No announcement yet.

The Story of the Israeli Judge, Deborah, is Probably True...

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    If Tachyons actually exist in String Theory, then weaponizing them to make "time erasing death rays" might not even be that big of a stretch. Once you invent Quantum computers, doing the calculations to actually design such a weapon might not even be that difficult, one would think anyway.

    Sad that Dr. Michiu Kaku might actually have a theory of how to do something like this, but I've never seen him mention it if he does.

    i mention this again, because In Robert Jordan's "Wheel of time" epic fantasy series, "Time erasing death rays" are an actual thing, and so is a Deistic Creator, and so is a string-theory-like multiverse with several parallel and perpendicular universes, and even the villains in the narrative ban the use of the super ability weapon "balefire" for fear of accidentally destroying the erasing it from history...

    Robert Jordan was clearly pretty brilliant, but I wouldn't use his musing for actual theory or moral philosophy. He was writing fiction, not prophecy or science, even though again there's some circumstancial evidence this weapon might be possible in the real String Theory.


      We don't know how to produce Tachyons in the laboratory yet, so we are actually still a long way away from anybody actually weaponizing a beam of Tachyons, I hope anyway.

      We have shown in the laboratory a few different ways now, that time-reversed quantum entanglement exists. I'm not sure whether anybody has produced a relativistic time toop, like Jordan's "Wheel of Time".

      In the Book of Ezekiel, there might actually even be a symbol for the "Wheel of Time" when Ezekiel describes the wheels of the Chariots. The Ancient Aliens guys think this is an ordinary "Flying Saucer" sighting, but I think Ezekiel would have known the difference between a Symbolic Chariot of God and a Flying Saucer. Besides, the real God does not need to ride on an Chariot anyway. This incarnation of God, which Ezekiel never actually saw God's entire body directlly and neither did Isaiah, this incarnation is just for symbolic parable teaching, and not intended to be exhaustive theology. Even if the Jews might have believed in "Circular Time" at some point, they still ulimately believed time had to be created by God the first instant, even if the circular time was thought to be future eternal, which it really was not. I know of a Christian pastor who claims to believe everything in the Bible had already happened three tmies before, but he's never provided to me an exhaustive argument for how that could be possible. see below.

      Anyway, one flavor of Neutrinos, the one with the Imaginary nuclear binding energy, might already be a Tachyon anyway, and we technically can produce them pretty well in the laboratory, they are just really hard to detect, even after you make them, because they hardly ever interact with ordinary matter.

      the Flood in the Bible supposedly happened twice.

      In Genesis 1:1 there is a "First Flood" long before humans existed. This flood actually exists in the Geological record, about 4 billion years ago before the first continents existed. So the Bible actually got that right. In the Geological record, the modern continents are mostly buiilt up from the collision of several islands and smaller continents. The U.S. sits on 4 major continental boundaries from past continental collisions, and part of Canada somehow sits on a dome of exposed Mantle rock. At any rate, this wasn't one past continent that just appears out of nowhere, it's produce from about 4 or so smaller continental collisions.

      Yes all the continents were flooded simultaneously in this "First Flood" but again this was way, way too early to be Noah's Flood. There's no known evidence in the Fossil Record or the Geological Record for Noah's Flood. It just doesn't exist.

      If Noah's Flood did exist, that would be two destructions of the world, and the future burning of the world in Revelation would be three destructions of the world, so technically scripture might agree with my christian pastor friend, but that's a huge leap to believe in an actual Noah's Flood at this point.


        Besides, fi I hadn't been trying to find a wife on dating sites, I never would have met the fake prostitute that stole my thousand dollars. It's not like I went looking for a hooker anyway. I was trying to find someone to date normally, with no success, and tried to get her to date me normally.

        Besides, it's probably a good thing that she didn't show up where she was supposed to be at the hotel anyway. I probably would have regretted tt had we gone through with the whole thing.

        So I'm still a 38 years old virgin who's never had a real date, unless you count that one time I dated a church girl one time to the movies, probably not the best first dirt idea anyway. Besides, she was younger than I thought at first anyway, like 17 or something when I was 24 at the time. Maybe she was even younger than that. Not sure how I was supposed to know that, but it kinda freaked me out when I realized how young she was.

