[Turtle]

I listened to a physicist last night on the radio for a few hours making the argument for a scientifically justified creator. He has a new book just out called The God Theory & as it is a finished work you all may find it germain to this discussion.
Find it here
Inspite of the conclusion he draws that there is reason to accept a creator, he admits such a thing is beyond proof at our current understanding.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Turtle

I listened to a physicist last night on the radio for a few hours making the argument for a scientifically justified creator. He has a new book just out called The God Theory & as it is a finished work you all may find it germain to this discussion.
Find it here
Inspite of the conclusion he draws that there is reason to accept a creator, he admits such a thing is beyond proof at our current understanding.

Thank you for your enlightment. I have no quarrel with his conclusions. However we can understand that the Universe's (UIDE THEORY) does not have to be our creator directly. FRIPRO

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

I think you got into a bit of a logical loop Fripro. A comment was made that you had no proof other than your word. You referenced your manuscript and said the same thing. I know that you have a work in process. It is up to you to provide proof of your statements to validate the ideas of your thesis. Reminding us that you are still working on it doesn't change the fact that it is not there yet.

May I make a suggestion? You should break your effort into smaller peices. What you are trying to prove is so monsterous that even with the whole thing firmly in your head it would be difficult to explain it to others and hold it up to critical review. By working with smaller "sub themes" you may focus your effort and find that is it easier to make progress.

That is just my two cents.

Bill

Excellent recommendations. I shall try to focus on your excellent point. FRIPRO

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Excellent recommendations. I shall try to focus on your excellent point. FRIPRO

Bill I have cleaned up the Manuscript perhaps you may want to see your suggestion implemented FRIPRO

at:http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[FRIPRO]

One of the scientific and theological controversies that puzzle the Earth's people most is the design and unlikely origin of the Universe. In the pass few years, our technology has given us a enormous insight into the birth of the Earth, and our own solar system; however, it has not revealed considerable information, on the Universe itself.

The controversy exists mostly between three points, 1. The Universe was created out of nothing through the Big Bang. 2. By a creator (Id). 3. It (the Universe) has eternally existed. This manuscript's subject, UIDE, discusses these theories, at great lengths, and is Science not Theology.

In this manuscript I describe the theory of the UNIVERSE'S, INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©. UIDE is a guiding means (a road map) of man's existence here on Earth and the Universe's Ether Sea construction and operation.

The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology. The reason being, even a god cannot create the Universe out of nothing, by way of the Big Bang. This god would have to be in or part of a Universe, to have done so. Consequently, if a god did exist to create the Universe he would have to be part of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe did eternally exist prior to the Big Bang, or none of us would be here now.

The detection of the local Big Bang did not prove creation or intelligent design (Id) of the Universe, by an implied superior being. Darwinism is not the whole story either. Evolution happened well before Darwin's discoveries, his proven theories being only part of the evolution story as a whole.

I believe the Big Bang in some form did happen about 13 billion years ago as our scientist predicted. It did not create the Universe; however, it did create the vast section of the Universe, in which our Milky Way galaxy's Sun Earth Solar system now occupies.

There are constant theoretical arguments, as to where did the Earth, the Universe and humans come from. Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism? We have proof that some lower form of man (the Lucy baby) existed 3 million years ago on Earth.

The Earth's human’s inhabitants (including the millions of other species living in, on, in and outside the atmosphere) are in the process of building an interconnected brain network, for the Earth's living organism. This proves evolution on Earth.

Most of the above mentioned scientific and theoretical argument is a constant source of questions. The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "prove it". Go to any 'on line forum' on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the worlds communities are, with regards to answers to the above arguments.

Can there ever be a unified theory of the Universe that is accepted as truth? Do we humans have a need to know the truth about the Universe? If we did know and understand its true mechanism, how would it affect the human intelligentsia?

This manuscript is written in real time, and puts forth a new theory, "Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution" UIDE. Regardless of how this manuscript proposes the answers to the great scientific controversy, half of readers believe they know better, and confront this argument with, where is your scientific proofs? Or do you expect me to accept it on faith alone? Others will ask is it logical? Yet still small minds will attack the grammar or sentence construction, completely missing the point of UIDE.

