Bcc: uncontroversially, "universe" is a non-functional (metaphysical) term to Science Fwd: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
8 views
Skip to first unread message
raps...@fastmail.fm
Jun 15, 2024, 3:45:38 PM6/15/24
to in...@emic.org, pam...@seas.upenn.edu, in...@oneeightent.com, HEART...@xc.org, in...@mikeroweworks.com, custome...@gaithermusic.com
Rise-n-shine,
This communication is directed foremost to Gene (Bailey). I hadn’t heard of you, Gene, until Daystar started airing FlashPoint during their Ministry Now segment on Thursday evenings. I reach out to you here because you have the reputation of being radical, perhaps too radical (for polite company) even. I’ve been familiar (to various degrees) for years with the other regular guests on FlashPoint. I’ve been familiar with George and Terri, and Kenneth; and Kellie, I’ve said before, is the most graceful woman on “Christian” tv. This communication, I understand, is most likely spam to everyone but me (and the Lord). Amish, (Mike,) looks like the world values the compromises you’ve made. Doug “wide path” Weiss,
I put “Christian” in quotes because, looking at the lives (and deaths) of the original (go into the world and make) disciples, one might have thought Christian was a label reserved for people who led the life Jesus would have lead if he were walking in their shoes (sandals). In our day-and-age “Christian” has come to mean someone who hangs cross-themed drapes on the same evil worldview as the heathen. I don’t mean to be (too) offensive here. Jesus was a “revolutionary” who did not “play nice” with the authorities and “big wigs” of his day. I put “revolutionary” in quotes because the adversary is always making the sweet, bitter and the bitter, sweet. He came to fulfill the law, and while that should have been anything but revolutionary, it was decidedly “revolutionary.”
Anyway, I have been at my (internet) ministry for a full 13 years already. Technology has “advanced” to the point where the internet is almost useless (to God). This could very well be my very last stand. Jesus didn’t die for me to hang cross-themed drapes on the same evil worldview as the heathen. Jesus was a "revolutionary," and he and his disciples devoted their lives, and deaths, to a worldview that was, and is, completely opposed to the evil worldview that has always, and still, dominates man. They’ll cancel the whole of history but will never admit that they are what evil looks like! I don’t mean to be (too) offensive, I know God loves y’all, and We are working on a way to be able to grade y’all on a curve, to reward your partial credit, but for all your self-congratulations, the souls you claim to have saved are not fit for life in heaven, would not be “let in,” would not belong or be happy there if they were.
In this world you will have trouble: bear your cross. Everyone who is begotten of God conquers the world. No disciple is superior to his teacher, but when fully trained every disciple will be like his teacher. Jesus paid for the sins of the world, and so should you, “Christian!” The point of belief in Jesus is not to go about like an ignorant heathen, because Jesus succeeded at his; the point of belief is that even you, a sinner, can hope afterall to gain “perfect” victory yourself, and stand =x= Our Lord in heaven.
Jesus was a "revolutionary." He brought a completely different physics to the altar of life. Not that he is “anti-science.” While the world has always been philosophically materialist, physicalist, 3D, Jesus said reality, physics, was fundamentally personal and relational. Jesus insisted we must be born “anothen,” of Spirit, not just flesh. The likes of Howison, Planck, and Einstein had us around the corner come the turn of the 20th century, but for whatever reasons physics and the rest of the world kept on going straight.
Make no mistake, idealism and the physics of (eternal but immanent) interpersonal reciprocity is in no way precluded by any finding of modern physics. On the contrary, the persistent popular notions, none more than “universe,” are. But philosophy is beneath modern science, and science is above the average working man, and “Christians” are the beloved but ill-equipped D and F students (pastors and laity, respectively) who are the only ones left hanging around the classroom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Planck&oldid=1228473414#Religious_views
The point is, if Jesus came back today, no one would listen to him. At best. The world didn’t change for Jesus, and, I’ve said many time, isn't going to change for me. We fight for the remnant. We fight for the kids. We are on the verge of a world where the enemy will have the technology not only to shackle but to silence God. “Christians” not only offer no resistance, but smile and politely assist. Heaven is not anti-technology, but it was with reason that Jesus incarnated in “the stone* age.” Jesus didn’t need a smart-phone, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “convenience.” Jesus didn’t need a credit card, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “convenience.” Jesus didn’t need an app, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “rewards.” While “Christians” have been busy arguing over their superficial credos, money has become the only unifying force in the world. “Christians” harbor the same (false) 3D material physics and the same (loveless) financial motivations as the heathen.
https://biblehub.com/romans/10-14.htm
“Christians,” Jesus didn’t die for you to hang cross-themed drapes over the same evil worldview as the heathen:
[=](https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=3524275)[x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRzg8sZGGQ&t=Whitney+Houston,+BeBe+and+CeCe+Winans+–+Hold+Up+The+Light+|+Live+at+Arsenio+Hall,+1989+Remastered)[=](https://archive.ph/EG3o3#https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cxmplxplura/ydB4VjelXns)
Christians should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!”
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: edi...@sciam.com
Subject: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, June 09, 2024 10:14 PM
Editor(s) of Scientific American,
My Name is Tim Rappl. This Tim Rappl: https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 . I have been long arguing that the term “universe” is absurd, but I have only very recently found the Planck quote I use below (https://archive.org/details/treatiseonthermo00planrich/page/100/mode/2up?view=theater). I beg you to earnestly consider (publishing) my proposed “letter to the editor:”
“
It’s high time we retire the term “universe.” It is an absurd abstraction if taken literally, and even when uttered casually it is detrimental to our working thoughts about life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds. We do an extreme disservice leading kids into thinking “universe” is a scientifically meaningful term. To be sure, there has been no proof of its veracity. Science remains a work-in-progress. We owe our kids a deep and profound apology.
In 1903 Max Planck wrote in his "Treatise on Thermodynamics" (at p.101 translated by Alexander Ogg), “The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.” Two years later Einstein published his special theory of relativity, where he demonstrated the math showing both the relativity of simultaneity and that, in general, spatially separated events are not causally related. It is 2024 and the term “universe” is (still) widely used among laymen and professional alike. Professional scientists should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!” There is no universe. There is no singular copula uniting all that is, much less all that is, was, and will be. There is no such “universe.”
More than a century after Einstein “debunked” Newtonian mechanics, inadequate notions of 3D systems still plague all of science. Thermodynamics is clear that it applies only to equilibrium systems – systems where there is no tendency for change. We have no (general) science for non-equilibrium thermodynamic-like phenomena. Not only do we have no deterministic science governing phase change, we have no sign of hope for developing a deterministic science governing phase change. Science has (developed) no way to think (predictively) of systems outside (spatial) 3D. Thermodynamics will remain useful for determining certain limits of what we can hope to accomplish in reality, but the notions of system used to determine those limits do not model dynamic reality, they are theoretical devices, useful but ultimately inadequate to life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds.
I’m sure this isn’t the place for me to start explicating a positive picture of the philosophy and science that must take its place, but “universe” is demonstrated mis/dis-information and needs a vociferous disclaimer until it is replaced. There’s nothing new here; this shouldn’t be controversial. Let’s make it happen! Our kids are worth our repentance. Say it with me: there is no “universe.” Life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds are more interesting than we’ve been able to imagine so far!
”
Thank you,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
This communication is directed foremost to Gene (Bailey). I hadn’t heard of you, Gene, until Daystar started airing FlashPoint during their Ministry Now segment on Thursday evenings. I reach out to you here because you have the reputation of being radical, perhaps too radical (for polite company) even. I’ve been familiar (to various degrees) for years with the other regular guests on FlashPoint. I’ve been familiar with George and Terri, and Kenneth; and Kellie, I’ve said before, is the most graceful woman on “Christian” tv. This communication, I understand, is most likely spam to everyone but me (and the Lord). Amish, (Mike,) looks like the world values the compromises you’ve made. Doug “wide path” Weiss,
I put “Christian” in quotes because, looking at the lives (and deaths) of the original (go into the world and make) disciples, one might have thought Christian was a label reserved for people who led the life Jesus would have lead if he were walking in their shoes (sandals). In our day-and-age “Christian” has come to mean someone who hangs cross-themed drapes on the same evil worldview as the heathen. I don’t mean to be (too) offensive here. Jesus was a “revolutionary” who did not “play nice” with the authorities and “big wigs” of his day. I put “revolutionary” in quotes because the adversary is always making the sweet, bitter and the bitter, sweet. He came to fulfill the law, and while that should have been anything but revolutionary, it was decidedly “revolutionary.”
Anyway, I have been at my (internet) ministry for a full 13 years already. Technology has “advanced” to the point where the internet is almost useless (to God). This could very well be my very last stand. Jesus didn’t die for me to hang cross-themed drapes on the same evil worldview as the heathen. Jesus was a "revolutionary," and he and his disciples devoted their lives, and deaths, to a worldview that was, and is, completely opposed to the evil worldview that has always, and still, dominates man. They’ll cancel the whole of history but will never admit that they are what evil looks like! I don’t mean to be (too) offensive, I know God loves y’all, and We are working on a way to be able to grade y’all on a curve, to reward your partial credit, but for all your self-congratulations, the souls you claim to have saved are not fit for life in heaven, would not be “let in,” would not belong or be happy there if they were.
In this world you will have trouble: bear your cross. Everyone who is begotten of God conquers the world. No disciple is superior to his teacher, but when fully trained every disciple will be like his teacher. Jesus paid for the sins of the world, and so should you, “Christian!” The point of belief in Jesus is not to go about like an ignorant heathen, because Jesus succeeded at his; the point of belief is that even you, a sinner, can hope afterall to gain “perfect” victory yourself, and stand =x= Our Lord in heaven.
Jesus was a "revolutionary." He brought a completely different physics to the altar of life. Not that he is “anti-science.” While the world has always been philosophically materialist, physicalist, 3D, Jesus said reality, physics, was fundamentally personal and relational. Jesus insisted we must be born “anothen,” of Spirit, not just flesh. The likes of Howison, Planck, and Einstein had us around the corner come the turn of the 20th century, but for whatever reasons physics and the rest of the world kept on going straight.
Make no mistake, idealism and the physics of (eternal but immanent) interpersonal reciprocity is in no way precluded by any finding of modern physics. On the contrary, the persistent popular notions, none more than “universe,” are. But philosophy is beneath modern science, and science is above the average working man, and “Christians” are the beloved but ill-equipped D and F students (pastors and laity, respectively) who are the only ones left hanging around the classroom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Max_Planck&oldid=1228473414#Religious_views
The point is, if Jesus came back today, no one would listen to him. At best. The world didn’t change for Jesus, and, I’ve said many time, isn't going to change for me. We fight for the remnant. We fight for the kids. We are on the verge of a world where the enemy will have the technology not only to shackle but to silence God. “Christians” not only offer no resistance, but smile and politely assist. Heaven is not anti-technology, but it was with reason that Jesus incarnated in “the stone* age.” Jesus didn’t need a smart-phone, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “convenience.” Jesus didn’t need a credit card, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “convenience.” Jesus didn’t need an app, and “Christians” could serve God by refusing their “rewards.” While “Christians” have been busy arguing over their superficial credos, money has become the only unifying force in the world. “Christians” harbor the same (false) 3D material physics and the same (loveless) financial motivations as the heathen.
https://biblehub.com/romans/10-14.htm
“Christians,” Jesus didn’t die for you to hang cross-themed drapes over the same evil worldview as the heathen:
[=](https://en.wikiquote.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_Holmes_Howison&oldid=3524275)[x](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMRzg8sZGGQ&t=Whitney+Houston,+BeBe+and+CeCe+Winans+–+Hold+Up+The+Light+|+Live+at+Arsenio+Hall,+1989+Remastered)[=](https://archive.ph/EG3o3#https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/cxmplxplura/ydB4VjelXns)
Christians should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!”
----- Original message -----
From: raps...@fastmail.fm
To: edi...@sciam.com
Subject: proposed letter to the editor on the (long-demonstrated) impropriety of the term "universe"
Date: Sunday, June 09, 2024 10:14 PM
Editor(s) of Scientific American,
My Name is Tim Rappl. This Tim Rappl: https://link.aps.org/accepted/10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.035702 . I have been long arguing that the term “universe” is absurd, but I have only very recently found the Planck quote I use below (https://archive.org/details/treatiseonthermo00planrich/page/100/mode/2up?view=theater). I beg you to earnestly consider (publishing) my proposed “letter to the editor:”
“
It’s high time we retire the term “universe.” It is an absurd abstraction if taken literally, and even when uttered casually it is detrimental to our working thoughts about life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds. We do an extreme disservice leading kids into thinking “universe” is a scientifically meaningful term. To be sure, there has been no proof of its veracity. Science remains a work-in-progress. We owe our kids a deep and profound apology.
In 1903 Max Planck wrote in his "Treatise on Thermodynamics" (at p.101 translated by Alexander Ogg), “The energy and entropy of the world have no meaning, because such quantities admit of no accurate definition.” Two years later Einstein published his special theory of relativity, where he demonstrated the math showing both the relativity of simultaneity and that, in general, spatially separated events are not causally related. It is 2024 and the term “universe” is (still) widely used among laymen and professional alike. Professional scientists should be embarrassed to utter the unwarranted (and unwarrantable) term “universe!” There is no universe. There is no singular copula uniting all that is, much less all that is, was, and will be. There is no such “universe.”
More than a century after Einstein “debunked” Newtonian mechanics, inadequate notions of 3D systems still plague all of science. Thermodynamics is clear that it applies only to equilibrium systems – systems where there is no tendency for change. We have no (general) science for non-equilibrium thermodynamic-like phenomena. Not only do we have no deterministic science governing phase change, we have no sign of hope for developing a deterministic science governing phase change. Science has (developed) no way to think (predictively) of systems outside (spatial) 3D. Thermodynamics will remain useful for determining certain limits of what we can hope to accomplish in reality, but the notions of system used to determine those limits do not model dynamic reality, they are theoretical devices, useful but ultimately inadequate to life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds.
I’m sure this isn’t the place for me to start explicating a positive picture of the philosophy and science that must take its place, but “universe” is demonstrated mis/dis-information and needs a vociferous disclaimer until it is replaced. There’s nothing new here; this shouldn’t be controversial. Let’s make it happen! Our kids are worth our repentance. Say it with me: there is no “universe.” Life, reality, and our harmonizing worlds are more interesting than we’ve been able to imagine so far!
”
Thank you,
Tim
raps...@fastmail.fm
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages