[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

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

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The theory of Intelligent design (Id) by enthusiast religious teachers is Theology and UIDE, unlike Intelligent design, is Science.

Fripro, what I fail to understand is why you insist UIDE is science?

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Does the Universe have consciousness, and is the Earth a living organism?

These are wonderful questions. If you wish to answer these philosophically have at it. If you wish to form a scientific hypothesis, you need to propose some physical traits that would allow you to measure/detect that consciousness/life.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

... I would also agree with InfiniteNow from HSF, with respect to UIDE. It may be beyond absolute proof, at our current level of understanding.

Absolute proof is not required for a scientific theory. Just a hypothesis created after making observations. Then tests created to disprove the hypothesis. If they fail to disprove the hypothesis the hypothesis becomes a theory.

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

UIDE is a roadmap giving the reader considerable data to find his way...

I have seen no data that you have shared with us, only suppositions.
The closest I have seen is your suggestion of a particle you termed a 'wit'. Perhaps you could expand on this, what are the hypothetical properties of this 'wit' (other than its mass which you have mentioned. Is there a type of test to detect them directly? How do they intereact with other particles.

In conclusion, your UIDE sounds, reads and looks like a religious statement. If you do truly intend for it to be a scientific theory it needs to follow the basic facets the scientific method:
source: from Wikopedia

************************************************** ****
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.

****************************

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

Fripro, what I fail to understand is why you insist UIDE is science?



These are wonderful questions. If you wish to answer these philosophically have at it. If you wish to form a scientific hypothesis, you need to propose some physical traits that would allow you to measure/detect that consciousness/life.



Absolute proof is not required for a scientific theory. Just a hypothesis created after making observations. Then tests created to disprove the hypothesis. If they fail to disprove the hypothesis the hypothesis becomes a theory.



I have seen no data that you have shared with us, only suppositions.
The closest I have seen is your suggestion of a particle you termed a 'wit'. Perhaps you could expand on this, what are the hypothetical properties of this 'wit' (other than its mass which you have mentioned. Is there a type of test to detect them directly? How do they intereact with other particles.

In conclusion, your UIDE sounds, reads and looks like a religious statement. If you do truly intend for it to be a scientific theory it needs to follow the basic facets the scientific method:
source: from Wikopedia

************************************************** ****
The scientific method involves the following basic facets:

Observation. A constant feature of scientific inquiry.

Description. Information must be reliable, i.e., replicable (repeatable) as well as valid (relevant to the inquiry).

Prediction. Information must be valid for observations past, present, and future of given phenomena, i.e., purported "one shot" phenomena do not give rise to the capability to predict, nor to the ability to repeat an experiment.

Control. Actively and fairly sampling the range of possible occurrences, whenever possible and proper, as opposed to the passive acceptance of opportunistic data, is the best way to control or counterbalance the risk of empirical bias.

Falsifiability, or the elimination of plausible alternatives. This is a gradual process that requires repeated experiments by multiple researchers who must be able to replicate results in order to corroborate them. This requirement, one of the most frequently contended, leads to the following: All hypotheses and theories are in principle subject to disproof. Thus, there is a point at which there might be a consensus about a particular hypothesis or theory, yet it must in principle remain tentative. As a body of knowledge grows and a particular hypothesis or theory repeatedly brings predictable results, confidence in the hypothesis or theory increases.


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

Please look AT: aqlso:http://www.fripro.com/Universe.html For the WIt particle proof click on Wit Particle.

Thank you for your interesting coments. I am positive that the UIDE theory is not Theology --it is science. I leave it to you if you study my Web and the UIDE manuscript Sincerely FRIPRO Tom

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

Please look AT: aqlso:http://www.fripro.com/Universe.html For the WIt particle proof click on Wit Particle.

With all due respect Tom, your website's a mess. II couldn't find the page explaining what a 'wit' particle is. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on the 'wit' particle a little further. And also, if you could inform us of any credible sources like CERN actually observing something that might be called a 'wit' particle.

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

With all due respect Tom, your website's a mess. II couldn't find the page explaining what a 'wit' particle is. I would appreciate it if you could elaborate on the 'wit' particle a little further. And also, if you could inform us of any credible sources like CERN actually observing something that might be called a 'wit' particle.

Sorry I did not realize the web site was so hard to handle so I will insert the WIT particle calculations here.

[DeBorlie mass wave theory 1924] converted, by Fairbairn, to show "Wit" particle Mass in gram seconds:
1. From Planck's light's photon (hµ)energy equation:***
E1 = hµ ** h = Planck's constant 6.62559x10-27erg sec
*µ = frequency in hertz of a mass wave
**********
2. From EINSTINE's mass energy (mc2 ) equation *
E2= mc2** c = (2.99792457x1010cm/sec)
****************** *c is the velocity of UV light*
m is the mass in grams

E1 = energy E2 = energy**Therefore:
E1 = E2
*hµ = mc 2
m = hµ/c 2
h and c 2* are both constants therefore can be replaced by constant k f
m=k f µ
k f = h /c 2
When µ is one hertz
*k f =* h /c 2
c being * the velocity of UV light* (In our section of the Universe)
* 6.62559x10-27erg-sec / (2.99792457x1010 cm/sec) 2 = *kf * =* 7. 371963x 10 -48 erg - sec / (cm/sec)2 *
Note (the units of (kf *can be simplified to g sec.)*


The Dimensional Analysis is:

Dimensional Analysis (simplifying unit conversion)*
__Therefore: m = kf µ
* m =kf* = 7.371963x 10- 48* g-sec

when ( µ) is at one hertz, mass is in grams
Fairbairn demonstrates equating Planck's formula (E=hµ)) and Einstein's formula (E=mc2) which contain equal energy E,and restates it as
(m = kf µ) .
kf =m/ µ

Fairbairn states his constant kf is his universal constant, of Newton's elusive Ether atmosphere of the Universe, and this constant is gram-seconds (calculated at kf = 7.371963x 10 - 48* g- sec) ; an may explain the "dark matter'' in space.* Measurements show that "this dark matter", must make up about 73+ percent of the universe, but which has yet to be seen.

Note: the accuracy of kf* depends on the correct measurements of the velocity of UV light and planck's constant. As these values change Fairbairn's constant kf also must be recalculated.
*(Present values are taken from the National Bureau of Standards, but should be checked for the latest measurements.

The question to Physics lovers, is: how do you detect a particle that is x 10- 48 grams at a frequency of one hertz, in a time period of one second? No wonder the dark matter can not be seen! Yet is everywhere until -- there is nothing.

Note: Fairbairn gives the ether particle mass a name "Wit": a "Wit" is 7.371963x 10-48* grams.* Websters dictionary definition for "Wit" is the limit of one's mental resources; also , at (one's) wits' end (Further translated to -- that which is the smallest mass particle one can imagine or measure)

I hope that these simple math calculations can answer your question on the WIT particle that makes up Newton's Ether atmosphere of the Universe. (FRIPRO) TOM

CERN is still under construction. Here is a a FERMI LAB VIDEO that helps explain particle/wave physics: http://vmsstreamer1.fnal.gov/VMS/Samples/Cerenkov.ram

Would like to hear from you, an any further points that you may have in mind at: my web site e mail is fripro@fripro.com Further photos are at http://www.fripro.com/Universe.html SINCERELY TOM (FRIPRO)

[FRIPRO]

Originally Posted by FRIPRO

The original string in the "Theology forum" was canceled by the String administrator due to content not appicable to the string subject,. We were told to re-list under another string or subject, if still required!

As I believe the site string administraor had a good reason to shut down the string, due to out of hand content by some persons. I have relisted it in the SCIENCE forumn. The reason being I really want to hear from the scientific community reasonable comments. FRIPRO

Thank you for your consideration:FRIPRO

Infinate now is right, I am looking for real opinions, and there is very little time left to include you opinions on the subject,FRIPRO