I have placed this manuscript on the Internet, in its present (soon to be finished form) evolving as I write. It is therefore an electronic “e BOOK” written in HTML language, corrected and processed by my brain, and my computer's grammar and spelling translations. We must understand that language is subject to misunderstandings. I quote, Re: Machine Translation: I'm Sick of Waiting Posted: 09-19-2006, 11:35 AM: computers are not capable of abstract thought. Machines only can calculate logical conclusions, they cannot imagine and they cannot make conclusions based solely on intuition.

Human language is complex in all its forms. English especially so. As my brother likes to say: "English is the only language where your nose can run and your feet can smell." A computer would simply trip over such abstract wording.

Language involves nearly infinite possibilities, and the meaning is interpreted by the user based on far more factors than just the words themselves. Native US American English (a different language from British English), and that's in one country where we all speak the same language (in theory, anyway). I have learned enough to know that until we develop true artificial intelligence, complex translations will be beyond the capabilities of computers or programmers. There is simply too much complexity and nuance in any language to be analyzed by the type of linear logic employed by computers. .
In this manuscript I have tried to use American English to best explain my theory of UIDE. It is written in HTML and has been processed by computers to get the grammar and spelling more usable to the greatest number of readers. Wherever I have used italics, it means I am quoting from other public domain resources.

Some of my readers will say, why publish this manuscript if you do not have proof? I have referenced one person published thoughts, "InfiniteNow", from "HSF Forum" who says: if you were to simply preface this comment with, "I don't have any solid proof, but I personally believe that..." I would not take issue with it. However, you have stated it in terms of the absolute, and for that I will request you support your statement with evidence beside personally written manuscripts.

With this in mind I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding. UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way, in this difficult theoretical nightmare of language, science, artificial intelligence (AI), and mathematics.

We must then think about the concept that the Universe is eternal, perpetual, constantly changing. To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth as a living organism, is the means that the Earth does improve on itself. This is accomplished through it inhabitants (humans, plant and other living species) to build the Earth as a living thinking organism; or, allow itself to be destroyed, internally or externally through it’s environmental mistakes.

Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics – especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified.

It is possible that the accelerating universe is not a sign of dark energy at all, but instead signals a new aspect of the law of gravity that Einstein overlooked. Published from NASA's Office of Space Science (The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) Of course UIDE implies that the Universe may not be accelerating.

[FRIPRO]

The Scientific Controversy

One of the scientific and theological controversies that puzzle the Earth's people most is the design and unlikely origin of the Universe. In the pass few years, our technology has given us a enormous insight into the birth of the Earth, and our own solar system; however, it has not revealed considerable information, on the Universe itself.

The controversy exists mostly between three points, 1. The Universe was created out of nothing through the Big Bang. 2. By a creator (Id). 3. It (the Universe) has eternally existed. This manuscript's subject, UIDE, discusses these theories, at great lengths, and is Science not Theology.

In this manuscript I describe the theory of the UNIVERSE'S, INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©. UIDE is a guiding means (a road map) of man's existence here on Earth and the Universe's Ether Sea construction and operation.

The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology. The reason being, even a god cannot create the Universe out of nothing, by way of the Big Bang. This god would have to be in or part of a Universe, to have done so. Consequently, if a god did exist to create the Universe he would have to be part of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe did eternally exist prior to the Big Bang, or none of us would be here now.

The detection of the local Big Bang did not prove creation or intelligent design (Id) of the Universe, by an implied superior being. Darwinism is not the whole story either. Evolution happened well before Darwin's discoveries, his proven theories being only part of the evolution story as a whole.

I believe the Big Bang in some form did happen about 13 billion years ago as our scientist predicted. It did not create the Universe; however, it did create the vast section of the Universe, in which our Milky Way galaxy's Sun Earth Solar system now occupies.

There are constant theoretical arguments, as to where did the Earth, the Universe and humans come from. Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism? We have proof that some lower form of man (the Lucy baby) existed 3 million years ago on Earth.

The Earth's human’s inhabitants (including the millions of other species living in, on, in and outside the atmosphere) are in the process of building an interconnected brain network, for the Earth's living organism. This proves evolution on Earth.

Most of the above mentioned scientific and theoretical argument is a constant source of questions. The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "prove it". Go to any 'on line forum' on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the worlds communities are, with regards to answers to the above arguments.

Can there ever be a unified theory of the Universe that is accepted as truth? Do we humans have a need to know the truth about the Universe? If we did know and understand its true mechanism, how would it affect the human intelligentsia?

This manuscript is written in real time, and puts forth a new theory, "Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution" UIDE. Regardless of how this manuscript proposes the answers to the great scientific controversy, half of readers believe they know better, and confront this argument with, where is your scientific proofs? Or do you expect me to accept it on faith alone? Others will ask is it logical? Yet still small minds will attack the grammar or sentence construction, completely missing the point of UIDE.

I have placed this manuscript on the Internet, in its present (soon to be finished form) evolving as I write. It is therefore an electronic “e BOOK” written in HTML language, corrected and processed by my brain, and my computer's grammar and spelling translations.

We must understand that language is subject to misunderstandings. I quote, Re: Machine Translation: I'm Sick of Waiting Posted: 09-19-2006, 11:35 AM: computers are not capable of abstract thought. Machines only can calculate logical conclusions, they cannot imagine and they cannot make conclusions based solely on intuition.

Human language is complex in all its forms. English especially so. As my brother likes to say: "English is the only language where your nose can run and your feet can smell." A computer would simply trip over such abstract wording.
Language involves nearly infinite possibilities, and the meaning is interpreted by the user based on far more factors than just the words themselves. Native US American English (a different language from British English), and that's in one country where we all speak the same language (in theory, anyway). I have learned enough to know that until we develop true artificial intelligence, complex translations will be beyond the capabilities of computers or programmers. There is simply too much complexity and nuance in any language to be analyzed by the type of linear logic employed by computers. .
In this manuscript I have tried to use American English to best explain my theory of UIDE. It is written in HTML and has been processed by computers to get the grammar and spelling more usable to the greatest number of readers. Wherever I have used italics, it means I am quoting from other public domain resources.

Some of my readers will say, why publish this manuscript if you do not have proof? I have referenced one person published thoughts, "InfiniteNow", from "HSF Forum" who says: if you were to simply preface this comment with, "I don't have any solid proof, but I personally believe that..." I would not take issue with it. However, you have stated it in terms of the absolute, and for that I will request you support your statement with evidence beside personally written manuscripts.

With this in mind I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding. UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way, in this difficult theoretical nightmare of language, science, artificial intelligence (AI), and mathematics.

We must then think about the concept that the Universe is eternal, perpetual, constantly changing. To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth as a living organism, is the means that the Earth does improve on itself.

This is accomplished through it inhabitants (humans, plant and other living species) to build the Earth as a living thinking organism; or, allow itself to be destroyed, internally or externally through it’s environmental mistakes.

Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics – especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified. It is possible that the accelerating universe is not a sign of dark energy at all, but instead signals a new aspect of the law of gravity that Einstein overlooked. Published from NASA's Office of Space Science (The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) Of course UIDE implies that the Universe may not be accelerating.

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html[/quote]

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The Scientific Controversy

One of the scientific and theological controversies that puzzle the Earth's people most is the design and unlikely origin of the Universe. In the pass few years, our technology has given us a enormous insight into the birth of the Earth, and our own solar system; however, it has not revealed considerable information, on the Universe itself.

The controversy exists mostly between three points, 1. The Universe was created out of nothing through the Big Bang. 2. By a creator (Id). 3. It (the Universe) has eternally existed. This manuscript's subject, UIDE, discusses these theories, at great lengths, and is Science not Theology.

In this manuscript I describe the theory of the UNIVERSE'S, INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©. UIDE is a guiding means (a road map) of man's existence here on Earth and the Universe's Ether Sea construction and operation.

The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology. The reason being, even a god cannot create the Universe out of nothing, by way of the Big Bang. This god would have to be in or part of a Universe, to have done so. Consequently, if a god did exist to create the Universe he would have to be part of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe did eternally exist prior to the Big Bang, or none of us would be here now.

