity and entropy "good"
need insinuate no such consciousness in
to the immaterial forces at all, and is
simply a matter left up to the discretion
of The Creator, and whoever makes
such an assignation.

and so, skpping ahead, when God
forms the little creature from
the dust of the ground,

matter that is subject to gravity
and entropy is the -only- medium.

and still, one may simply call
the -medium- a "good" medium,
which has no 'evil' as part
of its constituent make-up.

but if matter must be of a certain
composition no matter who brings
it forth or makes it happen,

that only leads to the idea that,
"there is only one possible God"

as opposed to;

"God cannot be God if God cannot
do a thing that can not be done"

if there's -only- one form of
material universe, -and- God
-must- make it happen,

God is still God

even if you'd like to suggest that
another type of material universe
would have been "better" even if
you cannot describe such a
possibility with any referrence.

and so, you have a God that does not
change and a material nature whose
general dynamics do not change and
a simple matter of authority.
For God, it's basically a done deal,

for God to be 'real' God -must- work
with the realities of -this- material nature.

and still, neither God nor the realities
of the material nature need ever be
classified as "evil"

-man- -can- get stuck in a
wrestling match with
the elements.

and even -this- struggle itself
need not be termed an "evil" struggle.

-and-;

in -our- understanding of the nature of Jesus Christ's
effective work within the material nature, we consider
that Jesus Christ has pinned the material nature on
the mat for the non-material God.

and therefore, that the Identity
of Jesus Christ can be -only-

"The Creator -in- the Material Medium"

essentially, that is how The Creator God
brings the material nature within the
authority of the Fullness of Deity.

by passing in to that material nature
and bring -it- in to subjection of
this Creator God's own Will.

-first- by forming the vessel through
which God -would- enter the material
Universe, and then by entering in to
the material universe merging the
two natures in One.

and right now, we see the Risen Jesus as
having completed a good work and in this
manner as we -begin- to see ourselves
in like manner to Christ.

we see Jesus as having full authority
in the material nature, and entry back
in to the Eternal Dwelling of God,

and we draw ever closer to this full
manipulative authority for ourselves.

but the end product is driven
under God's own discretion.

and so, we walk towards driving our
physical natures as would befit beings
called "good" by God

and not being impelled by gravity
and entropy to -behave- in manners
which are not befitting the title "good"

but which would be in conflict
with the Love of God.

and this understanding we employ
to walk in this manner we know will
be useful when we are allowed entry
in to the Glorified Dwellings of the Deity.

that is, we use -now- to reconcile our
conflicts because those conflicts will
not enter into the Dwelling of God.

this is our Gift.

[Timothy Sutter]

aside from the implication that
God has not appeared to people in
a spectacular array of light and such,

when some say that God has not been
'proven' to exist, they mean they have
no referrence to mechanical measuring
devices which detect God;

what physical measurement?
what machine apparatus have you
designed that will measure
such a phenomenon?

what, exactly, is the nature of
the phenomenon for which you
seek physical measurement?

in lieu of appropriate answers to these,
your problem is simply one of disbelief
in a thing that you have not
directly experienced.

will you suggest that the flavor chemist
and the perfume chemist are not involved
in scientific discovery?

of course not, as these are two very
important branches of chemistry,
a "hard science."

so anyway, generally, in flavor chemistry,
they run chemical samples from known natural
products thru a machine apparatus like a mass
spectrometer or an infra red or nuclear magnetic
resonance spectrometer to determine the chemical
make-up of a given flavor, say bananas.

they determoine that one of the main
components of the flavor of bananas
is ethyl acetate;

CH3-C[O]O-CH2CH3

now, they synthesize this chemical
from available sources and then,

*they ask people to taste the stuff
to see if it tastes like bananas*

why?

because there's no machine apparatus
that can tell you if that stuff
tastes like anything.

just don't talk about "science"
and "measurement" when you mean,
mechanical detection.

when you develop the mechanical device
that can detect God, and it doesn't
detect God, then you can speak.

you'll simply have to rely, in part,
on the descriptions of human beings
for your "measurements" in much the
same way as the flavor chemist must
rely on human beings to tell [him]
if [his] compounds taste "good" or not.

but, a given experiment designed to allow
you to ascertain the experience of God
is possible and plausible.

and if you don't gain an audiance with the
Holy Spirit the first time, you'll have to
do the experiment over and over till
you get it right.

