Who or what did it?

Posted Posted in uncategorized

Why is every object an original?
 A sample of all of the objects of the universe revealed that they were all originals. It was well known that all snowflakes were originals. The rationale was that the shape of each snowflake was determined by the environment through which the snowflake fell. Since no two snowflakes fell through exactly the same conditions, then it seemed reasonable that no two should have the same shape. But that reasoning failed in the case of fingerprints. The use of fingerprints for identification goes back thousands of years and of course not the print nor its human were processed through any weather like snowflakes. Yet all fingerprints were originals. Further from worldwide data, the formal statistical inference for the entire universe revealed that every object everywhere in the universe was an original. What could account for that? 
 It could not have anything to do with the function of each object. For it is well known that identical objects would be easier to use alone, or with, or within other objects. Making a universe of unique objects as observed would be virtually impossible compared to making one of identical objects. Then why is the universe made in that virtually impossible way?

If the reason has to do with the user of the objects, then a good reason may be found. But if our world were made of identical objects, then finding anything would be a problem because everything would look the same. And surely we cannot find a reason in the convenience of the user. Not unless we think that objects were shaped according to how they were intended to be used. But that is not how physics is supposed to design anything. Supposedly physics designs using methods that do not concern the user. If a storm brought rain, it was not because the grass needed the water. The storm did its work in the atmosphere regardless of the needs of the grass. The need of the grass for water did not make it rain. Atmospheric conditions, not agricultural needs, made it rain. No two objects were alike and that interfered with making a universe. The almost impossible universe we are in did not make each object unique. First came no two alike, then the enormous problem of how to fit all of them together in reasonable arrays. Our universe seemed reasonable in spite of the fact that all of its objects were unique. But as an analogy, can anyone imagine building a house with not one nail like another, nor any screw, nor nut, nor washer, nor window, nor latch, nor door, nor handle, nor hinge, nor door jam, nor tile, nor shelf, nor board, nor saw, nor hammer, nor brick, nor chimney, nor flue, nor shingle, nor foundation, nor cellar, nor pipe, nor elbow, nor meter, nor seat, nor table, nor air duct, nor furnace, nor anything else? Yet our world has marvelously stood and functioned and appeared natural. Incredible though it may seem, we are in a universe where no two objects are the same yet it does not seem contrived nor a mixed up jumble.

Check on it and see. All the stars are different, all the planets, moons, and galaxies. No plants nor animals, nor organs, nor tissues, nor cells are the same. Everywhere no two things were the same. See Originality throughout the Universe.com. No two were alike anywhere. How did everything get that way? Who or what did it? And what does that say about who or what made everything that way? There seemed only one reasonable answer. And it could not be made by evolution. Evolution had no intelligence whereas the universe we are in must have been created by someone or something with an incredible amount of intelligence, for the omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence required. Who or what did it?

Report Evidence

Posted Posted in Book, History of Science

For a paper or a book, the second section reviews the literature. That tells what is known about the subject, particularly in the form of evidence. The evidence most valuable is objective and permits confirmation. Opinions and speculations may explain evidence but may not substitute for the requirement of objective evidence. Opinions and speculations are subjective, not objective.
Another aim of the second section is to permit the reader to confirm the evidence and the results. If a reader follows the protocol, then a confirmation should result and a verification of the new contribution of the report. That should ease the task of building on the results and ultimately of pushing back the frontiers of science. If protocols are so peculiar that confirmation and extension are discouraged or made virtually impossible for those who follow, then the ultimate purpose of the research is obviated. The researcher has the responsibility of facilitating future research to continue the advancement of science.