true final theory by true science

[truedreamm]

truedreamm,
The quality that makes "magnetism the wand of miracles" is that magnetism per se never changes - it appears different - in the different forms it is the base of - but in itself it per se never changes.

Magnetism is the base of all forms -
Magnetism is the vortex with opposite spin in its positive and negative energy expressions which meet in the static center and cancel each other out. Magnetism is in the form of a bar magnet ."

Magnetism is like a small government running with help of there own citizens, this government is located at static center. The citizens inside the government must pay maximum tax to run the government. To run the government, yes this small government
must pay maximum of its tax to is central or superior government. Like wise this process continue till to its end .
So in the static center it don’t cancel each other out, it is the point where collection of
force takes place.
Sorry for my English I am not good in English like you people.

regards truedreamm

[truedreamm]

Absolutely right there my friend,we all need to play our part,"let it begin with me"!


regards michael.

ok my friend
then we are ready for our next level in the game againts nature.

regards muthu

[truedreamm]

this is one of massage in my site, by
magnetfreek

Joined: 02 Dec 2006
Posts: 1

Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: i think that this be the true meaning of all true science and observable fact. it is clear that the last century was extremely misguided and ignored the crystal clear unsolved magnetic issues. the "standard model" does not even attempt to clearly explain all observable phenomena. the construction of the large hadron collider and experimental fusion reactor are entirely baseless. i highly respect your work and expertise.

[truedreamm]

it is clear that the last century was extremely misguided and ignored the crystal clear unsolved magnetic issues. the "standard model" does not even attempt to clearly explain all observable phenomena.

what is your idea about this massage ????

"standard model" vs "true science"

but true must be the science ???

regards muthu

[truedreamm]

we have passed many centuries with out knowing, what is gravity???
What is true basic of atom???what cause mass in atom???
All this questions are very basic or source of science, but answers for these quetion must match the physical output of the nature.
it is only possible by true science

regards muthu

[Manooch Kazemi]

It is often said that science cannot prove the existence of God. Yet science does have value in theological debate because it gives us new concepts that sometimes make popular notions of God untenable. One of these concerns the nature of time.
Many people envisage God as a sort of cosmic magician who existed for all eternity and then, at some moment in the past, created the universe in a gigantic supernatural act. Unfortunately, this scenario raises some awkward questions. What was God doing before he created the universe? If God is a perfect, unchanging being, what prompted him to act then rather than sooner?
The fifth-century theologian St. Augustine neatly solved the problem by proclaiming that the world was made with time and not in time. In other words, time itself is part of God's creation.
To make sense of Augustine's concept, it is necessary to place God outside of time altogether, and the notion of a timeless Deity became official church doctrine. However, it is not without its own difficulties. How can a timeless God be involved with temporal events in the universe, such as entering into human history through the Incarnation?
Today, religious people like to identify the creation with the Big Bang of scientific cosmology. So what can we say about the nature of time in the scientific picture?
Albert Einstein showed us that time and space are part of the physical world, just as much as matter and energy. Indeed, time can be manipulated in the laboratory. Dramatic time warps occur, for example, when subatomic particles are accelerated to near the speed of light. Black holes stretch time by an infinite amount. It is therefore wrong to think of time as simply "there," as a universal, eternal backdrop to existence. So a complete theory of the universe needs to explain not only how matter and energy came to exist, it must also explain the origin of time.
Happily, Einstein's theory of relativity is up to the job. It predicts a so-called "singularity" at which time abruptly starts. In the standard Big Bang scenario, time and space come into being spontaneously at such a singularity, along with matter.
People often ask, What happened before the Big Bang? The answer is, Nothing.
By this, I do not mean that there was a state of nothingness, pregnant with creative power. There was nothing before the Big Bang because there was no such epoch as "before." As Stephen Hawking has remarked, asking what happened before the Big Bang is rather like asking what lies north of the North Pole. The answer, once again, is nothing, not because there exists a mysterious Land of Nothing there but because there is no such place as north of the North Pole. Similarly, there is no such time as "before the Big Bang."
Of course, one can still ask why a universe popped into existence this way. Cosmologists believe the answer lies with the weird properties of quantum mechanics, a topic beyond the scope of this essay.
We can now see that Augustine was right, and popular religion wrong, to envisage God as a superbeing dwelling within the stream of time prior to the creation. Professional theologians acknowledge this. The doctrine of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) does not mean God pushing a metaphysical button and making a Big Bang, then sitting back to watch the action. It means God sustaining the existence of the universe, and its laws, at all times, from a location outside of space and time.
Can science give any credibility to such a notion? Mostly, scientists either are atheists or keep God in a separate mental compartment. However, there is a strong parallel in the scientific concept of the laws of nature. Like the theologians' God, these laws enjoy an abstract, timeless existence and are capable of bringing the universe into being from nothing. But where do they come from? And why do these laws exist rather than some different set?
Science is based on the assumption that the universe is thoroughly rational and logical at all levels. Miracles are not allowed. This implies that there should be reasons for the particular laws of nature that regulate the physical universe. Atheists claim that the laws exist reasonlessly and that the universe is ultimately absurd. As a scientist, I find this hard to accept. There must be an unchanging rational ground in which the logical, orderly nature of the universe is rooted. Is this rational ground like the timeless God of Augustine? Perhaps it is. But in any case, the law-like basis of the universe seems a more fruitful place for a dialogue between science and theology than focusing on the origin of the universe and the discredited notion of what happened before the Big Bang.

[mkirkpatrick]

Manooch,just to say thanks for your most thoughtful reply,indeed cooperation is sorely
needed.
regards michael.

[truedreamm]

Dear Manooch Kazemi,
Thank you for your support for true science and for your forward of interesting article.
Did Big Bang happened ???

I think true science cannot prove the existence of God and but can prove non existence of God.
be ready for my new article who created us???? god or nature????
( who created living things ????)

True science is starting point of next level of science and it is possible to create an end to all our mystery’s about nature.

Regards muthu

[theunify]

Keep it up Muthu, only progress is the way!

[truedreamm]

Keep it up Muthu, only progress is the way!

thank you my friend