and central to this, is greeting
the words of Faith with faith.

no faith, no experience.
no experience, no knowledge.
no knowledge, keep silent.

if God's Holy Spirit is detectable
in and by human beings, then this
represents a phenomenon and
physical measurement.

to say otherwise is blind assumption that
the human entity is incapable of divulging
proper 'scientific' data.

which is nonsense, as most real discovery
is taken and delineated and accepted by
none other than the human entity.

go drop a stone from the tower of Pisa,
who is taking a measurement? get a sophisticated
listening device to do the same thing,
now who is taking the data? still the
human being, as the machine apparatus
is merely a device to extend
our capabilities.

now, if you cannot design an appropriate device
to extend your mechanical capabilitues in the
area of God detection, then you are simply at
a primitive stage in your machine designing
abilities and need further study before you
can ever make some blanket statement to the
effect that God is not physically detectable
because God is most certainly detectable
by the human entity.

what you have to realize is that God has
placed something -like- a "terminate and
stay resident" program in your being that
behaves -like- an "analog to digital converter."

there is some sort of 'spirit' in man that
remains in the background, that is 'resident'
but not running until activated by
the 'words of faith'

-then- this 'spirit' becomes active
and converts the 'analog' signal from
God, thru the Holy Spirit, into a 'digital'
signal that your cortical brain structure
can interpret as a meaningful presence.

you don't even know it is there
until it becomes activated.

now see, i cannot personally switch on
your 'spirit' and pour the Holy Spirit
into your life, but i can present
statements which can trigger your
TSR programs to activate the
A-to-D converter.



here's someone, with whom i find
agreement, describing a phenomenon
like this "TSR--A-to-D converter"
of which i speak.


----------------
1 Corinthians 13:1 and 14:3-4,13

Though I speak with the unknown
spiritual languages of men and
of angels....

He who speaks in unknown spiritual languages
does not speak to men but to God, in the spirit
he speaks mysteries, for no one understands him;
He who speaks in an unknown spiritual language
teaches himself, if I pray in an unknown
spiritual language, my spirit prays, but
my understanding is unfruitful.

Therefore let him who speaks in an unknown
spiritual language pray that he may interpret.
What is the conclusion then? I will pray with
the spirit, and I will also pray with
the understanding.
----------------


notice that Paul describes a distinction
between the "spirit" and the "understanding"

also notice that you can edify
your "self" in a manner which
your "understanding" is unaware.

hold on a minute, now look at this.
same passage different portion;


----------------
1 Corinthians 14:1-3,12,39

since you are zealous for spiritual gifts,
let it be for the teaching of the faithful
that you seek to excel. Let all things be
done for such edification;

Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but
especially that you may speak an understanding
of God which comes from God. He who utters such
divine revelations speaks comfort, encourages
and edifies the faithful.

desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------


now he's suggesting that comprehending
spiritual knowledge of God with your
corporeal "understanding" is of
primary importance.

that is, understanding God
with your "understanding"

but look, he's also suggesting that
you may find yourself speaking with
God in a language that is unknown
to your conscious understanding
but -not- unknown to your background
"TSR" program which behaves as
an A-to-D converter.

a trivial example can be found in a
very general description of the manner
in which your computer operates.

your computer operates programs that are
written in a so-called "high level language"
and these high level languages translates
that into a machine code assembly language
and finally into machine code ones and zeroes.

the machine only "understands"
"yes" and "no" which is fed to it
in the form of a "one" and a "zero"
but the machine is able to interpret
the "high level language" of the
computer programmer by use
of compiler programs.

within details.


in a similar manner, there is an intimate
connection between your "spirit" and your
corporeal "understanding," even if the
'two' are non-identical, and both see
growth and aligniment with God's
own Personal Presence.

and now, what would be nice, would be
for that "spirit" part of -you- to relay
the message to what amounts to your
'corporeal' understanding, and reform
-that- thing of -you- in the
image of Christ.

as this should relieve any conflict
which your corporeal "understanding"
may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
your spiritual growth.

a spiritual growth that will further
cleanse the conscience of "dead works"
bringing your -actions- into a greater
conformity with your understandable
"intentions".

understandable intentions which more
and more closely align with a Spirit
who knows no -want-

so, it's like your understandable intentions
are the nexus point between this "spirit"
and your corporeal "understanding".

like, your 'spirit' shows
itself in your -intentions-

and your corporeal understanding
shows itself in your actions.

and you'd like to align a purity of
intentions to blameless actions.

each feeding off the other feeding
from the root of the vine which is God.

----------------
1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author
of confusion but of peace
----------------

and that's what Jesus -was-

by a peculiarity of birth, Jesus' "spirit"
-was- The Holy Spirit and Jesus' corporeal
understanding became perfectly
aligned with -that-.


# as this should relieve any conflict
# which your corporeal "understanding"
# may place on your "spirit" inhibitting
# your spiritual growth.


right, a "conflict" very much -like- a
"yes = no" statement in a computer program.

if you tell a machine "yes = no" it won't operate.

in similar manner, your personal conflict
inhibits growth and, in effect, shuts down
your 'spirit' processors.

personal conflict which has "yes = no"
statements as an underpinning.

like i said before,

this sort of situation arises when
you operate under the idea that "good"
is getting what you want and "bad"
is not getting what you want.

this enables you to seek a "good" for
your self at the expense of carrying
out an action which you would consider
"bad" if it was done -to- you.

"good = bad"

"yes = no"

system failure

----------------
1 Corinthians 14:39
desire earnestly to understand and speak
divine revelations, and do not forbid to
speak with unknown spiritual languages.
----------------

ok, so, there still is a definite
benefit to having your 'spirit' edified
in an unvarnished manner where you may
have blood in your eyes and so, you
wouldn't want to immediately sully
an understanding of a thing before
that thing had a chance to work within
your 'spirit' and seep into your
knowledgeable understanding more
slowly removing the blood from your
eyes so that you can see more clearly.

like that 'spirit' "TSR" program had
been dormant in you and when it was
awakened by the words of Faith it needed
refreshement and enlivening with waters
from the fountain of God's own Presence.

and so, that 'spirit' is living and growing too.

so, don't -discourage- the utterrance
in other unknown spiritual languages
as this can be viewed as a direct
sampling from God to you without your
own personal viewpoint getting in
the way of a clear understanding.

which also suggests that you should be
on the lookout for virulent doctrines
taking up residence and corrupting
your understanding of God.

corruptions which display themselves
in a variety of "yes = no" statements.

make no room for this sort of thing.

it is truly for your own good.

thank you for listening.

[Timothy Sutter]

===
http://textbookofbacteriology.net/regulation.html

Inducible enzymes are produced ("turned on") in cells
in response to a particular substrate; they are produced
only when needed. In the process of induction the substrate,
or a compound structurally similar to the substrate,
evokes formation of the enzyme and is
sometimes called an inducer.
===


see, you have these 'inducible' enzymes
that 'turn on' and 'turn off' in response
to substrate need and availability, and
the inducing 'switches' are not as specific
as the enzyme itself can be made to be.

so, a bacterium that eats arylalkyamides
is in an envirmnment that has no arylalkylamides
but does have nylon, and the nylon carbonyl
function is recognized as a potential food source
because it is structurally similar to the
arylalkylamide, whereupon, the size and shape
modulating function simply breeds the poodle
from the pekinese, in likeness.

so, basically what you have is another gene
that regulates the size and shape specificity
of the inducible traits enzymes.

one gene is induced by substrate to turn on
and another gene modulates the size and
shape of this inducible enzyme.

so, when one suggests that the -enzyme- is specific,
and does not function on other amide types,

the host -bacterium- is -not- so specific so as to
be prevented from being -induced- to generate
generic enzymes which may then be specifically
enhanced to any inducer substrate,

and this is seen.




so, in this case;
there is a family of enzymes that
catalyze the hydrolysis of linear amides.

at present some 100 members of
this family have been catalogued.

what we would suggest is that all of
these enzymes or at least subsets of
this family possess a fundamental similarity,
which -is- the hydrolysis of the amide carbonyl.

now, what we would also suggest is that the
genius of the thing is that the genes regulating
this fundamental portion are able to breed variant
functionalities engineered specifically for
whatever food source is available.

sort of like this;

the gene has a fundamental portion which
is the 'teeth' of the enzyme which will
facilitate the clipping of the amide at
the nitrogen by carbonyl hydrolysis,
essentially 'biting' the bond apart,

and the gene has now only to functionalize
the hands and fingers into place which will
best grab the molecule so as to hold it
in place which the teeth do their biting,

and this is why you see this slough
of apparent specificity all breaking
the same bond, where the 'difference'
lies in the sizes and shapes of the
substrate molecules on which this
amide carbonyl is located.

what it's doing is this;

the amide carbonyl is the functional group
that is instantaneously recognized as
a potential source of energy.

the gene already has an ability to try and
'take a bite' even using a -non-specific-
precursor element,

and then, the gene which produces
these amide hydrolyzing enzymes,

breeds specific attachments for the shape
of the molecule on which this function is found,

so that it can best 'hold' the substrate
in place while the carbonyl attack takes place.

it is a form of 'dog breeding' and it
happens quite fast in bacteria.

this does not involve any sort of
'lucky genes' which just happen
to hit on the correct formula
for 'success',

but instead relies of a very simple gene regulator
mechanism which is able to engineer specificity
of substrate -handling- within weeks.

and these 'specific' traits are merely 'phenotypes'
of the fundamentally similar breed of gene.

it is 'built in -adaptability-', -not- 'lucky genes'

and this is how a synthetic compound like nylon can be
incorporated into a pre-existing biochemical pathway
which engineers specific hydrolases.

this sort of situation for this particular
case can be generalized to account for
much adaptability found in nature.




and the reason this is more descriptive of the process
than one which cites "lucky genes" is that the process
itself in far too -efficient- and selective to -be-
attributed to random happenstance and 'lucky genes.'

it's not 'luck' which is driving this,

but preset, mechanical adaptibility.

it's not just a 'personal preference'
on my part, but the statistical
probabilities now come in to play.

'lucky genes' should be ruled out.




sort of like, you go to Vegas

and not just get a black jack 10 times in a row,

but draw to a straight flush 100 times in a row.

you can -say- 'luck'

but the House will likely say "system"

[lycos.com Timothy Sutter]

the problem is that 'mutation' theory would demand
that a bacterium would have to carry an individual
trait for -everything- that it eats.

whereas using a preset mechanism the bacterium
simply makes a new specification, on the spot, for
any given molecule that is of a particular class.

for instance;
the bacterium has one 'primary' trait that
enables the digestion of amides, and one 'primary'
trait that shape selects to molecular forms of amides,
which together code for a 'secondary' trait which
codes for any given -particular- molecular substrate.

and so, when it has 5-aminopentanamide to eat,
it eats 5-aminopentanamide, and when ceramide,
it eats ceramide, and aryl-acylamides it eats
aryl-acylamide, up to as many amide varieties
as can be named, that are digested by bacteria.

here is a listing of most of
the known specificities;
http://tinyurl.com/248y4j
[not all are bacterial]

what a bacterium does _not_ -need- to do is carry several,
different enzymes to digest any number of different
amides -all- the time, but only the two 'primary'
inducible traits which together encode the production
of 'secondary', substrate specific traits.

one for amide function
and one for shape selectivity.

this is how the bacterium maintains its manageability,
because, not only do some of these bacteria have an
ability to eat -amides-, but also linear amidines,
cyclic amidines nitriles, acid anhydrides,
carbon-carbon bonds, halide bonds phosphorus-nitrogen bonds,
sulfur-nitrogen bonds, carbon-phosphorus bonds,
sulfur-sulfur bonds carbon-sulfur bonds, ester bonds,
glycosides ether bonds, peptide bonds (peptidases),
carbon-nitrogen bonds, other than peptide bonds
in a wide array of categorical variants.

-if- such a bacterium was to need a separate gene
to digest -any- different -molecule- that it happened
to come into contact with, the bacterium would need
a genome that is ponderously larger, spanning a vast
array of -possible- molecules as potential food sources,
and many of which it may -never- encounter.

what it does have is a few simple genes which are
inducible traits that turn on when they are needed
to lay out a substrate specific trait after an
induction period that code for a variety of
-functional groups- and a few others that code
for size and shape selectivity.

this enables the bacterium to manufacture a
selective trait on the spot for eating any number
of molecules that can be named, wherupon, when
any given molecule is removed from the array of
potential food sources, this trait simply shuts off
and can even be discarded by the bacterium after
successive generations absence from
the particular food source.

which is to suggest that the discard process would
be a wind down away from the inducer where the trait
first shuts off in the absence of the substrate,
and then simply disappears over successive
generations in absence.

if the food source returns before the trait has
disappeared completely, the trait simply shuts on
and it's population is reintroduced into the main,
but if the substrate is gone for long enough,
the strain disappears completely, but, after
a complete disappearance of the trait, if the
-substrate- is reintroduced, the same sort of induction
to functional group and shape selectivity can reoccur.

any 'lag time' between the onset of bacterial
introduction into 'new' substrate environment
is simply a consequence of the 'induction period'.

meaning, the time lag between introduction to 'new'
substrate and colonial enhancement -is- the period
of 'induction' to the substrate.

all without forcing a perpetual handling
of excess baggage by the colony in total,

and all without any alteration
of the generalized genomics.

one can isolate the -substrate specific- trait by
growing the bacteria on the particular food source,
but upon removing the bacteria from the 'peculiar'
environment and placing it in a different, less selective
envirnoment, the bacteria chemically analyzes this new
environment for potential food sources and it's tool box
of preset traits begins manufacturing an appropriate
trait for whatever food sources are available.

no excess baggage to carry interminably restricting
its efficiency, but just a small bag of traits that
can tool new substrate specific traits on the spot.

this makes for an efficient and economical organism
that is not an occurence of multiplex happhazzard
alterations of the -genome- but a simple preset
instruction set already -on- the genome that is
able to manufacture specificity 'in situ.'

'mutation' theory would breed a ponderous
and very inefficient 'hit and miss' item.

the bacteria are not ponderous and inefficient,
but -are- efficient and economical, therefore,
one should discount 'mutation' theory and concentrate
on preset mechanical arbitration as the
appropriate answer.

another problem; why do variant bacteria all
produce the same enzyme for the same substrate?

if there are, in fact, two or more primary
inducible enzyme traits which together produce
a secondary enzyme trait coding specifically
for functional group and molecular shape,
this would not present a problem,

but if one suggests that these selective enzymes
are the product of random misprints within a genomic
cluster, one will also have a difficult time explaining
why and how several different bacterial strains all
stumble across the exact same misprints
in disparate environments.


it's not even that 'mutation' theory
affords a viable alternative theory,

'mutation' theory is horribly unworkable.

the bacteria can craft a new 'secondary' trait,
on the spot, for whatever mud they may be
walking about in.

'mutation' theory would beg that these bacteria
carry 10,000 enzymatic traits with them wherever
they go, -and- that entirely 'different' bacterial
strains all stumble across -identical- encodings
to each random environmental stressor,

but they don't seem to be carrying
such excessive baggage.

they simply carry the primary inducible traits to make
molecule specific secondary traits with them wherever
they go, and manufacture the appropriate enzyme
for wherever they are from the existing source
materials, using a small set of tools, and

these 'secondary' traits produced from
two primary traits should, therefore,
not be called 'mutations'

but just what they are,

'secondary' genetic traits.

this makes more sense as random misprint
driven alterations do not reasonably account
for the tremendous specificity of action
by these organisms.

and nylon simply gets consumed in a preexisting
biochemical pathway using a secondary trait that
has been induced by the primary traits acting on
the recognizable energy source of the _non-chiral_
carbonyl center of the amide bond.

there may be some genes which code for
stereospecificity, but all do not, and
that found in the nylon specific amidase
does not.

[Timothy Sutter]

anyway, just on this contention;

"nylon has a 'beta-amide' bond
which is not found in nature"

the contention being that because nylon has this
'beta' amide bond, that no naturally occuring
enzyme should be able to digest it.

i already addressed this in part, but here,
i'd just like to add a few minor details.

here are a few definitions;

==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chiral
chiral
adjective Chemistry.
(of a molecule) not superimposable on its mirror image.
==

==
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racemic
racemic
adj. Of or relating to a chemical compound that
contains equal quantities of dextrorotatory and
levorotatory forms and therefore does not rotate
the plane of incident polarized light.
==


basically what you have here is
a term which means 'handedness' 'chiral'.

basically, if you look at bottles
of vitamin E at the grocery store

you see two kinds, one called "natural Vitamin E"

and one called just "Vitamin E"
or "racemic Vitamin E"

http://tinyurl.com/2ua64z
==
The term vitamin E as used herein includes
racemic vitamin E (D,L-.alpha.-tocopherol)
or natural vitamin E, [L=alpha-tocopherol]
==

it's essentially that one form is like
your right hand, and the other form
is like your left hand,

aside from that, they have the same bonding structure.

as you see in Vitamin E, -usually- all
biochemically active compounds are "L" isomers.

but, there is carvone;

==
http://mc2.cchem.berkeley.edu/Smells/d-Carvone.html
Where Found:
d-Carvone (the mirror image of l-Carvone) is
found in mandarin peel oil. dl-Carvone is found
in gingergrass oil
==

where the 'd' isomer and the
racemic mixture are found
in nature.



now, with respect to nylon-66 and silk,

nylon-66
B A B
[-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-]3

[where A = 'l' amide' and B = 'd' amide
[so-called 'alpha' and 'beta' amide bonds]

if we assume that silk, being a natural
product has only the "L" or left handed
form of the amide bond,

what we cannot assume is that nylon-66 has
-only- the 'D' or 'right handed' form
of the amide bond.

first of all, the sources of nylon-66
are -not- 'chiral' molecules and so, if
any chirallity is found in the nylon-66 product

it will have to be a 'racemate' or a
mixture of both the 'd' and 'l' stereo-isomers.

50% of the individual amide bonds may be
of the 'd' form and 50% of the amide bonds
may be of the 'l' form.

-but- this compound, nylon-66 has
9 potential sites of chirallity.

and so, in all nine positions, there is an equal
possibility of finding either the 'd' or 'l'
isomeric form on -every- molecule.

which makes nylon-66 a mixture
of a potential 362880 different
forms of stereoisomers.

and basically, to make things simple,

if we look at the dimer alone;

B A B
[-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-]

you still get a mixture of potential sterioisomers,

like;

AAA AAB ABB BBB BBA BAA BAB

what you do -not- get is
an exclusive mixture of BAB

so, based on this alone,

nylon must have a considerable proportion
of the so-called 'alpha' bonding form, and
these in a nonspecific array in the regions
on the molecule as described above.

which is to say that on all
three sites of amide linkages,

[-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-]3

a given sample of nylon will have just as many
'alpha' amide bonds as 'beta' amide bonds.

one result will be this;

evidence inconclusive for
enzymatic stereospecificity.

look, -if- you get signs of -incomplete-
digestion of the nylon-66 dimer sample,

you will see products that are cut at,
potentially, -all- three amide sites,
and therefore a mixture of products
from singlets, to doublets with either
the amino group attached or the carboxyl
group attached, to uncut triplets.

so, you cannot conclude stererospecificity from this,

and, if you do see compete digestion, then
-also- you may not assume any stereospecifity
in the enzymatic behavior.

but even all of that is moot inasmuch as
these resonance structures are involved;

+ - - + + -
[-NH-{CH2]6-NH=CO-[CH2]4-CO=NH-{CH2]6-NH=CO-[CH2]4-CO-]

where, again, you have several resonance
stablized forms of the molecule,

[many many more for the larger unit].

the thing that makes nylon more durable than silk

is not these 'beta' amide bonds,

but the simple fact that silk has bulkier side
chain constituents on the molecule where nylon
has only hydrogens,

and so, the sheets of nylon are more tightly
held together by hydrogen bonding than the
sheets found in silk.

it's just a 'stacking' problem, where
any attacking enzyme is more greatly
hindered to by the tighter array of
'hydrogen bonding' in nylon than in silk.

still no evidence for some new biochemical
enzymatic pathway derived exclusively
and specifically for nylon.

nylon is simply being digested in
a pre-existing biochemical pathway.

the contention that "nylon is sythetic,
therefore it's digestion -must- be
a newly derived pathway" is unwarranted.

see 'biomimetic'

many synthectic molecules are derived
specifically for the purpose of being
used as stand-ins- in known
biochemical pathways.

look at the cytochrome P450
family of biomimetics.

look at PCBs and estrogen.


which is to say that on all
> three sites of amide linkages,

> [-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-]3
^^

the compelling bottom line here is that
the attack is not on the -nitrogen- anyway.

the attack is at the acyl portion of the molecule,
either at the acyl carbon or at the amide -oxygen-
protonating the amide oxygen and deaminating.

so, no attack is occuring
at the 'beta' -nitrogen- anyway.

so, its stereochemical environment is
not of enzymatic significance anyway.

which makes these 'beta' amide bonds identical
to the 'alpha' amide bonds as far as the attack
sequence is concerned.

oxygen has two lone pairs of electrons,
and is not chiral, and the acyl carbon
is not chiral.



> which is to say that on all
> > three sites of amide linkages,
>
> > [-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-NH-{CH2]6-NH-CO-[CH2]4-CO-]3

> the compelling bottom line here is that
> the attack is not on the -nitrogen- anyway.


first of all, given the nylon synthesis
starts with two 'achiral' molecules and is a simple
batch cook, the product -must- be a racemic mixture.

[NH2-CH2-CH2-CH2--CH2-CH2-CH2-NH2 +
HOOC-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH2-COOH]

"nylon dimer"


now, here is the nylB enzyme's work;

nylB enzyme
http://www.genome.ad.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?aau+AAur_3953

nylb enzyme catalyzes this reaction;

http://umbbd.msi.umn.edu/servlets/pageservlet?ptype=c&compID=c1001
N-(6-aminohexanoyl)-6-aminohexanoate + H2O = 2 6-aminohexanoate
[RN:R00059]

http://www.genome.ad.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?rn+R00059

here's the dimer;
http://www.genome.ad.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?compound+C01255
N-(6-Aminohexanoyl)-6-aminohexanoate


see, the reaction that is catalyzed is
-one- 'dimer' to give -two- bits of
the monomer.

why is this of interest?

for this reason, it lacks stereospecificity,

-if- nylB catalyzed -only- the
digestion of -one- stereoisomer

then, in the product batch you should
find one mole bit of 6-aminohexanoate
and on mole bit of a stereochemically -pure-
version of the starting material given that
this starting material -must- be a racemic mixture.

that you get -only- 2 mole bits of 6-aminohexanoate
says quite plainly that this reaction is
-not- stereospecific,

and here we see that the reaction proceeds
via hydroxylation at the carbonyl group;

http://umbbd.msi.umn.edu/core/graphics/r1096.gif

the OH- attacks at the carbonyl, not
at any chiral centered nitrogen.

all the 'beta amide' bit is meaningless.

[Timothy Sutter]

what you may wish to think on is that
you have multiplex bacterial colonies
that live with you on you in you
and around you.

and bacteria have no emotional sentimental
reason why they may turn on your to your
harm as opposed to your good.

just remember, these bacterial colonies
that live with you must respond to whatever
chemical environment your body and mind
is laying out before them.

they may very well be nice poodles
and sheep dogs and golden retrievers,

until you start poisoning them with your
poor chemical environment and they breed
of themselves, rabid pit bulls and very
fierce doberman pinchers on you, and start
taking bites out of you.

so, you would be 'reaping what you sow'
in a very real sense of the matter.

better to make friends with your
bacterial chums before they turn
into a very real obstacle to your
continued existance.

you can't run from them, they float on the
moisture in the air and actually live in
and on your bodies and you do, in fact, need
bacteria for your very survival, but, these
same 'symbiotic' friends -can- and -do- become
very harmful unwanted guests and all in
response the way -you- are behaving.

every thought that crosses your mind elicits
a chemical marker that these same bacteria who
live with you at all times must analyze and
respond to with their own chemical markers.

and 'poisonous thoughts' are just that, thoughts
that trigger chemicals from your brain that induce
a noxious response from the bacterial colonies
which, in turn, further poisons your body.

it's not just the food that you eat, but of course,
the food that you eat is -also- triggering specific
responses for your bacterial symbiotes,

and you don't even know that you're killing yourself
slowly by antagonizing, not only _God_, but the
living Host of bacterial colonies in whose
environment -you- are absorbed.

so, how -do- you make 'peace' with
a Host of bacterial colonies who are
only, quite mechanically, geared
towards their own perpetuation?

well, you -have to- rid
yourselves of these poisons.


just think of it like this,

if -you- are vicious and cruel, chances are,
your bacteria which will be feeding on these
thought chemicals will be producing by-products
which have no one else to attack -but- _you_


an dof course, this same sort of
thing goes for a whole host of
harmful emotional traits.

they produce chemicls which your bacteria
must analyze and make response to.

just like you toxify your body with poor diet
and the bacteria are then living on, or -against-
your poor physical environment and formulating
more by-products which cause you greater harm,
so, with these emotional agents, you slowly
poison yourself by your activities
-and- your thoughts.

so, God, does in fact, have -teeth-

don't you ever kid yourself.

you really do reap

=exactly=

what you sow.

ha ha ha