[Drifter]

The soul, came "into being" at the moment of conception, and along with it came time and space. A suitcase[a package/baggage deal], if you will, of lessons to be learned during its sojourn through time and space.
This "realm", so to speak, is likened unto a classroom, and as/if we learn, we evolve.
Lessons not completed satifactorily will require, repeating them again.
Once learned, the soul will "graduate", and continue, by virtue of the Wisdom gained, into the "Higher" sanctions/halls of "learning".
Fare thee well, Brother.

Originally Posted by austintorn@aol.com Time Came Into Being When "Stuff" Did

[Profpat]

Hi Drifter;

I agree with your statement that the soul came into being at conception. It is at that point in time that you have a brand new DNA strand, a brand new life, a brand new soul. ( Albeit all part of the ONE )

Best to you,

Pat

[Drifter]

Yes Professor,
Until that "point in time", there was no 'me', 'I', 'you', 'we', 'they', 'them', 'us', no differentiation/seperation at all. Only One.
And "That" is what we, as individuals, return too.

[did you know that the electrical current which can be measured, in milliamps, through a chicken egg, evolves as the chickens "spinal columb" [CNS]?] -Prof. Itszak Bentov

So what exactly "are" we.

Some would suggest, we are an ancient and timeless spirit, having a human expereience.

"We Are NOT a Human Searching For a Spiritual Experience,

We ARE a Beautiful Spirit Immersed In a Human Experience!"

That Spirit, is The One Is-ness, in All of us.

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Drifter; I agree with your statement that the soul came into being at conception. It is at that point in time that you have a brand new DNA strand, a brand new life, a brand new soul. ( Albeit all part of the ONE ) Best to you, Pat

[Drifter]

That Is-ness Is a non-gender, non-race, non-personae specific "Be"-ing that is the Is-ness of all and cannot be denied, or personafied, It defies description and Is therefore beyond mere words.

Originally Posted by Drifter Yes Professor, Until that "point in time", there was no 'me', 'I', 'you', 'we', 'they', 'them', 'us', no differentiation/seperation at all. Only One. And "That" is what we, as individuals, return too. [did you know that the electrical current which can be measured, in milliamps, through a chicken egg, evolves as the chickens "spinal columb" [CNS]?] -Prof. Itszak Bentov So what exactly "are" we. Some would suggest, we are an ancient and timeless spirit, having a human expereience. "We Are NOT a Human Searching For a Spiritual Experience, We ARE a Beautiful Spirit Immersed In a Human Experience!" That Spirit, is The One Is-ness, in All of us.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Drifter That Is-ness Is a non-gender, non-race, non-personae specific "Be"-ing that is the Is-ness of all and cannot be denied, or personafied, It defies description and Is therefore beyond mere words.

Absolutely Drifter,we IS ness-less of me,more of IS?



regards michael.

[Profpat]

Hi Austin;

Regarding your 1st impossibility: God or randomness could have made the choice among the many.

Regarding your 2nd impossibility: I would add the universe is impossible, yet here it is.

Best,

Pat

[dipayankar]

If neutrinos are particles, (not energy particles), then they should have mass. Absolutely zero mass is not permissible for bosons.

Originally Posted by Profpat Hi Dipayankar; No I don't think they would. Quarks have mass, and therefore would cause gravity but neutrinos have no mass and so would not interact with quarks, or effect gravity. Best, Pat

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by dipayankar If neutrinos are particles, (not energy particles), then they should have mass. Absolutely zero mass is not permissible for bosons.

If they have mass then they would interact with quarks. I think the jury is still trying to decide if they have mass or not.

Best to you Dipayankar,

Pat

[dipayankar]

So as of now it is not conclusive. What characteristics would make people think that they have mass??

Originally Posted by Profpat If they have mass then they would interact with quarks. I think the jury is still trying to decide if they have mass or not. Best to you Dipayankar, Pat

[Felix Schrodinger]

Hi Prof

I've recently joined and have only just read your idea(s). A lot of interesting stuff in there but I want to comment specifically on your pipe cleaner model - presumably you're one of the old school who expected all research physicists to smoke a pipe whilst explaining relativity?

Whilst your interwoven strings (the pipe cleaners) would explain the charges on the proton and neutron they would not explain the strong force. If we combine your concept with something resembling a Higgs Boson then a better possibility emerges.

Lets say the HB is (for this illustration) in the form of a ring which holds three strings pushed through it. One end of each string is positive and the other is negatively charged. The proton consists of the three strings pulled partially out to expose themselves as: +2/3 +2/3 -1/3 = 1 and the neutron consists of the other ends of the same strings: +1/3 +1/3 -2/3 = 0. The strong force is just the strength of the strings themselves as they would have to be broken in order to split the proton from the neutron.

It's taken me some time to respond as I wanted to use a diagram showing this but it's in M/S Office and I can't see how to cut and paste from Word.