        I tried to get that stripper girl to date me normally too. She claimed she make 90k dollars per year without really even doing real stripping, although she did actually make a porn video. But when I talked to her for like 3 days on the internet, more than any other woman would talk to me anyway, she turned out to be polyamorous, and that would just never do. I couldn't marry a woman who insisted on having sex with like 5 other men or whatever she was into. Not really any of my business. If Mormon men can be polygamous and have 4 wives and I don't condemn that guy, because he's a better father than most monogamous men, I guess I shouldn't have much problem with her having sex with 5 other guys, except I don't want to be a part of that mess.....but it would solve a lot of problems if the woman made 90k per year, that would simplify my problems anyway. I'm not afraid of a bread winning wife scenario anyway.

        I had the same problem on another dating site. The only woman I could get to talk to me seriously was polyamorous and didn't want to date me because she knew I was monagamous. But at least she did talk to me for a few day, unlike the other women who didn't want anything to do with me because I wrote that I had read the Bible in my profile.

        Isaac Newton supposedly died a virgin. He might have had the right idea. If he had married he probably would have had as much time to study the universe and God and the other things he was interested in.


          I was wondering how this thread got five pages.
          Originally posted by Wade
          Everything is hidden in plain sight, like in Men in Black. We've all just been neuralized to think it is "normal".


            Originally posted by OrganizationXV View Post
            I was wondering how this thread got five pages.
            Yeah, it's mostly me posting random musings and mistakes and stuff.


              Oh yeah, before I forget this. If Time Erasing death rays do turn out to be possible in String Theory, they might have some non-military applications, such as Nuclear Medicine. Imagine if you could erase a cancer infection or a bacterial infection from the time line, undoing the damage it had done?!

              I don't know how you'd direct the Tachyons into a beam without damaging the device. So it would probably be relatively expensive and cost-prohibitive anyway.

              Besides all that, there might be other peaceful uses for a time erasing death ray.

              Imagine if you could zap a serial killer or a mass shooter, and in so doing prevent the past deaths of his victims?!


                ITT: 86 posts and 75 of them are from wade.


                Back to Christianity, for a bit, if you'll forgive my hypocrisy.

                So I see no reason to discard the doctrine that Jesus burned in Hell for 3 days.

                The Catholic Apostles Creed says Jesus went to Hell when he died. However, in the Catechism it explains, according to them, that Jesus probably went to a place called "Paradise" which they allege might have been in Hell itself for departed saints (lower s) before Jesus' death on the cross. IN this rare case, Jimmy Swaggart agrees with the Catholics.

                I am not a Word of Faith believer, but in this case I disagree with Jimmy Swaggart and the Catholics. There is no Biblical claim that Paradise is in Hell, and there are evidently two Biblical claims that Paradise is where you would expect it to be: in the Third Heaven (Paul, John). Now Jesus told the thief on the cross that he would be with him in Paradise on the same day. But Luke said twice in the Book of Acts that Jesus went to Hell (Hades) for 3 days. This is possible if Jesus is Omnipresent, as the Greatest Conceivable Being would be Omnipresent. But I maintain the Greatest Conceivable Being can die on a cross, send Himself to the burning Hell for 3 days, and still resurrect Himself from the dead.

                As far as I know there are 4 terms in the Bible translated "Hell" or "Grave" at one point or another:

                Sheol-Usually Hell or the Grave. It's translated both ways about equally actually.
                Hades - the first burning Hell.
                Tartarus-Where the Titans (Greek Tradition) and Fallen Angels (Hebrew Tradition) are supposed to be held in chains.
                Gehenna-The second burning Hell called "The Lake of Fire"

                The last three of these terms are Greek terms. It's not clear why Greek words for Hell should appear in a Hebrew document, other than the fact 99.9% of the New Testament is written in Greek. Also I guess having 3 words for different versions of "Hell" is technically more precise, so that might be the motive for using Greek words for Hell rather than simply transliterating "sheol".

                In general, if you use the word Hades, most people associate Hades with the burning pit of Hell, not some Paradise in the heart of the Earth. The heart of the Earth burns under radioactivity and pressure at some 12,000 degrees Celsius, or about twice the temperature of the surface of the Sun. So if Hades is supposed to be in the heart of the Earth, it would evidently be the "burning Hell".

                Thus when Peter, and Luke quoting Peter, says Jesus went to Hades for 3 days, but was not left there, I have no reason to believe this is any place other than the Fires of Hell.

                So jimmy and Francis Swaggart will probably call me a heretic for saying so, but I think the Bible, combined with the Ontological Argument, implies Jesus actually burned in Hell for 3 days.

                The Jewish apologist and Rabbi, Tovia Singer, claims there are three degrees of punishment in the burning Hell. He claims there is an eleven month punishment, a twelve month punishment, and an eternal punishment. Also if a "day" in prophecy is actually symbolic of a year, then an eleven month punishment might actually be 334 years, while a 12 month punishment might actually be 365 years. At any rate, he's pretty smart usually. I'm not sure where he gets this doctrine, it's not in the Bible, but it might be in the Talmud. I've never read the Talmud, maybe I should. I got called "Ignorant" by one of Tovia Singer's followers because I had not read the Talmud.

                At any rate, I had a vision of myself being thrown into the burning side of Hell, but the Angel that threw me in there let me out after a few minutes whenever I complained that I had lived a more righteous life than that and deserved a better end. So the angel opened a wormhole and let me out of the burning Hell. Then the vision ended.

                So if the death on the cross of Jesus is supposed to be the greatest expression of love, I find a flaw. Actually burning in Hell in our stead would actually be an even greater expression of love instead of only dying on the cross.

                So I have several lines of argument that the Biblical Jesus actually burned in Hell for 3 days....while simultaneously with the thief in the Third Heaven in Paradise, because he is Omnipresent and Transcendent.

                That is, assuming Jesus actually was Omnipresent and Transcendent. Without that, none of the New Testament is to be believed anyway.


                  Besides. I don't understand what a good God is doing sending the righteous dead to a place in Hell, even if it was Paradise, because the righteous dead should have gone straight to Heaven, with or without Jesus dying on the cross, and whether or not Jesus burned in Hell. There's no rational reason for the righteous dead to go to Hell. Both Swaggart and the Catholics appear to get this notion, that the righteous went to Hell, from the story Jesus told concerning the Rich Man and Lazarus, with Lazarus going to a place called "Abraham's Bosom" while the Rich Man immediately went to a place of torment. I don't even see a reason to believe Abraham's Bosom was an actual place in the heart of the Earth. If dead men can even see that is.

                  Swaggart thinks God can't have saved anybody without dying on the cross.

                  I think the Greatest Conceivable Being can simply speak salvation into existence without dying on the cross. In this case, I agree with Richard Dawkins objection, "Why not just forgive the sins? Instead of dying on the cross?"

                  Now the Christian apologist answered Dawkins the same way Swaggart would have answered him, "He can't just forgive sins. His Righteousness forbids it."

                  That would be a rather impotent God don't you think? If God cannot speak forgiveness into existence that is pretty bleak.

                  Now if you ask a Sunday School student where Paradise ought to be, they will probably answer the same way I have argued, Paradise ought to be in the (third) Heaven. Now they might not know enough about the Bible to know there is more than one Heaven, but they'd probably say Paradise is in Heaven.

                  Unbelievers would probably say that Paradise ought to be "in Heaven" too, even though they probably don't know enough to know there's more than one Heaven either.

                  Anyway, as far as I can tell from Paul and John, Paradise is supposed to be in the Third Heaven, not Hell.


                    I once did a calculation to see how old the Sun would need to be if you assume it was a First Generation Star (As the Bible claims).

                    I started with the background composition of the Universe and assumed that it evolved into its present day composition. After some calculations, I reached the conclusion that a First Generation Sun would need to be 27.6 Billion years old, or exactly twice the accepted age of the Universe itself. This isn't necessarily even debunked by this fact. If Tachyons exist and time itself is allowed to run backwards, then there might actually be 27.6 Billion years worth of time in the Universe's history.

                    However, I can't explain where heavy metals in the Solar System come from in a First Generation Sun concept, except the close encounter with another Star maybe. This isn't a big deal, 27.6 Billion years is a long time, and you'd expect several close encounters during that time frame anyway.