Simply Logic and Reason, A Unifed Approach

[Aireal]

Wow, it has been awhile since I have been to this forum. Been busy with my new book, just published.

http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/

In the second part on physics is where I show the work I have been up to the last couple of years.
The electron and atomic models presented were designed to introduce tough quantum concepts to students.
I was surprised that date like the observed mass of the Up and Down quarks fell from it without any effort.

While not a mature TOE yet, it does make some good predictions and reflects the evidence better than most so called TOE that are out there/

If anyone has read it, please feel free to discuss it here and I will try to answer any questions.

[labelwench]

Greetings Aireal,

Thank you for returning to this forum to share the work that you have been attending.

I have read the sample of your book at the link provided and I would like to commend you on your writing style and the organization that is laid out in the table of contents. The following piece taken from that sample, I place here, in the trust that such will not be contrary to your wishes or a violation of your copyright.

Regards,

Lorrina

However, this is just the introduction to the topic.
Before we go deeper, readers must ask themselves
some tough questions.

“Oh, Great Spirit
Whose voice I hear in the winds,
And whose breath gives life to the entire world,
Hear me, I am small and weak,
I need your strength and wisdom.
I seek strength, not to be greater than my brother,
But to fight my greatest enemy – myself”

(Translated by Lakota Sioux Chief Yellow Lark in
1887)

Know Thyself
The first thing readers must ask themselves is
perhaps the most important question at this time:
What is their individual concept of God?

[austintorn@aol.com]

"God is"

Supposition.


"God formed"

Supposition.

[Aireal]

Thank you very much Labelwench. I rewrote it so many times! Glad to see the effort was worth it.

[Bogie]

Hi Aireal, Thank you for the glimps at your work. I appreciate you bringing it to our attention and wish you luck. Tell us how it goes with the book sales.

You have given much thought to God and the universe and have found ways to reconcile science and religion. I like work that attempts to bring people together instead of driving a separation between them. This is an off the wall question but my feeling is why not ask someone who must have given it some thought from a solid base of reason. How do you see the future unfolding?

[Aireal]

Bogie

Thank you for the kind words.

Modern Creationism and the fundamentalists that follow it, only represent a small fraction of Christian views about creation. They are however quite vocal in trashing science to support their views.

I show that their so-called “literal” interpretation is not even supported by the Bible they claim to follow. Other Christians have keep silent and allowed this, but I could not. When a culture disregards science and learning, that culture is doomed.

I am sure some will hold to their un-rational views, but they will fade with time I hope. The Penentheist view of God I show in the book can be reconciled with science. I was pleased to discover I am not the only theologian to see this. I am at the front of a new spiritual movement in Christianity that sees God as working through the Laws of Science.

The second half of the book deals directly with my physics work. At first I was just developing an electron and atomic model to help introduce tough quantum concepts to students.

I was surprised when data like the mass of the Up and Down quarks were predicted accurately, among other things, with no effort on my part. So I might have stumbled onto something. While not a mature Theory Of Everything, it does help take us closer to that goal, while answering some fundamental questions of physics.

[Mikal]

Wow, it has been awhile since I have been to this forum. Been busy with my new book, just published.

http://www.simplylogicandreason.com/

In the second part on physics is where I show the work I have been up to the last couple of years.
The electron and atomic models presented were designed to introduce tough quantum concepts to students.
I was surprised that date like the observed mass of the Up and Down quarks fell from it without any effort.

While not a mature TOE yet, it does make some good predictions and reflects the evidence better than most so called TOE that are out there/

If anyone has read it, please feel free to discuss it here and I will try to answer any questions.

Hi Aireal…nice to see you back at Toe and welcome!

I had a glance at a sampling of your book and aside from congrats on the fruition of your efforts, I find it quite admirable that you are speaking out on the Hebrew language and its significance to the Bible.

I have been studying the Hebrew alphabet and language for sometime now pertaining to its relevance to the Bible and what I might call our historical error not only in translation of the Bible but also in the literal reading of the Bible. It has certainly tended to push us into many quandaries of God, truth and creation.

You made a small mention in the sampling of your book on ‘Adam’ and I mention this because in relation to Hebrew language I have been evaluating the meaning of the Bible and of course Adam has been considered here. Now I wondered if this evaluation I found in the book, ‘The Ain Soph—The Unknown God,’ comes anywhere close to your interpretation of Adam.

‘ADAM—A HUGE PROCESS UNDERLYING THE EMERGENCE OF HUMAN BEINGS.’

This too was worked out by the meanings of the Hebrew words so I wondered if it is close to your interpretation and understanding and if so could you share abit there without compromising your book?

This would aid me in my journey to understand the Hebrew language as I sense here that although I may be at the end of the beginning lap you are more than likely at the end lap when it comes to studying the Hebrew alphabet and language.

Kind regards Mikal

[PoPpAScience]

Hi Aerial.

Long time ago I read a book called Genesis and the Big Bang, http://www.geraldschroeder.com/Genesis.aspx , and as an Atheist at that time it was a great eye opener. It lead me to rethink my objections to religious writings. It made my mind whirl with thoughts on how the ancients could see into the inner workings of the Universe without the objects of observation we have today. I ended up studying every religion and science of mind I could get my hands on in trying to understand how they did it, and I am still am contemplating it.

That studying has lead me to my own "Faith based belief system" that combines the other three main Faith based belief systems, Religious, Atheist and Transcendentalist. I call mine "Act of Freedom".

[Aireal]

Mikal

Nice to speak with another learned individual who understands the value of accurate translations.

I studied the Kabbala in my youth, which was probably the basis for the book “The Ain Soph” you mentioned.

Without giving away too much of the book, I do use Adam’s name as a good example on the problems of translating from the Hebrew. Here is an excerpt.

Adam’s Name
The parent root word of “Adam” is “am,” meaning “blood.” By placing a letter in front of the parent root, the child root word is formed: “dam.” “Dam” is related to “am” because it means “red,” which is, of course, the color of blood. By looking at a few other words derived from the child root, we can see a common meaning in them all.

Each of these words refers to the common meaning of "red." For instance, “dam” is the "red" blood, “edom” is the color "red," and “Adam” is the "red" man. The Hebrew word “adamah” is also the feminine form of the word meaning "ground." This refers to the
“ground” Adam was formed from as well as indicating the color red.

Note also that Adam’s entire name is part of the name for the earth he is formed from:
“Adam”, “Adamah.” Therefore, Adam is truly a child of his Mother, the Earth.
Therefore, Gen. 2:7 reads “And the Lord God formed the Red Man from the Red Clay of Her the Earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the Red Man (Adam) became a living being.”

Good Conclusion: “Adam was very ‘earthy’ in personality. Adam was close to and very knowledgeable about nature.” This is supported by the Bible as Adam named the animals, and in Hebrew you must know the nature of something to name it.

Fair Conclusion: “Adam had bronze colored skin and red hair. Adam was most likely a hunter-gatherer.” This does not conflict with the Biblical account, nor is it supported by other passages. There is a good likelihood of this being true given the Hebrew meaning of the words and Adam’s detailed knowledge of animals.

Bad Conclusion: “Adam was a Native North American Indian.” This conclusion conflicts with the Bible story and is only based on one aspect: skin color. So, even with a good translation, several conclusions can be drawn from it, some good, some not.

[Aireal]

PoPpAScience

I just recently learned of Gerald Schroeder’s work. Very interesting stuff, there is another physicist who has done similar work.

While my reading of the scriptures suggests billions of years, creationists see only 6 days, Schroeder’s work show that we could both be correct, depending on where you are standing in relation to creation.