The detection of the local Big Bang did not prove creation or intelligent design (Id) of the Universe, by an implied superior being. Darwinism is not the whole story either. Evolution happened well before Darwin's discoveries, his proven theories being only part of the evolution story as a whole.

I believe the Big Bang in some form did happen about 13 billion years ago as our scientist predicted. It did not create the Universe; however, it did create the vast section of the Universe, in which our Milky Way galaxy's Sun Earth Solar system now occupies.

There are constant theoretical arguments, as to where did the Earth, the Universe and humans come from. Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism? We have proof that some lower form of man (the Lucy baby) existed 3 million years ago on Earth.

The Earth's human’s inhabitants (including the millions of other species living in, on, in and outside the atmosphere) are in the process of building an interconnected brain network, for the Earth's living organism. This proves evolution on Earth.

Most of the above mentioned scientific and theoretical argument is a constant source of questions. The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "prove it". Go to any 'on line forum' on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the worlds communities are, with regards to answers to the above arguments.

Can there ever be a unified theory of the Universe that is accepted as truth? Do we humans have a need to know the truth about the Universe? If we did know and understand its true mechanism, how would it affect the human intelligentsia?

This manuscript is written in real time, and puts forth a new theory, "Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution" UIDE. Regardless of how this manuscript proposes the answers to the great scientific controversy, half of readers believe they know better, and confront this argument with, where is your scientific proofs? Or do you expect me to accept it on faith alone? Others will ask is it logical? Yet still small minds will attack the grammar or sentence construction, completely missing the point of UIDE.

I have placed this manuscript on the Internet, in its present (soon to be finished form) evolving as I write. It is therefore an electronic “e BOOK” written in HTML language, corrected and processed by my brain, and my computer's grammar and spelling translations.

We must understand that language is subject to misunderstandings. I quote, Re: Machine Translation: I'm Sick of Waiting Posted: 09-19-2006, 11:35 AM: computers are not capable of abstract thought. Machines only can calculate logical conclusions, they cannot imagine and they cannot make conclusions based solely on intuition.

Human language is complex in all its forms. English especially so. As my brother likes to say: "English is the only language where your nose can run and your feet can smell." A computer would simply trip over such abstract wording.
Language involves nearly infinite possibilities, and the meaning is interpreted by the user based on far more factors than just the words themselves. Native US American English (a different language from British English), and that's in one country where we all speak the same language (in theory, anyway). I have learned enough to know that until we develop true artificial intelligence, complex translations will be beyond the capabilities of computers or programmers. There is simply too much complexity and nuance in any language to be analyzed by the type of linear logic employed by computers. .

In this manuscript I have tried to use American English to best explain my theory of UIDE. It is written in HTML and has been processed by computers to get the grammar and spelling more usable to the greatest number of readers. Wherever I have used italics, it means I am quoting from other public domain resources.

Some of my readers will say, why publish this manuscript if you do not have proof? I have referenced one person published thoughts, "InfiniteNow", from "HSF Forum" who says: if you were to simply preface this comment with, "I don't have any solid proof, but I personally believe that..." I would not take issue with it. However, you have stated it in terms of the absolute, and for that I will request you support your statement with evidence beside personally written manuscripts.

With this in mind I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding. UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way, in this difficult theoretical nightmare of language, science, artificial intelligence (AI), and mathematics.

We must then think about the concept that the Universe is eternal, perpetual, constantly changing. To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth as a living organism, is the means that the Earth does improve on itself.

This is accomplished through it inhabitants (humans, plant and other living species) to build the Earth as a living thinking organism; or, allow itself to be destroyed, internally or externally through it’s environmental mistakes.

Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics – especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified. It is possible that the accelerating universe is not a sign of dark energy at all, but instead signals a new aspect of the law of gravity that Einstein overlooked. Published from NASA's Office of Space Science (The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics)

Of course UIDE implies that the Universe may not be accelerating.

My theory is, if one were to look in the direction where the Hubble Space Telescope is pointed towards deep space; or, the other way, through the more sophisticated neutron microscope, one would fine the WIT particle, is the basic particle. The WIT particle being a single monopole particle with a resolution of 7.371963x 10 -48 g sec., forms a particle sea that is just as real as the water molecules are in the Earth’s oceans, or the air molecules in our Earth's atmosphere.

True, the Universe is made of both mass and electromagnetic waves (radiation). The important difference, that today’s physic teachers do not agree on, is how does mass, electromagnetic waves and gravity all tie together in one universal theorem. No one has yet tied them all together in one universal theory.

http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html

[/quote]

[Boerseun]

The detection of the local Big Bang did not prove creation or intelligent design (Id) of the Universe, by an implied superior being. Darwinism is not the whole story either. Evolution happened well before Darwin's discoveries, his proven theories being only part of the evolution story as a whole.

Heck.

I've forgotten about this thread.

But how do you plan on connecting the dots here? The Big Bang? Darwinism? The one is cosmology, the other biology. I think you might have missed the plot here somewhere. And of course Evolution happened before Darwin, it's also a known fact that gravity existed well before Newton. They only described natural processes.

I don't quite see where you're going with this.

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

I don't quite see where you're going with this.

My money is on the ban button, but I've been wrong before so who knows.

[FRIPRO]

The Scientific Controversy

One of the scientific and theological controversies that puzzle the Earth's people most, is the design and unlikely origin of the Universe.

In the pass few years our technology has given us a enormous insight into the birth of the Earth, and our own solar system; however, it has not revealed considerable information on the Universe itself.

The controversy exists mostly between four points, 1. The Universe was created out of nothing through the Big Bang. 2. By a creator (Id). 3. It (the Universe) has eternally existed. 4. Does the Universe have and atmosphere (Ether).

This manuscript's subject, UIDE, discusses these theories, at great lengths, and is Science not Theology.

The first Scientific Controversy is the theory of the UNIVERSE'S, INTELLIGENT DESIGN by EVOLUTION (UIDE)©. UIDE is a guiding means (a road map) of man's existence here on Earth and the Universe's Ether Sea construction and operation.

A second Scientific Controversy that has been argue for centuries is, does the Universe have an Ether atmosphere?

I proposed and prove that the Ether atmosphere of the Universe consist of Wit particles. Note: The Wit particle has a calculated mass of 7.371963x 10- 48 g-sec. (A "Wit" particle being 7.371963x 10-48 grams, at a frequency in space of one hertz per sec.)

Webster’s dictionary definition for a "Wit" is the limit of one's mental resources; also, at one's wits' end, further translated by myself, "to -- that which is the smallest mass particle one can imagine or measure."

The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology and UIDE, unlike Intelligent design, is Science. The reason being, even a god cannot create the Universe out of nothing, by way of the Big Bang.

This god would have to be in or part of a Universe, to have done so. Consequently, if a god did exist to create the Universe he would have to be part of the Universe. Therefore, the Universe did eternally exist prior to the Big Bang, or none of us would be here now.

The detection of the local Big Bang did not prove creation or intelligent design (Id) of the Universe, by an implied superior being. Darwinism is not the whole story either. Evolution happened well before Darwin's discoveries, his proven theories being only part of the evolutionary story as a whole.

I believe the Big Bang, in some form, did happen about 13 billion years ago as our scientist predicted, however its origin is clouded with controversy. It did not create the Universe; however, it probably created the vast section of the Universe which our Milky Way galaxy's Sun Earth Solar system now occupies.

There are constant theoretical arguments as to where did the Earth, the Universe and humans come from. Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism?

The Earth's human’s inhabitants (including the millions of other species living in, on, in and outside the atmosphere) are in the process of building an interconnected brain network, for the Earth's living organism.

Evolution on Earth is obvious, archeologists have found a scull of a lower form of man (the primitive Lucy baby) dated three million years ago living on Earth.

Most of the above mentioned scientific and theoretical argument are a constant source of questions. The cry from the many theoretical and scientific experts says, "prove it". Go to any 'on line forum' on the internet, and one will see how badly divided the worlds communities are, with regards to answers to the above arguments.

Can there ever be a unified theory of the Universe that is accepted as truth by humans? Do we humans even have the brain power, to know and understand the Universes true mechanism.

If our brains through evolution, refer to 'Lucy', do reach the point that we can handle the vast computations required to understand, how would it affect the human intelligentsia?

This manuscript is written in real time, and puts forth a new theory, "Universe's Intelligent Design by Evolution" UIDE. Regardless of how this manuscript proposes the answers to the great scientific controversy, half of readers believe they know better, and confront this argument with, where is your scientific proofs? Or do you expect me to accept it on faith alone? Others will ask is it logical?

Small minds will attack the grammar or sentence construction, completely missing the point that UIDE being a road map to future understanding of our Universe. Perhaps this reader’s nuance tells us the human brain still has not evolved to understand. Some writers like myself imagine what it might be, and advocate the word of UIDE.

I have placed this manuscript on the Internet, in its present (soon to be finished form) evolving as I write. It is therefore an electronic “e BOOK” written in HTML language, corrected and processed by my brain, and my computer's grammar and spelling translations.

We must understand that our Earth languages are subject to misunderstandings. I quote, Re: Machine English Translation: I'm Sick of Waiting Posted: 09-19-2006, 11:35 AM: computers are not capable of abstract thought. Machines only can calculate logical conclusions, they cannot imagine and they cannot make conclusions based solely on intuition.

Human language is complex in all its forms. English especially so. As my brother likes to say: "English is the only language where your nose can run and your feet can smell." A computer would simply trip over such abstract wording.

Language involves nearly infinite possibilities, and the meaning is interpreted by the user based on far more factors than just the words themselves. Native US American English (a different language from British English), and that's in one country where we all speak the same language (in theory, anyway). I have learned enough to know that until we develop true artificial intelligence, complex translations will be beyond the capabilities of computers or programmers. There is simply too much complexity and nuance in any language to be analyzed by the type of linear logic employed by computers. I strongly urge the reader to resist the installation of Spanish into our American (USA) vocabulary, less we will not be able to use English as a scientific language. One language for the USA in an absolute requirement for understanding and the eventual interconnection of the living Earth's organism and mind. In fact one universal language (it may as well be English) is important for interconnecting the evolving living Earth.

In this manuscript I have tried to use American English to best explain my theory of UIDE. It is written in HTML and has been processed by computers to get the grammar and spelling more usable to the greatest number of readers. Wherever I have used italics, it means I am quoting from other public domain resources.

Some of my readers will say, why publish this manuscript if you do not have proof? I have referenced one person published thoughts, "InfiniteNow", from "HSF Forum" who says: if you were to simply preface this comment with, "I don't have any solid proof, but I personally believe that..." I would not take issue with it. However, you have stated it in terms of the absolute, and for that I will request you support your statement with evidence beside personally written manuscripts.

With this in mind I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding. UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way, in this difficult theoretical nightmare of language, science, artificial intelligence (AI), and mathematics.

We must then think about the concept that the Universe is eternal, perpetual, constantly changing. To clarify; however, the evolution on Earth as a living organism, is the means that the Earth does improve on itself. This is accomplished through it inhabitants (humans, plant and other living species) to build the Earth as a living thinking organism; or, allow itself to be destroyed, internally or externally through it’s environmental mistakes.

The Earths species (including man) are evolving at a possible exponential rate. When the Earth's communications structures are networked to the highest communication power, its scientific community may then be able to accept the proof, of UIDE.

Published from NASA's Office of Space Science (The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics). Scientists are hesitant to modify the known "laws" of physics – especially something like Einstein's theory of gravity, which has been very well tested over the past century. But with something as perplexing as dark energy, it is important to leave no stone unturned. Several leading scientists are now investigating the possibility that the most cherished laws of physics may need to be modified. It is possible that the accelerating Universe is not a sign of dark energy at all, but instead signals a new aspect of the law of gravity that Einstein overlooked.

The Universe may not be as we now think it is, UIDE may teach us otherwise.

xxx


http://www.fripro.com/AIDE.html[/quote]