|
Home > Archive > HIV Aids > October 2005 > The Theory of Intelligent Design as it relates to E=MC2
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
The Theory of Intelligent Design as it relates to E=MC2
|
|
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:52 am |
| I know what E (energy) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2 means.
It means there are actually two universes existing side by side.
And light particles from each bounce back and force between the two.
The universe is "bi-polar" just like me!
And - in one universe - the negative happens, in the other one, all the
positive happens.
And the rapid negative-positive energy charge actually creates two
universes that are making so much energy, that they are expanding
contually...
Thus, light (energy) bouncing back and forth at the speed of light
squared (negative and positive charges) between *two universes* creates
the known universe.
There is, literally, another version of the universe existing right
beside ours in which our "twin" makes the exact opposite choice that we
do.
Actually, I lied.
There may be three charges: "negative," "positive" and a Universal
Version that is "neutral."
Currently, by the way, we are in the "Neutral Universe," which is why
everything is so XXXXed up right now!
So, Einstein really did figure out God's thoughts.
Einstein figured out that *He* was God, because he figured out God's
ultimate secret:
The Grand Unification Theory
Einstein did it!
And I am just some XXXXXXX that figured it out!
-Paul Whiting
Hey, Wilhelm, can you run the numbers on this badboy to see if I'm
right? Let's publish this motherXXXXer! You're name goes 1st.
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:52 am |
| The Theory of Intelligent Design *is* the Grand Unification Theory.
E=MC2
Einstein did it!
But he forgot to talk about neutral, or (the void), which he was afraid
was actually *proof* of hell.
But, he was wrong! The void is ZERO.
God is NOTHING without US.
Yet, zero kept collapsing the calculus equations!
So, we are NOTHING without GOD
Thus, Neutral, or the vaccuum, is HEAVEN.
Because the WAR IS FINALLY OVER.
We ALL won!
Welcome to heaven!
Love always,
-Paulee
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| Oh shit, I was wrong!
Okay, in the two universes, which exits side by side, each side
*alternates* between making the best choice and making the worst one.
I realized that if they were true exact opposites, that would not create
*stability.*
Thus, we have the pairs of opposites (good/bad, right/wrong, light/dark
God/Devil) existing in compliment to each other, but in different
dimensions.
And we have light particles from *both* universes popping in and out of
existence within *each* universe at the speed of light.
And we have the vaccuum (The Void), in which both universes are
"suspended."
And what keeps the whole thing stable is gravity, which is "God's Love."
Because gravity pulls everything together.
And if I remember correctly, gravity is really electromagnetic fields, so
"love" can attract, or it can repel, depending on what kind of
electromagnetic field two or more objects have that bump into each other.
Now, obviously there can be more than two universes (or dimensions).
It seems like I heard once that, at last count, Quantam Mechanics had
figured there were twelve dimensions (or was it 16)?
Damn! I need to learn calculus!
-Paulee
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| And just a friendly reminder to all of those out there playing "The
Game," if you try to steal this from me, *I will come after you.*
I have documentation proving that *I* thought of this first and that
proof is located on several websites (which is why I cross-posted it!).
I can de-construct *anything* in a way that *any* jury can understand.
Get my drift?
They will believe *me* and NOT *you,* because I have a) written proof
and b) I can explain this thing inside and out in *plain language.*
The only exception to the above rule is Wilhelm Godschalk whom I know
and trust.
You can take anything I have, Wilhelm, because you helped me in my hour
of need.
I am zero. I am nothing. And I can take all of you down, unless I LOVE
YOU. :-)
Just a friendly reminder...
Yours in Ultimate Power,
-Paul Whiting
"I am the dark side of the light."
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:s4u7f.36$Yl4.5121@news.uswest.net...
> And just a friendly reminder to all of those out there playing "The
> Game," if you try to steal this from me, *I will come after you.*
>
> I have documentation proving that *I* thought of this first and that
> proof is located on several websites (which is why I cross-posted it!).
>
> I can de-construct *anything* in a way that *any* jury can understand.
> Get my drift?
>
> They will believe *me* and NOT *you,* because I have a) written proof
> and b) I can explain this thing inside and out in *plain language.*
>
> The only exception to the above rule is Wilhelm Godschalk whom I know
> and trust.
>
> You can take anything I have, Wilhelm, because you helped me in my hour
> of need.
>
> I am zero. I am nothing. And I can take all of you down, unless I LOVE
> YOU. :-)
Paul, are you off your meds, it would seem that you taken a swing towards
the deep end I hope your all right?
Gary Stein
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| "Gary Stein" wrote:
>Paul, are you off your meds, it would seem that you taken a swing
towards
>the deep end I hope your all right?
What are your credentials, again, Gary?
Oh! And when you can walk a mile in my shoes, feel free to judge me.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Inw7f.55$Yl4.7419@news.uswest.net...
> "Gary Stein" wrote:
> towards
>
>
> What are your credentials, again, Gary?
Well lets see I have BS in Computer Science, an MBA, and spent from 1996 to
2001 devoting around 8 hours a day to educating myself on HIV, AIDS, the
treatment of OI's and the pharmacology of ARV.
>
> Oh! And when you can walk a mile in my shoes, feel free to judge me.
Fondoo and I could say the same about you. In that you claim to have
suffered no ill effects from your HIV infection while we have.
As to my concern about your mental state it was sincere you proudly
mentioned in one post today that you are bi-polar and then shortly after
that started a chain of posts that are not at all reflective of your normal
posting style nor equal to your normal level of logical thinking thus I am
concerned about you and asked if you were off your meds.
Gary Stein
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| "Gary Stein" wrote:
>As to my concern about your mental state it was sincere you proudly
>mentioned in one post today that you are bi-polar and then shortly
after
>that started a chain of posts that are not at all reflective of your
normal
>posting style nor equal to your normal level of logical thinking thus I
am
>concerned about you and asked if you were off your meds.
Excuse me?
What, precisely, makes you think I take *any* prescribed medications? I
have not been to a doctor in years...
I *used* to take paxil for generalized anxiety disorder but, then, I
discovered Qi Gong and found that *natural method* took cared of my
axiety.
As you can see, I have *no fear* now and am happy to complete the task
for which I was sent: bringing down the AIDS paradigm.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
| "Gary Stein" wrote:
>"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>Well lets see I have BS in Computer Science, an MBA, and spent from
1996 to
>2001 devoting around 8 hours a day to educating myself on HIV, AIDS,
the
>treatment of OI's and the pharmacology of ARV.
Did the *astounding* thought ever occur to you that you were studying
and *incorrect* premise?
Did you *bother* to think *critically* about what you were being told?
Did you look to find the anomalies in the equation?
(That last one is SUPER important.)
Mathematics: The Language of God.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-10-26, 10:53 am |
|
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:byz7f.73$Yl4.10067@news.uswest.net...
> "Gary Stein" wrote:
> 1996 to
> the
>
>
> Did the *astounding* thought ever occur to you that you were studying
> and *incorrect* premise?
Yes I saw the denialists websites, and found there content utterly devoid of
evidence.
>
> Did you *bother* to think *critically* about what you were being told?
Yes, do you?
>
> Did you look to find the anomalies in the equation?
Yes especially in regards to OI's and ARV treatment.
>
> (That last one is SUPER important.)
>
Yes it is sadly you seem completely unable to apply it to the denialists
dogma you are so enamored with.
>
> Mathematics: The Language of God.
Says who? Mathematics' is the purest science that exists, whereas the
existence of a "language of god" implies faith in a supreme being,
mathematics' does not and can not address issues of faith.
Gary Stein
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-27, 5:51 pm |
| "Gary Stein" wrote:
>
>Says who? Mathematics' is the purest science that exists, whereas the
>existence of a "language of god" implies faith in a supreme being,
>mathematics' does not and can not address issues of faith.
Gary, I respectfully disagree with you!
My co-worker, Matt, pointed out that C2 isn't really the speed of light
twice, as I had it before.
It's the square root of the speed of light!
Thus, E(engergy) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
My question to Iconoclaster is:
What is the square root of the speed of light?
C2 = ?
By the way, does this equation of Good Ol' Eistein, line up with Quantam
Mechanics, if you take into account that Zero(God) can collapse the
equation?
And, thus:
0(God) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
Or:
E(engergy) = 0(God)
So...
God is nothing! God is ZERO! God is so powerful S/He can be
*everything* and *nothing* all at the same time!
In other words, God is the portion of *every* equation that can collapse
it!
God is Absolute Zero.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-27, 5:52 pm |
| "pauleewhiting" wrote:
>God is nothing! God is ZERO! God is so powerful S/He can be
>*everything* and *nothing* all at the same time!
>
>In other words, God is the portion of *every* equation that can
collapse
>it!
>
>God is Absolute Zero.
And, finally, we have:
E(energy) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
or
0(Absolute Zero, or vaccuum) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
0r
E(energy) = 0(Absolute Zero, or vaccuum)
Three equations that explain the entire universe!
Einstien *did it!*
He just *didn't realize* that he had!
I think he thought zero/vaccuum proved the existence of Hell and/or The
Devil, because everytime he would insert zero into his equation (as you
must be able to do, since everything has to have an absence of value),
it *totally* freaked him out!
I think the thought never occurred to Einstein that God could be
nothing!
And, of course, God can be *anything,* including *nothing.*
Nothingness, is how God rests!
The vaccuum of the universe is where God exists, because from there,
S/He can go *anywhere* and/or be *everything* and *nothing* at the same
time.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
|
|
| GMCarter 2005-10-27, 5:52 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:15:24 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
snip.
>It's the square root of the speed of light!
No.
>
>Thus, E(engergy) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
Yes.
>0(God) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
No.
More interestingly,
the speed of light = the square root of (E/m).
Your angel of light,
Lucy Fur
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-27, 5:52 pm |
| "GMCarter" wrote:
>More interestingly,
>the speed of light = the square root of (E/m).
>
>Your angel of light,
>Lucy Fur
Are you saying that
C = EM2
is the equivolency of
E = MC2
which is something Einstein said?
Your angel of darkness
Auntie Christ
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-27, 5:52 pm |
| On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:16:29 GMT, pauleewhiting
<pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"GMCarter" wrote:
>
>
>Are you saying that
>
>C = EM2
>
>is the equivolency of
>
>E = MC2
>
>which is something Einstein said?
No, that's not what I said. I said:
the speed of light = the square root of (E/m).
c = square root of (E/m)
(sorry, hard to put it in ascii)
Gotta learn some basic algebra first, Paul!!!
>Your angel of darkness
>Auntie Christ
LOL.
| |
| Gary Stein 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| Some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind (one of which you most
assuredly are not) have tried to apply science to faith and failed utterly
and completely they are mutually exclusive concepts.
Faith can not prove Science
and
Science can not prove Faith
Gary Stein
"pauleewhiting" <pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w278f.1571$xJ5.3115@news.uswest.net...
> "Gary Stein" wrote:
>
>
> Gary, I respectfully disagree with you!
>
> My co-worker, Matt, pointed out that C2 isn't really the speed of light
> twice, as I had it before.
>
> It's the square root of the speed of light!
>
>
> Thus, E(engergy) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
>
>
> My question to Iconoclaster is:
>
> What is the square root of the speed of light?
>
> C2 = ?
>
>
> By the way, does this equation of Good Ol' Eistein, line up with Quantam
> Mechanics, if you take into account that Zero(God) can collapse the
> equation?
>
>
> And, thus:
>
> 0(God) = M(mass)C(speed of light)2(squared)
>
> Or:
>
> E(engergy) = 0(God)
>
>
>
> So...
>
> God is nothing! God is ZERO! God is so powerful S/He can be
> *everything* and *nothing* all at the same time!
>
> In other words, God is the portion of *every* equation that can collapse
> it!
>
> God is Absolute Zero.
>
>
>
>
> -Paul Whiting
>
>
>
> --
> Sent via Health Newsgroups
> http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| David Canzi -- non-mailable 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| In article <rfk2m196sq1g494heq5ok6chm897favpr1@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 22:16:29 GMT, pauleewhiting
><pauleewhiting@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>No, that's not what I said. I said:
>the speed of light = the square root of (E/m).
>c = square root of (E/m)
> (sorry, hard to put it in ascii)
>
>Gotta learn some basic algebra first, Paul!!!
He thinks gravity is electromagnetism and is related (somehow)
to God's love, and that good and evil are physical quantities.
His understanding of the word "dimension" comes from comic books,
where a "dimension" is another universe "parallel" to ours.
Perhaps he knows Mr. Mxyzptlk personally.
He has explained to us his revolutionary new physical theory
based on his interpretation of E=MC^2, and warned us not to
try to steal the credit for it... but he doesn't understand the
difference between a square and a square root.
Nevertheless he's a towering genius who can revolutionize any
branch of science he chooses to examine.
Archimedes Plutonium has a new and powerful competitor here.
--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
| |
| GMCarter 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:53:29 +0000 (UTC),
dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:
snip
>Archimedes Plutonium has a new and powerful competitor here.
LOL...whatever happened to him???
| |
| pauleewhiting 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| "David Canzi -- non-mailable" wrote:
>He has explained to us his revolutionary new physical theory
>based on his interpretation of E=MC^2, and warned us not to
>try to steal the credit for it... but he doesn't understand the
>difference between a square and a square root.
David, sweetheart,
At least I am willing to "put myself out there" by taking chances with
sharing ideas that pop into my head, and being authentic in my humanity
by throwing myself into the fire of learning.
You're right. I don't know everything.
You're right. Sometimes my understandings are incomplete.
You're right. I have an abiding belief in the universe as being a
"non-accident."
But, hey, at least I am trying.
At least I am bettering myself by asking questions.
And, at least, I am not stupid enough to think that nature would create
a virus that de-differentiates by *only* being able to mimic the
diseases that other microbes cause - a virus that manages to jump from
the heterosexual population on the African continent directly into the
homosexual population in the rest of the world but, somehow,
miraculously steers clear of the heterosexual population in the porn
industry, despite the fact they are engaging in both high-risk behaviors
(tons of vaginal *and* anal sex with *multiple partners* and *without*
condoms).
Say, where *is* that "straight plague" in the heterosexual porn
industry, anyway?
Why aren’t straight porn stars dropping like flies?
Are they not the *highest risk* group ever?
If you can't see the major discrepancies in this highly flawed theory,
then *I am* a towering genius compared to you, because a junior high
school student could pick out these gaping holes in logic from a mile
away.
-Paul Whiting
--
Sent via Health Newsgroups
http://www.healthnewsgroups.com
| |
| David Canzi -- non-mailable 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| In article <mjr3m1pqchmhgjq9a0gj2mumk04hkhqpe7@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 01:53:29 +0000 (UTC),
>dmcanzi@remulak.ads.uwaterloo.ca (David Canzi -- non-mailable) wrote:
>
>LOL...whatever happened to him???
He's currently in sci.math, working on a disproof of the Riemann
hypothesis. Perhaps he should collaborate with James S. Harris.
--
David Canzi "I am not denying anything." -- Celia Farber
| |
| Brian Mailman 2005-10-29, 10:51 am |
| Gary Stein wrote:
> Some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind (one of which you most
> assuredly are not) have tried to apply science to faith and failed utterly
> and completely they are mutually exclusive concepts.
No, it's more like the Heisenberg principle.
B/
|
| |
|
|