Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

Links For Firefox, Mozilla, Chrome, etc =>

A Fatal Urge For: Carefree Kiss:

 

 

 

 

Is our Universe an electron?

“Imagination leads science, and science fuels imagination.”

Electrons, protons and neutrons, the sub-atomic particles that we can’t even physically see even with the best of our technology; is it possible that our universe is like one of them? Indeed a weird proposition, given the fact that all matter in our universe is made up of these very basic building blocks of matter. But perhaps I might make better sense after putting forth what I intend to in this write-up.

Before I explain this concept let me highlight the limits of not only our knowledge, but our wildest imaginations, by pointing out an example I’ve often used to dispel the superstitious beliefs about God. In fact, no saint, messiah, prophet or else would have shared true enlightenment with you in any simpler words than what I am putting forth in the next two paragraphs.

If I ask you; ‘imagine there is nothing’, you will all visualize a dark empty space without any object, matter, gas or liquid. So if I ask you ‘what if this universe of ours wasn’t there’, you all will imagine an empty dark space. But is it the ‘true nothing’? What about the three dimensional space that you are still visualizing? In ‘true nothing’, not even a three dimensional space exists. Now try to imagine that ‘true nothing’. You will still think of a dark three dimensional something, full of solid, gar or liquid even you won’t know, but you still will imagine, ‘a three dimensional nothing’. And this is the limitation of our imagination. I know what a ‘true nothing’ would be, for today “I can imagine a true nothing”. And this is enlightenment!

The day you will be able to comprehend true nothing, you will also realize there is no God, for even God couldn’t have originated out of ‘true nothing’. How and where have these three dimensions that we know and live in originated, we will never ever know; and do you know why? Because this universe of ours in enclosed in a space, which is lying inside another space, which is lying inside another space, and so on so forth. We will never ever, and including all our generations to come, will be able to find the answer to this, for there will never be the last space, as there will always be another one outside it. And this knowledge is enlightenment!

Yes, it is true Mosses spoke to God! Yes, it is true Jesus was son of God! Yes, it is true Prophet Mohammad met God! Yes it is true that all the ten Sikh Gurus had the same soul in them, and the tenth Sikh Guru was a demon slaying Saint in previous birth who was specially sent by Holy Mother Durga to slay the modern day demons in society. And all this is true, not because there ever was any proof to prove any of these. All this is true because we people want to believe it to be true. Today if I stand in the middle of a huge open ground and shout a hundred times, “If there is any God, I want him to show here immediately to prove his existence to the world and prove he is God”, no one will come. An experiment conducted with one hundred percent accuracy and only one result; no one will show up! Yet people won’t believe me when I’ll declare; “there is no God”. And this is not because my experiment would have failed or I would be lying, but simply because no one would like to believe it. The only truth about every religion is that people want to believe it to be true! It is not nuclear weapons that will destroy humanity. It is religion and politics that sure will. Nuclear weapons might not even make the final means.

Anyway, lets’ get back to the current topic of how our universe could be just an electron.

Electron and protons are sub-atomic particles with opposite electric charge, while neutrons are charge-free. There is mutual attraction between particles of opposite charge, while similar charges repel each other. Now since I have my reasons to believe so, and this has been confirmed indirectly in one of the latest scientific news as well, our universe is not the only universe in space. There are others around it.  And in our universe there is a force of attraction called gravity, by virtue of which everything in our universe is attracting everything else towards it. But no force has ever existed without its’ counterpart. There always is a contrary force. So how could gravity be an anomaly?

Contemplating on this question, baffled as I was, I finally have hypothesized that a contrary force to gravity will exist somewhere in space, something like anti-gravity (called so for want of a better name). In contrast to gravity, this anti-gravity will push everything around it away. So if our universe’s binding force is gravity, there should be another universe whose binding force would be anti-gravity. Now I realize that our universe is spreading with galaxies speeding away from each other, so I don’t expect anti-gravity to help the cause of a universe as such. But perhaps such a universe would be much more dense than our Universe, with the repulsive forces between the components balanced in such a way that its’ constituent galaxies and stars would be held together by repulsive forces coming from different directions balancing each other out. Such a universe however will be a massive giant, compared to our universe, and much like an analogy to proton-electron relationship. Thus my hypothesis originates, that like smaller sized electrons our Universe is one charge, and like many times heavier protons, there will be an oppositely charge giant universe. And just like electrons and protons combine together to form atoms in our universe, quite possibly our universe and many others like it will bond to bigger universes to form atoms of sizes beyond our wildest imaginations.

This leads me to another question; if we cannot see electrons and protons in our world with any of our technology, would any creation (analogy to us) be able to see our universe (leave alone us for that matter), for it would be just another electron to them? Can you even imagine the size of such a creation? Should I talk about God again then?

The future of humanity is only a “One borderless Equalist world”!

Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss “Amanpreet Singh Rai”

 

 

Paypal Donations

Support me if YOU can

 



 

Female Vocalist

 NEEDED

for collaboration on my projects (for English lyrics). If you have a youtube channel and you like the idea of a fusion production, please contact me at either of my two channels:

 


 

Quick Links

 


   
   
 

What everyone is saying:


form
comment
The ‘Freak’ – why Darwinian theory has no foundation! Now think of the very first form of life (let’s call it ‘the Freak’) that most scientists suppose came into existence via chemicals just happening to combine together at a point of time in the right combination. Darwin’s theory of evolution requires such a life form to first exist. Without this first life form Darwin’s theory can’t begin to work. It can’t begin to operate because the theory relies on the process of reproduction. Mutation, which can occur (once in a blue moon) during the reproductive process, and natural selection, the fittest creatures surviving to reproduce, are the only two ways that evolution can possibly work. In other words, Darwin’s theory requires an existing life form that already has the capacity to reproduce. The Freak therefore did not have the advantage of millions of years of Darwinian evolutionary processes to help make it, because evolution’s limbs of mutation and natural selection only come into p
David
2014-05-29 13:13:30

cont... if life exists in the first place! Scientists would agree that there were no living things on earth before the Freak. They do think there were chemicals that somehow combined in a ‘warm soup,’ but see the articles at the following web-site which cast serious doubt on this warm soup/Miller-Urey theory: (http://creation.com/search?q=stanley+urey). You realize then, don’t you, that if this freak was to have benefited anyone, it would have needed to be immediately self-sustaining and able to reproduce or replicate itself, or base one for evolutionary theory would be lost? If it couldn’t survive long enough to reproduce itself, then its death would be the end of the process. It sounds like the first simple life form couldn’t have been all that simple after all.
David
2014-05-30 06:27:13

cont .. Indeed, this hypothetical first life form is so complex that all the scientists in the world still lack the ability to make such a thing! Highly intelligent twenty first century scientists, with all of their knowledge cannot create life that can reproduce itself from non-living materials. At tremendous expense, great efforts have been made by scientists to try and create a simple life-form. However, as Jonathan Sarfati’s review of a leading effort in this regard shows, despite all the intelligent design the scientists have applied to the task, they are a world away from creating life purely from non-living material. See creation.com/synthetic-life-by-venter. The great difficulty associated with this task only serves to emphasize the impossibility of such first life happening all by itself outside the laboratory without any intelligent input.
David
2014-05-30 06:28:52

cont ... What are the chances of a life-form just happening through chemicals and random forces that instantly has the complexity to sustain itself, reproduce itself, and the already inbuilt capacity to evolve into every known living plant and creature? Surely nil! There’s more chance of a far simpler mechanism such as a computer (which is not too complex for scientists to make) being assembled by random forces. We know that this is impossible. Even if all the parts for this computer were placed near each other, and even if they had a zillion years or more to come together all by themselves, the chances of a computer being formed are still nil. Hence Darwinian evolutionary theory has no foundation at all. It can only explain why there are small variations in creatures of the same kind, such as dogs, but it can’t answer the big questions of life. So what’s the alternative? Sadly, the alternative is no alternative at all for many, because they don’t want to know about it for whatev
David
2014-05-30 06:30:16

I reason that life only comes from life, just as the famous scientist Louis Pasteur showed. About Pasteur, the World Book Encyclopedia states: he was the first to show that living things only come from living things. Before that, many scientists believed in spontaneous generation, a theory that life could come from things that are not alive, such as dirt. (1986 edn, Vol. P, p. 170) If life only comes from life, then doesn’t it stand to reason that a life form must have always existed and that that life-form is super-intelligent? Perhaps it’s God. No, it must be God. Conclusion No, it is God!
David
2014-05-30 06:31:06





My name is:


I would like to add: