Who is this GOD NEWTON that we worship and his mathematical forces???


I wanted to begin this thread, as this is something of interest to me...How much of our modern world view is defined from the works of Issac Newton, and the concept of mathematical forces acting between bodies..as the defining feature of existence, especially if you are a body being acted upon ...or seeking to act on other bodies...as one is never sure which is which...yet day by day, the sun rises the sun sets....there would seem to be an "energy" associated with being, here and now...

anyway, i can expand, but maybe the GOD NEWTON and his mathematical forces is disturbing as everything existing in the universe , also has to answer to the gods of thermodynamics....which define science from science fiction..and curiously revolve around relative energies..

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
From your perspective how would things be different now without Newton's revelations, which I have generally taken to be more of the development of a explanatory model than as Laws. This framework having been added to by Einstein, and now attempts to extend further.

Some people believe that there is some sleight of hand with Einstein, and such as the Jesuit Big Bang. For instance, I have seen claims that the GPS system maintains its accuracy via Lorentz transforms rather than Einstein's.

Are you suspecting that your fellow alchemist was up to some agenda? It's interesting that he was employed by the Crown to hunt down those turning lead into noble coins, albeit through more prosaic means.


it is more a question of how your fundamental beliefs filter your vision of "reality"...this is a topic I am thinking about, but ...I also appreciate how "religion" can filter your vision to see everything 2000 years ago, even though it was 2000 years ago... I appreciate that "physical" models revolve around forces, which are somehow related to entities and their interactions with other entities.. are either a force or forced...I sense..in the universe, there is something related to energy, which qualifies relative "existance" in space and time and curiously ...this is defined by things like order/disorder aside from forces...ie I am..my world IS...and i do not want to worry about external forces of some nature fking my being, as a fundamental RELIGION related to my time dependent being....there is a inherent grandeur about " I am..conditionally"...anyway, this may be silly, but I love order/disorder as a physical models spit on this concept, in my opinion...yet it defines chemistry/ life/ etc.

ie I do not worship the GOD Newton, and seek to define a universe defining the behavior of matter in space and time, centered around the relevant energetics..I have studied chemistry where we study at great , maybe too muuch lengths, whether specific matter will order of disorder..and we never use forces..we just mix things together and stir... and i curiously believe the laws eventually defined of chemistry will operate over all time and space....and define our(my) universe. WE LIVE IN A UNIVERSE WHERE MATTER LOVES TO AGGREGATE, not by being forced, but obeying, maximizing something about "energies "..ie matter is social AGGREGATES ENERGETICALLY if energy/thermodynamics is "reappreciated", basic model of the universe revisionism, so to speak..
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Is it possible to respect Newton and even buy into the theory of gravity, without actually being said to "worship" him or think of him as a god?


I did not want this to go into religion, as i have historically had endless problems with physicists...and biophysicists...etc..perhaps around this order disorder (of matter) question...when i was young they used to preach that the universe will be at equilibrium when everything (matter) is randomized, as if we live in a kinetic artifact I ...BUT STUDYING CHEMISTRY I DISCOVER THAT THERE IS A TENDENCY OF MATTER TO AGGREGATE, AND ACTUALLY CHEMICAL BINDING ENERGIES FAVORING SUCH AGGREGATIONS...I DISBELIEVE THAT FORCES WILL AGGREGATE HYDROGEN GAS INTO MASSIVE SUN LIKE AGGREGATES, AT THE CORE DENSER THAT IRON, WHICH HYPOTHETICALLY IS THE MOST STABLE ELEMENT RELATIVELY..anyway, i believe in chemical binding enrgies, which i would point out we can not externally define unless they are randomized, which make determination of internal binding energies of protons problematic...but wtf how can one define absolute thermodynamics without accessing relative chemical binding energies of ORDERED matter..?? and how can one access the energetics of voids in space and massive star aggregates which seem to define my universe..in my lifetime..why not assume they are stable and your theory needs adjustment, as I am working on..

Religion is a separate question, as i was raised in the heart of texas, as a rational unitarian..with emphasis on rationality and the search fortruth as a deeper "religion" , a way of making sense of things...I also appreciate existing, day by day, forgetting about forces aligned for or against me...even though i realize it will not be time independent existence..

you tell me gravity is real..i want to build a model of matter in space and time, where forces become artifacts of matterial behavior.

and after however many zillions of years, i like to believe the universe is at an equilibrium of sorts, if thermodynamics is properly defined. though i admit i have only been studying the question for 50-60 years.
.you worship Newton and gravity..i suggest observer dependent consequences of aggregation theory..

i suggest that order/disorder is extremely problematic with physical models as order always implies the summation of external forces acting on an entity of matter somehow cancel each other out...which for all chemical problems is nonsensical/non functional...ie physics love disorder/randomness but has no basis to define relative order of matter...which is "chemistry"
oh well i guess i no longer separate religion from the basic models/(code programming) of the universe inquiry question/mode which filters one's perceptions/visions..
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Hello MK,

My understanding of physics (in other words, what I learned in school) is that chemical binding energies are basically operating at short distances, as they are related to the quantum distribution of electrons around the nuclei of the bound atoms, and the equilibrium of electric charge. Whereas, gravitation is a far weaker force, but operates at greater distances, and does not seem to require a difference of electric charge for its operation.

I understand that the "electric universe" people are claiming a greater role for electricity in the cosmos than is generally recognized. But do you happen to know if they are also denying that gravity is a real and distinct phenomenon?

When you say that you "disbelieve that forces will aggregate hydrogen gas into massive sun like aggregates", are you then denying that the sun exists? Or, that it is made of hydrogen rather than, say, iron? Or are you denying that it is as massive as claimed by conventional physics? Please explain what you are offering in contrast to the standard theory.

If you didn't want this to be a discussion about religion, perhaps you might have chosen a less theologically oriented thread title? I myself also have been involved with Unitarianism, though I've come to feel that they are too kind in their belief that all religions have some good in them. I promise you, I've never been to a Newtonian temple in my life, or even seen or heard of one -- and I haven't ever said a prayer to gravity, even though I rely on it to keep my feet on the ground on a daily basis.


no i am not afraid of the religious aspects of science, and rationality, as of course genesis could be replaced by big bang, just a correctioit should resonaten of sorts..does the existence of massive aggregates like stars and suns, not to mention their properties prove gravity?? ha ha,, i would argue that there is something thermodynamically stable about massive matterial aggregates, but from an energetic point of view..i laugh at the idea that forces define matterial energies of association, as a chemist, i sense there are other things like perhaps a revisionist thermodynamics and its energy implications at work, which ultimately define all relative existence/nonexistence..I love the periodic aggregation of electron proton pairs into the periodic table, as chemically defining features of stable elements...i do n, but ot think a universe of electron proton pairs is defined by forces..no matter how many, but a constant chemical binding energy, and constant matterial dependence, along with the properties of associatios, which i assure you is sufficient to define infinite protons and electrons, all energetically matched to yield equal numbers...and then one is just left with the behavior question of how this universe of matterial elecron protons will behave in space and time so as to maximize defining energy (thermodynamic) principles...also defining ordered matter vs absolutely random matter..

anyway, the neat thing about universe theory is that it should resonate everywhere...EVEN CHEMICAL THEORY..and i hope reexamine tthe question of ordered matter and its origins and nature...versus absolutely random matter...

it is curious with JA thesis I see religion as being part of the overall belief system...and no longer sense arbitrary categories..such as SCIENCE/TRUTH, as many belief systems seem to revolve around models/and modeling of reality, but are limited within the constructs of ones models....as even if you lose your keys, one can only look effectively where there is light...as if the darkness were imaginary

I see tht all types of topics are entering into this discussion, and at the heart, i just wish to understand ordered disordered matter , in both chemical and biological systems, a topic i find physics spits upon...they are grand at disordering ...they love disorder...but life and chemical systems depend on order disorder type questions.I also believ it is central to living systems..but wow...how to sort out "models" and their fundamental defining features from..things like reality..

and i guess i would ask the question is a force defined universe just a mechanism for an "observer GOD" to control his creation..as i see a universe of matter in infinate time and space, which operates without observer, but based on the time independent space independent behavior properties of matter...overall space and time...i see the associational properties of matter as being the defining features of dimensionality in space and time...

and curiously, i sense i am justa complex matterial aggregate in space and time, subject to same rules governing matter in space and time, which will "live long" after i am gone..
I do appreciate my historical problems with Physics, and its fundamental assumptions....yet curiously I am a chemist..we also have experimental experiential datasets which we must answer to...especially in medicinal chemisrty...seeking to perturb disease states somehow..ie also complex phenotypes/systems..
biophysics is particularly unsatisfying..it is like looking at dead butterfly collections and marveling how beautiful flight is ...static but lacking dynamics..oh well...

it could be crazy to think one can understand the chemistry of living machines, but of course why not understand chemistry better before judging relative??? sanity??

it is curious that translating to a religious question has helped me, in that all my life i have analysed relative religions/belief systems. overall i realize i am seeking a rather complex questions/models as much of the chemical problems are extremely complex....but they do seem to concentrate on the question of order and disorder of matter in space and time...ie the behavior of matter in space and time, and the thermodynamic basis for it.
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Staff member
Perhaps what we are saying here, is that gravity is just another name for the force involved in binding together large material aggregates? It does seem intuitively reasonable, that this could be related to the energy implications of thermodynamic stability... I am not enough of a chemist or physicist to work out the mathematical details of that...

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Some people insist that the Cosmic Serpent has all the answers to such things, if you only ask him (her?). But, you need to consume certain substances as a prerequisite.


Jerry asked:

"I understand that the "electric universe" people are claiming a greater role for electricity in the cosmos than is generally recognized. But do you happen to know if they are also denying that gravity is a real and distinct phenomenon?"

I happen to be one of those people and can tell you the answer is no, the Thunderbolts folks do not deny that gravity exist.


Mk-buddha, I suggest you first find out how to define your fundamental concepts and then you can have a meaningful discussion with those familiar enough with the ontological-epistemic questions you are seeking to rhetorically absorb from.

I suggest you start with "energy" and "force"....


Thanks..PS I doubt that is a Budda, as I think the picture arose from my honeymoon in Beijing, and was associated with a circle of astrological symbols...as my memory seems to recall the park near where the western quarters was destroyed....also survivin is a biomarker which is unregulated in terminal cancer patients..which curiously I know a drug in clinical trials which downregulates and has zero definable toxicity

i appreciate all these questions as, of course I want eventually to communicate more effectively, and i realize that philosophically i wish to discuss introductory topics without getting into the mechanistic details of the MS...i seem to have been talking to myself, as i have a chemical lifetime of disharmony with Physics and physical science, ...yet I am wondering...I also have a lot of experience growing up in Texas, discussing the "Christ loves you "mythology...so of course I am comfortable as treating physics as a religion.

and the curious point..do forces ...say five or more forces really define the universe ie order depends force wise upon the summation of all forces acting on a specific mass being zero??..or just observer dependent changes in the universe??? FK the observer, Fk Forces..does not the universe have an inherent conditionality of stable existence, a thermodynamic parameter which quaallifies all existence, which basically depends upon the inherent properties of matter and its proclivity to non randomly interact and of course create order(ed matter)

anyway, i sense all these difficulties in communications as i kind of wonder about popular (physical) models of the universe, especially since i realize that i need to redefine terminology...and WTF the entire model of the universe....work in progress...but appreciate that as a chemist, we love ordered arrays of matter, in space and time and the conditionalities of their being....which is way different from the SAY randomization (kinetic) energy of billiard balls...

SO THANKS, I APPRECIATE AND WILL CONSIDER ALL COMMENTS..and will consider everhing positive...but of course being semiretired..Damn the photon torpedos!!

ONWARDS..i like the way the MS is going

ps "force" is curious, in that i sense this is the defining constant of physical theory/religion..ie forces between masses and generated from masses are constant over all time space, yet of course they become mathematical constructs of the time space relation of two "masses"...

and of course no one wonders why if you add x number of protons and electrons to a "mass "there is no arrhythmic relationship....or correlation...to the resulting mass...yet of course ther are only a few aggregative masses which have stability..implying there are lots which do not....and to a physicists things like the periodic table are curious, yet if you teach chemistry...ho ho ho..not to even get into at this point radioactivity, and why all the energy is in the nucleus, or the conditional thermodynamics of elements on extremely rare earthlike planets and its thermodynamic implications...or forgetting about why 99% plus of matter in the universe is in star like aggregates of hydrogen, when a lot of theories define iron as the most stable energetically aggregation of matter, element wise???

it goes on and on,but summation of forces models defining things is a joke as a definition of the universe..and a model for the universe..FKFORCEES

ho ho ho PS I also love the voids in space , as it suggests that matter loves to aggregate, which is of course the defining principle of aggregation of association (AGAS) theory..ie wake up we live in an associative aggregative universe....and matter has inherent properties of "being" which define its behavior in space and time, now and forever observer independent..

i am just tired of these "kinetic energy" guys when so far as I see the major energy of the universe is in non random ordering interactions of matter..internal chemical bonding energy...and the behavior of matter to maximize it...

internal energy of matter seems to arise from non random ordering of matter(in space and time), yet physicists only worship when it is randomized somehow....yet there is a lot of order in this universe if you look for it, well at least in the universe I have been observing for the last 50-60 years..but there again i am a chemist always sturying the foorms of matter and seeking the fundamental thermodynamics "driving" things..and somehow

i am wondering if it gets back to fundamental models of the universe, their basis and defining features..as i am confident the universe IS.... with or without me and my attempts to "model"/paint it

ps the electric universe??? I may look into that, but I also appreciate there are so many disinformational theories, most revolving around corrupted physical model..that is TODAY..as with every myth, there is generated a lot of orchestrated countermythology, like democrats and republicans, hypothetically where one is wondering WTF??? but always potentially far from knowledge..look at 9/11..and it appears that countermytholgy is generated sequentially to mythology, like mythological waves , against which one must always struggle, as we all live in main stream back water bays of life now..so to speak and truth may become more and more a curiosity,
something worshiped in isolated monasteries.".futuretense"

and to summarize...lifetime in chemistry..THERMODYNAMICS is what defines things..an existential qualification of existence..F&*K the GOD Newton , his mathematical forces and his priesthood ha ha it is great to be semiretired...ONWARDS!!

(it is also curious to m theoretically how many people are worshiping 100 yearold dead chemists/physicists/mathematicians..LONG DEAD..as if their belief/worship of history could in some way define the present/future...as opposed to evaluation of historic truths as a basis set around which the present/future truths are constructed..

but WTF..again ONWARDS..

as every day we are making new history..
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Whatever the Cause of your placing this thread (or string?) under the Religion Category, it spiritually inspired me to ask the Cosmic Shrimp, aka Shree, after schnozzeling my nightly hydrolyzed shrimp shell extract, about your interest. Shree shred to me, ho, ho, ho, that there are no particles, so don't sweat the small stuff. Then Shree directed me to: http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap-7/ , excerpted below.

I was not aware of a distinction existing between quantum particle physics and the QFT of Schwinger's, the former having been made more popular by such as Feynman and Hawking.

From Brooks Fields of Color, Chapter 7:
This mimicking of particles is what makes it so difficult for many physicists to abandon their belief in particles. Nevertheless, in QFT there are no particles; there are only fields and field quanta.

The vacuum field. Separate and attached fields are not the only fields that exist in QFT. Even in a region where they are absent, or essentially zero, there still is a background field known as the vacuum field.

Force. Before fields were recognized, forces were thought (except by Newton) to happen through “action at a distance”. That is, a body or particle in one place causes a body in another place to move, without any medium in between. When Faraday introduced the concept of fields, this picture was changed: The first body creates a field in the surrounding space and this field then exerts a force on the second body. In QFT, everything is fields, even the bodies; reality consists only of fields and interactions between fields. The effect of force comes from terms in the field equations that describe how one field influences another. Thus the force field does not exert a force on another “body” in the classical sense. Instead it interacts with the field that constitutes the other “body” and alters its evolution, causing its spatial distribution to change. This change in evolution is equivalent to the older classical picture of a particle experiencing a force. Indeed, Newton’s laws of motion can be derived from the equations of QFT!

Spin. In QFT there are no particles, so there is nothing to spin on its axis. As a result the concept of spin is not easy to picture. (I could point out that the concept of a “point particle” spinning on its axis is also not easy to visualize – but I won’t.) In the case of the EM field with its component electric and magnetic fields, one can picture rotating fields, but in general spin is an abstract mathematical concept that is related to the number of field components and how they change when viewed from different angles. The more field components, the higher the spin. The spins of the six fields of QFT (in Planck units) are: strong force – 0, matter fields – ½ , EM and weak force – 1, gravity – 2.

The Exclusion Principle. The Exclusion Principle is what prevents matter quanta from piling on top of each other the way force fields can. One cannot understand the electronic structure of the atom without it. When it was first introduced in 1925 by Wolfgang Pauli, it was only a postulate – an empirical suggestion with no theoretical basis, but in QFT, as Pauli himself showed later, the Exclusion Principle follows directly from the half-integral spin (½) of the matter field.

In my original paper I stressed the circumstance that I was unable to give a logical reason for the exclusion principle or to deduce it from general assumptions… If we search for a theoretical explanation of this law, we must pass to the discussion of relativistic wave mechanics. – W. Pauli (Nobel lecture, 1945)

This connection between the Exclusion Principle and half-integer spins is known as the spin-statistics theorem and is one of the most important successes of QFT. Whereas force fields (with integer spin) can build up and act like classical fields, matter fields (with ½-integer spin) cannot. The number of matter quanta in a given region or state is limited by the Exclusion Principle. Yet both are quantum fields and have equal footing in QFT.

Neutron limit. As stated in Chapter 4, the Exclusion Principle places a limit on the number of neutrons in an atomic nucleus. Just as electrons added to an atom must go into higher energy states if the lower ones are occupied, so neutrons added to a nucleus must go into higher energy states if the lower ones are occupied. Then, because of their higher energy, these neutrons may be able to escape the strong binding force and leave. This is why the number of neutrons in a given nucleus cannot increase indefinitely.

The uncertainty principle. The uncertainty principle, introduced by Heisenberg in 1927, states that the position of a particle cannot be determined, but provides a mathematical formula relating its uncertainty to the uncertainty of the particle’s momentum. Now in QFT what we call particles are really fields, and since fields spread out, there is no precise “position”. However there is a property of fields in general, known as Fourier’s theorem, that relates the spatial spread of any field to the spread of its wavelengths. In QFT, the wavelength of a quantum is related to its momentum, and I still remember my moment of insight when I realized that Heisenberg’s relation between the uncertainties of position and momentum is simply Fourier’s theorem.

Mass. In classical physics, mass is a measure of the inertia of a body (see Chap. 2). In QFT the mass term in the field equations, if there is one, affects the speed at which quanta evolve and propagate. (See “A field with mass” in
Chap. 4). Thus mass plays the same inertial role in QFT that it does in classical physics. But this is not all that mass does. This same term also causes the fields to oscillate, and the greater the mass, the higher the frequency of oscillation.[1]

Energy. In classical physics, energy means the ability to do work, which is defined as exerting a force over a distance. This definition, however, doesn’t provide much of a picture, so in classical physics, energy is a rather abstract concept. In QFT, on the other hand, the energy of a quantum is represented by oscillations in its field. In fact, Planck’s famous relationship between energy and frequency of oscillation (see Chap. 3) is a direct consequence of the equations of QFT. In our color analogy, we might say that the oscillations cause the color to “shimmer”, and the faster the shimmer, the greater the energy of the field.

e = mc2. I know. I promised there would be no equations and, except for a few footnotes, I’ve kept my promise. But I think you will forgive me for making an exception for the world’s most famous equation – the only equation to have its biography written (B2000). And the thing is this: e = mc2 pops right out of QFT. Einstein had to work hard to find it (it was published in a separate paper that followed his first breakthrough paper on relativity theory in 1905), but in QFT it appears as an almost trivial consequence of the two previous results. Since both mass and energy are associated with oscillations in the field, it doesn’t take an Einstein to see that there must be a relationship between the two. Any schoolboy can combine the two equations[2] and find (big drum roll, please) e = mc2. Not only does the equation tumble right out of QFT, its meaning is seen in the oscillations or “shimmer” of the fields. Frank Wilczek calls these oscillations “a marvelous bit of poetry” that create a “Music of the Grid” (Wilczek’s term for space seen as a lattice of points):


QUOTE QUOTE..Whatever the Cause of your placing this thread (string?) under the Religion Category, it spiritually inspired me to ask the Cosmic Shrimp, aka Shree, after schnozzeling my nightly hydrolyzed shrimp shell extract, about your interest. Shree shred to me, ho, ho, ho, that there are no particles, so don't sweat the small stuff. Then Shree directed me to: http://www.quantum-field-theory.net/chap-7/ , below.END QUOTE

so I have spent a lifetime searching for scientific truth especially as relates to chemical and biochemical questions...and of course, I enjoy the idea that words and concepts actually mean something, as i do not see how even a summation of half truths and vague fuzzyness can ever add up to an entire full and meaningful truth, especially if one wants to understand the nature of ordered/disordered matter in space and time....I see that mathematics can always add up...so to speak...but of course the underlying problem is the translation of whatever model into some sort of functional and really meaningful model as dogma can perhaps say explain how many angels can fit on a pinhead.and yes the mathematics is correct..
.but the same mathematical model if reinterpreted, might actually explain something useful.even meaningful..especially if one has a "universe" theory....

ie i have studied dead theories and models, all my life and i realize if you beat dead horses hard enough they appear to be alive....but wow there are real problems out there, chemically speaking...mystery of life wise...anyway, it is my premise to develop and "prove"...and life is short..so THANKS ..but wow the 21st century is shaping up as quite a battle truthwise...on all fronts....I may die a truth heretic...I guess I am lucky to be a chemist....and maybe should just shut up and work ..ORDER DISORDER OF MATTER AND THE FUNDAMENTAL THERMODYNAMICS it, IN SPACE AND TIME

( i kind of hate to expand as i sense that like some types of bonding, there is just no effective overlap..with physical science "history", which is of course another problem for me) I need to flush out my vision, and if I was in Texas, I would just say that God told me to work on this problem..and everything would make sense...in retrospect, i like that about life in texas , in that talking to god and listening to what he tells you..explains everything

BUT MAYBE THE DEEPER QUESTION...ie religions have a lot of truths....and of course multiple theories explain why the sun rises each day....YES Newton and his forces might explain eclipses better.....though to my mind there is still an open question of whether they can put a man on the moon....AND PRIESTS LOVE TO GLITTER BEADS BEFORE UNBELIEVERS AND TALK ABOUT GODS LOVE...but of course if you lose your keys, at night you always look where the light shines...where your perceptual models direct you, as your basic belief system filters out the universe of what might be possible, into things your perceptual models suggest are probable..

and so of course I believe it is important to examine the validity of premises behind your perceptual "models"...no matter what how many percent of BIG scientists believe (and teach)...especially if you are seeking truths at the cutting edge of order/disorder so to speak.. as we cannot spend our lifes parroting everything we were taught....

and of course all my life there is the idea ..just go to Rome, talk to Pope Leo, so to speak... about what is wrong/show them the wisdom of .chemical order/disorder and preach the greater chemistry gods of themodynamics which qualifies all matterial"existance" at any and all points in space time...and.separates "science" from "science fiction".EXPLAIN IT ALL, he will listen...why not???(I am joking of course)....as i half way suspect his office in somewhere deep in the pentagon, and he is busy orchestrating dub dub three..and the Greater Glory to come..

I sense that physics guys are very sensitive to deeper questions about their religion, and of course, like to post "heads on sticks" to discourage infidel chemists and intruders....and all i want to do is examine implications of models and their fundamental premises, in searching for a more chemically relevant model..and i seek alternate non "constant force" defined models...as afterall even in the Physical Sciences, however many mathematically defined "forces" must originate from masses???..but chemists love matter/mass...and its properties..and we also study mathematics..anifd you really look at these "fundamental forces", no matter how many ...the constant is in mathematical representations, not in the space time dependence...DEAD ZOMBIE SCIENCE HISTORY...time to rethink..reconceptualize.. and wow time to get back to work..

and chemically speaking, HAH!! no matter how many passages from the physics bible one mumbles...you cannot washaway the gibberish of physics theory... chemically speaking.

.and sense any deeper meaning...or So say my chemistry God(s) to me..as a lifetime revelation for me to think about.

.and not to mention the trickster physics satanists..who may or may not be deliberately misrepresenting gods truth as some sort of cosmic joke on us all..HO HO HO..

one needs a sense of humor in searching for "scientific truths" about the universe, as it always comes down to looking over multiple observational data sets and trying to "make a grander relative sense somehow" as
after all we are not trained parrots or mechanical machines, no matter how complex the

wow i am trying to find out how much time i have to edit this, but

perhaps to get back to my main point, PHYSICx seeks to describes the world in terms of forces, which somehow arise from entities of "mass" which of course they cannot specify whether they are waves or particles, and of course there is no mechanistic details as to exactly how these forces arise from mass, or even exactly how many of these fundamental forces there are....FK ORDER/Chaos...FK thermodynamics...and FK chemistry..??exactly what sort of religion is this???

i also laugh at transposing this discussion to the religion forum...yet i am sure it will confuse the NSA...and of course I have a broader concept of religion in modern life, as I began as life "baptised" a Unitarian....and really wondered WTF? religion?...more as to me the term translates to the way I live myday to day (TODAY) life, as unitarians never worshiped 2000 year time warps and their historical renditions...though i do wonder exactly how the NSA treats such philosophical discussion,as I like to think they want to put things into their proper boxes??? but growing up science and scientific truth was a sort of religion....which was only understood by the "high priests" with PhDs. an historic "union card" of sorts..Imagine my disappointment.....not with the union card aspects, but the search for Scientific Truth, and a deeper meaning of it all..

and i appreciate" the concept of "religion" in those ancient tribal village communities, as a belief system that defined helped define the tribe, and its relation to the grander world....I guess I would ask in todays evolving societies, and global villages, what sort of belief systems are replacing the ancient gods??? (of course Genesis is modern day silly as we know it was a BIG BANG!!!) ha ho ho..and we no longer live out and see stars in the night sky..that is also biblical..as they did not even see stars on the moon!!)..yet still day by day..each day we awaken under protection of whatever gods will get us through..and we dont even have to embarrass ourselves in daily prayers...as of course, modern science will save us..rationally..like the wonder of the big bang and the beginning of everything, and the end of nothingness..YES!! why not?
Last edited:


anyway, i appreciate your indulgence, as of course I wish to find a more meaningful theory of chemistry...which is always the conditional ordered forms of matter versus disorder..We chemists believe that there are laws defining relative stability of specific ordered arrays of "" in space and time...and thus observationally we look at all the associational/aggregational matter in the universe, and wonder about the energy favoring it, and conversely disfavoring all non observational arrays of matter....Yes I may be a heretic but I believe we live in an aggregational (order/disorder of matter in space and time) universe...

I sometimes believe that I have spent all my sundays listening to the Popes of Physics preach FORCE FORCE, as if it had any meaning to people sttudying the relative thermodynamics of order and disorder of matterial complexes in space and time...and of course I have been long kicked out of the Church of Physical Forces..and can not even wear the special underwear I studied so hard for...yes but that is the tragedy of the journey seeking meaning, beyond the Pope and his earthly minions....

I appreciate that m y themes are complex, as I may not quite know all the versus of the PHYSICS bible by heart, yet curiously I really want to understand life type processes and their chemical basis...and in 40 years, I never worried about a force calculation, s if the overall thermodynamics is favorable..yes the process goes...ha ha ha but who really understand what the difference between free energy and enthapic energy is, beyond some sort of "

I have nothing against overall the historical Religion of Physics.. yet .of course I do not desire randomizing wandering Terrorists, via mysterious forces or complex drone mechanisms.as part of my wish list.no matter how ""NEAT it might be.nor do i desire DARPA funding..and the credentials...required to get it.

I just really want to understand life and chemical machines, the foundation of which ,? as my God tells me?, is to redefine/understand the thermodynamics of ordered/disorder matter, in space and time, which he also suggests even if there were infinite forces (all evolving for entities of mass) would make not makeany ordered sense..

and curious to me this has lead me to look at the overall cosmic thermodynamics of the universe,...as most of my inquiries just depend upon relative concentrations of matter in space and time...and what controls it 's "behavior"..

Physics and physical theory is like this elaborate Gothic cathedral one might wander into...and watch all the petitioners praying so religiously...and ordinarily you might wonder are they serious??but is is such a magnifiicent cathedral....built long before you began wandering.around this earth..
..so you leave a dollar of two in the collection box..but leave still wondering...wtf?
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Hi MKs,

Please forgive my (usually poor) attempt at humor. I didn't really consult Shree, but I'm sure that you know that. But I needed a religious hook to attempt to keep this thread under the right category. ;)

Your relating your desire to come to a new and better understanding triggered that I had run across an ad in one of my magazines, about that book on the QFT. That led me to the web site in which it discussed this theory, older than Feynman's and Hawking's 'popular' expositions of particle based QM. In the preface to the book it claimed that the QFT had been completely eclipsed by QM, to the extent that I had never heard of it. And all you hear about for decades in the massive attempt to achieve the Grand Unification bridging the macro and micro scales. But if I am reading correctly, Schwinger's QFT long solved this, your questions of worth aside.

Furthermore, I queried a material physicist friend, and he told me that he only had a passing acquaintance with the concept. In doing a little snooping, he discovered that Schwinger had to quit the American Physical Society after their repeated refusals to publish his papers on the relevance of QFT to cold fusion. He felt that academic freedom was being

violated and that research in that field was being suppressed.

This, really seems to be the way the system maintains the conformity that it desires, and perhaps even more so, steers us in the direction that the PTB want. This is not limited to Science, but is so obvious in Religion, the latter which was the long primary raison d'etre of universities. Martin Bernal, in Black Athena V1, documented the control process built into the 'modern' university system beginning in Germany, via the sponsorship of George (Hanover) II. From this new scientific basis of education was delivered (as first fruits), the scientifically baseless foundation of Romanticism - as justification for European colonial hegemony among other things.

Other that that, I am a poor vessel to assist you. I came to my old electronics career as a technician, and was rather surprised and amused, once moving into the engineering realm that properly trained engineers dealt with electrical current as the flow of 'holes' and not that of electrons. This stemming from their exposure to QM.

wow i am trying to find out how much time i have to edit this, but

The time allowed is now 12 hours.


thanks..as I realize I may be beyond hope....i kind of think I know what I want to do...apply a filter of sorts...to emphasize the energetic basis of order/ disorder of matter in space and time..which to me are "chemically significant" yet i have a dead echo of a lifetime of talking to physical scientists who suggest it is all in the wave theory...which would make sense if i only studied latin, so to speak...and also a lifetime of talking to myself...trying to uunderstand the nature/scale of chemical order (molecular interactions) in life andchemistryy\...anyway, i have some free time now, and an alternative model i hope to explore...which also has waves of a sort, but as a natural consequence of of themodel...ie I liike models where words have meaning/significance, beyond the buzz of there pronouciation..

I guess this is a good forum, as one can say all sorts of things, philoshophically...and no one really cares(so far)..as the entire concept of rhetoric involves the translation of grammar and logic , so to speak communicatively

and of course eventually I might hope to get back to some progressive chemical congregation...somewhere but ..it is curious when i was young the nature of pure scientific truth seemed important, as iif it were the word of a purer God..somehow.speaking through"science."..beyond politics

yet ever since 2001 and 9/11 it seems that truth??? is a increasingly endangered concept/species everywhere..as to potentially be almost irrelevant, and of course non "academic" relative to the grander gearworks and financial mechanisms of everyday life in the 2010's+beyond..and maybe only the old men will notice its demise..and wonder....as i doubt it will be covered on MSM ...maybe preserved as a sort of conceptual puzzle to be deciphered in the ruins of time..

so again thanks
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
(of course Genesis is modern day silly as we know it was a BIG BANG!!!) ha ho ho

I'm not totally sure in what sense you stated this, as to what the 'ha ho ho' applied to, but maybe this book below might have some insights for you, if you weren't already aware of it. (BTW, is there an interpretational distinction to be found between such as 'ho ho ho' and 'ha ho ho'?) And perhaps, if nothing else but to keep us within the religious framework, I have always found it curious that a Jesuit delivered us unto the Big Bang (scientific parallel version of Genesis's Creation) paradigm. and now these same Jesuits are promoting what I call Space Jesus, and I would like Joe and Jerry to discuss much, much more of this than they have. Did I say 'much'?

Far ranging and provocative, THE BIG BANG NEVER HAPPENED is more than a critique of one of the primary theories of astronomy -- that the universe appeared out of nothingness in a single cataclysmic explosion ten to twenty billion years ago. Drawing on discoveries in particle physics and thermodynamics as well as on readings in history and philosophy, Eric J. Lerner confronts the values behind the Big Bang theory: the belief that mathematical formulae are superior to empirical observation; that the universe is finite and decaying; and that it could only come into being through some outside force. With inspiring boldness and scientific rigor, he offers a brilliantly orchestrated argument that generated explosive intellectual debate.

For some reviews:
By Amazon Customer on November 19, 2012

This is a truly wonderful book that really gets you thinking. Eric Lerner (look up focus fusion) is a credible scientist who builds categorically new machines that work, and this book is a look into the sort of non-dogmatic creative thinking we could all use a lot more of. His line of questioning has been followed up over the years by the 'electric-universe' guys(see The Electric Universe by Wallace Thornhill & David Talbott), whose arguments grow more definitive and undeniable everyday. For scope and solid grounding however, this book cannot be beat.

By Devinder Dhiman on March 13, 2015

I became interested in reading this book as soon as I came across the title, because I also do not believe in Big-Bang theory. I wanted to learn the alternative offered by the author. I was not disappointed, this book made my belief firmer.'Big Bang never happened' blows off all the evidence generally associated with the theory of Big-Bang. It gives valid reasons for refuting the three most important pillars of Big-Bang theory; namely- relative abundance of elements in the universe, homogeneous microwave background radiation and hubble expansion of the universe.
Moreover, it gives reasoning for the existence of super clusters where Big-Bang fails.
The author starts with the history of the understanding of universe by various philosophers and scientists, more than two thousand years back and takes you through all the religious and scientific beliefs and finally makes you aware of the developments in 20th century, how the Big-Bang theory originated and what difficulties it faced from the scientists who were not in favor of this theory. After you complete the initial phase of learning about Big-Bang, you are led to an alternative approach of plasma technology. Plasma technology is well explained as the author himself has contributed to the research in Plasma technology.
Thereafter, the author elaborates the biological and social evolution. At that time, you wonder whether you have picked the physics book or philosophy, but at the end of that chapter , you realize the reasoning of that addition in the book. Next, the author explains about Quantum Chromodynamics Theory, and you are back in your familiar territory of physics. The drawbacks of QCD are well explained and it is clearly shown why QCD, inspite of being one of the most accurate thoeries of physics, fails to provide a support to Big-Bang theory.
The author writes that 'Renormalization' in QCD theory is totally arbitrary, which has been used to give mass to an electron, and the reason for this renormalization is not known to any physicist. After dealing with quantum theory and particle physics, the author once again goes into philosophical mode and discusses the effect of social and theological events on the study of science and cosmology. May be, because of my own lack of understanding of philosophy and social science, I felt little uninterested in some of the chapters of the book, but I really liked the book overall and believe that there was no Big-bang. Alternative to Big-Bang given by filaments formation in plasma is a very good concept, and in line with my own idea of 'Lines of Space'. This book has enhanced my knowledge about creation of universe.
I recommend this book to all the people who are curious about universe and do not blindly believe in the theory of Big-Bang which requires a 'Creator



I GUESS my question as to the big bang,,,is that I can only observationally try to define , within say 60 years , the behavior of matter in space and time..and of course any time dependence....from this perspective of interprettation....i am kind of perplexed about the concept of nothingness, in that manyof my chemical primary associations seem extremely stable, though their relative thermodynamics might lead to dynamic properties of their association...to really know how much energy is holding matter together, internally, one has to blow it apart, so tht it trsndlates to some externally random enerygy.....


I JUST WONDER ABOUT ARTIFACTS OF MODELS ...AND OF COURSE "REALITY"..as i am not that great a mathematician to pretend to model this...Maybe NIST..could..but wow NOTHING..then THE UNIVERSE..??? I will give it some thought

but the grander question might be ..i have only been studying the universe since 1954..yes I am getting old and wise...but does not all my observational data has this time parameter...especially where I really wish to go into the ..WELL I THINK I HAVE LIVED IN THE UNIVERSE..and am trying to develop models of it...like painting pictures.... yet as an artist i begin to wonder how my brush strokes affect my picture...ever seeking better and better models....and of course people may say hey that is just a two dimensional computer graphic/simulations, where if I changed defining parameters/...wow you getall these iintense colors..yet of course the REAL universe..just ABIDES, potentially infinite in both time and space and may never know about my attempts to model it..ie

i am always not just remembering a collection of facts...but also wondering where they came from..FOX news??

and of course anything scientific that seems to have biblical precedence is suspect..and as an independent question , how much confidence can I have in models that extrapolate to time zero???, as I do not worship the GOD newton ...and question the constancy of his mathematical forces arising from entities of matter...over all timespace
and of course, historically the value of knowledge/truth has been easily monetized$$$$ie coupled to the overall oppression of lesser societies, for the benefit naturally of the advanced ones..ie technology was one of the defining features of advanced societies..after all MOONWALKING was not for primitives , not to get into the entire DEATH BY DRONING question, which only advanced people like our president can order....oh well i digress , but I DO WONDER about the monetarization of scientific technology in todays world...where a one dollar pill might cost 100,000 dollars, but only if it PR wise..it is statistically effective...and of course way too much for "primitives"...though it is not clear that modern medicine is really expanding average life span ....yet..wow..TECHNOLOGY!!and "public relations"..

its conversion into $$$$$MONEY...oh my god i guess we live in interesting times..HAH

and more and more the conversion of being /knowledge into $$$$ seems to give REAL $$$ meaning..as what is it really worth unless one can monetarize it somehow
Last edited: